PETRI, LARS, and OLAV (OLAUS)). See Sweden.

PETRI, LUDWIG ADOLF: German Lutheran; b. at Lüethorst (a village of Hanover) Nov. 16, 1803; d. at Hanover Jan. 8, 1873. He was educated at the University of Göttingen (1824–27) and, after being a private tutor for some time, became, in 1829, "collaborator" at the Kreuzkirche in Hanover, where he was assistant pastor from 1837 until 1851, and senior pastor from 1851 until his death. During the years 1830–37 his convictions gradually changed from rationalistic to orthodox. His power as a preacher was especially shown by his Licht des Lebens (Hanover, 1858) and Salz der Erde (1864). For the improvement of the liturgy of his communion he wrote Bedürfnisse and Wünsche der protestantischen Kirche im Vaterland (Hanover, 1832); and still more important service was rendered by his edition of the Agende der hannoverschen Kirchenordnungen (1852). In behalf of religious instruction he wrote his Lehrbuch der Religion fur die oberen Klassen protestantischer Schulen (Hanover, 1839; 9th ed., 1888), and later collaborated on the ill-fated new catechism of 1862. He likewise conducted for many years the theological courses in the seminary for preachers at Hanover, and in 1837 founded in the same city an association for theological candidates, over which he presided until 1848. In 1845–47 he edited, together with Eduard Niemann, the periodical Segen der evangelischen Kirche, and in 1848–55 was editor of the Zeitblatt fur die Angelegenheiten der lutherischen Kirche. In 1842 he founded an annual conference of the Hanoverian Lutheran clergy; and in 1853, together with General Superintendent Steinmetz and August Friedrich Otto Münchmeyer (q.v.), he established the well-known "Lutheran Poor-box" (see Gotteskasten, Lutherischer).

At the same time, Petri was firmly opposed to any amalgamation of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, and was thus led to assume an unfavorable position even toward the Inner Mission (q.v.).

In 1834 he helped to found the Hanoverian missionary society, of which he was first secretary and then president, while he materially aided the cause of foreign missions by his Die Mission and die Kirche (Hanover, 1841). His opposition to all movements in favor of a union of Lutherans and Reformed found renewed expression in his Beleuchtung der Göttinger Denkschrift zur Wahrung der evangelischen Lehrfreiheit (Hanover, 1854), an attack on the unionistic sympathies of the theological faculty of Göttingen. After this, Petri withdrew more and more from public life; and the only noteworthy work which he subsequently wrote was Der Glaube in kurzen Betrachtungen (4th ed., Hanover, 1875).

Bibliography: E. Petri, L. A. Pitri, ein Lebenabild, 2 vols., Hanover, 1888–96; J. Freyteg, Zu Petris Gedächtnis, ib. 1873.

PETRIE, WILLIAM MATTHEW FLINDERS: English Egyptologist; b. in London June 3, 1853. He was educated privately, and in 1875–80 was engaged in surveying early British remains. Since 1880 he has carried on excavations of the utmost importance in Egypt, while since 1892 he has been professor of Egyptology in University College, London, and also in London University since 1907. In 1894 he founded the Egyptian Research Account (q.v.), which became the British School of Archeology in Egypt in 1905, of which he is honorary director; he is likewise on the committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Royal Anthropological Institute. Among his works special mention may be made of the following: Stonehenge (London, 1880); Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883); Tanis (2 parts, 1885–87); Naukratis (1886); A Season in Egypt (1888); Racial Portraits (1888); Historical Scarabs (1889); Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe (1889); Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara (1890); Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob (1891); Tell el Hesy (1891); Medum (1892); Ten Years' Digging in Egypt (1893); Student's History of Egypt (3. parts, 1894–1905); Tell el Amarna (1895); Egyptian Tales (1895); Decorative Art in Egypt (1895); Naqada and Ballas (1896); Koptos (1896); Six Temples at Thebes (1897); Deshasheh (1897); Religion and Conscience iv. Egypt (1898); Syria and Egypt (2 vols., 1898); Dendereh (1900); Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty (1900); Diospolis Parva (1901); Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties (1901); Abydos (2 parts, 1902–03); Ehnasya (1904); Methods and Aims in Archeology (1904); Researches in Sinai (1906); Hyksos and Israelite Cities (1906); Religion of Ancient Egypt (1906); Janus in Modern Life (1907); The Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt (1.309); and Personal Religion in Egypt before Christianity (1910).

PETROBRUSSIANS. See Peter of Bruys.

PETRUS MONGUS. See Monophysites, §§  5 sqq.

PEUCER, poi´tser, CASPAR: Leader of the crypto-Calvinists (see Philippists) in the electorate of Saxony; b. at Bautzen (31 m. e.n.e. of Dresden) Jan. 6, 1525; d. at Dessau (67 m. s.w. of Berlin) Sept. 2, 1602. He was educated at the University of Wittenberg, which he entered in 1540, and where he became professor of mathematics in 1554 and of medicine in 1560. Throughout the life of Melanchthon, whose son-in-law he was, he was his friend, counselor, physician, and companion, while after the Reformer's death he edited his collected works (Wittenberg, 1562–64), two books of his Epistolæ (1570), the third and fourth volumes of his Selectæ declamationes (Strasburg, 1557–58), etc. He likewise completed Melanchthon's revision of the Chronicon Carionis, which had extended only to Charlemagne, by two books bringing it down to the Leipsic disputation (2 parts, Wittenberg, 1562–65); while among his independent writings mention may be made of his De dimensione terræ (Wittenberg, 1550) and De præcipuis divinationum generibus (1553).

Peucer was a favorite at the Dresden court, where he was appointed physician in 1570, though still retaining his Wittenberg professorship. At his instance Melanchthon's Corpus doctrinæ was officially introduced in 1564, thus marking the rise of Philippism; and vacancies in the university were filled with strict followers of Melanchthon. In 1571 he collaborated in a school abridgment of the Corpus doctrinæ which sharply denied Luther's teaching of Ubiquity (q.v.), and with the death of Paul Eber (q.v.) in 1569 approximation to Calvinism became still easier. At the same time, the strict Lutheran party continued to have much influence at court because their side was taken by the elector's wife, a Danish princess. Considerations of foreign policy, however, finally induced the elector to dismiss his favorite physician, especially as he was accused, though wrongly, of having a part in a Calvinistic exposition of the faith, Exegesis perspicua, published by Joachim Cureus in 1574. Peucer's correspondence was searched, and evidence was found which was construed as expressing his intention to try to introduce the Calvinistic theory of the Lord's Supper into the Saxon Church. He acknowledged his fault when tried before the Saxon diet at Torgau, and was directed to restrict his interest to medicine. But the Elector August was not contented and had Peucer, whom he suspected of working to introduce the rival ducal house into Saxony, taken to Rochlitz. In 1576 Peucer was imprisoned in the Pleissenburg in Leipsic, where he suffered much hardship, but determinedly resisted all attempts to convert him, refusing to make any concessions contrary to Calvinism. Finally, when the Danish princess died, and the elector married a second time (Jan. 3, 1586), his father-in-law, Prince Joachim Ernest of Anhalt successfully pleaded for Peucer's release. This took place on Feb. 8, 1586, a few days before the death of August.

Peucer now went to Dessau, where he was appointed physician in ordinary and councilor to the prince. The remaining years of his life were peaceful, spent partly in Dessau, partly in Cassel and the Palatinate, and partly in travels, and he was honored by all. To the last he adhered to Melanchthon's theology, and he was likewise busy with his pen. During his imprisonment he began his Historia carcerum et liberationis divinæ (ed. after the author's death by Christoph Pezel, Zurich, 1605); and he also wrote in prison his Tractatus historicus de Philippi Melanchthonis sententia de controversia coenæ Domini (Amberg, 1596), as well as a poetical Idyllium, patria seu historia Lusatiæ superioris (Bautzen, 1594).

(G. Kawerau.)

Bibliography: For Peucers letters consult CR, vols. vii. and ix.; J. Voigt, Briefwechsel der berühmtesten Gelehrten, pp. 497 sqq., Königsberg, 1841; and Zeitschrift für preussische Geschichte, xiv (1877), 90 sqq., 145 sqq. Early sources are the funeral sermon by J. Brendel, Zerbat, 1603; a memorial oration by S. Stenius, ib. 1603; and A. van de Corput, Het Leven ende Dood van . . . P. Melanchton Mitagaders de . . . gevangenisse van . . . Caspar Peucerus, Amsterdam, 1662. Biographies or sketches are by: J. C. Leupold, Budissin, 1745; H. C. A. Eichstädt, Jena, 1841; E. A. H. Heimburg Jena, 1842; F. Coch, Marburg, 1850; E. L. T. Henke, Marburg, 1865. Consult further: R. Calinich, Kampf and Untergang des Melanchthonismus in Kursachaen, Leipsic, 1866; J. W. Richard, Philip Melanchton, New York, 1898; J. Janssen, Hist. of the German People, vols. vii.–viii., St. Louis, 1905; N. Müller, Melanchthons letzte Lebenstage, 1910; Ersch and Gruber, Encyklopädie, III., xix. 435–460; ADB, xxv. 552 sqq.; and the literature under Philippists.

PEW: Ecclesiastically, an enclosed seat in a church (not, in the modern sense, an open bench). The term (Old Fr. pui, puy, puye, poi, peu, "an elevated place," "seat"; Lat. podium, " balcony") in early English use meant a more or less elevated enclosure for business in a public place; this use was probably prior to its employment as the name for an enclosed seat for worshipers in a church. Indeed, the pew might be even a box in a theater. The pew is not, then, an original or primitive part of the church edifice, the floor of the structure being in early times open and unobstructed, though in the chancel there came to be seats for the clergy and choir. This tradition is continued in modern times in Roman and Greek cathedrals in Europe, which are usually without pews, portable benches or chairs being furnished instead. In early times the attitude of worshipers was standing (or kneeling), and the provision of stools or benches probably does not date back of the fourteenth century, though some English churches had stone benches along the walls and around pillars.

The earliest known examples of regular benching is probably that of the church at Soest (34 m. s.e. of Münster, Westphalia) in the early fifteenth century. The church at Swaffham (25 m. w. of Norwich), England, was in 1454 provided with pews by private benefaction, and this was almost certainly not the first instance in England. The records of St. Michael's, Cornhill, London, prove the existence of pews in that church in 1457, the doors of some of which, at least, had locks, a fact which implies private ownership. It seems certain, however, that at first only parts of the edifice were provided with pews. The shape of these does not seem to have been uniform. While the oblong pew was naturally the most common, the seat facing the altar, other pews were square with the seats placed around three or all four sides, leaving space only for the door. These latter were often private, appropriated to the use of the lord of the manor or to a family an early member of which had in some way acquired a perpetual interest. In England the right to occupy a certain pew sometimes goes with the occupancy of a certain house in the parish. The acquisition of property-right in a pew is not confined to England; in quite a number of churches in the United States pews are held by families and may figure as property in valuation of assets. But the tendency is decidedly against this exclusive right, and where such cases exist, the policy of the church is usually to redeem the pew from private ownership.

It is not certain at what period pews were made a means of income to the parish. In St. Margaret's, Westminster, the records show payment of pew rents as early as the first part of the sixteenth century. The law of England gives to every parishioner a right to a sitting in the parish church if it was built before 1818, and this right is enforceable by civil procedure. In the United States custom varies greatly. Almost general is the practise of using the pews as a means of raising revenue for church purposes. In a considerable number of churches the pew rents provide the principal means of income, pews being rented by the year. In a large number of churches, however, the feeling exists that this is a limitation upon the "freedom of the Gospel," and the sittings are all free, the income being derived from collections or pledges of free-will offerings.

Bibliography: J. M. Beale, Hist. of Pews, Cambridge, 1841; J. C. Fowler, Church Pews, their Origin and Legal Incidents, London, 1844; G. H. H. Oliphant, The Law of Pews in Churches and Chapels, ib. 1850; A. Heales, Hist. and Law of Church Seats or Pews, 2 vols., ib. 1872.

PEZEL, pê´tsel, CHRISTOPH: German crypto-Calvinist; b. at Plauen (61 m. s.w. of Leipsic) Mar. 5, 1539; d. at Bremen Feb. 25, 1604. He was educated at the universities of Jena and Wittenberg, his studies at the latter institution being interrupted by his teaching for several years. In 1557 he was appointed professor in the philosophical faculty and in 1569 was ordained preacher at the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg. In the same year he entered the theological faculty, where he soon became involved in the disputes between the followers of Melanchthon and Luther, writing the Apologia veræ doctrinæ de definitione Evangelii (Wittenberg, 1571) and being the chief author of the Wittenberg catechism of 1571. He soon took a leading position as a zealous Philippist, but in 1574 he and his colleagues were summoned to Torgau and required to give up the Calvinistic theory of the Lord's Supper. As they refused to subscribe to the articles presented to them, they were placed under surveillance in their own houses and forbidden to discuss or to print anything on the questions in dispute. They were afterward deposed from their professorships, and in 1576 were banished. Pezel, who had hitherto been at Zeitz, now went to Eger; but in 1577, like his fellow exiles, received a position from Count John of Nassau, first at the school in Siegen and later at Dillingen.

Pezel then definitely accepted Calvinism, and the Church in Dillenburg was united to the Calvinistic body. In 1578 he became pastor at Herborn, and in 1580 was permitted by Count John to go for a few weeks to Bremen to try to reconcile the Church difficulties between the Calvinists and Lutherans. His task was difficult, however, since the Lutheran Jodocus Glanæus refused to meet him in open debate. The civil authorities, construing this as contumacy, deposed Glanæus, and Pezel preached in his place. He soon returned to Nassau, but in 1581 was permanently appointed the successor of Glanæus at Bremen, where, four years later, he was made superintendent of the churches and schools. At the same time he became pastor of the Liebfrauenkirche, though he also retained his pastorate at the Ansgariikirche till 1598. He took an active part in improving and extending the work at the Bremen gymnasium, where he was professor of theology, moral philosophy, and history, being also the leader in all the theological controversies in which the Bremen church became involved. Pezel did away with Luther's Catechism, substituting for it his own Bremen catechism, which remained in force until the eighteenth century, removed images and pictures from the churches, formed a ministerium which united the clergy, and, by his Consensus ministerii Bremensis ecclesiæ of 1595, prepared the way for the complete acceptance of Calvinistic doctrine.

Pezel was the editor Of many theological writings, of which the most important were the Loci theologici of his teacher, Victorinus Strigel (4 parts, Neustadt, 1581–84); Philip Melanchthon's Consilia (1600); and Caspar Peucer's Historia carcerum et liberationis divinæ (Zurich, 1605); while among his independent works special mention may be made of the following: Argumenta et objectiones de præcipuis articulis doctrinæ Christianæ (Neustadt, 1580–89); Libellus precationum (1585); and Mellificium historicum, complectens historiam trium monarchiarum, Chaldaicæ, Persicæ, Græcæ (1592). He is particularly interesting as showing the evolution from Melanchthon's attitude toward predestination to the complete determinism of the Calvinistic concept of the dogma.

(G. Kawerau.)

Bibliography: Autobiographic material is contained in Pezel's Widerholte warhaffte . . . Erzehlung, Bremen, 1582, in Wittemberger Ordiniertenbuch ii (1895), 117. Consult: J. H. Steubing, Nassauische Kirchen- and Reformationgeschichte, Hadamar, 1804; ZHT, 1866, pp. 382 sqq., 1873, 179 sqq; Iken, in Bremisches Jahrbuch, ix (1877), 1 sqq., x (1878), 34 sqq.; E. Jacobs, Juliana Von Stolberg, pp. 286 sqq., Wernigerode, 1889; W. von Bippen, Geschichte der Stadt Bremen, ii. 199, Bremen, 1898; Ersch and Gruber, Encyklopädie, III, xx. 63 sqq.; ADB, xxv. 575 sqq.

PFAFF, pfāf, CHRISTOPH MATTHAEUS: German Lutheran; b. at Stuttgart Dec. 24, 1686; d. at Giessen Nov. 19, 1760. He was educated at the University of Tübingen (1699–1702), and became lecturer in 1705, but in the following year, at the command of the duke of Württemberg, traveled extensively in Germany, Denmark, Holland, and England, with special attention to the study of Semitic languages. Almost immediately on his return he was directed to proceed to Italy with the heir apparent, with whom he spent three years in Turin. Here, as elsewhere, he was unwearied in searching through libraries, and was rewarded by the discovery of many fragments hitherto unknown, as of sermons of Chrysostom and portions of Hippolytus. In this way he also found the epitome of the "Institutes" of Lactantius, which he edited at Paris in 1712; and he aroused wide interest by the alleged discovery of four fragments of Ignatius which he published, with voluminous dissertations, at The Hague in 1715. Over these fragments an animated controversy was long waged. It is now generally held that they are not to be ascribed to Ignatius; though the question remains whether they were a forgery of Pfaff 's, or whether they were cut out of some Turin catena manuscript. Both contingencies were possible in the case of Pfaff, who is known to have mutilated a Turin manuscript of Hippolytus, and to have forged a document to establish the claim of the house of Savoy to the titular kingdom of Cyprus.

In 1712 Pfaff returned to Germany and remained a year at Stuttgart, after which he visited Holland and France with the heir apparent, returning permanently to Germany in 1716. Despite his youth, Pfaff was then appointed professor of theology at Tübingen, where he rose steadily, becoming chancellor of the university at the age of thirty-four, and retaining this dignity for thirty-six years. He was a man of great versatility and of encyclopedic learning, and at the same time was indefatigable as an author. He wrote a large number of dissertations, of which the De originibus juris ecclesiastici ejusdem indole (Tübingen, 1719) marked the beginning of a new epoch in its field, for in it, and in the Akademische Reden über das sowohl allgemeine als auch teutsche protestantische Kirchenrecht (1742), he for the first time carried to its logical results the doctrine of Collegialism (q.v.). In the sphere of theology he wrote Constitutiones theologiæ dogmaticæ et moralis (Tübingen, 1719); Introductio in historiam theologiæ literariam (1720); Institutiones historiæ ecclesiasticæ (1721); and Notæ exegeticæ in evangelium Matthæi (1721); while his pietistic sympathies found expression in such works as his Kurtzer Abriss vom wahren Christentum (Tübingen, 1720) and Hertzens-Katechismus (1720), and his general Biblical scholarship was evinced by his collaboration with Johann Christian Klemm in the preparation of the "Tübingen Bible" of 1730 (see Bibles, Annotated, I., § 1).

Pfaff was chiefly active, however, in endeavoring to unite the Protestant churches, and to this end he composed a long series of monographs which were collected in German translation under the title of Gesammelte Schriften, so zur Vereinigung der Protestierenden abzielen (Halle, 1723). Here again he was no innovator, and though his proposals attracted wide attention, Lutheran opposition rendered them fruitless.

Henceforth Pfaff frittered away his energies, producing work more remarkable for quantity than quality, and plunging into countless trivial literary controversies: He lost his popularity and influence in the university, forfeited the interest of the students, and in 1756 resigned from the chancellorship. His departure from Tübingen was unmourned, but his intention of spending the remainder of his life in retirement at Frankfort was frustrated by a call to Giessen, where he became chancellor, superintendent, and director of the theological faculty. Here he remained until his death, four years later, though here, too, the faults which dimmed his great talents gained him general enmity.

(Erwin Preuschen.)

Bibliography: The short Vita in Gesammelte Schrifften, ut sup., ii. 1–9, was used by C. P. Leporin for his Verbesserte Nachricht von . . . C. M. Pfaffens Leben, Leipsic, 1726, and this in turn was the basis of the account in Zedler's Universallexicon, xxvii. 1198, ib. 1741 and other narratives in biographical works. Consult F. W. Strieder, Hessiche Gelehrtengeschichte, x. 322 sqq., 21 vols., Göttingen, 1781–1868; A. F. Büsching, Beyträge zu der Lebensgeshichte denkwürdiger Personen, iii. 170–171, 287–288, 6 parts, Halle, 1783–89; J. M. H. Dōring, Gelehrte Theologen im 18. Jahrhundert, iii. 249 sqq., 4 vols., Neustadt, 1831–1835; W. Gass, Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik, iii. 74 sqq., 4 vols., Berlin, 1854–57; C. Weizsäcker, Lehrer und Unterricht von dem evangelischen Fakultät, pp. 97 sqq., in Tübinger Festschrift, 1877; A. Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, iii. 42 sqq., Bonn, 1886; Ersch and Gruber, Encyklopädie, III., xx. 101 sqq.; ADB, xxv. 587 sqq.

PFAFFENBRIEF, pfāf´´en-brîf´: A compact, dated Oct. 7, 1370, whereby the cantons of Zurich, Lucerne, Zug, Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden united to oppose foreign spiritual and secular jurisdiction and to preserve national peace. The immediate cause of the compact was the attack upon and imprisonment of Peter of Gundoldingen, head of Zurich's ally, Lucerne, and his party by Bruno Brun, provost of the cathedral of Zurich (Sept. 13, 1370). The aggressor, an adherent of the Austrian party, refused to recognize the jurisdiction of a secular court, and was accordingly banished, while his prisoner was released. Such, however, was the fear that Brun might appeal to foreign, imperial, or ecclesiastical courts that, to avoid any such contingency in future, the Pfaffenbrief was drawn up. This document merely emphasized and guaranteed existing rights. It laid down two principles: all cases within the confederation, except matrimonial and ecclesiastical, must be tried before the local judge, who had jurisdiction even over aliens (thus ignoring both the imperial courts and foreign spiritual courts); it contained resolutions relating to the public peace, and forbade waging wars without the consent of the government. At the same time, ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not annulled, and cases in which one of the clergy was defendant were usually tried in the episcopal courts. By requiring the oath of allegiance from the clergy, moreover, the Pfaffenbrief indirectly tended to subordinate the clergy to the State in matters applying equally to clergy and laity. By thus delimiting, in an important sphere of law, what appertained to the State and what to the Church, and by favoring the claims of the former rather than of the latter, the Pfaffenbrief marked the first real and successful Swiss attempt to restrict by means of the secular law the unlimited extension of ecclesiastical power.

(F. Fleiner.)

Bibliography: A. P. von Segesser, Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt . . . Luzern, vols. i.–ii., passim, Lucerne, 1850–58; J. C. Bluntschli, Staats- and Rechtsgeschichte . . . Zurich, i. 385 sqq., Zurich, 1838; idem, Geschichte des schweizerischen Bundesrechts, i. 122 sqq., Stuttgart, 1875; T. von Leibenau, in Anzeiger für schweizerische Geschichte, 1882, p. 60; W. Oechsli, in Politisches Jahrbuch der schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft, v (1890), 359–365; idem, Quellenbuch der Schweizergeshichte, Zurich, 1901; J. Dierauer, Geschichte der schweiz. Eidgenossenschaft, i. 282 sqq., Gotha, 1887; K. Dändliker, Geschichte der Schweiz, i. 545 sqq., 632 sqq., Zurich, 1900; J. Hürbin, Handbuch der Schweizergeschichte, i. 197, Stans, 1900; Die Bundesbriefe der alter Eidgenossen, 1291–1513, Zurich, 1904.

PFANDER, pfān´der, KARL GOTTLIEB: Missionary to the Mohammedans; b. at Waiblingen (7 m. n.e. of Stuttgart), Germany, Nov. 3, 1803; d. at Richmond (8 m. w.s.w. of London) Dec. 1, 1865. His father was a baker, who, perceiving his aptitude for study and sharing his ambitions, sent him first to the Latin school in the town, then to Kornthal (q.v.), and finally to the missionary institute at Basel, where he studied from 1820 to 1825. He was a remarkable linguist and of indefatigable energy, and spent his life in the effort to convert Mohammedans. From 1825 to 1829 he labored in Shusha, in Transcaucasia, and neighboring lands; from 1829 to 1831 he was with Anthony Norris Groves (q.v.) in Bagdad; from Mar. to Sept., 1831, in Persia, but then returned to Shusha. In 1835 the Russian government forbade all missionary operations except those of the Greek Church; consequently he had to leave Shusha. He went first to Constantinople, in 1836 was back in Shusha, but in 1837 started for India by way of Persia, and arrived in Calcutta Oct. 1, 1838. As it seemed most promising to work henceforth under English auspices he, with the full consent of the Basel Society, became a missionary of the Church Missionary Society, Feb. 12, 1840. He was in Agra from 1841 to 1855, in Peshawar from 1855 to 1857, and in Constantinople from 1858 to 1865. His death occurred while on his furlough.

He married first Sophia Reuss, a German, in Moscow, July 11, 1834, who died in childbed in Shusha, May 12, 1835; second, Emily Swinburne, an Englishwoman, in Calcutta, Jan. 19, 1841, who bore him three boys and three girls, and survived him fifteen years. He wrote few books, and most of them in oriental languages. One that is in English was his Remarks on the Nature of Muhammedanism, Calcutta, 1840. But one of his books is a missionary classic. He drafted it in German in May, 1829, while in Shusha, then he expanded and perfected it. It bears in German the title Mizan ul Hakk oder die Wage der Wahrheit, translations have been made of it into Armenian, Turkish, Persian, and Ordu, and it has been widely circulated among Mohammedans of many lands. There is an English translation of it under the title, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance [should be Balances] of Truth (London, 1867, new ed., 1910). It is a cogent and incisive attack on Mohammedanism and an explanation and application of Christianity, written in simple language but with deep conviction and ample knowledge. In recognition of the service he had thus rendered, the archbishop of Canterbury (John Bird Sumner) made him a doctor of divinity in 1857.

Bibliography: C. F. Eppler, D. Karl Gottlieb Pfander, Basel, 1888; Emily Headland, Sketches of Church Missionary Society Workers, London, 1897.

PFEFFINGER, pfef´ing-er, JOHANN: Saxon Reformer; b. at Wasserburg (31 m. e.s.e. of Munich), Upper Bavaria, Dec. 27, 1493; d. at Leipsic Jan. 1, 1573. Devoting himself to the religious life, he became an acolyte at Salzburg in 1515, and soon afterward was made subdeacon and deacon. Receiving a dispensation from the regulations concerning canonical age, he was ordained priest and stationed at Reichenhall, Saalfelden, and Passau, where his clerical activity soon found great approbation. Suspected of Lutheran heresy, he went to Wittenberg in 1523, where he was cordially welcomed by Luther, Melanchthon, and Bugenhagen. In 1527 he went as parish priest to Sonnenwalde; and in 1530, when expelled by the bishop of Meissen, he removed to the monastery of Eicha, near Leipsic, where his services were attended by many outside the parish. In 1532 he went to Belgern, whence he was delegated, in 1539, to complete the Reformation in Leipsic. In 1540, he was permanently vested with the office of superintendent.

He declined calls to Halle and Breslau, though he took part in completing the work of the Reformation at Glauchau in 1542. In his capacity of censor he prevented further printing of Schenk's postilla. In 1543 he was graduated as the first Protestant doctor of theology, and became a professor of theology in the following year. In 1548 he was made a canon of Meissen.

Duke Maurice of Saxony drew him into the negotiations regarding the introduction of a Protestant church constitution and liturgy. Having been appointed assessor in the Leipsic consistory in 1543, he participated, in 1545, in the consecration of a bishop of Merseburg as one of the ordaining clergy. In the following year he negotiated at Dresden with Anton Musa and Daniel Greser, and took part in the deliberations concerning the Interim at the Diet of Meissen (July, 1548), at Torgau (Oct. 18), at Altzella (Nov.), and at the Leipsic Saxon Diet (Dec. 22). The Elector August likewise sought formal expressions of opinion from Pfeffinger; and in this connection, in 1555, he proposed, with a view to securing religious uniformity, that the Interim liturgy of 1549 should again be used. Melanchthon, however, opposed this suggestion, holding that, were it adopted, additional religious disunion would follow. Pfeffinger also took part in the deliberative proceedings of the delegates of the three consistories in 1556, as well as in the Dresden convention of 1571.

Pfeffinger's writings were ethical, ascetic, and polemic. His Propositiones de libero arbitrio (1555) occasioned the outbreak of the synergistic strife (see Synergism). Against Nikolaus von Amsdorf he wrote his Antwort (Wittenberg, 1558), Demonstratio mendacii (1558), and Nochmals gründlicher Bericht; while he opposed Matthias Flacius in his Verantwortung. He embodied his tenets in five articles of the Formula der Bekendnus of June 3, 1556, which he also submitted, in amplified form, to the Wittenberg theologians.

Georg Müller.

Bibliography: B. Sartorius, Einfeltiger . . . Bericht von dem Leben . . . J. Pfeffingers, Leipsic, 1573; F. Seifert, in heft iv. of Beiträge zur sächsischen Kirchengeschichte, Leipsic, 1888; G. Müller, in heft ix. of the same, pp. 98, 118, 165, 181, and x. 210; ADB, xxv. 624–630.

PFEILSCHIFTER, pfāil´shift-er, GEORG: German Roman Catholic; b. at Mering (7 m. s.e. of Augsburg), Upper Bavaria, May 13, 1870. He was educated at the universities of Munich (1889–93, 1894–99; D.D., 1897) and Vienna (1899), interrupting his studies to make a five months' tour of Italy in 1897. In 1900 he became privat-docent for church history at the University of Munich, but in the same year accepted a call to the Lyceum of Freising as associate professor of church history and patristics. Since 1903 he has been professor of church history in the University of Freiburg. He has written Der Ostgotenkönig Theoderich der Grosse und die katholische Kirche (Münster, 1896); Die authentische Ausgabe der vierzig Evangelienhomilien Gregors des Grossen, ein erster Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ueberlieferung (Munich, 1900); and Zur Entstehung der Allegorie room mystischen Gotteswagen bei Dante Purgatorio (Freiburg, 1904).

PFENDER, pfen´der or [F.] fan´´dār´, CHARLES LEBERECHT: French Lutheran; b. at Hatten in Alsace Oct. 26, 1834. He pursued his studies at Wittenberg, the College de Pont-a-Mousson (B.Litt., 1853), under the faculty of theology at Strasburg (B.Th., 1859), and at the universities of Heidelberg, Göttingen, and Berlin; he became vicar at Wittenberg in 1860; at Paris, 1865; pastor of the Église du Batignolles, Paris, 1868, and of the Église Saint-Paul, same city, in 1874. He describes himself as theologically a confessional Lutheran. He is the author of La Confession d’Augsbourg. Traduction revue d’après Ie texte le plus autorisé. Précédée d’une introduction (Paris, 1872); L'Agneau de Dieu, Récit de la passion et de la résurrection du Seigneur d’après les quatre évangélistes. Suivi de méditations, de prières, et de cantiques pour la semaine saints (1873); Vie de Martin Luther, publiée a l’occasion du quatrième centenaire de sa naissance (1883). He is a contributor to the present work, and has written much for other standard publications.

PFLEIDERER, pflai´der-er, OTTO: German Protestant; b. at Stetten (a village near Cannstadt, 4 m. n.e. of Stuttgart), Württemberg, Sept. 1, 1839; d. at Grosslichterfelde, Berlin, July 19, 1908. He was educated at the University of Tübingen from 1857 to 1861, and after being for a short time vicar at Eningen, a village near Reutlingen, traveled extensively in North Germany, England, and Scotland until 1864. He was then lecturer and privat-docent at Tübingen until 1868, after which he was a pastor at Heilbronn till 1870, when he went to Jena as chief pastor and university preacher. In 1870 he was appointed professor of theology at the University of Jena, and from 1875 till his death he was professor of practical theology at the University of Berlin. He was one of the most learned and vigorous defenders of the non-miraculous origin of Christianity. He lectured in England on both the Hibbert (1885) and the Gifford (1892–93) foundations. He wrote Die Religion, ihr Wesen and ihre Geschichte (2 vols., Leipsic, 1869); Moral and Religion (Haarlem, 1870); Der Paulinismus (Leipsic, 1873; Eng. transl. by E. Peters, Paulinism, 2 vols., London, 1877); F. G. Fichte, Lebensbild eines deutschen Denkers and Patrioten (Stuttgart, 1877); Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (Berlin, 1878; 2d ed., 2 vols., 1883–84; Eng. transl. by A. Stewart and A. Menzies, Philosophy of Religion, 4 vols., London, 1886–88); Zur religiösen Verstandigung (1879); Grundriss der christlichen Glaubens and Sittenlehre (1880); The Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity (Hibbert lectures; London, 1885); Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften and Lehren (Berlin, 1885; 2d ed., 1902; Eng. transl., Primitive Christianity. Its Writings and Teachings, 2 vols., New York, 1906–09); The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant, and its Progress in Great Britain since 1825 (London, 1890; German ed., Der Entwickelung der protestantischen Theologie in Deutschland seit Kant und in Grossbritannien seit 1825, Freiburg, 1891); Die Ritschlsche Theologie kritisch beleuchtet (Brunswick, 1891); The Philosophy and Development of Religion (Gifford lectures; 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1894); Evolution and Theology, and other Essays (New York, 1900); Das Christusbild das urchristlichen Glaubens (Berlin, 1903; Eng. transl., The Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Value and Significance in the History of Religion, London, 1905); Die Entstehung des Christentums (Munich, 1905; Eng. transl., Christian Origins, London,1906); Religion und Religionen (1906; Eng. transl., Religion and Historic Faiths, London, 1907); and Die Entwicklung des Christentums (1907; Eng. transl., The Development of Christianity, London, 1910).

PFLUG, pflūg, JULIUS: Roman Catholic bishop of Naumburg; b. at Eytra (a village near Zwenkau, 9 m. s.s.w. of Leipsic) 1499; d. at Zeitz (23 m. s.w. of Leipsic) Sept. 3, 1564. He studied at the universities of Leipsic (1510–17) and Bologna (1517–19), and returned to Germany in 1519 to become canon in Meissen. Disturbed by the religious controversies at home, he returned to Bologna, whence he went to Padua, but in 1521, induced by offers of preferment from Duke George, he returned to his native state, first of all to Dresden, and then to Leipsic, where he still continued to devote himself chiefly to humanistic interests. In 1528–29 he was again in Italy, and in 1530 he accompanied Duke George to the Diet of Augsburg. At this time he became a correspondent of Erasmus, and in his letters to him unfolded his plan for restoring religious peace to Germany. Everything could be done, he thought, by the influence of moderate men like Erasmus and Melanchthon. Erasmus replied that things had gone so far that even a council could be of no help; one party wanted revolution, the other would tolerate no reform. In 1532 Pflug became dean of Zeitz, where he had to grapple with the practical question of the Reformation, since not only was the bishop, who was also diocesan of Freising, continually absent, but the neighboring Protestant elector of Saxony was alleging claims of jurisdiction over the see. Pflug was in favor of lay communion under both kinds, the marriage of the priesthood, and general moral reform. He took part in the Leipsic colloquy in 1534, and as dean of Meissen prepared for the clergy of the diocese the constitutions reprinted in the Leges seu constitutiones ecclesiæ Budissinensis (1573). As one of the envoys of John of Meissen, Pflug endeavored, in 1539, to secure from the papal nuncio, Alexander, who was then at Vienna, adhesion to his project for a reform of Roman Catholicism along the lines already indicated, only to be obliged to wait for the decision of the pope.

The Reformation was now carried through in Meissen, and Pflug took refuge in Zeitz, later retiring to his canonry at Maintz, and thus rendering Zeitz more accessible to the Protestant movement. In 1541 he was appointed bishop of Naumburg, but John Frederick, the elector of Saxony, hating all men of moderation, forbade him to occupy his see. Pflug was uncertain whether he would accept the nomination or not; and meanwhile the elector, after vainly urging the chapter to nominate another bishop, turned the cathedral of Naumburg over to Protestant services and proposed to provide for the election of a bishop according to his liking. The elector's theologians, though exceedingly dubious regarding his course, finally yielded, and John Frederick selected Nikolaus von Amsdorf (q.v.) for the place and had him ordained by Luther. On Jan. 15, 1542, however, Pflug accepted his election to the bishopric, and sought to have his rights protected by the diets of Speyer (1542, 1544), Nuremberg (1543), and Worms (1545). At the latter diet the emperor directed the elector to admit Pflug to his bishopric, and to repudiate Amsdorf and the secular directors of the chapter. John Frederick refused, however, and the question was settled only by the Schmalkald War.

Hitherto Pflug had been in favor of a Roman Catholic reform of a far-reaching character, as was shown by his part at the Regensburg Conference of 1541 (see Regensburg, Conference of); but political conditions and his troubles with the elector of Saxony now made him a bitter opponent of the Reformation. In 1547, when the Schmalkald War closed, Pflug took possession of his bishopric under imperial protection. He was a prominent factor in the negotiations which resulted in the Interim (q.v.), the basis of which was formed by the revision of his Formula sacrorum emendandorum (ed. C. G. Müller, Leipsic, 1803) by himself, Michael Helding, Johannes Agricola, Domingo de Soto, and Pedro de Malvenda. Pflug now entertained still higher hopes of realizing his reform of Roman Catholicism. He took part in negotiations in Pegau, continuing them in a secret correspondence with Melanchthon to induce him and Prince George of Anhalt to accept a modified sacrificial theory of the mass; and he was also concerned in the deliberations between Maurice and Joachim II. and their theologians at Jüterboch. The result was the first draft of the Leipsic Interim, which was submitted to the national diet in his presence.

In his own diocese Pflug refrained from disturbing the Lutherans, restoring Roman Catholic worship only in the chief church in Zeitz and the cathedral of Naumburg, and even permitting Protestant services to be held in the latter. There was almost an entire dearth of Roman Catholic clergy, nor could the he secure a sufficient number from other dioceses. He was accordingly forced to allow the married ministers whom Amsdorf had placed in office to retain their positions, though without Roman Catholic ordination. In Nov., 1551, he was present for a short time at the Council of Trent. Even after the final success of the Protestants in 1552, he remained in undisturbed possession of his see, thanks to his popularity and moderation; and after the abdication of Charles V., he urged the best interests of Germany in his Oratio de ordinanda republica Germaniæ (Cologne, 1562). In 1557 he presided at the religious conference at Worms, but was unable to prevent the Flacians from wrecking negotiations. To the last, however, he hoped that, when the Council of Trent reassembled, his moderate program would be successful in restoring religious peace.

(G. Kawerau.)

Bibliography: The earlier biographies are superseded by that of A. Jansen, in New Mittheilungen aus dem Gebiet histor.-antiq. Forschungen, x (1863), parts 1 and 2. Consult further: A. von Druffel Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des 16. Jahrhunderts Munich, 1873 sqq.; L. Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionabestrebungen, Freiburg, 1879; Sixtus Braun, Naumburger Annalen, pp, 280 sqq., Naumburg, 1892; Rosenfeld, in ZKG, xix (1898), 155 sqq.; E. Hoffmann, Naumburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, Leipsic, 1901; J. Janssen, Hist. of the German People. 147, 182–187, 248, 366, 396 sqq , St. Louis, 1903. Scattering notices of his activity will be found in many works dealing with the Reformation.

PHARAOH. See Egypt, I., 2, § 4.

PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES.

1. Importance; Sources of Knowledge.

The great importance of a proper understanding of the two parties thus named for the history of the later Judaism and of Primitive Christianity is not to be misconceived. The entire history of the Jews and of their literature from the Maccabean wars until the destruction of Jerusalem is dominated by this partizan antithesis. The history of Jesus himself and of the original Church are largely thereby conditioned, since it was particularly in conflict with the Pharisees that the doctrine, self-witness and whole active career of Jesus took shape as they did, while over against a Pharisaism which pushed its way even into Christianity the Apostle Paul had to defend the right of his mission to the gentiles, and the universality of Christian salvation. All the more serious, then, that the sources toward knowledge of those parties can be utilized only under difficulties. The Old-Testament books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, and Daniel, are pertinent merely in relation to the preliminary history of the, same. And only in sparing measure can even Old-Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (qq.v.) be employed; among the latter, chiefly the Psalms of Solomon (see Pseudepigrapha, II., 1). In the Gospels and in Acts a few dogmatic differences are mentioned as between Pharisees and Sadducees; but this allows no certain deduction respecting the fundamental and distinctive character of either party. Even the invectives of Jesus against the Pharisees have had reference to out growths of their trend, and are not to influence a judgment of their actual essence. What data Acts and the Pauline epistles contain by way of defining the Pharisaical anti-Pauline Jewish Christians, warrant only slight a posteriori deductions regarding Pharisaism. Doubtless the most valuable intelligence concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees is given by Josephus, whose data are appreciably colored cf. Baumgarten, Jahrbücher fur deutsche Theologie, IX., 616 sqq.; Paret, in TSK, 1856, pp. 809 sqq) by his own attenuated Pharisaism and by his effort to present Jewish conditions in the most favorable light before the Greek ans Roman world. Patristic data are strongly dependent on Josephus, and are, furthermore, untrustworthy. The Jewish talmudic literature is of great significance in the study of Pharisaism since it is itself elicited by the Pharisaic spirit. Yet its anecdotal details about the history of the Pharisees and Sadducees are almost wholly valueless, being conceived from the standpoint of the later Jewish scholasticism. Yet despite this dearth of sources, they still afford a fairly distinct portraiture of the two parties.

2. Derivation of "Pharisee."

The names of the two parties throw some light on the origin and character of both parties. Touching the meaning of the name "Pharisee" there can exist no doubt. The Pharisees are certainly designated as the "separated" (cf. the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan on Deut. xxxiii. 16; Josh. iii. 5)—those who by their prescriptive and ascetic sanctity hedged themselves apart from not only heathenism but also from the rest of Judaism. This explanation occurs even so early as in Suidas, in the Homilies of Clement (xi. 28), in Epiphanius (Hær., xvi. 1), and Pseudo-Tertullian (Hær., i.). The same is borne out by the abstract Perishuth, in Talmudic writings, in the signification of abstemiousness or exclusive ascetic piety; and by the Talmudic use of the term Perischin, in the reproachful sense of separatists. From the latter use and the avoidance of the term Pharisees the thoroughly Pharisaic II Maccabees one may infer that the name arose in hostile circles.

PHARMAKIDES, THEOKLITOS: Modern Greek theologian and ecclesiastical statesman; b. at Larissa, Thessaly, Jan. 25, 1784; d. at Athens Apr. 21, 1860. With but meager education, he was ordained deacon at Larissa in 1802 and priest at Bucharest in 1811, after which he was in charge of the Greek church in Vienna for some eight years. Here he was brought into contact not only with his compatriots who were interested in the revival of the Greek nation, but also with the philhellene Frederick North, fifth earl of Guilford, who wished him to accept a theological professorship in the projected university of Corfu. Pharmakides accordingly studied for two years at Göttingen, but returned to Greece on the outbreak of the Greek war for independence. Here he was active until his death in the reorganization of the national church and the establishment of an educational system. Circumstances, however, hampered his efforts until 1833 when the Bavarian regency made him president of the committee to investigate the condition of the Greek Church. As secretary of the Synod of Nauplia, he was the main factor in securing the declaration of independence of the Greek Church in the same year. The conservative influence was, however, too strong for him, and after writing, his "On Zechariah, son of Berechiah" (Athens, 1838), "The Pseudonymous German" (1838), and "On the Oath" (1840), he was removed from his secretariate in 1839 and appointed professor of philology. He now published in his own defense his "Apology" (Athens, 1840), and unremittingly continued the struggle for the freedom of the Greek Church. His program was finally carried out, aided largely by his "The Synodic Volume: or, Concerning Truth" (Athens, 1852), when, in 1852, the Greek Church was made entirely independent except for ecclesiastical prerogatives of honor accorded to the patriarch of Constantinople. After this last work, Pharmakides appeared little in public. At the time of his death he was working on a large historical polemic against the Roman Catholic Church. Among his earlier publications mention may be made of his commentary on the New Testament (7 vols., Athens, 1844).

(Philipp Meyer.)

Bibliography: Biographical matter is found in the "Apology," ut sup. Consult: "Evangelical Herald," pp. 203–216, Athens, 1860; G. L. von Maurer, Das griechische Volk, vol. ii., Heidelberg, 1835; C. A. Brandis, Mitteilungen über Griechenland, vol. iii., Leipsic, 1842; R. Nicolai, Geschichte der neugriechischen Literatur , ib. 1876; G. F. Hertzberg, Geschichte Griechenlands, vols. iii.–iv., Gotha, 1878; TSK, 1841, pp. 7–53.

PHELONION: See Vestments and Insignia, Ecclesiastical.

PHELPS, AUSTIN: American Congregationalist; b. at West Brookfield, Mass., Jan. 7, 1820; d. at Bar Harbor, Me., Oct. 13, 1890. He graduated at the University of Pennsylvania in 1837, and studied at Andover and Union Theological seminaries; was pastor of Pine Street Church, Boston, 1842–48, and professor of sacred rhetoric at Andover Theological Seminary, 1848–79, and president from 1869. He was a master of English, and distinguished in his teaching and writing. He published The Still Hour (Boston, 1859); Hymns and Choirs (Andover, 1860); Boston, 1867); Sabbath Hours (1870); Studies of the Old Testament (1879); The Theory of Preaching (1881); Men and Books (1882); My Portfolio (1882); English Style (1883); My Study (1885); and My Note Book (1890).

Bibliography: E. S. Phelps, Austin Phelps; a Memoir, New York, 1891; D. L. Furber, in Bibliotheca Sacra, xlviii (1891). 545–585.

PHENICIA, PHENICIANS

I. Geography and Topography.

1. General Description; Acre, Achzib.

The term Sidonions or Sidonians is employed in the Old Testament to denote the Phenicians (cf. I Kings v. 6, xvi. 31), though their country is called Phenicia or Phenice (I Esd. ii. 17 sqq.; II Macc. iii. 5, etc.; Acts xi. 19, xv. 3, xxi. 2). The boundaries of the country can not be determined definitely, for the scanty allusions to the Phenicians do not tell how far inland their domains extended. That they did extend inland is certain (cf. I Kings v. 9), and Josephus states (Ant., XIII., v. 6; War, II., xviii. 1, IV., ii. 3) that the city of Cedasa or Cydyssa was a Tyrian stronghold on the border of Galilee. The Phenician coast falls into three natural divisions: southern Phenicia, from Ras al-Abjaḍ to the Nahr al-‘Awali, north of Sidon; central Phenicia, from the Nahr al-‘Awali to al-Shakkai; and northern Phenicia, from al-Shakkai to Ras ibn Hani or to Ras al-Basit. In ancient history the southern and the northern divisions are alone important. The Philistine conquests permanently separated the southern cities from association with the Phenicians, and deprived them of such cities as Joppa and Dor; not until the Persian rule did the Phenicians again control these regions. Before discussing Phenicia proper brief mention should be made of two cities, Acre and Achzib. The former lies on a steep promontory extending southward into the sea and forming a natural haven of medium size with the eastern edge of St. George's Bay. Owing to deposits of silt the harbor is deserted, and trade is diverted to the neighboring Haifa. In ancient times this city was of importance because of its haven and the roads connecting it with the interior, especially the "way of the sea" (Isa. ix. 1). The city is mentioned by Sethos I. under the name of ‘Aka about 1320 B.C., and about 380 Artaxerxes Mnemon made it his base in his expedition against Egypt. Ptolemy II. Philadelphus refounded the city and named it Ptolemais. It passed into the possession of the Seleucids in 198 B.C., and was an important military center in the Maccabean wars. In 65 B.C. Pompey brought it under the Romans, for whom it constituted the most important harbor of Palestine. In 1103 A.D. it was taken by Baldwin I., given to Saladin in 1187, retaken by the crusaders in 1189, and destroyed by Sultan Malik al-Ashraf in 1291. Rebuilt in 1749, the city has slowly increased, despite the attack of Napoleon in 1799 and the bombardment of the united English, Austrian, and Turkish fleet in 1840, until it now contains a population of about 11,000. Some nine miles to the north, and not far from the coast, lies the small village al-Zib, representing the Achzib of Judges xix. 29. A quarter of an hour to the north is the spring of ‘Ain al-Mashairfah, which has been compared with the Misrephoth-maim of Josh. xi. 8, xiii. 6.

2. Region South of Tyre.

Here the Jabal al-Mushaḳḳaḥ approaches the coast, and the ascent to the promontory of Ras al-Nakurah brings the traveler to Phenicia proper. To the north of the road stretches a small stony strip of coast in the form of a crescent to the second promontory, the Ras al-Abjaḍ, or "White Promontory." The valley between the two promontories shows ruins of two ancient sites, Umm al-‘Amud and Iskandarunah, the former perhaps being the ancient Ramantha or Ramitha, the Greek Leuke Akte, later called Laodicea, and the latter dating back, at least in name, to the Roman Emperor Alexander Severus (222–235). In 1116 A.D. Iskandarunah was rebuilt by Baldwin I. as a base of operations against Tyre. The ancient road over the White Promontory runs for about forty minutes close to the declivity. In the course of centuries portions of it have been hewn in the rocks, and in especially steep places stone stairs have been cut, so that Josephus and the Talmud give as the ancient name of this road the " Tyrian Stairs."

North of the Ras al-Abjad a small plain extends between the shores and the foot of the mountains of Galilee. The streams are shallow and have little water, though good springs are occasionally found, especially about an hour south of Tyre in the Ras al-‘Ain and ten minutes to the north, both about a quarter of an hour from the shore. Three other wells and an aqueduct, the latter apparently of Roman architecture, are found about fifteen minutes north of Ras al-‘Ain. It was doubtless the springs of this promontory which first attracted the Phenicians, which they also used for their city.

3. Tyre.

The distance from Ras al-‘Ain to Tyre is an hour, and the plain with its sandy coast is one and a half miles broad. Modern Tyre, a town of some 6,000 inhabitants, lies on the northern side of a peninsula, while the ancient Phenician city was situated on an island. The prophet Ezekiel, like the Assyrian King Asahurbanipal, describes Tyre as built "in the midst of the seas" ( xxviii. 2, cf. xxvii. 3–4, xxvi. 4), and the name itself means "rock." The island on which Tyre lay would seem to be the present peninsula where the modern town is situated. Of the buildings of the ancient city little is known. According to Menander of Ephesus (cf. Josephus, Apion, i. 18; Ant., VIII., v. 3), Hiram I., the contemporary of Solomon, rebuilt the old temples. Special mention is made of the temple of Heracles (Melkarth) and Astarte, while Herodotus (ii. 44) refers to the temple of Thasian Heracles, which is probably identical with the Agenorium of Arrian (Anabasis, ii. 25–26). According to Menander and Dius, Hiram extended the city to the east and there constructed the great square, or Eurychorum. The ancient city had two harbors, the Sidonian to the north, and the Egyptian to the south. The former is now choked with sand, and the latter has entirely disappeared. On the main land opposite the island lay a city called Old Tyre by Menander, Strabo, Pliny, and others. It would seem, however, that the city in question was really called Ushu, a name occurring in the Amarna Tablets and the Assyrian inscriptions, and probably in the Authu of Egyptian monuments. The patron deity of the city was Usoos, who was said to have been the first to sail the sea on a tree trunk, while his brother, Samemrumus, built huts of reed in Tyre (see Sanchuniathon). This legend seems to imply that the island city of Tyre was settled from the mainland. The accounts of "Old Tyre" vary so widely that it is uncertain whether one or more places are meant, or whether sites are referred to which belong to different periods. Ancient Tyre, which seems to have had an important suburb at Ras al-Ma‘shut, ceased to be an island city in consequence of the siege by Alexander the Great in 332, when he constructed a vast mole, four stadia long and two plethra wide, from the mainland to the eastern side of the island (cf. Arrian, Anabasis, ii. 17 sqq.; Diodorus Siculus, xvii. 40). The walls, said to be over 150 feet high, rendered the mole useless at first, but the Greek fleet bottled up the Tyrian ships in the harbors, whereupon the troops of Alexander were able to storm the relatively weaker ramparts on the south. In the taking of the city Arrian states that 8,000 fell, while 30,000 were sold as slaves, figures which imply a dense population. Tyre was not wholly destroyed, however, by the Greek conqueror, and in 316–315 it was besieged in vain by Antigonus for fourteen months. Coming under Seleucid control in 198, it apparently bought its autonomy in 126, later restricted by Augustus. On his journey from Miletus to Jerusalem Paul found Christians at Tyre (Acts xxi. 3–6), and a bishop of Tyre, Cassius, is mentioned at the Synod of Cæsarea toward the end of the second century. The crusaders were in possession of the city 1124–91 A.D., after which the Sultan Malik al-Ashraf occupied the place. The history of modern Tyre begins in 1766, when a sheik named Hanzar settled in the ruins and rebuilt them. After the destructive earthquake of 1837 the buildings were reconstructed by Ibrahim Pasha.

4. The Region Between Tyre and Sidon.

The coast north of Tyre resembles that of the southern vicinity of the city. First the sandy shore, then a level plain stretching inland for about a mile, and then the beginning of the plateau of Galilee. Almost two hours between north of Tyre is the mouth of the Nahr al-Ḳasimiyah, after which the strip of coast narrows, while the foothills are rich in tombs of various periods. At the foot of the range are traces of the old Roman road from Tyre to Sidon. North of the Wadi abu’l Aswad is a ruined site called ‘Adlun, apparently the town of Ornithopolis, mentioned by Strabo as a Sidonian colony. An hour farther north a promontory and a village bear the name of Ẓarafand, the Zarephath of the Bible (I Kings xvii. 9-10; Obadiah 20; Sarepta, Luke iv. 26). The Crusaders made Zarephath an episcopal see, and the Wali al Khidr is held to mark the abode of the prophet Elijah. From Zarafand the coast bends westward, the first great rivers from the western slope of the Lebanon being found in the Nahr al-Zaharani and the Nahr Sanik. The gardens now begin, and become more numerous and more beautiful the closer the traveler approaches Ẓaida, the ancient Sidon.

5. Sidon.

The modern city of Ẓaida is situated on a flat promontory between 200 and 300 yards wide, with a small rocky peninsula, 600 yards long. The northern quarter and a series of reefs and islands protect the inner harbor, while to the eastward stretches the outer harbor, which was used as an anchorage in summer. The peninsula bears the remains of ancient walls, and similar ruins are found on an island to the north of the harbor and on other reefs. The Phenician Sidon extended some 700 yards farther east than the modern town. The basalt sarcophagus of King Eshmunazar was discovered in 1855 ten minutes southeast of the city; in 1887, near the village of al-Halaliyah, seventeen magnificent Phenician and Greek sarcophagi were found, among them those of Tabnit, father of Eshmunazar, and the alleged sarcophagus of Alexander the Great. Excavations since 1900 have revealed a temple of Eshmun on the Nahr al-‘Awali, also ancient aqueducts. In the Old Testament a "Great Sidon" is mentioned (Josh. xi. 8, xix. 28). This phrase is repeated on the Taylor cylinder with the words "Little Sidon" beside it, though the basis of the distinction is as yet unknown. The ancient city of Sidon was destroyed by Artaxerxes Ochus in 348 B.C. Yet after Alexander and during the Roman period Sidon remained an important city. Paul, on his way to Rome, found Christians there (Acts xxvii. 3), and the bishop of Sidon attended the Nicene Council of 325. Later the city declined and in 637–638 surrendered to the Mohammedans without resistance. During the crusades it was repeatedly taken and refortified, last by Louis IX. of France in 1253. Seven years later it was sacked by the Mongols, and in 1291 came under the control of Malik al-Ashraf. Early in the seventeenth century Sidon was revived by the Druse Prince Fakhr al-Din. It likewise enjoyed the protection of Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, but in 1840 was attacked by the fleet of the European allies.

6. Sidon to Beirut.

The little plain about Sidon stretches to the north about to the Nahr al-‘Awali, from the north side of which, about a half-hour from the city, the district of the Lebanon comprises the coast until near Tarabulus, or Tripolis, with the exception of Beirut and its immediate vicinity. This valley and the comparatively low passes near by were doubtless used in antiquity as the shortest road from Sidon to Damascus. The coast now becomes more stony, with no coast plain. Between the Ras Jedrah and the Ras al-Damur the towns of Platanus (or Platana) and Porphyreum must have lain, where Antiochus the Great defeated the general of Ptolemy IV. Philopator in 218 B.C. North of the Ras al Damur is the mouth of the Nahr al-Damur, the Damuras, Demarus, or Tamyras of the ancients. A conspicuous point on the coast is the promontory of Beirut (Ras Bairut), with the city of the same name at its foot. To the east is a small well-populated plain on the banks of the Nahr Bairut, the ancient Magoras, as well as on the coast, which runs about six miles to the east and forms St. George's Bay. The background is formed by the steep terraces of Lebanon with green valleys, neat farm houses, and small villages on the lower slopes, higher up remnants of the once famous forests, and at the summit a bare sharp ridge. In ancient Phenicia the city was of no importance, though its name, which apparently means "wells," occurs in the Amarna Tablets, which designate the place as the seat of the Egyptian vassal Ammunira. Beirut attained prominence as the Roman Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Berytus. It was famed for its school of law and for its silk-weaving until it was damaged by the earthquake of 529. Its second period of prosperity began when the Druse Prince Fakhr al-Din (1595–1634) made it his chief residence. It is now the center of trade and commerce for the entire Syrian coast, especially as it has been connected with Damascus since 1895 by a railway. The city is the center of Syrian Christian culture, represented by American Presbyterian (The Syrian Protestant College) and Jesuit institutions of learning, and by German Protestant benevolent organizations. The British Syrian mission also maintains a series of schools, the Scotch mission works chiefly among Jews, Mohammedans, and Druses, while various French religious orders labor for the education of the natives and the care of the sick. This activity has spurred the non-Christian Syrians to establish schools. Beirut is the seat of a wali and contains about 120,000 inhabitants.

7. Beirut to al-Shakkai.

Some two and a half miles east of Beirut the coast resumes its northerly course and soon reaches the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, the Lycus of the classics. The mountains here touch the water, and are crossed by the coast roads. The present road and railway from Beirut to the north is the closest to the sea level. Some ninety feet higher is the Roman road constructed by Marcus Aurelius about 176–180 A.D. Higher still three Egyptian and six Assyrian inscriptions or sculptures show that armies were led across this promontory over a much steeper, but more accessible road, by Rameses II. about 1300, Tiglath-Pileser I. about 1140, Shalmaneser II. about 850, Sennacherib in 702, and Esarhaddon in 670 (see Assyria, VI., 3, §§ 3, 7, 13). Later still, Greek, Roman, crusading, and Mohammedan armies passed over these roads, and finally the soldiers of the French expedition of 1860. The railway runs along the road to Ma‘amiltain on the Bay of Juniyah. From this point the old road again follows the coast, and at the northern end of the bay is hewn through the rock. An hour and a half farther to the north is the Nahr Ibrahim, the classical Adonis, closely associated with the Aphrodite legend. This goddess, the Astarte (q.v.) of the Phenicians, had her famous temple near the source of the river, which issues from a cavern under the steep high wall of the Jabal al Munaiṭirah. The ruins of the fane, 90 feet long and fifty-five feet wide, may still be seen, and probably represent the temple of Venus of Aphaka, destroyed by Constantine the Great in the fourth century. The modern village of Afḳa is situated fifteen minutes above the source. Near the village of al-Ghinah, on the southern bank of the river, sculptures were found by Renan representing the leaping goddess and the death of Adonis. The center of the Adonis cult, the Byblos of the Greeks and the Gebal of the Phenicians, the modern Jabail with about a thousand inhabitants, lies an hour and a half north of the mouth of the Nahr Ibrar him (see Gebal). The rocky road along the coast leads to the town of Batrun, the ancient Botrys. North of the Nahr al-Jauz rises a broad promontory now called al-Shakkai, but called by the Greeks "face of God," apparently translating its Phenician name (cf. Gen. xxxii. 30; I Kings xii. 25).

8. Tripolis and Environs.

At al-Shakkai central Phenicia ends. The road along the coast now crosses some small promontories, and then enters the plain of Tripolis, which spreads out at the mouth of the Nahr abu ‘Ali, or the Nahr Ḳadisha. The modem Tripolis consists of the court of al-Mina on the northern edge of a low but rocky promontory, with a series of small islands enclosing the harbor, and the city proper, now called Tarabulus. The latter is situated on both banks of the Nahr abu ‘Ali, about two miles from al-Mina. It owes its existence to the Mohammedans, who destroyed the former city on the coast in 1289. The city of the Phenicians and the crusaders, which probably occupied the site of the present al-Mina, had three distinct quarters occupied by Tyrians, Sidonians, and Aradians respectively. Before the Persian period, however, the city is not mentioned, its origin being obscure. From Tarabulus the coast bends westward, the resulting bay being called Jun ‘Akkar. The coast is less rugged, especially where the Nahr al-Kabir or Nahr Laftara (the Eleutherus of the Greeks) approaches the sea. Through the broad plain thus formed the road leads to Emesa and Hamath in the valley of the Orontes. Between Tripolis and the Nahr al-Kabir a number of ancient cities were located. On the southern bank of the Nahr al-Barid was Orthosia, the Arab Artusiah or Artusi; and on the north bank of the Nahr ‘Arka was Arka, or Arke, the Roman Cæsarea Libani, where Alexander Severus was born (now called Tell ‘Arḳa). The site is also brought into connection with the Canaanitic Arkites (Gen. x. 17). Scarcely half a mile north of the Nahr ‘Arka a village Syn existed in the fifteenth century, and this has been connected with the Sinites of Gen. x. 17; cuneiform inscriptions mention a site Sianu near Ẓimira and ‘Arẓa. North of the Nahr al-Kabir rises the Jabal al-Anzariyah, receiving its name from the Shi’ite sect of the Nuẓairi, who live chiefly on this mountain.

9. Extreme Northern Phenicia.

The coast of northern Phenicia is, in general, milder and more attractive than in the southern and central portions, so that its cities were numerous. The first is Simyra or Simyrus, the Ẓumur of the Amarna letters, probably to be identified with the modern Ẓumrah between the Nahr al-Kabir and the Nahr al-Abrash. Two or three hours later the district of the ancient Aradians is reached, where, between the Nahr al-Ḳiblah and the Nahr Amrit, are extensive remains of the city of Marat, the Marathus of the Greeks, important during the Persian period, but destroyed in the struggles following the downfall of the Seleucids. On the coast, an hour farther north, is Ṭarṭus, the medieval Tortosa and the ancient Antaradus, first mentioned by Ptolemy in the second century A.D. The Phenician center on this part of the coast was the island city of Aradus (the Arvad of Ezek. xxvii. 8, 11, the modern Ru’ad or Arwad), situated between Amrit and Ṭarṭus on an irregular rock some 800 yards long by 500 wide. Of the ancient city little remains. The present inhabitants, between 2,000 and 3,000 in number, are expert boatmen (cf. Ezek. xxvii. 8). Arvad is mentioned as a Phenician city about 1500 B.C., and on its ships Tiglath-Pileser sailed the Mediterranean. Later it is repeatedly mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as a place "in the midst of the sea." The nearest port on the mainland was Carne or Carnus, the modern Ḳarnun, an hour north of Ṭarṭus, where ruins of fortifications are still visible. Other harbors reckoned to Arvad were Balanias or Leucas (the modern Baniyas), Paltus (the modern Baldah), and Gabala (the modern Jablah). probably the population of this northern district was not exclusively Phenician, and Phenicians hardly had centers beyond it. North of the promontory of Ras ibn Hani was a Heraclea, the name of which suggests Phenician origin; and the city of Rhosus (the modern Arsuz) north of the Ras al-Khanzir, and the city of Myriandrus (Myriandus) are expressly said to have been in the hands of the Phenicians. the latter place was the predecessor of the modern Alexandretta or Iskandarun, but probably lay somewhat farther to the south.

II. Names and Ethnology.

1. Names.

The name Phenicia is derived from the Greek, occurring as early as Homer (Odyssey, xiv. 288, xv. 419) and Herodotus (i. 1–8, etc.). From this is derived the name of the country, Phenice (Odyssey, iv. 83, xiv. 291; Herodotus, ii. 44 sqq.), the form Phenicia being later. The meaning is uncertain. In the twelfth century Eustathius of Thessalonica, with probable correctness, advanced the view that it denoted "red," and referred to the color of the people. Movers derived Phenice from the Greek phoinix, "date palm," but this tree is seldom found in Phenicia, and is of inferior quality there. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the name of the country is derived from the Egyptian Fenkhu; about 1500 B.C. the Egyptians termed the Phenician coast from Acre to Arvad Zahi or Zahe. The Babylonians reckoned Phenicia in the land of Amurru; and after Tiglath-Pileser III. Syria and Palestine were also called the "land of the Hittites." A special name for Phenicia does not occur. Late Greek writers state that the Phenicians named themselves Canaanites (see Canaan). The Phenicians seem to have called themselves after the names of their cities, Tyrians, Sidonians, etc. In the Old Testament, therefore, the name "Sidon" (Zidon) and "Sidonians," when not shown by the context to refer expressly to the city and its inhabitants (as in Gen. x. 19; Judges i. 31; II Sam. xxiv. 6; I Kings xvii. 9 (cf. Luke iv. 26]; Isa. xxiii. 2, 4, 12; Ezek. xxviii. 21–22), must be understood to connote Phenicia and the Phenicians in general (e.g., Deut. xiii. 9; Josh. xiii. 4, 6; Judges iii. 3; I Kings v. 6; Ezek. xxxii. 30). This linguistic usage, found current and continued by the Israelites, implies that Sidon was then the most important city of Phenicia. Later this usage disappeared, so that Herodotus ("History," i. 1) uses "Phenicians" to denote the population of the country. In later passages of the Old Testament (as Jer. xxv. 22; Joel iv. 4; Zech. ix. 2; I Macc. v. 15), as well as in the New Testament (Matt. xi. 21–22; Mark iii. 8; Luke vi. 17; Acts xii. 20), the formal phrase "Tyre and Sidon" denotes the Phenicians in general.

2. Ethnology.

The inhabitants of the Phenician coast can not be separated from the pre-Israelitic population of Canaan. This is shown, in the first place, by community of language as evinced in inscriptions, proper names, individual words cited by classic writers, and the sentences placed in the mouth of the Carthaginian Hanno in the Poenulus of Plautus, which show that the Phenician language was essentially identical with Hebrew. Though this linguistic affinity does not prove ethnological unity, the absence of opposing data renders it probable. In view of the natural contour of Canaan it would seem that the coast was settled from the southern mountain-district northward. The problem whether the Phenicians were indigenous in Syria is a part of the broader question of the original home of the pre-Israelitic population of Canaan. The most plausible answer seems to be that given by Herodotus (i. 1, vii. 80), who affirms that the Phenicians formerly dwelt by the Red Sea, whence they journeyed across Syria to the Mediterranean, thus implying an original home in Arabia and conforming with the general trend of Semitic migrations. Winckler (Geschichte Israels, i. 126–132, Leipsic, 1895) has advanced the hypothesis that the Phenician and Canaanitic migration was the second to take place from Arabia, probably between 2800 and 1800 B.C. While there are thus no ethnological or linguistic reasons for regarding the Phenicians as a separate people, the events of history render it possible to speak of them as a nation. In their home, between the open sea and the almost impassable mountains, they became navigators and merchants, rather than an agricultural or pastoral people. Thus, on the one hand, their coherence with the Canaanites became ever more loose; and, on the other hand, their commercial interests developed a fresh bond of union. In Syria they never unfolded a strict nationality, for there was always a number of central points, consisting of the larger cities. The Phenicians accordingly called themselves Sidonians, Giblites, Carthaginians, and the like. To foreigners, however, they all seemed to be of one type, bold seamen, cunning and conscienceless traders. Through their enterprise and good fortune they brought the treasures of Babylonia and Egypt to the west, and thus essentially furthered the subsequent civilization of the Mediterranean lands.

III Religion.

The sources for a knowledge of Phenician religion and cult are scanty. The inscriptions contain little but names of gods whose pronunciation is often uncertain, and many formulas the meaning of which is obscure. The euhemeristic treatise on the cosmogony and theogony of the Phenicians, the "Phenician history" of Sanchuniathon (q.v.), can be used only with caution, if at all, for the older period. It is remarkable that in so maritime a people the cult of sea-gods was so slightly emphasized. Hesychius mentions a "Zeus of the sea," and at Beirut the eight Kabirs ("great ones, mighty ones") were held to be the discoverers and patrons of navigation. The fact that in the names of the gods thus far known no allusions to trade or navigation appear seems to imply that the Phenicians developed their religion not on the coast or as seafarers, but in another region where their life was not unlike that of the other Canaanites to whom they were akin.

1. Deities.

The Phenician divinities were primarily local gods. Besides the gods of the cities, there were gods of the mountains. As possessors they were called ba‘al; as lords, adon; as rulers, melekh (see Moloch, Molech). Their worshipers were gerim, "protegés," or ‘abhadhim, "servants." Sexual antitheses were prominent in their religious system. The divinities were usually named after the place where they were honored: Ba‘al Ẓor, the god of Tyre; Ba‘al Ẓidon, the god of Sidon; Ba‘alath Gebal, the goddess of Byblus. When the Phenicians founded a new colony, they established there a new seat for the cult of their native gods, whose authority did not transcend the limits of the new settlement. In common parlance the Phenicians spoke of a ba‘al or ba‘alath without any qualifying phrase (cf. I Kings xviii. 19 sqq.), but there was no divinity so named. The feminine form ba‘atath was relatively rare, its place being taken by ‘ashtart, so that Astarte, or Ashtoreth, appears in the Old Testament as the goddess par excellence of the Sidonians (i.e., Phenicians; cf. I Kings xi. 5, 33, xxiii. 13; see Astarte; Ashera; Baal). Few Phenician gods are known by specific names. The one most frequently mentioned was Melkarth (Hercules), the "King of the City (of Tyre)." Eshmun, greatly honored in Sidon, and compared with Æsculapius, seems to have been a god of health and healing. Proper names often contain the divine names Zd ("Hunter, Fisher" [?]; possibly connected with the name Sidon), Skn, Pmy, and P‘m, as well as a goddess Tnt (usually pronounced Tanith). Among the foreign gods were the Egyptian Isis, Osiris, Horus, Bast, and Thoth; the Syrian Resheph and ‘Anat; and the Babylonian Tammuz, Hadad, and Dagon. The Phenicians, like the Canaanites, were accustomed to place by the altars sacred stones as the abode of the deity, pillars being substituted later for natural stones. Such pillars were called maẓẓeba, naẓib, or ḥammanim (see Memorials and Sacred Stones), and were regarded as animate. In the cult of female divinities, the sacred stone was replaced by the sacred post (representing the sacred tree), called Asherah (q.v.). The two pillars in the temple of Melkarth at Tyre (Herodotus, ii. 44; Josephus, Apion, i. 18) doubtless connoted the dualism found in nature. Still other sacred sites had groups of three pillars, apparently typifying a threefold phenomenon of nature.

2. Cult.

The narrow local cults were later transcended by the widely worshiped Ba‘ad Shamem, or "Lord of Heaven," with his "goddess of the heaven of Baal" (cf. Herodotus, i. 105), who may be compared with the "queen of heaven" of Jer. vii. 18, and with the Carthaginian Cælestis. The Signification of the divinity El is uncertain. He seems to have been first honored in Byblus, and was equated with Kronos by the Greeks, who said that he was worshiped with sacrifices of children in Phenicia, Carthage, and Sardinia (see Moloch, Molech). An important list of Carthaginian divinities is given in the deities invoked by Hannibal to witness his treaty with Philip of Macedon (Polybius, vii. 9). In Phenician cult there was nothing to distinguish them from other Canaanites. Sacred enclosures with altars, stones, and trees (posts), a cell or larger house for the image of the divinity (the architecture strongly influenced by Egypt), the firstlings of all productions for the deity, animal sacrifices, sacred dances, "votaries," priests, ablutions, and circumcision—all were present. The cosmogony presupposed a tripartite division into heaven, earth, and sea.

IV. History.

1. Till the Assyrian Period.

The earliest mention of the Phenician coast thus far known refers to its conquest by Sargon, king of Agade, in the middle of the third millennium B.C. Whether, however, this means the Phenicians proper is a problem, and Winckler holds that the campaign was waged against the pre-Phenician inhabitants, whose commercial activity and culture were later adopted by the Phenicians from the Arabian desert. About 1400 B.C. the Egyptian power, to which Thothmes III. had subjected the Phenicians a century previous, was waning, the Hittites were entering the country and the kings of the Amorites, Abdashirtu and Aziru, were attacking the Phenician cities, whose kings wrote in vain to Egypt for aid. Sethos I. and Rameses II. restored the Egyptian power, at least for the southern portion of Syria; but the supremacy of the Pharaohs came to an end, and the Philistines definitely settled in the land. The first prosperity of the Phenician cities began about 1000 B.C. Tyre became predominant, the supremacy of Sidon apparently being religious and civilizing rather than political. Hiram I. of Tyre, after receiving a gift of twenty Israelitic cities from Solomon, engaged in trade with him (see Ophir; Tarshish) and founded the colony of Citium in Cyprus, naming the town Ḳarta Ḥadasht, or "new city" (Carthage). Under King Pygmalion the famous colony of Carthage is said to have been founded from Tyre, when what was probably an existing city received a new lord, a new cult, and a new name. Winckler holds that the impulse to migration which led the Phenicians to Canaan sent other emigrants from Arabia along the northern coast of Africa, and possibly into southern Europe, so that the "foundation" of Carthage was, in reality, merely its subjugation by Tyre. However this may be, the subordination of Carthage to Tyre led to the supremacy in the western Mediterranean of Tyre, which seems to have extended its sway over a number of Syrian cities also. While Hiram I. is always termed "king of Tyre" (II Sam. v. 11; I Kings v. 15, ix. 10), Ethbaal is called "king of the Zidonians" (I Kings xvi. 31), thus implying that Tyre and Sidon had meanwhile been united under the hegemony of the former. This is confirmed by the statement of Menander (cited by Josephus, Ant., VIII., xiii. 2) that Ethbaal founded Botrys (and also Auza in Lybia). The northern cities around Aradus, however, were unaffected by this predominance of Tyre.

2. Assyrian to the Roman Period.

The invasions of the Assyrian kings Asshurbanipal and Shalmaneser II. in the ninth century were averted by the payment of tribute; but in 738 Tiglath-Pileser III. formed the Assyrian province of Simyra from the cities in the Eleutherus valley. Sennacherib vainly besieged Tyre five years (701–696), though it lost its possessions on the mainland, while Sidon became tributary and received a new king from Sennacherib. Later Sidon revolted against Esarhaddon, only to be destroyed in 675 and replaced by an Assyrian city. Later still, Tyre was attacked and, with Aradus, forced to make peace with the Assyrians. The decline of the Assyrian power was probably favorable to the Phenician cities, and Egyptian attempts to regain supremacy were unsuccessful. The Egyptians were driven from Syria by the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar II., who beleaguered Tyre in vain (585–573). But internal strife broke out in Tyre, and after rule by suffetes, or "judges," the city was forced to ask Babylon for a king. Under Persian rule, which was accepted unresistingly by the Phenicians, Sidon became predominant. In the days of Herodotus, Sidon, Tyre, and Aradus made the "Three Cities" (Tripolis), but in the reign of Alexander the Great the chief Phenician centers were Tyre, Sidon, Byblus, and Aradus. In the Persian period, Aradus extended its power along the coast farther than before; in the south Acre, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Carmel belonged to Tyre; Dor and Joppa to Sidon; and the entire coast to the fifth Persian satrapy. With the connivance of Nectanebo of Egypt, the Phenician cities, under Tennes of Sidon, revolted against Persia in 350, but were ruthlessly suppressed by Artaxerxes III. Alexander the Great found resistance only at Tyre, which he succeeded in reducing (see above). On the emergence of the Ptolemies and Seleucids from the confusion ensuing on the death of Alexander the Great, the Phenician cities came under Seleucus I. His successors also held Aradus and its vicinity, while the cities south of the Eleutherus were under the Ptolemies from 281 to 198. The kings of Sidon in the third century seem to have included Eshmunazar I., Tabnit, and Eshmunazar II., but on the death of the last-named Sidon apparently adopted a republican form of government, as Tyre did in 274. The other Phenician cities secured autonomy from the Seleucids, and these privileges were generally confirmed by the Romans. The Phenician language, however, was superseded by Aramaic, while the higher classes prided themselves on Greek or Roman culture.

3. Trade and Discovery.

Phenician trade was carried on both by land and sea. Land traffic brought the products and treasures of Arabia, Babylonia, and Armenia, and later of Persia and India, to the Mediterranean. Commerce with Egypt was probably carried on chiefly by water, though the maritime commerce of Phenicia was scarcely as extensive as is commonly supposed. Colonies proper were to be found only in Cyprus and northern Africa, Gades in southern Spain probably being settled originally from Africa. The Phenician commercial settlements or factories along the shores of the Mediterranean do not deserve the name of colonies.

The Phenicians were primarily merchants, ever eager to adorn their markets with the best and newest (cf. Ezek. xxvii.). Such a people would not be likely to develop an individual art, and Phenician remains, dating at the earliest from the Persian period, show a mixture of Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek elements. The Phenician coins were struck on Greek models, but in Aradus Persian weights were used, and Phenician in Byblus, Sidon, and Tyre. In architecture the Phenicians received their inspiration from the Egyptians, but they developed a marked individuality in the treatment of stone. The Phenicians were skilled in constructing aqueducts, as is shown by the stone pipes through which the island of Tyre was supplied with water. Their ability in building ships was famed in antiquity (cf. Ezek. xxvii.; Herodotus, vii. 96, 128). Their moral reputation, however, was indifferent, as the allusions of the Odyssey to their knavery amply prove. The Phenicians have won much unmerited fame as discoverers through the attribution to them by the Greeks of the invention of things which they merely transmitted. In Rome purple fabrics were called sarranus (from Sarra, "Tyre"), and the Tyrians are described as the best skilled in dyeing in purple. The art, however, was perhaps Babylonian. In like manner the Greeks thought that the alphabet originated in Tyre, especially in view of the power of the city about 1000 B.C. As a matter of fact Phenicia merely transmitted the alphabet, which probably originated in Babylonia like the cuneiform writing. And finally it may be noted that glass and faience, the invention of which was popularly ascribed to the Phenicians, were known in Egypt earlier than in Phenicia.

(H. Guthe.)

Bibliography: The articles in the dictionaries are general, covering the whole topic. The best are: DB, iii. 683–685, 855–862, 823–825, 980–981; EB, iii. 3730–65; JE, ix. 667–870; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, part xxxi. 228–247; Jacobus, Dictionary, pp. 674–676.

On the geography consult: V. Guérin, Description de la Palestine, III., Galilee, part 2, Paris, 1880; Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, vol. i., Galilee, London, 1881; G. Ebers and H. Guthe, Pälestina in Bild and Wort, vol. ii., Stuttgart, 1884.

On the art, language, and inscriptions: Inscriptions are collected in the CIS, part 1, vols., i–ii., Paris, 1881–89. Consult: G. Perrot and C. Chipies, Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité, vol. 3, Phénicie, Paris, 1885, Eng. transl., Hist. of Art in Phænicia, 2 vols., London, 1885; W. Gesenius, Scripturæ linguæque Phænicia monumenta, Leipsic, 1857; P. Schröder, Die phönizische Sprache, Halle, 1869 (grammar); B. Stade, Morgenländische Forschungen, pp. 167 sqq., Leipsic, 1875; C. Clermont-Ganneau; Sceaux et cachets phéniciens, Paris, 1883; E. Ledrain, Notice des monuments phéniciens (i.e., in the Louvre), Paris, 1888; A. Bloch, Phönicische's Glossar, Berlin, 1890; J. G. E. Hoffmann, Ueber einige phönikische Inschriften, Göttingen, 1890; A. Pellegrini, Studii d’Epigrafia fenicia, Palermo, 1891; O. Hamdi, Une Nécropole royale à Sidon, Paris, 1892–96; M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, Weimar, 1898; idem, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik, Giessen, 1900 sqq.; A. Mayr, Aus den phönizischen Nekropolen von Malta, Munich, 1905; Schrader, KAT, pp. 126 sqq., et passim; W. F. von Landau, Die phönizischen Inschriften, Leipsic, 1907.

On the alphabet: E. de Rougé, Mémoires sur l’origine égyptienne de l’alphabet phénicien, Paris, 1874; Deecke, in ZDMG, xxxi (1877), 102 sqq.; P. Berger, Hist. de l’écreture dans l’antiquité, Paris, 1892; Ball, in PSBA, 1893, pp. 392–408; C. R. Condor, Bible and the East, pp. 74 sqq., Edinburgh, 1896; H. Zimmern, in ZDMG, 1 (1896), 667 sqq.; J. Alvarez de Peralta, Iconografia de los Alfabetos fenicio y hebraico, Madrid, 1898.

On the history: R. Pietschmann, Geschichte der Phönizier, Berlin, 1889; G. Rawlinson, Hist. of Phœnicia, London, 1889; idem, Phœnicia, ib. 1889; F. C. Movers, Die Phönizier, Bonn, 1841–56; J. Kenrick, Hist. of Phœnicia, London, 1855; E. Renan, Mission de Phénicie, Paris, 1864; G. Maspero, Hist. ancienne des peuples de l’orient, Paris, 1875; idem, Struggle of the Nations, London, 1896; H. Prutz, Aus Phönizien, Leipsic, 1876; F. Bovet, Egypt, Palestine, and Phœnicia, London, 1882; E. Oberhummer, Phönizier in Akarnanien, Munich, 1882; E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, vol. i., Stuttgart, 1884; A. von Gutschmid, in Encyclopædia Britannica, Germ. trans., in his Kleine Schriften, ii. 36–80, Leipsic, 1889; W. M. Müller, Asien und Europe, Leipsic, 1893; C. Peters, Das goldene Ophir Salomo's. Eine Studie sur Geschichte der phönikischen Weltpolitik, Munich, 1895; H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, i. 5 (1897), 421 sqq., ii. 1 (1898), 65–70, ii. 2 (1899), 295 sqq.; idem, Geschichte lsraels, i. 104 sqq., Leipsic, 1895; W. von Landau, Die Phönizier, Leipsic, 1901; idem, Die Bedeutung der Phönizier im Völkerleben, ib. 1905; V. Bèrard, Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssêe, 2 vols., Paris, 1902-–03; idem, in RHR, xxxix. 173–228, 419–460; C. A. Bruston, Études phéniciennes, Paris, 1903; W. M. Mülller, Neue Darstellungen "mykenischer" Gesandter and phönizischer Schiffe in altägyptischen Wandgemälden, Berlin, 1904; A. D. Mordtmann, Historische Bilder vom Bosporus, part 2, Constantinople, 1907; F. C. Eiseler, Sidon: a Study in Oriental History, New York, 1907.

On the religion: C. and T. Muller, Fragmenta historicum Græcorum, iii. 560 sqq., 4 vols., Paris, 1841–51; W. von Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Leipsic, 1878; F. Baethgen, Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin, 1888; P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, i. 348–383, Tübingen, 1905; Smith, Rel. of Sem. Consult also the article Sanchuniathon and the literature given there.

PHILADELPHA. See Asia Minor, IV.

PHILADELPHIAN SOCIETY. See Lead, Jane.

PHILANTHROPY. See Social Service of the Church.

PHILARET, fî´´lā-ret´ (VASILY MIKHAILOVICH DROZDOV): Russian prelate; b. at Kolomna (58 m. s.s.e. of Moscow) 1782; d. at Moscow Dec. 1, 1867. He was educated at the seminaries of Kolomna and St. Sergius Lavra, and on the completion of his studies was at once appointed professor in the latter. He became preacher at the monastery of St. Sergius at Troitsk in 1806, and four years later was appointed professor of theology in the ecclesiastical academy of Alexander Nevski in St. Petersburg, becoming archimandrite in 1811 and director in 1812. He took monastic vows in 1817, and after being bishop of Reval and episcopal vicar of St. Petersburg, became, in 1819, archbishop of Tver and a member of the Holy Synod. In the following year he was archbishop of Yaroslav, and in 1821 was translated to Moscow, also becoming metropolitan in 1826. His daring utterances, however, brought him into imperial disfavor, and from 1845 until the accession of Alexander II. in 1855 he was restricted to the limits of his diocese. He is said to have prepared Alexander's proclamation freeing the serfs (Mar. 19, 1861), and he enjoyed the reputation of being one of the leading pulpit orators of his time and country. He was a prominent figure in preparing a Russian translation of the Bible (see Bible Versions, B, XVI., § 2), and wrote "Colloquy between a Believer and a Skeptic on the True Doctrine of the Greco-Russian Church " (St. Petersburg, 1815); "Compend of Sacred History" (1816); "Commentary on Genesis" (1816); "Attempt to Explain Psalm lxvii." (1818); "Sermons delivered at Various Times" (1820); "Extracts from the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles for Use in Lay Schools" (1820); "Christian Catechism" (1823; Eng. transl. by R. W. Blackmore in his Doctrine of the Russian Church, Aberdeen, 1845; reprinted in Schaff, Creeds, ii. 445–542); "Extracts from the Historical Books of the Old Testament" (1828–30); "Principles of Religious Instruction" (1828); and "New Collection of Sermons" (1830–36). An English version of some of his sermons was published at London in 1873 under the title "Select Sermons by the late Metropolitan of Moscow, Philaret," together with a brief biographical sketch.

Bibliography: Biographie universelle, xxxiii. 45–46; La Grande Encyclopedie, xxvi. 645.

PHILASTER, fi-las´ter (PHILASTRIUS): Bishop of Brescia and ecclesiastical writer; b. possibly in Egypt in the first half of the fourth century; d. before 397. He had been consecrated before 381, for in that year he took part in the Synod of Aquileia. Augustine knew him while at Milan; and his, successor Gaudentius, who became bishop of Brescia before 397, praised his orthodoxy and learning (MPL, xx. 957). According to the tradition current at Brescia, he died on July 18; but the Sermo de vita et obitu Philastri (MPL, xx. 1002), ascribed to Gaudentius, seems to date rather from the eighth or ninth century. About 383 Philaster wrote his Diversarum hæreseōn liber (ed. J. Sichard, Basel, 1528; also in MPL, xii.; CSEL, xxxviii.), a catalogue containing twenty-eight pre-Christian and 128 Christian heresies. The style shows lack of education, and the matter lack of intellectual training. It is fanciful and artificial, especially in its divisions of distinction. His source for heresies previous to Noetus was probably the lost Syntagma adversus omnes hæreses of Hippolytus, and for the Manicheans the Acta Archelai. The intrinsic value of the work is small. He was, however, cited by Augustine, and thus gained importance in the Middle Ages, and he is of some interest in tracing the history of the New-Testament canon, especially for the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Letter to the Laodiceans.

(R. Schmid.)

BlBLIOGRAPHY: R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Vienna, 1865; idem. Die Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte, Leipsic, 1875; A. Harnack, Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnostismus, Leipsic, 1874; idem, Litteratur, i. 150; J. Kunze, De historiæ gnosticismi fontibus, Leipsic, 1894; Krüger, History, passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 931; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, v. 171–178, viii. 42–43; DCB, iv. 351–353.

PHILEAS, fi-lê´as: Bishop of Thmuis (the modern Tmai, between the Tanite and Mendesian branches of the Nile) and martyr; d. at Alexandria 305. According to Eusebius, he was distinguished for his wealth, noble birth, honorable rank, and philosophical training, and the same church historian also gives a fragment of a letter written by Phileas from his prison in Alexandria to his diocese at Thmuis (Hist. eccl., VIII., x. 2–10; Eng. transl., NPNF, 1 ser., i. 330–331), holding up the example of the Alexandrian martyrs. Together with three other bishops imprisoned with him, Phileas wrote to Meletius of Lycopolis (q.v.), charging him with violating the rules of the Church by appointing other bishops in their places. The acts of Phileas, which are extant both in Greek and Latin, seem to have been known to Eusebius and to Jerome; and Rufinus (Hist, eccl., viii. 10) states that they were written by a Christian named Gregorius. The official who presided at the martyrdom of Phileas was Culcianus, who was succeeded by Hierocles apparently in 306, and at latest by 308.

(N. Bonwetsch.)

Bibliography: The letter is also in M. J. Routh, Reliquiæ sacræ, 5 vols., Oxford. 1846–48; Eng. trans. with introduction and notes is in ANF, vi. 161–164. The Acts of his Martyrdom are in ASB, Feb., i. 459 sqq. (with commentary); R. Knopff, Ausgewählte Märtyrakten, pp. 102 sqq., Freiburg, 1901; F. Combefis, Illustrium Christi martyrum lecti triumphi, pp. 145 sqq., Paris, 1660 (the Greek text). The older literature is given in ANF, Bibliography, p. 71. Consult: Jerome, De vir. ill., lxxviii.; N. Lardner, Credibility of Gospel History, in Works, iii. 234–237, London, 1838; J. M. Neale, Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church, i. 97, 99–101, London, 1847; E. le Blaut, Les Persécuteurs et les martyrs aux premiere siècles, pp. 226–227, Paris, 1893; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 441–442, ii. 2, pp. 69–72, 74, 83; C. Schmidt, in TU, v. 4b (1901); O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur, ii. 211–212, Freiburg, 1903; Krüger, History, p. 219; DCB, iv. 353; KL, ix. 1998.

PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO. See Paul, the Apostle, II.

PHILIP II.: King of Spain, son of the Emperor Charles V. and Isabella of Portugal; b. at Valladolid May 21, 1527; d. at Madrid Sept. 13, 1598. Educated under Dominican rather than Jesuit influence, he perpetuated the Spanish idea of Roman Catholicism that underlay the policy of Ferdinand and Isabella and Cardinal Ximenes, which regarded Roman Catholicism as the only tolerable form of Christianity and as absolutely essential to the political power of Spain. He had no sympathy with the humanistic popes and Curia, and would brook no interference of the papacy with Spanish administration; on the other hand, he insisted upon controlling papal policy. The policy of compromise by which Charles V. had sought to reunify religion throughout his realm had been recognized by himself as ineffective.

Two Chief Aims; Failure in England.

Philip began his reign with the fixed resolve to exterminate Protestantism at whatever cost from every foot of territory that he controlled. Closely connected with this aspect of his policy was a determination to make his own will supreme throughout his vast realm. Protestantism had never been allowed to gain much headway in Spain and he spared no effort or expense to remove every vestige of anticatholicism. With equal severity he dealt with the Moriscoes (professed Moorish converts still Mohammedan at heart) and with converts from Judaism whose sincere devotion to Roman Catholicism was suspected. He married Mary of England (1554) with the twofold object of bringing England under the domination of Spain and of exterminating heresy in the British Isles. He even sought to ingratiate himself with the English people by putting aside his customary moroseness and reserve and assuming an air of friendliness and suavity. His failure to win the hearts of the English, Mary's dissatisfaction with his private life, and the urgent need of his presence at home led to his leaving England forever (Sept., 1555). In 1556 by the abdication of Charles V. he became master of Spain, the Sicilies, the Milanese territory, Franche Comté, the Netherlands, Mexico, and Peru, thus becoming the greatest potentate on earth with seemingly unlimited resources.

His Wars.

He was impatient to begin a crusade against Protestantism in which he sought to enlist all the Roman Catholic sovereigns of Europe, but was shocked by the discovery that the pope had formed an alliance with the king of France and the sultan to deprive him of his Italian possessions. He scrupled at going to war with the pope, but self-interest soon triumphed and he sent the duke of Alva to drive French and papal forces from Sicily and to seize the papal possessions, while he himself administered a severe chastisement to the French at St. Quentin (Aug. 10, 1557) and at Gravelines (Apr. 2, 1559). After the death of Mary of England he sought once more to gain a foothold in England by proposing to marry Elizabeth, her sister and successor. Failing in this project he married Isabella of France, daughter of Catharine de Medici, his main object being to bring his influence in favor of Roman Catholicism more powerfully to bear upon France for the destruction of the Huguenots and to prevent French interference with his measures against Evangelical Christianity in the Netherlands. As a preparation for the crusade against Protestantism, which he foresaw to be an undertaking of vast proportions, he began to gather rapidly into the treasury the wealth of his domain, ignoring completely the customary and legal rights of the people. The revolt of the Netherlands and his unsuccessful efforts to suppress it depleted the well-filled treasury and led to extortionate and destructive taxation in Spain, including ecclesiastical foundations. Portugal became his through failure of the direct male line of succession and through a successful military invasion (1580). The pope having bestowed England upon Philip, he undertook to take possession (1588) by sending the armada, a fleet of 131 vessels with 19,000 marines and 8,000 sailors, against a far inferior English fleet. Favoring winds and superior seamanship gave the victory to the English, and Spain was well-nigh swept off the sea. Philip promoted and rejoiced in the massacre of St. Bartholomew's day in France (1572) and, when Henry of Navarre became heir apparent and was contending for the crown, Philip joined forces with the Guises. In the war that followed Philip was worsted and was obliged to sign the treaty of Vervins (May, 1598). By forty years of aggressive warfare, for the destruction of the political enemies of Spain and of the enemies of the Roman Catholic Church, he lost a large part of his hereditary possessions, impoverished and degraded what remained, and at his death (1598) left Spain a secondary power and its people far behind the age in free institutions and in civilization. The inquisition of heresy was with him a favorite occupation, and it was carried on with the utmost cruelty wherever his authority prevailed.

Attitude toward the Papacy.

While he regarded Roman Catholicism as the only valid form of Christianity and was convinced that the toleration of any other form of religion tended toward anarchy or at least toward destruction of monarchy, he was strenuous in resisting anything in papal or conciliar action that could be construed as infringement upon the prerogatives of the Spanish crown. His control of the Inquisition, his right to nominate bishops not only for Spain but also for the Netherlands, the regium exequatur (involving the right of the king to pass upon all papal bulls and briefs before their promulgation in his domains; see Placet), the right of the king to administer and control the affairs of the Hospitalers and other endowed ecclesiastical institutions, he persistently maintained. He exercised a controlling influence over the Council of Trent (1556 onward) and his representatives were keen to detect and mighty to defeat any ordinance that trenched upon the rights of the Spanish crown. The conciliar provision for episcopal visitation of the chapters of the monastic orders he resolutely and effectively opposed, as well as the council's proposed arrangement for provincial and diocesan synods. He greatly promoted the progress of the monastic orders, especially the Dominicans, Franciscans, the order founded by St. Peter Nolasco (see Nolasco), and Jesuits, and encouraged the multiplication of their establishments in Spain and the colonies. He took the keenest interest in papal elections and virtually insisted upon his right to nominate to the papal office or at least to defeat all candidates whom he disapproved. He promoted the Jesuit school at Douai for the education of Roman Catholic missionaries for England.

Apart from his single-minded devotion to the maintenance and extension of the authority of the Spanish crown and the universal prevalence of the Roman Catholic religion, Philip had few of the qualities that mark a great ruler or statesman. He was egoistic, unsympathetic, cruel (the loss of tens of thousands of troops seems to have affected him only as a diminution of the resources available for the accomplishment of his purposes, and he frequently was present in person at the burning of heretics), taciturn, morose, distrustful, and reserved.

A. H. Newman.

Bibliography: A rich list of literature is furnished in the British Museum Catalogue. For English readers the best works directly on the subject are: W. H. Prescott, Hist. of the Reign of Philip II., many editions, e.g., in his Complete Works, Boston, 1905 (a classic); M. A. S. Hume, Philip II. of Spain, London, 1897; idem, Spain, its Greatness and Decay, ib. 1898; idem, Two English Queens and Philip, ib. 1908. Further accounts of the life and reign of Philip are: C. Campana, 2 parts, Venice, 1605–09; G. Leti, 2 parts, Coligni, 1679; Robert Watson, 2 vols., London, 1808; A. Dumesnil, Hist. de Philippe II., Paris, 1822; E. San Miguel y Valledor, 4 vols., Madrid, 1844–1847; F. A. M. Mignet, Antonio Perez and Philip II., London, 1846; C. Gayarré, New York, 1866; R. Baumstark, Freiburg, 1875; V. Gomez, Madrid, 1879; H. Forneron, 4 vols., Paris, 1881–82; W. W. Norman, New York, 1898. Consult also more general works, such as: Cambridge Modern History, vol. iii., London and New York, 1905; S. A. Durham, Hist. of Spain and Portugal, 5 vols., London, 1832 (the best general history in English); M. W. Freer, Elizabeth de Valois, 2 vols., London, 1857; F. W. Schirrmacher, Geschichte von Spanien, 6 vols.. Gotha, 1893; H. Watts, Spain, New York, 1893; C. A. Wilkens, Spanish Protestants in the 16th Century, New York, 1897; J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, ed. Bell, London, 1904; H. C. Lea, Hist. of the Inquisition of Spain, 4 vols., New York, 1906–07; Robinson, European History, ii. 168 sqq. Illustrative original documents are cited in Reich, Documents, pp. 593 sqq., and in Gee and Hardy, Documents, pp. 384 sqq.

PHILIP IV. (LE BEL, "THE FAIR "): King of France (1285–1314), son of Philip III.; b. at Fontainebleau (37 m. s.s.e. of Paris) 1268; d. Nov. 29, 1314. A contemporary Flemish monkish chronicler, having in mind his persistent and unscrupulous efforts to subjugate Flanders, speaks of him as "a certain king of France . . . eaten up by the fever of avarice and cupidity." Guizot, quoting with approval this medieval characterization, adds:

His political success was scarcely as real as this characterization implies; for while he was able to rob England of Guienne he was ultimately compelled to restore it, and while for a time he dominated and oppressed Flanders, his victory was followed by humiliating defeat. By his marriage to Johanna of Navarre (1284) he added Navarre, Champagne, and Brie to the royal possessions. Lyons was later (1312) subjected to the crown.

In ecclesiastical matters his success was more marked and permanent; but even when he contended most effectively against papal usurpations he manifested no higher qualities or motives than those set forth above. His refusal to yield to the demand of Boniface VIII. (q.v.) that he make peace with the king of England was due not to a clearly defined view of the proper relations of Church and State, but to his determination to have his own way and his willingness to defy what he must have recognized as the highest spiritual authority on earth. The same may be said of his successful retaliatory measures in response to Boniface's bull Clericis laicos (Feb. 25, 1296). He had gained so large a measure of authority in France that the French clergy, whether they sympathized with his defiance of the pope or not, dared not antagonize him, paid to the king the war subsidies demanded in spite of papal prohibition, and obeyed the king in withholding all papal dues. That Boniface deserved to be chastised for his arrogance does not make of Philip a heroic champion of civil liberty in administering the discipline. This is true also of his defiant treatment of the bull Unam sanctum (q.v.). His burning of this most arrogant papal pronouncement, his confiscation of the estates of prelates who sided with the pope, and his response to the pope's bull of excommunication by throwing the pope into prison, furnish no proof that he was a reformer. The fact is that he regarded neither God nor man when his own supposed interests were at stake. He manifested the same spirit in manipulating the college of cardinals so as to secure the election of a pope (Clement V.) committed to the interests of France and pledged to remove the papal capital to Avignon. He secured the removal of the papal seat to French territory not in order that, he might bring about a reformation in the papal administration, but that he might prevent other sovereigns from using the organized power of the papacy against himself and might be assured of papal and curial cooperation for the aggrandizement of the French monarchy. He compelled the captive pope and Curia to cooperate with him in the destruction of the Templars (q.v.), not because he believed that the order had become scandalously immoral and blasphemously and diabolically irreligious, as members of the order were tortured into confessing, but because he was jealous of their political power and lack of subserviency, and covetous of their vast wealth. He persecuted the Jews not chiefly because he wanted them to become Christians, but as a means of appropriating their wealth. His avarice was also manifested in his debasing of the coinage of the realm. It is not to be supposed that the well conceived and well executed measures for consolidating and increasing the authority of the crown, overcoming civil and ecclesiastical opposition, and enriching the royal exchequer were the product of his own independent thinking. He was surrounded with able and unscrupulous counselors (such as William of Nogaret), who subserviently ministered to his consuming desire for power and glory and who profited personally by his successful exploitations. See Boniface VIII.; and Clement V.

A. H. Newman.

Bibliography: Important sources are: Codex diplomaticus Flandriæ 1296–1325, ed. T. de L. Stirum, Bruges, 1879 sqq.; and Lettres inédites de Philippe Ie Bel, Toulouse, 1887. Discussions, besides those in the church histories dealing with the period, are: A. Baillet, Hist. des démêles du Pape Boniface VIII. avec Philippe Ie Bel, 2 parts, Paris, 1718; M. Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules, vol. xxi., 23 vols., ib. 1738–76; J. Jolly, Philippe le Bel, ses desseins, ses actes, son influence, ib. 1869; Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. vi.; Pastor, Popes, i. 57 sqq.; and the literature under Boniface VIII. and Clement V.

PHILIP THE APOSTLE: One of the twelve, usually named fifth in order in the lists of the apostles. Excepting in these lists, he is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. In the narrative of the Fourth Gospel he occasionally appears individually (John i. 14 sqq., vi. 5 sqq., xii. 21 sqq., xiv. 8 sqq.). He "was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter" (John i. 44), after whom, and probably owing to their common following of John the Baptist, Philip became acquainted with Jesus (John i. 14 sqq.), to whom he then brought Nathanael. According to John vi. 5–8, xii. 22 (cf. Mark iii. 18), he appears to have stood close to his fellow countryman Andrew; and John vi. 7, xii. 22, indicate that he possessed a reserved and circumspect disposition. But neither his Greek name nor John xii. 22 warrants the inference that Philip was of Greek education. On another side, to explain this whole Johannine portraiture of the Apostle Philip as purely ideal (e.g., Holtzmann) is opposed by the very simplicity of the data.

The patristic statements (Clement of Alexandria, Strom., iii. 4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xxxi., Eng. transl., NPNF, 1 ser., 162) that the unnamed disciple of Jesus in Luke ix. 60; Matt. viii. 22, was Philip rests probably on a confusion with the evangelist of this name. This mistake, however, has both possible and rational explanation, in case the apostle and the evangelist alike sojourned in Asia Minor (see Philip the Evangelist).

F. Sieffert.

Bibliography: Consult in general: The commentaries on the Gospels and Acts, and works on the apostolic age. Also A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, Edinburgh, 1871; J. B. Lightfoot, Commentary on Colossians, pp. 45–46. London. 1879; idem, Cambridge Sermons, pp. 129 sqq., ib. 1890; G. Milligan, The Twelve Apostles, London, 1904; DB, iii 834–836; EB, iii. 3697–3701; DCG, ii. 359–360; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, part xxxi., cols. 267–270. For the apocryphal history consult: C. Tischendorf, Acta apostalorum apocrypha, pp. xxxi.–xl., 75–104, Leipsic, 1851; W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, ii. 69 sqq., London, 1871; Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, Eng. transl. by A. Walker, pp. 301–324, Edinburgh, 1873; R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii. 2, pp. 1–53, Brunswick, 1884; Analecta Bollandiana, ix (1890), 204–249; T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ii. 761–768, Leipsic, 1890; Stölten, in JPT, 1891, pp. 149–160; Apocrypha Anecdota, in TU, ii. 3 (1893); A. S. Lewis, Mythological Acts of the Apostles, in Horæ Semiticæ, iv., London, 1904; Harnack. Litteratur, i. 138.

PHILIP THE ARABIAN (MARCUS JULIUS PHILIPPUS ARABS): Roman emperor 244–249; b. at Bostra (119 m. s. of Damascus) in the Roman province of Arabia Petræa (whence his epithet of "the Arabian"); killed in battle near Verona, Italy, in the autumn of 249. Elevated to the purple by the murder of his predecessor, Gordianus III., he was able, during his reign, to subdue the Carpi who had ravaged Dacia, and, in 248, to celebrate the millennial of the founding of Rome, but was, on the other hand, obliged to conclude a humiliating peace with the Persians. In 249 Philip became involved in civil war with his rival Decius, by whom he was defeated and slain, his young son, whom he had made coregent at the age of seven, being murdered by the Pretorian Guard at Rome. Philip the Arabian, whose high moral ideal is evinced by his earnest, though unavailing, efforts to suppress the practise of unnatural vice, is of interest theologically chiefly because of an ancient and wide-spread tradition which makes him the first Christian emperor of Rome. This tradition appears earliest in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., vi. 34), who states that, according to report, Philip had desired to attend divine service on Easter, but had been obliged to perform penance. Vincent of Lerins (fifth century), Dionysius of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Jerome, the first Valesian Fragment, and Orosius likewise either explicitly state or at least imply that Philip was the first Christian emperor. It is plain, however, simply from the coins and medals struck by him that he was a worshiper of the Olympic gods and that he was himself pontifex maximus.

But though Philip was not a Christian, he was remarkably friendly to the new religion, and the tradition that he himself was an adherent of it was doubtless due, at least in part, to his tolerant attitude toward it. During his reign Origen could refute Celsus, and conversions could be made en masse; but he could not prevent Christians from falling victims to mob violence in Alexandria.

(FRANZ GÖRRES.)

Bibliography: Sources are: Zosimus, Hist., i. 17–22; Julius Capitolinus, Gordiani tres, chaps. xxii., xxvi.–xxx., ed. H. Peter, Leipsic, 1865; Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Cæsaribus, ed. J. F. Gruner, pp. 308–313, 429–430, Erlangen, 1787. Consult in general the history of the period in works on the Roman Empire, and in particular: B. Aubé, Les Chrétiens dans l’empire romain, pp. 467 sqq., Paris, 1881; P. Allard, Hist. des persécutions, ii. 215–256, 474–478, Paris, 1886; K. J. Neumann, Der römische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche bis auf Diokletian, i. 231–254, 330–331, Leipsic, 1890; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chaps. vii., x., xvi.; DCB, iv. 355; KL, ix. 2008–09; Neander, Christian Church, vol. i., passim.

PHILIP THE EVANGELIST: One of the seven named in Acts vi. 5 as chosen to direct the care of the poor, to "serve tables," and possibly to direct outward concerns generally. Their office was probably different from the later diaconate (see Deacon), being, in any case, dissolved with the persecution and dispersion of the congregation (Acts viii.) and later supplanted by the more comprehensive office of presbyter (Acts xi. 30, xv. 29). Since that earlier office was instituted because the Grecian members of the primitive congregation complained that their widows were neglected, it may be assumed that at least a contingent of the seven was chosen from the Hellenist members themselves, and probably one of these was Philip. Philip, like Stephen (Acts vi. 13), took a comparatively liberal stand in relation to the Jewish law and worship, and evolved from that liberal mode of teaching its practical sequel, in that after his flight from Jerusalem he began an eventful missionary activity among the Samaritans (Acts viii. 5 sqq.), who were accounted nearly the same as heathen. Moreover, he baptized an uncircumcised half-proselyte, the queen of Ethiopia's eunuch (Acts viii. 26 sqq.). Next he journeyed, preaching the Gospel, "till he came to Cæsarea." Here Paul took up his abode with him, together with his fellow travelers, on Paul's final journey (Acts, xxi. 8). And as this incident is related in Acts, Philip is designated not only with reference to his former office as "one of the seven," but also with reference to his missionary activity as "the evangelist" and as the father of "four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy" (xxi. 9). This is the last notice of him in the New Testament.

The patristic tradition in regard to the subsequent fortunes of Philip is of impaired value for the reason that he has been confused with the apostle of like name, as in Polycrates of Ephesus, who reports of the Apostle Philip (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xxxi. 3, V., xxiv. 2), that he rests in Hierapolis, as do two of his daughters, who grew old as virgins; whereas his third daughter, whose "walk and conversation were in the Spirit," lies buried in Ephesus. These family particulars so closely resemble what is reported in Acts xxi. 9 of the evangelist that it is hardly tenable to think of two different men of the same name in this connection. Error in the Book of Acts is the less likely since it is precisely there that the reports are from an eyewitness. It is evident that Polycrates erroneously held the Philip of Hierapolis to be the apostle, though this does not exclude the proposition that his particulars in regard to the Evangelist Philip are correct. In comparison with these details the statements of Caius of Rome (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xxxi.) are not so exact. It is probably due to a confusion of the two named Philip that Clement of Rome (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xxx. 1) asserts that the Apostles Peter and Philip had begotten children, and that Philip had given his daughters in second marriage. Neither are those communications of Eusebius himself quite clear (III., xxxi.) which have arisen from a combination of what is stated by Polycrates and by Caius. Confusion of the apostle with the evangelist may have been easier because of the possibility that the two lived at the same time in Asia Minor. The later tradition was that the evangelist died as bishop at Tralles; that the apostle died and was buried in Ephesus.

F. Sieffert.

Bibliography: Because of the confusion noted in the text, the literature named under Philip the Apostle covers in large part the subject of this article. Consult the commentaries on Acts (e.g.. G. T. Stokes, in Expositor's Bible, vol. i., chaps. xvii., xx., London and New York, 1891), and the works on the apostolic age (e.g., A. C. McGiffert, pp. 73–74, 95, 340, 424, New York, 1897); T. Zahn, in Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vi (1900), 158 sqq.; DB, iii. 836–837; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, part xxxi., cols. 270–272; ASB for June 6; Harnack, Litteratur, ii. 1, pp. 357–358, 368, 669.

PHILIP OF GORTYNA: Christian apologist; flourished in the last half of the second century. He is mentioned with praise in the letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Christian community at Gortyna (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV., xxiii. 5; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 201); and wrote in the time of Marcus Aurelius a reply to Marcion (mentioned only by Eusebius, IV., xxv., NPNF, ut sup., p. 203). Jerome (De vir. ill., xxx.) is dependent upon Eusebius.

(G. Krüger.)

Bibliography: The sources are indicated in the text. Consult further: Harnack, Litteratur, i. 237; DCB, iv. 355; C. A. Bernoulli, Der Sehriftstellerkatolog des Hieronymus, p. 334 et passim, Freiburg, 1895.

PHILIP OF HESSE.

1. Early Life and Embracing of Protestantism.

Philip of Hesse, or Philip the Magnanimous, landgrave of Hesse from 1509 to 1567 and one of the most powerful promoters of the Protestant Reformation, was born at Marburg Nov. 13, 1504; d. at Cassel Mar. 31, 1567. His father died when Philip was five years old, and in 1514 his mother, Anna of Mecklenburg, after a series of struggles with the estates of Hesse, succeeded in becoming regent for him. The controversies still continued, however, so that, to put an end to them, Philip was declared to have attained his majority in 1518, his actual assumption of power beginning in the following year. The power of the estates had been broken by his mother, but he owed her little else. His education had been very imperfect, and his moral and religious training had been neglected. Despite all this, he developed rapidly as a statesman, and soon began to take steps to increase his personal authority as a ruler.

The first meeting of Philip of Hesse with Luther was in 1521 at the Diet of Worms, where he was attracted by the Reformer's personality, though he had at first little interest in the religious elements of the situation. It was only after his marriage with Christina, the daughter of George of Saxony, early in 1524, that he began to take an active part in forwarding the cause of the Reformation. The impulse to this activity came from his reading Luther's translation of the Bible, and his nascent Protestantism was fostered by meeting Melanchthon in the spring of 1527. As early as 1524 he had encouraged the spread of the new doctrines in his territories and he now professed open adherence to the tenets of Luther, refusing to follow the counsel of the clergy, his mother, or his father-in-law, all of whom urged him to repress the spread of the new teaching by force. He openly approved of Luther's position in the Peasant War, declaring that it was not the result of the Protestant movement; he refused to be drawn into the anti-Lutheran league of George of Saxony in 1525; and by his alliance with the Elector John of Saxony, concluded at Gotha Feb. 27, 1526, showed that he was already taking steps to organize a protective alliance of all Protestant princes and powers. At the same time he united political motives with his religious policy, aiming, as early as the spring of 1526, to prevent the election of Archduke Ferdinand as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. At the Diet of Speyer (1526) Philip openly championed the Protestant cause, rendering it possible for Protestant preachers to propagate their views while the Diet was in session, and, like his followers, openly disregarding ordinary Roman Catholic ecclesiastical usages.

2. Introduction of the Reformation in Hesse.

Although there was no strong popular movement for reforming Hesse, Philip determined to organize the church there according to Protestant principles. In this he was aided tion of the not only by his chancellor, the humanistic Feige (Ficinus) of Lichtenau, and his chaplain, Adam Krafft (q.v.), but also by the ex-Franciscan François Lambert (q.v.), a fanatical enemy of the faith he had left. While the violent policy of Lambert, embodied, at least in part, in the Homberg church order (see Homberg Synod and Church Order of 1526) was abandoned, and an essentially Lutheran type of organization was adopted, the monasteries and religious foundations were dissolved; their property was applied to charitable and scholastic purposes; and the University of Marburg was founded in the summer of 1527 to be, like Wittenberg, a school for Protestant theologians. Philip's father-in-law and the bishops of Würzburg and Mainz were active in agitating against the growth of the new heresy, and the combination of several circumstances, including rumors of war, convinced Philip of the existence of a secret league among the Roman Catholic princes. His suspicions were confirmed to his own satisfaction by a forgery given him by an adventurer who had been employed in important missions by George of Saxony, one Otto von Pack; and after meeting with the Elector John of Saxony at Weimar Mar.9, 1528, it was agreed that the Protestant princes should take the offensive in order to protect their territory from invasion and capture. Both Luther and the elector's chancellor, Brück, though convinced of the existence of the conspiracy, counseled strongly against acting on the offensive. The imperial authorities at Speyer now forbade all breach of the peace, and, after long negotiations, Philip succeeded in extorting the expenses for his armament from the dioceses of Würzburg, Bamberg, and Mainz, the latter bishopric also being compelled to recognize the validity of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Hessian and Saxon territory until the emperor or a Christian council should decide to the contrary. The condition of affairs was, however, very unfavorable to Philip, who might easily be charged with disturbing the peace of the empire, and at the second Diet of Speyer, in the spring of 1529, he was publicly ignored by the emperor. Nevertheless, he took an active part in uniting the Protestant representatives, as well as in preparing the celebrated protest of Speyer; and before leaving the city he succeeded in forming, on Apr. 22, 1529, a secret understanding between Saxony, Hesse, Nuremberg, Strasburg, and Ulm.

3. Suspected of Zwinglianism.

Philip was especially anxious to prevent division over the subject of the Lord's Supper. Through him Zwingli was invited to Germany, and Philip thus prepared the way for of the celebrated debate at Marburg (see Marburg, Conference of). Although the attitude of the Wittenberg theologians frustrated his attempts to bring about harmonious relations, and although the situation was still further complicated by the position of George, margrave of Brandenburg, who demanded a uniform confession and a uniform church order, Philip held that the differences between Strasburg and the followers of Luther in their sacramental theories admitted of adjustment, and that the erring could not scripturally be rejected and despised. The result was that Philip was suspected of a tendency toward Zwinglianism. At the same time, the results of a conference with the elector of Saxony and with Margrave George at Schleiz (Oct. 3), the anger of the emperor at receiving from Philip a statement of Protestant tenets, composed by the ex-Franciscan Lambert, and the landgrave's failure to secure any common action on the part of the Protestant powers regarding the approaching Turkish war, all tended to draw him closer to the Swiss and the Strasburg Reformers. He eagerly embraced Zwingli's plan of a great Protestant alliance to extend from the Adriatic to Denmark to keep the Holy Roman emperor from crossing into Germany. This association caused some coldness between himself and the followers of Luther at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, especially when he propounded his irenic policy to Melanchthon and urged that all Protestants should stand together in demanding that a general council alone should decide concerning religious differences. This was supposed to be indicative of Zwinglianism, and Philip soon found it necessary to explain his exact position on the question of the Lord's Supper, whereupon he declared that he fully agreed with the Lutherans, but disapproved of persecuting the Swiss.

The arrival of the emperor put an end to these disputes for the time being; and when Charles demanded that the Protestant representatives should take part in the procession of Corpus Christi, and that Protestant preaching should cease in the city, Philip bluntly refused to obey. He now sought in vain to secure a modification of the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession; but when the position of the Upper Germans was officially rejected, Philip left the diet directing his representatives manfully to uphold the Protestant position, and to keep general, not particular, interests constantly in view. At this time he offered Luther a refuge in his own territories, and began to cultivate close relations with Martin Butzer, whose comprehension of political questions constituted a common bond of sympathy between them, and who fully agreed with the landgrave on the importance of compromise measures in treating the controversy on the Lord's Supper.

4. Leader of the Schmalkald League.

In 1530 Philip was successful in accomplishing the purpose for which he had so long worked by securing the adhesion of the Protestant powers to the Schmalkald League (see Schmalkald, League and Articles of), which was to protect their religious and secular interests against interference from the emperor. The landgrave and his ally, the elector of Saxony, became recognized leaders of this union of German princes and cities. Philip kept clearly in view the necessity of an anti-Hapsburg policy, and was thoroughly convinced that the Protestant cause depended on the weakening of the Hapsburgs both at home and abroad.

Before engaging in hostilities, Philip attempted to accomplish the ends of Protestant policy by peaceful means. He proposed a compromise on the subject of the confiscated church property, but at the same time he was untiring in providing for a possible, recourse to war, and cultivated diplomatic relations with any and all powers whom he knew to have anti-Hapsburg interests. A peaceful turn was, however, given to the situation by the arrangements made at Nuremberg July 25, 1532 (see Nuremberg, Religious Peace of), though this did not prevent Philip from preparing for a future struggle. He was untiring in trying to draw new allies into the league against Charles V. and Ferdinand, who had been invested with the duchy of Wurttemberg; the battle of Lauffen (May 13, 1534) cost Ferdinand his newly acquired possession; and Philip was now recognized as the hero of the day, and his victory as the victory of the Schmalkald League. In the years following this coalition became one of the most important factors in European politics, largely through the influence of Philip, who lost no opportunity of furthering the Protestant cause. Its alliance was sought by both France and England; it was extended for a period of ten years in 1535; and new members were added to it. On the other hand, the struggle between the two Protestant factions injured the advancement of their mutual interests, and Butzer, encouraged by Philip, was accordingly occupied in the attempt to bring Protestants together on a common religious platform, the result being the Concord of Wittenberg (see Wittenberg, Concord of). The emperor's fears as to the political purpose of the league were, for the time being, set at rest; but at the same time a council which should include representatives of the pope was rejected; and measures were taken to secure the permanence of the Protestant cause in the future. In 1538–39 the relations between Roman Catholics and Protestants became strained almost to the breaking-point, and war was averted only by the Frankfort Respite (q.v.). The Protestants, however, failed to avail themselves of their possible opportunities, largely through the unwonted docility and pliability of Philip.

5. Bigamous Marriage.

This unexpected course of the Protestant leader was largely conditioned by two factors: he was weakened by a licentious life, and his marital relations were about to bring scandal on all Protestantism. Within a few weeks after his marriage to the unattractive and sickly Christina of Saxony, who was also alleged to be an immoderate drinker, Philip had committed adultery; and as early as 1526 he had begun to consider the permissibility of bigamy. He accordingly wrote Luther for his opinion, alleging as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs; but Luther replied (Nov. 28, 1526) that it was not enough for a Christian to consider the acts of the patriarchs, but that he, like the patriarchs, must have special divine sanction. Since, however, such sanction was lacking in the present case, Luther advised against such a marriage, especially for Christians, unless there was extreme necessity, as, for example, if the wife was leprous, or abnormal in other respects. Despite this discouragement, Philip gave up neither his project nor a life of sensuality which kept him for years from receiving communion. He was affected by Melanchthon's opinion concerning the case of Henry VIII., where the Reformer had proposed that the king's difficulty could be solved by his taking a second wife better than by his divorcing the first one. To strengthen his position, there were Luther's own statements in his sermons on Genesis, as well as historical precedents which proved to his satisfaction that it was impossible for anything to be un-Christian that God had not punished in the case of the patriarchs, who in the New Testament were held up as models of faith. It was during an illness due to his excesses that the thought of taking a second wife became a fixed purpose. It seemed to him to be the only salve for his troubled conscience, and the only hope of moral improvement open to him. He accordingly proposed to marry the daughter of one of his sister's ladies-in-waiting, Margarethe von der Saale. While the landgrave had no scruples whatever, Margarethe was unwilling to take the step unless they had the approval of the theologians and the consent of the prince elector of Saxony and of Duke Maurice. Philip easily gained his first wife's consent to the marriage. Butzer, who was strongly influenced by political arguments, was won over by the landgrave's threat to ally himself with the emperor if he did not secure the consent of the theologians to the marriage; and the Wittenberg divines were worked upon by the plea of the prince's ethical necessity. Thus the "secret advice of a confessor" was won from Luther (see Luther, § 21) and Melanchthon (Dec. 10, 1539), neither of them knowing that the bigamous wife had already been chosen. Butzer and Melanchthon were now summoned, without any reason being assigned, to Rotenburg-on-the-Fulda, where, on Mar. 4, 1540, Philip and Margarethe were united. The time was particularly inauspicious for any scandal affecting the Protestants, for the emperor, who had rejected the Frankfort Respite, was about to invade Germany. A few weeks later, however, the whole matter was revealed by Philip's sister, and the scandal caused a painful impression throughout Germany. Some of Philip's allies refused to serve under him; and Luther, under the plea that it was a matter of advice given in the confessional, refused to acknowledge his part in the marriage.

6. Overtures to the Emperor.

This event had affected the whole political situation. Even while the marriage question was occupying his attention, Philip was engaged in constructing far-reaching plans for reforming the Church and for drawing together the all the opponents of the house of Hapsburg, though at the same time he did not give up hopes of reaching a religious compromise through diplomatic means. He was bitterly disgusted by the criticism directed against him, and feared that the law which he himself had enacted against adultery might be applied to his own case. In this state of mind he now determined to make his peace with the emperor on terms which would not involve desertion of the Protestant cause. He offered to observe neutrality regarding the imperial acquisition of the duchy of Cleves and to prevent a French alliance, on condition that the emperor would pardon him for all his opposition and violation of the imperial laws, though without direct mention of his bigamy. The advances of Philip, though he declined to do anything prejudicial to the Protestant cause, were welcomed by the emperor; and, following Butzer's advice, the landgrave now proceeded to take active steps with the hope of establishing religious peace between the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Secure of the imperial favor, he agreed to appear at the Diet of Regensburg, and his presence there contributed to the direction which affairs took at the Regensburg religious colloquy (see Regensburg, Conference of), in which Melanchthon, Butzer, and Johannes Pistorius the elder represented the Protestant side. Philip was successful in securing the permission of the emperor to establish a university at Marburg; and in return for the concession of an amnesty, he agreed to stand by Charles against all his enemies, excepting Protestantism and the Schmalkald League, to make no alliances with France, England, or the duke of Cleves, and to prevent the admission of these powers into the Schmalkald League. On the other hand, the emperor agreed not to attack him in case there was a common war against all Protestants.

These arrangements for special terms led to the collapse of Philip's position as leader of the Protestant party. He had become an object of suspicion, and, although the league continued to remain in force, and gained some new adherents in succeeding years, its real power had departed. But while of the secular princes only Albrecht of Mecklenburg and Henry of Brunswick were still faithful to the Roman Catholic cause, and while united action might at the time easily have resulted in the triumph of Protestantism, there was no union; Duke Maurice and Joachim II. of Brandenburg would not join the Schmalkald League; Cleves was successfully invaded by the imperial troops; and Protestantism was rigorously suppressed in Metz.

In 1543 the internal dissensions of the league compelled Philip to resign from its leadership, and to think seriously of dissolving it. He put his trust entirely in the emperor's good faith, agreeing to help him against both the French and the Turks. At the Diet of Speyer in 1544 he championed the emperor's policy with great eloquence; the bishop of Augsburg declared he must be inspired by the Holy Spirit; and Charles now intended to make him commander-in-chief in the next war against the Turks.

7. Resumption of Hostility to Charles.

The situation was suddenly changed, however, and Philip was tardily forced again into the opposition, by the peace of Crespy (Sept., 1544), which opened his eyes to the danger threatening Protestantism. He prevented the Roman Catholic Duke Henry of Brunswick from taking forcible possession of his dominions; he unsuccessfully planned a new alliance with German princes against Austria, pledging its members to prevent the acceptance of the decrees of the projected Council of Trent; when this failed, he sought to secure the neutrality of Bavaria in a possible war against the Protestants; and he proposed a new Protestant alliance to take the place of the Schmalkald League. But all this, like his projected coalition with the Swiss, was prevented by the jealousy prevailing between Duke Maurice and the elector of Saxony. Fearful of the success of these plans, the emperor invited Philip to an interview at Speyer (Mar. 28, 1546). Philip spoke plainly in criticism of the emperor's policy, and it was soon evident that peace could not be preserved. Four months later (July 20, 1546) the imperial ban was declared against John Frederick and Philip as perjured rebels and traitors. The result was the Schmalkald war, the outcome of which was unfavorable to Protestant interests. The defeat at Mühlberg (Apr. 24, 1547) and the capture of the Elector John Frederick marked the fall of the Schmalkald League. In despair Philip, who had been negotiating with the emperor for some time, agreed to throw himself on his mercy, on condition that his territorial rights should not be impaired and that he himself should not be imprisoned. These terms were disregarded, however, and on June 23, 1547, both the leaders of the famous league were taken to south Germany and held as captives.

8. Imprisonment of Philip and Interim in Hesse.

The imprisonment of Philip brought the Church in Hesse into great trials and difficulties. It had previously been organized carefully by Philip and Butzer, and synods, presbyteries, and a system of discipline had been established. The country was thoroughly protestantized, though public worship still showed no uniformity, discipline was not strictly applied, and many sectaries existed. The Interim (q.v.) was now introduced, sanctioning Roman Catholic practises and usages. Philip himself wrote from prison to forward the acceptance of the Interim, especially as his liberty depended upon it. As long-as the unrestricted preaching of the Gospel and the Protestant tenet of justification by faith were secured, other matters seemed to him of subordinate importance. He read Roman Catholic controversial literature, attended mass, and was much impressed by his study of the Fathers of the Church. The Hessian clergy, however, boldly opposed the introduction of the Interim and the government at Cassel refused to obey the landgrave's commands. Meanwhile his imprisonment was made still more bitter by the information which he received concerning conditions in Hesse, and the rigor of his confinement was increased after he had made an unsuccessful attempt to escape. It was not until 1552 that the Peace of Passau gave him his long-desired freedom and that he was able, on Sept. 12, 1552, to reenter his capital, Cassel.

9. Closing Years

Though Philip was now active in restoring order within his territories, new leaders—Maurice of Saxony and Christopher of Württemberg—had come to the fore. Philip no longer desired to assume the leadership of the Protestant party. All his energies were now directed toward finding a basis of agreement between Protestants and Roman Catholics. At his direction his theologians were prominent in the various conferences where representative Roman Catholics and Protestants assembled to attempt to find a working basis for reunion. Philip was also much disturbed by the internal conflicts that arose after Luther's death between his followers and the disciples of Melanchthon. He was never wearied in urging the necessity of mutual toleration between Calvinists and Lutherans, and to the last cherished the hope of a great Protestant federation, so that, with this end in view, he cultivated friendly relations with French Protestants and with Elizabeth of England. Financial aid was given to the Huguenots, and Hessian troops fought side by side with them in the French religious civil wars, this policy contributing to the declaration of toleration at Amboise in Mar., 1563. He gave permanent form to the Hessian Church by the great agenda of 1566–67, and in his will, dated in 1562, urged his sons to maintain the Augsburg Confession and the Concord of Wittenberg, and at the same time to work in behalf of a reunion of Roman Catholics and Protestants if opportunity and circumstances should permit.

(T. Kolde.)

Bibliography: As a source employ: M. Lenz, Briefwechsel Landgraf Philippe des Grossmüthigen . . . mit Bucer, 1541–47, 3 parts, Leipsic, 1880–91. Matter of pertinence is to be found in the literature under Butzer, Martin; Luther, Martin; Melanchthon, Philipp; Reformation; and the various articles named in the text. For the English reader the fullest account accessible is probably to be found in J. Janssen, Hist. of the German People, vols. v.–vii., St. Louis, 1903–05. Consult further: C. von Rommel, Philipp der Grossmüthige, 3 vols., Giessen, 1830; P. Hoffmeister, Das Leben Philipps des Grossmüthigen, Cassel, 1846; P. A. F. Walther, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen, Darmstadt, 1866; J. Wille, Philipp der Grossmüthige und die Restitution Ulrichs von Wirtemberg, 1526–1535, Tübingen, 1882; S. Ehses, Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und Otto von Pack, Freiburg, 1886; A. Heidenhain, Die Unionspolitik Landgrafen Philipps des Grossmütigen, 1557–62, Breslau, 1886; W. Falckenheiner, Philipp der Grossmüthige im Bauernkriege, Marburg, 1887; J. B. Rady, Die Reformatoren in ihrer Beziehung zur Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp, Frankfort, 1890; O. Winckelmann, Der schmalkaldische Bund, 1530–32, Strasburg, 1892; G. Turba, Verhaftung und Gefangenachaft les Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen, Vienna, 1896; S. Issleib, Die Gefangennahme des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen, Hamburg, 1899; Philipp des Grossmütige, Beiträge zur Geschichte seines Lebens and seiner Zeit, Marburg, 1901; Festschrift zum Gedächtnis Philipps der Grossmütigen, Cassei, 1904; Schenk, Philip der Grossmütige, Landgrafen von Hessen (1504—67), Frankenberg, 1904; W. W. Rockwell, Die Doppelehe des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen, Marburg, 1904; Cambridge Modern History, vol. iii. passim, London and New York, 1905; A. von Drach and G. Könnecke, Die Bildnisse Philipps des Grossmütigen, Marburg, 1905; Schaff, Christian Church, vol. vi. passim.

PHILIP THE MAGNANIMOUS. See Philip of Hesse.

PHILIP NERI, SAINT. See Neri, Philip.

PHILIP OF SIDE: Church historian; b. at Side (the modern Eski Adaliah; 92 m. sm. of Konieh, the ancient Iconium), Pamphylia; flourished about 420. He studied under Rhodon at the catechetical school in Alexandria, and while still a young man became the head of the branch school established by Rhodon, probably at Philip's suggestion, in Side about 405. Later he was a priest in Constantinople, where he was an intimate friend of Chrysostom; and he was a candidate for the patriarchate of Constantinople against Sisinnius (425), Nestorius (428), and Maximianus (431). He seems to have been identical with the Byzantine presbyter Philip, who was commended by Cyril of Alexandria for refusing to associate with the heretical Nestorius, and whom the Alexandrine patriarch sought to reconcile with Maximianus, when the latter succeeded the deposed heresiarch. It is also very possible that Philip may have spent some time in Antioch and Amida.

From the statements of Socrates (Hist. eccl., VII., xxvii.), Photius (Bibliotheca, xxxv.), and Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., xiv. 29) it is clear that Philip of Side was a man of extraordinary learning and diligence, but more diffuse than accurate. Among his numerous books, which dealt with many themes, the most important were his "History of Christianity" and his polemic against the Emperor Julian. Of his writings, however, only scant fragments have survived, these being merely of an average character. A number of his fragments have been edited by Carl de Boor (ZKG, vi. 478–494; TU, v. 165–184), and his history seems also to have influenced the "Religious Conference at the Sassanid Court" (ed. Eduard Bratke, in TU, xix., part 3, 1899). A few other fragments of Philip's writings are known to exist, and it is possible that he was also the author of the still unedited De tinctura æris Persici et de tinctura æris Indici.

(E. Bratke†.)

Bibliography: A. Wirth, Aus orientalischen Chroniken, pp. 208 sqq., Frankfort, 1894; O. Bardenhewer. Patrologie, pp. 332–333, Freiburg, 1901, Eng. transl., St. Louis, 1908; idem, in KL, ix. 2022–23; F. Kampers, Alexander der Grosse and die Idee des Weltimperiums in Prophetie and Sage, pp. 116–135, Freiburg, 1901; DCB, iv. 356; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, viii. 535.

PHILIP THE TETRARCH (4 B.C.–34 A.D.): Son of Herod the Great and of Cleopatra, a woman of Jerusalem. He was educated in Rome. For his tetrarchate and rule see Herod and his Family, II., § 3. He was a gentle and gracious prince, who always resided in his own territories and was ever ready to give aid and justice to his people. Philip's coins bear the representation of the emperor and the device of a temple, which is more probably the temple of Augustus at Cæsarea than the sanctuary at Jerusalem. His reign of thirty-seven years was almost contemporaneous with the life of Jesus, who sometimes traversed Philip's dominions. When the latter died in 33 or 34 A.D., his land became a part of the province of Syria and was administered as an imperial domain.

There is some difficulty in bringing Mark vi. 17 (Matt. xiv. 3) into agreement with Josephus, Ant., xviii. 137, where Philip is said to have married Salome, the daughter of his brother Herod Antipas and of his niece Herodias, while Mark makes Philip the first husband of Herodias herself, and states that she left him to marry Herod. Some interpreters suppose that two sons of Herod the Great bore the name of Philip, one of them being also called Herod; others again think that there must be some error either in Josephus or in Mark. It is probable that the latter confused two brothers, one of whom was the father and the other the husband of Salome.

E. von Dobschütz.

Bibliography: Consult the literature under Herod and his Family, and add to that S. Mathews, Hist. of New Testament Times in Palestine, New York, 1899.

PHILIPPI, fi-lip´-pi, FRIEDRICH ADOLPH: German Lutheran; b. at Berlin Oct. 15, 1809; d. at Rostock Aug. 29, 1882. Although a Jew by birth, he soon began to consider the problem of the truth of Christianity. He became a convert when he was sixteen years old, but out of respect to his parents he was not baptized until four years later. After completing his education at the universities of Berlin (1827–29) and Leipsic (1829–30), he taught at Dresden (1830–32) and Berlin (1833–34), but withdrew from active life to devote himself to the private study of theology, especially dogmatics and exegesis. In 1837 he became privat-docent for theology in the University of Berlin, whence he was called to Dorpat in 1841 as professor of dogmatics and moral theology. Here he took a lively interest in the ecclesiastical questions of the day, contributing much to strengthen the position of Lutheranism in Russian territory. In 1851 he was called to Rostock as professor of New-Testament exegesis, in which capacity he successfully opposed the theology of Johann Hofmann and Michael Baumgarten (qq.v.). In addition to his professorial duties, Philippi was appointed a theological examiner in 1856, and a consistorial councilor in 1874. Among his writings are: De Celsi adversarii Christianorum philosophandi genere (Berlin, 1836); Der thätige Gehorsam Christi, ein Beitrag zur Rechtfertigungslehre (1841); Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Römer (3 parts, Erlangen and Frankfort, 1848–52; Eng. transl. by J. S. Banks, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1878–79); Kirchliche Glaubenslehre (6 vols., Gütersloh, 1854–79); Predigten and Vorträge (edited by F. Philippi, 1883); Symbolik, akademische Vorlesungen (edited by the same, 1883); and Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Galater (edited by the same, 1884).

(Ferdinand Philippi.†)

PHILIPPI, JACOBUS: German Roman Catholic; author of the Reformatorium vitæ clericorum (Basel, 1494); b. at Külchhoffen or Kilchen (now Kirchhoffen, a hamlet near Freiburg) about 1435; d. apparently after 1510. In 1463 he matriculated in the theological faculty at Basel. Here he edited a gradual (Basel, 1488) and a breviary (1492), and also lectured on various books of the Bible, especially on the Pauline epistles. In 1464 he was a member of the committee of advisement on the university statutes. In scholastic philosophy he was a realist. Of his activity little is known; but it is evident that he was inclined toward the Brethren of the Common Life (see Common Life, Brethren of the), making his will in favor of their house at Zwolle in 1486. He was attracted to the community primarily by his brother Ludwig, who had become one of their number at Zwolle in 1472, and who died there as rector of the Brethren in 1490. The statement in Johann Butzbach's Auctarium de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis that Jacobus Philippi was still living after 1508 seems to be confirmed by a title-deed of 1510.

Among Philippi's writings Butzbach makes special mention of the Sermons ad populum (thus far undiscovered) and of the Præcordiale sacerdotum devote celebrare cupientium utile et consolatorium (Strasburg, 1489). His chief work, however, was his Reformatorium (first printed at Basel, 1494, not 1444, as a misprint led many to suppose), directed against evils in the life of the clergy. As a remedy Philippi recommended the community of the Brethren of the Common Life. The close of the book admonishes against the misuse of benefices accumulated in the hands of a single holder. In all his reform measures Philippi shows himself in harmony with many of his contemporaries.

L. Schulze.

Bibliography: Biographical material is to be found in the Reformatorium; scattered notices are collected by L. Schulze in ZKW, 1886, pp. 88 sqq., and by Schöngen in the "Chronicle" of Jacobus Trajecti published by the Historical Society of Utrecht, 1903. Consult further: J. Hürbin, Peter von Andlau, Strasburg, 1897; idem, Handbuch der schweizerischen Geschichte, ii. 87 sqq., Stans, 1902.

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. See Paul the Apostle, II.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

Geographical Description.

The most northern group of the Malay Archipelago, situated between the Pacific Ocean on the east and the Sea of China on tile west and south of Japan and north of the islands of Borneo and Celebes, and included between latitude 4° 40' and 21° 10' north and longitude 116° 40' and 126° 34' east. The archipelago consists of 3,141 islands, most of which are very small; the total land area is 115,026 square miles; population, 7,635,426. The principal islands are as follows: Luzon (area, 40,969 square miles; population, 3,798,507), Mindanao (area, 36,292; population, 499,634), Samar (area, 5,031; population, 222,690), Negros (area, 4,881; population, 460,776), Panay (area, 4,611; population, 743,646), Palawan (area, 4,027; population, 10,918), Mindoro (area, 3,851; population, 28,361), Leyte (area, 2,722; population, 357,641); and Cebu (area, 1,762; population, 592,247).

Historical and Political.

The islands were discovered by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521; were conquered by the Spanish from Mexico under Legaspi; and were subject to the crown of Spain, until, by the treaty of Paris, Dec. 10, 1898, they were ceded to the United States by right of conquest and for the additional consideration of $20,000,000. Upon taking possession the United States proceeded to reorganize the civil and judicial administration of the islands. Religious liberty was guaranteed by the treaty of Paris. The general government is modeled after that of the United States. The executive is composed of the governor-general who is the head of a commission of eight members appointed by the president of the United States and assigned as heads of the different departments. The commission serves as the upper house of legislation and the lower is elected by the people. The Supreme Court, composed of four American and three native judges, is also appointed by the American president. A limited franchise is granted to the natives outside of the Mohammedan islands. The population known as the Filipinos is not homogeneous, but consists of numerous tribes speaking many languages. The aborigines were the Negritos, who now number only 23,500; they are black, dwarfish, woolly-haired, thick-lipped, and dwell in the remote parts of the islands. The Malay or brown races constitute nine-tenths of the population, of which the principal are the Tagalogs, Visayans, Ilocanos, Moros, Bicals, and Igorrotes. There are small elements of negroes brought by the Spanish from Africa and Papua; of Indians brought from Mexico, Mongoloids, and whites. Immediately after the establishment of American sovereignty, a system of free public schools was established. In 1905–06 the average attendance per month was 375,554 out of a total of 1,200,000 between the ages of six and fifteen. In the latter year there were 3,340 schools (primary, intermediate, and high), 4,719 native, and 831 American teachers. The Roman Catholics in 1903 maintained 1,004 private schools with an enrolment of 63,545, and 325 religious schools with an enrolment of 26,478.

Religious History; Roman Catholics.

When the Spanish took possession their design was the establishment of a politico-religious sovereignty. The picturesque ceremonials of the Roman Catholic Church appealed to the natives, whose adherence to their own religious beliefs was weak while they were disunited by their diversities and rivalries. Great numbers of missionary friars of the Augustinian, Franciscan, Dominican, and Recollet orders came to the islands, to each of whom a charge was assigned. They labored with great success, the entire body of people yielding rapidly to conversion. At present only eight and one-half per cent of the inhabitants are classed as wild, while all the others are termed civilized. This was the result mainly of the devotion of the friars to parochial instruction and to the spiritual and physical welfare of the natives. The Jesuits likewise participated in the work; but, becoming the richest and most powerful order, they aroused the jealousy of the others and were recalled in 1767. In 1850 they were given permission to return. The bishopric erected in 1581 was made suffragan to Mexico, and in 1595 it was raised to metropolitan rank with three suffragan bishoprics; to which a fourth was added in 1867, which was, however, merged in one of the others in 1874. With these at the head of the Church stood the provincials of the four great orders named above. The members of these orders or regular clergy greatly preponderated in numbers and influence over the secular clergy composed mostly of natives. The domestic history of the archipelago, naturally secluded, was parochial; consisting of missionary extension and political and industrial progress subject to the religious interest and the will of the friars, with an occasional conflict between the archbishop and the latter. Finally, the leaven of western forces finding various access bore fruit, and the insurrections of 1896 and 1898 constituted an upheaval for the overthrow of the land-holding friars and the political and economic stagnation resulting from their long undisputed occupation. One of the demands of the revolutionists was their expulsion. With the insurrection of 1896 a priest, Aglipay by name, placed himself at the head of a seeding religious or antipapal party, entitled Independent Catholic Church. After negotiations between the United States' government and Pope Leo XIII. in 1907 it was agreed that the United States pay $7,000,000 for the friar lands and that the Church send no friar as priest into any parish after a final objection by the governor-general. The majority of the people are Roman Catholics of whom there are 3,940,000, besides 3,000,000 Independent Catholics. Every village as established by the Spanish had its central church. Most of these buildings were of stone and many were elaborate structures. In 1903 there were 1,608 churches of which 1,573 were Roman Catholic, and in the city of Manila alone there were 51. The Moros of the Sulu Archipelago, southern Mindanao, and Palawan in the southwest, who were the least affected by the Spanish occupation, about 270,000, are Mohammedan. Buddhists of Asiatic derivation number 75,000 and Animists 260,000.

Protestant Missions.

Immediately after the Spanish cession, various Protestant churches in the United States took steps to enter the field by adopting in conference a plan of cooperation and union having in view the erection of "La Iglesia Evangelica Filipina," as the national church of the Filipinos. The Presbyterian Church established a permanent mission in 1899; the Methodist Episcopal, the same year; the Baptist in 1900; the Protestant Episcopal and Christian (Disciples) in 1901; the United Brethren in 1902; and the Congregational in 1903. In Apr., 1901, a federation of missions and churches was formed in Manila called "The Evangelical Union of the Philippine Islands." The field was to be mutually divided with Manila as the common center. The Presbyterian Board opened stations on Luzon, at Laguna and Albay, in 1903, and at Tayabas in 1906; at Iloilo, Panay, in 1900; at Dumaguete, Negros, in 1901; and in Cebu in 1902. The Ellinwood School at Manila became a theological seminary in 1907, conducted jointly by the Methodist Episcopal bishop and the presbytery. In 1901 the Silliman Industrial Institute was established at Dumaguete. In 1908, 63 outstations were opened and the 20 churches had 4,127 members. In 1900 the Methodist Episcopal Church assumed the occupation of northern Luzon divided into three districts, which became a district conference in 1904. In 1908 there were 108 churches in the seven outstations with 25,000 communicants and 35,000 adherents. The American Baptist Missionary Union occupied the Visayan islands of Panay and Negros in the south in 1900, with Iloilo as a center. The work has been extended into Cebu. By 1908 there were 25 churches with 2,838 members. The Brotherhood of St. Andrew sent out two clergymen and two laymen in 1899, who established the Mission of the Holy Trinity. In 1901 Bishop Brent arrived and the islands became a mission district of the Protestant Episcopal Church. A cathedral and settlement-house have been established at Manila for the English-speaking people, and stations scattered among the natives. The Foreign Christian Missionary Society (Disciples), with stations at Manila, Laoag, Vigan, and Aparri, laying much stress on evangelistic work, have 29 churches and 2,505 members. The American Board planted a mission on Mindanao in 1901 and has a station at Davao and an outstation at Santa Cruz; and in 1908 the Mindanao Missions Medical Association was formed (in New York. The missions of the various denominations generally combine the industrial, medical, educational, and evangelizing features. There are (1908) 7 societies with 212 stations and outstations, 126 missionaries, 492 native helpers, 18 schools with 519 pupils, 8 hospitals, 194 churches with 35,000 communicants and 45,000 adherents, exclusive of Protestant Episcopalians.

Theodora Crosby Bliss

Bibliography: For lists of literature consult: A. P. C. Griffin, Library of Congress, List of Works Relating to . . . Philippine Islands, Washington, 1905; J. A. Robertson, Bibliography of the Philippine Islands, Cleveland, 1908; and Richardson, Encyclopaedia, p. 851. Works on geography and description are: J. Montero, El Archipiélago Filipino, Madrid, 1886; J. Foreman, The Philippine Islands, London. 1899; R. Reyes Lala, The Philippine Islands, New York, 1899; S. MacClintock, The Philippines, New York, 1903; H. C. Stunts, The Philippines and the Far East, Cincinnati, 1904; F. W. Atkinson, The Philippine Islands, Boston, 1905; J. A. Le Roy, Philippine Life in Town and Country, New York, 1905; D. C. Worcester, Philippine Islands and their People, New York, 1907. For ethnology consult: D. G. Brinton, Peoples of the Philippines, Washington, 1898; A. B. Meyer, The Distribution of the Negritos in the Philippine Islands, Dresden, 1899; F. Blumenthal, Die Philippinen. Eine Darstellung der ethnographischen Verhältnis des Archipels, Hamburg, 1900; F. H. Sawyer, The Inhabitants of the Philippines, London, 1900; G. A. Koeze, Bijdrage tot de Anthropolopie der Philippijnen, Haarlem, 1901–04; D. Folkmar, Album of Philippine Types, Manila, 1904; Ethnological Survey Publications, Manila, 1905 sqq. On the history consult: M. Halstead, Story of the Philippines, New York, 1898; A. K. Fiske, Story of the Philippines, New York, 1899; J. Foreman, Philippine Islands, New York, 1899; A. March, Hist. of the Philippines, New York, 1899; E. H. Blair and J. A. Robertson, The Philippine Islands, 1493–1803, Cleveland, 1903; idem The Philippine Islands, 1493–1898, 55 vols., ib. 1903–08 (giving text and translation of innumerable documents—a monumental work); A. J. Brown, The New Era in the Philippines, New York, 1903; A. de Morga, Hist. of the Philippine Islands, 2 vols., Cleveland, 1907; D. B. Barrows, History of Philippines, New York, 1908. For the religious side consult: A. Coleman, The Friars in the Philippines, Boston, 1899; J. T. Medina, El Tribunal de la Inquisiciòn en las Islas Filipinas, Santiago, 1899; F. Colin, Labor Evangelica, Ministeros de los Obreros de la Compañía de Jesus . . . en las Islas Filipinas, 3 vols., Barcelona, 1900–1902; E. Zamora, Las Corporaciones religiosas en Filipinas, Valladolid, 1901. For accounts of evangelical missionary work consult: H. O. Dwight, The Blue Book of Missions, pp. 68–69, New York, 1907; and the annual reports of the missionary societies at work there.

PHILIPPISTS.

1. Before Luther's Death.

Philippists was the designation usually applied in the latter half of the sixteenth century to the followers of Philipp Melanchthon (q.v.). It probably originated among the opposite or Flacian party (see Flacius, Matthias), and was applied at first to the theologians of the universities of Wittenberg and Leipsic, who were all adherents of Melanchthon's distinctive views, especially those in which he approximated to Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of free will and the value of good works, and to the Swiss Reformers' on the Lord's Supper. Somewhat later it was used in Saxony to designate a distinct party organized by Melanchthon's son-in-law Caspar Peucer (q.v.), with George Cracovius, Johann Stössel (q.v.), and others, to work for a union of all the Protestant forces, as a means to which end they attempted to break down by this attitude the barriers which separated Lutherans and Calvinists. Melanchthon had won, by his eminent abilities as a teacher and his clear, scholastic formulation of doctrine, a large number of disciples among whom were included some of the most zealous Lutherans, such as Matthias Flacius and Tileman Hesshusen (qq.v.), afterward to be numbered among the vehement opponents of Philippism; both of whom formally and materially received the forms of doctrine shaped by Melanchthon. As long as Luther lived, the conflict with external foes and the work of building up the Evangelical Church so absorbed the Reformers that the internal differences which had already begun to show themselves were kept in the background.

2. Opposition to Melanchthon.

But Luther was no sooner dead than the internal as well as the external peace of the Lutheran Church declined. It was a misfortune not only for Melanchthon, but for the whole body that he, who had formerly stood as a teacher by the side Luther, the real leader, was now forced suddenly into the position of head not only of the University of Wittenberg but of the entire Evangelical Church of Germany. There was among certain of Luther's associates, notably Nikolaus von Amsdorf (q.v.), a disinclination to accept his leadership. When in the negotiations set on foot with reference to the Augsburg Interim (see Interim) by the Elector Maurice in 1548 he showed himself increasingly ready to yield and make concessions, he ruined his position with a large part of the Evangelical theologians for all time; and an opposition party was formed, in which the leadership was at once assumed by Flacius in view of his learning, controversial ability, and inflexible firmness. Melanchthon, on the other hand, with his faithful followers (Camerarius, Major, Menius, Pfeffinger, Eber, Cruciger, Strigel [qq.v.]), and others saw in the self-styled genuine Lutherans naught but a narrow and contentious class, which, ignoring the inherent teaching of Luther, sought to domineer over the church by letter and name, and in addition to assert its own ambitious self. On the other hand, the Philippists regarded themselves as the faithful guardians of learning over against the alleged "barbarism," and as the mean between the extremes. The genuine Lutherans also claimed to be representatives of the pure doctrine, defenders of orthodoxy, and heirs of the spirit of Luther. Personal, political, and ecclesiastical animosities widened the breach; such as the rivalry between the Ernestine branch of the Saxon house (now extruded from the electoral dignity) and the Albertine branch; the jealousy between the new Ernestine University of Jena and the electoral universities of Wittenberg and Leipsic, in both of which the Philippists had the majority; and the bitter personal antagonism felt at Wittenberg for Flacius, who assailed his former teachers harshly and made all reconciliation impossible.

3. Open Conflict

The actual conflict began with the controversy over the Interim and the question of Adiaphora (see Adiaphora and the Adiaphoristic Controversy) in 1548 and the following years. In the negotiations concerning the Leipsic Interim the Wittenberg theologians as well as Johann Pfeffinger and the intimate of Melanchthon, George of Anhalt (q.v.), were on the side of Melanchthon, and thus drew upon themselves the violent opposition of the strict Lutherans, under the leadership of Flacius, who now severed his connection with Wittenberg. When the Philippist Georg Major (q.v.) at Wittenberg and Justus Menius (q.v.) at Gotha put forth the proposition that good works were necessary to salvation, or as Menius preferred to say "the new obedience, the new life, is necessary to salvation," they were not only conscious of the danger that the doctrine of justification by faith alone would lead to antinomianism and moral laxity but they manifested a tendency to bring into account the necessary connection of justification and regeneration: namely, that justification as possession of forgiving grace by faith is indeed not conditioned by obedience; but also that the new life is presupposed by obedience and works springing out of the same justification. But neither Major nor Menius was sufficiently firm in his view to stand against the charge of denying the doctrine of justification and going over to the Roman camp, and thus they were driven back to the general proposition of justification by faith alone. The Formula of Concord (q.v.) closed the controversy by avoiding both extremes, but failed to offer a final solution of the question demanded by the original motive of the controversy. The synergistic controversy (see Synergism), breaking out about the same time, also sprang out of the ethical interest which had induced Melanchthon to enunciate the doctrine of free will in opposition to his previous predestinarianism. After the clash in 1555 between Pfeffinger (who in his Propositiones de libero arbitrio had held closely to the formula of Melanchthon) and Amsdorf and Flacius, Strigel went deeper into the matter in 1559 and insisted that grace worked upon sinful men as upon personalities, not natural objects without a will; and that in the position that there was a spontaneous cooperation of human powers released by grace there was an actual lapse into the Roman Catholic view. The suspicions now entertained against Melanchthon and his school were quickened by the renewed outbreak of the sacramentarian controversy in 1552. Joachim Westphal (q.v.) accused Melanchthon of agreement with Calvin, and from this time the Philippists rested under the suspicion of Crypto-Calvinism. The more the German Lutherans entertained a dread of the invasion of Calvinism, the more they mistrusted every announcement of a formula of the Lord's Supper after the form of Luther's doctrine yet obscure. The controversy on this subject, in which Melanchthon's friend Hardenberg of Bremen (see Hardenberg, Albert Rizaeus) was involved with Timann (q.v.) and then with Hesshusen, leading to his deposition in 1561, elevated the doctrine of ubiquity to an essential of Lutheran teaching. The Wittenberg pronouncement on the subject prudently confined itself to Biblical expressions and forewarned itself against unnecessary disputations, which only strengthened the suspicion of unavowed sympathy with Calvin.

4. Lutheran Strictures.

The strict Lutherans sought to strike a decisive blow at Philippism. This was apparent at the Weimar meeting of 1556 and in the negotiations of Coswig and Magdeburg in this and the following years, which showed a tendency to work not so much for the reconciliation of the contending parties as for a personal humiliation of Melanchthon. He, although deeply wounded, showed great restraint in his public utterances; but his followers in Leipsic and Wittenberg paid their opponents back in their own coin. The heat of partizan feeling was displayed at the Conference of Worms in 1557, where the Flacian party did not hesitate, even in the presence of Roman Catholics, to show their enmity for Melanchthon and his followers. After several well-meant attempts at pacification on the part of the Lutheran princes, the most passionate outbreak occurred in the last year of Melanchthon's life, 1559, in connection with the "Weimar Confutation" published by Duke John Frederick, in which together with the errors of Servetus, Schwenckfeld, the Antinomians, Zwingli, and others, the principal special doctrines of the Philippists (Synergism (q.v.], Majorism, see Majoristic Controversy, adiaphorism) were denounced as dangerous errors and corruptions. It led, however, to discord among the Jena theologians themselves, since Strigel defended against Flacius Melanchthon's doctrine on sin and grace, and drew upon himself very rough treatment from the impetuous duke. But the ultimate outcome was the decline of the University of Jena, the deposition of the strict Lutheran professors and the replacing of them by Philippists. It seemed for the time that the Thuringian opposition to the Philippism of Electoral Saxony was broken; but with the downfall of John Frederick and the accession of his brother John William to power, the tables were turned; the Philippists at Jena were again. displaced (1568–69) by the strict Lutherans, Johann Wigand (q.v.), Cölestin, Kirchner, and Hesshusen, and the Jena opposition to Wittenberg was once more organized, finding voice in the Bekenntnis von der Rechtfertigung und guten Werken of 1569. The Elector August was now very anxious to restore peace in the Saxon territories, and John William agreed to call a conference at Altenburg (Oct. 21, 1568), in which the principal representatives of Philippism were Paul Eber and Caspar Cruciger the younger, and of the other side Wigand, Cölestin, and Kirchner. It led to no result, although it continued until the following March. The Philippists asserted the Augsburg Confession of 1540, the loci of Melanchthon of the later editions, and of the Corpus Philippicum, met by the challenge from the other side that these were an attack upon the pure teaching and authority of Luther. Both sides claimed the victory, and the Leipsic and Wittenberg Philippists issued a justification of their position in the Endlicher Bericht of 1571, with which is connected the protest of the Hessian theologians in conference at Ziegenhain in 1570 against Flacian Lutheranism and in favor of Philippism.

5. Downfall of the Philippists.

Pure Lutheranism was now fortified in a number of local churches by Corpora doctrinæ of a strict nature, and the work for concord went on more and more definitely along the lines of eliminating Melanchthonism. The Philippists, fully alarmed, attempted not only Philippists. to consolidate in Electoral Saxony but to gain ascendency over the entire German Evangelical Church, but met their downfall first in Electoral Saxony. The conclusion of the Altenburg Colloquy prompted the elector, in Aug., 1569, to issue orders that all the ministers in his domains should hold to the Corpus doctrinæ Philippicum, intending thus to avoid Flacian exaggerations and guard the pure original doctrine of Luther and Melanchthon in the days of their union. But the Wittenberg men interpreted it as an approval of their Philippism, especially in regard to the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ. They pacified the elector, who had become uneasy, by the Consensus Dresdensis of 1571, a cleverly worded document; and when on the death of John William, in 1574, August assumed the regency in Ernestine Saxony and began to drive out not only strict Lutheran zealots like Hesshusen and Wigand, but all who refused their subscription to the Consensus, the Philippists thought they were on the way to a victory which should give them all Germany. But the unquestionably Calvinistic work of Joachim Cureus (q.v.), Exegesis perspicua de sacra cœna (1574), and a confidential letter of Johann Stössel (q.v.) which fell into the elector's hands opened his eyes. The heads of the Philippist party were imprisoned and roughly handled, and the Torgau Confession of 1574 completed their downfall. By the adoption of the Formula of Concord their cause was ruined in all the territories which accepted it, although in some others it survived under the aspect of a modified Lutheranism, as in Nuremberg, or, as in Nassau, Hesse, Anhalt, and Bremen, where it became more or less definitely identified with Calvinism. It raised its head once more in Electoral Saxony in 1586, on the accession of Christian I., but on his death five years later it came to a sudden and bloody end with the murder of Nicolaus Krell (q.v.) as a victim to this unpopular revival of Calvinism.

6. Estimate of Philippism.

Though it may be regretted that the moderate, pacific, and enlightened spirit of Melanchthon himself was not allowed to have more influence in the Lutheran Church and that his estimable points of departure from Luther remained unrecognized, yet it can not be denied that Philippism was only something halfway, while it claimed to guard the genuine religious ideas and motives of the Reformation better than the doctrine of the Formula of Concord. Nor must the fact be overlooked that where, after the promulgation of the Formula, Philippism still maintained its ground, it produced no results in the domain of theology which can be compared for a moment with those which proceeded from the stricter school. The latter won its victory to a great extent because it gave birth to the greater number of popularly effective writings and powerful literary personalities. Melanchthon's spirit, however, yet remained operative in the seventeenth century, even though at the end of the sixteenth his influence was greatly superseded by that of orthodox Lutherans. The movement initiated by Georg Calixtus (q.v.) shows not only considerable affinity with its tendency, but has a direct historical connection with it through his Helmstedt teachers, especially Johann Caselius (q.v.), who was a personal disciple of Melanchthon.

(G. Kawerau.)

Bibliography: Perhaps the best method of mastering the subject treated in the foregoing article is a study of the men mentioned in the text as active by means of the articles in this work and of the literature appended to those articles. Especially valuable are the letters of Melanchthon and the accounts of his life and activities. Much of the literature under Formula of Concord is valuable. The works on the history of the Church and of the doctrine of the period are also to be consulted. Besides the foregoing consult: V. E. Löscher, Historia motuum zwischen den Evangelisch-Lutherischen und Reformirten, Frankfort, 1723; G. J. Planck, Geschichte der Entstehung und der Veränderung . . . unsers protestantischen Lehrbegriffs, vols. iv.–vi., 6 vols., Leipsic, 1791–1800; H. Heppe, Geschichte des deutschen Protestantismus 1555–81, 4 vols., Marburg, 1852–59; idem, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im 16. Jahrhundert, 3 vols., Gotha, 1857; A. Beck, Johann Friedrich der Mittlere, 2 vols., Weimar, 1858; E. L. T. Henke, Neuere Kirchengeschichte, ii. 274 sqq., Halle, 1878; G. Wolf, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Protestanten 1555–59, Berlin, 1888; H. E. Jacobs, The Book of Concord, vol. ii., Philadelphia, 1893; W. Möller, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte ed. G. Kawerau, 3d ed., vol. iii., Tübingen, 1907; Schaff, Creeds, i. 258–340.

PHILIPPUS SOLITARIUS: Greek monk of the late eleventh century. In 1095 he completed, apparently at Constantinople, his mystic and devotional "Mirror," a dialogue in political verse which represents Body and Soul as setting forth their mutual relations as factors of human nature, and as making preparation for death. The Greek text is still unedited, except for scanty fragments (ed. P. Lambecius, Commentarii de bibliotheca Cæsarea Vindobonensi, v. 76–84, Vienna, 1778; C. Oudin, Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiæ antiquis, ii. 851, Frankfort, 1722; J. B. Cotelerius, on Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 42, in his Sanctorum Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera, 2 vols., Paris, 1672), but was translated into Latin prose by the Jesuit Jacobus Pontanus (Ingolstadt, 1604; most convenient reprint in MPG, cxxvii. 701–902). Closely akin to the "Mirror" is the short poem "Lamentations" (ed. E. Auvray, Paris, 1875; E. S. Shuckburgh, in Emmanuel College Magazine, vol. v.), which may in reality be the eighth book of the "Mirror," which was omitted by Pontanus. A new redaction of both poems was prepared by Phialites in the twelfth century, and the Vienna manuscripts of the "Mirror" contain noteworthy additions, especially on the dogmas and rites of the Armenians, Jacobites, and Romans (the two former portions ed. F. Combefis, Auctuarium novum bibliothecæ Græco-Latinorum patrum, ii. 261, 271, Paris, 1648.

(Philipp Meyer.)

Bibliography: Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 742–744; P. Lambecius, Commentarium de . . . bibliotheca Cæsarea Vindebonensi, v. 78–84, Vienna, 1778; KL, ix. 2023.

PHILIPS, OBBE. See Mennonites, VI.

PHILISTINES, fi-lis´tinz or tainz.

1. Name and Territory.

In the Hebrew the Philistines are known as Pelishtim or Pelishtiyyim, and their country as Pelesheth. In the Greek they appear as Phulistieim or Philistieim, Phulistiaioi, and sometimes as allophuloi, "foreigners"; and in the Vulgate as Philisthiim, Philistini, and Palæstini, the last recalling the usage of Josephus (see Palestine, I., § 1). The expression allophuloi dates from about the period of the beginning of the Septuagint, has reference to a distinction based on national and religious grounds, and designates all not Jews who are of oriental origin and dwell in Palestine, and particularly the Philistines. The territory occupied by the Philistines was the southern part of the coast of Palestine. Taking Joppa (the modern Jaffa) as the most northern and Raphia as the most southern Philistine city, the length of the territory was rather less than sixty miles, with a width varying between twelve and thirty-five-miles. The eastern boundary was the hill country of Judea, and the whole territory was included within what was known as the Shephelah. The significance of the district lay in the coast cities, not so much because of their sea trade as of their importance for overland traffic, as they were situated on one of the principal trade routes between Egypt and Babylon. Their location bought them into relation with the two centers of early culture and yet secured for them a relative independence, removed from both as they were either by a great distance or by the desert. The coast is almost without natural harbors, the hinterland possessed a few small plains, and toward the south the country gradually becomes transformed into pastureland.

2. Origin

The first reports of this district come from Egyptian inscriptions and from the Amarna Tablets (q.v.). Thothmes III. (c. 1500 B.C.) reckoned the district to the land of Haru. The Amarna Tablets mention Gaza, Ashkelon, and Joppa. Especially instructive is the portrayal at Karnak of the conquest of Ashkelon by Rameses II. (c. 1280), in which the defenders of the fortress are shown as distinct from the Philistines both in dress and countenance and as identical with Canaanites, proving that the inhabitants at that time were of the same race as those of Upper Palestine and that a foreign people had not yet intruded. This fact is confirmed by the names which come from this period, which are of Semitic-Canaanitic type. Deut. ii. 23 affirms that the Avvim dwelt here until the Caphtorim entered and destroyed them; Josh. xiii. 3, cf. xi. 22, implies that the Avvim and the Philistines lived along side each other. The culture of the region was like that of other parts of Palestine, except that Egyptian influence was felt more strongly. The Old Testament (cf. Amos ix. 7) thus agrees with other information that the Philistines were intruders, and Jer. xlvii. 4is in accord with other passages in deriving them from Caphtor (q.v.), the identification of which is not yet settled. A connection of the Philistines with the Cherethites of I Sam. xxx. 14–15 and with the Carim, "captains," of II Kings xi. 4, 19 (cf. the gloss on Gen. x. 14), supposed to be from Caria in Asia Minor, has been attempted, but the combination is uncertain, even in view of I Kings i. 38, where Cherethites and Pelethites (or Philistines) are mentioned as part of the royal guard, and no certain datum is gained for determining the place of origin of the Philistines. The Egyptian monuments of the period of Rameses III. (1208–1180 B.C.) speak of unrest in northern and central Syria caused by a foreign and hitherto unnamed people, whose names are read Purasati, Zakkari, Shakrusha, Dano or Danona, Washasha, and Shardana. Of these the Purasati are always named first, and, it is assumed, were the leaders. The fact that these peoples marched with a great amount of baggage and with wives and children is taken by E. Meyer as proving that it was the migration of a people which pushed on to the borders of Egypt. W. M. Müller argues from the application to them of the name equivalent to "heroes" that they were predatory bands of soldiers plundering alike friend and foe. Rameses III. speaks of a land battle with them and also of a sea fight. The Golenisheff papyrus relates that the Egyptian Uno-Amon journeyed in a ship to Dor in Palestine for timber during the fifth year of Herihor, the last king of the twentieth Egyptian dynasty, and that the city then belonged to the Zakkari, whose chief was named Bidir. It is noteworthy that this people's name occurs both in the time of Rameses and of Herihor, in the for mer in connection with the Purasati, and that with Rameses the Egyptian hegemony of southern Syria begins to vanish; it is further probable that since the Zakkari made sure their footing, their associates the Purasati also did. With the Purasati the Egyptologist Champollion connected the Philistines before 1832, and this identification has approved itself to later scholars. W. M. Müller supposed the pronunciation to have been Pulsesti, cf. the Assyrian Palastu, Pilistu. This scholar has located their home on the southern coast of Asia Minor and in the islands of the Ægean Sea. A sea people was known to the Egyptians as Ruku or Luku (Lycians). An attempt to derive the name from a Semitic root meaning "to wander" does not approve itself, since it is practically certain that the Philistines were not of Semitic stock, and the Egyptians gave to the peoples of Syria their own names, describe the Philistines and their associates as coming from "the end of the sea," and portray them as differing in feature and dress from Semites. It is not unlikely that between the Philistines and their associates and the "early Cretans" of Odyssey xix. 176 a relationship existed, but definite proof is lacking.

3. Not Semitic.

Proof from the language of the Philistines is lacking, since practically nothing is known of it, and the occurrence of persons and places in the Old Testament and Assyrian inscriptions helps little, since the Philistines naturally adopted the language of the country after their settlement therein. The Semitic names of places, upon which F. Schwally bases his argument that the Philistines were Semites proves nothing, since these names often remain unaltered in the East through successive waves of population. The Achish of I Sam. xxvii.–xxviii. has been placed alongside the Ikausu of the Assyrian Inscriptions (cf. Schrader, KAT, 3d ed., p. 473), a form "Ekasho of the land of Kefti" found in an Egyptian source, which seems to make a non-Semitic origin of this name clear. The Old Testament calls in several places (Josh. xiii. 3; Judges iii. 3; I Sam. vi. 4, 16) the rulers of the Philistines seranim, "lords," a word which does not yield readily to a Hebrew (Semitic) etymology, and Klostermann (on I Sam. v. 8) has equated it with the Gk. tyrannos. The deities of the Philistines appear to be Semitic—cf. Dagon, Ashtaroth, and Beelzebub (qq.v.). This people had images in their temples and took them when they went to war as did the Hebrews the ark (II Sam. v. 21); Isa. ii. 6 shows that their soothsayers were held in honor. Those who visited the temple of Dagon avoided stepping on the threshold (I Sam. v. 5; cf. Zeph. i. 9). But these observances are in accordance with Semitic custom. The general impression, however, received from a view of the facts is that the Philistines were not of Semitic stock, and were intruders into the land where they adopted Semitic customs and language. [The name of Goliath, with its Aramaic ending—ath, does not contradict the theory of the non-Semitic origin of the Philistines, since he is described as belonging to the Giants (q.v.; cf. II Sam. xxi. 15–19; 1 Chron. xx. 4–8 accord with Josh. x. 22, who are recorded as descended from the Avvim or Anakim. Descendants of the old stock would be reckoned by outlanders to the dominant people, even though their descent was not forgotten. G. W. G.]

This is confirmed by the further fact that they did not practise circumcision (Judges xiv. 3, xv. 18; I Sam. xvii. 26, xviii. 25), with which should be put the fact that the "sea folk" of Merneptah were uncircumcised (W. M. Müller, Asien und Europa, pp. 357–358, Leipsic, 1893), and with these the Purasati of Rameses were connected. For the time when they entered Palestine the Golenisheff papyrus (ut sup.) gives a suggestion, since the date of Herihor is about 1100. The Bidir of Dor had received an Egyptian embassy sixteen years earlier, and the Egyptians had bought timber of his father and grandfather. Hence the Zakkari had been settled in the region some fifty or sixty years before the time of the papyrus, and this goes back approximately to the time of Rameses III. (ut sup.). This comes into close connection with the unrest caused by the dissolution of the Hittite realm in northern Syria. By 1100 the Philistines had at least partly subjected the Hebrews, and it would appear that shortly after they had firmly seated themselves in the lowlands of Judea they attacked the mountain region. Their success was won probably not through greater numbers but by means of better weapons and cleverer tactics. The Egyptian monuments show that they were equipped with felt helmets, coats of mail, large round shields, short spears, large swords, and war chariots. If they came from Asia Minor, they must have possessed the Mycenean culture and were by no means "barbarians."

4. Early History.

When the Philistines came into touch with Israel, their territory was divided into five districts, the chiefs of which were called seranim, "lords." The capitals of these districts, named from north to south, were Ekron, Ashdod, Gath, Ashkelon, and Gaza. This fivefold division may correspond to tribal divisions. The Old Testament names the Cherethites as occupying the northwestern part of the Negeb, and these with the Zakkari may make up two outside groups of the same stock. Since Achish is called "king" in I Sam. xxi. 10 and elsewhere, he may have been the head of the Philistine confederation; an alternative supposition is that the Hebrew writer used the ordinary terminology. Inasmuch as during the reign of Rameses III. the Egyptian boundaries reached to Lebanon, while Dor was apparently in the possession of the Zakkari, it seems probable that their advance along the great highway of commerce by way of Carmel took place after the Egyptian power suffered a decline. It appears strange that the region about Dor and the Plain of Sharon was not reckoned in with the five districts of the Philistines, for when the battle of Gilboa was fought, these regions must have been in their power. The southernmost limits of their territory had been attained when they reduced Israel. The mention of the Philistines which appears in such passages as Gen. xxvi., cf. xxi. 22–23, are anachronisms, since the Egyptian monuments do not indicate settlement in what became their territory before the twentieth dynasty. The migration of the Danites (Judges xviii.) may have been due to the Philistines. In the long contest between the Philistines and Israel, the former appear as the aggressors, with the purpose of conquering the highland, the middle portion of which came into their power according to I Sam. v.–vi. The lower portion is shown by the story of Samson to have been already under their control (Judges xiii–xvi., cf. iii. 31). The fear of this people was so great among the Hebrews that many of the latter entered their ranks against their own kin (I Sam. xiv. 21). While Saul began the period of successful resistance, his reign was rather one of little contests with them than a serious campaign for freedom. At this time David (q.v.) became a beloved leader of his people (I Sam. xviii. 7) against the common foe. When Saul turned against David, the latter took refuge with Achish of Gath, who gave, him Ziklag as his residence. The last battle between Saul and the Philistines took place at the foot of Mount Gilboa, where Saul and his sons fell, and the earlier hegemony of the Philistines was reestablished. Ishbosheth established his capital at Mahanaim, and David became king over Judah in Hebron (II Sam. ii.–iv.). When the latter became king over all Israel, the Philistines regarded the act as one of revolt and sought to maintain their mastery. David knew, however, the advantage which was his in the possession of the highlands, and in numerous great and small conflicts (II Sam. v. 17–25, xxi. 15–22, xxiii. 9–17) not only secured the freedom of his people but reduced the Philistines to a position of subjection, at least in part, though their position on the highway enabled them still to profit by overland commerce. Gittites (from Gath) were in David's army (II Sam. xv. 18), as well as the Cherethites and Pelethites, who were probably of Philistine blood. The theory of W. M. Müller that the victory of David was due to the Philistines having at the same time to resist an attack by the Egyptians has little to sustain it; David's success was partly due to the advantage of position. In Solomon's time Egypt sought to reestablish her hegemony over the region (I Kings ix. 16), and to this may be due the fact that Dor was independent of Israel. But the result was such a weakening of the Philistines that the Plain of Jezreel and Carmel, the key to the trade route, fell into Solomon's hands and with it command of commerce. When Shishak made his raid, the Philistines seem to have given him no trouble, since no mention is made of capture of plunder with reference to them. The territory of the Philistines, as it is reflected in the Old Testament, seems to picture the situation as it was after Solomon's time.

5. Later History.

From that time there appears little which indicates an independent development of the Philistines. The conflicts between them and Israel have little significance. Rehoboam fortified his dominion against them by a line of strongholds (II Chron. xi. 7–12). Nadab and Elah fought with them at Gibbethon (I Kings xv. 27, xvi. 15 sqq.); Jehoshaphat received tribute from them (II Chron. xvii. 11), but the harem of Jehoram was carried off by them (II Chron. xxi. 16–17). Gath seems to have been taken from Judah by Hazael (II Kings xii. 17), while Uzziah carried on a victorious campaign against them (II Chron. xxvi. 6), though against ahab the philistines became aggressive II Chron. xxviii. 18), but were subjected under Hezekiah (II Kings xviii. 8). This people were included in the denunciations of the prophets (Amos i. 6–8; Jer. xxv. 15 sqq.; Ezek. xxv. 15, and elsewhere). They were subdued by the Assyrians, and in that period Gaza had especial importance because of the trade route to Arabia; and the region figures in the Assyrian annals with frequency. Sargon deported the inhabitants of Ashdod and Gath and settled foreigners in their place (711 B.C.). Zidka of Ashkelon and Hezekiah united against the Assyrians in 701, dethroned the Assyrian vassal king of Ekron, but the prior status was restored by Sennacherib. On the downfall of the Assyrians, the Egyptians once more tried to control the region, and Psammeticus is said to have besieged Ashdod for twenty-nine years (Herodotus, Hist., ii. 157); about this time that city is reported by the same author (i. 105) to have been plundered by the Scythians. Necho II. made another attempt to control Syria, but Nebuchadrezzar was the victor. Neither at that time nor in the time of Cyrus do the Philistines appear as aggressive. Under Darius Philistia, Phenicia, and Cyprus belonged to the fifth satrapy. Gaza was an independent city flourishing through its commerce, but was taken by Alexander after a siege of two months, while under the Seleucidæ its fortunes were frequently changed, especially in the contest between Egypt and Syria (see Ptolemies; Seleucidæ). In the Maccabean contest for independence, the cities of the Philistines were the centers of hard battles. Bacchides sought to shut the Jews out from. the plain; Jonathan attacked and plundered Joppa, took Ashdod, received Ekron from Alexander, while Ashkelon surrendered (I Macc. v. 68, ix. 50–52, x. 75–89); Simon took Joppa and settled Jews there, and also took Gezer (I Macc. xii. 33–34, xiii. 43–48); while Alexander Jannæus seems to have completed the reduction of the region (Josephus, Ant., XIII., xiii. 3, xv. 4; War, I., iv. 2). Pompey freed it from the Jewish yoke, but Cæsar gave Joppa back to the Jews. Antony gave the region to Cleopatra in 36 B.C., but in 30 through the gift of Augustus part of it was in Herod's hands. After the fall of Jerusalem, Jamnia became the center of Jewish Palestine. But long before this most that was distinctively Philistine had vanished. During the Persian period Greeks had settled in the country and cities and had gained control of commerce. It is significant that the coins of Gaza of the Persian period contain lettering partly Phenician and partly Greek, but of Greek workmanship. The government was on Greek models, the gods bore Greek names, while the cities were centers of Greek culture. While this is true, the rural population used the Aramaic tongue, as did the lower classes in the cities, at the end of the fourth century B.C.; moreover, the Greek names of deities but concealed local conceptions; the chief temple of Ashdod in the Hasmonean period was Dagon's, Gaza's chief deity was Marnas (Aramaic for "Our Lord").

6. The Cities.

For Dor see Samaria. Japho (Joppa, the modern Jaffa) was one of the border cities of Dan (Josh. ix. 46), later the seaport of Jerusalem (II Chron. ii. 16), and seems to have been a city of great age, possessing a Canaanitic population in the time of the eighteenth and nineteenth Egyptian dynasties. The Amarna Tablets show an Egyptian governor for the place. Later it must have been in the hands of the Philistines. The New Testament speaks of it as visited by Peter (Acts ix. 36–43). It has retained its importance through the centuries because of its port, though the protection afforded is not of the best. The story of Andromeda centers at this place. In the fourth century it was the seat of a bishop. At the present time it is the seaport of Jerusalem, with which it is connected by rail, has about 45,000 inhabitants, and is celebrated for its gardens. About twelve miles south of Joppa and about five miles from the coast is the modern Jebna, which corresponds to the Jabneh of II Chron. xxvi. 6 and the Jabneel of Josh. xv. 11; it is the Jamnia of II Macc. xii. 8. About six miles inland the village of ‘Akir probably locates the site of Ekron, variously assigned to Dan and to Judah (Josh. xix. 43, xv. 45–46; cf. however Josh. xiii. 2–3. the name of Ashdod (gk. Azotos) is preserved in the modern Esdud, a village with about 3,000 inhabitants situated on the trade route about midway between Joppa and Gaza. The city was reckoned to Judah (Josh. xv. 47; but cf. xiii. 2–3). The account of the conquest of the city by Uzziah in II Chron. xxvi. 6 seems doubtful in view of Amos i. 7. [This rhetorical passage, however, does not imply the independence of Ashdod.] Neh. iv. 1 probably refers not merely to the inhabitants of the city but to those of the outlying territory which reached to the limits of Gezer. The Evangelist Philip visited Ashdod (Acts viii. 40). In the early Christian centuries a distinction was made between Ashdod-on-the-Sea and Ashdod-Within, the former probably represented by the ruins of Minet al-Ḳal‘a. The name of Ashkelon is also preserved in the modern ‘Askalan, about ten miles south of Ashdod and about thirteen miles north of Gaza. The ruins on the site of the present village appear to date only from the Middle Ages; apparently there were two sites other than this, one near the sea and one inland, a distinction which is supported by reports of a bishop of Ashkelon and one of Mayumas Ashkelon. Ruins exist quite near a little haven, and also others at the present El-Hammame and El-Mejdel to the northeast of the ruins of the time of the Middle Ages. It is in these last ruins that the sanctuaries of the early city are to be found. Ashkelon was a Roman colony in the fourth Christian century. Gaza is to be sought at the present Ghazze, situated a little over two miles from the coast, at the present a market place of some importance. Underground streams nourish fine groves of olive-trees and palms. Its haven was mentioned by Strabo and Ptolemy, and by Constantine the Great it was made a city with the name Constantia; its privileges were taken away by Julian, and it was known thereafter as Mayumas. Near one of the gates of the present city is a Mohammedan sanctuary dedicated to "the Strong one," i.e., Samson. Walls which are found under the present town were built over the city founded by Gabinius, the commander of Pompey's army, in 61 B.C. The earlier city lay somewhat to the north, and was destroyed by Alexander Jannæus 96 B.C. Still farther to the south lay Raphia, the modern Tell Refah, about two miles from the sea and without a harbor. It marked the boundary between the Egyptian and Syrian domains (Josephus, War, IV., xi. 5). Gath lay nearer the land of Judah, according to I Sam. xvii.1–2, 52, near the Wadi el Sunt, and according to Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, 244, 127, cf. 246, 129) about four miles to the north of Eleutheropolis toward Lydda (Diospolis). Jerome (on Mic. i. 10) asserts that it lay on the way from Eleutheropolis to Gaza. It early ceased to be a Philistine city (II Kings xii. 17; cf. Jer. xxv. 20; Amos i. 7; Zeph. ii. 4).

(H. Guthe.)

Bibliography: The literature on Hebrew history should be consulted as indicated under Ahab; and Israel, History of. The older literature directly bearing on the subject is noted in K. B. Stark, Gaza and die philistäische Küste, Jena, 1852. Consult: G. Baur, Der Prophet Amos, pp. 78–94: Giessen, 1847; V. Guérin, Description de la Palestine, ii. 36 sqq., Paris, 1869; A. Hannecker, Die Philistäer, Eichstädt, 1872; W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book, vol. i., New York, 1882; E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, I. 317 sqq., 358 sqq., Stuttgart, 1884; F. Schwally, in ZWT, xxxiv (1891), 103–108, 265 sqq.; J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, vol i.–ii., passim, New York 1894–96· idem, in The Expositor ("Uzziah and the Philistines "), 1890; G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, chap. ix., London, 1897; R. Raabe, Petrus der Iberer, Leipsic, 1895; C. Clermont-Ganneau, Études d’archéologie orientale, x. 1–9, Paris, 1896; W. M. Müller, in Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, v (1900), 1–42· also his Asien and Europa, cited in the text; R. Dussaud, Questions mycéniennes, Paris, 1905; M. A. Meyer, Hist. of the City of Gaza, New York, 1907; E. Meyer Der Diskus von Phaestos and die Philister auf Kreta, Berlin, 1909; Robinson, Researches, vol. ii.; Schrader, KAT passim; DB, iii. 844–848; EB, iii. 3713–3727; JE, x. 1–2; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fasc. xxxi (1908), 286–300.

PHILLIPS, PHILIP: Methodist Episcopal Gospel singer; b. in Chautauqua Co., N. Y., Aug. 13, 1834; d. in Delaware, Ohio, June 25, 1895. Brought up on a farm, he developed a talent for song; received some training in the country singing-school and later studied under Lowell Mason. He conducted his first singing-class at Alleghany, N. Y., in 1853, and after that similar schools in adjacent towns and cities. In 1860 he changed from the Baptist to the Methodist Episcopal Church. He brought out Early Blossoms (1860). The next year he opened a music-store in Cincinnati, and published Musical Leaves (Cincinnati, 1862). During the Civil War he aided the Christian Commission by raising funds with his Home Songs and services of song throughout the country. He visited England and prepared The American Sacred Songster (London, 1868) for the British Sunday-school Union; of which 1,100,000 copies were sold. Later he made a tour of the world holding praise services in the Sandwich Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Palestine, Egypt, India, and the cities of Europe. Other published collections are Spring Blossoms (Cincinnati, 1865); Singing Pilgrim (New York, 1866); Day School Singer (Cincinnati, 1869); Gospel Singer (Boston, 1874); Song Sermons (New York, 1877). He wrote also Song Pilgrimage around and throughout the World, with an introduction by J. H. Vincent and a biographical sketch by A. Clark (Chicago, 1880).

PHILIPPS (PHILIPZOON), UBBO. See Ubbonites.

PHILLPOTTS, HENRY: Church of England bishop of Exeter; b. at Bridgewater (50 m. s.w. of Bristol), Somerset, May 6, 1778; d. at Bishopstowe, Torquay (29 m. e.n.e. of Plymouth), Sept. 18, 1869. He was educated at Corpus Christi, Oxford (B.A., 1795), was elected a fellow at Magdalen College, and prelector of moral philosophy in 1800. He became a deacon (1802), and priest (1804), prebendary of Durham (1809), dean of Chester (1828), and bishop of Exeter (1830). He was the recognized head of the High-church party, and, in the House of Lords, was upon the extreme Tory side, opposing every kind of liberal measure. He was also involved in several memorable controversies, especially with the Roman Catholic historians, John Lingard (q.v.; 1806) and Charles Butler (1822). But he is best known by the Gorham Case (q.v.). On the reversal of the lower courts' decision by the privy council, he published A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (London and New York, 1850), in which he threatened to hold no communion with the archbishop.

Bibliography: Of the Life by R. N. Shutte only vol. i. appeared, London, 1863. Consult: H. P. Liddon, Life of . . . Pussy, 4 vols., London, 1893–97; DNB, xlv. 222–225.

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA.

I. Life.

Philo of Alexandria (b. about 20 B.C.; d. about 42 A.D.) stands as the leading exponent of the Jewish-Alexandrine religious philosophy, and in its influence upon the literature of the Christian Church its foremost representative. The incomplete biography of him is derived from statements in his own works and from incidental passages in Josephus (Ant., XVIII., viii. 1, XX., v. 2), Eusebius (Hist. eccl., ii. 4–5; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 107–109; Præparatio evangelica, viii. 13–14; Eng. transl., 2 vols., Oxford, 1903), Jerome (De vir. ill., xi.), Isidore of Pelusium, Photius, and Suidas. From these it appears that Philo was of a rich, prominent family, brother of Alexander Lysimachus, alabarch of the Jews at Alexandria. Whether he was of priestly descent (Jerome) and whether his name was Jedediah or this was merely a free rendering of the name Philo by later Jewish writers remain uncertain. In 39 or 40 A.D. he appeared as the representative of the Jews of Alexandria before Caligula at Rome to regain the privileges lost through the acts of the imperial governor Publius Avilius Flaccus in conjunction with the bloody atrocities of the hostile Greek party. The mission secured no promise of relief; but the accession of Claudius brought the restoration of their rights and the release of their imprisoned alabarch; and under Claudius, Philo wrote the report of the expedition to Rome. At what time he sojourned in Palestine is uncertain.

II. Works.

1. Lost and Spurious.

Of his works, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., ii. 18; Eng. transl., ut sup., 119–122) gives a fair but incomplete enumeration; but some of the writings mentioned thus, as well as others in the later accounts of Jerome, Photius, and Suidas, are extant, if at all, in fragments only. All but meager fragments is lost of the important work "Counsels for the Jews," no doubt identical with the "Apology for the Jews" mentioned by Eusebius; likewise three books of "Questions and Answers on Exodus," two books of the "Allegory of the Sacred Laws," one book of "On Rewards," and the same of "On Numbers." Peter Alexius refuted the charge brought by a forgotten Socinian theologian of the seventeenth century that a Christian author toward the close of the second century composed the collective writings of Philo and ascribed them to him. This untenable hypothesis was taken up in the last century by a hypercritic of Jewish descent, Kirschbaum by name, who assumed, however, a gigantic fraud by several Christian authors. More consideration is due to recent attacks on individual works; such as, for instance, against the apparent composite character of De incorruptibilitate mundi, against the "Dissertations on Samson and Jonah" from the Armenian, the Interpretatio Hebraicorum nominum, and the Liber antiquitatum Biblicarum printed in the sixteenth century in Philo's name. The last three are certainly not genuine. Weighty objections have been raised by recent critics against the authenticity of De vita contemplativa, some of whom claim its origin to have been from the monk Falsarius at the close of the third century; because (1) of its connection with the writing Quod omnis probes liber of which it is claimed to be a continuation; (2) the author is more limited in his cosmic view than Philo and has in mind the monastic mode of thought; and (3) it was never mentioned before Eusebius, who seeks to establish thereby the historical priority of the Therapeutæ (q.v.). However, this argument makes too much of the silence before Eusebius; besides, the diction is decidedly of the period of Philo, and the descent of the manuscript as well as the Jewish character of its contents speak also for its authenticity.

2. Exegetical.

The genuine or unquestioned works of Philo fall into three groups: the exegetical on the Pentateuch, the philosophical, and the political. The exegetical is the most replete and comprehensive and is subdivided as to contents into the cosmogonical, historical, and legislative writings. Of the cosmogonical, De mundi opificio is an allegorical explanation of the creation in Genesis. The historical writings, called also allegorical or genealogical, present a historico-allegorical elucidation of Genesis chapter by chapter. Those of legislative content present ethical considerations with reference to the decalogue and Hebrew ritual based on the codes in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

3. Philosophical and Political.

The philosophical works belonging to Philo's earlier period and challenged by the modern critics on account of difference of content with that of the later works are, De incorruptibilitate mundi; Quod omnis probus liber; and De vita contemplativa. To these belong the Quæstiones et solutiones in Genesin et Exodum, a brief catechetical explanation of the Pentateuch originally in five books, partly preserved in a Latin translation and partly recovered in an Armenian translation; and, from the Armenian, De providentia (2 books); and Alexander seu de ratione brutorum. The political or historico-apologetical writings for the cultured class of Jews and heathen in common, with an apologetical tendency in favor of the first, embrace, De vita Mosis; the "Counsels for the Jews"; "Unto Flaccus"; and "Embassy to Gaius" [Caligula], the last two important for autobiographical notices, and forming books iii. and iv. respectively of a more comprehensive work of five books, "On the Fate of the Jews under Emperor Gaius," the fourth and fifth of which bore the common title, "On the Virtues."

III. Doctrines.

1. Relationship and Scope.

Philo stands as the most conspicuous figure and the culminating point of a long development marked by the confluence of Jewish monotheism and Hellenic cosmogony. This movement is represented at Alexandria in the middle of the third century before Christ by the peripatetic Aristobulus, who already shows the tendency of allegorizing and of abstracting the conception of deity from Biblical anthropomorphism by the intrusion of intermediate entities. The allegorizing of Philo is said to have gathered up into a mighty basin all the streams of Alexandrine hermeneutics from the past and discharged them again into multiple streams and rivulets of the later exegesis of Judaism and Christianity. He knew all the important Greek philosophers, from whom he cited freely; but first for him was Plato, from whom he derived his philosophical content, while in his method of extravagant allegorizing he imitated the Stoics. These allegorized the Greek myths in the effort to philosophize the multiple forms of popular religion and reduce them to simple fundamental principles; so did Philo in dealing with the Biblical and legal forms and cultic prescriptions of the Jews, in the interest, however, of monotheism. In his adherence to a living personal Creator and Ruler of the universe, revealed through Moses, and choosing Israel from the world races as his peculiar possession, he did not waver. Moses to him is the prophet of all prophets and his law the essence of all wisdom and doctrine of virtue; and waiving his privilege of constructing an independent cosmology he presents his cosmological views in the form of a great practico-speculative commentary on the Pentateuch. He disapproves of the heretical sects of Judaism, and lavishes warm praise on the pious Essenes. The emphasis of Philo is positive; faith and piety are the supreme virtues. His positive faith is saturated with an ardent mysticism; not that of absorption in divine contemplation, but rather that sustained on the one hand throughout his monotheistic ethical point of view and on the other throng out his philosophical consciousness, ever alert to penetrate to the nature of things. Philo was thus the first monotheistic theologian in this cosmopolitan sense and the predecessor of the Alexandrine school.

2. On God in Himself.

In his doctrine of God he distinguished strictly between God in himself and God revealed, as demanded by his Old-Testament theistic point of view as well as his Platonic dualism of spirit and matter. On the one hand, he rejects the pantheistic view and the deification of creatures; on the other, the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic view. God in himself is absolute, incorporate, and outside of the material universe; comprehending all, yet uncomprehended. He is outside of time and space, and in his being unknowable. The only name by which God can be designated is therefore pure being (to on or ho ōn). Though without real attributes yet in contrast with created being certain marks can not be avoided, such as immutability, unity, simplicity, absolute freedom, and beatitude, without lack of anything, self-sufficiency, whereby he stands in relation to nothing and is none of the created beings. God is called "the Good" only in the sense that he is the source of all good; "Light," in the figurative, only as the divine source, as much brighter than the visible lights as the sun exceeds the darkness.

3. God Revealed; Creation.

God, as revealed, on the other hand, is also immanent in his relation with the universe and is the all-filling, all-penetrating, leaving no vacuum. He is the author of the universe and first cause on whom depends the world of spirits and sense. A series of attributes arise from his relations with the universe; such as omnipotence, by virtue of which he is almighty and the efficient cause of all; omniscience, all-knowing the present and all-fore seeing the future; and wisdom, whereby he transcends the counsel and reason of mankind. Three corollaries follow his creative power: the material, the means, and the object. (1) The stuff was the matter (hylē), the relative nothing (me on). Time is evolved from formless matter; and, not in time but with time becoming, heaven and earth were created. Creation in six days is to be taken figuratively, six being a symbol of perfection and representing the relative order and not time. This conception of creation taken from the Timæus of Plato is fundamentally nothing else than the absolute rational plan of creation springing from the Logos of God (cf. Origen and Origenistic Controversies). This Logos is the means by which the universe was created and the object was God's beneficence as love and as free self-impartation to his creatures.

4. Intermediate Potencies; the Logos.

Between God the Infinite and the finite, imperfect universe there is a wide gap which is, however, removed by being filled with divine potencies (dynameis), which are peculiar mediating beings or concepts, represented on the one hand as active powers, self-revelations, or attributes of God; on the other, as personal beings of a spiritual kind. Incomprehensible in number they submit to classification; namely, into the well-doing and the primitive powers. At the head of the former is the agathotes through whom God made the universe and at the head of the other is the archē, through whom be rules it. But higher than these two at the summit of the series of all mediate beings, constituting their principle of unity, appears the divine Logos. He is their father and leader, the first-born. Are the others angels, he is the archangel. He stands in immanent relation with God and proceeds from him, whereas the others proceed from the Logos. He is sometimes called second God or image of God; his administrator, tool, and mediator. As mediator, through him the world was made. In him subsisted at the beginning of creation heaven and earth; i.e., the body of ideals. He is the seat of ideals which by partition or separation he projects from himself. Through him God imprints the intermediate potencies, which have their seat in the Logos, upon matter; hence his is called "seal of God." As the bond of unity, God holds together, supports, and directs all through him. He is also represented as the high-priest and advocate for men with God. The synonym "word" (hrēma; Gen. i. 3; Ps. xxxiii. 6; Deut. viii. 3) used sometimes by Philo indicates that the Logos was to him equivalent to the Biblical term of the Old Testament instrument of creation and governance of the world.

5. Man.

At the conclusion of the work of creation, God made first the heavenly man through the Logos; i.e., the preexistent ideal man, in his pretemporal, spiritual, unsexual eternal state, untainted by sin and truly in the divine image. Subsequently, the earthly man, made not by the Logos alone but with the aid of the lower potencies, was deficient in the perfect image of God and was, in advance, subject to the possibility of sinning. Indeed, his higher soul (nous) came from the creative, living breath of God, but in the creation of his lower soul (with its earthly reason, nous geïnós) as well as his body, several angelic potencies or demiurges cooperated. After the earthly man had lived seven years in Paradise, or the realm of virtues, especially of piety and wisdom, he was sexually differentiated by the formation of woman from him and he entered the state of temptation and sin. The results of the fall are partly physical and partly ethical, the latter being the increasing degeneration of Adam's descendants, impure from birth. A partial image of God remains as freedom of will and rational perception; by these the fallen retain unbroken connection with God, particularly through the Logos through whom God reveals himself. Many men fail to apprehend God because of their guilt; only the consecrated who know how to rise above the earthly may enter into closer relations with him. In the special Scripture revelation, Moses is the earthly mediator of a revelation which shows Israel to be the chosen and the possessed of God, just as the Logos is the heavenly mediator.

PHILO BYBLIUS (HERENNIUS PHILO): Greek grammarian and historian; b. in 63 A.D. (not 42, as was usually given); d. after 141. Knowledge of him comes principally through Suidas, though he is mentioned not infrequently by the Church Fathers, particularly by Origen (Contra Celsum, i. 15; Eng. transl., ANF, iv. 403) and Eusebius (Præparatio Evangelica, i. 9–10; Eng. transl., 2 vols., Oxford, 1903). Suidas makes him an ambassador to Rome in the time of Hadrian, and a friend of Herennius Severus (from whom he took his name Herennius), consul in 141 A.D. Three of the many works ascribed to him are often referred to: "Concerning Cities and the Famous Men they have produced," "Phenician History" or "Things Phenician" (a professed translation of a work by Sanchuniathon, q.v.); and "Concerning Jews," about which it is debated whether it was an independent work or merely an excursus to or a chapter in the "Phenician History," with the probability inclining in favor of the former alternative. The quotations from his "Phenician History" are supposed to make him out to be a Euhemerist;. but it is to be remembered that if this work is really a translation from the putative author, Sanchuniathon, Philo can not be held responsible for the trend of opinion there expressed. Only fragments remain of his works in citations by Eusebius.

Geo. W. Gilmore.

Bibliography: The fragments are collected in C. and T. Muller, Fragmenta historicorum Græcorum, iii. 580–576, 4 vols., Paris, 1841–51. Consult H. Ewald, in the Abhandlungen of the Royal Society of Göttingen, v (1853); E. Renan, in the Mémoires of the Academy of Inscriptions, xxiii. 2 (1858), 241 sqq.; W. von Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, i. 3 sqq.. Leipsic, 1878; Schürer, Geschichte, and Eng. transl., Introduction, §§ 3, 18; and literature under Sanchuniathon.

PHILO OF CARPASIA: Bishop who flourished in the fourth century. Polybius in his fanciful Vita Epiphanii (MPG, xli. 85) writes of a deacon Philo whom among others the sister of Honorius and Arcadius sent to Cyprus to Epiphanius to summon him to Rome to cure her of sickness by the laying on of hands and prayer. But Philo on account of his piety was consecrated by Epiphanius as bishop of Carpasia, Cyprus, and was entrusted with the former's official administration during his absence at Rome. With this has been combined the notice of Suidas that "Philo the Carpathian wrote a commentary on the Song of Songs"; but Carpathos is the name of an island between Rhodes and Crete. Here there is either reference to different persons or a confusion of places; probably the latter, since the commentary mentioned by Suidas, preserved in a number of manuscripts, is provided with the superscription, "Commentary on the Song of Songs of Philo, bishop of Carpasia." The commentary was first published by A. Giacomelli (Rome, 1772); was printed by A. Gallandius, Bibliotheca veterum patrum, vol. ix. Appendix, p. 713 (Venice, 1765–1781); and is in MPG, xl. i sqq.

(A. Hauck.)

Bibliography: Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Græca, ix. 252, Hamburg, 1804; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, p. 276, Freiburg, 1901, Eng. transl., St. Louis, 1908.

PHILOPATRIS, fî´´lo-pê´tris: A dialogue ascribed by a single family of manuscripts to the Greek satirist Lucian. Formerly regarded as a satire on Christianity, it is now known to be a political pamphlet of the Byzantine period. It is divided into two parts: the first is theological and contains a refutation of heathen polytheism accompanied by an exposition of Christian doctrine; the second is political and reveals the dissatisfaction felt in certain circles with the government of that period, though it closes with expressions of loyalty, and with the hope that the emperor would overcome his enemies.

The Humanist editors of Lucian themselves perceived that this dialogue, which is inartistic both in form and execution, was not written by their author; and this view is undoubtedly correct, although naturally there have been some defenders of its authenticity, the latest of whom was C. G. Kelle, Luciani Philopatris (Leipsic, 1826). Some classicists sought at least to maintain that the dialogue was written in the time of Trajan, but the majority of critics allowed themselves to be influenced by J. M. Gesner (De ætate et auctore dialogi . . . qui Philopatris inscribitur, Jena, 1714) in favor of the period of Julian. A. van Gutschmid and others were inclined to refer the work to the time of the Persian wars of Heraclius. At present, however, the general opinion is in harmony with the view of B. G. Niebuhr, to the effect that the dialogue belongs to the second half of the tenth century, the time of Nicephorus Phocas (963–969) or to that of his successor, John Tzimiskes (969–976). If this be true, the whole first part must be regarded as a jesting religious controversy, introduced to give plausibility to the attribution of the dialogue to Lucian; although R. Crampe has argued that, if the work was written in the seventh century, political opposition would be combined with a tendency toward paganism.

The dialogue was expunged from the Aldine edition of Lucian of 1522 by the Inquisition, and was placed on the Index by Paul V. in 1559. To whatever period it may be assigned, the Philopatris retains its interest from a theological point of view because of its combination of Christian ideas with Lucianic style, whether it proves the existence of paganism in Byzantium in the seventh century, or whether it simply shows how frivolously the Humanists of the tenth century treated questions of faith. The description of Paul borrowed from the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the allusion to II Cor. xii. 2 sqq. are also worthy of note.

E. von Dobschütz.

Bibliography: The work is printed in the eds. of Lucian's "Works" of Florence, 1496, the Aldine, 1503 (expunged in that of 1522), Zweibrücken, 1791, and Leipsic, 1839. Separate issues are by J. M. Gesner, Jena, 1715; C. B. Hase, in Leo Diaconus, CSHB, Bonn, 1828. Consult: Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca, v. 344, Hamburg, 1796; Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 459 sqq.; idem, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xi (1902), 578 sqq.; B. G. Niebuhr, Uber das Alter des Dialogs Philopatris, Bonn, 1843; R. Crampe, Philopatris, Halle, 1894; E. Rohde, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, v (1895), 1–15, vi (1896), 475–482; C. Stach, De Philopatride, Cracow, 1897; R. Garnett, Alms for Oblivion, in Cornhill Magazine, May, 1901; S. Reinach, La Question du Philopatris, in Revue archéologique, 1902, 79–110.

PHILOPONUS. See Johannes Philoponus.

PHILOSTORGIUS, fîl´´o-ster´jius: Arian controversialist; b. at Borissus in Cappadocia about 364; d. after 425. His father was the strict Arian Carterius, and he became a polemical writer in the same cause. At the age of twenty he repaired to Constantinople for study and met Eunomius on the way, whose works he studied. There is no further knowledge of the course of his life. The work for which he was famous was a church history in twelve books, intended to justify the Arian party and is unfortunately lost. Only excerpts by Photius and others who used it have come down, and these are unreliable except as they report mere facts. It is certain that he used the writings of Aëtius and Eunomius and Arian documents as well as the history of Eusebius. The history began with the controversy between Arius and Alexander and extended to Valentinian III. It would scarcely be reliable in its partizan representation of persons and relations, yet the loss of so much historical matter dealing with an age so intensely, controversial is to be deplored. The work was used and read during the Middle Ages; the excerpts of Photius are mentioned, Suidas used it for his lexicon, Nicetes Akominatus possessed it, and Nicephorus seems to have used it.

(Erwin Preuschen.)

Bibliography: The first issue of the excerpts of Photius, ed. J. Gothofredus, was at Geneva, 1643; Valesius edited them next, Paris, 1673, after which there were several editions, principally the one by W. Reading, Cambridge, 1720, reprinted at Turin, 1748, and in MPG, lxv. New fragments were edited by P. Batiffol in Römische Quartalschrift, iii (1889), 134 sqq., cf. his Quæstiones Philostoggianæ, Paris, 1891, and his articles in the Quartalschrift, iv (1890), 134 sqq., ix (1895), 57 sqq. An Eng. transl. is by Walford, London, 1855. Consult: Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Græca, vii. 509 sqq, Hamburg, 1801; J. R. Asmus, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, iv. 30 sqq.; L. Jeep, in Rheinisches Museum, lii (1897), 213 sqq.; TU, xvii (1899); Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, viii. 509–514; DCB iv. 390; and the literature under Arianism.

PHILOXENUS, fî-lex´i-nUs, (XENAIA, AXENAIA): Monophysite bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis); said to have been born at Tahal, a little place in the Persian district of Beth-Garmai, between the Tigris and the mountains of Kurdistan, in the second quarter of the fifth century; d. a violent death at Gangra in Paphlagonia, probably 523. He was probably of Syrian parentage, and not a slave, as was reported by Theodore the Lector; studied at Edessa while Ibas was bishop there (435–457), but was an opponent of Ibas and of Nestorianism. He left Edessa and went to Antioch, where, having accepted the Henoticon (q.v.), he came into conflict with the Patriarch Calandio, who expelled him; but he returned and was by Peter Fullo (458) consecrated metropolitan of Hierapolis (Mabug), when he took the name Philoxenus, sending a confession of his faith to the Emperor Xenos, to refute a charge of Eutychianism (q.v.). For the next thirteen years nothing is heard of him. It is not impossible that this was the period when the writings which made him famous were composed. In May, 498, he was in Edessa, being charged with undue leniency toward drunken carnival rioters. With the accession to office of Flavian in 498 (see Monophysites) Philoxenus came more into publicity as the spokesman of the Monophysites. He was twice at Constantinople, being summoned thither by Anastasius in 506 at the end of the Persian war. He was the animating spirit of the party which assailed Flavian as a Nestorian. At the Synod of Tyre Monophysitism was victorious; but a few years later came the reversal, and under Justin (successor of Anastasius) Philoxenus was banished to Philippopolis (518 or 519), and then to Gangra.

The eminent position and ability of Philoxenus as a writer are conceded. His productions stamp him as a man of virile thought, strong will, and warm heart, while the "strife-seeking rioter" his opponents deemed him disappears in the spiritual curate of souls. Jacob of Edessa (q.v.) regarded him as one of the four great teachers of the Syrian church, Ephraem, Jacob of Sarug, and Isaac of Antioch being the others. He was held in equal estimation by the Armenians, who quoted and used his writings. Numerous manuscripts of his writings exist at Paris, Rome, Oxford, and particularly at the British Museum, but comparatively few have been published. For his work on Bible translation see Bible Versions, A, III., 2. He wrote a partial commentary on the Gospels, and dealt with dogmatic subjects, liturgies, and the like, and a list of eighty writings is given by Budge (see below). Among the printed productions are thirteen addresses on the Christian life, dogmatic treatises on matters dealing with a personal creed; on the Chalcedonian creed; against Nestorius and Nestorianism; letters of theological content. to Abraham and Orestes, priests at Edessa, on the pantheism of Stephen bar Sudaili to the monks at Teleda (between Antioch and Aleppo); circular addresses to monks, with no particular ascription; letters to monks at Beth Gaugal near Amida, and to Emperor Zeno; and two Anaphora, printed in E. Renaudot, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio, ii. 370 (Paris, 1716).

In considering his Christology, it is to be borne in mind that he stood for the same thing as Severus of Antioch (q.v.), with whom he fought shoulder to shoulder, the two being the foremost representatives of Monophysitism, ever energetically opposed to Eutychianism (q.v.) and Apollinarianism (see Apollinaris of Laodicea). His letter to Zeno issued from a desire to purge himself of false suspicion. "He who was complete deity assumed flesh and became true man," he asserts in this letter. While the polemic against Nestorius gradually lost its interest, the effort continued to guard against the consequences of Docetism (q.v.), and appears in the latest of his writings—to the monks of Teleda. In this the avowal of the reality of the manhood of Christ and of his undergoing the experiences of humanity is explicit. Philoxenus emphasized the fact that all which Christ did was done both voluntarily and vicariously. In the last phases of his thought he approached the position of Julian of Halicarnassus (q.v.). Yet it must remain a matter of doubt whether Philoxenus had part in the strife between Julian and Severus, since this broke out while Philoxenus was in banishment in Thrace, though Severus expressly stated that Julian had not only published his book in Alexandria but had distributed it broadcast. Possibly Philoxenus had received it, in whose earlier writings Severus "had found nothing foolish." The letter to the monks of Teleda and a work of unassigned authorship appear to be the only documents which contain an echo of the dispute.

Early issue of some of his works is to be found in S. E. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis (Rome, 1719–1728); and M. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus (Paris, 1740). Later issues are: The Discourses of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh A.D. 486–519, Edited from Syriac Manuscripts . . . with an English Translation by E. A. Wallis Budge, 2 vols. (London, 1894); Three Letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh (485–519): being the Letter to the Monks, the first Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, and the Letter to the Emperor Zeno . . . with an English Translation, and Introduction, . . by A. A. Vaschalde (Rome, 1902); the Letter of Mar Xenaias of Mabug to Abraham and Orestes, in A. L. Frothingham's Stephen bar Sudaili (Leyden, 1886); and his Tractatus tres de trinitate et incarnatione, ed. A. Vaschalde, in CSCO, vol. xxvii., 1907.

(G. Krüger.)

Bibliography: The early sources are for the most part collected, abstracted, or used in J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, i. 268, 346–358, 475, 479, ii 10, 13, 17, 20. Consult further: W. Wright, Short Hist. of Syriac Literature, pp. 72–76, London, 1894; idem, Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, 3 parts, London, 1870–72; R. Duval, Hist. politique, religieuse et littéraire d’Edesse, Paris, 1892; idem, La Littérature syriaque, ib. 1900; E. Ter-Minassiantz, in TU, xxvi (1904); DCB, iv. 391–393.

PHOCAS, SAINT: Christian martyr. He is said to have been a gardener at Sinope in Pontus where he was famous for his lavish almsgiving and hospitality to strangers. He suffered martyrdom, as some hold, in the persecution under Trajan (98–117); according to others, under Diocletian (284–305). In the East he is the patron saint of mariners, who are accustomed to revere him with hymns, call upon him when in distress at sea, and share with him a part of their profits by giving them to the poor. A magnificent church was erected to his honor at Constantinople by the emperor of the same name shortly before 610. The Phocas revered by Roman tradition as the bishop of Sinope must be the same person. Another Phocas must be a martyr of Antioch, a touch of the door of whose tomb, according to Gregory of Tours, was a cure for serpent bites.

(O. Zöckler†.)

Bibliography: The Acta, by Bishop Asterius, are in ASB, Sept., vi. 293–299; in F. Combefis, Græco-Lat. patrum bibliothecæ: novum auctarium, i. 169–182, Paris, 1648; and L. Surius, Vitæ sanctorum, Sept., 22, 12 vols., Cologne, 1617–18. The anonymous Martyrium S. Phocæ martyris et episcopi Sinope in Ponto, is in ASB, July, iii. 639–645. The Vita of Phocas the martyr of Antioch is in ASB, Mar., i. 366–367, and in Surius, ut sup., Mar., 5. Consult DCB, iv. 393–394.

PHŒBADIUS, fî-bê´di-Us (FŒGADIUS, FITADIUS) : Bishop of Aginnum, the modern Agen (73 m. s.e. of Bordeaux); d. after 392. He skilfully confuted the second Sirmian formula (see Arianism, I., iii., § 6) in southern Gaul by means of western orthodoxy, in his work Liber contra Arianos (in the latter part of 357 or in 358; MPL, xx. 13–20), a work clear, animated, and occasionally ironical in argument and admirable and impressive in style. The main thought is that if Christ is not God he is not real Son. Known after the beginning of the sixteenth century is a tract, De fide orthodoxa contra Arianos (MPL, xx. 31–50) with an attached confession of faith, with which Phœbadius has been generally credited. At the Synod of Rimini in 359, Phœbadius obstinately defended orthodoxy, but finally with Servatio of Tongern was made to yield. These two bishops at a certain stage of the synod produced special formulas, "in which first Arius and all his unbelief are condemned, and secondly, the Son of God is not only pronounced to be equal with the Father but also without beginning." Phœbadius took part in the synods of Valence and Saragossa (380), and was still living in 392.

(Edgar Hennecke.)

Bibliography: K. Schönemann, Bibliotheca . . . Patrum Latinorum, i. 309–312, Leipsic, 1792; Tillemont, Mémoires, vi. 427–428; Gallia Christiana, ii (1720), 895–897; J. Dräseke, in ZWT, 1890, pp. 78–98; F. W. F. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, i. 171–173, Leipsic, 1894; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, v. 372–377; DCB, ii. 547 (under "Fœgadius ").

PHOTINUS, fō´ti-nUs: Bishop of Sirmium; b. in Ancyra in Galatia; d. in Galatia 376. He was a pupil of Marcellus of Ancyra and bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia, near the modern Mitrovicza. He first appears at the Synod of Antioch in 344, where the Eastern Church condemned him and Marcellus. This judgment was approved by a Synod at Milan in 345, and Photinus was deprived of his bishopric by a Synod of Sirmium in 351. According to Epiphanius he appealed to the Emperor Constantius, was granted a hearing, and disputed with Basil of Ancyra before his judges. Socrates and Sozomen correctly refer this disputation to the Synod of Sirmium in 351, and state that he was exiled. The Synod of Milan, 355, renewed the anathema. That he returned for a season appears from the friendly letter of Emperor Julian to him and from the fact that Jerome knows him to have been banished by Valentinian (364–375). His heresy obtained little influence in the East; but in the West, especially on the Balkan peninsula, Photinians continued for a longer period. They were known at Sirmium in 381, and at the beginning of the fifth century a Photinian Marcus, driven from Rome, found refuge in the diocese of Senia, Dalmatia. Augustine refers to them frequently not as a sect but as persons in general who think after the Photinian manner; i.e., persons who regard Christ as a mere man.

Photinus was a dynamic monarchian (see Monarchianism) who, without denying the virgin birth, regarded the person of Christ as essentially human; and denied a hypostatic distinction of the Logos from the Father and a hypostasis of the Spirit. He attached himself to the Marcellian doctrine and argumentation: "the Son is known simply according to his appearance in the flesh" and Daniel (vii. 13) speaks "prophetically, not as of the Son existing." His most significant writings, according to Jerome, were Contra gentes and Libra ad Valentinianum. Socrates knows of a book "Against All Heresies" and Rufinus of a tract on the symbol (MPL, xxi. 336).

(F. Loofs.)

Bibliography: The principal sources are Epiphanius, Hær., lxxi.; Hilary, Fragments 1–3, and De Trinitate, vii. 3–7; Socrates, Hist. eccl., ii. 30, Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., ii. 44–45, 56–58; Vigilius of Thapsus, MPL, lxii. 179 sqq., and MPL, xxxv. 2213–2214. These are mostly collected in M. de Larroque, Dissertatio duplex, Geneva, 1670. Consult, besides the literature under Arianism and Monarchianism, especially that under Diodorus and Marcellus of Ancyra; DCB, iv. 394–395; C. R. W. Klose, Geschichte and Lehre des Marcellus and Photinus, Hamburg, 1837; C. W. F. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, iii. 1–70, Leipsic, 1766; Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Græca, ix. 222–226, Hamburg, 1804; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. vi.; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vols. i.–ii., Eng. transl., ii.188–189, Fr. transl., vol. i., passim; Harnack, Dogma, vols. i.–v. passim; Neander, Christian Church, vol. ii. passim.

Photius

PHOTIUS, fo´shi-Us.

Photius, twice patriarch Of Constantinople in the ninth century, enjoys an almost unparalleled preeminence in both the Greek and the Russian Church of the present day. Though in his own time he had enemies, and though circumstances clouded his fame at Rome and at the Byzantine court, he took deep hold among his people from the first, and soon after his death his Church put his name in her calendar of saints. To judge his character is not easy. He was not the tyrant that his opponents represented him to be, though he could be hard and domineering. He was crafty, double-tongued, and vain, but to be so lay in the character of his time and in the atmosphere of the Constantinople in which he lived. He was a sort of universal genius—philologian, philosopher, theologian, jurist, mathematician, man of science, orator, and poet; no original thinker but of powerful memory, of iron industry, of good esthetic sense, of great dialectic skill, far-seeing and clever in practical matters, of commanding will-power, a profound judge of men, and true in friendship, though also always exacting the return. His piety in its way was real. To him the Orthodox Church owes her understanding and appreciation of her distinction from the Latin. Proud already of her inheritance, Photius intensified and confirmed her self-consciousness, and gave her the pregnant catchwords which have never been forgotten.

I. Life

1. Early Life.

Photius was born at Constantinople, probably between 815 and 820, and died in the Armenian monastery of Bordi Feb. 6, 897 or 898. He was of a family of quality, rigidly orthodox, and friendly to images. His parents died early, "adorned with the martyr's crown," this probably meaning that, as friends of images, they were despoiled of their property and honors. It is known that they, with Photius, were excommunicated by an iconoclastic synod, but Photius himself appears never to have been in pecuniary straits. It is not possible to follow the course of his life closely before he became patriarch. When hardly more than a boy he began to give public lectures, first on grammar, then on philosophy and theology—an activity which was interrupted by an embassy "to the Assyrians," mentioned without further explanation in the preface to the Bibliotheca (see below, II., § 1); probably a visit to the court of the calif in Bagdad is meant. After the death of the Emperor Theophilus in 842, the Empress Theodora became regent for her young son, Michael III., called the Drunkard, assisted by her brother, Bardas, who from his sister's counselor speedily developed into her rival. Learning was now held in higher esteem than it had been by the preceding iconoclastic emperors, and Photius' relations with the court became very intimate. He was first secretary of state and captain of the bodyguard, and his brother Sergius was married to Irene, a younger sister of Theodora and Bardas. Photius himself was never married nor was he a monk. Bardas succeeded in entirely supplanting Theodora as regent, probably in 857, and, to nullify her influence, which was feared by the young Michael as well as by his uncle, it was proposed to immure her in a convent. The Patriarch Ignatius, however (see Ignatius of Constantinople), was a partizan of Theodora and refused to lend himself to this plan, so that, on Nov. 23, 858 (or, according to others, 857), Bardas deposed him and chose Photius for his successor.

2. First Patriachate.

Photius undoubtedly belonged to a powerful party antagonistic to Ignatius, which included Bardas and was led by a certain Gregorius Asbesta. He was not a cleric, but the elevation of a layman to the patriarch's chair was not unprecedented. On five successive days (Dec. 20–24, 858) Gregorius hurried the candidate through the five grades necessary for the assumption of the patriarchate, and on Christmas Day he was enthroned. Ignatius, however, did not retire quietly, in spite of-the efforts of Bardas and Photius to make him yield, and he had a large following, the monks being especially hostile to Photius. The ill-treatment of Ignatius and his friends was doubtless exaggerated, and, so far as it really occurred, was due to Bardas rather than to Photius. Photius exerted himself to secure episcopal sees for his friends and accomplished Ignatius' deposition, in apparently canonical form, by a synod in 859. Ignatius went to Rome and sought aid from Pope Nicholas I. (q.v.). At first Photius ignored this move, but ultimately he sent a particularly impressive legation to Nicholas with a notification of his enthronization which completely concealed the real situation. A letter from the emperor went with it asking for recognition of Photius and requesting that legates be sent to a council in Constantinople to settle the few remaining problems connected with the iconoclastic disorders. At the same time Photius wrote to the Eastern patriarchs concealing the facts even more than in his letter to the pope and evidently wishing to secure recognition from them before the pope's legates should arrive in Constantinople. The council (called "first-second"—prima-secunda) met in May, 861, and from the very first the papal legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, espoused Photius' side. Ignatius was very summarily treated and his deposition was confirmed, although he received more support from the assembled bishops than the emperor and Photius had expected.

Nicholas seems to have hoped that Photius would recognize the primacy of jurisdiction, which he had assumed from the first. But Photius had no such intention, however much he may have been willing to flatter. The pope proceeded slowly, but on Mar. 18, 862, he issued an encyclical to the Eastern bishops in which he disavowed the acts of his legates at the council and declared: "We do not consider Ignatius deposed nor do we recognize Photius as in episcopal orders." He wrote to the emperor and to Photius to the same effect, and a year later (Apr., 863), when it had become evident that writing accomplished nothing, he had his judgment confirmed by a synod in Rome and threatened Photius and his adherents with excommunication. Meanwhile Photius found unexpected support from certain Western bishops who had fallen out with Nicholas over the divorce of Lothair II. (see Nicholas I). He drew up a reply from the emperor to the pope in which he adopted a very lofty tone, even addressing Nicholas as the emperor's subject. The document is lost, though its tenor is evident from certain letters of Nicholas. The pope answered with spirit, but he failed to measure public opinion in Constantinople. The new Rome looked down with scorn on the old and its "barbarians' tongue," and Photius all his life disdained to learn Latin (see below, II., § 1). Constantinople regarded the connection of the papacy with the Carolingian empire as a manifestation of revolt. There was a firm determination to insist that the pope should at least respect ecclesiastical boundaries, and feeling on this point was excited at the time by the case of the Bulgarians, who, converted by eastern missionaries and placed under the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch by the Council of Chalcedon, were showing some disposition to go over to Rome (see Bulgarians, Conversion of the). Photius, apparently in 865, addressed a long letter to the newly converted Bulgarian Bogoris; but the latter, doubtless for political reasons, turned to the pope, who sent two legates and a number of priests, as well as a voluminous pastoral epistle to the prince. At the same time Nicholas sent three messengers with no less than eight letters addressed to the emperor, Bardas, Photius, and all concerned, even the senators of Constantinople, requiring the execution of his judgment. The emperor, however, turned the pope's envoys back at the border, and the letters were not delivered.

3. Decisive Break with Rome.

Photius now executed the master stroke which really separated East and West. As the pope had attacked the validity of his ordination and position, so he called in question the pope's own position, declaring the pontiff to be a patron of heresy. The encyclical to the patriarchs of the East in which Photius made the charge and sought to prove it is rightly regarded as the magna charta of the Orient in all its subsequent attitude and conduct toward the Occident. Leaving personal matters quite out of account, and not hinting at the relations between Nicholas and himself, Photius spoke only of the danger which threatened from Rome, making the sending of Roman priests to the Bulgarians his starting-point and ending with an attack on the Filioque (see Filioque Controversy), concerning which he wrote a minute theological discussion with fourteen arguments against the doctrine of double procession. He wished to hold a synod in Constantinople to counteract the work of the West, and it actually met in the summer of 867. The acts are lost, but Photius secured the decrees which he wished, and he then allowed his personal resentment to appear when he retaliated for his own excommunication by Nicholas with anathematizing the pope. He seems even to have attempted to exalt the new Rome over the old and to have thought of claiming the primacy for Constantinople.

4. Years of Retirement

Photius' triumph was short-lived. Bardas had been murdered in 866, and Basil the Macedonian had succeeded him as joint ruler with Michael. In Sept., 867, Basil had Michael murdered and became sole ruler. He thought it would strengthen his position if Ignatius were restored. Accordingly, Photius was expelled from his palace a few days after Basil's accession, and on the anniversary of his deposition, Nov. 23, 867, Ignatius was reenthroned, ten days after the death of Nicholas I. Basil deemed a break with the West inopportune, and, after negotiating for a year with Rome, he called a council (the Fourth Constantinople, Oct. 5, 869–Feb. 28, 870; the eighth general council of the West) which brought about the full restitution of Ignatius, at the same time officially deposing and condemning Photius. It was dominated by the Pope Adrian II. (q.v.), but his triumph was more apparent than real. In the West this council is regarded as the settlement of the controversy over images; but Photius could claim with reason that he had finally allayed this strife by the council of 861; and when the papal legates at the council demanded recognition of the claims of Rome concerning the Bulgarians, the Orientals protested in words which showed how the alliance of the pope with the West rather than with the East burned in all Greek souls.

Photius lived at Stenos, on the European side of the Bosphorus, under strict surveillance and deprived of his books. Direct association with his friends was forbidden, but he was allowed to correspond with them freely. His following among the clergy was so great that at first scarcely twenty bishops appeared at the council which condemned him, and, in spite of the strenuous exertions, of his enemies, only a little over 100 were present at the final session. Harsh measures against his adherents made it easy for him to organize a sort of antihierarchy, and he well knew how to hold his party together and to animate all with his own unyielding spirit, which steadily refused to hear of compromise. Gregorius Asbesta and a whole company of influential metropolitans stood by him faithfully. At the same time he carefully refrained from attacking the emperor in all that he wrote, and the time came when he could move more freely. His requests for favor to his friends were listened to, the emperor even consulted him on theological questions, and finally (probably in 876) he was recalled to Constantinople as tutor to the princes royal. It was evident that after the imminent death of Ignatius, Photius would again ascend his throne.

5. Second Patriarchate.

Ignatius died Oct. 23, 878 (according to others, 877), and three days later Photius was installed in his place. The relations between Photius and Basil were thenceforth of the best. Basil asked Pope John VIII. (q.v.) to recognize the reinstated patriarch, and this time the pope, needing imperial support for his schemes in Italy, showed a disposition to comply. He declared Photius' first elevation illegal, however, criticized the second be cause it had taken place without his knowledge, and stipulated that Photius should ask pardon be fore a synod. This was not at all to Photius' mind, and he accordingly contrived that a council should meet in Constantinople (the "Synod of St. Sophia," Nov., 879—Jan. 26, 880, the eighth general council of the East), attended by three times as many bishops as the council of 869. From this he obtained all that he desired, and the acts read as though the papal legates did not fully comprehend what they were doing. Photius was very amiable and apparently submissive to "his beloved brother," John, but he obscured the full meaning of his demands, and, remaining in the background himself, spoke in the council through others. The emperor kept away from the council; but after it was officially closed, he presided, at the instance of Photius, over two supplementary assemblies, at the first of which those present, including the papal legates, declared their adherence to the old creed. In the second Photius had one of the bishops deliver an address which in no veiled terms put him above the pope. Later, for political reasons, John rather outbid his legates than disavowed them.

Photius was now at the zenith of his power and glory, but relations with Rome soon became strained again. In 882 John VIII. was succeeded by Marinus I., the first pope who had previously been bishop of a non-Roman see and who had not been chosen directly from the Roman clergy. That he himself had made many translations did not deter Photius from using this technical irregularity against his Roman rival. Though his pontificate was too brief for any real results, Marinus renewed the ban against Photius, whereupon the latter stirred up afresh the strife over the procession of the Holy Spirit (see below, II., § 3). On Aug. 29, 886, the Emperor Basil died unexpectedly. His successor, Leo VI., had been Photius' pupil and originally was devoted to him, though for unknown reasons he had been the patriarch's bitter enemy since 880. Like Basil at his accession, Leo determined to be rid of Photius. He was ruthlessly deprived of his office and was banished to the monastery of Bordi in Armenia, where he lived probably a full decade or more. With his second downfall, however, Photius disappears from history.

It should be noted that Photius' contest with the popes did not absorb all his powers. He always found time for learning and art. He promoted missions to the Bulgarians and Russians; he sought relations with the Saracen princes, primarily for the good of the Christians under their rule and because of the holy places in Palestine; and he watched and endeavored to convert the Paulicians and other heretics both within and without the empire. Though some of his acts may be criticized, he had a lofty concept of his duty both as "watchman" against the West and as supreme shepherd of the East, and he performed it with zeal and energy. The Greeks are right when they reckon him among the foremost of all their spiritual leaders.

II. Writings.

1. Bibliotheca.

Measured by the standard of his time, Photius ranks very high as scholar; in the ninth century he is a phenomenon of learning and good judgment. Even when measured by a more exacting standard, he is still far from contemptible; his books were literary treasure-houses for the later dark ages of his people and have their value even now. The best known and most important for the present time is that commonly called the Bibliotheca or Myriobiblon, which presents summary accounts (cited as "codices") of 280 books read and studied by Photius, put together without apparent plan of arrangement and varying much in length and method of treatment. Some codices are mere brief synopses of contents; others contain excerpts, which steadily grow longer as the work proceeds; and some include critical remarks, which also vary from superficial opinions to carefully weighed and exact judgments. Possibly the book epitomizes Photius' academic lectures or gives specimens from them. It purports to have been written at the request of "our dear brother, Tarasius," who asked Photius, when he was preparing for his journey "to the Assyrians" (see above, I., § 1), to leave behind on his departure a description of books which he had read with his scholars at times when Tarasius could not be present. In its present form the work can hardly have been composed under such conditions; perhaps it originated as indicated at Tarasius' request and was elaborated later. It takes account of both heathen and Christian writers, and includes not a few works which are now lost. Historians, theologians, philosophers, grammarians, physicists, as well as acts of councils, martyrs, and saints, are reviewed. The rhetoricians appear to have been particularly interesting to Photius. Of theologians the dogmaticians proper are preferred. The poets hardly appear, and the great philosophers of ancient Greece are scarcely mentioned, perhaps from an evident intention to treat only less-known works. Thucydides, Polybius, Plutarch, and writers like Hippocrates and Pausanias are also left out of account, and the more famous theologians are treated briefly. Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and Basil are often mentioned, but only their rarer works . receive extended notice. The summaries are often excellent, and Photius' remarks on the style of his authors show good and cultivated taste. For his biographical notices he used an abridgment of a work of Hesychius of Miletus. Latin writers he knew only in translation.

2. Amphilochia.

The Amphilochia is so called because it is dedicated to Amphilochius of Cyzicus, one of the truest friends and oldest disciples of Photius, who had propounded certain questions to his teacher and who is often mentioned in the work. It consists of a series of questions and answers (300 in number according to the prologue; in existing manuscripts and editions the number is greater and variable, and the order is not the same), chiefly relating to Biblical topics, but including some which belong to dogmatics and philosophy and some which hardly appertain to theology at all. The Bible questions generally relate to passages which appear to be contradictory, the so-called enantiophanies of Scripture, and some of the answers are merely exegetical expositions. Many passages are treated more than once. As in the Bibliotheca, the answers vary greatly in length, some being mere notes, others almost treatises, and .there is no apparent plan. Most of the answers evidently belong to the time of the first exile of Photius, and may have been communicated by letter. It is possible that Photius collected them later, and probably the work was expanded with time. The author shows little originality, excerpting whole sections from Chrysostom, Polychronius, Germanus of Constantinople, John of Damascus, and others, and elsewhere being dependent on Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus Confessor, and others without directly copying them. In no less than thirty-two passages he repeats Theodoret almost verbally. The long, minute, and keen first answer addressed to Amphilochius may, however, be original.

3. Polemical Works.

The best-known of Photius' polemical works is the "Treatise on the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit," written against the Filioque. It was an incident of the renewed strife with Rome begun by Marinus (see above, I., § 5) and belongs to the years 885 or 888. It is throughout an independent product of Photius. It was he who gave the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit the sharp and precise definition which it ever afterward had in dogmatics. It is significant that the doctrine is not mentioned in the Amphilochia; it had no immediate interest for Photius,-and only the need of points of attack upon the West led him to elaborate it. After a brief introduction he fixes on John xv. 26, as the locus classicus of the doctrine, where Christ says that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father." To add that he proceeds also from the Son is held to lead to absurdities; it makes the Spirit a "product of the Son," and it destroys the unity of the three Persons of the Trinity (iii., iv.). The latter argument remained the leading one of all Eastern polemics against the West in the Filioque controversy. The consequences of the addition are further considered in chaps. vi.–xix., xxxi–xlvii., and lxi.–lxiv. Such passages as John xvi. 14 and Gal. iv. 6 are declared to be invalid arguments against the position of Photius (xx.–xxx., xlviii.–lx., xc.–xciv.). In chap. v. he asserts that the Fathers and councils are unanimous against the addition; and in chaps. lxv.-lxxxix. he examines the utterances of such western authorities as Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, and the popes from Damasus to Adrian III., and maintains that they support the contention of the East. The "Dissertation on the (New) Sprouting of the Manicheans" is a work against the Paulicians (q.v.). It consists of four books, of which the first gives a historical account of the Paulicians as New Manicheans, and the remainder a dogmatic and Biblical refutation of their doctrines. Books ii.–iv. do not fully accord with the plan as laid down in book i., and it has been suggested that they are a working-over of twelve lectures against the Manicheans. The fourth book appears to be an independent work and later than ii. and iii. If genuine, it probably belongs to the time of the first exile, since in it the author complains of being deprived of his books. The first book is closely related to the Historia Manichæorum ascribed to Petrus Siculus (MPG, civ. 1240 sqq.). The "Precise Conclusions and Proofs," in the form of questions and answers, furnishes a compendium of historical documents (acts of synods, etc.) relating to metropolitans, bishops, and the like; and it has been held that Photius wrote it as an indirect defense of his elevation and his opposition to Rome, as well as a refutation of the arguments advanced by his opponents against his legitimacy.

4. Other Works.

Hergenröther knew of twenty-two addresses by Photius, of which only two were printed (MPG, cii. 548 sqq.). Eighty-three "addresses and homilies" are now offered by Aristarches (see below, § 5), but the greater number of these are compositions of the editor rather than of Photius. No doubt Photius' works contain passages which were originally parts of spoken discourses; but it may well be questioned whether it is possible to select these fragments and put them together so as properly to reproduce the original addresses. At the same time, the collection offers some important inedita which are attested by manuscript evidence as real specimens of Photius' homiletic manner and skill. In general his thought follows the old and familiar channels of his Church. He is fluent and figurative, soars not seldom in a real flight, but more often shows mere floridity and phrasing. Photius' letters are the roost important source for his character and type of thought. Migne arranges them in three books: political letters to popes, patriarchs, bishops, emperors, and other princes (24 numbers); private letters to bishops, clerics, monks, etc., mostly letters of encouragement, recommendation, admonition, and the like (102 numbers, many of them very short); and letters to laymen, especially high officials (67 numbers). Valettas (see below, § 5) gives a larger number disposed in five books: "dogmatic and hermeneutic letters" (84 numbers); "parenetic letters" (57 numbers); "consolatory letters" (15 numbers); "letters of censure" (64 numbers); and "miscellaneous letters" (40 numbers, mostly brief friendly notes).

Photius' other writings include: Bible commentaries, of which only fragments are preserved (cf. MPG, ci. 1189–1253). A lexicon intended as a help to the understanding of authors whose diction was no longer current in the ninth century; it shows little originality and perhaps belongs to Photius' youth; probably he had help in composing it. Poems, of which three odes on Basil and a hymn of nine odes on Christ are known (the former in MPG, cii. 577 sqq., the latter in the Ekklesiastike Aletheia, Constantinople, 1895). An "Exhortation by Means of Proverbs" is published by J. Hergenröther in his Monumenta Græca ad Photium ejusque historiam pertinentia (Regensburg, 1869, pp. 20–52), as well as some fragments of philosophical writings (pp. 12 sqq.) and a not uninteresting extract from a work "On the Holy Liturgy" (pp. 11–12). For lost works of Photius (against the Emperor Julian, against Leontius of Antioch, and probably also a study on contradictions in the Roman codes) cf. Krumbacher, Geschichte, p. 522.

Photius was not the author of the Nomocanon, the standard law-book of the Eastern Church (see Nomocanons). It is older than his time, though it was supplemented during his patriarchate (in 883, according to the preface), and his councils of 861 and 879 had a part in this work. Whether Photius himself prepared the new edition is uncertain; but it is at least evident that he had a good knowledge of canon law, for some of his letters expound legal points in an illuminating manner. The canons of his councils were certainly Photius' work, and the Bibliotheca proves his acquaintance with the legal literature.

5. Editions.

Photius' writings are collected. in MPG, ci.–civ. The last two volumes contain the Bibliotheca, the text being that of Immanuel Bakker (2 vols., Berlin, 1824). Migne's text of the Amphilochia (vol. ci.) was furnished by Bishop Jean Baptiste Malou, with the help of Hergenröther, from a Vatican manuscript and without knowledge of the manuscript of Mt. Athos, which is the basis of the more valuable edition published by Constantinus Œconomus (Athens, 1858). The "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" was first edited by Hergenröther (Regensburg, 1857); his text is reprinted with copious notes in Migne (cii.). The "Dissertation on the Manicheans" was first published in complete form (four books) by Johann Christoph Wolff in his Anecdota Græca, i.–ii (Hamburg, 1722), whence it was reprinted by Migne (cii. pp. 15 sqq.). The work referred to above as "Precise Conclusions and Proofs" is given by Migne (civ. 1219 sqq.) under the title "Ten Questions and Answers." The most complete collection of Photius' addresses and sermons (or of what purport to be such; see above. II., § 4) is 9. Aristarches' "Eighty-three Addresses and Homilies of Photius" (2 vols., Constantinople, 1900). The letters (reprinted from older works) are in MPL, cii., as well as in the much better and more complete edition by Johannes Valettas. "Letters of Photius" (London, 1864); as supplements, Valettas prints the "Ten Questions and Answers" mentioned above and a similar "Five Questions and Answers." A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus has attempted to supplement Valettas in his Sancti Patriarchæ Photii epistolæ xlv. (St. Petersburg, 1896), though in his Photiaka (1897) he states that only the first twenty-one letters really belong to Photius, the others being properly ascribed to Isidore of Pelusium. The best edition of the lexicon is by S. A. Naber (2 vols., Leyden, 1864–65). Certain fragments and treatises of lesser moment are published in J. Hergenröther, Monumenta græca ad Photium ejusqe historiam pertinentia (Regensburg, 1869), and in A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Monumenta græca et latina ad historian Photii patriarchæ pertinentia (2 parts, St. Petersburg, 1899–1901). The writing "On the Franks and the Other Latins," printed by Hergenröther in the first of these collections (pp. 62 sqq.), is shown in his Photius (iii. 172 sqq.) to be spurious; it is probably subsequent to the time of Michael Cærularius. For the Scripta canonica (including the Nomocanon), cf. MPG, cv.

(F. Kattenbusch.)

Bibliography: The most accessible compend of epistolary and conciliar sources is Mansi, Concilia, xv. 159 sqq., xvi. 1 sqq., 209 sqq., 295 sqq., 413 sqq., 425 sqq., xvii. 365 sqq.; to this may be added the material in MPG, cv. 509 sqq., cviii. 1037 sqq., cix. 155 sqq., 663 sqq., 985 sqq. The work of first rank is J. Hergenröther, Photius, sein Leben, siene Schriften, und das grieschische Schisma, 3 vols., Regensburg, 1867–69. Exceedingly useful is Krumbacher. Geschichte, 73 sqq.. 515 sqq., 971 sqq., where an excellent list of literature is found, including a very full statement of editions of the works. Consult further: Fabricius-Harles, Biliotheca Græca, x. 670 sqq xi. 1 sqq., Hamburg, 1807–08; J. N. Jager, Histoire de Photius, Paris, 1854; L. Tosti, Storia dell’ origine dello scisma greco, 2 vols., Florence, 1856; H. Lämmer, Papst Nikolaus and die byzantinische Staatskirche seiner Zeit, Berlin, 1857; A. Pichler, Geschichte der kirchliche Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident, i. 180 sqq., Munich, 1864; . R. Baxmann, Die Politik der Päpste von Gregor I. bis auf Gregor VII., ii. 1 sqq., Elberfeld, 1869; A. F. Gfrörer, Byzantinische Geschichten, vols. ii.–iii., Gras, 1873; B. Jungmann, Dissertationes selectæ, iii. 319–442, Regensburg,1882; A. Gasquet, L’Empire byzantin et la monarchie franque, pp. 348–372, Paris, 1888; G. Bernhardy, Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur, vol. i.; Halle, 1892; F. W. F. Kattenbusch, Vergleichende Konfessionskunde, i. 118 sqq., Freiburg, 1892; A. H. Hore, Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church, 365–369, 376–383, London, 1899; idem, Students Hist. of the Greek Church, ib. 1902; W. F. Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches, pp . 209, 235 sqq., 279–280, New York, 1908; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, xii. 719–734; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 636–42; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 561–578 et passim; Harnack, Dogma, vols. ii.–v.; the literature under the articles on Popes John VIII., Martin II., Adrian III., Stephen V. and VI., and Formosus II., also contain matter that is pertinent; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. iv.; KL, ix. 2082 sqq.

PHRYGIA frij´i-a: A region of fluctuating boundaries occupying the central portion of Asia Minor. At the beginning of the Christian era the name had merely an ethnological and no geographical significance. There was no Roman province of the name Phrygia until the fourth century. In the northern part were the cities of Ancyra, Gordician, Doryleum; in the southern, Colossæ, Hierapolis, Laodicea. The region is of great importance for the history of religion after about 200 B.C., the cults of the West imported from the East receiving a profound impress from the primitive usages still current in Phrygia. Especially is this the case with the mysteries so strongly renascent in the century before the Christian era. See Asia Minor.

PHUT. See Table of the Nations, § 6.

PHYLACTERY. See Tefillin.

PIACENZA, SYNOD OF. See Urban II.

PIARISTS, pai´a-rists: A Roman Catholic order of men having as its aim the giving of free juvenile instruction especially to poor boys. The members are variously known by other names, such as Piarians, Scolopians, and Paulinists. Their beginning was an independent brotherhood founded at Rome in 1597 by the Spanish nobleman José Calasanze; they received their constitution as a congregation for their present function in 1617, and were promoted to an order by Gregory XV. in 1621, with the title, Congregatio Paulina clericorum regularium pauperum matris Dei scholarum piarum. The order ranks second in importance as a religious brotherhood for the instruction of boys.

José Calasanze (Josephus a Matre Dei) was born in the Castle Calasanze near Petralta de la Sal in Aragon Sept. 11, 1556; and died at Rome Aug. 25, 1648. He studied law at Lerida and theology at Alcala and became a priest in 1583. In 1592 he went to Rome, where as a strict ascetic and a member of four religious brotherhoods he devoted himself to the care of the sick and the instruction of youth. In 1612, the number of scholars was 1,200. Soon a division into popular and higher schools was required; in 1630 Calasanze established the Nazarene College at Rome for noble youths; and in 1632 Pope Urban VIII. made him general for life. The order extended its work from Italy, so that after 1631 it had spread over Germany, Poland, Hungary, and other lands; but on account of its pedagogical results it aroused the jealousy of the Jesuits, which led to Calasanze's downfall. In 1646 the order was reduced to a secular brotherhood without vows. Alexander VII. restored it in 1660 to a congregation, yet without its fourth vow; Clement IX. granted this in 1669, and raised it to a formal order; and Innocent XII. in 1698 restored its mendicant privileges. Calasanze was canonized by Clement XIII. in 1767. The order, distributed in nine provinces, consists of 121 houses and 2,100 members and is strongest in Spain.

(O. Zöckler†.)

Bibliography: Among the sketches of the life of the founder may be named those by J Timon-David, 2 vols., Marseilles. 1884 (best); A. della Concettione, Rome, 1893; F. J. Lipowsky, Munich, 1720; W. E. Hubert, Mainz, 1886; N. Tommaseo, Rome, 1898; D. M. Casasnovas y Sans, Saragossa, 1904; and J. C. Heidenreich, Vienna, 1907. For the Constitutions consult L. Holsten, Codex regularum monasticarum et canonicarum, ed. M. Brockie, Augsburg, 1759. Consult: Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen, iii. 287–296; L. Kellner, Erziehungsgeschichte en Skizzen und Bildern, i. 327 sqq., Essen, 1880; H. Zschokke, Die theologische studien der katholishen Kirche in Oesterreich, Vienna, 1894; A. Brendler, Das Wirken der . . . Piaristen, Vienna, 1898; F. Endl, in Mittheilungen der Geschichte für deutsche Erziehungs- und Schulgeschichte, VIII., 147 sqq., Helyot, Ordres monastiques, iv. 281–282; KL. ix. 20–96 sqq.

PI-BESETH, pî-bê´seth: An Egyptian city mentioned in Ezek. xxx. 17, together with Aven (On); called by the Greeks (and the Septuagint) Boubastos, or, more rarely, Boubastis. It was situated in the Delta on the right bank of the eastern arm of the Nile. The Hebrew name represents the Egyptian Per-Baste(t), "House of Bast," the local goddess who was represented as a cat or as a woman with a feline head. The real name of the city was Bast, from which the name of the goddess was derived. Pi-beseth was the residence of the Lybian kings of the Twenty-second Dynasty, including Shishak; and in Christian times was an episcopal see-city. The extensive ruins of its temples are at Tell Basta, near the modern Zaḳaziḳ.

(G. Steindorff.)

Bibliography: The Eighth Memoir (for 1889–90) of the Egypt Exploration Fund; the literature under Leontopolis, and part of that (on exploration and discovery) under Egypt.

PICARDS (PICKARDS): A corruption of "Beghards" (see Beghards, Beguines), applied as a term of reproach to the Bohemian Brethren (q.v., I., § 4).

PICK, BERNARD: Lutheran; b. at Kempen (27 m. s.s.w. of Essen), Prussia, Dec. 19, 1842. He was educated at the universities of Breslau and Berlin, and at Union Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1868. He was then pastor at New York City (1868–69), North Buffalo, N. Y. (1869–70), Syracuse, N. Y. (1870–74), Rochester, N. Y. (1874–81), Allegehany, Pa. (1881–95), Albany, N. Y. (1895–1901). Since 1905 he has occupied a pastorate in Newark, N. J. He has translated F. Delitzsch's Jewish Artisan Life in the Time of Christ (New York, 1883) and H. Cremer's Essence of Christianity (1903); has edited Luther's "Eine Feste Burg" in Nineteen Languages (New York, 1883); and has written Luther as a Hymnist (Philadelphia, 1875); Jüdischen Volksleben zur Zeit Jesu (Rochester, N. Y., 1880); Historical Sketch of the Jews since the Destruction of Jerusalem (New York, 1887); The Life of Jesus according to extra-canonical Sources (1887); The Talmud, what it is, and what it knows about Jesus and his Followers (1888); Historical Sketch of the Jews since their Return from Babylon (Chicago, 1892); Vade Mecum Homileticum, i. (Cleona, Pa., 1899); The Extra-canonical Life of Christ (New York, 1903); Extra-canonical New Testament Writings of the First Two Centuries (1905); Lyra Gerhardti: A Selection of Paul Gerhardt's Spiritual Songs (Burlington, Ia., 1906); Hymns and Poetry of the Eastern Church (1908); Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ (1908); and The Apocryphal Acts (Chicago, 1909).

PICK, ISRAEL: Founder of the Amenian Congregation; b. about 1830. Baptized as a Christian at Breslau in 1854, he professed that by so doing he did not renounce his Judaism, but became a Jew in the truest sense. All the law and ordinances of the Old Testament were included with the Christian sacraments as the ordinances of the new congregation founded by him, which he styled Amenian because in Christ (Elohim-amen; Isa. lxv. 16) all the promises of God are yea and amen (II Cor. i. 20). He gathered about 800 adherents, mainly at München-Gladbach. In 1859 he went to the Holy Land in search of a place of settlement for his followers and was never heard of again. His principal literary work was Der Gott der Synagoge and der Gott der Judenchristen (Breslau, 1854).

(O. Zöckler†.)

Bibliography: Consult Pick's Briefe an meine Stammesgenossen, Hamburg, 1854; Hollenberg in Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1857, nos. 6–8; J. E. Jörg, Geschichte die Protestantismus in seiner neuesten Entwickelung, ii. 294–300, Freiburg, 1857.

PICKETT, JAMES: Primitive Methodist; b. at Berwick Bassett (27 m. n. of Salisbury), England, Dec. 19, 1853. He received his education at Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire; was in business in London, 1870–76; entered the Primitive Methodist ministry, and served at Bognor, 1876–78; Southwark, 1878–81; Forest Hill, 1881–85; Leicester, 1885–97; and at Hull, 1891–1903; became general missionary secretary in 1903; and was elected president of the conference of his denomination, 1908.

PICO DELLA MIRANDOLA, pî´co del’la mi´´rān-dō´lā, GIOVANNI: Italian philosopher; b. at Mirandola Feb. 24, 1463; d. at Florence Nov. 17, 1494. He studied at the University of Bologna (1477–79), and then visited the principal universities of Europe, pursuing the studies of philosophy and theology, learning as a means to this end Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. In this arduous course of discipline he became a follower of Marsilio Ficino, and their common aim was to demonstrate the fundamental agreement of heathen philosophers with each other and with Christian scholasticism and mysticism. The root idea of this propaganda was that all truth is one and all science is one. Yet the substructure of Pico's system was derived from the Cabala. In 1487 he went to Rome where he proposed to hold a disputation covering the domain of knowledge, to which he invited the leading scholars as participants. As the themes of the discussion he issued 900 theses "in dialectics, morals, physics, mathematics, metaphysics, theology, magic, and cabalism." In publishing these he declared that he did not intend to defend anything regarded by the Church or its head as untrue or improbable. But the theologians declared some of the theses heretical at least in tendency, and the pope (Innocent VIII.) prohibited the disputation. Pico composed an apology, and went to France. He was later, through the intervention of Lorenzo de’ Medici, permitted to return to Italy, and took up his residence near Florence, a member of the brilliant circle which gathered about Lorenzo. In 1493 a brief of the new pope, Alexander VI., relieved him of the taint of heresy. The humiliation suffered through the interdiction of the disputation led his thoughts toward celibacy, and when he died he had been contemplating retirement to a monastery, and for this he prepared by ascetic practises. He transferred his estates to his nephew, Giovanni Francesco, and bestowed his personal property on the poor.

Bibliography: Pico's Opera were published, 2 parts. Venice, 1498; again, ed. his nephew, with a life, ib. 1557; again, including the works of his nephew, 2 vols., Basel, 1572–1573, and (best) 1601. His Epistolæ were very often edited and published, e.g., Paris, 1500, 1520; Cologne, 1518. On his life and work consult: G. Dreydorff, Das System des Johann Pico, Grafen von Mirandula und Concordia, Marburg, 1858; W. H. Pater, Studies in the Hist. of the Renaissance, London, 1873; Pastor, Popes, v. 151, 154, 342–344, 389; Creighton, Papacy, iv. 164–166, 173; KL, viii. 1549–55. The life by his nephew, with three of his letters, his "Interpretation of Ps. xvi." his "Twelve Rules of a Christian Life," "Twelve Points of a Perfect Lover," and his "Hymn to God," transl. into Eng. from the Latin of Sir Thomas More, ed. J. M. Rigg, appeared London, 1890.

PICPUS, pîk´´pUs´, CONGREGATION OF (Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary): A Roman Catholic congregation founded at Paris in 1805. The founder, Pierre Marie Joseph Coudrin (b. 1768; d. Mar. 27, 1837) was led to undertake the work by contemplation of the effects of the French Revolution on morals and religion. He desired an organization the purpose of which should be the conversion and moral and religious instruction of both sexes, and should commemorate by suitable services four phases of the life of Christ—his childhood by free instruction of children, his private life by Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (q.v.), his public life by preaching and missions, and his suffering and death by the practise of austerities. He was encouraged and assisted by Bishop J. B. Chabot of Mende, and the congregation took its name from the street and buildings in Paris in which it was instituted. In 1817 confirmation was granted by Pius VII, after which seminaries were founded and preaching to the people was begun. In 1826 missions to the heathen were sent out, six priests going to the Sandwich Islands. In 1833 Gregory XVI. entrusted to the congregation the mission for eastern Oceania. From that time the two branches of work, education and preaching, were greatly extended. Missionaries went to various parts of Oceania and Australasia, to North and South America, and to Africa, while in all these parts as well as in Europe educational institutions were established, there being 200 with 12,000 scholars in Oceania alone. The celebrated Father Damien (see Veuster, Joseph de) was a member of the congregation, and a large number of equally devoted but less celebrated missionaries have contributed to success, and have added to the sum of knowledge by books dealing with the languages and ethnology of the islands and lands where they have labored.

There is a branch of the congregation for women, The Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary, the foundation of which was laid in 1800 by Coudrin and Henriette Aymer de la Chevalerie (d. 1834). Prior to the separation of Church and State in France, the sisters had establishments in France, and such are still found in Belgium, Holland, Spain, England, and South America.

Bibliography: The Constitutions were printed Paris, 1840. Consult: A. Coudrin, Vie de l’ Abbé Coudrin, Paris, 1846; S. Perron, Vie de . . . Pierre Marie-Joseph Coudrin, ib. 1900; E. Keller. Les Congrégations religieusee en France. pp. 372, 434, ib. 1880; Helyot, Ordres monastiques, iv. 1277 sqq., Paris, 1859; Heimbucher, Orden and Kongregationen, iii. 471–473; KL, ix. 2102–05.

PICTET, pîc´´tê´, BENEDICT: Swiss Reformed; b. at Geneva May 30, 1655; d. there June 10, 1724. After receiving his education in the university of his native city, he made an extensive tour of Europe, after which he assumed pastoral duties at Geneva, and in 1686 was appointed professor of theology. In the domain of systematic theology, Pictet published two great works: Theologia Christiana (3 vols., Geneva, 1696; Eng. transl., Christian Theology, London, 1834) and Morale chrétienne (2 vols., 1692), in which he sought to revive the old and somewhat stagnating orthodox theology, though he was unable to prevent the Genevan "Company of Pastors" from adopting a new formula of subscription in 1706. Pictet also distinguished himself as Christian poet, his hymns soon becoming popular conjointly with the Psalms, and some of them still being found in French hymnals. Mention should likewise be made of Pictet's Huit sermons sur l’examen des religions (3d ed., Geneva, 1716; Eng. transl., True and False Religion examined; the Christian Religion defended; and the Protestant Reformation vindicated, Edinburgh, 1797) and of his Dialogue entre un catholique et un protestant (1713; Eng. transl., Romanist Conversations, London, 1826).

Eugene Choisy.

Bibliography: E. de Budé, Vie de Bénédict Pictet, Lausanne, 1874; J. Gabriel, Hist. de l’église de Genève, vol. iii., Geneva, 1862; C. Borgeaud, Hist. de l’université de Genève, ib. 1900; Lichtenberger, ESR, x. 599–600.

PICTURES, MIRACULOUS: Certain pictures or images believed by the Roman Catholic Church to confer special graces upon those who look at them, on the intercession of the saint represented in them, and on condition of more or less subjective Bus! on the part of the beholder. Among these graces are recovery from illness, discovery of secrets, inspiration to good works, and the like. The popular notion ascribes miraculous powers to the pictures themselves; but theologians take pains to explain that God alone is the wonder-worker, and the picture only the locality and occasion of the miracle, by means of the intercession of the saint, or sometimes the means by which the miracle is worked, as in cases where the image is supposed to speak, to weep, or to open and close its eyes.

(C. Grünersen†.)

Bibliography: Council of Trent, session XXV., Latin and English in Schaff, Creeds, ii. 199–205; M. Chemnitz, Examinis concilii O Tridentini . . . Opus, Frankfort, 1565–1573, reprint, ed. Preuse, Berlin, 1861, Eng. transl., London, 1582; J. Marx, Das Wallfahren in der katholischen Kirche, Tréves, 1842.

PIE (PYE), pai: The name given to the index table on which prior to the Reformation in England the directions for worship were written, and to the early ordinal or directory for priests, containing a table of daily services and a summary of the mass rubrics: The arrangement was complicated and obscure, and the investigation required to discover the proper order was sometimes extended. The result was great confusion in the services. The name is perhaps derived from pica, "magpie," and is the result of the "pied" appearance of the book caused by the printing of initials in red and the body in black type on white paper.

Bibliography: W. Maskell, Monumenta ritualia ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, 3 vols., London 1846–47; M. E. C. Walcott, The English Ordinal; its Hist., Validity, and Catholicity, ib 1851; idem, Sacred Archæology, p. 445, ib. 1860; J. H. Blunt, The Annotated Book of Common Prayer, pp. 101 sqq., New York, 1908. A transl. of a pie is given in The Roman Breviary, transl. by John, Marquess of Bute, i. pp. xi.–l., Edinburgh, 1879.

PIEPER, pî´per, ANTON: German Roman Catholic; b. at Lüdinghausen (16 m. s.w. of Münster), Westphalia, Mar. 20, 1854. He was educated at the universities of Münster, Innsbruck; and Rome from 1874 to 1883 (D.D., Freiburg, 1883), and in 1890 became privat-docent for church history and Christian archeology at the University of Münster, associate professor of church history in 1896, and full professor of church history and Christian archeology in 1899. He has written Papst Urban VIII. und die Mantuaner Erbfolgefrage (Freiburg, 1883); Die Propaganda-Congregation und die nordlichen Missionen in siebzehnten Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1886); Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ständigen Nuntiaturen (Freiburg, 1894); Die päpslichen Legaten und Nuntien in Deutschland, Frankreich und Spanien seit der Mitte des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1897); Die alte Universität Münster 1773–1818 (1902); and Christentum, römisches Kaisertum, and heidnischer Staat (1907).

PIEPER, FRANZ AUGUST OTTO: Lutheran; b. at Carwitz (85 m. w. of Danzig), Pomerania, June 27, 1852. After studying at the gymnasium of Colberg, Pomerania, he graduated in 1872 at Northwestern University, Watertown, Wis., and in 1875 from Concordia Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. He was Lutheran pastor at Manitowoc, Wis. (1875–78), professor of theology in Concordia Seminary (1878 to 1887), since president of the same institution, and also president of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other states since 1899. In addition to his work as editor of Lehre and Wehre, he has written Das Grundbekenntnis der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (St. Louis, Mo., 1880); Lehre von der Rechtfertigung (1889); Gesetz und Evangelium (1892); Distinctive Doctrines of the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia, 1892); Unsere Stellung in Lehre and Praxis (St. Louis, 1896); Lehrstellung der Missouri-Synode (1897); Christ's Work (1898); and Das Wesen des Christentums (1903).

PIERCE, LOVICK: Methodist Episcopal South; b. in Halifax County, N. C., Mar. 24, 1785; d. at Sparta, Ga., Nov. 9, 1879. With very limited education, he entered the ministry in South Carolina in 1804, and served as chaplain in the war of 1812, after which he studied medicine and practised at Greensborough, Ga., until about 1821, when he permanently resumed the ministry. He was abundant in labors; possessed remarkable physical endurance, and was a man of great intellectual force and moral power. He was a strong advocate of the Wesleyan. doctrine of sanctification; and was one of the first to encourage, and did much to advance, the cause of higher education in his church. He was a member of the first delegated general conference of Methodism in 1812; and remained one of its chief representatives in its conferences as well as before the country until his death.

Bibliography: J. M. Buckley, in American Church History Series, vol. v. passim, New York 1895; and the other works cited under Methodists which cover his locality and period.

PIERIUS, pi-er´i–Us: Presbyter of Alexandria. According to an excerpt from the "Christian History" of Philippus Sidetes by H. Dodwell, Dissertatio in Irenæum (Oxford, 1689), it appears that Pierius was the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria, the successor of Dionysius, and predecessor of Theognostus [c. 265 A.D.]. Photius also names Pierius as master of the school and teacher of Pamphilus. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII., xxxii. 26, 27, 30, Eng. transl. in NPNF, 1 ser., i. 321–322, cf. note 42) names Achillas, later bishop, as conductor of the school at that time, and if this is correct, the two might have been jointly at the head. At any rate his character, according to Eusebius, of ascetic, philosopher, exegete, and preacher, would present him as amply qualified. Sidetes also states, on the authority of a lawyer, Theodore, that Pierius and his brother Isidore were martyrs and had a very large church at Alexandria, which is also reported by Photius. Jerome (De vir. ill., lxxvi.; also his second Epist. ad Pammachium, Eng. transl. in ANF, vi. 157) states that, after the persecution of Decius, Pierius lived at Rome. The work (Biblion) of Pierius to which Photius refers (Codex cxix.) consisted of twelve treatises or addresses, of which also Sidetes makes mention. One of these was an extemporaneous first Easter sermon, mentioned by Photius. The address upon the martyrdom of his pupil Pamphilus which contains exegetical elements is to be distinguished from the Biblion, and the representation of Jerome that he was the author of a commentary on I Corinthians is not substantiated. Pierius was a follower of Origen, was indeed called "the younger Origen," and his writings were studied with those of Origen.

(N. Bonwetsch.)

Bibliography: For Philippus Sidetes consult C. de Boor, in TU, v. 2 (1889), 169 sqq.; for Photius use M. J. Routh, Reliquiæ sacræ, iii. 423 sqq., 5 vols., Oxford, 1846–48, MPG, x. 241 sqq., and the Eng. transl. in ANF, v. 157. Consult further: ANF, Bibliography, pp. 70–71 (contains detailed list of notices); Palladius, Hist. Lausiaca, chaps. xii., cxliii., in MPG, xxxiv.; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 439–441 (collects the passages), ii. 2, pp. 66–69, 71, 105, 123; idem, Dogma, ii. 95–96, 116, iv. 41; Bardenhewer, Geschichte, ii. 168 sqq.; Krüger, History, pp. 217–218; L. B. Radford, Three Teachers of Alexandria, Cambridge and New York, 1908.

PIERSON, ARTHUR TAPPAN: Presbyterian; b. at New York City Mar. 6, 1837. He was graduated at Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. (A.B., 1857), and Union Theological Seminary (1869), being minister of the Congregational Church at Winsted, Conn., in the summers of 1859 and 1860. He was then pastor at Binghampton, N. Y. (1860–1863), Waterford, N. Y. (1863–69), Detroit, Mich. (1869–82), Indianapolis, Ind. (1882–83), Bethany Church, Philadelphia (1883–89), Metropolitan Tabernacle, London (1891–93), and Christ Church, London (1902-–03). In 1889–90 he made a missionary tour of the British Isles. Since 1888 he has been editor of the Missionary Review of the World, and was lecturer on missions in Rutgers College in 1891 and Duff lecturer in Scotland in 1892. He has written The Crisis of Missions (New York, 1886); Many Infallible Proofs: Chapters on the Evidences of Christianity (1886); Evangelistic Work in Principle and Practise (1887); Keys to the Word: or, Helps to Bible Study (1887); The Divine Enterprise of Missions (1891); Miracles of Missions (4 vols., 1891–1901); The Divine Art of Preaching (1892); From the Pulpit to the Palm-Branch: Memorial of Charles H. Spurgeon (1892); The Heart of the Gospel (sermons; 1892); New Acts of the Apostles (1894); Life-Power: or, Character Culture, and Conduct (1895); Lessons in the School of Prayer (1895); Acts of the Holy Spirit (1895); The Coming of the Lord (1896); Shall we continue in Sin? (1897); In Christ Jesus: or, The Sphere of the Believer's Life (1898); Catharine of Siena, an ancient Lay Preacher (1898); George Müller of Bristol and his Witness to a Prayer-Hearing God (1899); Forward Movements of the last half Century (1900); Seed Thoughts for Public Speakers (1900); The Modern Mission Century viewed as a Cycle of Divine Working (1901); The Gordian Knot: or, The Problem which baffles Infidelity (1902); The Keswick Movement in Precept and Practice(1903); God's Living Oracles (1904); The Bible and Spiritual Criticism (1906); The Bible and Spiritual Life (1908); and Godly Self-control (1909).

PIETISM.

The term Pietism connotes a movement in behalf of practical religion within the Lutheran Church of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Established at Halle by Philipp Jakob Spener, and following distinct and individual courses of development in Halle, Württemberg, and Herrnhut, it received a bond of union in its conviction that the type of Christianity then prevailing in Lutheranism stood in urgent need of reform, and that this could be brought about by "piety," or living faith made active and manifest in upright conduct.

I. Philipp Jakob Spener.

Philipp Jakob Spener, the founder of Pietism, was born at Rappoltsweiler (33 m. sm. of Strasburg), Upper Alsace, Jan. 23, 1635; d. at Berlin Feb. 5, 1705. His parents gave him a devout education, and he received still more lasting religious impressions from his godmother, the widowed Agatha von Rappoltstein (d. 1648) and her chaplain, Joachim Stoll (1615–78), finding additional spiritual nourishment in such works as the Vom wahren Christentum of Johann Arndt (q.v.) and German translations of the English devotional writers Emanuel Sonthomb (Emanuel Thompson?), Lewis Bayly, Daniel Dyke, and Richard Baxter.

1. Life and Early Education.

Spener began his university studies at Strasburg in May, 1651, devoting himself primarily to history, philosophy, and philology, and receiving his master's degree in 1653. He later gained a reputation as a student of genealogy and heraldry, particularly through his voluminous Opus heraldicum (2 vols., Frankfort, 1690). His theological teachers were Johann Schmidt (1594–1658), Sebastian Schmidt (1617–96), and especially Johann Konrad Dannhauer (q.v.). It was to the latter scholar that Spener was chiefly indebted for his living interest in the writings of Luther and the assertion of the religious rights of the laity, as well as for his subsequent avoidance of separatistic tendencies. As a student he lived a quiet, reserved life; his acquaintance confined itself to a few sympathetic. friends; and his Sundays were devoted to serious reading and singing hymns with these friends, as well as to the composition of his Soliloquia et meditationes sacræ. He terminated his formal studies in 1659, and spent the next three years at Basel, Geneva, and Tübingen. Here his chief object was further knowledge of languages, literature, and history, but at the same time his religious development was profoundly influenced, notably by his acquaintance with Jean de Labadie (see Labadie, Jean de, Labadists), whom he met in Geneva. Though many desired Spener to remain in Württemberg, he accepted, in Mar., 1663, the position of assistant preacher at the cathedral in Strasburg, an appointment which was particularly attractive to him, since it allowed him time to pursue his studies and to attend lectures; and in the following year he received his theological doctorate.

2 Frankfort and the Colegia Pietatis.

Spener now planned to live a quiet scholar's life, and eventually to become a professor of theology. In 1666, however, he was called as senior to Frankfort, where he not only found that his new office restricted his customary and congenial scholastic leisure, but also that his Lutheran orthodoxy was doubted, and that he was accused of Calvinistic tendencies. Accordingly, on the eighth Sunday after Trinity, 1667, he delivered a sermon on "necessary caution against false prophets," among whom he classed the Reformed, who had a small congregation at Frankfort. Spener afterward regretted the attitude here taken against the Reformed, however, and sought as far as possible to prevent the circulation of his sermon. Very different, and far happier, were the results of his sermon on July 18, 1669, on the "vain righteousness of the Pharisees." Here he described this ineffectual righteousness of the Pharisees as that superficial security which is content with an external subscription to the orthodox Lutheran Church, and which is satisfied with, merely intellectual attachment to pure doctrine, outward participation in divine service and the sacraments, and abstinence from gross sins and vices. Most of his hearers were disposed to feel that Spener demanded too much from frail men, but others were startled into a salutary dread and were aroused to serious. repentance.

It was those thus affected who, a year later (1670), participated in the Collegia Pietatis, or private devotional gatherings, which Spener assembled twice a week in his house, this course being a decided innovation, though at first the meetings escaped attack. At the same time, Spener by no means restricted himself to the care of his little band of conventicle people, but strove to arouse and maintain personal and vital Christianity by preaching, by ecclesiastical discipline, and, most of all, by improving and animating the catechizings held each Sunday. His catechetical sermons and his catechism itself, the Erklärung der christlichen Lehre nach der Ordnung des kleinen Katechismus Luthers (Frankfort, 1677), were a fruit of these endeavors, as well as several annual series of sermons.

3. The Pia Desideria

The event that formed an epoch in Spener's life and attracted wide attention was the publication of his little Pia desideria (Frankfort, 1675). In this work Spener first depicted the Christianity of his period, which left much to be desired in every rank and station. Nevertheless, God had promised better times for the Church militant, which were to begin when Israel should have become converted and papal Rome should have fallen. Meanwhile he proposed the following helpful measures: the word of God must be more widely diffused among the people, this end being furthered by discussions on the Bible under the pastor's guidance; the establishment and maintenance of the spiritual priesthood, which is not possessed by the clergy alone, but is rather constituted by the right and duty of all Christians to instruct others, to punish, to exhort, to edify, and to care for their salvation; the fact must be emphasized that mere knowledge is in sufficient in Christianity, which is expressed rather in action; more gentleness and love between denominations are needed in polemics; the university training of the clergy must be changed so as to include personal piety and the reading of books of edification, as well as intellectual knowledge and dogmatic controversies; and, finally, sermons should be prepared on a more edifying plan, with less emphasis on rhetorical art and homiletic erudition.

4. Attacks on Teachings and Collegia

Concretely regarded, these fundamental ideas of the Pia desideria were not new, but the very fact that Spener's treatise made so great a stir, and within a few years evoked a complete literature of its own, shows how imperative it was to emphasize such principles afresh. But amid much approval, there was, from the very first, no lack of opposition. This turned especially on the reiterated recommendation of private devotional gatherings in the Pia desideria. It was only now that the Frankfort conventicles became a center of general observation, visited by many, copied by many, and also distrusted by many. [But while Spener hoped that the small bands of earnest Christians thus formed within the general congregation would serve as a spiritual leaven for the larger body, they possessed from the start the two inherent dangers of separatistic tendencies and, as being composed preponderatingly of laymen associated on the theory of the universal priesthood of all believers, of opposition to the clergy proper. Both these dangers proved real perils; and as early as 1677 complaints were lodged against the collegia pietatis by the police of Frankfort, while on Jan. 26, 1678, the Darmstadt consistory warned all pastors under its jurisdiction against them.] Spener defended his innovations, however, in his Das geistliche Priestertum (Frankfort, 1677), and finally transferred the meetings from his house to the church, only to be confronted with fresh difficulties. His assertion that conversion and regeneration were indispensable for the right study of theology was contested by Georg Konrad Dilfeld in his Theologia Horbio-Speneriana in 1679, only to be easily refuted by Spener in his Allgemeine Gottesgelehrtheit aller gläubigen Christen and rechtschaffenen Theologen (Frankfort, 1680).

Spener now hoped to proceed unmolested in his work, but his plans were abruptly frustrated in 1682 by the secession of a number of his most zealous friends and adherents from all connection with the Church. With the utmost reluctance Spener broke with the separatists for love of his church and his pastoral office, and even opposed them openly in his Der Klagen über das verdorbene Christentum Missbrauch und rechter Gebrauch (Frankfort, 1685). A portion of these Frankfort separatists emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1683; and Spener's position was still further complicated by misunderstandings with the municipal council, which proved little disposed to comply with his wishes in combating public offenses, regularly inspecting catechetical examinations, and effecting a better organization of the parishes and of the practise of confession.

5. Stormy Career at Dresden.

Under these circumstances Spener decided, in the summer of 1686, to accept a call to Dresden as first chaplain to Elector John George III. of Saxony. Still greater conflicts awaited him here. The morals at the Saxon Court were crude and licentious, and Spener fell into disfavor with the elector by reproaching him, as his confessor on a fast-day, for his intemperance. The Saxon clergy, moreover, received Spener with distrust as a stranger, and his Dresden colleagues were offended when he began catechetical exercises in his house, deeming such a course beneath the dignity of a first court chaplain. In addition to all this, Spener alienated the Saxon universities of Leipsic and Wittenberg by his criticism of university conditions and the defective training of theological students in his De impedimentis studii theologici (1690). The conflict between the old orthodoxy and the new spirit represented by Spener became acute at Leipsic in 1689, when Spener's friends and pupils, who included August Hermann Francke and Paul Anton (qq.v.), organized, for purposes of edification, the so-called collegia biblica. [Three years previous, on July 18, 1686, at the instance of Johann Benedikt Carpzov (q.v.), their subsequent opponent, Francke and Anton had established a similar institution, the collegium philobiblicum, an association of eight masters who met at the house of Valentin Alberti (q.v.) for the study of the Bible. Gradually, under the influence of Spener, the devotional element gained ascendency over the technical theology that had been the purpose of the original society; but no open disturbance was created until Francke started the collegia biblica. His pietistic lectures now caused such a sensation among the students, however, as well as among the townsmen of Leipsic, that "doubtful conventicles and private assemblies" were forbidden by an electoral edict on Mar. 10, 1690, and Francke was eventually obliged to leave the university.]

6. Call to Berlin; Real Rise of Pietism.

A lively literary controversy now began concerning the merits of Pietism, but in 1691 Spener, who was deemed the spiritual leader of the Pietists, who were themselves opposed as sectaries, accepted a call to Berlin as provost of the Nikolaikirche. At Berlin, unlike Saxony, Spener and Pietism were to a certain extent protected by Elector Frederick III. (King Frederick I. of Prussia after 1701); for the Reformed elector, desiring to establish peace in his land between Lutherans and Reformed was opposed to strict Lutheranism, and perceived in the practical and unionistic trend of Pietism an ally to his plans. In Brandenburg, accordingly, Spener exercised a profound influence over ecclesiastical conditions through his powerful patrons. He utilized this influence, after 1692, primarily to further the creation of a theological school after his own liking at the new University of Halle, its first significant exponent being A. H. Francke (q.v.).

Meanwhile the Pietistic movement had attracted wide circles and divided Lutheran Germany into two camps, organizing itself into a kind of party which, though claiming to be entirely orthodox and repudiating all attributes of heresy or sectarianism, was forced to struggle for existence against orthodoxy. The situation was still further complicated by the incorporation, after 1691–92, of certain chiliastic, enthusiastic, and ecstatic phenomena with the Pietistic movement. [As early as 1691 an unnamed opponent of Spener (probably C. A. Roth of Halle), in his Imago Pietismi, brought essentially the same charges against Pietism which were afterward constantly repeated in polemics against it.] Between 1691 and 1698 Spener alone exchanged some fifty controversial treatises with his antagonists. His chief opponents were Carpzov and Alberti in Leipsic, and such Wittenberg theologians as Johann Deitschmann (q.v.) and Johann Georg Neumann, the former of whom, in his Christlutherische Vorstellung (1695), written in behalf of the Wittenberg theological faculty, charged Spener with 283 erroneous teachings. Besides these opponents, there were Johann Friedrich Mayer (q.v.) in Hamburg, Samuel Schelwig (q.v.) in Danzig, and August Pfeiffer in Lübeck, the latter especially charging Spener with heterodox chiliastic views because of the Behauptung der Hoffnung künftiger besserer Zeiten, which he had published in 1692. The controversy was the more bitter since Spener's opponents feared, not without reason, that Pietism represented a new religious tendency, though they were unable to grasp its true nature, much less to understand its relative justification.

7. Spener's Closing Years.

After 1698 Spener withdrew both from controversial writing and from public advocacy of Pietism, deeming further debate useless and his opponents as altogether incapable of amendment. In 1700–02, under the title Theologische Bedenken, he published at Halle four volumes of selections from his correspondence with both men and women, princes and statesmen, theologians and scholars, nobles and commoners, through which he had for decades exercised a profound influence on Germany. During his closing years his mood fluctuated between hopes for his cause and a dejection which was increased by many extravagances of his friends and followers. Nevertheless, from first to last he conscientiously fulfilled his duties as preacher and catechizer. His last literary labor was his anti-Socinian Verteidigung des Zeugnisses von der ewigen Gottheit Christi (Frankfort, 1706). He spent May, 1704, at Grosshennersdorf in Saxony, where he dedicated his godson, Zinzendorf, then four years old, to the advancement of the kingdom of God. After a severe attack of illness, Spener passed his seven last months tranquilly and with patience, though growing more and more feeble until his death, Feb. 5, 1705.

8. Personality and Theology.

Spener's was no heroic nature. He lacked bold initiative, as he himself knew; timidity and hesitation were inborn in him; and he was drawn into active life only by his living devotion, his moral earnestness, his strong faith-born sense of duty and responsibility. Nevertheless, his Christianity was somewhat one-sided, restricted, and narrow; and, like his style, he was dry, prosy, and heavy. But notwithstanding this, his personality made a profound impression on many because of his unswerving earnestness, his conscientiousness and fidelity to duty, his ingenuous modesty, and his irenic temper.

Neither was Spener's importance inherent in his theology. He meant to be simply an orthodox Lutheran, and persistently dwelt on his harmony with the doctrinal standards of the Lutheran Church. At the same time, he shifted the center of interest from the maintenance of orthodox doctrine to conduct and practical piety, and from the objective validity of the verities of salvation and means of grace to the subjective conditions connected with them, their subjective ethical accountability then following as a necessary corollary. Spener was concerned, above all, with the true personal faith of the heart, which, he maintained, might coexist with serious doctrinal errors. At bottom, however, this meant a far graver revolution in existing dogmatic and theological tenets than Spener himself had surmised, and led, in practise, to connivance at all sorts of erroneous teachers, sectarians, and fanatics. This laxity afforded Spener's opponents a ground of attack, but. their unskilful, superficial, and impassioned onslaughts not only lightened Spener's task of defense and substantiation, but also, unfortunately, helped to obscure his perception of the real consequences of his position. Spener's activity as a practical theologian and reformer may be summarized as efforts, on the one hand, to reform the clergy and their official ministration; and, on the other hand, to regenerate the ecclesiastical, religious, and moral life of the congregations and their members.

In his attempted reform of the clergy, Spener justly discerned and combated the great defects in the theological studies of his time, especially the neglect of Biblical exegesis, undue in stress on formal rhetoric and polemics, and, most of all, the worldly life of those busied with theology. He maintained that it was neither sufficient nor even the chief essential for a pastor simply to hold pure doctrine, stressing instead the importance of Christian character in the pastor with relation to his office and his official activity. He set forth the principle that the first and foremost object of preaching is to edify, to induct the hearers into the word of God, and to awaken and foster personal piety and Christian living, all erudition and fine rhetoric, unless they subserve that end, being from the realm of evil. The rise of Spener, therefore, betokened an advance in the cause of preaching and homiletics, even though he himself fell far short of realizing the ideal of a plain, Scriptural, and edifying style of preaching. He was an important factor in securing recognition of the great importance of the religious instruction of the young; and by his direct example he revived the languishing condition of catechetical training, combated the mechanical system of memorizing, emphasized the serious duty of religious tuition, strove to secure a practical method of catechetical instruction, introduced the Bible as a school text-book, and contributed largely toward the spread of confirmation in the Lutheran Church of Germany. The improprieties and misuses connected with private confession at the time of Spener were felt by him to be a heavy pastoral burden and responsibility, especially as he had little sympathy with the custom. He had, therefore, no direct personal interest in its retention or improvement. Any reform of it seemed to him possible and desirable only in connection with the formation of boards of elders who should share the responsibility of church discipline. Since, however, such an institution appeared impracticable at the time, Spener's influence on confession and ecclesiastical discipline was little more than negative. The importance of detailed pastoral care was taught by Spener more by precept than by example, though in private life, especially in association with the clergy, candidates, and students, he exerted a profound and pervasive influence in this direction, while his extensive correspondence made him known as the " father confessor of all Germany."

10. Promotion of Lay Religion.

In his endeavor to reform the ecclesiastical, religious, and moral life of Germany Spener combated, among both clergy and laity, inert, conventional Christianity and reliance on mere external orthodoxy, unceasingly preaching the necessity of conscious, personal, vital, active, and practical Christian life. For the furtherance of this type of Christianity he recommended household devotions, extempore prayer, and Bible readings, as well as a stricter observance of Sunday. He labored earnestly in behalf of Christian discipline and morals, not only assailing current offenses in public and private life, but also raising the standard of conscience and refining the moral sense. In his reaction against the prevailing laxity and licentiousness which the Lutheran clergy judged too leniently as things indifferent, Spener's stress on Christian and moral earnestness was no less wholesome than justifiable. He also emphasized the rights, and still more the obligations, of the laity in the Church; opposed the monopoly of the clergy; energetically revived the theory of the common spiritual priesthood of all believers; promoted the cooperation of the laity in ecclesiastical administration; and procured both recognition and free scope for the spontaneous activity of laymen in the life of the Church, even though in the latter direction he merely gave expression to general ideas and wishes. He created no actual organizations, for neither was he the man, nor was the time yet ripe. Nevertheless, in an age of sharp denominational cleavage, Spener awoke the Protestant sense of fellowship between all cornmunions that rested on the common basis of the Reformation. He helped pave the way toward friendly relationship between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in Germany, both fortifying unionistic sentiment and preparing the means of union though rejecting any artificial and precipitate attempts at union. On the other hand, he was far more firmly convinced than most of the statesmen and clergy of his time that Roman Catholicism had deviated fundamentally from the Gospel of Christ, and that the "Roman peril" was real. He gave repeated expression to the thought of missions among Jews and heathen, and emphasized the missionary duty of Protestant Christianity at a time when the Lutheran Church had almost no conception of any such duty; and it was Spener's Pietistic friends, pupils, and disciples who went out from Halle in 1705 to the work of the Evangelical mission among the heathen, they being the first in Germany to attempt that field.

11. Cooperating Forces.

In all these lines, indeed, Spener did not stand entirely alone among his contemporaries. He had his forerunners and colaborers. He was not the "Father of Pietism" in the sense that it emanated exclusively from him. He was met half-way, as it were, by a widely diffused sentiment in the Lutheran Church of Germany, and he was aided in many phases of the situation by the change which took place in the general spirit of the age. There were also cooperative influences proceeding from England, Holland, and Switzerland. For the Lutheran Church of Germany, however, Spener was the acknowledged and honorable protagonist; he was the most eminent advocate and the spiritual center of all those forces which so vigorously sought to reform the Lutheran Church in the last quarter of the seventeenth century.

Paul Grüberg.

II Pietism at Halle.

1. Prestige of Francke and his Institutions.

A new epoch in the development of Pietism was marked when, for a time, the University of Leipsic closed its doors to the movement, whereupon the theological faculty of the newly founded University of Halle was filled, under Spener's influence with men of his own type. From the first the dominant spirit was August Hermann Francke (q.v.), who, though professor of Hebrew and Greek in the philosophical faculty until 1698, immediately began to lecture on exegesis. His colleagues were Joachim Justus Breithaupt, Johann Wilhelm Baier, Paul Anton, Johann Heinrich Michaelis, Joachim Lange (qq.v.), and Johann Daniel Hernschmied. The university was also profoundly affected by Francke's establishment of the famous Halle orphan asylum and affiliated schools and institutions. Many students of theology here received not only support, but preparation for their studies; the publishing house facilitated the literary propagation of Halle's cause; the collegium orientale afforded opportunity for linguistic training; and in the infirmary attached to the orphan asylum the medical faculty found compensation for the lack of a university clinic. Since Francke was both the dominant power in the faculty and the director of the orphan asylum, the former organization soon became so closely bound up with the interests and aims of these various in stitutions that the Halle phase of Pietism derived its peculiar nature from this very combination. This state of affairs was undeniably advantageous in many ways to the faculty, which gained prestige from the growing recognition of Francke's organizations, while the number of theological students at Halls rapidly increased; though, at the same time, these very factors caused a decided lose of independence and freedom of action in the faculty.

2. Unsuccessful War on Pietism.

In its command of an assured position, the Halle school of Pietism quickly assumed the aggressive, and deemed itself called to be the censor of divergent tendencies, views, and modes of life. This attitude rendered it still more difficult for its opponents to recognize its good intent, and contributed much to the degeneration of the controversies into personal animosities to the prejudice of real explanation and mutual understanding. This turn of events was the more unhappy since even without them the mass of conflicting elements would have resulted in open rupture. In 1698 strife broke out between Francke and the clergy of Halle, followed by a series of clashes between the theological faculty and the law professor, Christian Thomasius (q.v.), who had enthusiastically espoused the cause of Francke at Leipsic, all these controversies, however, being eclipsed by the attitude of the theological faculty toward their colleague, the philosopher Christian Wolff, who was deposed from his office by King Frederick William I. (see Wolff, Christian, and the Wolffian Theology). Of still greater moment were the literary battles between Pietism and its opponents outside of Halle. The most significant of these was the Wittenberg theological professor Valentin Ernst Löscher (q.v.), with his Vollständiger Timotheus Verinus (Wittenberg, 1718). Löscher was no fanatical assailant of Pietism; he recognized some good in the movement, and by a threefold classification of its adherents (the Halle Pietists being reckoned as midway between the radical and conservative wings) he sought to do justice to its several gradations. At the same time, his estimate of conversion, his concept of the pastoral office, and his stress on pure doctrine rested on a theological basis so wholly and fundamentally at variance with that of the Halle school that the harmony which he desired proved impossible, despite long correspondence and a personal interview with Francke and Hernschmied in May, 1719. The orthodox Lutheran attacks on Pietism, however, neither distracted the Pietists from their cause nor checked its wider development. Francke's educational institutions grew and multiplied; the Canstein Bible Institute was founded (see Canstein, Karl Hildebrand, Baron von); union was effected with the Danish mission in Tranquebar; and Francke also found time to interest himself in behalf of the captive Swedes in Siberia. His death, in 1727, was a serious loss for his faculty, which soon was greatly changed.

Many of the institutions and organizations created by the Pietism of Halle exercised a deep influence on the Lutheran Church in Germany. Even before Francke's death, however, the movement had reached its zenith; and it had only been his powerful, energetic, and influential personality which had, in many ways, lessened the dangers of one-sidedness and extravagance in Pietism at Halle, and kept its darker side comparatively inconspicuous. At the same time, the flaws in the movement did not originate altogether in the second generation, but were innate in the Halle type of Pietism from the first.

3. One Sided Nature of the Movement.

One obvious characteristic of the movement at Halle was its lack of appreciation of the diversity and wealth of development in the growth of piety. "Conversion," as Francke experienced it, was not viewed in the light of an individual phenomenon, but as the normal way to salvation, regardless of other experiences taught by the history of the religious life. The question then arose as to the distinguishing marks of real conversion, and whether this must include a conviction of sin and the experience of ictic conversion at a precise moment. The affirmation of these demands also afforded a standard for gaging the Christianity of others; and in applying this the Pietists of Halle were no very lenient judges where they lighted upon the "unconverted." Their one-sided insistence on the religious tone in education was not above criticism, admirable as were the results which it produced, for in some cases it was the cause of spiritual pride, and in others of hypocrisy. Francke, himself, however, in his inculcation of intense Christianity, clearly recognized the claims of practical life. Among the subjects of instruction he included botany, zoology, mineralogy, anatomy, physics, and astronomy, as well as such mechanical crafts as turning and glass-grinding, thus preparing the way for the modern trade schools. But not withstanding all this breadth of judgment, which Francke also evinced in many other directions, he was strangely ignorant of the needs and feelings of the young. The incessant surveillance of the pupils in all of his institutions clogged the development of independence and was an obvious pedagogical error; and the same statement holds true of the restriction of harmless amusements.

4. Effect on Theological Study

The practical religion taught by the Pietism of Halle exerted a significant influence upon the attitude of the university toward technical theology. Since Francke was convinced that living faith and sincere conversion were indispensable postulates to a knowledge of God, independent value was denied mere intellect, and the entire curriculum of studies was arranged accordingly. First of all, the development of personal religion was furthered; all academic lectures assumed the character of devotional sessions and revival sermons; every lecture was opened and closed with prayer. In addition to all this, the faculty met twice each week at the dean's house, where the students had to report on their studies and receive advice. The study of the Bible in the original was the center of the entire course. The darker side of this concept of theology, however, was shown in the Halle faculty's unproductiveness in the field of strict scholarship. Francke's own ability for scientific activity was undeniable, but he was far too much engrossed by his institutions to have time for research, though he never felt that this curtailed his efficiency as a teacher. There was, however, no perception of the fact that the new foundation of theology upon conversion and the edifying study of Scripture needed to be harmonized with orthodox theology, or that the entire body of systematic theology must be reconstructed, any more than there was recognition of the desirability of reaching a scholarly understanding with extremists in the Pietistic camp itself and with the Wolffian philosophy. Since these problems lay within the scope of the faculty's duties, the fact that they were ignored was an act of remissness that brought speedy vengeance. The faculty grew torpid and, after the death of Francke, lost its influence over the student body.

II. Pietism in Württemburg.

1. Pietism Cordially Welcomed.

The entrance of Pietism into Württemberg was particularly momentous for the subsequent development of the movement, since it there not only attracted many adherents, but also acquired a distinct character which was both independent of Spener and sharply distinguished from the Halle and Moravian Pietistic types. The movement received its first incentives in Württemberg from Spener himself, who visited Stuttgart in May, 1662, and later spent four months in Tübingen. Not only were the general conditions of religious life in Württemberg favorable for the growth of Pietism, but special welcome seems to have been accorded it because of contemporary political burdens, which rendered men more open to the preaching of a gospel of the heart. The movement was also aided by the fact that the princes of the land did not oppose it; while it received direct encouragement from the Church authorities, who had early begun to turn Spener's views to practical account in favor of true Christian life. The influence of the Halle Pietist was very evident in the efforts to raise the standard of theological education; and as early as 1694 an edict was issued declaring that even a comprehensive theological training did not lead to a true knowledge of God if the heart clung to the world, and urging professors to educate not only learned, but devout and godly men. At Stuttgart the consistory successfully sought to obviate conflicts with Pietism on Württemberg soil; the controversial Considerationum theologicarum decas of the Tübingen professor Michael Müller was confiscated; and on Feb. 28, 1694, appeared an edict joyfully hailed by Spener for, while assuming the inviolable validity of the symbolical books and the existing agenda, it conceded a whole series of details to Pietism. There was, however, no uniform attitude on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities toward private devotional meetings, which had become popular in Württemberg as early as the ninth decade of the seventeenth century. Where these meetings lacked clerical direction, they were at first partly forbidden; and it was only long afterward, in consequence of the organization of collegia pietatis by some lecturers at Tübingen in 1703, that the conventicles were regularly sanctioned, though even then it was desired that they be held in the churches. Moreover, this favorable disposition of the consistory had reference only to that section of Pietism which continued strictly within the bounds of the Church and did not favor the separatistic tendencies to which Württemberg was peculiarly predisposed.

2. Separatism and Tübingen Influence.

The early stages of Pietistic separatism may be traced back to the initial stages of the movement itself. It found particular support among clergymen of marked devoutness and gravity, and firmly ensconced itself in various places, including the country districts. The conflict with this growing separatism was opened by the Edict of 1703; a second edict, forbidding all conventicles held by sectaries, followed in 1706; and the third, or general, rescript of Mar. 2, 1707, added certain drastic measures, threatening to banish those separatists who should refuse to attend Church and communion within three months. This course was abandoned, however, in a few years, so that the decree of Jan. 14, 1711, showed a milder attitude toward the separatistic Pietists. It came to be more and more the practise to. abandon all forcible measures in the case of such separatists as behaved themselves quietly, until finally the general rescript of Oct. 10, 1743, permitted all private devotional meetings that did not involve breach of the peace. This leniency toward the separatists, which was in sharp contrast to North German practise of the period, became possible since it involved no danger to the Church, and since there was no contentious orthodoxy to misconstrue its spirit. At the same time, this policy prevented the Church from putting down separatism, which persisted throughout the eighteenth century and broke out afresh at its close.

Lastly, the attitude of the University of Tübingen was important for implanting Pietism in Württemberg. While the influence of Tübingen's theological faculty upon this development was far from equal to that of Halle, nevertheless, the plan of filling professorships with men who took their inspiration from Spener showed its practical effects in more ways than mere modification of the aims and methods of instruction. Besides Johann Wolfgang Jäger, who imparted a new spirit to the faculty, the teaching force included Johann Christian Pfaff, Andreas Adam Hochstetter, Christoph Reuchlin, and Christoph Eberhard Weismann. The Pietism evolved under these conditions showed certain distinctive features. Its adherents were predominantly among the clergy, among the middle classes in the towns, and in the rural districts; not, as with Pietism in North Germany, among the nobility. This insured a far more popular character for the movement, so that Pietistic Stunden, or prayer-meetings, have survived to the present time. On the other hand, the Württemberg phase of Pietism preserved the church ideal more largely than was the case at Halle, this attitude doubtless being strengthened by the moderate and reasonable course adopted by the ecclesiastical authorities, as well as by the absence of a contentious type of orthodoxy. In Württemberg, moreover, Pietism enjoyed a distinct advantage through its intimate sympathy with scientific theology, the resultant combination being shown, for example, by the New-Testament critic and exegete Johann Albrecht Bengel (q.v.), who constantly sought to unite the two. In view of the influence exercised by Pietism on the life of the Church in Württemberg this attitude toward scientific method was not without moment for theology; and its influence on Pietism itself was still more profound, since it served to maintain its intellectual mobility, and fostered that spirit of independence and self-restraint which preserved it from the decline which overtook the movement at Halle. Finally, Württemberg Pietism was characterized by a range, and scope of religious life far wider and more diverse than the stereotyped form of the movement which prevailed at Halle; and while it is not always easy precisely to define the new elements introduced by Swabian individualism, it is certain that there were many direct points of contact between the Swabian movement and the Pietism of Halle.

3. Attitude toward Moravians.

Though Württemberg never became entirely independent of Halle, a distinct sense of the divergence between the two schools was eventually evolved. This became clear in the position taken by the Württemberg Pietists with regard to the Moravians. Count Nicholas Louis von Zinzendorf (q.v.) exercised a considerable influence from the time of his first visit in 1729, and induced many young theologians to enter the Moravian communion. Nevertheless, he was denied the fruit of great and permanent results, since men like Georg Konrad Rieger, and especially Bengel (qq.v.), who disapproved the formation of independent congregations, Count Zinzendorf's personality, and many other things, opposed the further inroads of Moravianism. Yet though they thus blocked its advance in Württemberg, this rebuff did not entirely break off friendly relations with the Unity of the Brethren, with whom harmony is still preserved, chiefly because of Lutheran appreciation of Moravian missionary activity. The third main division of Pietists was the Unity of the Brethren (q.v.), or Moravians, founded by Zinzendorf.

IV. The Spread of Pietism.

Statistics of the spread of Pietism can scarcely be given with any approximation to completeness until preliminary studies, such as have already been begun, shall have been made of the history of the movement in the various localities in which it took root. Such studies, moreover, would doubtless aid in distinguishing the frequently interchanging tendencies proceeding from Herrnhut and Halle respectively. Spener himself, like Francke, sought to find interests in common with other religious bodies and leaders, while Zinzendorf surpassed them both in this regard. The triumph of Pietism over all obstacles, and its spread not only throughout Germany, but even into Switzerland, Holland, England, Denmark, and Russia, was partly due to the wide-spread indifference toward dogmatic formulas that had been discredited through theological wrangling, though it owed its real success to the fact that it was able to offer something not then supplied by the State churches. In addition to preaching, the personal association that was facilitated by the private devotional meetings, and an extensive correspondence dating from the time of Spener, the spread of Pietism was furthered by the influence exerted in filling pastorates and professorships with men sympathetic with the movement. This was particularly the case at Halle, which had a thousand theological students about 1730, while in 1729 an edict of Frederick William I. required all candidates for the ministry in his dominions to study there for two years. The university, therefore, together with Francke's institutions in Halle, developed a powerful influence in behalf of Pietism up to the middle of the eighteenth century; and Francke's journey to South Germany in 1718 still further promoted the cause.

V. The Nature and Significance of Pietism.

1. Complexity of Pietism

The wide diversity of opinion, even at the present time, regarding Pietism is due not only to the fact that the movement, as a peculiar concept of Protestant Christianity, is naturally judged according to the dogmatic position of each individual critic, but also to the very nature of the Pietistic tendency. The mere question of authoritative sources for a determination of the essence of Pietism involves great difficulties, since the movement produced neither official doctrinal writings nor any principles which, when acknowledged everywhere and at all times, should constitute regular affiliation with the Pietist cause. The sole recourse, therefore, is to the private literature of the movement, which is predominantly devotional. It must, however, be used with caution because of its subjective, transient tone, which is shared by its opponents as well; and Purely biographical sources are lamentably scanty. Moreover, Pietism embraced very heterogeneous phenomena, eo that it assumed extremely divergent phases in different individuals living at the same time but in different regions, with different antecedents, and under different conditions. It likewise underwent the most diverse combinations, to say nothing of the variations which distinguished the chief phases of the movement from each other, or of the development which each of these phases worked out independently.

2. Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism.

Claiming possession of pure doctrine, the right administration of the sacraments, and a well-organized establishment as a national Church, Lutheranism had embarked upon a course of development during the seventeenth century in which, though the Bible was recognised as the sole authority and as the first and and highest source of knowledge, its essential content was held to be summarized and contained in definitive dogmas. Where these boons and institutions were unmutilated, the Church professed to supply such a degree of perfection as obviated the necessity of any further development, whether inward or outward. The sole requirements laid upon church-members, accordingly, were recognition of the doctrine of the Church as an authoritative presentation of divine revelation, reception of the proffered Word and sacraments, and obedience to the several ordinances affecting church life. In opposition to this institutional Christianity of the Lutheran Church, which assumed to stand for evangelical Christianity while actually permitting the spiritual life to languish, Pietism emphasized the duty of striving after personal and individual religious independence and collaboration, and declared that religion is something altogether personal, that evangelical Christianity is present only when and in so far as it is manifested in Christian conduct. In the nature of the case, this assertion of the right and of the necessity of personal Christianity implied no attack upon any special doctrines or institutions of the Church, but was rather a protest against Lutheran absolutism. Notwithstanding this, Pietism assumed many phases on the basis of accentuation of personal Christianity. With Spener and Francke, the core of religious life was a firm faith in Providence. The clergy whose training was received at Halle laid the chief stress on conversion. Another principle widely diffused, especially in Moravian circles, was deep love for Jesus, this leading to a revival of the well-known ideals of medieval mysticism. All pietistic trends and types, moreover, found a common bond in their tendency to seek the normal realisation of living piety in a life of intense religious emotion, and to give a permanent place to the keen realisation of individual sinfulness and guilt.

3. Disadvantages of Pietism.

Pietistic devotion achieved great and successful results, which were well merited in so far as the movement represented a justifiable reaction against an exaggerated ecclesiasticism. On the other hand, it was unconscious of the dangers attending its championship of the rights of individual personalities. In Proportion as the experience of regeneration was exalted, the mops expedient it seemed to produce, or at least to facilitate, this event by systematic courses o f action. But the as sumption that religious development was essentially fulfilled in the sphere of religious emotion prepared the way for an artificial excitation of this feeling, thus involving the danger of insincerity, self-deception, and sentimentalism, which, in the absence of self-discipline and sobriety, formed an easy transition to still worse aberrations. The extreme importance attached to individual experiences and to spontaneous prayer led to a communicativeness often hard to distinguish from loquacity. Moreover, those who underwent no such experiences came to be regarded with disdain by others. It is significant that Alberti, at Leipsic, early reproached the Pietists with self-complacency; and the thought of standing in a peculiarly intimate relationship to God was by no means unusual in Pietism at Halle. These principles were also adopted and amplified by the Moravians, or Unity of the Brethren. This attitude, which was the chief factor in estranging non-Pietistic from Pietistic circles, may seem to contradict the facts that Pietism was characterized by anxiety and depression, that it was cankered with introspection, that it never attained to inward rest, that one "awakened" must ever be awakened anew, and that he sought for indications of the grace which he had received, but enjoyed his prize only occasionally. Yet the contradiction is merely apparent, for the attitude in question was the necessary consequence of the dominating Pietistic consciousness of sin. It was, in other words, the result of an exclusively transcendental concept of the theory of blessedness, which in turn explains why Pietism looked so radically askance upon the world.

4. Influence on the Church.

By strongly emphasizing personal Christianity in the cultivation and development of pastoral care Pietism supplied abundant and momentous incentives which were heartily welcomed by Lutheran orthodoxy. The desire to unite the clergy more closely, and thus to facilitate an exchange of professional experiences, led Johann Adam Steinmetz, then general superintendent of the archdiocese of Magdeburg, to organize pastoral conferences in 1737; while by the systematic diffusion of devotional treatises he opened new ways for religiously influencing the masses. The fact that Johann Kaspar Schade's formal protest against the compulsory introduction of private confession was so thoroughly approved by the elector of Brandenburg that he abandoned the usage in 1698 (his example being followed by other State churches) was the result of serious disorders in the practical working of the system, though voluntary private confession still prevailed widely. The victorious advance of Pietism was also bound to affect public worship, which, as part of a State institution, enjoyed such protection in various districts that neglect of it might be punished by fines and other legal means. Not only was the mere existence of private devotional gatherings prejudicial to the position of authority enjoyed by the Church, but she was also obliged to find that the Pietistic emphasis on personal Christianity acted to the detriment of her liturgy. Nevertheless, while Pietism succeeded in making the entire Bible available for homiletic purposes, as contrasted with the compulsory pericopes, the movement failed to produce an epoch in the history of German preaching. It was, on the other hand, conspicuously successful in the sphere of hymnology, for which it was peculiarly qualified because of its cultivation of the emotional side of religion and its tenderness and warmth of religious expression. Though most of the hymns that emanated from Pietistic circles were pitched in too subjective, and even unwholesome and sentimental, a strain to be suitable for congregational use, some of the Pietist composers, such as Johann Jakob Schütz, Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen, Johann Jakob Rambach, Carl Heinrich von Bogatzky, Ernst Gottlieb Woltersdorf, Philipp Friedrich Hiller, and Nicholas Louis von Zinzendorf, have won a secure place in Lutheran hymnals; and not only did the wealth of poetry produced by Pietism exercise a profound influence in the furtherance of its own extension, but it also stimulated religious poetry beyond the circle of its own adherents.

5. Religious Training and the Bible.

In his high appreciation of religious and moral training for the people through the channel of religious instruction Spener followed the lines laid down by Luther in his catechisms, and especially advanced the task undertaken by Duke Ernest I. of Saxe-Gotha in the middle of the seventeenth century. It was owing to his efforts, indeed, that an electoral ordinance of Feb. 24, 1688, provided for the holding of weekly catechetical examinations for children and adults alike throughout the country; and it is not improbable that Spener was the ultimate inspiration of the Prussian electoral edict of 1692 requiring Sunday catechization in the rural congregations. Spener's purpose was the inward assimilation of religious truth rather than mere imparting of knowledge; and his efforts to advance practical piety among the masses were intimately associated with his interest in confirmation, which became an integral part of the usage of the Lutheran Church largely through the cooperation of Pietism. Still more eventful than Spener's energy, however, was the educational activity of Francke.

One of the main characteristics of Pietism was the fact that it claimed to be founded exclusively on the Bible. This might seem to be a mere repetition of the assertions of Lutheranism from the very first, but Pietism showed its independence of Lutheran orthodoxy both in its unswerving return to the Bible and in its application of Scriptural truths. The Lutheran Church was bound, as Pietism was not, by the creeds in which it had summarized its understanding of the Bible, and which it regarded as authoritative. The Pietistic reestablishment of the authority of the Bible was, therefore, a direct return to one of the cardinal principles of the German Reformation, and by granting the "awakened" Christian full capacity for independent study of the Bible Pietism restored to laymen the right which they had lost. Accordingly, Francke insisted that even children should read the Bible and made Biblical history a theme of study at school; while for the same reason he sought to gain wide circulation for the Bible, especially through the Canstein Bible Institute at Halle. On the other hand, Pietism impaired the salutary features of this return to the Bible when it ignored the influence of the facts and conditions of history in its system of exegesis. The result was unbridled subjectivism; the Bible became a magical book from which prognostications and counsels were sought; the gloomy views on the conditions Prevailing in the Church and the world turned men's thoughts to the future and gave the prophecies and apocalyptic writings a preeminence which fostered only too well the Pietistic tendency toward fanaticism.

6. Effect on Theology and Union.

While the practical character of Pietism forbids it to be considered a theological movement, it did not preclude points of contact with scientific theology. Unfortunately for both sides, however, these were predominantly antithetic; yet at the same time the development of Pietism had two results which were widely welcomed. In the first place, it became clear that the official Church and theology were not so deeply implanted among the people as had been supposed; and the recognition of this fact involved the task of seeking closer touch with the needs and longings of the time. Furthermore, by unsettling post-Reformation scholasticism and combating excessive appreciation of the creeds, Pietism cleared the way for new theological investigation in which the Bible was made the first field of labor, while the presentation of new points of view supplied corresponding problems for solution. The fact that even these incentives produced no marked change in theology, but served only as a preliminary for its revival in the nineteenth century, was due not only to immobility and want of receptivity on the part of the orthodox theology of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but also, in great measure, to the Pietistic lack of appreciation of the nature and import of learning, its failure to perceive the concept and task of theology apart from preaching, and its absence of conscious need of exact formulation.

When Pietism once came to power, it renounced the claims to freedom which it had once emphasized, and rapidly declined into externalism and torpidity. The movement undoubtedly resulted in a considerable depreciation of dogma and dogmatic documents; for though they were not explicitly assailed, the stress laid by Pietism on Christian life and its use of the Bible deprived dogma of the preeminence which it had formerly enjoyed. The practical effect of this process appeared in a change of view regarding the relation of the Lutheran to the Reformed Church. It was obvious that living, personal Christianity was not confined to the membership of the Lutheran Church; but, this being eon both denominations were fundamentally equal. This disregard of sectarian distinctions was actually realized by Pietism when it was confronted with the task of founding a new church, the Unity of the Brethren. In this case, the first attempt at union was successful; though there is no doubt that other factors besides Pietism entered into the formation of the Moravian communion. It was undeniable, moreover, that the excessive stress of pietism on personal religion might possibly lead to a depreciation of the differences separating Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, a tendency which might have found some support in certain aspects of the Halle system of education, in specific forms of Pietistic mysticism, and in much that is reported of Zinzendorf. Pietism did not, however, yield to this allurement, but adhered to its essentially Protestant character. Spener was an uncompromising foe of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1676 he urged the elector to make no concession to the pope; the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 called forth his unsparing condemnation; and the attempts of Cristoval Rojas de Spinola (q.v.) to unite Protestants and Roman Catholics received no sympathy from him. In 1694, as the spokesman of the Berlin clergy, he discussed the method of most effectually resisting all overtures of the Roman Catholic Church, and his entire attitude toward the Latin communion was too intensely bitter to permit him to be suspected of any pro-Roman tendency. The example of Spener was followed in general by both the Halle and the Württemberg phases of Pietism; and though the age of orthodoxy witnessed many conversions from the Lutheran to the Roman Catholic Church, Pietism was responsible for none of them. It was not until toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the Enlightenment had dulled sectarianism, that Pietists began to fraternize with Roman Catholics of similar tendencies.

7. Forerunner of Religious Freedom.

By weakening the antagonism that had previously existed between the Lutherans and the Reformed, Pietism became the vehicle of an idea which, when realized, produced far-reaching results. While the concept of freedom in faith and conscience did not attain full clearness and expression until the nineteenth century, Pietism was an important factor in this development; and to that movement was mainly due the wide diffusion of the conviction that it had be come necessary to break with the restrictions on religious freedom contained in the treaties of Augsburg and Westphalia. Pietism likewise fought against the external constraint which it encountered from both Church and State because of the establishment, and secured legal sanction for its own organizations; and though this was but an isolated violation of the maxim that the State had the right of forcible intervention in case of deviation from the State Church, this infringement of the principle of territorialism marked a distinct advance toward complete emancipation from the medieval concept of religious compulsion.

8. Conventicles and Lay Cooperation.

Yet another constituent force in Pietism was its union of its adherents into a life of.intimate religious fellowship under Spener, and in Württemberg circles they developed into lasting institutions. Wherever Halle's influence reached, such meetings were organized; and Zinzendorf's entire activity was subservient to the fellowship ideal, pietism, therefore, fought unceasingly for the privilege of private assembly, and its opponents rightly deemed its conventicles one of the most important manifestations of its peculiar genius. The diversity in the outward form of these conventicles, however, indicates that the movement sought merely to adapt given conditions to the practical development of active religious intercommunication, with scant regard to external organization as an end in itself. In forming his collegia pietatis Spener took his stand on the doctrine of the universal priesthood, a theory which Luther had opposed to the Roman Catholic distinction between clergy and laity, and which Lutheranism had never renounced. The tenet had, however, received no practical application, for the old twofold classification of Christians had still continued, except that the laity were now subjected to temporal rulers and theologians instead of being guided by bishops and priests. It was, then, only the revival of a fundamental idea of the Reformation when Pietistic conventicles procured for every Christian the right and opportunity of testifying to his experience in free address and free prayer. The enlistment of laymen for cooperation in the active work of the Church, moreover, meant the winning of new forces. This was a momentous advance, for though it was restricted chiefly to the "awakened," it still remained a vital force. The singleness of aim in the highest concerns of life and the mutual interest in common edification produced so close a bond of fellowship among Pietists that class distinctions of civil life either lost their significance or at least were much obscured. On the other hand, this very fact naturally afforded opportunities for base motives, as well as for vanity, greed, and hypocrisy; yet despite such abnormal phases of the movement, the increasing approximation of high and low on the basis of mutual religious edification at a time when such free contact was otherwise impossible exercised a noteworthy influence on social life. Spener clearly saw and boldly faced the evils arising from the fact that the government of the Church was exclusively in the hands of the secular rulers in various governments, and that the laity were excluded from it. He accordingly urged the appointment of lay elders to cooperate with the preachers. The plan of instituting presbyteries gained favor in Württemberg and was realized in the Moravian congregations. Nevertheless, Spener was unsuccessful in securing a general participation of the laity in the administration of the Church, for this was impossible unless the above-mentioned secular rulers should voluntarily curtail their prerogatives, a thing inconceivable in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, the formation of separatistic bodies for the realization of his ideals was as opposed to Spener's ecclesiastical mind as was the act of the Peace of Westphalia in granting toleration in Germany to those churches alone which were explicitly recognized by the treaty in question. But though Pietism found no way wholly to reconstruct the organization of the Church, the movement was not without significance in relation to subsequent efforts in this direction. There was a close affinity between Pietism and the chief exponents of Collegialism (q.v.), apparent, for instance, in the latter system's leading advocate, Christoph Matthäus Pfaff (q.v.), and also implied in the circumstance that both causes had their headquarters at Halle.

9. Separatistic Tendencies.

So far as the orthodox opponents of Pietism understood and recognized the revival of the theory of the universal priesthood, they considered its beneficent results to be far outweighed by accompanying dangers and disadvantages. A far more vulnerable point of attack, however, was the relation of Pietism to separatism. This tendency was entirely unintentional, and the Moravian branch of Pietism was the only one to form a separate communion. Yet even here both the attendant circumstances and the character which the sect assumed show that it was not a product of a separatistic spirit. On the other hand, it must be conceded that Pietism was peculiarly open to the charge of separatism; and the very fact that the adherents of the movement were not conventional in their bearing immediately aroused suspicion. Though the Pietists themselves denied that there was such a thing as "Pietism," the outsider noticed that the friends of the movement kept together and supported each other, that the sense of union with sympathizers in other localities was a living one, that the adherents of the cause evinced unusual energy in pursuit of their aims, and that they exercised a potent influence. In short, Pietism had become a "party" as early as 1691; and during its golden age at Halle it manifested every evil of factionalism: greed for power; one-sided condemnation of opponents; and failure to censure friends. It seemed, therefore, both consciously and distinctly a tendency toward separation from fellow Lutherans in religious and in social life; and the very fact that its measures were designed to further the religious interests of its adherents alone caused it to be suspected of tendencies toward separatism and even secession.

Not only did Pietism thus become a faction of Lutheranism, but it was also joined and besieged by many of separatistic tendencies. As an opposition movement it naturally possessed a strong attraction for all those elements which were dissatisfied with existing conditions in the Church. Here they looked for sympathy and shelter, doubtless hoping, at the same time, to make the Pietistic circles instrumental to their own aims. They were cordially welcomed, but Pietism had to atone for excessive leniency toward many an enthusiast and "prophet" of doubtful character or of radical views. This ambiguous attitude of Pietism toward radicalism and separatism naturally increased current mistrust of the movement, and explains why its opponents might honestly assume an actual agreement between the two groups. Pietism itself, moreover, became fruitful soil for separatist movements through its attacks on contemporary Church conditions, its conventicle system, and its predilection for chiliasm and the like. At the same time, a sharp distinction must be drawn between Pietism and separatism. The former sought to achieve its projects of reform inside the Lutheran Church, and took current dogma and recognized organization as its bases; while the latter had lost all hopes of the future of a Church which it assumed to be moribund, and accordingly on principle took up a position outside the existing status of the Church.

To those who do not regard separatism as an unmixed evil. but as a thing sometimes demanded by way of protest against intolerable State Church conditions, the above criticism will seem to lack force. If conditions in Germany in the seventeenth and the eighteenth century had made possible the rise of denominations, as in England, the religious life of the nation might have attained to and maintained a higher standard. and the triumph of rationalism in the Enlightenment (q.v.) might have been averted.

A. H. N.

10. Rigid Austerity

The chief characteristics of Pietism also include intense moral earnestness and the stern austerity that it sought to realize in practical life. The conditions which confronted it demanded a policy of energetic aggression. Morality was low, especially at the courts and among the nobility, and conditions in the middle classes and the peasantry were little better. The effects of the Thirty Years' War, which had shaken German civilization to its very foundations, were visible in immorality, luxury, riotous living, and contempt for the rights of others. How far Pietism effected the moral elevation of the masses must remain a problem until deeper researches shall have been made in the history of eighteenth-century Lutheranism, particularly with regard to the confessional. It is certain, however, that the adultery and drunkenness common among Lutheran pastors before the rise of Pietism were checked by it; and that it distinctly raised the moral tone of the Württemberg clergy. Its moral effect upon the nobility is equally demonstrable, even though its darker sides were shown at the court of more than one Pietistic count. The labors of Pietism were, therefore, by no means in vain.

Pietism not only combated worldliness, but viewed the world itself as a vast organism of sin which every "awakened" Christian must shun under jeopardy of salvation. This attitude, however, gave rise to controversy because of the demand of Pietism that public morality be transformed to accord with its peculiar tenets, so that the theater, dancing, cards, smoking, and jesting were not to be considered Adiaphora (q.v.), but must be avoided by the Christian as sins and abominations before God. This austerity came to prevail not only among the more humble adherents of the movement, but also among the Pietistic nobility, so that Henry II. of Reuss-Greitz even attempted, though with scant success, to give official recognition to these principles by a decree dated Sept. 17, 1717. Pietism itself, however, was unswerving in its attitude, and all its branches retained the conviction that the converted Christian must exercise renunciation the points at issue. This position was deeply significant in the development of Pietism, for by shunning the world it was led to feel either no interest or an entirely inadequate interest in art, science, and secular culture. This aloofness involved the surrender of all real influence upon intellectual life in general; it forced Pietism into a position of isolation, and was also bound to restrict its religious and moral effects.

11. Philanthropic and Missionary Activity.

The final conspicuous attribute of Pietism was its practical benevolence, which led the movement in to the midst of active life and made it the vehicle of an evangelical comprehensiveness hitherto unknown in Germany. The impulse to undertake such tasks was inherent in the nature of Pietism. Just as Luther had taught that good works must necessarily proceed from living faith, so the intense religious life of Pietism inspired its followers to share the blessings of their salvation with others, to testify to their faith, and to give proof of it by upright life and brotherly love. In harmony with this attitude they naturally sought out the wretched and the needy as proper objects of beneficence. Attention was given first to their own countrymen and was begun by Spener himself, who took an active part in building a combination of a poorhouse, orphan asylum, and workhouse at Frankfort in 1679. The importance of all this, however, was overshadowed by Francke's establish ment of the orphan asylum at Halle in 1694. The new element in this event was the fact that one man alone, relying on divine help, should undertake to found such an institution on broad lines, and that it should be maintained by the voluntary contributions of a circle bound by mutual sympathy. Thus Pietism won the distinction of permanently pledging the Lutheran Church to works of active benevolence, so preparing the way for the ultimate establishment of the inner mission (see Innere Mission). The orphan asylum at Halle was also the point of departure for foreign missions, the second form of benevolent activity created by Pietism. Spener himself had had appreciation for this cause, though the actual bond between Pietism and missions was Francke. Through him Halle became the psychic center of the Danish mission, he supplied the missionaries that went to India, he founded the first German missionary journal, he raised money for missionary purposes, and he led Protestant Germany to intrude missions in its scope of activity. A distinct step in advance was made shortly afterward when Zinzendorf turned the attention of the Moravians to this field of labor, not only because the Moravians embodied an independent type, and were more adaptable than the Halle Pietists, but also because they struck into new paths, utilized the services of laymen, and as a church sent missionaries with astonishing rapidity to various parts of America and South Africa. Germany was led, therefore, to share in spreading Protestantism among non-Christian nations and peoples through the direct influence of Pietism; and since this movement controlled the mission work until late in the nineteenth century, the details of the system adopted clearly showed the peculiar genius of Pietism. Under Zinzendorf's direction, the Moravian type of missionary Preaching, unlike that of the Danish and Halle mission, took the noteworthy course of preaching simply the Gospel of Christ, and not Lutheran dogma. It was, moreover, the interest of German Pietism in the diffusion of the Scriptures that led the missions to make the Bible accessible in translation to the Christian congregations among the heathen. The pioneer in this cause was Bartholomæus Ziegenbalg (q.v.) with his Tamil version of the Bible (Tranquebar, 1714–28). In certain respects, however, the adoption of Pietistic views worked unfavorably, as in the attempt to concentrate converts from paganism into small congregations analagous to the Pietistic circles within the Church at home. At the same time, extraordinarily strict rules were laid down regarding the admission of converts to the Church, and baptism was given only when conversion had been proved; while the same antipathy toward amusements and popular customs was manifested by the Pietists in the mission field as was shown by them in Germany. The Pietists were also lacking, to some degree, in proper self-restraint, as in their choice of fields of labor, the practise of drawing lots in connection with weighty decisions, and the sentimentalism characterizing many of their reports. Pietism also inaugurated systematic missions among the Jews. Spener had recognized the need of such missions and had done much to rouse interest in them. The Moravians also took an active part in this work through the aid of Samuel Lieberkühn, although their extensive foreign missions prevented them from applying their full energy to this difficult branch of Christian activity. On the other hand, an important center for these efforts was created by Pietism at Halle, where Johann Heinrich Callenberg (q.v.) founded, in 1728, an Institutum Judaicum, which continued in operation till 1792. Pietism likewise aided those who sympathized with its tenets, even though they were not within its own communion or in its own land. Zinzendorf found opportunity to intercede for the Protestants in Moravia; he protected the Schwenckfeldians who had fled from Saxony to America; and he made spiritual provision for the German emigrants to Pennsylvania.

12. Pietism and the Enlightenment.

The exact relation of Pietism to the Enlightenment (q.v.) is a problem which receives most divergent answers. Some declare that the two movements are absolutely antithetical, and others hold that the Enlightenment is a product of Pietism. In reality, however, the relation between these two trends was neither one of mere antithesis nor yet one of cause and effect. Though there were many fundamental deviations between Pietism and Enlightenment, such as the divergent attitudes toward revelation, the essence of piety, and the Bible, the two movements still had points in common, not only through such men as Christian Thomasius, Johann Christian Edelmann, and Johann Konrad Dippel (qq.v.), but also through their opposition to Lutheran orthodoxy, their insistence on the religious rights of individuals, and their practical Christianity. On the other hand, the theory that the Enlightenment was derived from Pietism is inadequate, for it assumes that those degeneracies and excrescences of the separatistic and radical forms of Pietism, which Pietism itself rejected as alien elements, must be regarded as characteristic features of the movement; and this hypothesis also overlooks the fact that the premises underlying Enlightenment were extremely Manifold, and in their initial stages were far anterior to the rise of Pietism. Enlightenment and Pietism should rather be considered two distinct movements with a mutual goal in the destruction of clericalism, though diverging from each other in their subsequent evolution. At the same time, the sincerest Pietism indirectly aided the rapid growth of Enlightenment in Germany, not only, in its contempt for culture, by giving the younger generation no adequate training to cope with Enlightenment, but also, through its neglect of such education, by driving those of scholarly inclinations into the rationalistic camp.

13. Development and Origin.

It is extremely difficult to fix the precise limits of Pietism in point of time. Each of its chief phases passed through a distinct development and reached its climax at a different period. At Halle Pietism was on the decline by 1730; and when Francke died in 1769, the old position of Halle as the citadel of Pietism in central and northern Germany was practically lost. Württemberg Pietism never exercised such wide-spread influence as that of Halle, but on the other hand it enjoyed a tranquil and steady development; and it also had the advantage of not owing its prosperity to any one individual, so that the death of Bengel in 1769 had no such effect as that of Francke. By overcoming the "Storm and Stress period," which they styled their "winnowing-time," the Moravians had won such internal and external tenacity that the decease of Zinzendorf in 1760 no longer menaced their status, and August Gottlieb Spangenberg (q.v.) could begin his activity. When Valentin Ernst Löscher (q.v.), the famous opponent of Pietism, died in 1749, the Pietistic controversy had ceased to attract attention; the age of aggressive Pietism was past; its message to Protestantism had been delivered.

Great differences of opinion likewise prevail concerning the beginnings of Pietism. It is well known, however, that long before the time of Spener a reaction had begun against the ruling tendencies in the Church and in theology, as well as against their effect on Christian life. Yet despite all this, the Pietistic movement was adjudged by its own contemporaries to be something new, this view being justified by the fact that Pietism welded together the scattered projects of reform, deduced their practical conclusions, and endeavored to realize them. This was Spener's achievement, and in this sense he may be considered the founder of Pietism. The preparation for Pietism, like its history, shows clear analogies to similar phenomena within the Reformed Church; and long before Spener's movement the sects which had broken off from the Church of England had manifested a kindred spirit which exercised a marked influence on the continent, including Germany, through its rich devotional literature. In western Germany contact with the Reformed Church of Holland was an important factor. The Pietistic tendencies in the Reformed Church, which also appear in the Reformed phase of Protestantism in northern Germany, are in entire accord with Lutheran Pietism in their emphasis upon practical Christianity, their attitude toward the dominant orthodoxy of their time, and their tendency toward a closer union among the faithful. These points of agreement between Lutheran Pietism and its parallels on Reformed soil imply the existence of an international movement, even as Enlightenment was later to pervade all Europe. Yet even though many an incentive may have reached Germany from the Puritans, the Labadists, and the Dutch, Pietism was essentially a German movement, not a product of foreign Calvinism.

VI. Later Development.

1. Factors and Growth.

Among the numerous and divergent factors which finally brought about the fall of Enlightenment, Pietism was one of the foremost. Though it could bring to bear neither theological nor philosophical learning, and though it was without influence either on great masses or on the rulers of Church and State, it at least possessed the power which is ever inherent in firm religious convictions and the inward strength of the Christianity for which it stood. Pietism thus became the center for multitudes of members of the State Church who had failed to find in the official clergy, dominated by Enlightenment, the aid to religion which they desired. The new movement, on the other hand, was able to give all who joined it a definite and inspiring aim in the propaganda for the old faith; and there accordingly arose a Pietistic reaction which, hidden at first, grew until it became a potent factor among the national, literary, theological, and ecclesiastical elements which combined for the spiritual and mental regeneration of Germany during the period of the Napoleonic wars. So powerful, indeed, was its influence that it was little less than that which had been exercised by the Pietism of the eighteenth century, even though the changed conditions of the times rendered its external forms less striking. The bond between the Pietism of the eighteenth and that of the nineteenth century was supplied by survivals of the older movement, by the Moravians, and by the Christentumsgesellschaft (see Christentumsgesellschaft, die Deutsche). From this latter organization German Lutheranism gained an assistance which marked an epoch in its history, especially in view of the foundation of the Basel Bible Society, the Basel Missionary Society, and other religious and philanthropic institutions. The Moravians, or Unity of the Brethren (q.v.), perhaps never exercised a greater influence upon German Protestantism than during the era of Enlightenment. The very remoteness of their settlements gave them protection against the tendencies of the age, and the further they progressed in their tranquil development, the greater was the confidence of others in their cause. Even in Zinzendorf's time auxiliary societies were formed in England and Holland for the support of their Missionary labors, and they were aided by their friends in Germany, especially about the beginning of the nineteenth century, when "awakened" circles became filled with the missionary spirit. Zinzendorf also showed himself disposed to cultivate religious friendship with non-Moravian sympathizers, and from his tours for the furtherance of this end was developed missionary activity among the Lutheran Diaspora, the object being not secession from the State Church but the formation of circles of Moravian sympathizers within it. In 1775 these affiliated adherents numbered 30,000. The revival type of preaching also renewed the conventicles of the older Pietism. In Württemberg, indeed, prayer-meetings had never lapsed entirely, but had been conducted chiefly by laymen until a number of pastors, among whom Ludwig Hofacker (q.v.) was prominent, likewise joined the movement. In 1828 the number of those attending conventicles was estimated at 30,000. Swabian Pietism was also powerfully aided by its close affiliations with the Basel Missionary Society, which still finds its chief subsidiary district in Württemberg, whence it is accustomed to call its leaders. So important a center as Basel was bound to affect all German Switzerland; Barbara Juliana von Krüdener (q.v.) gave some incentives of a transient kind in this region; and the "awakening" in French Switzerland likewise became a factor as it spread eastward. Besides Bern and Zurich, St. Gall may be noted as the center of a large Pietistic circle formed by the talented Agnes Schlatter. The revival in Bavaria found some Roman Catholic adherents, and Nuremberg also became a Pietistic focus, largely through the merchant Johann Tobias Kiessling. In Baden, the rise of Pietistic sentiment was observed from the time of the "famine years" 1816–17, and it made rapid progress after the union of 1821. In northern Germany, on the other hand, Pietism, except for small scattered groups, succumbed to Enlightenment; and even when this latter movement was approaching its end, the Pietistic cause had no firm hold that could be compared with Pietism in W#252;rttemberg. The Reformed Pietism of Rhenish Westphalia, however, experienced a powerful revival through Samuel Collenbusch, Johann Gerhard Hasenkamp, Friedrich Arnold Hasenkamp, Johann Heinrich Hasenkamp, Gottfried Menken, Friedrich Adolf Krummacher, and Gottfried Daniel Krummacher (qq.v.). At the same time the Lutherans at Elberfeld were headed by a pastor, Hilmar Ernst Rauschenbusch, who had been won for Pietism while a student at Halle; the valley of the Wupper remained one of Pietism's surest domains in the nineteenth century; and the movement even gained entrance at Berlin, a center of German Enlightenment, notably through the efforts of the Silesian Baron Ernst von Kottwitz (q.v.) and the preacher Johann Jänicke.

2. Character of Modern Pietism.

It is even more difficult to define modern Pietism than the corresponding movement of the eighteenth century. It forms no organized ecclesiastical body; its individual groups have no fixed mutual relation; it has no distinct theological tendency; and large numbers of its adherents do not term themselves Pietists. The old Halle school of Pietism has entirely Pietism. disappeared. The Moravians have formed a distinct church, and have so largely divested themselves of earlier Pietistic characteristics that only in a very limited sense can they now be considered Pietists. The Württemberg branch alone survives, but though it preserves most purely the connecting bond with early Pietism, the territorial limitations of its activity prevent it from serving as a standard to determine the nature of modern Pietism. The transfer of the term Pietism to phases of church life of the nineteenth century shows that the word has lost its original definiteness of meaning. In many instances the modern use of the word indeed connotes ideas in harmony with the older Pietism; in other instances there are only slight suggestions of such affinities; and in yet other cases there are absolutely no points in common. The Pietism of the nineteenth century may, however, be defined as that tendency in German Protestantism which represents the devotional type of the older Pietism, as well as its views of life and its attitude toward the world, so that it may be regarded as a continuation of the earlier school. Nevertheless, only the fundamental ideas of primitive Pietism have been retained, for the revolutions in political, social, and ecclesiastical affairs have caused the movement to assume new forms and activities and to adopt new constituent elements. It thus implies a further stage of development and shows scarcely an instance of mere repetition. It no longer fosters religious life by prayer-meetings, but finds a wider sphere of activity in foreign and domestic missionary societies. A noteworthy characteristic of the revival period of the early nineteenth century was the sense of fellowship with similar circles within the Roman Catholic Church, while the two churches cooperated in Bible societies, but the rise of ultramontanism, after the second decade of the nineteenth century, ended further association, although in Pietistic circles the sentiment of spiritual affinity with kindred spirits in the sister church persisted long, and exercises some influence even at the present time. The syncretism of Pietism, moreover, in combination with the decay of denominational barriers during the period of the Enlightenment, rendered the movement as liable to sectarianism and separatism in the nineteenth century as it had been in the hundred years preceding, but, on the other hand, these dangers were lessened by the fact that the relations of the new Pietism to the Church and to orthodoxy experienced an essential transformation. Their united stand against their common foe rationalism produced close affiliations which outlasted the conflict. Pietism became reabsorbed in the Church, and orthodoxy grew susceptible to Pietistic modes of thought and feeling. This change in the situation of Pietism was essentially aided by the fact that the Church now accorded due recognition to practical benevolence both at home and in the foreign mission field. Since, however, Pietism had from the first laid special claim to these spheres of activity, the altered attitude of orthodoxy toward it was a distinct tribute to its ability and enabled it to retain all essentials of its missionary position. When, moreover, the Church developed an increasing interest in domestic and foreign missions, there was a marked augmentation both of the influence of Pietism and of the confidence shown it by orthodox circles.

3. Estimate of the Movement.

A comprehensive verdict on the significance of modern Pietism for German Protestantism, whether favorable or unfavorable, can not be given in a single sentence. It is a far more complex phenomenon than the older system, full of heterogeneous elements, and not only varying in different parts of the country and changing with the lapse of time, but also showing divergent phases in cities and in rural districts. In addition to its mission work, Pietism was an important factor in the religious revival of Germany during the first third of the nineteenth century, even though it was not the sole source of the movement. The enlargement of its sphere of activity and its coalescence with the State Church doubtless aided Pietism to escape from its conventicle-like bonds. On the other hand, its innate tendency toward small coteries, which cuts it off from all comprehension of the wealth of intellectual, national, and cultured life, prevents it from becoming a great popular movement; nor has it proved able to resist the tendency toward party schemes and uncharitable depreciation of those holding different opinions. The movement has recently been forced into a critical position by the rise of the modern associational tendency based on Anglo-American Methodism; for even though Pietism and Methodism were closely akin in origin, the tendency in question is directed toward ends which have no reference to Pietism.

Carl Mirbt.

Bibliography: A. Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, Bonn, 1884–86; J. G. Walch, Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten der evang.-lutherischen Kirche, 5 vols., Jena, 1730–39; F. W. Berthold, in Raumers historischen Taschenbuch, 3 ser., iii. 131–320, iv. 171–390, Leipsic, 1852–53; M. Göbel, Geschichte des christlichen Lebens in der rheinisch-westfälischen Kirche, vols. ii.–iii., Coblenz, 1852–60; A. Tholuek, Der Geist der lutherischen Theologen Wittenbergs . . . des 17. Jahrhundertes, Hamburg, 1852 W. Gass, Gesehichte der protestantischen Dogmatik, ii. 374–449. Berlin, 1857; H. Schmid, Die Geschichte des Pietismus, Nördlingen, 1863; H. L. J. Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus and der Mystik in . . . der Niederlande, Leyden, 1879; W. Bender, Johann Konrad Dippel, Der Freigeist aus dem Pietismus, Bonn, 1882; F. Nippold Zur Vorgeschichte des Pietismus, in TSK, 1882, pp. 347–392; idem, Handbuch der neuesten Kirchengechichte, iii. 114 sqq., iv. 173 sqq., Berlin, 1901; E. Sachsse, Ursprung and Wesen des Pietismus, Wiesbaden, 1884; L. Renner, Lebensbilder aus der Pietistenzeit, Leipsic, 1886; G. Freytag, Bilder aus der deutschen Vergangenheit, vols. iii.–iv., Leipsic, 1888; J. H. Kurtz, Church History, pp. 159, 162, 176, New York, 1890; W. Hübner, Der Pietiamus, Zwickau, 1901; C. Kolb, Die Anfänge des Pietismus und Separatismus in Württemberg, Stuttgart. 1902; T. Kolde, in Beiträge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte, viii. 266–283, Erlangen, 1902; J. Batteiger, Der Pietismus in Bayreuth, Berlin, 1903; J. Jungst-Stettin, Pietisten, Tübingen, 1906; H. Stephan, Der Pietismus als Träger des Fortschritts, Tübingen, 1908; W. G. Goeters, Die Vorbereitung des Pietismus in der reformierten Kirche der Niederlande, Leipsic, 1909; Troltsch, Leibniz and die Anfänge des Pietismus, ed. C. Werckshagen, i. 366–375, Berlin, n.d.; the literature under Francke, August Hermann; Kruedener, Barbara Juliana von; especially that under Mysticism; Spener, Philipp Jakob; and Thomasius, Christian; and the works on the church history of the period.

PIETRO MARTIRE VERMIGLI. See Vermigli.

PIGHIUS, pi-gî´Us, ALBERTUS (ALBERT PIGGHE): Dutch Roman Catholic controversialist; b. at Kampen (9 m. n.n.w. of Zwolle) c. 1490; d. at Utrecht Dec. 26, 1542. He studied philosophy and mathematics at the University of Louvain and completed his theological studies at the University of Cologne in 1517. He was canon (1524–35) and provost (1535–42) at the Church of St. John the Baptist, Utrecht. Pope Hadrian VI. called him to Rome in 1523 and he took part in the diets of Worms and Regensburg, the issue of which were his publications: Controversiarum præcipuarum (Cologne, 1541); Ratio componendorum dissidiorum (1542); and Apologia adversus M. Buceri (Mainz, 1543). Pighius was one of the most resolute defenders of the papacy, and in his comprehensive principal work, Hierarchiæ ecclesiasticæ assertio (Cologne, 1538), he unfolded most conclusively the papal system from a substructure involving a critical survey of the sources of Christian truth. He was the first to make tradition a basis of knowledge alongside of Scripture, in order to cut off Protestant argument in advance. On the other hand, his zeal of argument almost betrayed him as an unconscious disciple of Protestantism. The freedom of the will he asserted to such an extent, in De libero hominis arbitrio (1542), that original sin seemed to him scarcely as actual corruption but rather the imputation of the sin of Adam. This view carried with it the consequence of regarding justification as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

(E. F. Karl Müller.)

Bibliography: Bayle, Dictionary, iv. 637–641; A. Schweizer, Die protestantischen Centraldogmen, i. 180 sqq., Zurich, 1854; Linsenmann, in TQ, 1866, pp. 571 sqq; K. Werner, Geschichte der apologetischen and polemischen Litteratur, iv. 241 sqq, 275 sqq., Schaffhausen, 1865; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ix. 936 sqq.

PIGOU, pi-gū´, FRANCIS: Church of England; b. at Baden-Baden, Germany, of English parentage, Jan. 8, 1832. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1853), and was ordered deacon in 1855 and priested in the following year. He was curate of Stoke Talmage, Oxfordshire (1855–56), chaplain of Marbœuf Chapel, Paris (1856–58), curate of Vere Street Chapel, London (1858), and of St. Philip's, Regent Street, and St. Mary's, Kensington (1858–60), incumbent of St. Philip's (1860–1869), and served as vicar of Doncaster (1869–1875), being also rural dean of Doncaster after 1870; he was vicar of Halifax (1875–88), where he was likewise rural dean, and became dean of Chicester, a dignity which he held three years. Since 1891 he has been dean of Bristol, and was appointed a chaplain-in-ordinary to the queen in 1890. He is widely and favorably known as a missioner, and has held missions not only throughout England, but also in the United States, which he visited in 1885. His writings include Faith and Practice (sermons; London, 1865); Early Communion Addresses (1877); Addresses to District Visitors and Sunday School Teachers (1880); Addresses delivered on various Occasions (1883); Manual of Confirmation (1888); Phases of my Life (1898); Odds and Ends (1903); and The Acts of the Holy Ghost. Thirty-two Years of Experience of Conducting Parochial Missions (1908).

PILATE, ACTS OF. See Apocrypha, B, I., 7.

PILATE, PONTIUS: Known only as the fifth Roman procurator of Judea, under whose administration Jesus was executed. He probably succeeded Gratus 27 A.D. and ended his procuratorship early in 37; it is not likely that Pilate required more than a year for his return journey to Rome, whither he was summoned by Tiberius to give an account of his administration., and he arrived there after Tiberius' death, which took place Mar. 16, 37, and it appears that Vitellius, the legate of Syria, his accuser, was in Jerusalem in 36 as well as in 37, at the time of the Passover. Regarding the position of the procurator, see Governor. A copper coin struck in Cæsarea under Pontius Pilate is represented in DB, iii. 424–428. The judgment regarding Pilate's administration is chiefly based on the statements of Philo (Legatio at Caium, xxxviii.), who calls him inflexible and ruthless and reproaches him with venality, violence, peculation, ill-treatment, insult, the repeated infliction of punishment without trial, and with endless acts of cruelty—the well-known accusations brought by the Jews against every energetic Roman functionary. The only fact adduced by Philo, the setting up in the palace at Jerusalem of the golden shields dedicated to Tiberius, testifies only to the extreme sensitiveness of the Jews. Josephus (War, II, ix.; Ant., XVIII, iii.–iv.) judges more indulgently, although he charges the procurator with introducing into Jerusalem banners bearing the emperor's image, and with using the funds of the temple for the construction of an aqueduct. The fact that Pilate energetically repressed every revolt is also proved by the massacre of the Galileans (Luke xiii. 1) and of the Samaritans (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, iii. 1, iv. 1). It was on account of this latter act that Pilate was removed by Vitellius, who was very friendly toward the Samaritans as well as the Jews. It is quite natural that there were frequent disputes between the imperial procurator and the Jewish princes as to their respective fields of authority. Of the cause of the enmity between Pilate and Herod alluded to in Luke xxiii. 12, nothing is known. That Pilate was not an incompetent functionary is proved by the long duration of his rule under Tiberius.

In the trial of Jesus, Pilate acted from the standpoint of a functionary for whom public order was more important than the life even of an innocent man. According to Mark, the only question at issue was the confirmation of a sentence passed by the Sanhedrin. The fact that death occurred so quickly is the cause of his curiosity for the moment.

In Matthew and in Luke various points are added which bear an apologetic stamp; Pilate's wife and he himself acknowledge the innocence of Jesus. In John, where the main action of the trial is transferred from the Sanhedrin to the proceedings before Pilate, he becomes almost a mediator between Jesus and the Jews. Subsequently, along this apologetic tendency, the responsibility for the death of Jesus is more and more laid upon the Jews, and Pilate is made a witness to his innocence. Later Pilate is even represented as a Christian; the Copts and the Abyssinians rank him among the saints; and the Greeks do the same for his wife Prokla. In the third century arose the legend of Pilate's suicide under Caligula, of which Origen knows nothing. After the fourth century the estimation of Pilate, especially in the west, became more and more unfavorable; but recent historians have been more just in their treatment.

E, VON DOBSCHÜTZ.

Some interest attaches to the apocryphal account of the death of Pilate (Eng. transl., ANF, viii. 466–467). According to this the Emperor Tiberius was afflicted with a serious disease. Hearing that there was in Judea a wonderful physician who healed by power of a word, he sent to Pilate an order to have the physician come to Rome. To the messenger Pilate confesses that he has had the healer crucified because he was a malefactor. The messenger in returning meets Veronica, who sends by him the miraculous handkerchief (see Jesus Christ, Pictures and Images of, III., 1, §§ 1–2), by which the emperor was healed. So Tiberius was enraged at Pilate and had him brought to Rome, but was restrained miraculously from upbraiding him by the fact that Pilate wore the seamless coat of Jesus. In a second interview, the anger of the emperor dissolved in the same unaccountable manner. By impulse or on advice, Tiberius had Pilate deprived of the coat and then sentenced him to the most disgraceful death possible. To avoid this, Pilate committed suicide. His body was weighted and sunk in the Tiber, but the demons which inhabited the body caused the water to boil as if in a storm. The body was then raised and sent to Vienne in France (etymologized as Via Gehenna), where the phenomenon was repeated. The body was then sent to "Losania" (Lausanne or Lucerne?) and buried. Thus Pilate was brought into connection with Mont Pilatus, near Lucerne, the name of which is, however, rather to be derived from Mons Pileatus, "the hatted mountain," referring to the cloud cap which forms so often around the summit in midday.

Bibliography: As sources, besides the references in the Gospels, consult: Philo, Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii.; Josephus, War, II., ix.; idem, Ant., XVIII., iii.–iv.; and the apocryphal material with comment on it, as follows: J. C. Thilo, Codex apocryphus N. T., i. 118–119, 487–488, Leipsic, 1832; C. Tischendorf, Pilati circum Christum judicio quid lucis afferatur ex Actis Pilati, Leipsic, 1855; idem, Evangelia apocrypha, ib. 1876; R. A. Lipsius, Die Pilatus-Akten, Kiel, 1871; Clemen, in TSK, 1894, pp. 759 sqq., F. C. Conybeare, in Studia Biblica et ecclesiastica, iv. 59—132, Oxford, 1896; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 21–24, 907–909, ii. 1, pp. 603–612; M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, in TS; vol. ii.; E. Hennecke, Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, pp. 143 sqq., Tübingen, 1904; idem, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, pp. 74–76, ib. 1904. Eng. transls. of the apocryphal material are in: ANF, viii. 416–467 (see Apocrypha, II., 7); Acta Pilati, ed. Geo. Sluter, Shelbyville, Ind., 1879; Gesta Pilati: or the Reports, Letters and Acts of Pontius Pilate . . . , ed. W. O. Clough, Indianapolis, 1880; Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, translated by A. Walker, pp. 125 sqq., Edinburgh, 1873; Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 50–79, Boston, n.d. Consult further: J. Langen, Die letzten Lebenstage Jesu, pp. 261–294, Freiburg, 1864; G. Wameck, Pontius Pilatus der Richter Jesu Christi, Gotha, 1867; G. A. Müller, Pontius Pilatus der fünfte Prokurator von Judäa, Stuttgart, 1888 (gives earlier literature); P. Waltjer, Pontius Pilatus, eene Studie, Amsterdam, 1888; A. Schaab, Pontius Pilatus, ein Zeitbild, Carlsruhe, 1892; T. Mommsen Römische Geschichte, v. 508 sqq., Berlin, 1894; J. Stalker, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ, pp. 43 sqq., London, 1894; A. T. Innes, Trial of Jesus Christ, a Legal Monograph, Edinburgh, 1899; S. Mathews Hist. of N. T: Times, 2d ed., New York, 1910; J. Belser, Die Geschichte Leidens und Sterbens . . . des Herrn, pp. 323–339, 346–372, Freiburg, 1903; G. Rosadi, The Trial of Jesus, London, 1905; The Archko Volume, transl. by McIntosh and Twyman, chap. viii., 2d ed., Philadelphia, 1905; Schürer, Geschichte i. 487–492, Eng transl., i. 2, pp. 81–86; DB, iii. 875–879; EB, iii. 3772–74; DCG, 363–366; JE, x. 34–35; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, part xxxii., columns 429–434; especially in the literature on the life of Christ the works of Keim, Holtzmann, Lange, Weiss, Stalker, Andrews, and Edersheim; also the commentaries on the Gospels, at the passages where mention of Pilate occurs.

PILGRIMAGES: Journeys to holy places for the sake of devotion and edification. They are a common feature of religious devotion, not peculiar to Christianity. In the last-named religion the custom began early. In the middle of the fourth century, after Constantine and his mother Helena had visited Golgotha, Bethlehem, and other places, and had built churches there, pilgrimages to the Holy Land became quite frequent. In the eighth century Charlemagne made a treaty with Haroun al Rashid to procure safety to the Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem, and founded a Latin monastery in that city for their comfort. In the eleventh century it was the outrages to which the Christian pilgrims were exposed in Palestine which, more than anything else, contributed to bring about the crusades. But in the mean time the Church had taken the matter in hand, and pilgrimages changed character. They became "good works," penalties by which gross sins could be expiated, sacrifices by which holiness, or at least a measure of it, could be attained. The pilgrim was placed under the special protection of the Church; to maltreat him, or to deny him shelter and alms, was sacrilege. And when he returned victorious, having fulfilled his vow, he became the center of the religious interest of the village, the town, the city, to which he belonged,—an object of holy awe. Thus pilgrimizing became a life-work, a calling. There were people who adopted it as a vocation, wandering all their life from one shrine to another. Places of pilgrimage sprang up everywhere—at the tombs of the saints and martyrs (St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome, St. Thecla in Seleucia, St. Stephen in Hippo in Africa, the Forty Martyrs in Cappadocia, St. Felix at Nola in Campania, St. Martin at Tours, St. Adelbert at Gnesen, St. Willibrord at Echternach, St. Thomas at Canterbury, St. Olaf at Drontheim, etc.), or at the shrine of some wonder-working relic or image. At the Reformation, this practise was ridiculed by Protestants, but was retained by the Roman Catholic Church. In very recent times two new places of pilgrimage have excited the Roman Catholic world—Lourdes (q.v.) in the south of France, near the Pyrenees; and Knock, near Dublin, Ireland. In both places the Virgin Mary, it is claimed, revealed herself.

Among the most celebrated shrines toward which the currents of pilgrimage have been chiefly directed are the holy places of Palestine, which since the fifteenth century have been under the guardianship of the Franciscan order. Sanctuaries of the Virgin in various parts of the world, e.g., Loreto (q.v.) and Genezano in Italy, Chartres, Fourvières (in Lyons) and especially Lourdes (q.v.) in France, Einsiedeln (q.v.) in Switzerland, Mariazell in Austria, Guadeloupe and Montserrat in Spain, Walsingham in England (of which Erasmus wrote an account; Eng. transl., Pilgrimages to Saint Mary of Walsingham and Saint Thomas of Canterbury, 2d ed., London, 1875), etc. Among the sanctuaries of the angels and saints may be mentioned the "Limina apostolorum" on the Vatican hill, Monte Gargano, in Italy, in honor of St. Michael (it was the devotion of Norman pilgrims to this shrine that led to the Norman conquest of Naples); Czenatochau in Russian Poland, Compostella in Spain, in honor of St. James the Apostle, Mont St. Michel on the northern coast of France, to say nothing of the reputed tombs of Lazarus and his two sisters in the south. In North America the most noted place of pilgrimage is the shrine of St. Anne on the St. Lawrence, a few miles below Quebec, where a reputed relic of St. Anne, mother of the Virgin, is preserved, having been brought from one of the sanctuaries dedicated to St. Anne in France. In general, all the tombs of prominent saints, or localities intimately connected with their careers, have at one time or another been centers of pilgrimages on the part of the pious faithful, even though the claims of many of them to such honor could not stand the test of critical investigation.

James F. Driscoll.

Bibliography: J. Marx, Das Wallfahren in der katholischen Kirche, Treves, 1842 A. Müller, Das heilige Deutschland, Geschichte and Beschreibung der Wallfahrtsorte, Cologne, 1897; H. von Rudniki Die berühmtesten Wallfahrtsorte der Erde, Paderborn 1897; L. Depont, Pélerinages, Paris, 1902; DCA, ii. 1635–42 (a detailed discussion, where the older literature is given); Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 465–469; KL xii. 1199–1204; JE, x. 35–38. An important series is that of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, 13 vols. and Index, London, 1897 (to the different volumes of the series valuable introductions are prefixed). For the Roman Catholic position on the subject, cf. Council of Trent, sessio xxv.

PILIGRIM: Bishop of Passau; d. May 20, 991. He was a kinsman of Friedrich, archbishop of Salzburg; was brought up at the Benedictine monastery of Niederaltaich; became a canon of the diocese; and was bishop of Passau, 971–991. For Supporting Otto II. against Duke Henry he was rewarded with the monastery of St. Mary, a part of the revenue of Passau, and a confirmation of his title. The emperor approved his control of the monastery of Krems in 975, of St. Florian and St. Pölten in 976, and later of Ötting and Mattsee. The bishopric had no real claim on any one of these, but Piligrim knew how to establish one on forged documents. His inordinate ambition included the elevation of Passau into an archbishopric. This effort was advanced by means of the reoccupation of Ostmark and the beginning of the mission to Hungary, and Piligrim forwarded the most embellished reports to Pope Benedict VI. in 973 or 974, to the effect that about 5,000 persons had been baptized; countless Christian captives of war had openly confessed; that the heathen offered no hindrances; and that he was convinced that the erection of several bishoprics in Hungary was necessary in order to conserve and extend what had been accomplished. He advanced the fable to Benedict that at one time Lorch, which he represented to be the original seat of the bishopric of Passau, was the metropolitan seat for seven bishoprics in Pannonia and Moesia; and had a number of sources forged representing the relations of earlier popes with the archbishopric of Lorch. He asked, therefore, for the pallium and the authorization to erect the bishoprics in Hungary. His dependence upon fraud may have been due to the slight importance attached by the emperor and the pope to this enterprise. Failing in this effort, he succeeded in 977 in having a statement included in a document of Otto II., which declared Lorch to have been an ancient seat of primacy. But evidently Archbishop Friedrich induced the pope to confirm his right over Bavaria and Pannonia, and Piligrim had to abandon his plans. But Piligrim's care for his district was great, and churches were organized and synods were held. He was a man distinctly ahead of his times in his freedom from superstition, and made a marked impression upon his age.

(A. Hauck.)

Bibliography: E. Dümmler, Piligrim von Passau und das Erbistum Lorch, Leipsic, 1854; S. Riezler, Geschichte Baierns, i. 391 sqq., Gotha, 1878; K. Schrödl, Passavia sacra, i. 77 sqq., Passau, 1879; Hauck, KD, iii. 166 sqq.

PILLAR OF FIRE AND CLOUD: The traditional supernatural guide and guard of the Hebrews during the desert wanderings. Beginning at Etham (Ex. xiii. 20 sqq.) the Hebrews were accompanied by a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night which went before them to show the way. When the Egyptians pursued, the pillar (Ex. xiv. 19 sqq.) passed behind the people serving as an obstructing bank of cloud toward the enemy and as light toward themselves. According to the adduced passages and other statements of the Bible, it was the Lord himself that went before Israel; theology regards it as "his angel," i.e., the agent of his manifestation (Ex. xxiii. 20 sqq.). This cloud also covered the tabernacle after its erection (Num. ix. 15 sqq.), and filled it (Ex. xl. 34 sqq.) as the habitation of God. On important occasions it descended upon the tabernacle, stood before it (Num. xii. 5) while the people worshiped, and regularly when Moses was to receive revelations (Num. xxxiii. 8–11). The glory of the Lord concealed in the cloud appeared at supreme moments to all the people (Ex. xvi. 10; Num. xiv. 10, xvi. 19, xvii. 7). The ascent of the cloud from the tabernacle meant the breaking of the camp; its resting upon a place the sign of pitching camp (Ex. xl. 36 sqq.; Num. ix. 17–23). There is no doubt that there were not two but one and the same pillar which appeared by night as fire, by day as cloud. It is also clearly stated that this cloud was the covering of God when he descended upon Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 15 sqq.).

As to its physical nature, this mysterious cloud, like wonders in general, attaches itself to natural conditions and phenomena. However, two efforts to materialize that theophany must be rejected. One derives the pillar of cloud from the caravan-fire which was borne before the march. Reference is made to Alexander's march (E. Curtius, Griechische Geschichte, V., ii. 7, Berlin, 1868–74; Eng. translation, History of Greece, London, 1868–73), which shows how great armies made use of fire for guidance, just as caravans do to-day. But this is contradicted by the materials of the narrative noted above, and the divinity of the cloud demands a supernatural phenomenon. Such a cloud lay pregnant with fire on Sinai where God most positively offered his majesty to the gaze of the people. For the same reason, the view of Ewald (followed by Riehm and Dillman) must also be rejected, who supposed that the altar-fire was the kernel of the tradition.

The cloud in the mean time became a subject for theological speculation. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon saw in it the divine wisdom (x. 17; cf. xviii. 3, xix. 7); Philo, the divine Logos (Opera, ed. T. Mangey, 501, London, 1742).

C. VON ORELLI.

Bibliography: The subject is best discussed in the commentaries on the passages (see under Hexateuch); also in the works on the O. T. cited under Biblical Theology, and in those on the history of Israel (see under Ahab; and Israel, History of). Consult further the articles in the Bible dictionaries, e.g., EB, iii. 3775–78; JE, x. 39.

PILOT, WILLIAM: Anglican; b. at Bristol, England, Dec. 30, 1841. He was educated at St. Boniface's College, Westminster, and St. Augustine's College, Canterbury, and was ordered deacon in 1867 and advanced to the priesthood in 1868. From 1867 to 1875 he was vice-principal of Queen's College, St. John's, Newfoundland, as well as incumbent of Quidi Vidi, Newfoundland, and in 1883–84 was principal of Queen's College. Since 1875 he has been superintendent of education in Newfoundland and in 1905 was also appointed commissary to the bishop of Newfoundland. He is a canon of the Anglican cathedral at St. John's. In theology he is an "Anglican of the old type," and has written essays on nomenclature and folk-lore of Newfoundland, also the geography of Newfoundland, and sketches of early church history of Newfoundland.

PINYTUS: Bishop of Cnossus, Crete, in the second century, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., iv. 21, 23, Eng. transl, NPNF, 2 ser., i. 197–198, 200–202), and contemporary of Dionysius of Corinth (q.v.). Eusebius gives some extracts from the correspondence of the two. Dionysius, it appears, wrote to the bishop of Cnossus asking him not to impose too strict a yoke of chastity upon his brethren. But Pinytus was unmoved by this counsel and replied that Dionysius might impart stronger doctrine and feed his congregation with a more perfect epistle inasmuch as Christians could not always subsist on milk or tarry in childhood. It may be that Pinytus was influenced by Montanistic views; however, Eusebius vouches for his orthodoxy and his care for the welfare of those placed under him.

(A. Hauck.)

Bibliography: The references are collected in Harnack, Litteratur, i. 237. See the literature under Dionysius of Corinth.

PIONIUS: Christian martyr of the middle of the third century. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV., xv. 47; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 series, i. 192) refers to his own lost "Collection of the Ancient Martyrdoms" as containing accounts of martyrdoms in the time of Polycarp. Among the martyrs referred to was a certain Pionius, of whom an account was given in Eusebius' source and used by him, which included a report of his confessions, his courageous defense of the Christian faith before people and authorities, his friendly reception of the fugitives from persecution, and his encouraging address to the brethren who visited him in prison, as well as his endurance of sufferings, nailings, and burning. In spite of some uncertainties in particulars, the genuineness of the account seems evident and presents a good picture of events during the Decian persecution (see Decius, Caius Messius Quintus Trajanus). The "Acts" from which Eusebius draws points distinctly (ii. 1, ix. 4, 23) to the persecution of the year 250 under the consuls Decius and Gratus; the reference to the time of Marcus Aurelius by Eusebius is explained by the connection with the "Acts of Polycarp." Pionius was seized at the anniversary of the martyrdom of Polycarp, Feb. 23, which day also was a Sabbath in 250, and he was burned with a certain Metrodorus on Mar. 12. The Pionius of this article must be distinguished from Pionius, author of Vita Polycarpi (350–400).

Bibliography: Sources are: T. Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, pp. 185–198, Regensburg, 1859; ASB, Feb., i. 37–46; F. Miklosich, Monumenta linguæ palæoslovenicæ, pp. 94 sqq., Vienna, 1851; O. von Gebhardt, in Archiv für slavische Philologie, xviii (1896), 156 sqq., in Ausgwählte Märtyrakten, pp. 59 sqq., Tübingen,1901, and in Acta martyrum selecta, pp. 59 sqq., Berlin, 1902. Consult further: Krüger, History, pp. 385–386; B. Aubé, L’Église et l’état dans la seconde moitié du 3. siècle, pp. 140 sqq., Paris, 1885; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, i. 622–626, 695–702, London, 1889; T. Zahn, in Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, iv. 271 A 4, Leipsic; 1891; J. A. F. Gregg, The Decian Persecution, pp. 242 sqq., ib. 1897; Bardenhewer, Geschichte, ii. 631–632; DCB, iv. 397, 428; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, ii. 113–114.

PIPER, KARL WILHELM FERDINAND: German church historian; b. at Stralsund (120 m. n.w. of Berlin) May 7, 1811; d. at Berlin Nov. 28, 1889. He studied theology at the universities of Berlin and Göttingen, 1829–33; was tutor in theology at the latter institution, 1833–40; privat-docent in church history at the University of Berlin, 1842; and associate professor after 1842. As church historian he belonged to the school of Neander. His earlier literary activity dealt with chronology and resulted in the publication of the "Evangelical Calendar" (1850–70), in which he substituted for the names of saints, those of Christian worthies, and furnished annually biographical sketches. His principal pursuit became the investigation of Christian monuments of art, as a source for church history. The first important product appeared as the first part of the projected work, Mythologie und Symbolik der Christlichen Kunst (2 vols., Weimar, 1847–51) setting forth the influence of pagan mythology upon Christianity. The intended second part was never prepared. His next great work was Einleitung in die monumentale Theologie (Gotha, 1867). Other works are: Ueber den christlichen Bilderkreis (Berlin, 1852); and Die Kalendarien and Martyrologien der Angelsachsen (1862). Piper does not treat art for art's sake; form and style are almost ignored. He always seeks to present the content for his specific purpose. He was the founder of the Christian museum at the University of Berlin and its director from 1849 till his death.

(A. Hauck.)

PIPPIN, DONATION OF. See Papal States.

PIRKE ABOTH, pîr-kê´ ā´bot ("Sayings of the Fathers"): The ninth tractate of the fourth order ("Damages") of the Mishna. An especially valuable translation, with excellent notes, is found in C. Taylor's Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 2d ed., Cambridge, 1899. See Talmud.

PIRKHEIMER, pirk-haim´er, CHARITAS: Sister of Wilibald Pirkheimer (q.v.) and abbess of the nunnery of St. Clara at Nuremberg; b. at Eichstätt (42 m. w.s.w. of Regensburg) Mar. 21, 1466; d. at Nuremberg Aug. 19, 1532. At the age of twelve she entered the nunnery of which she became abbess in 1503. In the same year she induced her sister Clara, who succeeded her in the headship of the cloister in 1532, to enter as a sister and to undertake the work of secretary and assistant. She was especially faithful in the maintenance of discipline and nurture of those committed to her care. By her brother she was led to the study of patristics, but was never reconciled to the Reformation, being a devoted daughter of her church. Her character was necessarily developed in a one-sided direction through her early entrance into the nunnery, and she was apparently quite morbid through continued contemplation of her sins and weaknesses. Her Denkwürdigkeiten pictures the misfortunes of her cloister (given in C. Höfler's Frankischen Studien, vol. iv., part 2, Vienna, 1853).

Bibliography: F. Binder, Charitas Pirkheimer, Freiburg, 1873.

PIRKHEIMER, WILIBALD: German humanist; b. at Eichstätt (42 m. w.s.w. of Regensburg) Dec. 5, 1470; d. at Nuremberg Dec. 22, 1530. He received his elementary education from his father and then studied at the universities of Pavia and Padua the classics, music, and jurisprudence for seven years. He was city councilor at Nuremberg, 1496–1523; was entrusted with diplomatic charges by his city; and served in the war with the Swiss as imperial counselor to Maximilian I. and Charles V., as a result of which he wrote Historia belli Suitensis sive Halvetici (in Pirckheimeri opera politica, pp. 63–92, Frankfort, 1610), which secured him the appellation of the German Xenophon. But Pirkheimer was famous for his versatile scholarship; he was identified with the revival in Germany of the humanities from Italy and shared the leadership with Erasmus and Reuchlin. He translated into Latin wholly or in part the works of Euclid, Xenophon, Plato, Ptolemy, Theophrastus, Plutarch, Lucian of Samosata, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John of Damascus, and possessed a large library gathered in the cities of Italy and freely thrown open to friends of learning.

Though in conflict with crystallized scholasticism, he was not inimical to the Church. However, he was a part of the movement which prepared the way for the coming division. At the beginning of the Reformation he took his position with Luther; called himself "a good Lutheran" in 1522; and for his Eckius dedolatus (ed. S. Szamatolski, 1891) and for a defensive polemic for Luther he drew upon himself a bull at the instigation of Johann Eck (q.v.) in 1521, but was absolved the same year. After 1524 he gradually fell away from Protestantism and turned more and more toward the Roman Catholic Church, mainly through his relation with the monastery of the Poor Clares (see Clare, Saint, and the Poor Clares) at Nuremberg the abbess of which (1503–32) was his famous sister Charitas (q.v.). When the innovators in that city, Hieronymus Ebner, Caspar Nützel, and Lazarus Spengler, went so far in 1524 as to induce a voluntary abandonment of the monastery by the nuns, Pirkheimer's tender relation with his sister impelled him to advance to the defense. He appealed to Melanchthon through whose influence the abolition was stayed. His last work was in defense of the monastery, the Oratoria Apologetica (1529; ed. G. J. Gretser, Opera omnia, xvii., Regensburg, 1734–41).

(F. LIST†.)

Bibliography: An incomplete edition of the Opera, ed. M. Goldast, was issued Frankfort, 1610, with the basal life by K. Rittershausen. Pirkheimer's "Autobiography" is given by K. Ruck in his Wilibald Pirckheimers Schweizerkrieg, Munich, 1895. There are biographies by F. Roth, Halle, 1887; in ADB, xxxv. 118–122; and in E. Münch, Wilibald Pirkheimers Schmeizerkrieg und Ehrenhandel mit seinen Feinden zu Nürnberg, Basel, 1826. Consult further: R. Hagen, Wilibald Pirkheimer in seinem Verhältnis zum Humanismus und zur Reformation, Nuremberg, 1882; O. Markwart, Wilibald Pirkheimer als Geschichtschreiber, Zurich, 1886; P. Drews, Wilibald Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation, Leipsic, 1887; P. Kalkoff, Pirkheimers und Spenglers Lösung vom Banne 1521, Breslau, 1896; H. Westermeyer, Zur Bannangelegenheit Pirkhelmers and Spenglers, in Beiträge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte, ii. 1–8, Erlangen, 1896.

PIRMIN (PERMIN, PRIMIN), SAINT: Abbot and missionary in southern Germany; d. at the monastery of Hornbach (75 m. n.n.w. of Strasburg) Nov. 3, probably in 753. According to Rabanus Maurus (q.v.) he was a foreigner, and being a Benedictine, it is concluded that he was an Anglo-Saxon. He was first known as rural bishop of Meaux, where he preached in Latin and Frankish, during the reign of Theodoric IV. (720–737) and was called thence as missionary to the people about Lake Constance. There he first established the monastery of Reichenau on an island in the western arm of Lake Constance. When the Alemanni under Theobald rose against Charles Martel, Pirmin was compelled to leave his see, and repaired to Alsace, where, under Count Eberhard, he completed the monastery of Murbach in the Vosges. He is also said to have founded the religious houses of Altaich in Bavaria and Pfaefers in Switzerland, of Schuttern and Gengenbach in Offenburg, Schwartzach near Lichtenau in Baden, Maurmünster and Neuweiler in Alsace, and finally the abbey of Hornbach near Zweibrücken.

There still exists a document of Pirmin entitled Dicta abbatis Pirminii, de singulis libris canonicis scarapsus; first published by J. Mabillon in Vetera analecta, iv (Paris, 1723); ed. by A. Gallandi in Bibliotheca veterum patrum, xiii., pp. 277–285 (Venice, 1779); MPL, lxxxix. 1030 sqq. Scarapsus is evidently a corruption for excerptus. These sayings written in barbarous Latin are directed to baptized Christians, offering instruction in faith and morals and supported by abundant Scripture citation. Man was created to fill the vacancy made by fallen angels. Satan is vanquished by the humility of the Son of God and sin by the cross, The vocation of the Christian is to follow Christ and shun evil. Of elementary sins there are eight: lust, gluttony, fornication, wrath, despair, recklessness, vainglory, and pride. He warns against the fleshly sins: divorce, which should not be permitted excepting with the consent of both parties and for the love of Christ; fornication, covetousness, untruthfulness, and sorcery. Actual sins are to be atoned for by almsgiving.

(A. Hauck.)

Bibliography: Early Vitæ and other documents, with comment, are in ASB, Nov., ii., 1, pp. 2–54, and, ed. Holder-Egger, in MGH Script., xv (1887–88), 21–35. Consult: M. Görringer, Pirminius, Zweibrücken, 1841; P. Heber, Die vorkarolingischen christlichen Glaubenshelden am Rhein, pp. 212–248, Frankfort, 1858; J. H. A. Ebrard, Die iroschottische Missionskirche, pp. 344 sqq., 453 sqq., Gütersloh, 1873; J. Weicherding, Der St. Pirminsberg . . . und der heilige Pirmin, Luxemburg, 1875; C. P. Caspari, Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, i. 149 sqq., Christiania, 1883; E. Egli, Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz, pp. 72–82, Zurich, 1893; Friedrich, KD, ii. 580 sqq., Rettberg, KD, ii. 50–84; Hauck, KD, i. 346; DCB, iv. 405.

PIRSTINGER, BERTHOLD. See Puerstinger.

PISA, COUNCILS OF: The council of Pisa in 1409, standing as a moment in the tendency to establish an episcopal oligarchy in place of a papal monarchy, was occasioned by the great schism in the western Church and the need of reforms. There had been since 1378 two popes in western Christendom and it was imperative to put an end to the confusion incident to a double system of bishops, priests, and sacraments. The two popes themselves, Gregory XII. of Rome and Benedict XIII. of Avignon, were opposed to arbitrating their claims. A majority of the cardinals of both parties resolved to ignore their obstinate chiefs and came together at Livorno in 1408 and invited the representatives of the Church to a general council at Pisa on Mar. 25, 1409. A large number of church dignitaries besides representatives of the sacred orders, universities, and secular kings and princes obeyed the summons of the cardinals. The claims of both papal pretenders were considered, and after ten days the cardinals entered into a conclave at the archiepiscopal palace at Pisa, and, on June 26, chose unanimously the Cardinal Peter Philargi, archbishop of Milan, as pope. He was a native Greek of the island of Crete, and reputed to be of a conciliatory disposition. He assumed the name of Alexander V. The cardinals had not taken pains to find out whether the several Christian states would accept their election as valid. The consequence was that instead of a two-headed papacy they had created a three-headed one, a result foreseen by such men as Pierre d’Ailly (q.v.). Rupert of Germany, Ladislaus of Naples, and certain other minor princes stood by Gregory XII.; Spain and Portugal supported Benedict XIII. The cause of union was thus unsuccessful. The cause of reformation, on the other hand, fared no better, for it proved that the great assembly was unprepared to deal with so great a problem. The reformation of the Church, both head and members, was postponed to the next council, to which both Pope Alexander V. and Council agreed. The materials of reformation were to be first discussed at provincial, diocesan, or chapter synods; but later developments proved that no one had in mind a reform of the hierarchical structure. The only consequence was the testimony to the world that there was a Church universal strong enough to withstand the strain of even a thirty-years schism.

(P. TSCHACKERT.)

The second Council of Pisa was called by nine cardinals under the Spanish Cardinal Carvajal, three of whom, however, had not formally given assent, to convene Sept. 1, 1511. The council was a political step aimed at Pope Julius II., who was involved in conflict with Ferrara and France. It was of an abortive nature, attended by only a small contingent, and soon adjourned to Milan on account of popular opposition, where it declared Julius II. suspended, Apr. 21, 1512. Soon after, it dispersed to France from fear of the Swiss invasion, and died of inanition at Lyons toward the end of the year. Pope Julius II. retaliated by depriving the four leading schismatic cardinals of their dignities and calling a Lateran Council which met May 3, 1512, and excommunicated the members of the second Pisan Council. The whole matter was a futile attempt to galvanize into activity the conciliar movement of the previous century (ut sup.) and to employ it for political purposes.

Bibliography: The sources most accessible are Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi. 992 sqq.; Mansi, Concilia, xxvi. 1136 sqq., 1184 sqq., xvii. 1–10, 115 sqq., 358 sqq.; E. Martène and U. Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ii.1436 sqq., Paris, 1717; P. Tschackert, Peter von Ailly, appendix, 31–41, Gotha, 1877; and Reichstagsakten, vol. vi., ed. J. Weizsäcker, Gotha, 1888. Consult J. Lenfant, Hist. du concile de Pise et de ce qui est passé de plus mémorable depuis ce concile jusqu’au concile de Constance, 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1724; Pastor, Popes, i. 175–207; Creighton, Papacy, i. 223 sqq, iv. 269, v. 160–161; J B. Schwab, Johann Gerson, Würzburg, 1858; C. Höfler, Ruprecht von der Pfalz, Freiburg, 1861; Lehman, Die Pisaner Concil von 1511, Breslau, 1874; G. Erler, Dietrich von Nieheim, Leipsic, 1887; F. Stuhr, Die Organisation und Geschäftsordnung des Pisaner . . . Konzels, Schwerin, 1891; H. Rossbach, Das Leben and die . . . Wirksamkeit des Bernaldino Lopez de Carvajal, vol. i., Breslau, 1892; J. Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform, vol. i., Berlin, 1903; KL, x. 23 sqq.; Milman, Latin Christianity, vii. 312–320; and the literature under Gregory XII.; Benedict XIII. (1).

PISCATOR, pis-ke´tōr (FISCHER), JOHANNES: German theologian; b. at Strasburg Mar. 27, 1546; d. at Herborn (32 m. n.e. of Nassau) July 26, 1625. He was educated at Tübingen; became professor of theology at Strasburg in 1573; and of philosophy at Heidelberg in 1574 as a follower of Peter Ramus; was made scholastic rector at Siegen in 1577; professor of theology at Neustadt-on-the-Haardt in 1578; rector at Moers in 1581; and was instructor at the high school at Herborn, in 1584–1625. Tireless in industry, Piscator prepared Latin commentaries collectively of the New Testament (Herborn, 1595–1609) and the Old Testament (1612, 1618), and a German translation of the Bible (1605–19). He followed with Anhang des herbonischen biblischen Wercks (1610), noted for its wealth of archeological, historical, and theological material. He left a multitude of text-books in philosophy, philology, and theology, of which Aphorismi doctrinæ christianæ (1596) was much used. His significance for theology was his opposition to the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. "Whoever denies that Christ was subject to the law, denies that he was man." If the imputation of the active obedience were sufficient man would be free from obedience as well as from the curse. [From being an advocate of supralapsarianism in the most extreme form, as in his controversy with Conrad Vorstius (cf. extracts in A. H. Newman, Manual of Church History, ii. 338–339, 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1900–03), Piscator became a pronounced Arminian. A. H. N.]

(E. F. Karl Müller.)

Bibliography: Steubing, in ZHT, 1841, part 4, pp. 98 sqq.; F. C. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung, pp. 352 sqq., Tübingen, 1838; W. Gass, Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik, i. 422 sqq., 4 vols., Berlin, 1854–67; A. Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung and Versöhnung, i. 271 sqq., Bonn, 1889, Eng. transl., Critical Hist. of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, Edinburgh, 1872.

PISGAH. See Moab.

PISIDIA. See Asia Minor, VII.

PISTIS SOPHIA. See Ophites.

PISTOJA, SYNOD OF. See Ricci, Scipione de’, Johannes.

PISTORIUS, JOHANNES BECKER: The name of two persons, father and son, who were influential, though widely divergent, figures in the religious controversies of the sixteenth century.

1. Johannes Pistorius the Elder.

Controversies with Roman Catholics

First Protestant pastor at Nidda, Hesse; b. in the latter part of the fifteenth century; d. 1583. In company with Butzer, he appears to have attended the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, and in 1541 he became superintendent of the diocese of Alsfeld. Landgrave Philip accorded him the utmost confidence. In 1540 he was one of the Hessian delegates to the convention at Hagenau, and soon afterward he was delegated to attend the colloquy with at Worms, in 1540–41. He accompanied the landgrave to the Diet of Regensburg, where the emperor appointed him to speak on the Protestant side, along with Melanchthon and Butzer. He stood loyal to Melanchthon, who esteemed him highly In 1543, at the request of Butzer, the landgrave sent him to Cologne, to support attempts of the elector to introduce the Reformation there. He preached to large throngs, and to Melanchthon's complete satisfaction. In 1545–116, again as a colleague of Butzer, he took part in the religious conference at Regensburg. When it was purposed to introduce the Interim (q.v.) in Hesse, he headed a brave, though moderate, resistance, even being ready to resign his office. After the reaction brought about by the Elector Maurice, the landgrave, in 1557, despatched Pistorius to the princely diet at Frankfort; and not long afterward he was one of the speakers at the great religious conference in Worms (q.v.).

Activity in Inter-Protestant Controversy

From this time on, Pistorius was busied more by the controversies raging among the Protestants than by the struggle against the Roman Catholic Church. He then deeply influenced the Hessian position, and his constant aim was either to preserve or to restore peace. Together with his colleagues at the Synod of Ziegenhain, in 1558, he gladly accepted the Frankfort Recess (q.v.). Owing to illness, he was unable to accompany the landgrave to the princes' conference at Naumburg in 1561, although he declared, in a formal expression of opinion, that the revised Augsburg Confession contained no doctrinal deviation from the original. It was most probably Pistorius who composed the important Hessian opinion, dated Oct. 19, 1566, regarding the "final answer" of the Württemberg theologians to the Heidelberg divines (Tübingen, 1566). This document takes a very decided stand against the Heidelberg party with their Calvinistic teaching regarding the Lord's Supper, and it recognizes the doctrine of Ubiquity (q.v.). At the momentous eighth general synod of 1576, when the Torgau Book (see Formula of Concord) was under advisement, Pistorius approved its basal creed, its various doctrinal statements and antitheses, its teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, and, pending deeper investigation, its Christology. At the same time, he shared the scruples urged by the majority against emphasizing the Invariata, the "damnation" of the Calvinists, and the subtlety of the doctrine of ubiquity; and he was, therefore, the first to sign the treatise explanatory of these points. At the general assembly in Treysa (Nov., 1577), Pistorius and the majority voted to reject the Book of Bergen (see Formula of Concord). It is thus evident that Pistorius undervalued the significance and range of the dogmatic questions of the period. He intensely disliked doctrinal polemics, and always treated dogmatic questions from a practical point of view. Administratively he evinced a very influential activity in organization and polity, as well as in public worship, discipline and education, during his entire term of office. At his death he left an unfinished work on the diets and colloquies that he had attended from 1540 to 1557.

2. Johannes Pistorius the Younger.

Early Life and Conversion of Margrave Jacob

Roman Catholic convert and apologist; b. at Nidda (19 m. s.e. of Giessen), Hesse, Feb. 4, 1546; d. at Freiburg Sept., 1608. He studied first theology and then medicine, and in 1568 published at Frankfort the peculiar cabalistic treatise: De vera curandæ pestis ratione, which he followed by his Artis cabalisticæ scriptores (Basel, 1587). During the life-time of Charles II. (d. 1577), sole regent of the margravate of Baden-Durlach, Pistorius became court physician, though he was continually taking part in theological affairs. Meanwhile he had gone over from Lutheranism to Calvinism; and shortly afterward, in 1588, became a convert to the Roman Catholic Church. He now wrote a number of open letters which opened a controversy on the nature of the Church, an issue that he henceforth deemed the most important point under discussion. At the same time he made earnest, though unsuccessful, efforts to convert Margrave Ernest Frederick. With the Margrave Jacob, at Hochberg Castle, he had better fortune. This chivalrous, learned, and traveled prince had frequently received foreign Protestants, although in 1585–86, when in the Spanish military service, he had fought against the adherents of the new teachings in the archdiocese of Cologne. He was very accessible, moreover, to Roman Catholic court influences, and now became a convert to the ancient Church. To justify this step he arranged a religious conference at Baden, the residence of his cousin, Margrave Eduard Fortunatus, who had himself become a Roman Catholic in 1584. Margrave Jacob appeared with his councilor, Pistorius, his chaplain, Johann Zehender, the Jesuit Theodor Busœus, and others. Duke Christopher of Württemberg, who had been invited, did not attend in person, but sent certain councilors and theologians, Jakob Andreä, Jakob Heerbrand, and Gerlach. The debate (Nov. 18–19) occupied four sessions, though it did not turn on ubiquity, as the margrave had purposed, but on the visible and invisible Church, as Pistorius had arranged. The conference proved fruitless, however, and was soon broken off. Andreä, and Pistorius parted in enmity, and their oral dispute was prolonged in writing. Margrave Jacob, dissatisfied with the Baden conference, and continually influenced by the duke of Bavaria, ordered a second religious colloquy, this time at his Emmendingen residence. The Roman Catholic debaters were the chaplain Zehender and the rector Georg Hänlin of Freiburg. The margrave had wished for the debate to turn on the doctrine of justification; and at his command Pistorius had prepared 300 theses on that subject, but again succeeded in making the theory of the Church the topic of argument. After seven sessions (June 3–7, 1590), the margrave finally authorized the pronouncement that "Luther's church was a new church, and therefore a false church." Without further delay, the margrave solemnly became a member of the Roman Catholic Church in the monastery of Thennenbach (July 15), Busœus granting him absolution. Great joy reigned in Rome, and Pope Sixtus V. appointed a feast of thanksgiving. Before it could be held, however, Margrave Jacob, after a brief illness, had died (Aug. 7, 1590). Immediately after his death, Ernest Frederick appeared at Emmendingen and forbade any change in religious conditions, but when this prince was later about to force Calvinism upon his domain, he, too, died a sudden death (1604). The entire margravate now devolved on George Frederick, whom neither Pistorius nor Ernest Frederick had been able to win from Lutheranism.

Clerical Career and Writings.

Pistorius outlived these events, but not in Baden. He took orders, became vicar general to the bishop of Constance, and resided for the most part in Freiburg, devoting himself zealously to writing polemics. Soon after his removal from Baden, he published Wahrhafte Beschreibung, was sich bei Markgraf Jakobs letzter Krankheit und Ableben verlauffen (1590) and Orationes de vita et morte Jacobi (1591).

Of great note among his many and widely published controversial writings was his Anatomia Lutheri (2 parts, Cologne, 1595–98), in which he sought to prove from Luther's writings that the Reformer was possessed of the seven evil spirits (lust, blasphemy, etc.), and that he was an utter abomination. The constructive counterpart to this work was his Wegweiser für all verführten Christen, das ist, ein wahrhaftiger Bericht von vierzehn durch die unrechtgläubigen in Streit gezogenen Artikeln, daraus jedermann der römischen Kirche Wahrheit erkennen kann (Münster, 1599). Pistorius rendered lasting service through his works on history and genealogy, particularly by his edition of the Scriptores rerum Germanicarum (3 vols., Frankfort, 1583–1607) and by his Polonicæ historiæ corpus (3 vols., Basel, 1582). His zeal was recognized by his church, for he was appointed imperial and Bavarian councilor, apostolic prothonotary, provost of the cathedral at Breslau, and domestic prelate to the abbot of Fulda.

Carl Mirbt.

Bibliography: For 1, besides the literature under Contarini, Gasparo, and Philip of Hesse, much of which is pertinent, consult: H. Heppe, Kirchengeschichte der beiden Hessen, vol. i., Marburg, 1876; idem, Geschichte der hessischen Generalsynoden 1568–82, 2 vols., Cassel, 1847; Philipps des Grossmüthigen hessische Kirchenreformations-Ordnung, ed. K. A. Credner, pp. ccxxxvi. sqq., Giessen, 1852; F. W. Hassencamp, Hessische Kirchengeschichte, 2 vols., Frankfort, 1864; P. Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstag zu Regensburg, pp. 71 sqq., Jena, 1889; F. Herrmann, Das Interim in Hessen, Marburg, 1901.

For 2: K. F. Vierordt, Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche in dem Grossherzogtum Baden, ii. 21 sqq., Carlsruhe, 1856; A. Räss, Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation, ii. 488 sqq., iii. 83 sqq., Freiburg, 1886; J. Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, v. 389 sqq., 395 sqq., Freiburg, 1886, Eng. transl., ix. 144–145, x. passim, St. Louis, 1906; F. von Weech, Badische Geschichte, pp. 276 sqq., Carlsruhe, 1890.

PITHOM: A treasure city built for Rameses II. by the Israelites (Ex. i. 11). It has been identified by Brugsch with Succoth, the first encampment on the route of the exodus, the starting-point being Rameses (Ex. xii. 37, xiii. 20), and by Naville with the present Tell al-Maskhuta in the Wady al-Tumilât on the line of the Sweet-Water Canal, between Ismaîlia and Tell al-Kebir. See Egypt, I., 4, § 2, 6, § 4.

PITRA, pî´´'trā, JEAN BAPTISTE: Cardinal; b. at Champforgeuil, near Autun (230 m. s.e. of Paris) Aug. 12, 1812; d. at Rome Feb. 9, 1889. He studied at the seminary at Autun, became priest in 1836, entered the order of St. Benedict in 1840, and lived in the abbey of Solesmes. In 1843 he was sent as prior to a new monastery at Paris, whence he made journeys throughout France, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, and England, in the interest of his order. He devoted himself to historical research and at Paris he helped to project the Patrologia of the Abbé Migne, and assisted in the publication of the first four volumes. In 1858 Pope Pius IX. sent him to Russia in the hope of effecting a union with the Greek Church, and he took occasion to prosecute his researches in archives, monasteries, and libraries. In 1861 he entered the service of the Propaganda; two years later he was made a cardinal priest; in 1869 he became librarian of the Vatican; in 1879, cardinal bishop) of Frascati; and in 1884 he retired to the bishopric of Porto. He was an earnest advocate of the papal supremacy. He was the author of Études sur la collection des actes des saints par les Bollandists (Paris, 1850); and Histoire de Saint Léger (1846). His greatest work is Spicilegium Solesmense (4 vols., 1852–58), followed by Analecta sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata (8 vols., 1876–91), and Analecta novissima (2 vols.,1885–88); the whole monumental work is of immense value as it is a treasure-house of hitherto unprinted documents relating to ecclesiastical history. To be added are the Juris ecclesiastici Græcorum historia et monumenta (Rome, 1864–68), and Triodion katanacticon (1879); both the fruit of four years of travel and special study after 1858, when the pope directed him to devote his attention to the ancient and modern canons of the eastern churches; and Hymnographie de l’église grecque (1867).

Bibliography: Biographies are by A. Battandier, Paris, 1893; and F. Cabrol, ib. 1893.

PITZER, ALEXANDER WHITE: Presbyterian; b. at Salem, Roanoke County, Va., Sept. 14, 1834; studied at Virginia Collegiate Institute (now Roanoke College, 1848–51); graduated at Hampden-Sidney College, Va. (1854); studied at Union Theological Seminary, Va. (1854–55), and at Danville Theological Seminary, Ky. (1855–57); was pastor at Leavenworth, Kan. (1857–61); Sparta, Ga. (1862–65); Liberty, Va.(1866–67); organized Central Presbyterian Church, Washington, D. C., in 1868, and has since been its pastor. He was also professor of Biblical history and literature in Howard University in the same city (1876–90). He is the author of Ecce Deus Homo, published anonymously (Philadelphia, 1867); Christ, Teacher of Men (1877); The New Life not the Higher Life (1878); Confidence in Christ (1889); Manifold Ministry of the Holy Spirit (1894); and Predestination (1899).

PIUS, pai´Us: The name of ten popes.

Pius I.: Bishop of Rome 140–155. According to the Muratorian Canon (q.v.) he was a brother of the Hermas who was the author of "The Shepherd." Tertullian ("Against Marcion," i. 19) declares that Marcion in the time of this pope went to Rome for the purpose of establishing his sect there. According to Irenæus, Valentinus and the Syrian Cerdon were active there at the same time. Thus the pontificate of Pius I. was a stormy one. What part Pius took in these conflicts and controversies is not known, but one of the ablest of his champions and allies was Justin Martyr (q.v.). Pius I. was canonized and his festival is July 11.

(H. Böhmer.)

Bibliography: Sources are Irenæus, Hær.,Ill., iii. 3, Eng. transl., ANF, i. 416; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV., xi., Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 182 sqq; Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 4–5, Paris, 1886, ed. Mommsen, in MGH, Gest. pont. Rom., i (1898), 14. Consult, Jaffé, Regesta, i. 7–8; Harnack, Lltteratur, i. 789, ii. 1, pp. 70 sqq. (where literature on the lisle of Roman bishops is fully given); J. Langen, Geachichte der römischen Kirche, i., iii, sqq., Bonn, 1881; Bower, Popes, i. 12–13; Platina, Popes, i. 27–29.

Pius II. (Æneas Silvius, Enea Silvio de’ Piccolomini): Pope 1458–64.

Early Life.

He was born in Corsignano, the present Pienza (100 m. n.n.w. of Rome), Oct. 18, 1405. He studied at the University of Siena, came under the spell of the penitential appeal of Bernardino of Siena (1425), and was with difficulty restrained from joining the Franciscan order. At Florence he began the study of law, in deference to his father's wishes, but against his own inclination; he was fortunate, however, in finding a position as secretary in the employment of the bishop of Fermo. The latter took him to the Council of Basel (q.v.), already under the shadow of suspension at the hand of Eugenius IV. (1431). Like his master, whom Piccolomini before long exchanged for one offering higher pay, he joined the opposition; though leaving Basel and making a journey in the political service of Cardinal Albergati, first to the Netherlands, then to Scotland, and not returning to Basel until 1436. Though still a layman, Piccolomini soon managed to gain a certain esteem in connection with the council. His cleverness and rhetorical talent procured him the post of abbreviator, and caused him to be commissioned on various embassies. But when it was proposed to nominate him as conclavist in behalf of electing a successor to Eugenius IV., whom the council had pronounced to be deposed, he declined this honor, as he wished to avoid consecration in order that he might still indulge in pleasures not permitted to the clergy. In the year 1438 or 1439, Piccolomini began his Commentarii on the Council of Basel; in 1440, he wrote the Libellus dialogorum de auctoritate consilii generalis. Wide prospects were disclosed to him when, in 1442, he attended the imperial diet at Frankfort as envoy. It was there that the bishops of Chiemsee and Treves recommended him to King Frederick III., who crowned him with the laurel, poet of scandalous verses though he was; and then took him into his own service as secretary. An index to his mood and frame of mind at that time is found in a letter addressed to his father from Vienna, Sept. 22, 1443. He asks him to receive in his home one of his own (Piccolomini's) illegitimate sons; and adds by way of excuse, that he, "of course, was no capon, nor did he belong to your cold natures," casting at his father the shameless comparison: "You know what sort of a chanticleer you were yourself." If, therefore, a "conversion" of Piccolomini is supposed to have occurred in the following year still this hindered him not from publishing so lascivious a tale as "Euryalus and Lucretia"; and the play Chrysis, of which one critic observes that it "shows brilliant wit and intimate familiarity with the indecencies and obscenities of the Roman poets, and is worthy to be produced in a brothel." And if he writes under date of Mar. 6, 1446: "I am a subdeacon; something I once thoroughly abhorred to be. Levity has left me," the latter acknowledgment need not be taken for very serious repentance. The mainspring rather appears in what he writes two days later: "I own to you, dearest brother, I am satiated, surfeited; I have grown disgusted with Venus . . . Venus even shuns me more than I abominate her." This is not the note of a penitential mood.

Diplomacy.

Simultaneously with his "conversion," as secretary of Frederick III. he changed the direction of his ecclesiastical statecraft. While Felix V. and the Council of Basel still regarded him as the advocate of their interests, he posed even in Vienna as one of the "neutrals," and as such openly Diplomacy. appeared at the Nuremberg diet of 1444. The resolution passed by this diet, that the status of "neutrality" should last till 1445, but that Pope Eugenius IV. should then be requested to convoke a new council, was conveyed to Rome by Piccolomini in person; and if, indeed, he did not there contrive to gain approval for his errand, he still gained the entire favor and pardon of Eugenius IV. as far as his own course was concerned. Thus the political variation was effectually reversed; while in order to set aside the animosity still prevalent in Germany he supported the king with all his diplomatic art. Nor was reward from Rome lacking. After Eugenius IV. had appointed him papal secretary, there followed, upon his returning to Vienna subsequently to the papal election of 1447, his nomination as bishop of Trieste, and, in 1450, as bishop of Siena. At this time Piccolomini conceived a new "mission" for himself, designed to carry him still higher and to obliterate all disagreeable souvenirs of his Basel period. He endeavored to unite all Europe against the Turks, who already held in their control the citadel of classical Greek culture. So upon his urgent appeal, Nicholas V., on Sept. 30, 1453, issued the crusading bull, and Piccolomini, at the diets of Regensburg and Frankfort in 1454, delivered lofty orations against the hereditary foe of Christendom. The circumstance that, following the new papal election of 1455, Piccolomini transcended his commissioned authority, and in the name of the emperor acknowledged the obediency of Calixtus III., although the promises of the deceased pope had not so much as been rehearsed, let alone approved, finally brought him the greatly desired red hat, in Dec., 1456, though his thanks for its bestowal were cold. Thenceforth he remained at Rome in close alliance with Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, later Alexander VI. He it was, at the conclave after the death of Calixtus III., in 1458, who carried through the election of Piccolomini.

His Work as Pope.

Rome joyfully acclaimed the election of the worldly-fashioned humanist. Nevertheless, his election proved a disappointment to the mendicant literati, who beset him with all sorts of petitions. To his teacher alone, the aged Filelfo in Florence, was he accessible, and to him he granted a pension, though this was irregularly paid, thus eventually gave occasion to invectives against the donor. However, Pius II. expended considerable sums in the acquisition of manuscripts and for the copying of valuable codices, besides employing artists of every kind, particularly architects, at Rome, Siena, and Corsignano. The first project which the new pope desired to carry out, was that of a crusade to recover Constantinople. An assembly of Christian princes, convened at Mantua, was opened by Pius II. himself; but the proposition to impose a general tithe for the purpose was withstood on the part of Venice and France, and also met with obstruction in the case of the Austrian Duke Sigismund's delegate, Gregory of Heimburg (q.v.). It was in course of the strife with him (for he appealed from the pope to a general council) that the notorious bull Execrabilis appeared, Jan. 18, 1460, which even thus early applied the ban against an appeal of that kind. This reveals the extreme of contrasts expressed in the man who formerly at Basel had championed the superiority of the councils over the popes. The action that emanated from Mantua, and even evoked a bull declaring war and issuing summons for a crusade (Jan. 14, 1460), had no practical result, because meanwhile, at Naples, the conflict which broke out between the Spanish and the French pretenders for the sovereignty rendered all procedure against the Turks impossible. The pope then turned his attention to other objects. He endowed with affluence his nephews and other favorites at Siena; he sought to annul the pragmatic sanction of Bourges (1438); in Germany, the opposition of the archbishop of Mainz, Dieter of Isenburg, necessitated measures of the utmost stringency, including that prelate's deposition (1461) followed next by the ban, which was not revoked until 1464. It was in Bohemia, however, that the strife became hottest. In 1458, King Podiebrad had been forced to promise, in conjunction with his oath of obedience to Calixtus III., that he would "lead back the Bohemian people from all errors and heresies to the true Catholic faith and into obedience toward the Roman Church," which promise Podiebrad was unable to meet because the Utraquists (see Huss, John), under Rokyczana, were too strong. On the contrary, at the national diet of May 15, 1461, he was compelled to guarantee them the perpetuation of the articles compacted at Prague. Accordingly, Pius II. stepped in. with absolute power, and annulled the concession by the Council of Basel in favor of the Bohemians, although he himself had advised its adoption. Podiebrad, who personally was a Utraquist, now sided openly with that party. His subsequent citation to Rome, under date of June 15, 1464, on charge of heresy was rendered inoperative by the pope's death.

Conflicts and Failures.

A matter of less moment was involved in a conflict with Duke Sigismund of Tyrol, mentioned above as Duke Sigismund of Austria. For years the latter had stood at odds with the bishop of Brixen, the famous cardinal of Cues (Cusanus), who claimed the suzerainty over Tyrol. Cusanus had been commissioned during the convention at Mantua as governor of Rome, for he was an old friend of Pius Il. But when he returned to Tyrol, Sigismund waylaid him and took him prisoner. Ban and interdict were the sequel (1460). On promising to procure at Rome the repeal of the church penalties, Cusanus recovered his freedom; but as nevertheless he failed to effect the desired repeal, he did not return to Tyrol. Neither did he survive the conclusion of subsequent negotiations between Pius II. and the duke (1461). With all these conflicts and cares, the pope was not permitted to compass his favorite plan. Even his marvelous attempt miscarried whereby the Sultan Muhamed II. was to be converted by epistolary persuasion. Above all, there was dearth of money. Within the papal domain, and but eight miles from Rome, the rich and sumptuous camp of the Alouni was discovered; whereupon Pius II. once again convened envoys of various powers, and in 1463 promulgated a new bull in behalf of a crusade. But except at Venice, which had a twofold interest in the enterprise, and Hungary, which was immediately menaced, the war against the Turks found no response. Then the pope headed affairs in person. In June, 1464, he journeyed to Ancona; and had the satisfaction, on August 12, when already gravely ill, of outliving the arrival of the Venetian fleet. But three days later he died, in his last words earnestly commending to those about him the crusade and the dependent members of his family. He seemed to have realized what had been his strongest motive in connection with this undertaking, to expiate, by means of a "good death," an evil life. "We think," for so had he said in the discourse wherewith he proclaimed the beginning of the crusade, "it might go well with us if God should please to have us end our days in his service."

Character.

The tremendous chasm which seams his life Pius II. himself attempted to cover under a still greater equivocation. All that he formerly assailed at Basel, and what he wrote to the praise of the council, he retracted by appeal to Augustine in the bull In minoribus of Apr. 26, 1463. Even previously, in the Epistola retractationis (cf. F. H. Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, i. 40, Bonn, 1883), he had expressed himself in similar terms. And as touching his Commentarii on the Council of Basel, which during the sixteenth century found their way to the Index, he offset the same, in the years 1448–51, with a work advocating the papal point of view. Again, with reference to his obscene writings, about the period of 1440, the pope exclaims to his readers: "Away with that Æneas, and now receive Pius!" He brought his autobiography down to 1464; and it was issued in elaborated form by his friend Campano. Sundry historical, geographical, and ethnographical writings belong to the second period of his development, among them the history of Frederick III., wherein events of the years 1439–1456 are set forth in piquant style, also, the "Bohemian History," and the works "Europa" and "Asia." The vindictiveness of the aggrieved humanist Filelfo attributed to Pius crimes against nature such as not even Piccolomini had committed. His life in the papal office appears to have been unobjectionable; although the charge of nepotism was well founded. Withal he was eager to eradicate heresy, even though he laid himself open to a charge of heresy: "With reason was marriage taken away from priests; but with weightier reason it ought to be again allowed them." In the case of Bishop Pecock of Chichester (q.v.), this prelate had first denied the infallibility of the Church in comparison with Holy Scripture, but had afterward renounced that "false doctrine." However, when still again he opposed the Church's infallibility, the pope (1459) commanded his legate to see to it that the apostate be burned, together with his writings. And under date of May 11, 1463, he urged the bloodthirsty and avaricious inquisitors to allow no human consideration to prevail as against the Waldenses. Thus even with him, no sooner was the interest of the ecclesiastical authority at stake than everything else that stamps his nature—classicaI culture, creature benevolence, liberality of a richly endowed intellect—was thrust aside.

Upon the death of Pius II. at Ancona on August 15, his body was conveyed to Rome, and first bestowed in the (older) Church of St. Peter; subsequently (1614), sarcophagus and monument were lodged in the Church of S. Andrea della Valle.

Writings

The pope's writings were printed in a collective edition at Basel, 1551 and 1571. His Literæ appeared in many separate editions (Cologne, 1478; Nuremberg, 1481, 1486, 1496.) They were classified, with many accessions, by G. Voigt in Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichtsquellen (1856); some supplements appear in Pastor's Römische Päpste, vol. ii., appendix (Freiburg, 1894; Eng. transl., vol. iii.); a new ed. was begun by R. Wolkan in the Fontes rerum Austriacarum, of which two volumes have appeared, Vienna, 1909–10. There is a Frankfort edition (1614) of his Commentarii rerum memorabilium, also, ed. G. Lesca, Pisa, 1894. The Commentariorum . . . de concilio Basiliensi appeared at Cologne, 1521; his Epistola Retractationis is in C. Fea, Pius II. a calumniis vindicatus (Rome, 1823); the Historia Friderici III. is in A. F. Kollar, Analecta . . . Vindobonensia, vol. ii. (Vienna, 1762); his "Addresses" were issued by Mansi (3 vols., Lucca, 1755–59); supplements by G. Cugnoni, Opera inedita Pii II. (Rome, 1883).

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: Creighton, Papacy, iii. 202–358; K. R. Hagenbach, Erinnerungen an Æneas Silvius Piccolomini, Basel, 1840; C. H. Verdière, Essai sur Ænea Silvio Piccolomini, Paris, 1843; J. M. Düx, Der deutsche Kardinal Nicolaus von Cusa, i. 169 sqq., ii. 119 sqq., 142 sqq., Regensburg, 1847; G. Voigt, Eneas Silvius . . . und sein Zeitalter, 3 vols., Berlin, 1856–63; idem, Die Wiederbelebung des klassischen AIterthums, 2 vols., Berlin 1880–81; H. G. P. Gengler, Ueber Æneas Sylvius in seiner Bedeutung für die deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, Erlangen, 1860; F. Palacky, Geschichte von Böhmen, iv. 2, pp. 80 sqq., Prague, 1880; A. Jäger, Der Streit des Nikolaus von Cusa mit dem Herzog Sigmund von Oesterreich, i. 317 sqq., ii. 44 sqq., Innsbruck, 1861; C. A. H. Markgraf, Ueber das Verhältness des Königs Georg von Böhmen zu Papst Pius II., Breslau, 1867; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, iii. 1, pp. 129 sqq., 387 sqq., Berlin, 1868; F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bücher, i. 36, 40, Bonn, 1883; A. Frind, Die Kirchengeschichte Böhmens, iv. 46 sqq., Prague, 1878; G. W. Kitchin, Life of Pius II., London, 1881; A. Beeg, Pius II. in seiner Bedeutung als Geograph, Halle, 1901; W. Boulting, Æneas Silvius (Enea Silvio de Piccolomini—Pius II.), Orator, Man of Letters, Statesman and Pope, London, 1909; Schaff, Christian Church, v. 2, passim; Mirbt, Quellen, pp 189–170; Ranke, Popes, i. 28–29, 306; Pastor, Popes, vols. ii.–iii. passim; Bower, Popes, iii. 241–244; Platina, Popes, ii. 257–275, Milman, Latin Christianity, vii. 565, viii. 64–122.

Pius III. (Francesco Todeschini): Pope 1503. He was a nephew of Pope Pius II. and was born at Siena in 1439. His uncle had him educated at Perugia, and influenced him to adopt the name and arms of the Piccolomini. He also created him archbishop of Siena in 1460, cardinal in 1462, and governor of Rome in 1464. By the following popes the "cardinal of Siena" was largely employed on diplomatic missions. That he possessed courage was evinced by his vigorous opposition, in 1497, restraining Alexander VI. from erecting a duchy out of portions of the States of the Church in behalf of his son, the duke of Gandia. He is supposed to have owed his election in Sept., 1503, not so much to his unstained reputation as to his manifestly impaired health. In fact, he died on the tenth day after his enthronement, Oct. 18, 1503. He had permitted Cæsar Borgia to return, and thus left the city of Rome in grievous confusion under the strife between him and the Orsini and Colonna.

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: Pastor, Popes, vi. 185–208; Creighton, Papacy, v. 61–67; F. Petruccelli della Gattina, Hist. Diplomatique des conclaves, i. 435 sqq., Paris, 1864; F. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, viii. 4 sqq. Stuttgart, 1874; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, pp. 7 sqq., Berlin, 1878; Piccolomini, in Archivio storica Italico, v. 32, 102–103, Florence, 1903; Bower, Popes, iii. 277–278.

Pius IV. (Giovanni Angelo Medici): Pope 1560–1565. He was derived not from the Florentine Medici but from a Milanese family, was elected pope at the age of sixty years in Dec., 1559, and was enthroned as Pius IV. on Epiphany, 1560.

Unlike his predecessor Paul IV. (q.v.), whose policy had been passionately hostile to Spain, he turned toward the Austro-Spanish house. By nature he was the counterpart to that somber man who had reorganized the inquisition at Rome, perceiving therein the best instrument of his domination. Pius IV. was affable, benevolent, and of simple manners. Yet it was his lot, soon after his ascension to the throne, to inflict the extreme penalty of the law upon the two nephews of his predecessor. One of them, the duke of Paliano, besides other deeds of violence, had caused thirty vassals of the hostile Colonna family to be imprisoned, and atrociously made away with his wife's paramour, as well as herself. The evidence against him inculpated in like degree his brother, Cardinal Caraffa. When the trial proceedings had lasted eight months, the pope himself gave the decision, in a sealed order at the final session, imposing the death sentence upon both, which was carried out Mar. 6, 1561. Under Pius V., however, the trial was reviewed, the stigma upon the two brothers was removed, and the promoter of the trial was himself condemned to death.

Nepotism in the Curia was radically abolished by Pius IV., who contrived to extract large sums of money from the States of the Church and from the ecclesiastical administration, and allotted considerable amounts to his adherents, though he never yielded to them special influence in State or Church. His weightiest concern was the reopening of the Council of Trent (q.v.), the result of which was no less gratifying to the Curia than it was disappointing to Emperor Ferdinand. For even though the emperor refused to acknowledge its decrees, and though not until later, and subject to the guaranteed rights of his crown, were these decrees acknowledged by King Philip II., while the French parliament assumed an expectant stand, yet during the council and by virtue of it, Pius IV. removed all dangers that threatened the papal absolutism within the Church. When, in 1564, he solemnly published the council's decrees and imposed upon the bishops the Professio fidei Tridentinæ (see Tridentine Profession of Faith) as a matter of obligation, he could do so in the consciousness that the papal theory had now conquered effectually. Hence the contingency of apostasy without was indemnified within the Church by a centralization of ecclesiastical economy such as laid all the lines of administration, jurisdiction, and doctrinal finality in the sole hands of the pope.

Destiny placed Pius IV. between two popes who stand as the most impassioned persecutors of heretics in that century, Paul IV. and Pius V. For he is not the equal of these in furtherance of the inquisition and in persecution of heretics. Yet where opportunity offered, he showed himself ready for that object; and it was he who facilitated the conflict in the literary arena by devising the expedient of the Index librorum prohibitorum, so named by him in 1564.

K. Benrath.

Bibliography. Onuphrius Panvinius, De summis pontificibus continuatio, Bonona, 1599; Ranke, Popes, 1. 241 sqq., iii. nos. 31–40; M. Broach, Geschichte des Kirchenstaates, vol. i., Gotha, 1880; F. H. Reuseh, Index der verboten Bücher, passim, Bonn, 1885; Bower, Popes, iii. 319–320; and the literature under Trent, Council of.

Pius V. (Michele Ghislieri): Pope 1566–72. He was born at Bosco near Alessandria (48 m. e.s.e. of Turin), and both as cardinal and as pope conceived his main task to be the detection and annihilation of heresy. He belonged to the Dominican order, to which this activity was particularly committed. After some earlier inquisitorial service about Milan, he was drawn to Rome by Caraffa in 1550 (see Paul IV.), who conferred on him the cardinalate and appointed him director of the Roman inquisition. He owed his election as pope (Jan. 8, 1566) to Cardinal Borromeo and other exponents of the very strictest trend in the sacred college. The Roman populace felt due fear on hearing that "Frà Michele dell’ Inquisizione" had ascended the papal throne. In fact, no pope applied so indefatigably every agency for annihilating the heretics. Both in and out of Italy, he was incessantly exhorting or threatening governments to make them accommodating to this end. And the consequence was favorable to him, especially in the Italian peninsula. During the six years of his pontificate, Protestantism in Italy was deprived of its last vestige of strength; its prominent advocates being either killed or driven away (see Italy, Reformation in). In France, Catherine de’ Medici and Charles IX. were at his command. He fortified the Spanish king in his measures against the Netherlands, and sent to the duke of Alva the consecrated hat and sword.

Yet according to Roman Catholic apprehension, this foe of "heretics" was a very pious man, and in Rome he insisted on the most stringent ecclesiastical discipline, imposing heavy penalties for desecration of festival days. No physician was to continue treating a patient critically ill, unless that patient's certificate of confession be produced on the third day for inspection. Whoever, among the higher clergy, combined an ascetic life with strictness toward the nether clergy, was regarded as the right man, as in the case of Carlo Borromeo.

Toward the close of his labors he was destined also to achieve a notable success in statecraft. Like so many of his predecessors, he headed an action against the Turks, which Venice and Spain assisted with their naval forces, and the work was crowned by the brilliant victory of Lepanto (Oct. 7, 1571).

Pius V. died on May 1, 1572, and was canonized by Clement XI.

K. Benrath

Bibliography. G. G. Catena, Vita del . . . Papa Pio V., Rome, 1587; Ranke, Popes, i. 269 sqq., iii., no. 43: J. Quétif and J. Échard. Scriptores ordinis Prædicatorurn, ii. 220, Paris, 1721; J. Mendham, Life and Pontificate of Plus V., London, 1832; A. F. P. Comte de Falloux, Hist. de . . . Pie V., 2 vols., Angers, 1844; T. M. Granallo, Frà Michele Ghislieri, o San Pio V., Bologna, 1877; F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bücher, Bonn, 1885; C. A. Joyau, Saint Pie V., pape du rosaire, Poitiers, 1892; P. A. Farochan, Cheypre et Léfante, St. Pie V. et Don Juan d’Autriche, Paris, 1894 (profusely illustrated): U. Papa, Un Dissidio tra Venezia a Pio V.. Venice, 1895; B. A. H. Wilberforce, St. Pius V., London, 1896; Bower, Popes, iii. 320, 484–489; Pastor, Popes, viii. 432 sqq.

Pius VI. (Giovanni Angelo Braschi): Pope 1775–1799.

Election and Policy

He was born at Cesena (57 m. n.e. of Florence) Dec. 27, 1717. After a course in jurisprudence, he entered the clerical vocation, and in 1740 went to Rome with his uncle, auditor to Cardinal Ruffo. Years later, he reappears as secretary to Benedict XIV. and canon at St. Peter's. He was created cardinal in 1773 by Clement XIV., with whom he did not sympathize in the principal question connected with his name, that is, suppression of the Jesuit order in 1773 (see Jesuits, II., § 8). When the conclave assembled after Clement's death, the cardinal's election was vigorously resisted from several quarters which employed even personal calumniation, and his election was reached only after the conclave had sat for four months. The Romans received him coolly. Yet though the more zealous faction hoped for immediate restoration of the Jesuit order, Pius VI. considered himself circumscribed to a policy of expectation and waiting in order not to become involved in disputes with Spain, France, and other states.

German and Austrian Difficulties.

At first, the pope turned his attention to the elevation of the morality of the clergy in Rome. Before long, however, he was diverted to affairs at a distance, first, in Germany. In that country the movement which was associated with the work of Febronius (see Hontheim, Johann Nikolaus von) had circulated extensively, though it had been placed on the Index in 1764. Meanwhile the true authorship, concealed under the pseudonym, had become known. Inasmuch as Pius VI. had correctly described, in an address dated Sept. 24, 1775, the bearings of the movement upon the Roman Church, he now commissioned the elector of Treves to constrain the author to retract, and the form of retraction was to comprehend the statement of its purely voluntary character. This experiment proved successful, for the author was a broken old man, then (1778) nearly fourscore years old. However, in other quarters there asserted itself the spirit which had prompted Hontheim, in the form of Josephinism (see Joseph II.).

But though Pius VI. perceived things clearly and was prepared to retaliate, he neither approved nor yet abruptly reversed the first procedure of Joseph II., who withdrew the Austrian cloisters from submission to the supreme control of foreign generals of monastic orders. Even when Garampi, his nuncio at Vienna, in Dec., 1781, met with a brusk rebuff from Count Kaunitz, on the score of his instructive Promemoria to the emperor—the pope still believed he could attain every purpose through personal intervention. So in the spring of 1782 he journeyed to Vienna, but every attempt to draw the emperor and his minister from the path of reform continued fruitless. The enthusiastic speeches, in turn, which the Roman Catholic population addressed to the pope on occasion of his awe-commanding appearance in Vienna, Munich, and Augsburg nowise availed to console him over the miscarriage of his attempt. This is apparent from the brief to the emperor, dated Aug. 3, 1782, with its rather patent affirmation that "those who lay their hands on the goods of the Church belong to hell." He seemed afterward more conciliatory; but in Sept., 1783, he was provoked afresh by the emperor's arbitrary course in appointing, as though he were the sole authority, a bishop for Milan. When, therefore, Joseph II. was confronted with the prospect of excommunication, he answered that his holiness might anyhow deign to visit the becoming punishment upon the individual who had made so bold as to misuse his name by forging a document. Without awaiting reply, the emperor next announced his visit to Rome, which came to pass in January, 1784. And at last Pius gained the point which had been so vehemently contested, namely, that the appointment to the episcopal sees in Lombardy be conceded to him. He continued the reforms in church conditions in Austria. After the Congress of Ems (see Ems, Congress of) had completed its sittings, and the electors transmitted to the emperor the Ems Proviso, Joseph II. made answer that they could reckon upon his cooperation in execution of the same. And yet they had there decidedly emphasized the sole prerogative of the archbishops in matters of reform. At all events, the pope easily became master of the Ems resolutions, as not only the bishops in Germany, but even one of the members of the Congress, the archbishop of Mainz, went over to the papal camp. In order to secure the Curia's acquiescence in the election of a coadjutor, he offered the Ems Proviso by way of exchange; wherein he was followed, down to 1789, by the other participants in the Congress. In short, they transformed the drafted resolutions into very modest petitions. In the case of the king of Prussia, Frederick William IL, who had been accommodating to the pope in connection with Mainz, Pius VI. accorded him the reward of no longer thenceforth withholding from him the title of king.

Affairs in Belgium and Italy

Even while premonitory signs of the French Revolution were perceptible, the pope still gained a victory over Joseph's reform attempts. In what was then Austrian Belgium, the closure of the episcopal seminaries (1786) had evoked great agitation, also actively fomented by the papal nuncio. And though Joseph II. dismissed the nuncio from that country, this measure did not stay the outbreak of actual insurrection any more than did the repeal of the closure itself, together with a propitiatory word from the pope. For the provinces proclaimed their independence, and there stepped to the front as president the pope's thoroughly devoted cardinal-primate Frankenberg. Joseph II. died in 1790. Subsequently; church concerns in the Austrian hereditary lands were once again made thoroughly conformable to papalistic grooves, barring some slight provisional modification at the hands of Emperor Leopold II. Still more serious for Pius VI. appeared to be the trend of ecclesiastical conditions in Tuscany under the Grand Duke Leopold I. The latter, under date of Jan. 26, 1786, issued a circular to the Tuscan bishops proposing fifty-seven reforms; for instance, convocation of diocesan synods, improvement of clerical studies, segregation of suspicious relics, diminution of processions, and the like. Seven bishops assented on principle, among them Ricci of Pistoja (see Ricci, Scipione de’), who then also submitted these points to a synod convening at Pistoja in Sept., 1786, and effected their immediate acceptance. On the other hand, a protest was raised by the bishops generally, through the channel of the Tuscan Council (Apr.–June, 1787). And as Leopold I. kept adhering to his plans of reform, there ensued a conflict with the pope; while, in turn, the Tuscan envoy was recalled from Rome. It was only when Leopold ascended the imperial throne (1790) that these complications reached an end; Ricci resigned, and Ferdinand III. receded. Nor was the situation less grave, as affecting the pope, in the kingdom of Naples. In 1779, the royal exequatur was refused to quite a series of papal briefs; in 1780, the king claimed a general patronal right over the benefices, then over the bishoprics; in 1782, the tribunal of the inquisition was dissolved in Sicily; while from 1788, the custom was discontinued, of long centuries' duration though it had been, of offering a tent and the so-called "feudal tribute" at the festival of SS. Peter and Paul. By and by the number of unoccupied bishoprics became so large that in 1791 the pope at last conceded the king's right of presentation of three candidates, whereupon sixty-two episcopal sees were supplied.

Conflict with France.

The outbreak of the French Revolution (q.v.) involved most incisive consequences for the Church. The "civil constitution of the clergy," still proposed for acceptance under Louis XVI., was rejected by Pius VI.; and, in fact, 50,000 priests, following the precedent of 130 bishops, refused the oath in connection with this new ruling. Thereupon, in Sept., 1791, the National Assembly answered by annexing Avignon and Venaissin. Then when a secretary of the French embassy in Rome had been assassinated there by the rabble, in 1793, and when the pope took part in the coalition against France, Bonaparte declared war on him, advanced upon Rome, and compelled Pius VI., during the truce of Bologna, 1796, to relinquish a large part of the States of the Church (see Papal States). When disturbances were renewed, General Berthier occupied Rome in 1798; and had Pius VI., who was ill, transported first to Florence, then to Valence, where he died Aug. 29, 1799.

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: For his bulls, etc., consult either N. S. Guillon's Collection générale des brefs et instructions de . . . Pie VI., 2 vols., Paris, 1798; the Collectio brevium . . . of L. H. Halot, 2 parts, Rome, 1800; or the Collectio bullarum, brevium . . . , London, 1803. For his life and acts consult: Ranke, Popes, ii. 453 sqq., iii. no. 165; P. P. Wolf, Geschichte der römisch-katholischen Kirche unter . . . Pius VI., 7 vols., Zurich, 1793–1802; G. de Novaes, Storia de’ sommi Pontefici, Rome, 1822; P. Baldassari, Hist. de l’enlèvement et de la captivité de Pie VI., Paris, 1839; F. Beccatini, Storia di Pio VI., 4 vols., Venice, 1841; G. C. Cordare, De Profectu Pii VI. ad aulam Viennensem, ed. J. Boërus, Rome, 1855; F. Petrucelli della Gattina, Hist. diplomatique des conclaves, iv. 211 sqq., Paris, 1866; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, pp. 660 sqq., Berlin, 1870; A. M. de Franclieu, Pie VI. dans les prisons du Dauphiné, Grenoble, 1878; I. Bertrand, Le Pontificat de Pie VI. et l’athéisme révolutionnaire, Paris, 1879; F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bücher, vol. ii., Bonn, 1885; H. Schletter, Die Reise des Papstes Pius VI. nach Wien, and Pius VI. und Josef II., 2 vols., Vienna, 1892–94 (valuable for the literature named); Pie VI., sa vie, son pontificat (1717–99), Paris, 1907; Nippold, Papacy, pp. 20, 36; Bower, Popes, iii. 390–419.

Pius VII. (Luigi Chiaramonti): Pope 1800–23. He was born at Cesena (57 m. n.e. of Florence) Aug. 14, 1740. At the age of sixteen he entered the Benedictine order, became a lecturer in the cloister at Parma and later in Rome. His predecessor made him bishop of Tivoli, then of Imola, and in 1785, cardinal. When the French army approached Imola, he still maintained his residence in his episcopal city. On that occasion (1797), he contrived to save the town from spoliation and even maintained good terms with Republican powers.

Shortly before he was taken captive, Pius VI. had prescribed that the conclave should be held in that city in the neighborhood of which the most cardinals might happen to be at his death, only not in Rome. So they assembled in Venice, and on Mar. 14, 1800, Chiaramonti was elected unanimously, and in July he entered Rome as Pius VII. For secretary of state he appointed Cardinal Ercole Consalvi (q.v.), whose first achievement of note was the conclusion of the concordat with France (see Concordants and Delimiting Bulls, VI., § 1), which restored most of its rights to the Roman Catholic Church, and annulled episcopal power in favor of the papal absolute supremacy. However, in virtue of the "Organic Articles" (1802), the first consul deprived these concessions of nearly all significance, insomuch that the pope protested. Yet both sides wished to avoid a rupture, and in the following year, Pius VII. appointed the consul's uncle (Joseph Fesch, q.v.) a cardinal.

Meanwhile in Germany, when by terms of the peace of Lunéville, in 1801, the left bank of the Rhine had fallen to France, the secularization of the temporal dominions of the Church was brought to pass despite every protest; and the Elector Dalberg of Mainz, against the will of the Curia, was elected primate of Germany. Even thus early, Napoleon put forth still greater demands, as, when the senate had named him hereditary ruler of France, he desired the pope to consummate the imperial coronation. Reluctantly, but yet in the hope of thereby gaining concessions for the Church, Pius VII. performed the ceremony of anointing (Dec. 2, 1804), but when he was about to place the crown on the sovereign's head, Napoleon forestalled him, crowned himself, and placed the diadem on the head of his consort, Josephine. All demands by the pope on occasion of this journey came to naught; what satisfaction he felt was on account of the deportment of the French people, who were charmed by his presence. At Florence, on his return journey, he received the full , submission of Bishop Ricci of Pistoja (see Ricci, Scipione de’).

But heavy clouds were gathering from France. The emperor demanded the dissolution of his brother Jerome's marriage, desiring Jerome to marry a princess—a prelude to his own course later. When the pope firmly refused, Napoleon declared the marriage dissolved. In 1808, he managed to find occasion to occupy Rome; in 1809, he declared it a French city; and when for this reason he was put under the ban, he had the pope and Cardinal Pacca, carried captive to Savona. But even here Pius VII. would not bend, and refused the confirmation of the French bishops appointed by the emperor until finally the enervating torments of his captivity induced him to an oral assent. But when, owing to continued confinement at Fontainebleau, the tormented old man, on Jan. 25, 1813, agreed to a concordat both surrendering Rome and voicing the confirmation of the bishops designated by the emperor, Cardinals Consalvi and Pacca, who hastened to the spot, succeeded in moving him to solemn retraction. Napoleon's own fate had meanwhile turned; the year 1814 gave the captive his freedom again; and on May 24 he triumphantly entered Rome. The restoration of the Jesuits and of the Congregation of the Index, together with Consalvi's activity at the Congress of Vienna, effectually reinstated the Roman Catholic Church both within and without; while by the terms of sundry favorable concordats, the pope guaranteed large advantages, to the states of Central Europe.

At the close of his life, Pius VII. found himself once again involved in conflict, this time with Spain and Portugal. In that quarter, the revolution and the liberal government of 1820 had not only abolished the settlements of the Jesuits, but also those of most of the remaining orders, and ruptured diplomatic relations were the result. The French, however, suppressed the revolution, and King Ferdinand VII. proclaimed the abrogation of all acts against the Church (1823). This happened also in Portugal, where Dom Miguel, at the same time, put an end to liberalism.

The Rome of the second phase of the pontificate of Pius VII. became the goal of artists of all nations. Crowned heads, as well, sought the city, and the venerable pontiff was visited by Emperor Francis II. of Austria (1819); by the king of Naples; and by King Frederick William III. of Prussia, while Charles IV. of Spain and Emanuel of Savoy made Rome their permanent residence. The city was thus enveloped with new splendor; and Pius VII., who died on Aug. 21, 1823, is commemorated still by that part of the Vatican sculpture museum which bears his name Chiaramonti.

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: The bulls are in the Bullarii Romani continuatio of Barberi, vols. xi.–xv., Rome, 1846–53. Consult: Ranke, Popes, ii. 461 sqq, 466 sqq., 539 sqq.; E. Pistolesi, Vita del . . . Pio VII, 2 vols., Rome, 1824; H. Simon, Vie politique et privée de . . . Pie VII., 2 vols., Paris, 1823; Jäger, Lebensbeschreibung des Papstes Pius VII. mit Urkunden, Frankfort, 1824; A. F. Artaud de Montor, Hist. du pope Pie VII., 3 vols., Paris, 1839; B. Pacca, Historical Memoirs, 2 vols., London, 1850; idem, Mémoires sur le pontificat de Pie VII., 2 vols., Paris, 1884; N. P. S. Wiseman, Recollections of the last Four Popes, London, 1858; A. Gavazzi, My Recollections of the last Four Popes, London, 1858; J. Bohl, Pius VII. en zijn Tijd, 2 vols., Rotterdam 1861; F. Petrucelli della Gattina, Hist. diplomatique des conclaves, iv. 282 sqq., Paris, 1866; A. Theiner, Hist. des deux concordats de la république française et de la république cisalpine, 2 vols., Bar-le-Duc, 1869; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, pp. 665 sqq., Berlin, 1870; O. Meier, Zur Geschichte der römisch-deutschen Frage, vols. i.–iii., passim, Rostock, 1871–73; D. Bertollotti, Vita di Papa Pio VII., Turin, 1881; F. H. Reusch Index der verbotenen Bücher, vol. ii., Bonn, 1885; H. Chotard, Le Pape Pie VII. à Savone, Paris, 1887; Mary H. Allies, Pius VII., London, 1897; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neuesten Kirchengeschichte, ii. 15–70 Berlin, 1901; L. König, Die Säkularisation und das Reichskonkordat, Innsbruck, 1904; H. Welschinger, Le Pape et l’empereur, 1804–15, Paris, 1905; Nielsen, Papacy; Nippold. Papacy, passim; Pastor, Popes, viii. 299; Bower, Popes iii. 419–434; and the literature under Concordats and Delimiting Bulls.

Pius VIII. (Francesco Saverio Castiglioni): Pope 1829–30. He was born at Cingoli (102 m. e.s.e. of Florence) Nov. 20, 1761. The principal event of his brief pontificate was the Emancipation Act of Apr. 23 [13], 1829, in favor of English Catholics, though this did not have the pope's cooperation. In the case of the contest just then breaking out with the Prussian government, Plus VIII. allowed the clerical assistentia passiva, where there was no guaranty for the bringing up of all the children as Roman Catholics. This concession was revoked by his successor. When the Bourbons were expelled from France in the July revolution, and Louis Philippe was instituted king, the pope reluctantly acknowledged the reversal.

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: The bulls are in the Bullarii Romani continuatio of Barberi, vol. xviii., Rome, 1856; for the Brief of Mar. 25, 1830, cf. Mirbt, Quellen, pp. 350 sqq. Consult: A. F. Artaud de Montor Hist. du pape Pie VIII., Paris, 1844; A. Gavazzi, My Recollections of the last Four Popes, London 1858; N. P. S. Wiseman, Recollections of the last Four Popes, London, 1858; M. Brosch, Geschichte des Kirchenstaates, ii. 316 sqq., Gotha, 1882; F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bücher, vol. ii, passim. Bonn. 1885; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neuesten Kirchengeschichte, ii. 79 sqq., Berlin, 1901; Bower, Popes, iii. 464–470; Nippold, Papacy, passim; Nielsen, Papacy, passim.

Pius IX. (Giovanni Mastai Ferretti): Pope 1846–1878. He was born at Sinigaglia (70 m. s.e. of Ravenna) May 13, 1792. He studied in the Collegium Romanum, was made priest, and labored for several years in Chile. In 1827 he became bishop of Spoleto, then of Imola, and obtained the cardinalate in 1840. Elected by 34 (37 ?) votes, in the conclave following the death of Gregory XVI, Pius IX. found himself confronted with extremely difficult tasks. The administration of the Papal States (q.v.) had everywhere aroused the utmost dissatisfaction; and the cities of the eastward half—Ancona, Bologna, and Ravenna—clamored for reforms. The pope's character and presence appeared to warrant such progress, and it was hoped that he might even assist in the unification of the entire nation, which was demanded on every side.

Good will for the amelioration of existing conditions attended him from the outset. He curtailed the expenses of the papal court, though in connection with the civil administration he could not persuade himself to break with the system according to which the governing officials were to belong almost without exception to the clerical body. He refused the patriots' demand for some action toward eliminating the Austrians from the Italian peninsula, resolving not to declare war on Austria, although his troops were already united with the Piedmont troops; but, in his address of Apr. 29, 1848, he took shelter behind the pronouncement that "conformably to our apostolic rank, we embrace all nations with like love."

Though it proved not feasible to laicize the administration of public affairs throughout the Papal States, in Rome the lay element was to be more strongly represented in the common council; some non-clerics also took seats in the council of state (consulta). This did not meet the impetuous demand for a constitution and for institution of secular ministers. Yet on May 4, 1848, upon adjustment of the membership of the Consults in the proportion of six laymen to three clerics, a patriotic president of council was accepted in the person of Terenzo Mamiani; but in view of the conflict that soon ensued with the Curia's executive experience and wisdom, Mamiani perceived himself constrained to withdraw. His successor, Count Rossi, was assassinated, and in order to escape the tumult, Pius IX. fled from Rome to Gaeta. From that base he rejected the suggestion of the Piedmontese that he allow them to restore the Papal States as a constitutional monarchy. This was done by the French in 1849, but not under those conditions. Hardly had Pius IX. returned (Apr., 1850) when he inaugurated an era of uncompromising reaction, marked, for instance, by the incident that in Bologna alone, down to 1856, the "court of summary justice" had executed by shooting 276 "culprits."

The administration of the Papal States was now conducted by Antonelli (q.v.) on a thoroughly clerical basis. In the department of finance, individuals, including Antonelli, enriched themselves; nothing was done in the matter of public instruction to reduce the scandalous illiteracy of the land; while in the department of justice arbitrary ruling was rife. In short, the Papal States remained the worst administered political fabric in Europe, while trade and industry were in wretched condition. In the distinctly ecclesiastical sphere, wherein Pius IX., in 1854, conceived the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (q.v.), without taking counsel of the Church, he tested the point as to how far the bishops would conform to his bidding. At the same time, in relation to civil governments, he carried most of his demands through the medium of concordats (with Spain, 1851; Austria, 1855; also with lesser German States; see Concordats and Delimiting Bulls). In Italy, however, the unification project, supported by Piedmont, now so successfully asserted itself against the pope that its several stages were completely accomplished (victory over Austria, 1859; Victor Emanuel, king of Italy, 1860; September treaty, 1864) even down to the conquest of Rome, in 1870. It is memorable that the last step in the process was achieved shortly after the momentous date when the Vatican Council (q.v.) had declared the infallibility of the pope, July 18, 1870.

To be sure, the occupation of Rome by the Italian army was by no means intended to banish the pope from that city thereafter. They suffered him the narrowly circumscribed "sovereignty" of the Vatican; and even offered him, in the stipulation law of 1871, an annual income of 3,250,000 francs. But Pius IX. rejected this offer, feigned a state of captivity, and a limitation upon his action which soon became subjects of derision; for it appeared, as in the contest with Prussia, that the Curia had grown more free than formerly in the matter of safeguarding its ecclesiastical interests. The last years of Pius' pontificate are largely filled with this contest, he himself having given the challenge in that address of the spring of 1871 wherein he threatened Prussia with the "stone" of her destined shattering. Yet even this contest (so grave in its results and not finally appeased until Leo XIII., q.v., came into power) did not prevent the brilliant celebration of two jubilees of Pius IX. In 1871 he celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his pontificate, whereby he had attained to the "years of Peter"; and in 1877 his jubilee proper, or fiftieth year in the priesthood. On this occasion he beheld the whole Roman Catholic world at his feet. In deed, he surpassed the " years of Peter " by seven years, dying on Feb. 7, 1878. He and his secretary of state Antonelli did not achieve the restoration of the temporal sovereignty, but they bequeathed such a heritage to the following pontiff as he well understood how profitably to occupy to the Church's advantage.

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: Sources of information for the pontificate are the Acta Pie IX., 4 vols., Rome, 1854 sqq.; Acta sanctæ sedis, ib. 1865 sqq.; Acta et decreta sanctorum conciliorum, vol. vi., Freiburg, 1882. A collection of this pope's encyclicals was published in Freiburg, 1881 sqq., and of his "Apostolic Letters," 2 vols., Paris, 1893. A large literature is indicated in the British Museum Catalogue, under "Rome, Church of," cols. 332 sqq., and under Pius IX. Consult: Mirbt, Quellen, pp. 360–390 sqq.; M. Marocco, Storia di Pio IX., 2 vols., Turin, 1856–59; H. Reuchlin, Geschichte Italiens, vols. i., iii., iv., Leipsic, 1859–73; F. Liverani, Il Papato, l’Impero e il Regno d’Italia, Florence, 1861; A. Gennarelli, Le Sventure ital. durante il Pontificato di Pio IX., Florence, 1863; A. O. Legge, Pius IX., 2 vols., London, 1872; Abbé Gillet, Pie IX., sa vie et les acts de son pontificat, Paris, 1877; T. A. Trollope, Story of the Life of Pius IX., 2 vols., London, 1877; J. G. Shea, Life of Pius IX. and the Great Events of . . . his Pontificate, New York, 1878; J. M. Stepischnegg, Fürstbischof von Lavant, Papst Pius IX., 2 vols., Vienna, 1879; A. M. Dawson, Pius IX. and his Times, Toronto, 1880; C. Sylvain, Hist. de Pie IX., 3 vols., Lille, 1883; F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bücher, passim, 2 vols., Bonn, 1885; A. Pougeois, Hist. de Pie IX., 6 vols., Paris, 1886; J. F. Maguire, Pius IX. and his Times, London, 1893; M. Pagès Pie IX., sa vie, ses écrits, sa doctrine, Paris, 1895; E. Gebhart, Moines et papes (Alexander VI. and Pius IX.), Paris, 1896; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neuesten Kirchengeschichte, ii. 102–155, Berlin, 1901; J. Fernandez Montaña, El Syllabus de Pio IX., Madrid, 1905; J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, Development of Modern Europe, vol. ii. passim, New York, 1908; R. de Cesare, The Last Days of Papal Rome, 1850–70, Boston, 1909; Nippold, Papacy, pp. 113 sqq.; Nielsen, Papacy. Use also the literature under Infallibility of the Pope; Ultramontanism; and Vatican Council.

Pius X. (Giuseppe Melchior Sarto): Pope since 1903. He was born at Riese (a village near Castelfranco, 25 m. n.w. of Venice), Italy, June 2, 1835. His parents were in humble circumstances and their family was large, but such were the talents of the future pope that every effort was made for his education. His early training was received in the gymnasium at the neighboring town of Castelfranco, and in 1850 he entered the Seminary of Padua, where he remained seven years, being ordained to the priesthood in 1858. He was immediately appointed curate in Tombolo, in the diocese of Treviso, where he remained until 1867, when he was called to take control of the parish of Salzano. In 1875 he was made canon of Treviso, and three years later was appointed director of the episcopal chancellery and vicar general of the diocese. Meanwhile his talents were rapidly gaining recognition, and in 1882 he was consecrated bishop of Mantua, where he found an evil condition of affairs, made still worse by the attacks of the Italian government, which from 1871 to 1879 had rendered exercise of episcopal functions impossible. Within the eleven years of his bishopric, Sarto transformed the diocese of Mantua into a model see, and his labors found their fitting reward in 1893, when he was created patriarch of Venice and cardinal priest of San Bernardo. There he remained until in 1903 he was elected pope to succeed Leo XIII. (q.v.). The most striking features of the new pope's reign thus far have been the official promotion of the use of the Gregorian chant throughout all churches of the Roman Catholic communion, the separation by the French government of Church and State (1905; see France), the attack upon critical tendencies in the Church (see Modernism; and cf. Los von Rom), and a serious dispute with Spain, one object of which on the part of the Spanish government is the control of the religious orders necessitated by the settlement of monks and nuns exiled from France.

Bibliography: Pie X-Actes-encycliques-motu proprio, brefs, allocutions, etc. Texte latin avec la traduction française en regard précédés d’une notice biographique suivi d’une table générale alphabétique, 3 vols., Paris, 1906–09; A. de Waal, Papst Pius X.; Lebensbild, Munich, 1903 Eng. transl., Life of Pope Pius X., Milwaukee, 1904; A. Marchesan, Papst Pius X. in Leben und Wort, Einsiedeln, 1906; N. Peters, Papst Pius X. and das Bibelstudien, Paderborn, 1906; A. Hoch, Papst Pius X. Ein Bild kirchlicher Reformthätigkeit, Leipsic, 1907; W. E. Schmitz [Didier], The Life of Pope Pius X., New York, 1908; B. Sentzer, Pius X., Graz, 1908; N. Hilling, Die Reformen des Papstes Pius X. auf dem Gebiet der kirchenrechtlichen Gesetzgebung, Bonn, 1909; and the literature under Modernism.

PIUS SOCIETIES: Certain religious associations, composed of clergy and laity, formed in Germany after the revolutionary disturbances of 1848, the object of which was the defense and promotion of Roman Catholicism in Germany. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church assembled at Würzburg in 1848, agreed to support the Pius Societies, so called after Pius IX. (q.v.), to maintain the supremacy of the pope in Germany and to keep national education in the hands of the Church. In Oct., 1848, a meeting representing many local unions was held at Mainz in which all the Pius Societies throughout the country were incorporated in one collective union which took the name of the "Catholic Union of Germany." The object of this association was declared to be the treatment of all social and religious questions from a Roman Catholic standpoint, and especially the preservation and promotion of the Church's welfare and independence. The union was pronounced by the bishop of Limburg to be "a powerful lever for the Christian restoration of Germany." At this meeting were formed the Vincent societies for domestic missionary work, and later Boniface societies, which, together with a host of societies either new or previously in existence, became adjuncts of the Pius Societies.

The assemblies were always made occasions for commenting on the condition of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, for preaching Ultramontanism (q.v.), and inveighing against Protestantism. During the trials of the so-called Kulturkampf (see Ultramontanism) the Pius Societies at their annual meeting at Würzburg, 1877, resolved: "We will fight not with the sword but with the cross." This peaceful attitude gave way after 1880 to a more stormy program, including the ultramontane policy of Pius IX., the readmittance of Roman Catholic orders, particularly the Jesuits, and the temporal supremacy of the pope. The Pius Societies do not aim at a parity of privileges among all religious bodies, but at the total catholicization of the German nation in accordance with the introduction of that future ideal when, in the words of Baron von Loë uttered in the Roman Catholic Assembly at Bonn in 1881: "Germany shall be a Catholic country and the Church the leader of the nations."

(O. ZÖCKLER †.)

Bibliography: From the Roman Catholic side may be adduced: H. Menne, Ueber den Zweck and Nutzen der katholische Vereine Deutschlands, Osnabrück, 1848; T. Palatinus, Entstehung der Generalversammlung der Katholiken Deutschlands, Würzburg, 1893; H. Brück, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, iii. 511–537, Münster, 1905. For the Protestant side read: H. Schmid, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 667, 758 sqq., Munich, 1874; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neuesten Kirchengeschichte, ii. 707 sqq., Berlin, 1901.

PLACE, JOSUÉ DE LA. See Placeus.

PLACEMAKER'S BIBLE. See Bible Versions, B, IV., § 9.

PLACET, plê´set, or plā´rset (PLACETUM REGIUM, REGIUM EXEQUATUR, LITTERÆ PAREATIS): Formal state approval of measures of ecclesiastical administration, or state provision that only ecclesiastical administrative measures thus approved shall be civilly recognized and maintained.

Development of the Placet.

This presupposes that both State and Church are mutually independent. In the case of a church governed, as the Reformed state church came to be, by the civil power, the placet is meaningless; and it is equally inapplicable where the State, in, ecclesiastical affairs, is completely dependent on the authority of the Church, as was the case in the Middle Ages from the time of Gregory VII. The placet, therefore, first becomes a part of the machinery of the State when the latter begins to revolt from the Church and to deem itself independent. Concomitantly with the development of royal power, this occurred first in Spain, during the reign of Alfonso XI. (1348). In that country, the placet had already been formulated in a series of royal ordinances when the Emperor Charles V. ascended the throne and made decisive use of this device with the aid of the Cortes. In France the placet did not arise till nearly a century later, there assuming a distinct character through the practical bearings of the French parliaments. The rule that papal bulls gained legal validity only by virtue of the royal placet was practically current in France before becoming established by legislation in 1475. In the Netherlands, while the rudiments of the placet are very old, it was only in the Spanish period that it was legislatively established (1565), its form here receiving marked influence from Spanish jurisprudence and from the French culture dominant in the Walloon portion of the country.

Mutual Attitude of Church and State.

In so far as these developments arose prior to the Reformation, the Church, like the modern Roman Catholic communion, never acknowledged the civil placet but, in virtue of her divine commission, asserted the prerogative of sole power to prescribe whatsoever might be deemed necessary for her best interests even in secular affairs, particularly of a legislative character. She accordingly held ecclesiastical requirements to be binding in their very nature, and regarded the State as unreservedly pledged to lend her the support of the secular arm. The bull In cœna Domini (1568) pronounces excommunication on all who obstruct the publication and execution of papal bulls and briefs. By the brief Pervenerat (June 30, 1830) Pius VIII, rejected the placet in dealing with the estates of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine; and Pius IX. followed the same course in his allocution Meminit unusquisque (Sept. 30, 1861), as well as on other occasions, and emphasized it in the Syllabus (§ 30). The Roman Catholic Church denies categorically that the State possesses any jurisdiction over things which the Church has declared spiritual, and the Curia and its sympathizers view the use of the placet by the State as an act of compulsion to which they must submit so long as there is no feasible way to overcome it. By the State these ecclesiastical pronouncements were long disregarded. When the bull In cœna Domini (q.v.) was published in Spain without royal approbation, Philip II. retaliated with most stringent measures; and the placet was also upheld by his successors. In France, jurisprudence and legislation alike developed this legal instrument even down to concrete details; and only when the enactment of the Church was concerned with religion alone was there no need of State approval. The French theory, modified by the Belgian development of Hispano-Gallican theory and practise, was also of essential influence upon the evolution of German jurisprudence.

The Placet in Modern Times

As a logical consequence of the social freedom guaranteed by a constitutional government, associations for religious purposes regulate and, so far as their social means permit, control their own affairs. Similar freedom is enjoyed by the Roman Catholic Church. Here the placet has no place as long as the State is not bidden to transcend its own sphere, which it alone can gage, and to protect the special interests of the Church; or so long as its own interests do not lead it to restrict the freedom of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church, on the other hand, neither recognizes any limitations of this character, nor does it concede to the State the right to decide how far to further the interests of the Church, but it demands implicit obedience. This double relation of Church and State, which was clear to the former from the first, but only gradually became evident to the letter, conditioned the development of the controversy concerning the placet in Germany from the time when constitutional government came to have a distinct meaning.

German states retaining the placet are Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemberg, Baden, Hesse, Saxe-Weimar, Brunswick, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as well as the imperial provinces of Alsace and Lorraine; though the several state codes diverge considerably as regards details. Officially the Roman Catholic Church; never recognizes the placet; and in Bavaria, for instance, the church dignitaries have simply ignored it when publishing the Vatican decrees, thus repeatedly giving rise to severe controversies not only regarding the validity of the placet in general, but also concerning its validity in the case of dogmas in particular. The theory advanced by influential ultramontane leaders, that the placet should be abrogated since Church and State are independent of, though coexistent with, each other, would be correct if the Church were willing to see her ordinances preserved intact simply by the social agencies of her rule in the sphere o£ conscience. But since, to secure this end, she lays claim, either directly or indirectly, to civil means, this ostensible coexistence practically becomes the Gregorian elevation of the Church above the State. If, therefore, the modern State freely concedes to the Roman Catholic Church the right of regulating its own religious concerns, it can do so only in the sense in which it concedes autonomy of any character, on condition of State supervision, and of the State's consequent right either to approve or to forbid.

Those states which still enforce the placet as a special institution make it apply to Protestants as well as to the Roman Catholic Church. Even the states which no longer take cognizance of the placet as such are not content with the fact that the sanction of church laws rests in the hands of the territorial sovereign; for in the case of such laws, they require either the countersignature of a minister of state, or preliminary approbation by ministers of state for drafts of such laws. See also Nominatio Regia.

E. SEHLING.

Bibliography: The one book of value here is E. Friedberg, Die Gränzen zwischen Staat and Kirche, Tübingen, 1872. But See Church and State, and the literature there adduced.

PLACETTE, plā´´set´, JEAN LA: French Protestant theologian and moralist; b. at Pontacq (118 m. s.s.w. of Bordeaux) Jan. 19, 1639; d. at Utrecht Apr. 25, 1718. He studied theology at the Protestant academy at Montauban; became pastor at Orthez (1660), and at Nay (1664), where he earned a brilliant reputation as an orator; after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) he became pastor of the French church at Copenhagen, where he labored fruitfully as pastor and as writer till 1711, when he retired and went to live at Utrecht. His writings fall into three classes, those on systematic theology, on morals, and on practical theology. Among those in the former class to be named are: Observationes historico-ecclesiasticæ (Amsterdam, 1695); Traité de la foi divine (1697); and Réponse à deux objections . . . sur l’origine du mal et sur le mystère de la Trinité (1707). In the second class mention may be made of Nouveaux essais de morale (1692); a second series with the same title (6 vols., The Hague, 1715); Le Morale chrétienne (2 vols., Cologne, 1695); and Divers traités sur des matières de conscience (Amsterdam, 1696). In the third class are: La Mort des justes ou manière de bien mourir (1695; Eng. transl., The Death of the Righteous, 2 vols., London, 1737); La Communion devoté (2 vols., 1695); Traité de la conscience (1699; Eng. transl., The Christian Casuist, London, 1705); and the posthumous Avis sur la manière de prêcher (Rotterdam, 1733; contains a biography).

Bibliography: Beside the life in Avis . . . , ut sup., consult: Niceron, Mémoires, vol. ii.; P. A. Sayous, Hist. de la littérature française à l’étranger, ii. 211–220, Paris, 1853; Lichtenberger, ESR, vii. 741–744.

PLACETUM REGIUM. See Placet.

PLACEUS, plā-sî´-Us, JOSUA (JOSUÉ DE LA PLACE): French theologian; b. at Saumur (30 m. s.e. of Angers) probably in 1596; d. there Aug. 17, 1665 or 1655. He became pastor at Nantes in 1625 and was professor of theology at his native city from 1633 till his death. Placeus together with M. Amyraut (q.v.) and L. Capellus belong, as followers of John Cameron (q.v.), to that theological movement at Saumur which in contrast with the orthodox school of Sedan sought to moderate the Calvinistic doctrine by emphasizing the ethical and common human elements, without, however, departing from the fundamental principles. From the supreme value of the accountability of every human soul, Placeus especially drew the conclusion against the imputation of Adam's actual sin. In defense of the doctrine that the sin of Adam could be reckoned to his descendants only as mediated by the inherited sinful subjective state he pointed out that Calvin knew nothing of an immediate imputation and that the same was denied by Peter Martyr and Daniel Chamier (q.v.), but did not go so far as to justify himself by the view of Zwingli that hereditary guilt was no more than the guilt of every individual. The national synod of Charenton (1644) under the leadership of Antoine Garissoles (q.v.), representing the over-zealous constituency of Montauban, opposed this assertion by adopting a decree to be subscribed by all pastors and candidates. Placeus issued later his vindication, Disputatio de imputatione primi peccati Adami (Saumur, 1655). The national synod of Loudun, in 1659, withdrew all threatening measures of discipline, but the Zurich orthodoxy did not rest content until in the Formula consensus Helvetici of 1675 it repudiated with Saumurism as a whole the mere "imputation mediate and consequent."

(E. F. Karl Müller.)

Bibliography: The Opera omnia were published in 2 vols., Franeker, 1699, Aubencit, 1702. Consult: E. and E. Haag, La France protestante, ed. H. L. Bordier, vi. 309 sqq., Paris, 1889; J. G. Walch, Einleitung in die Religions-Sereitigkeiten . . . ausser der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, iii. 890 sqq, Jena, 1734; Bartholmess, in Bulletin de la société de l’hist. du protestantisme françaís, 1853; Saigey, in Revue de théologie, Oct., 1855; Lichtenberger, ESR, xi. 489 sqq.

PLAGUE. See Diseases and the Healing Art, Hebrew, IV., §§ 4–5.

PLAGUES OF EGYPT. See Moses, § 3.

PLAIN-SONG. See Sacred Music.

PLANCK, GOTTLIEB JAKOB: German Lutheran and church historian; b. at Nürtingen (13 m. s.s.e. of Stuttgart), Württemberg, Nov. 15, 1751; d. at Göttingen Aug. 31, 1833. He was educated at the University of Tübingen (1769–74), where he was a lecturer in 1775–80, after which he went to Stuttgart as vicar, being preacher and associate professor at the Karlsschule in the same city, 1781–1784. Here he completed the first two volumes of his Geschichte der Entstehung, der Veränderungen und der Bildung unseres protestantischen Lehrbegriffs von Anfang der Reformation bis zur Einführung der Konkordienformel (6 vols., Leipsic, 1781–1800). So favorable was the reception accorded these volumes that, on the death of Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch in 1784, Planck was chosen to succeed him as professor of church history at Göttingen. He became a member of the consistory in 1791; ephor of the Hanover theologians in 1800; general superintendent of the principality of Göttingen in 1805; abbot of Bursfelde in 1828; and supreme consistorial councilor in 1830.

Planck himself described his theological standpoint as "rational supernaturalism." He held to the divinity as well as to the reasonableness of Christianity, to the necessity as well as to the comprehensibility of a direct divine revelation. He was essentially a historian, and the historical point of view and method colored his whole personality. The first of his two most important works, the Geschichte . . . unseres protestantischen Lehrbegriffs, has already been mentioned. His second great work was his Geschichte der christlich-kirchlichen Gesellschaftsverfassung (5 vols., Hanover, 1803–09). The first, of these two works was undoubtedly Planck's masterpiece, and marked an epoch in the writing of Protestant church history, since it was the earliest attempt at an unpartizan account of the Reformation and of the rise of Lutheranism. Planck has been criticized for emphasizing too strongly the subjective, personal part in the development of ideas. He paid too little attention to general influences and currents of thought that prevailed throughout entire historic periods, though he went deeply and carefully into his sources, and used the knowledge of details thus obtained in presenting extremely graphic delineations of character and motives.

Among the numerous writings of Planck, in addition to those already mentioned, special mention may be made of the following: continuations of the Neueste Religions-Geschichte of Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch (q.v.; 3 vols., Lemgo, 1787–93) and the Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen des vierten und fünften Jahrhunderts of Georg Daniel Fuchs (Leipsic, 1784). as well as a new edition of the Grundriss der Kirchengeschichte of Ludwig Timotheus Spittler (q.v.; Göttingen, 1812); Grundriss einer Geschichte der kirchlichen Verfassung, kirchlichen Regierung und des kanonischen Rechts (1790); Einleitung in die theologischen Wissenachaften (2 parts, Leipsic, 1794–95; Eng. transl., Introduction to Sacred Philology and Interpretation, Edinburgh, 1834); Ueber Trennung und Vereínigung der getrennten christlichen Hauptpartheyen (Tübingen, 1803); Betrachtungen über die neuesten Veränderungen in dem Zustand der deutschen katholischen Kirche (Hanover, 1808); Worte des Friedens mit der katholischen Kirche (Göttingen, 1809); Grundriss der theologischen Encyklopädie (1813); Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner ersten Einführunp in die Welt durch Jesum und die Apostel (2 vols., 1818); Ueber die Behandlung, die Haltbarkeit und den Werth des historischen Beweises für die Gottlichkeit des Christenthums (1821); and Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie von der Konkordienformel an bis in die Mitte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts (1831).

He was, throughout, judicial and conciliatory, refraining as much as possible from taking sides, and preferring painstaking investigation of facts to passing judgment.

Besides his historical work's, Planck also wrote three quasi-romances, the first two anonymously: Tagebuch eines neuen Ehemannes (Leipsic, 1779); Jonathan Ashley's Briefe (Bern, 1782); and the fragmentary Das erste Amtsjahr des Pfarrers von S. in Auszügen aus seinem Tagebuch, eine Pastoraltheologie in Form einer Geschichte (Göttingen, 1823).

(Paul Tschackert.)

Bibliography: J. S. Pütter, Gelehrtengeschichte von der . . . Universitöt zu Göttingen, continued by Saalfeld and Oesterley, ii. 121, iii. 283 sqq., iv. 270, 4 parts, Göttingen, 1765–1838 (for list of works by and on Planck); G. C. F. Lücke, Dr. G. J. Planck. Ein biographischer Versuch, ib. 1835; Nekrolog der Deutschen, for 1833, ii. 581 sqq.; ZHT, 1836, i. 313 sqq. (by Mohnicke), 1843, iv. 75 sqq. (by E. Henke); G. Franck, Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, iii. 359 sqq., Leipsic, 1875.

PLANCK, plānk, HEINRICH LUDWIG: German Lutheran; son of the preceding; b. at Göttingen July 19, 1785; d. there Sept. 23, 1831. He was educated at the university of his native city (1803–06), where he became lecturer in 1806. Four years later he was appointed associate professor of theology in the same institution, and in 1823 was promoted to a full professorship. He devoted himself particularly to New-Testament exegesis, and long labored on a lexicon of the Greek Testament, which he did not live to complete. Among his writings special mention should be made of the following: Bemerkungen über 1 Timotheus (Göttingen, 1808; in answer to Schleiermacher's attack on the authenticity of the epistle); Entwurf einer neuen synoptischen Zusammenstellung der drei ersten Evangelien nach Grundsätzen der höherer Kritik (1809); De vera natura atque indole orationis Græcæ Novi Testamenti (1810; Eng. transl. by A. S. Paterson, Edinburgh, 1833); and Abriss der philosophischen Religionslehre (Göttingen, 1821).

(Paul Tschackert.)

Bibliography: Consult the literature under the preceding, especially G. C. F. Lücke, Dr. G. J. Planck, pp 153 sqq., Göttingen, 1835; and the Nekrolog for 1831, ii. 303; also J. K. F. Schlegel, Kirchen- and Reformationsgeschichte, vol. iii., Hanover, 1832; G. Uhlhorn, Hannoversche Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart, 1902; ADB, xxvi. 227; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fasc. xxxii., col. 457.

PLATH, plāt, KARL HEINRICH CHRISTIAN: Lutheran promoter of foreign missions; b. at Bamberg (69 m. n.e. of Posen) Sept. 8, 1829; d. at Berlin July 10, 1901. He was educated at Halle and Bonn (1849–53), and at Wittenberg Theological Seminary (1854–56); was preacher and religious instructor at Halle (1856–63); third secretary of the Society for Foreign Missions, Berlin (1863–71) and also instructor at the mission seminary, field-lecturer and author of missionary literature; first secretary of Gossner's Mission, after 1871; lecturer at the University of Berlin on missionary and religious history after 1867; and full professor after 1882. He visited India in 1877–78 on behalf of Gossner's Mission and twice afterward. He was author of Leben des Freiherrn von Canstein (Halle, 1861); Sieben Zeugen des Herrn aus allerlei Volk (Berlin, 1867) ; Die Erwählung der Völker im Lichte der Missionsgeschichte (1867); Drei neue Missionsfragen (1868; Eng. transl., The Subject of Missions Considered under Three New Aspects, Edinburgh, 1873); Die Missionsgedanken des Freiherrn von Leibnitz (1869); Missions-Studien (1870); and Fünfzig Jahre Gossnerscher Mission (1886).

Bibliography: G. Plath, Karl Plath, lnspektor der Gossnerschen Mission Schwerin, 1904.

PLATINA, BARTOLOMEO (BARTOLOMEO SACCHI): Italian humanist, theologian, and historian of the popes; b. at Piadena (17 m. e. of Cremona) 1421; d. at Rome 1481. After studying at Mantua, he went to Florence in 1457 to learn Greek of Argyropulos, and in 1462 migrated to Rome, where he obtained a position at the Curia in the College of Abbreviators. When Paul II. Ascended the throne in 1464, Platina, like many others, lost his position, and then headed a sharp reaction against the pope. He was arrested and imprisoned for four months in the Castle of St. Angelo, and did not obtain a new office until Sixtus IV. appointed him director of the Vatican library, a position which he held until his death. The same pope gave him the incentive for the preparation of his most important work, his Opus in vitas summorum pontificum ad Sixtum IV. (Venice, 1479; translated into the principal languages of Europe; Eng. transls., 2 vols., Lives of the Popes, London, 1685, 1888). In the main, Platina repeated the statements of his predecessors Damasus, Anastasius, Pandulphus, Ptolemæus of Lucca, and others, though he frequently made independent investigations. At the same time, like his precursors, he utilized forged decretals without suspecting their real nature.

In addition to Platina's Opus, mention should also be made of his Historia inclytæ urbis Mantuæ et serenissimæ familiæ Gonzagæ libri sex (Vienna, 1675).

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: On the editions, etc., of Platina's work on the popes consult Moller, Dissertatio de B. Platina, Altdorf, 1694, with which may be compared Tiraboschi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana, vol. vi., 11 vols., Modena, 1772–95; and Historia inclytæ urbis Mantuæ, ed. Lambecius, Vienna, 1675. Consult: Pastor, Popes, vols. ii–iv. (use the Index); Creighton, Papacy (use the Index); S. Bissolati, Le Vite di due illustri Cremonesi, Milan, 1856; G. Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des klassischen Alterthums, ii. 237 sqq., Berlin, 1881; J. Burckhardt, Die Kultur der Renaissance, ii. 277–278, Leipsic, 1898, Eng. transl., The Civilization of the Renascence of Italy, London, 1898.

PLATNER, plat´ner, JOHN WINTHROP: Congregationalist; b. at Lee, Mass., May 15, 1865. He was educated at Yale College (A.B., 1885), and after being a private tutor for five years entered Union Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1893. He then studied at the University of Berlin for two years, after which he was an instructor at Union Theological Seminary for a year; he was assistant professor of ecclesiastical history at Harvard (1896–1901), and since 1901 has been professor of the same in Andover Theological Seminary.

PLATO. See Platonism and Christianity.

PLATO, plê´to, PORPHORY ROJDESTVENSKI: Archbishop of the Orthodox Russian Church in the United States; b. at Kursk (275 m. s. of Moscow), Russia, 1866. He became a priest in 1887 and a monk in 1894, and in 1902 was consecrated bishop of Chigizin, first auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Kief, and superior of the monastery of the Epiphany in Kief. He was a reactionary member of the second Duma, and in 1907 was elevated to the archbishopric of Aleutia and North America, with residence in New York City.

PLATON, plā´ton (PETER LEVCHIN): Metropolitan of Moscow; b. near Moscow June 29, 1737; d. at Moscow 1812. He was the son of a psalmodist, and was educated at the seminary and the theological academy of Moscow. In 1757 he was appointed instructor in Greek and rhetoric at the latter institution, and became distinguished as a pulpit orator. Within the year he was called to be instructor in rhetoric at the famous monastery of the Holy Trinity near Moscow. Here he became a monk, adopting the name of Platon, and in 1761 was made rector of the seminary of the monastery. A sermon preached by him in Oct., 1762, produced so favorable an impression on the Empress Catherine II. that she summoned him to court to be the religious instructor of the eight-year-old heir apparent, Paul Petrovitch. Here he came into close contact with Voltaire and the encyclopedists, but without injury either to his faith or his character.

Platon remained at the Russian court, winning the admiration of even Voltaire, until the marriage of the heir apparent to Maria Feodorovna, daughter of Duke Eugene of Württemberg, in 1773. During this time he published, for the use of his royal pupil, his "Orthodox Doctrine: or, A short Compend of Christian Theology" (Moscow, 1765; Eng. transl., The Present State of the Greek Church in Russia: or, A Summary of Christian Divinity, by R. Pinkerton, Edinburgh, 1814), in which the influence of Western thought, and even of rationalism, may be distinctly traced. At the same time, Roman Catholic doctrines are mercilessly attacked, while the Lutheran tenet of ubiquity and the Reformed theory of predestination also receive their share of criticism. This catechism was followed, a year later, by the "Exhortation of the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church of Christ to her former Children, now on the Road to Schism," pleading, though with scant success, for lenient treatment of dissenters from the Orthodox Church.

In 1768 Platon became a member of the synod, and in 1770 was made bishop of Tver, though he still remained at St. Petersburg, finally being the religious instructor of the new grand duchess. In 1775 he was enthroned archbishop of Moscow, and throughout the reigns of Catherine II., Paul, and Alexander I. diligently promoted the religious, moral, intellectual, and material welfare of his archdiocese, maintaining meanwhile an unceasing literary activity. In 1775 he issued a catechism for the use of the clergy, and in 1776 a short catechism for children, as well as one in the form of a dialogue, while his brief history of the Russian Church (1777) is the first systematic treatise of its kind in the Russian language.

In 1787 Platon reluctantly consented to become metropolitan of Moscow. He visited the city but seldom, however, passing the winter in the Triotzki monastery and the summer in the Pererva Monastery close to Moscow. Here he supervised personally the studies of the seminarians, who included three destined to succeed him as archbishop of Moscow. It was Platon who crowned both Paul (1797) and Alexander I. (1801); but despite his close and cordial relations with the court he preserved to the last his firmness and his independence. Shortly before his death he aided in preparing the way for the foundation of the Russian Bible society which was established in the year in which he died. The collected works of Platon were published at Moscow in twenty volumes in 1779–1807, the greater portion of these writings being sermons, of which there are about 500. An abridged English translation of Platon's catechism was prepared from a Greek version of the Russian original (London, 1867), and his sermon preached at the request of the empress to celebrate the victory of Tschesme also appeared in English (London, 1770).

(H. Dalton.)

Bibliography: A life in Russian by Snegirew was published at Moscow, 1857, while incidents of the life, also in Russian, was by Barsow, ib. 1891. Consult: L. Boissard, L’Église de Russie, ii. 348 sqq, Paris, 1867; A. H. Hore, Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church. pp. 690–691, New York, 1899.

PLATONISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

Christian Estimate of Plato

"The peculiarity of the Platonic philosophy," says Hegel, in his "History of Philosophy" (vol. ii.), "is precisely this direction toward the supersensuous world,—it seeks the elevation of consciousness into the realm of spirit. The Christian religion also has set up this high principle, that the internal spiritual essence of man is his true essence, and has made it the universal principle." Some of the early Fathers recognized a Christian element in Plato, and ascribed to him a kind of propædeutic office and relation toward Christianity. Clement of Alexandria calls philosophy "a sort of preliminary discipline for those who lived before the coming of Christ," and adds, "Perhaps we may say it was given to the Greeks with this special object; for philosophy was to the Greeks what the law was to the Jews,—a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ (cf. Strom., I, v.–xx.; Eng. transl., ANF, ii. 305–324). "The Platonic dogmas," says Justin Martyr, "are not foreign to Christianity. If we Christians say that all things were created and ordered by God, we seem to enounce a doctrine of Plato; and, between our view of the being of God and his, the article appears to make the only difference" (cf. II Apol., xiii.). "Justin" (says Ackermann, Das Christliche im Plato, chap. i., Hamburg, 1835; Eng. transl., The Christian Element in Plato, Edinburgh, 1861), "Justin was, as he himself relates, an enthusiastic admirer of Plato before he found in the Gospel that full satisfaction which he had sought earnestly, but in vain, in philosophy. And, though the Gospel stood infinitely higher in his view than the Platonic philosophy, yet he regarded the latter as a preliminary stage to the former. And in the same way did other apologetic writers express themselves concerning Plato and his philosophy, especially Athenagoras, the most spirited, and philosophically most important of them all, whose 'Apology' is one of the most admirable works of Christian antiquity." The Fathers of the early Church sought to explain the striking resemblance between the doctrines of Plato and those of Christianity, principally by the acquaintance, which, as they supposed, that philosopher had with learned Jews and with the Jewish Scriptures during his sojourn in Egypt, but partly, also, by the universal light of a divine revelation through the "Logos," which, in and through human reason, "lighteth every man that cometh into the world," and which illumined especially such sincere and humble seekers after truth as Socrates and Plato before the incarnation of the Eternal Word in the person of Jesus Christ. Passages which bear a striking resemblance to the Christian Scriptures in their picturesque, parabolic, and axiomatic style, and still more in the lofty moral, religious, and almost Christian sentiments which they express, are scattered thickly all through the dialogues, even those that treat of physical, political, and philosophical subjects; and they are as characteristic of Plato as is the inimitably graceful dialogue in which they are clothed. A good selection of such passages may be seen in the introductory chapters of Ackermann's work (ut sup.). A still more copious and striking collection might be made.

2. Platonic philosophy Spiritual.

Perhaps the most obvious and striking feature of the Platonic philosophy is that it is preeminently spiritual. Hegel speaks of "this direction toward the supersensuous world," this "elevation of consciousness into the realm of spirit," as "the peculiarity of the Platonic philosophy." There is no doctrine on which Plato more frequently or more strenuously insists than this, that soul is not only superior to body, but prior to it in order of time, and that not merely as it exists in the being of God, but in every order of existence. The soul of the world existed first, and then it was clothed with a material body. The souls which animate the sun, moon, and stars, existed before the bodies which they inhabit (Timæus). The preexistence of human souls is one of the arguments on which he relies to prove their immortality (Phædo, 73–76). Among the other arguments by which he demonstrates the immortality of the soul and its exalted dignity are these: that the soul leads and rules the body, and therein resembles the immortal gods (ib. 80); that the soul is capable of apprehending eternal and immutable ideas, and communing with things unseen and eternal, and so must partake of their nature (ib. 79); that, as consciousness is single and simple, so the soul itself is uncompounded, and hence incapable of dissolution (ib. 78); that soul, being everywhere the cause and source of life, and every way diametrically opposite to death, can not be conceived as dying, any more than fire can be conceived as becoming cold (ib. 102–107); that soul, being self-moved, and the source of all life and motion, can never cease to live and move (Phædrus, 245); that diseases of the body do not reach to the soul; and vice, which is a disease of the soul, corrupts its moral quality, but has no power or tendency to destroy its essence ("Republic," 610), etc. Spiritual entities are the only real existences- material things are perpetually changing, and flowing into and out of existence. God is: the world becomes, and passes away. The soul is: the body is ever changing, as a garment. Soul or ideas, which are spiritual entities, are the only true causes; God being the first cause why every thing is, and ideas being the secondary causes why things are such as they are (Phædo, 100–101). Mind and will are the real cause of all motion and action in the world, just as truly as of all human motion and action. According to the striking illustration in the Phædo (98, 99), the cause of Socrates awaiting death in the prison, instead of making his escape as his friends urged him to do, was that he chose to do so from a sense of duty; and, if he had chosen to run away, his bones and muscles would have been only the means or instruments of the flight of which his mind and will would have been the cause. And just so it is in all the phenomena of nature, in all the motions and changes of the material cosmos. And life in the highest sense, what we call spiritual and eternal life, all that deserves the name of life, is in and of and from the soul, which matter only contaminates and clouds, and the body only clogs and entombs (Gorgias, 492, 493). Platonism, as well as Christianity, says, Look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, only for a season; but the things which are not seen are eternal (cf. II Cor. iv. 18).

3. Platonic Philosophy Theistic.

The philosophy of Plato is eminently theistic. "God," he says, in his " Republic " (716 A), " is (literally, holds) the beginning, middle, and end of all things. He is the supreme mind or reason, the efficient cause of all things, eternal, unchangeable, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading, and all-controlling, just, holy, wise, and good, the absolutely perfect, the beginning of all truth, the fountain of all law and justice, the source of all order and beauty, and especially the cause of all good " (Philebus, Phædo, Timæus, "Republic," and "Laws," passim). God represents, he impersonates, he is the true, the beautiful, but, above all, the good. Just how Plato conceived these "ideas" to be related to the divine mind is disputed. In discussing the good, sometimes it is difficult to determine whether he means by it an idea, an attribute, a principle, a power, or a personal God. But he leaves no doubt as to his actual belief in the divine personality. God is the reason (the intelligence, Phædo, 97 C) and the good ("Republic," 508 C) ; but he is also the artificer, the maker, the Father, the supreme ruler, who begets, disposes, and orders all (cf. Timæus, with places just cited). He is Theos and Ho Theos (Phædo, 106 D, and often elsewhere). Plato often speaks also of gods in the plural; but to him, as to all the best minds of antiquity, the inferior deities are the children, the servants, the ministers, the angels, of the supreme God (Timæus, 41). Unity is an essential element of perfection. There is but one highest and best—the Most High, the Supreme Good, God in the true and proper sense is one. The Supreme God only is eternal, he only hath immortality in himself. The immortality of the inferior deities is derived, imparted to them by their Father and the Father of all, and is dependent on his will (Timæus, 41). God made the world by introducing order and beauty into chaotic matter, and putting into it a living, moving, intelligent soul; then the inferior deities made man under his direction, and in substantially the same way. God made the world because he is good, and because, free from all envy or jealousy, he wished everything to be as much like himself as the creature can be like the creator (Timæus, 30 A). Therefore he made the world good; and when he saw it he was delighted (ib. 37 C; cf. Gen. i. 31). God is the author of all good, and of good only, not of evil. "Every good gift cometh down from the Father of the celestial luminaries"; "for it is morally impossible for the best being to do any thing else than the best" (Timæus, 30 A; cf. Jas. i. 17). God exercises a providential care over the world as a whole, and over every part (chiefly, however, through the inferior deities who thus fulfil the office of angels, "Laws," 905 B–906), and makes all things, the least as well as the greatest, work for good to the righteous and those who love God, and are loved by him (Phædo, 62; "Republic," 613). Atheism is a disease, and a corruption of the soul; and no man ever did an unrighteous act, or uttered an impious word, unless he was a theoretical or practical atheist ("Laws," 885 B), that is, in the language of the indictment at common law, he did it, "not having the fear of God before his eyes."

4. Platonic Philosophy Teleological and Ethical.

The Platonic philosophy is teleological. Final causes, together with rational and spiritual agencies, are the only causes that are worthy of the study of the philosopher: indeed, no others deserve the name (Phædo, 98 sqq.). If mind is the cause of all things, mind must dispose all things for the best; and when it is known how anything may best be made or disposed, then, and then only, is it known how it is and the cause of its being so (Phædo, 97). Material causes are no causes; and inquiry into them is impertinent, unphilosophical, not to say impious and absurd. Thus did Plato build up a system of rational psychology, cosmology, and theology, all of which are largely teleological, on the twofold basis of a priori reasoning and mythology, in other words, of reason and tradition, including the idea of a primitive revelation. The eschatology of the Phædo, the Gorgias, and the "Republic," is professedly a mythos, though he insists that it is also a logos ("Republic," 523). His cosmology he professes to have heard from some one (Phædo, 108 D); and his theology in the Timæus purports to have been derived by tradition from the ancients, who were the offspring of the gods, and who must, of course, have known the truth about their own ancestors (40 C). Yet the whole structure is manifestly the work of his own reason and creative imagination; and the central doctrine of the whole is, that God made and governs the world with constant reference to the highest possible good; and "ideas" are the powers, or, in the phraseology of modern science, the "forces," by which the end was to be accomplished. The philosophy of Plato is preeminently ethical, and his ethics are remarkably Christian. Only one of his dialogues was classified by the ancients as "physical," and that (the Timæus) is largely theological. The political dialogues treat politics as a part of ethics,—ethics as applied to the State. Besides the four virtues as usually classified by Greek moralists,—viz., temperance, courage, justice, and wisdom,—Plato recognized as virtues humility and meekness, which the Greeks generally despised, and holiness, which they ignored (Euthyphron); and he teaches the duty of non-retaliation and non-resistance as strenuously, not to say paradoxically, as it is taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Critias, 49). That it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong is a prominent doctrine of the Gorgias (479 E, 508 C). But as the highest "idea" is that of the good, so the highest excellence of which man is capable is likeness to God, the supreme and absolute good. A philosopher, who is Plato's ideal, is a lover of wisdom, of truth, of justice, of goodness ("Republic," book vi.), of God, and, by the contemplation and imitation of his virtues, becomes like him as far as it is possible for man to resemble God (ib. 613 A, B).

5. Religion, Rewards and Punishment in Plato.

Plato is preeminently a religious philosopher. His ethics, his politics, and his physics are all based on his theology and his religion. Natural and moral obligations, social and civil duties, duties to parents and elders, to kindred and strangers, to neighbors and friends, are all religious duties ("Laws," ix. 881 A, xi. 931 A). Not only is God the lawgiver and ruler of the universe, but his law is the source and ground of all human law and justice. "That the gods not only exist, but that they are good, and honor and reward justice far more than men do, is the most beautiful and the best preamble to all laws" ("Laws," x. 887). Accordingly, in the "Republic" and the "Laws," the author often prefaces the most important sections of his legislation with some such preamble, exhortation, or, as Jowett calls it, sermon, setting forth the divine authority by which it is sanctioned and enforced. Plato gives prominence also to the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments. At death, by an inevitable law of its own being, as well as by the appointment of God, every soul goes to its own place; the evil gravitating to the evil, and the good rising to the supreme good. When they come before their judge, perhaps after a long series of transmigrations, each of which is the reward or punishment of the preceding, those who have lived virtuous and holy lives, and those who have not, are separated from each other. The wicked whose sins are curable are subjected to sufferings in the lower world, which are more or less severe, and more or leas protracted, according to their deserts. The incurably wicked are hurled down to Tartarus, whence they never go out, where they are punished forever as a spectacle and warning to others (Gorgias, 523 sqq.; Phædo, 113 D). Those, on the other hand, who have lived virtuously and piously, especially those who have purified their hearts and lives by philosophy, will live without bodies (Phædo, 114 C), with the gods, and in places that are bright and beautiful beyond description.

6. Merits and Defects

Allusion only may be made to other characteristic features of Plato's philosophy, such, for example, as his doctrine of "ideas,"—the true, the beautiful, the good, the holy, and the like,—which, looking at them now only on the ethical and practical side, are eternal and immutable, and not dependent even on the will of God (the holy, for instance, is not holy because it is the will of God, but it is the will of God because it is holy, just, and good—Euthyphron,10 D); the indispensable necessity of a better than any existing, not to say better than human, society and government (like the ideal republic, which is not so much a state as a church or a school, a great family, or a man "writ large"), in order to the salvation of the individual or the perfection of the race; the degenerate, diseased, carnal, and corrupt state into which mankind in general has fallen since the reign of Kronos in the golden age ("Laws," 713 C; "Politics," 271 D; Critias, 108 D), and from which God only can save any individual or nation ("Republic," vi. 492, 493); and the need of a divine teacher, revealer, healer, charmer, to charm away the fear of death, and bring life and immortality to light (Phædo, 78 A, 859).

But a passing glance may be given to the radical defects and imperfections of Plato's best teachings—his inadequate conception of the nature of sin as involuntary, the result of ignorance, a misfortune, and a disease in the soul, rather than a transgression of the divine law; his consequent erroneous ideas of its cure by successive transmigrations on earth, and protracted pains in purgatory, and by philosophy; his philosophy of the origin of evil, viz., in the refractory nature of matter, which must therefore be gotten rid of by bodily mortification, and by the death of the body without a resurrection, before the soul can arrive at its perfection; his utter inability to conceive of atonement, free forgiveness, regenerating grace, and salvation for the masses, a fortiori for the chief of sinners; the doubt and uncertainty of his best religious teachings, especially about the future life ("Apology," 40 E, 42; Phædo, 107 C); and the utter want in his system of the grace, even more than of the truth, that have come to us by Jesus Christ, for, after all, Platonism is not so deficient in the wisdom of God as it is in the power of God unto salvation. The "Republic," for example, proposes to overcome the selfishness of human nature by constitutions and laws and education, instead of a new heart and a new spirit, by community of goods and of wives, instead of loyalty and love to a divine-human person like Jesus Christ.

7. Later Platonic Schools.

In the Middle and the New Academy, there was always more or less tendency to skepticism, growing out of the Platonic doctrine of the uncertainty of all human knowledge except that of "ideas." The Neo-Platonists (see Neo-Platonism), on the other hand, inclined toward dogmatism, mysticism, asceticism, theosophy, and even thaumaturgy, thus developing seeds of error that lay in the teaching of their master. After the Christian era, among those who were more or less the followers of Plato, were, at one extreme, the devout and believing Plutarch the author of "Delay of the Deity in the Punishment of the Wicked," and the practical and sagacious Galen, whose work on the "Uses of the Parts of the Human Body" is an anticipation of the Bridgewater Treatises, both of whom, as also Socrates, would have accepted Christianity if they had come within the scope of its influence; and, at the other extreme, Porphyry and the Emperor Julian, who wielded the weapons of philosophy in direct hostility to the religion of Christ; while intermediate between them the major part of the philosophers of the Neo-Platonic and eclectic schools who came in contact with Christianity went on their way in indifference, neglect, or contempt of the religion of the crucified Nazarene. But not a few of the followers of Plato discovered a kindred and congenial element in the eminent spirituality of the Christian doctrines and the lofty ethics of the Christian life, and, coming in through the vestibule of the Academy, became some of the most illustrious of the Fathers and Doctors of the early Church. And many of the early Christians, in turn, found peculiar attractions in the doctrines of Plato, and employed them as weapons for the defense and extension of Christianity, or cast the truths of Christianity in a Platonic mold. The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who, if not trained in the schools, were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy, particularly in its Jewish-Alexandrian form. That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied. But from the same source it derived no small additions, both to its numbers and its strength. Among the most illustrious of the Fathers who were more or less Platonic, may be named Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Irenæus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Minutius Felix, Eusebius, Methodius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Augustine. Plato was the divine philosopher of the earlier Christian centuries; in the Middle Ages Aristotle succeeded to his place. But in every period of the history of the Church, some of the brightest ornaments of literature, philosophy, and religion—such men as Anselm, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Jeremy Taylor, Ralph Cudworth, Henry More, Neander, and Tayler Lewis—have been "Platonizing" Christians.

Bibliography: No attempt can be made here to give a complete list of works on Plato, the works now cited being those which probably best illustrate the subject of the article. A notable bibliography, covering editions, translations, and critical treatises, is to be found in Baldwin, Dictionary, iii. 1, pp. 404–423, to be supplemented by the list entered under "Philosophy" in Fortescue's Subject Index of Modern Works . . . of the British Museum, London, 1902 sqq. For the works of Plato the best eds. for general use are that on the basis of Stephens by C. D. Beck, 8 vols., Leipsic 1893–99; and the ed. by J. Burnet, vols., i.–v., Oxford, 1900–07. The classical Eng. transl. is that of B. Jowett, The Dialogues, 3d ed., 5 vols., Oxford, 1892, with E. Abbott's Index, ib. 1895, The Republic, 2 vols., 3d ed., ib. 1908. Of prime importance are the works on the history of philosophy by Ueberweg, ed. M. Heinze, 9th ed., Berlin, 1901–05, Eng. transl. of the 4th ed., London, 1875–76; W. Windelband, 4tb ed., Tübingen, 1907, Eng. transl. of 1st ed., New York, 1893; J. E. Erdmann, 2 vols., Berlin, 1895–96, Eng. transl., 3 vols., London, 1892–98 ; and E. Zeller, new ed., Tübingen, 1892, Eng. transl., London, 1897. Consult: G. C. B. Ackermann, Dos Christliche im Plato and in der platonischen Philosophie, Eng transl., The Christian Element in Plato, Edinburgh, 1860; F. Schleiermacher, Introduction to Dialogues of Plato, translated by W. Dobson, Cambridge and London, 1836; E. Zeller, Platonischen Studien, Tübingen, 1839; J. F. Simon, Études sir la theodicée de Platon et d’Aristote, Paris, 1840; C. B. Smyth, Christian Metaphysics, or Plato, Malebranche, and Gioberti Compared with the Modern Schools of Psychology, London, 1851; C. Morgan, An Investigation of the Trinity of Plato, Cambridge 1853; D. Becker, Das philosophische System Platons in seiner Beziehung zum christlichen Dogma, Leipsic, 1862; R. D. Hampton, The Fathers of Greek Philosophy, Edinburgh, 1862; G. Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, London, 1865, 2d ed., 1867; B. F. Cocker, Christianity and Greek Philosophy, New York, 1870; A. E. Chaignet, La Vie et les éscrits de Platon, Paris, 1871; J. W. Lake, Plato, Philo and Paul, Edinburgh, 1874; E. Zeller, Plato and the Old Academy, London, 1876; S. W. Mendenhall, Plato and Paul, or Philosophy and Christianity, Cincinnati, 1886; E. W. Simson, Der Begriff der Seele bei Plato, Leipsic, 1889; J. Lipperheide, Thomas von Aquino and die platonische Ideenlehre, Munich, 1890; J. H. Stirling, Philosophy and Theology, Edinburgh, 1890; C. Bénard, Platon: sa vie et sa philosophie, Paris, 1892; W. Pater, Plato and Platonism, London and New York, 1893; J. W. G. van Oordt, Plato and the Times he Lived in, The Hague, 1895; H. Roeder, Platons philosophische Entwickelung, Leipsic, 1905; E. Reich, Plato as an Introduction to Modern Criticism of Life, London, 1906; C. Ritter, Platon, sein Leben, seine Schriften, seine Lehre, Munich, 1909; idem, Neue Untersuchungen über Platon, ib., 1910; A. E. Taylor, Plato, New York, 1909. Much that is illustrative from a historical point of view will be found in the literature under Scholasticism.

PLEASURE: An agreeable and gratifying feeling or desire which awakens in the person experiencing it a wish for its continuance or renewal. Neither the feeling nor the impulse is necessarily sinful, for desire and its gratification are essential to a complete life. Just as the man who takes pleasure in nothing is unhealthy, so one who seeks and desires nothing is in danger of becoming both mentally and morally a nonentity. Ethically, pleasure, both as feeling and desire, is determined by its relation to the ego, by the free personality of man, and by its object. Where, as in the ethics of Democritus, Epicurus, Protagoras, and others, the ego exalts its own natural sensations and desires into a norm of life, pleasure decides what is good and what is bad. On the other hand, the personality that has submitted itself to the divine will determines for itself what shall be pleasure and pain. It is divine revelation that guides man here, so that the Psalmist can say, "Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart" (Ps. xxxvii. 4; cf. i. 2, lxxiii. 23–28, cxi. 2, cxii. 1, cxix.); and the New Testament makes communion with God the highest and most perfect pleasure of the Christian (cf. II Cor. v. 15; Gal. ii. 20; John xvii. 23). This pleasure, however, does not exclude the enjoyment of other pleasures. Pleasure in the true (science) and the beautiful (art), and even bodily pleasures in moderation, as in eating and in general comfort, are proper and consistent with the Christian life. Extreme asceticism is unchristian (I Tim. iv. 3–5; Col. ii. 16–23). Pleasure becomes sin only when the accompanying desire becomes lust, overpowers the will, and enslaves the personality. As a guard against this the moderate asceticism of Paul may be recommended (I Cor. ix. 27; Phil. iv. 11–13).

While desire is an essential element of human nature, it requires a curb. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, this was a special gift of grace bestowed upon Adam, without which man would be completely given up to sensuality. Desire in the first man was originally directed by God; but Adam renounced this guidance, and desire became concupiscence and lust, this depravity being transmitted by man's first parents to the entire human race. At times Paul uses "lust" as synonymous with "sin" (Rom. vii. 7); but in New-Testament usage the ethical character of desire, whether good or evil, depends upon the subject rather than upon the object (cf. John viii. 44; Rom. i. 24; Gal. v. 16; I John ii. 16). The duty of the Christian toward sinful natural impulses is set forth in Gal. v. 24 and Col. iii. 5.

The doctrinal difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism regarding original sin depends chiefly on their divergent interpretation of desire, the Council of Trent maintaining that, after the loss of the special gift of grace, man's nature was weakened, though neither the loss of his original righteousness nor the desire which remains even in the regenerate is necessarily sinful. Protestantism, on the contrary, holds that desire is evil in itself.

(Karl Burger.)

PLENARY (Liber plenarius): The term applied in the early Middle Ages to a missal containing all the liturgy appertaining to the mass, thus combining what was usually scattered through the sacramentary, gradual, and lectionary. Though such plenaries existed in the ninth century, the extant manuscript copies are not older than the eleventh. Later in the Middle Ages the plenaries were translated into German with various additions explanatory of the mass. The name was likewise applied to lectionaries containing the epistles and Gospels for Sundays and feasts, with glosses or postils on the Gospels; and the plenaries came to be called simply Gospel books or postils. With the Reformation the plenary vanished, none being known to have been issued after 1521.

(P. Drews.)

Bibliography: J. Alzog, in Freiburger Diöcesan-Archiv, viii (1874), 255 sqq.; M. F. A. G. Campbell, Annales de la typographie néerlandaise au 15. siècle, The Hague 1874; F. Folk, Die Druckkunst im Dienste der Kirche, pp. 29 sqq., Cologne, 1879; R. Cruel, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittelalter, pp. 533 sqq., Detmar, 1879.

PLITT, GUSTAV LEOPOLD: German Lutheran; b. at Genin, near Lübeck, Mar. 27, 1838; d. at Erlangen Sept. 10, 1880. He studied. theology at the universities of Erlangen (1854–56, 1857–58) and Berlin (1856–57), and early in 1861 became privat-docent at the former institution, lecturing chiefly on church history and especially on the Reformation period and the life of Luther, and also on exegesis. At the same time he developed his literary activity, publishing Melanchthons Loci communes in ihrer Urgestalt (Erlangen, 1864) and soon after his main work, Einleitung in die Augustana (2 vols., 1867–68). In 1867 Plitt was appointed associate professor. Besides continuing his work as an author, evidenced in his Aus Schelling's Leben, in Briefen (3 vols., Leipsic, 1869–70) and Kurze Geschichte der lutherischen Mission, in Vorträgen (Erlangen, 1871), he took an active part as preacher at the university and in influencing practical church life.

In 1867 he became the head of the Bavarian Verein für Judenmission, and was equally energetic in behalf of home missions and philanthropic enterprises, being also one of the founders of the institution of army deacons in the Franco-Prussian war. In 1875 he was advanced to a full professorship, and in the same year published his Grundriss der Symbolik für Vorlesungen (Erlangen, 1875), which had been preceded by Die Apologie der Augustana, geschichtlich erklärt (1873). Meanwhile he had continued his studies on the period of the Reformation, and contemplated combining them into a biography of Luther which should appeal to the cultured public as well as to scholars. This work, begun by him, was completed after his death by his friend E. F. Petersen of Lübeck, appearing under the title, Martin Luthers Leben und Wirken (Leipsic, 1883). In 1877 he became associated with Johann Jakob Herzog (q.v.) in the preparation of the second edition of the Realenencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie and Kirche, a task for which wide theological knowledge, unwearying energy, and breadth of view rendered him peculiarly adapted. He had been able, however, to help to finish only half the work when he died.

(F. Frank†.)

PLOCKHOY, PIETER CORNELISZ: "The father of modern socialism"; born at Zierikzee (35 m. n.w. of Antwerp) about 1600; d. in Germantown, Pa., about 1674. Becoming interested in plans for the realization of the Christian ideal through the best social and industrial methods, he crossed to England and had two interviews with Cromwell, who was greatly interested in his project. On the decease of the protector, Sept. 3, 1658, Plockhoy discussed his scheme with parliament, but owing to the breakdown of government in England was not able to secure cooperation. He printed in English at London in 1659 a pamphlet of fourteen pages, with an advertisement or an invitation of the same bulk, setting forth A Way Propounded to make the Poor in these and other Nations happy by bringing together a fit, suitable and well qualified People into one Household Government or little Commonwealth, wherein Everyone may keep his own Property and be employed in some Work or other, as he shall see fit, without being oppressed."

He proposed to assemble in a common lot and housing four sorts of people: husbandmen, handicraftsmen, mariners, and masters of arts and sciences, who were to be industrial, yet cultivated and of good character, that is, "only rational and impartial persons." "All intractable persons, such as those in communion with the Roman see, usurious Jews, English stiff-necked Quakers; Puritans; fool-hardy believers in the Millennium; and obstinate modern pretenders to revelation," were to be excluded. Those not of the elect or limited number could join the community as servants or assistants. Two houses were deemed necessary, one for the living occupants and one for a warehouse, factory, and shops. Rents were to be cheap and there was to be no overcharging. In the living-house, the sexes were to sit on opposite aides of the table, and dwell in mutual courtesy, using no titles. They were to acknowledge none but Christ as head and master. A president was to be elected annually to be the executive, but he was to have no salary or remuneration. In the large hall at the religious and devotional exercises, which included singing and Bible-reading, each was to take turns in speaking, and each was to make his discourses short. Then the business of the court began. No clergyman or capitalist was allowed. One hundred families were to be associated, so that, for example, instead of the work of one hundred women toiling as in separate families, only twenty-five could do the housework, while seventy-five were set free for other productive labors. In like manner, instead of 100 fires, four or five furnaces could heat the whole habitation. Each was to work six hours a day for the benefit of the colony, the rest of the time could be devoted to private interests. The profits were to be divided equally among all over twenty years and to others in proportion.

After the fall of the Netherlands West India Company the city of Amsterdam financed Plockhoy's project after a contract of 117 articles had been made, giving 100 guilders to each colonist twenty four years old and free from debt. Colonists were to be ready by Sept. 15, 1662. The settlement was made on Hoorn Kill on the Delaware River, near Swannendaal (New Castle). It seems to have flourished until 1664, at the conquest of New Netherland by the English. Then Sir Robert Carr seized and plundered the Delaware settlements, sold the Dutch soldiers as slaves in Virginia, stripped the colonists bare, and took "what belonged to the Quaking Society of Plockhoy, to a very naile." It is not known what became of his colonists, but ten years later Plockhoy, now blind and his wife leading him, came into Germantown, Pa., where the couple were given a house during the ten years of his remaining life. Some of Plockhoy's ideas, once novel, are now commonplace. His pamphlet in Dutch, Kort ere klaer ontwerp . . . door een Volckplanting . . . aan de Zuytrevier in Nieuw Nederland (16 pages, Amsterdam, 1662), is described and discussed by E. B. O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland; or, New York under the Dutch, ii. 461–469, New York, 1848; J. R. Brodhead, Hist. of the State of New York, i. 697–699, ib. 1853; G. M. Asher, Bibliographical and Historical Essay on the Dutch Books and Pamphlets Relating to New Netherlands, pp. 205–208, 2 parts, Amsterdam, 1854–67; W. E. Griffis, The Story of New Netherland, pp. 131, 138, Boston, 1909.

W. E. Griffis.

PLOTINUS. See Neoplatonism, II.

PLUMER, WILLIAM SWAIN: Presbyterian; b. at Greersburg (now Darlington), Beaver Co., Pa., July 26, 1802; d. at Baltimore, Md., Oct. 22, 1880. He was educated at Washington College, Lexington, Va., where he graduated in 1825; and at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1826; and was ordained in 1827.

After working in various fields he was pastor at Petersburg. Va. (1831–34), Richmond (1835–46), Baltimore (1847–54), and at Allegheny, Pa. (1855–1862), where he served at the same time as professor of didactic and pastoral theology in the Western Theological Seminary. He supplied the pulpit of Arch Street Church, Philadelphia (1862–65); was pastor at Pottsville, Pa. (1865–66); and professor in the theological seminary at Columbia, S. C. (1867–80). He possessed a singular impressiveness in the pulpit and a gift for teaching. His writings are practical and didactic and of an ultra-Calvinistic cast. He founded The Watchman of the South in 1837 and was sole editor, 1837–45. Some of his works are The Bible True and Infidelity Wicked (New York, 1848); The Saint and the Sinner (Philadelphia, 1851); The Grace of Christ (1853); The Law of God as Contained in the Ten Commandments (1864); Sermons for the People (1871); and Commentaries on Romans (1870), and on Hebrews (1872).

PLUMMER, ALFRED: Church of England; b. at Heworth (near Gateshead, opposite Newcastle-on-Tyne), Durhamshire, Feb. 17, 1841. He was educated at Exeter College, Oxford (B.A., 1863; M.A., 1866), and was ordered deacon in 1866, but has never been ordained to the priesthood. He was fellow of Trinity College (1865–75), and was tutor and dean of the same college (1867–74); he was master of University College, Durham (1874–1902), where he was junior proctor of the University of Durham (1875–77), senior proctor (1877–93), and subwarden (1896–1902). He was one of the last pupils of J. J. I. von Döllinger, and translated that theologian's Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages (London, 1871); Prophecies and the Prophetic Spirit in the Christian Era (1873); and Hippolytus and Callistus: or, The Church of Rome in the first Half of the third Century (Edinburgh, 1876). He has prepared Peter and Jude for The New Testament Commentary for English Readers (London, 1879); the Johannine Gospel and Epistles for The Cambridge Bible for Schools (Cambridge, 2 vols., 1880, 1882) and for The Cambridge Greek Testament (2 vols., 1882, 1886), and II Corinthians for the same series (2 vols., 1903); The Pastoral Epistles, James, and Jude for The Expositor's Bible (2 vols., London, 1888, 1890); Luke for The International Commentary (Edinburgh, 1896); and an independent commentary on Matthew (1909). He has also written the historical introduction to Joshua, Nehemiah, and the Johannine Epistles in The Pulpit Commentary (2 vols., London, 1881, 1889), and is the author of The Church of the Early Fathers (London, 1887); English Church History from the Death of Henry VII. to the Death of William III. (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1904–07); and The Church of England in the Eighteenth Century (1910).

PLUMPTRE, EDWARD HAYES: Church of England; b. at London Aug. 6, 1821; d. at Wells Feb. 1, 1891. He was scholar of University College, Oxford (B.A., 1844; M.A., 1847); and fellow of Brasenose College (1844–47); assistant preacher at Lincoln's Inn (1851–58); select preacher at Oxford (1851–53, 1864–66, 1872–73); chaplain of King's College, London (1847–68); professor of pastoral theology there (1853–63); dean of Queen's College, London (1855–75); prebendary of Portpool, in St. Paul's Cathedral (1863–81); professor of exegesis in King's College, London (1863–81); examining chaplain to the bishop of Gloucester and Bristol (1865–67); Boyle lecturer (1866–67); rector for of Pluckley, Kent (1869–73); Grinfield lecturer on the Septuagint at Oxford (1872–74); examiner in school of theology at Oxford (1872–73); vicar of Bickley, Kent (1873–81); principal of Queen's College, London (1875–77); and examining chaplain to the late archbishop of Canterbury (1879–82). On Dec. 21, 1881, he was installed dean of Wells. He was a member of the Old-Testament company of revisers, 1870–74, and is known also as a hymnist. For The Bible ("Speaker's") Commentary he wrote the comments on The Book of Proverbs (1873); for C. J. Ellicott's New-Testament Commentary for English Readers, those on the first three Gospels, the Acts, and II Corinthians (1877); for the Old-Testament Commentary by the same general editor, those on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations (1882–84); for The Cambridge Bible, those on Ecclesiastes, James, Peter, and Jude; and for Philip Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament, those on I Timothy and II Timothy (1883). He edited The Bible Educator (4 vols., London and New York, 1874). He likewise published The Calling of a Medical Student, four sermons (1849); The Study of Theology and the Ministry of Souls (1853); King's College Sermons (1859); Sophocles (a translation; 1865); Æschylus (a translation; 1868); St. Paul in Asia Minor and the Syrian Antioch (1877); The Epistles to the Seven Churches (1877); Biblical Studies (1870; 4th ed., 1884); Introduction to the New Testament (1883); Things New and Old (1884); Theology and Life, sermons (1866); Spirits in Prison, and other Studies on Life after Death (1884) ; Life and Letters of Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells (2 vols., 1888); Lazarus and Other Poems (1864); Master and Scholar (poems; 1866); Christ and Christendom (Boyle Lectures; 1867; new ed., 1899); The Commedia and Canzoniere of Dante Alighieri (new translation, with notes, life, and portraits, 2 vols., 1887); and Wells Cathedral and its Deans (1888). The two hymns by him which are most widely known are "Rejoice, ye pure in heart," and "Thine arm, O Lord, in days of old."

Bibliography: Julian, Hymnology, p. 897; S. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 208–209, New York, 1886; DNB, xlv. 437–438.

PLUNKET, WILLIAM CONYNGHAM: Church of Ireland archbishop; b. at Dublin, Ireland, Aug. 26, 1828; d. there Apr. 1, 1897. Graduated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1853; M.A., 1864); was ordained deacon (1857), and priest (1858); was rector of Kilmoylan and Cummer, Tuam (1858–64); chaplain and private secretary to the bishop of Tuam, and treasurer of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin (1864–67); precentor of St. Patrick's (1869–1877); consecrated lord bishop of Meath (1876); and translated to the joint archbishopric of Dublin, Glendalough, and Kildare, in 1884. He was a leader of the Evangelical party in the Irish Church strenuously opposed its disestablishment prior to 1868; fostered a sympathy for struggling Protestant communities, and took an active part in the Protestant movements in Spain and Italy; reorganized what is now the Church of Ireland Training College (Kildare Place); and for his activity in educational matters was nominated in 1895 a member of the board of national education. In 1871 he succeeded his father in the peerage.

Bibliography: F. D. How, William Conyngham Plunket, . . . , a Memoir, London, 1900; DNB, Supplement, iii. 275–277.

PLURALITIES: A term in canon law for the holding, by a clergyman, of two or more livings at the same time. The canon law forbids it; but Roman Catholic bishops granted dispensations to commit the offense until by the general council of 1273 the right was taken from them. The popes still exercise this right. In England the power to grant dispensations to hold two benefices with the care of souls is vested in the monarch and in the archbishop of Canterbury. The benefices thus held must not be farther apart than three miles, and the annual value of one of them must be under a hundred pounds.

PLUTARCH OF ATHENS. See Neoplatonism, III., § 3.

PLUVIAL. See Vestments and Insignia, Ecclesiastical.

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN

I. History.

1. Foundation; Record till 1845.

The Plymouth Brethren, called by others Darbyites or Exclusive Brethren, and by themselves "Brethren," are to be distinguished from Bible Christians and Disciples of Christ (qq.v.). They took their origin in Ireland about 1828 after a movement under the leadership of John Walker which was a revolt against ministerial ordination, and in England the origin is connected with the interest in prophecy stimulated by Edward Irving (q.v.). Conferences like those under the Irving movement were held from 1828 at Powerscourt Mansion, County Wicklow, Ireland, at which John Nelson Darby (q.v.) was a prominent figure. Prior to this, from 1826 private meetings had been held on Sundays under the leadership of Edward Cronin, who had been a Roman Catholic and later a Congregationalist, for "breaking bread," at which Anthony Norris Groves, John Vesey Parnell (second Lord Congleton), and John Gifford Bellett, a friend of Darby, were attendants. In 1827 John Darby resigned his charge and in 1828 adopted the non-conformist attitude of the men named above, prompted by the Erastianism of a petition of Archbishop Magee to the House of Commons, and issued a paper on The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ (in vol. i. of his Collected Writings, London, 1867). This served to swell the ranks of the Brethren, so that in 1830 a public "assembly" was started in Aungier Street, Dublin, which emphasized "the coming of the Lord as the present hope of the Church and the presence of the Holy Ghost as that which brought into unity" and "the heavenly character of the Church," and used as the golden text Matt. xviii. 20. Through Francis William Newman (q.v.), Darby had become acquainted with Benjamin Wills Newton (a lay fellow of Exeter College) and George Vicesimus Wigram at Oxford. He also visited Plymouth (whence the name for the Brethren), where Robert Hawker had been active in Evangelical ministry, and held meetings there, the outcome of which was the first English gathering of the Brethren (1831). The basis of communion was the acceptance of "all that are on the foundation" and rejection of "all error by the Word of God and the help of his ever present Spirit," recognizing that "degeneracy claimed service, and not departure." Before the appearance of Darby's Liberty of Preaching and Teaching (1834), the Brethren had taken their stand upon a free ministry, while other weighty papers by Darby and Newton appeared in the new magazine, The Christian Witness, edited by J. L. Harris. Recruits of note were Henry Craik and Georg (Friedrich) Müller (q.v.), coming from the Baptist denomination. The latter had been in the service of the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews, but became convinced that assemblies should consist only of the converted and joined the Brethren, beginning pastoral work at Bristol in 1832 on the lines of their policy, and developing the other activities for which he became famous. Other noted converts to the denomination were Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (q.v.) and Robert Chapman. Darby continued his work in London, then went to the continent, where in French Switzerland he promoted the movement by personal and literary activities, opposing a regular ministry as ignoring the privilege of every believer to direct access to God. While there he became aware of a tendency toward isolation manifesting itself in Newton, shown in his revival of restricted ministry together with doctrinal divergencies, e.g., Newton's adherence to the Reformation teaching of justification, inclusion of the Old-Testament saints in the apocalyptic Church, and belief that the second advent would not precede the "great tribulation," to which the Church would be subject. Failing to secure satisfaction from Newton and his adherents, in 1845 Darby started a separate assembly.

2. The Newton Episode.

Newton remained at Plymouth for two years. The dispute so far had concerned the special "testimony" of Brethren as such. According to notes of a lecture by Newton acquired by Harris in 1847, Newton's position as to our Lord's person was unsound: Christ by his incarnation and as a descendant of Adam entered upon a relation of distance from God, and as an Israelite incurred from birth the condemnation attaching to the broken law. Tregelles shows that the personal Sinlessness was maintained through the seal at Christ's baptism, although lifelong suffering was entailed by his relationship. Newton withdrew the first part of his statement, but did not satisfy Darby, and a definite alienation separated the two men. Newton severed his connection with the Brethren, but continued till his death (1898) to write on prophetical subjects. Tregelles is reported by Scrivener to have died in the communion of the Church of England. In 1848 the Bristol company did not refuse fellowship to the adherents of Newton, and one of their number, George Alexander, seceded on the ground that "blasphemers were sheltered," taking occasion for this action in a paper intended to apply to the special circumstances but construed as a statement of a general policy. After debate and several assemblies, it was decided that no one upholding Newton's views should be received into communion, and several to whom this applied withdrew, though it appeared that they were afterward readmitted. Darby insisted upon the fundamental of "separation from evil" as "God's principle of unity"; the result was a breach between him and the Bristol company, his followers insisting upon his statement as the watchword, while the opponents' formula was "the blood of the Lamb is the union of saints." Wigram charged Craik with statements concerning Christ's physical ailments which savored of Newtonianism; but Darby sent a farewell message to Craik on his deathbed (1866), which did not, however, heal the breach. A new magazine,The Present Testimony, edited by Wigram, became the organ of the exclusives, followed in 1856 by the monthly Bible Treasury, for which William Kelly (q.v.) was responsible, and to this also Darby contributed papers on the sufferings of Christ, in which he argued that Christ endured certain non-atoning sufferings, in addition to those borne vicariously in death, due to his voluntary position in Israel (John xi. 51), in fulfilment of prediction of his participation in the sorrows of the godly remnant in the last days. This had no affiliation with the Newtonian doctrine, which affected the whole life of Christ; but some of his followers, unable to distinguish between Darby's position and Newton's, withdrew from fellowship with him. Darby offered to abstain from ministry, but was counseled not to do so by his prominent supporters. Meanwhile he had worked on German soil, where he had met Tholuck, and had visited the United States, Canada, and other British colonies lecturing and writing.

3. Defection of Cronin and Kelly.

In 1879 a gathering at Ryde, Isle of Wight, failed to deal with depravity in the midst, and Darby's old Dublin associate Cronin, desiring to end the scandal, founded a new "assembly" in the place. Darby regarded this as a breach of unity, and called upon Cronin's home congregation at Kensington, London, to discipline the offender, and to "judge" his "indiscretion." Cronin was defended by use of Darby's avowal that the old assembly was "rotten" and that for thirty years he himself had avoided it. A crusade was nevertheless directed against Cronin by the leaders at Park Street, Islington, and additional matters connected with baptism entered into the controversy. Finally, although Darby had asked only for a stern rebuke, Cronin's stubbornness widened the breach and he was excommunicated.

About the same time there was disruption at Ramsgate, Kent, one of the rival parties at which supported Cronin while the other strongly condemned him, the assemblies at Blackheath, where Kelly resided, and at Islington also taking opposite sides. The result was a split in 1881 at Park Street like that which had occurred in the Bethesda affair. Each side charged the other with "independency," and Darby described the situation as a struggle between intelligence and the Spirit, by "intelligence" referring to Kelly's endeavor to give intellectual expression to the policy hitherto pursued and thereby to maintain the "unity of London." The man who had so long led meditated withdrawing altogether from the Brethren, feeling that the encroachments of the world had marred "the testimony"; but his faith reasserted itself. Darby's survival of this poignant situation can be counted only by months, as he died the next year. He was little disposed to learn from others, and claimed to have "the mind of the Spirit." He united Roman Catholic with Evangelical ideas, though his own apprehension of Scripture dominated his mind. He regarded himself as the beginning of the Plymouth Brethren, which was true at least so far as the English branch was concerned. Where he was iconoclastic, it was not, as he expressed it, "with an Edomitic attack but with Jeremianic sorrow."

Further Divisions.

The year 1885 was notable for concurrent divisions among Darby's last associates on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States Frederick William Grant, of Plainfield, N. J., alienated rivals in the Islington party by his candidly independent attitude toward some of their cherished doctrines. He was an ex-clergyman of Canadian origin, a man of much erudition, and highly esteemed in his section. He held that the saints of the old dispensation possessed eternal life, and agreed with the interpretation of Rom. vii. which holds that the apostle there describes the moral condition of believers even after receiving the seal of the Spirit. The English leaders detached their adherents from fellowship with him. At Reading, England, Clarence Esme Stuart, an accomplished Biblical scholar who had sided with Darby in 1881, came into collision with James Butler Stoney, an unbalanced teacher who was no longer held by the restraint imposed by Darby's presence. Stuart's primal offense was that at Reading he had not adopted the hymn-book last revised by Darby; second, that he unduly distinguished between the standing and state (or condition) of believers, holding that the Pauline expression "in Christ" sets forth condition alone, and that in this are to be sought such distinctions as obtain fundamentally between believers of the different dispensations. With these doctrinal issues was combined a social breach between him and a local female ally of the Stoney school. Upon this last matter the Reading assembly refused to give judgment, though with some dissent against the order of procedure, supported by the Stoney faction dominant in London, which separated from Reading and carried many assemblies with them. Those in Great Britain who disowned the interference of the London adherents continued to recognize the Grant contingent in America. Stuart gave color to the new departure by shortly afterward emphasizing his view of atonement, according to which Christ, as high priest only after death, made propitiation by blood not on the cross but in heaven, in the interval between death and resurrection. This view was not unknown in theology (e.g., Professor George Smeaton), but was regarded by Stuart's critics as a novel inference from Darby's teaching. The year 1890 witnessed a further division among the "exclusives" of the party formed in 1885. Frederick Edward Raven of Greenwich became prominent through teaching doctrines which were reprobated by the old Darbyites. He questioned the claim of believers in general to have had eternal life imparted to them, in doing so seeming, as an Apollinarian, to impair the glory of Christ's person. He held also that Scripture is not as such the word of God but the record of it, to which resort is to be had for confirmation of oral ministry. Reconciliation he regarded, with Calvin, as a continuous process which believers undergo. In the division which ensued a majority of Stoney's associates and a small band in the United States stood with Raven, but the continent of Europe was lost to them. From 1881 to his death in 1906 Kelly continued to be revered as a sound teacher of the first order, possessed of great capacity as a leader and controversialist. He was unremitting in his ministry and in writing, defending the truth as he conceived it against all innovation, in particular against the higher criticism. With him passed away the last survivor of the golden age of the Brethren.

5. Present Status.

This community has, then, resolved itself into the following sectional fellowships. (1) Brethren fully recognizing the existing congregation at Bethesda (Bristol) and regarding, with Westcott, the primitive unity of the Church as that of a federation; adhering to Baptist views; open in communion; and existing in Great Britain and the colonies, Europe, North and South America, India, and China. It has the largest following. (2) Those who followed Darby more or less closely, in five branches. (a) Brethren chiefly in France, Switzerland, and Germany, with a remnant in England and the United States, committed to Darby's ecclesiastical position as defined since 1881. (b) Associates of Kelly, adhering to Darby's doctrinal views, with the exception of pedobaptism, and to the system prevalent in 1848–81; mainly in England. (c) Associates of Stuart and Grant, loath to abandon anti-Bethesda discipline, but standing for elasticity in doctrine. (d) Associates of Raven, opposed to Bethesda, favoring expansion of doctrine of their own type, but including some independent of this; in Great Britain, the colonies, and the United States. These have since 1908 composed two sections, separated from one another by disciplinary policy and views of evangelization and redemption. On the other hand, there has been for several years a movement, originating in America, for abatement of the alienation between the various types of bodies. Some adherents of Grant have lowered the barriers between themselves and "open" Brethren, while not giving themselves this name; and since 1906 a corresponding movement has gathered force in Great Britain. These "eclectics" repudiate the distinction between "open" and "close," and seek, by a blending of the Pauline and Johannine aspects of the Church, to revive the unity first realized at Dublin untrammeled by formal federation of either open or close types, which is favored by neither element. A hopeful feature of the situation is the absence of a pronounced leadership. No denominational statistics exist for Great Britain. In the United States there are over 300 assemblies with about 7,000 communicants. The denomination has drawn its membership from all ranks of society—the nobility, the army and navy, the judiciary, and scholars in various spheres. It has had notable Evangelists like Charles Stanley and Denham Smith; missionaries like Baedeker and Arnot have propagated its teachings in the world field; while C. H. Mackintosh is the writer whose works are most widely used.

II. Doctrines.

A full epitome of the doctrine developed among the Brethren could be obtained only from the writings of Darby, who was the chief teacher. So large was his authority in his denomination that for most Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were mere ciphers. On the Godhead and the person of Christ the teaching is that common to Catholic Christianity. On human nature it is held that Adam was first sinless, not virtuous or holy; the fall spelled unqualified ruin. The atonement has two sides: Godward it is propitiation; manward, substitution; the purchase of all, the redemption of the believer, and Christ's death under wrath. Predestination is held as the election of individuals, the assured acceptance of believers, together with denial of free will and reprobation. Justification implies the righteousness of God (not of Christ specifically) displayed in the resurrection of the Savior, with dissociation of his life from the process. Sanctification is positive and practical; in the latter aspect it involves self-judgment and confession to God, insuring a sense of forgiveness through Christ's priesthood, which preserves from sin, as his advocacy restores. Cleansing by his blood is once for all, cleansing by the Word continues. Not the law, but the Second Man's risen life is the believer's rule. The Church was primitively one visible, closely organized community. The "assembly," in view of grace, is the body of Christ; in view of government is the house of God; one is the product of the Spirit, the other is the product of man, marked by failure and ruin. National churches are too broad, non-conformity is too narrow. Darby denies what has been suggested by critics—that the "gathering" is held to be coextensive with "the Church of God on earth"; he also repudiates the further assertion that for eighteen centuries there has been no church. The ordinances are (1) baptism, which is required for fellowship. Among the exclusives mutual toleration is practised by baptists and pedobaptists. Darby's view was based on the recognition of privileged position (outward as distinct from inward, essential baptism). Other pedobaptists practise household baptism. (2) The Lord's Supper is observed weekly in the forenoon, at which leavened bread and fermented wine are taken by the members seated. The institution is commemorative only. Participation in this is jealously guarded; in theory it is the privilege of all believers, but in practise the theory is overborne by the notion of full fellowship. The special means of grace are the Holy Scriptures according to the canon of the Reformers. The book is infallible; consequently the idea is condemned that the Church and the Bible stand or fall together. The higher criticism is not recognized; development is disowned, and the truth is recovered by reversion to St. Paul (not, as the Quakers hold, to the "historical Christ"). Since Darby's dying recommendation not to neglect the Johannine doctrine, the center of gravity is increasingly sought in that. The Bible version favored is Darby's own (in English, French, and German); he rejected the Revised Version with the words, "They have not had the mind of God at all." In the matter of the ministry Darby did not begin by questioning the validity of Anglican orders. His conception of the office was service in the Word, the faithful exercise of a special gift, for which the individual is responsible to the Lord alone. A distinction is made between "gift" and "office"; the latter came through apostolic appointment and is no longer available. The "assembly," while not being the source of the ministry, since it is the taught and not the teacher, may or may not accredit the ministry as profitable. Anything beyond the moral influence of the Spirit is regarded as delusion. In theory, all godly men are possibly competent, whether in formal fellowship or not; but in practise such fellowship is presupposed, and the flock is discouraged from "wandering." The public ministry of women is disallowed. Worship is conducted, as among the Quakers, by "waiting on the Lord," and conventional collections of hymns are used in praise and prayer. The Lord's Prayer is discarded, as symbolic of the position and desires of the inchoate Church and typical of the Jewish remnant. The local assembly acts through non-official organs, men of moral weight whose personal influence is encouraged as commanding confidence. As discipline excommunication is practised for grave delinquency and for lapse into fundamental error in doctrine. With the exclusives I Cor. v. 6; II Tim. ii. 19 sqq.; and II John 10 have furnished the rule of action. While this has been the object of criticism, in practise its influence has been salutary, restraining tendencies to antinomianism. For eschatology, it is held that believers at death go not to Hades but to a heavenly paradise with Christ. Within the present dispensation Christ will at an initial coming gather all his people to his tribunal for reward according to conduct, and will subsequently visit the earth in an appearance for judgment of living nations (Newton denied the distinction between the two and the interval). The second beast of Rev. xiii. is regarded as the Antichrist. No Christian will pass through the great tribulation (Newton expected that Christ will be revealed before the parousia), while the Church with Christ will reign over the earth for a millennium, with Israel, the earthly bride, as administrative assessor. The final judgment is of the wicked dead, with endless punishment of such. So much of the foregoing as Brethren deem part of their special testimony they describe as "recovered truth." The germinant idea is that of the Church's ruin. In their principal points of doctrine they have been anticipated by other bodies or by individual thinkers; but they believe that men such as Darby have presented these with more light and power.

E. E. Whitfield.

Bibliography: For the authoritative literature of the denomination use the writings named in the articles on J. N. Darby, W. Kelly, G. Mueller, and B. W. Newton as their productions, together with the works cited in the bibliographies there appended. A considerable literature, mainly controversial and antagonistic to the Plymouth Brethren, is given in the British Museum Catalogue under "Plymouth Brethren." Consult further: W. B. Nearby, Hist. of the Plymouth Brethren, London 1902 (critical and accurate); J. J. H[erzog], in Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, xxxiv (1844), nos. 23–26, 28–33; S. P. Tregelles, Three Letters to the Author of "A Retrospect of Events . . . among the Brethren," London 1849; Memoir and Correspondence of A. N. Groves, by his wife, London, 1855; F. Estéoul, Le Plymouthisme d’autrefois et Ie Darbyisme d’aujourdhui, Paris, 1858: H. Groves, Darbyism: its Rise and Development, London, 1866; E. Dennett, The Plymouth Brethren, London, 1871;· J. Grant, The Plymouth Brethren, their History and Heresies, London, 1875; E. J. Whately, Plymouth Brethrenism, London, 1877; T. Croskery, Plymouth-Brethrenism: a Refutation of its Principles and Doctrines, London, 1879; J. C. L. Carson, The Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren, London, 1883; W. Raid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted, Edinburgh, 1883; J. S. Teulon, The Hist. and Teaching of the Plymouth Brethren, London [1883]; Life among the Close Brethren, London, 1890; J. R. Gregory, The Gospel of Separation, London, 1894; A. Miller, Plymouthism and the Modern Churches, Toronto, 1900.

PNEUMATOMACHI. See Macedonius and the Macedonian Sect.

POACH, ANDREAS. See Antinomianism, II, 1, § 5.

PNEUMATICS: The highest of three classes of natures (pneumatic, psychic, and hylic) assumed as human by Gnostics. The superiority of the pneumatics is regarded as resting upon the ground that to them had been communicated the higher truths of the world of eons because they alone were capable of understanding such truths. Those possessing the pneumatic nature were known also as "the elect," and were regarded as not under the dominion of the archon or world-ruler and also not subject to the restraints of the demiurge. They therefore live on as strangers in the world, perceiving as from afar the reality of the things of a higher world. Their innermost characteristic is their essential relationship with God, resulting in a life of undivided unity, exalted above the antithesis of rest and motion. Their blessedness is described as due to a union between the sōtēr (savior) and wisdom (sophia). They are to be found not only in the Christian Church, but are scattered in the pagan world, the evidence of this being found in the agreement of much of pagan doctrine with Christian truth. In the Christian Church, they are its salt and its soul, the real propagators of Christianity.

The name has at various times in the history of the Christian Church been adopted because of its signification ("the spirituals") by parties or sects, as by the followers of a French Anabaptist named Ambrose (fl. c. 1559), who professed to have received revelations which transcended in value those of the Bible.

Bibliography: Besides the literature under Gnostics, consult Neander, Christian Church, vol. i. passim.

POBIEDONOSTSEV, pō´´bi-e´´do-nes´tzeff, KONSTANTIN PETROVICH: Greek Orthodox; b. at Moscow 1827; d. at St. Petersburg Mar. (10) 23, 1907. After completing his studies at the Imperial Law School at St. Petersburg, he was successively secretary and chief secretary of the Senate of Moscow, later becoming professor of civil law at the university of the same city. In 1860 he was appointed tutor to the princes of the blood royal, including the future Emperor Alexander III., and in 1863 accompanied another of the princes in his travels through Russia. Pobiedonostsev was created a senator in 1868 and in 1872 became a member of the cabinet. His chief activity, however, began in 1880, when he was made chief procurator of the Holy Synod, a position which he retained until his retirement from active life in 1905. In this high office, his devotion to the principles of autocratic government and his firm adherence to the welfare of the Greek Orthodox Church exposed him to the enmity of the revolutionary factions and the attacks of rationalists and Protestants of all shades. Nevertheless his course was unswerving and consistent throughout--personally fearless and deeply impressed with the righteousness of his cause, he acted with a severity which could not fail to bring upon him the hatred of those whom his measures affected. Besides a Russian translation of the Imitatio Christi (St. Petersburg, 1869), he wrote "Letters on the Travels of the Imperial Heir Apparent in Russia" (in collaboration with I. K. Bast; Moscow, 1864); "Course of Civil Law" (3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1868–91); and "Historical Investigations on the State " (1876). His Reflexions of a Russian Statesman have been translated into English by R. C. Long (London, 1898).

POCOCK (POCOCKE), EDWARD: Orientalist; b. at Oxford Nov. 8, 1604; d. there Sept. 10, 1691. He was educated at Oxford (B.A., 1622; M.A., 1626; B.D., 1636); elected fellow of Corpus Christi College, 1628; became chaplain to the English factory at Aleppo, 1630–36 (during which time he made a collection of Greek and oriental manuscripts and coins on commission of Archbishop Laud); professor of Arabic at Oxford, 1636–40; was in Constantinople to seek for manuscripts, 1637–40; rector of Childrey, Berkshire, 1642–47; professor of Hebrew and canon of Christ Church, 1647–48; lost the canonry and the two lectureships in 1650; though in the same year the lectureships were restored to him, and in 1660 the canonry; and in spite of opposition from Roundheads, and the indifference of Cavaliers, he retained these positions till his death. He was one of the foremost orientalists in his day. His works are numerous and valuable. His Theological Works were published with a Life by the editor, Leonard Twells (2 vols., London, 1740). They embrace Porta Mosis (a Latin translation of Maimonides' six discourses prefatory to his commentary upon the Mishna, 1655), Commentaries on Hosea (1685), Joel (1691), Micah and Malachi (1677), and a Latin treatise upon ancient weights and measures. The commentaries formed part of Fall's projected commentary upon the entire Old Testament. They are heavy and prolix, but learned. Pocock took a prominent part in Walton's Polyglot, furnished the collations of the Arabic Pentateuch, and was consulted by Walton at every step (see Bibles, Polyglot, IV.). He translated Grotius' De veritate Christianæ religionis (1660) and the Church of England Liturgy and Catechism into Arabic (1674). His chief work was his edition of Gregorii Abul Farajii historia dynastiarum, Arabic text with Latin translation (2 vols., Oxford, 1663).

Bibliography: Besides the Life in the Theological Works, ut sup., reprinted in The Lives of Dr. Edward Pocock, . . . Dr. Zachary Pearce, etc., ed. L. Twells, 2 vols., London, 1816, consult: The Remains of John Locke, viz., 1. Memoirs of the Life of Dr. E. Pococke, London, 1714; DNB, xlvi. 7–12.

PODEBRAD (PODIEBRAD) AND KUNSTATT, GEORGE OF: King of Bohemia (1458–71); b. at Podebrad (30 m. e. of Prague) Apr. 23, 1420; d. at Prague Mar. 22, 1471. From 1444 he had been the leader of the utraquist party (see Huss, John, Hussites, II, §§ 3, 7). On the death of Ladislas he was elected king of Bohemia by the diet, and his reign marks the decisive period in the religious history of Bohemia. The Hussites had been in a manner reconciled to the Church by the compacts made with the Council of Basel (1433; see Huss, John; Hussites, II, § 6). The papacy neither accepted nor disavowed the compacts, and hoped to bring back Bohemia to Roman Catholicism. Podebrad wished to unite Bohemia and organize it into a great power; but this was impossible so long as it was rent by religious discord and, through want of papal recognition, was isolated from European politics. He accordingly tried to accomplish his purpose by skilful diplomacy with the popes, Calixtus III. and Pius II. At last Pius II. was alarmed at his increasing influence in Germany, and in 1462 disclaimed the compacts, and demanded Podebrad's unconditional obedience. At first Podebrad temporized, and, when he proposed to the various courts of Europe the summoning of a parliament of temporal princes, Pius II. excommunicated him in 1496. His successor, Paul IL, authorized the formation of a league of discontented nobles, and called Mathias Corvinus, king of Hungary, to the aid of the Church; but Podebrad was not conquered, and, after his death, the Bohemian crown was given by the diet to Ladislas II.

Bibliography: Creighton, Papacy, vol. iii. passim; Pastor, Popes, iv. 134–146; M. Jordan, Das Königthum Georgs von Podiebrad, Leipsic, 1861; F. Palacky, Geschichte von Böhmen, vol. iv., Prague, 1857; idem, Urkundliche Beiträge im Zeitalter Georgs von Podiebrad, Vienna, 1860; E. H. Gillett, Life and Times of John Huss, ii. 550–551, 562–563, New York, 1870; E. J. Whately, The Gospel in Bohemia, London, 1877; H. Ermiseh, Geschichte der sächsisch-böhmischen Beziehungen 1464–71, Dresden, 1881; F. Luetzow, Bohemia, London, 1896; C. E. Maurice, Bohemia, London and New York, 1896; Monumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemias illustrantia, Prague, 1903: H. Apianus, Geschichte Böhmens, Leipsic, 1905; E. Schwitzky, Der europäische Fürstenbund Georgs von Podiebrad, Marburg, 1907; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. viii. passim; and the literature under Pius II.

POEMS, ANONYMOUS, IN THE EARLY CHURCH: A small group of compositions of unknown authorship and of relatively small poetic excellence, though not without interest for the history of literature, dogma, and culture.

1. Carmen adversus Marcionem: A refutation of Marcionistic dualism in five books, containing 1,302 clumsy hexameters. The first book attacks heresy in general and Marcionism in particular the second shows the harmony of the Old and the New Testament; the third demonstrates the unity of Church doctrine with the teaching of the Old Testament, of Christ, and of the apostles; the fourth refutes Marcionistic tenets one by one; and the fifth considers the antitheses. The place, date, and authorship of the poem are too problematical to admit of even plausible solution, though the implication of the anonymous De duodecim scriptoribus ecclesiasticis that the poet was a certain Bishop Victorious (most likely Victorious of Pettau [q.v.]) deserves serious consideration.

2–3. Carmine de Sodoma; Carmen de Jona: Two poems of 166 and 105 hexameters respectively, ascribed by a number of manuscripts to Tertullian or Cyprian. Their use of the Itala shows that they can scarcely have been written later than 400. They may be fragments of some longer poem, and are characterized by a considerable degree of artistic merit.

4. Carmen de Genesi: A fragmentary composition in hexameters, often printed in the works of Tertullian and Cyprian, and representing the first part of a poetic version of the Heptateuch contained in a few manuscripts. It has been suggested that the poem was written by a Cyprian who lived in Gaul early in the fifth century, though others have distinguished two authors in the fragment.

5. Carmen de Judicio Domini, or Ad Flavium Felicem de resurrectione mortuorum: A poem variously ascribed to Tertullian and Cyprian, though showing close affinities to Commodian and the Carmen adversus Marcionem. On the basis of Isidore of Seville (De vir. ill., vii.), it may not improbably be ascribed to Verecundus of Junca in Byzacene (d. about 552), despite certain differences in style.

6. Carmen ad Senatorem ex Christiana Religione ad Idola Conversum: A poem of eighty-five hexameters ascribed by the manuscripts to Cyprian, expressing the hope that a renegade senator, possibly Flavianus, prefect of the city of Rome (late fourth century), might ultimately return to Christianity.

7. Carmen de Pascha: An allegorical composition of sixty-nine hexameters, also called De cruce and De ligno vitæ. It gives the history of Christianity from the crucifixion to the sending of the Holy Ghost, and though assigned both to Cyprian and to Victorinus Afer, probably dates from the fifth century.

8. Carmen de Passione Domini: A poem of eighty hexameters printed with the works of Lactantius, but probably written between 1495 and 1500, perhaps by its anonymous first editor (Venice, 1501).

9. Carmen de Laudibus Domini: A panegyric in 148 hexameters, composed in Gaul, probably between 316 and 323, by a contemporary of Juvencus, perhaps resident in Flavia Ædua (the modern Autun).

10. Carmen adversus Flavianum: A poem of 122 hexameters, polemizing against the advocates of paganism, especially Clavianus, prefect of Rome. Since the latter fell in the rebellion against Theodosius I., the poem was written in or shortly after 394.

11. Carmen de Fratribus Septem Macchabæis Interfectis ab Antiocho Epiphane: A poetic version of II Macc. vii. in two recensions, one of 394 hexameters, and the other of 389. It has been ascribed, though without sufficient reason, both to Hilary of Arles and to Victorinus Afer.

12. Carmen de Jesu Christo et de Homine: A poem of 137 hexameters on the redemptive work of Christ, conjecturally assigned to Victorinus of Pettau or to some later Christian grammarian.

13–14. Carmen de Lege Domini and Carmen de Nativitate, Vita, Passions et Resurrections Domini: Two poems, one of 106 and the other of 216 hexameters, ascribed to a certain Victorinus. They treat of the Old and New Testaments respectively, and are a cento from the Carmen adversus Marcionem

15. Carmen de Providentia Divina: A long poem seeking to refute skepticism regarding the divine governance of the world. It was composed in southern Gaul about 415, but though in phrase and versification it resembles the work of Prosper of Aquitaine (q.v.), to whom the manuscripts ascribe it, its tendency toward semi-Pelagianism makes such an identification impossible.

16–17. Metrum in Genesin and De Evangelio: Two poems ascribed by the manuscripts to Hilary of Poitiers (apparently an error for Hilary of Arles). The first poem is a paraphrase of Gen. i.–ix. in 204 hexameters; the second is a mere fragment.

18. Christos Pashon, or Christus Patiens: A Greek drama of 2,640 iambic trimeters erroneously ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen, really written at earliest in the eleventh century by an unknown author. It is a cento from the Greek tragedians (especially Euripides), the Bible, and such older apocryphal writings as the Protevangelium of James. The prologue, spoken by the Virgin, announces the author's intention of narrating the passion in Euripidean style; and the dramatis personæ, are Christ, the Virgin (the leading rôle), Joseph of Arimathea, St. John the Divine, Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, a messenger, Pilate, the high priests, a chorus of maidens, a semi-chorus, young men, and the watch. The whole is a closet drama, and is the only known instance of a Greek attempt to produce a passion play.

(G. Krüger.)

Bibliography: Works to-be used in general are: J. F. C. Bähr, Die christliche Dichter und Geschichtsschreiber, Carlsruhe, 1872; A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters, Leipsic, 1889; M. Manitius, Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie, Stuttgart, 1891. For editions of the works under discussion: G. Fabricius, Poetarum veterum ecclesiasticorum opera Christiana, Basel, 1564; F. Oehler, Tertulliani Opera, Leipsic, 1854; G. Hartel, Cypriani Opera, Vienna, 1871; R. Peiper, Cypriani Galli poetæ Heptateuchos, Vienna, 1891.

On 1 consult for editions: Fabricius, ut sup., pp. 257–286; Oehler, ut sup., 781–798; and for discussions: Bähr, ut sup., pp. 21–22; Ebert, ut sup., p. 312, no. 1; Manitius, ut sup., 148–156; E. Hückstädt, Ueber das pseudotertullianische Gedicht adv. Marcionem. Leipsic. 1875 (cf. A. Hilgenfeld, in ZWT, xix (154–159); A. Oxé, Prolegomena de carmine adv. Marcionitas, Leipsic, 1888; J. Ziehen, Zur Geschichte der Lehrdichtung in der spätrömischen Litteratur, in Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, i (1898), 409.

On 2–4, for editions consult: the edition of 2 by G. Morelius, Paris, 1560; Fabricius, 298–302; Oehler, ut sup., 769–776; Hartel, ut sup., 283–301; Peiper, ut sup., 1–7, 212–226; for discussions consult. Bähr, ut sup., pp. 34, 41; Ebert, ut sup., 118–224; Manitius, ut sup., 51–54, 167–170; H. Best, De Cypriani quæ feruntur metris in Heptateucham, Marburg, 1891.

POESCHL, pU´shl, THOMAS: Austrian chiliast; b. at Höritz (20 m. s.w. of Budweis), Bohemia, Mar. 2, 1769; d. at Vienna Nov. 15, 1837. He was educated for the Roman Catholic priesthood at Linz and Vienna, and after ordination became, in 1804, cooperator, catechist, and director of the school at Braunau-on-the-Inn. In 1806 he attended the Protestant Johann Philipp Palm at his execution, and became filled with wild hatred of Napoleon, while his impassioned, sermons caused some to regard him as a saint and others as a maniac. At this crisis he came into contact with the mystic and chiliastic Roman Catholic "Brothers and Sisters in Zion," and was accordingly removed to Ampfelwang, whither the "Brothers and Sisters" also transferred their headquarters. The great battle of Leipsic, however, caused his insanity to become unmistakable. Supported by the revelations of a certain Magdalena Sickinger, he now proclaimed himself called to convert the Jews and to found the true Judeo-Catholic Church. In spite of all efforts to suppress him, he continued to promulgate his doctrines at Vöcklabruck and Salzburg. Finally, in 1817, he was committed to the hospital for the clergy at Vienna, where he remained until his death.

Under the leadership of a peasant named Johann Haas, the followers of Pöschl went on to still wilder vagaries than their leader, though without falling into sensuality or giving a single addition to Protestantism. Even when deserted by Haas and Magdalena Sickinger, they remained true to Pöschl, who had adherents a generation later, not only in Bohemia, but also in Baden, Franconia, Hesse, and Frankfort, while in 1831 some fifty emigrated to Louisiana, where they made an unsuccessful at tempt at communism. His three great tenets were the indwelling of Christ in the heart through faith, the conversion of the Jews, and the repentance of the Christians; and he likewise advocated the use of the vernacular in the liturgy, the administration of the Eucharist under both kinds, and the rejection of images.

(Georg Loesche.)

Bibliography: L. Würth, Die protestantische Pfarrey Vöklabruck (1818–1825). Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss . . . der Pöschlianer, Marktbreit, 1825; M. Hiptmair, Thomas Pöschl im Lichte seiner Selbstbiographie, Vienna, 1893; T. Wiedemann, Die religiöse Bewegung in Oberösterreich . . . beim Beginne des 19. Jahrhunderts, Innsbruck, 1890; ADB, xxvi. 454–455; KL, x. 118–121.

POETRY, HEBREW. See Hebrew Language and Literature, III.

POHLE, pō´le, JOSEPH: German Roman Catholic; b. at Niederspay (7 m. s. of Coblenz) Mar. 19, 1852. He was educated at the Gregorian University, Rome (1871–79; Ph.D., 1874; D.D., 1879), and the University of Würzburg (1879–81); was teacher in the intermediate school at Baar, Switzerland (1881–83), professor of dogmatic theology in St. Joseph's College, Leeds, England, (1883–86), professor of philosophy at Fulda, Prussia (1886–89), professor of apologetics at the Catholic University of America (1889–94), and professor of dogmatic theology at the University of Münster (1894–97). Since 1897 he has been professor of the same subject at the University of Breslau. He has been one of the editors of the Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft since its establishment in 1888, and has written P. Angelo Secchi, S. J., Ein Lebens- and Kulturbild aus dem neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1883); Die Sternenwelten and ihre Bewohner, zugleich als erste Einfürung in die moderne Astronomie (2 vols., 1883–84); and Lehrbuch der Dogmatik für akademische Vorlesungen und zum Selbstunterricht (3 vols., Paderborn, 1902–05, new ed., 1908).

POINTS OF AGREEMENT, HESSIAN. See Verbesserungspunkte, Hessische.

POIRET, pwā´´rê´, PIERRE: Prominent French mystic; b. at Metz Apr. 15, 1646; d. at Rijnsburg (3 m. n. of Leyden) May 21, 1719. After the early death of his parents, he supported himself by the engraver's trade and the teaching of French, at the same time studying theology, in Basel, Hanau, and, after 1668, Heidelberg. At Basel he was captivated by Descartes' philosophy, which never quite lost its hold on him. He read also Thomas à Kempis and Tauler, but was especially influenced by the writings of the Dutch Mennonite mystic Hendrik Jansz van Barneveldt, published about that time under the pseudonym of Emmanuel Hiel. In 1672 he became pastor of the French church at Annweiler in the duchy of Deux-Ponts. Here he became acquainted with Elisabeth, abbess of Hereford, the granddaughter of James I. of England and a noted mystic, with the Theologia Germanica (q.v.), and with the writings of Antoinette Bourignon (q.v.), which last supplied exactly what he wanted. The desire to make the acquaintance of this gifted woman took him to Holland in 1676. He settled in Amsterdam, and published there in the following year his Cogitationes rationales de Deo, anima, et malo, which gained him an immediate reputation for scholarship and philosophic insight. It is Cartesian in form; the Trinity is conceived in mathematical terms; all knowledge is to rest on evidence—but the end of this knowledge of God is practical, to lead distracted Christendom back to unity. The influence of Thomas à, Kempis and Tauler is plainly visible.

From Holland Poiret went on to Hamburg, still in quest of Antoinette Bourignon, was completely won by her at the first meeting, and until her death in 1680, he was her faithful disciple. He accompanied her in her wanderings, traveled several times as far as Holstein in connection with her exceedingly confused affairs, and returned to Amsterdam to see to the publication of her complete works, to which he prefixed a thoroughgoing defense of her and added a translation of the Göttliche Gesicht of Hans Engelbrecht (q.v.), the Brunswick enthusiast. He defended her character and divine mission in a Mémoire touchant la vie de Mlle. A. Bourignon (1679), and championed her cause against Bayle and Seckendorf. He was also a warm admirer of Jane Lead (q.v.). In 1688 he settled at Rijnsburg, where he busied himself on his own works and in multifarious labors for the Dutch booksellers, such as in the Dutch edition of Ruinart. Among his original productions may be mentioned L’Économie divine, ou système universel et démontré des œuvres et des desseins de Dieu envers les hommes (Amsterdam, 1687; Eng. transl., The Divine Œconomy, 6 vols., London, 1713), which purports to reproduce the visionary notions of Antoinette Bourignon, but at least gives them in intelligible and consistent form. Another work, La Paix des âmes dans tous les partis du Christianisme (1687), disregards the formal creeds of the various churches, and appeals to the minority of really sincere Christians, urging them to an inner union without the abandonment of their external affiliations. In De eruditione solida, superfciaria et falsa (1692), he distinguishes between superficial knowledge of the names of things and real or solid knowledge of the things themselves, which latter is to be attained by humble renunciation of one's own wisdom and will. He continued to make contributions to the philosophical and religious controversies of the time, as, for example, against Bayle and his "hypocritical" opposition to Spinoza. The work which probably ran through the most editions was the little treatise on the education of children which first appeared in 1690 a collection of his shorter writings: was frequently translated, and influenced the Pietistic controversy at Hamburg. His most permanently valuable contribution was Bibliotheca mysticorum selecta (1708), which displays an astonishing acquaintance with ancient and modern mystics, and contains valuable information on some of the less-known writers. He also published a large number of mystical writings both from the Middle Ages and from the French Pietists of the seventeenth century. In 1704 he brought out a new edition of Mme. Guyon's writings, with the addition of a treatise printed for the first time and an introduction. In spite of his devotion to her, he was not a Quietist in the ordinary sense of the word. He would not have man's relation to God one of pure passivity but of receptivity. He repudiated predestination, and condemned Pelagianism because it suppressed the feeling of inherent sinfulness in man—just as he opposed Socinianism because it did not ascribe the whole of salvation to the operation of God's grace. Mystic as he was, he knew how to combine with his own peculiar attitude a firm insistence on certain dogmatic definitions, such as that of the Trinity. He continually appealed to the authority of Scripture. Though after 1680 he led a quiet and retired life, he was recognized widely by the scholars of his time, such as Thomasius and Bayle, Le Clerc and Walch, as a man of great learning; and his zealous participation in the cause of Antoinette Bourignon did not injure his good name as a devout mystic and an honorable man. His influence persisted after his death, not merely through the work of his spiritual son Tersteegen, but through the respect which his writings won for mysticism, forcing the regular theology, as represented by Le Clerc, Lange, Buddeus, Walch, and Stapfer, to take account of it.

S. Cramer.

Bibliography: The one source, contemporary, exact, and detailed, sent by Poiret himelf to Ancillon and after Poiret's death printed in Latin in the Bibliotheca Bremensis, iii. 1, Bremen, 1720, is printed as Kort Verhael van des Schryvers Petrus Poirets leven en Schriften in De goddelyke Huishouding, ii 31–86, 1723. Next to this the best references are to A. Ijpeij, Geschiedenis van de Kristlyke Kerk in de achttiende Eeuw, x. 510–531 Utrecht, 1809; idem, Geschiedenis der systematiche Godgeleerdheid, iii. 46–61; and M. Göbel, Geschichte des christlichen Lebens in der rheinisch-westphälischen evangelischen Kirche, vol. iii., Coblenz, 1860. The more general works on Mysticism (see the bibliography there) have practically nothing additional to what is contained in the preceding—cf. R. A. Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, ii. 290, 8th ed., London, n.d.

POISSY, pwā´´sî´, RELIGIOUS CONFERENCE OF:

A conference held in Sept., 1561, between Protestants and Roman Catholics at Poissy (10 m. n.w. of Paris).

Purposes and Preliminaries.

The wide diffusion of Protestantism in France led the queen regent, Catherine de Medici, to seek to establish some peaceable understanding between the two confessions. After the assembly of notables at Fontainebleau in Aug., 1560, and the general assembly of the estates at Orléans (Dec. 13, 1560-Jan. 31, 1561), the nobility and the third estate gathered at Pontoise, h while the court and the clergy met at the abbey of Poissy. The assembly, which was partly to prepare for the expected reopening of the Council of Trent, partly as a sort of national council to promote the reformation of the French Church, and partly to diminish the debt of the State out of the treasury of the Church, was convened July 28, 1651. The assurance, in the king's name, of the Chancellor Michel de L'Hôpital (q.v.) to the bishops and archbishops that there was to be a reformation not only of abuses but also of doctrine, received a very limited approval, and still more so that the Reformed also were to be heard. A review of the preliminaries is necessary properly to understand the call of colloquy. Theodore Beza (q.v.) and colleagues came to Worms in 1557 in behalf of the Evangelicals imprisoned by Henry II. at Paris, and when the Germans requested a confession of faith, the French returned a statement of entire agreement with the Augsburg Confession with the exception of the article on the Eucharist, holding out the prospect, however, of future agreement. The result was that Elector Otto Heinrich interceded with the French king. Meanwhile relations became more strained: Frederick went over to Calvinism, and strict Lutheranism was emphasized in Württemberg. When King Antoine of Navarre, for the French kingdom, demanded intercessory delegations to the court in behalf of the Protestants, he was advised to accept the Augsburg Confession, especially on the Eucharist. Duke Christopher of Württemberg, on June 12, sent to Antoine and to the duke of Guise an envoy with copies of the Augsburg Confession, the new Württemberg Confession, and various books of the Lutheran theologians. Christopher's envoy found the convention of prelates already in prospect, and the duke's suggestion that Protestant theologians take part in the proceedings obtained royal approval. The Roman Catholics, in their turn, expected to refute the Protestants by the Bible and the Church Fathers and drive the Reformed to the wall. Beza and Peter Martyr Vermigh (q.v.) were the Reformed theologians invited to attend the colloquy. The German princes were also asked to send theologians, but they were unable to agree on any uniform instructions to their delegates and the plan was consequently abandoned. Beza enjoyed a cordial welcome both at Paris and the court at St. Germain, and on the Sunday evening after his arrival was invited by Antoine to an assembly which included Catherine, Condé, and the cardinals of Bourbon and Lorraine. Here a conversation was carried on between Beza and the cardinal of Lorraine, in which the latter minimized the differences of Eucharistic doctrine between himself and Beza, concluding by inviting the Reformed theologian to visit him that they might cooperate for some agreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Shortly afterward it was invidiously rumored at St. Germain and abroad that Beza had been worsted in argument by the cardinal. Some days before Beza's arrival the Reformed preachers had presented a memorial thanking the king for their safe conduct and requesting him to submit to the consideration of the prelates the French Reformed confession (see Gallican Confession). This petition was graciously received by the king on Aug. 17, and on Aug. 26 the prelates, yielding to the wish of Catherine, decided to hear the Reformed. Attempts were made to keep the king himself from attending, but in vain; and on Sept. 9 the conference began in the refectory of the great Nunnery at Poissy. There were present the king, his mother, the princes and princesses royal, high dignitaries of the crown, and many courtiers; while from among the lords spiritual were present the cardinals of Tournon, Lorraine, Chatillon, Armagnac, Bourbon, and Guise; the archbishops of Bordeaux and Embrun, thirty-six bishops, representatives of absent prelates, many deputies of abbeys and monasteries, and theologians and professors of the Sorbonne. The Reformed were represented by twenty delegates and fourteen elders.

The Sessions.

After preliminary addresses by the king and chancellor, Beza delivered a long address in which he sought to demonstrate the patriotism and peacefulness of his party and gave a brief summary of the Reformed doctrines to show that they differed in very essential points from tenets previously held, and that they did not reject each and every fundamental principle of Christianity so as to be on a plane of those of Jews and Mohammedans. This presentation contained many citations for authority from the Fathers. When, however, Beza spoke of the Eucharist, and declared that the body of Christ was as far from the bread as the highest heaven is from the earth, he was interrupted with vehement disapproval. He was followed by Cardinal Tournon, who expressed his entire disapproval of Beza's attitude and concluded the session by demanding a written copy of the Reformed leader's address, which was apparently altered by Beza before it was printed. For the second session the prelates entrusted the cardinal of Lorraine with the refutation of Beza. The Roman Catholic reply was to comprise the following four doctrines: the Church and her authority; the powers of councils to represent the entire Church, which includes not only the elect, but also the non-elect; the authority of the Scriptures; and the real and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. This was to be followed by the presentation of a creed controverting the Reformed confession and by pronouncing condemnation on the preachers if they should refuse to accept it, after which the conference was to be closed. The Protestants, learning of this, protested to the king, who obliged the prelates to defer their proposed condemnation and adjournment. The second session took place on Sept. 16, and was opened by the cardinal of Lorraine. Expressing the pleasure of the prelates to learn that the Reformed were in harmony with the Apostles' Creed, he yet called attention to other points in which they deviated from Roman Catholic teaching. In his discussion of the Eucharist, the cardinal carefully avoided all offensive phraseology, and even avoided references to transubstantiation and the mass, speaking of the real presence in a quasi-Lutheran sense. Discussion and a copy of the address were denied, to Beza's disappointment. On the following evening Catherine summoned Beza and Peter Martyr, the latter of whom expressed his hope of reaching an understanding if the Eucharistic problem were omitted from discussion and each one were permitted to believe and preach according as he was convinced by the word of God. The queen expressed her intention of doing all in her power to bring about such an understanding. [It is a significant fact that at the conference while the Roman Catholic prelates were seated, the Protestants were required to remain standing.]

Results.

The further course of events was determined by the intervention of the papal legate, the cardinal of Ferrara, uncle of the duchess of Guise. He advised the queen to restrain the king, the cardinal of Tournon, and the majority of the prelates, from attending further conferences, pleading that an agreement might the more easily be reached if the irreconcilable spirits were absent. On Sept. 24, therefore, a conference was summoned with twelve representatives of each party; and the debate, which was without result, concluded with the question of the cardinal of Lorraine whether the Reformed were ready to subscribe to the Augsburg Confession. On the following day Montluc, bishop of Valence, and D’Espence conferred, at the queen's command, with Beza and Nicolas des Gallards on a compromise formula. The result was as follows: "We believe that the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ really and substantially, that is, in their proper substance, are, in a spiritual and ineffable manner, present and offered in the Holy Communion and that they are thus received by the faithful who communicate." When, on Sept. 26, negotiations were continued publicly, Beza declared that the Reformed could not accept this formula. The ultimate failure of compromise is perhaps due to the Jesuit general Lainez, who hitherto played his part under cover but, admitted to the colloquy on Sept. 26, vehemently and scurrilously attacked the Protestants, to whom Beza replied. The debate continued until late at night; and for further discussion a committee of five on each side was appointed; among the Roman Catholics being Montluc and D’Espence, and among the Reformed Beza and Peter Martyr. After three conferences (Sept. 29, Oct. 1, and Oct. 3) a formula was reached teaching the real presence, of which the substance was given through the operation of the Holy Ghost, the body of Christ being received spiritually and through faith. All at court were satisfied, but when the formula was submitted to the assembled prelates on Oct. 9, the majority declared the formula heretical. A rigidly Roman Catholic formula was immediately drawn up, and it was resolved to give no further hearing to the Reformed after their refusal to subscribe, and to urge the king to banish the recalcitrants. Negotiations were broken off at Poissy on Oct. 9. Ten days later five German theologians arrived at Paris, Michael Diller, Peter Bouquin, Jakob Beurlin, Jakob Andrea (qq.v.) and Balthasar Bidembach, summoned to explain the Augsburg articles. Their leader Beurlin died on Oct. 28 and on Nov. 8 the rest were received in audience by the king of Navarre, who expressed a wish that they would bear witness to the harmony between the Augsburg Confession and the compromise formula at the conclusion of negotiations at Poissy. After many futile conferences on the union of German and French Protestantism, and, after having explained to the king the meaning of the Augsburg Confession and urged him to accept it, the envoys were finally dismissed on Nov. 23. The conference at Poissy had shown that reconciliation between Roman Catholics and Protestants on the basis of mutual concession was entirely impossible, and that the only alternatives were mutual toleration or a war for existence.

(Eugen Lachenmann.)

Bibliography: H. M. Baird, Hist. of the Rise of the Huguenots, i. 505–546, London, 1880; Theodore Beza, Hist. ecclésiastique des églises réformées . . . de France, Geneva, 1580, new ed., ed. P. Vesson, 2 vols., Toulouse, 1882–83, and, in 3 vols., ed. J. W. Baum and A. E. Cunitz, Paris, 1883–88; J. W. Baum, Theodor Beza, vol. ii, Berlin, 1852; G. de Félice, Hist. des Protestants de France, pp. 131 sqq., Toulouse, 1850, new ed., 1861, Eng. transl., 2 vols.; London, 1853; G. von Polenz, Geschichte des französischen Calvinismus ii. 47 sqq., Gotha, 1859; N. A. F. Puaux, Hist. de la réformation française, ii. 101 sqq., Paris, 1860; H. Klipffel, La Colloque de Poissy. Paris, 1868; A. de Ruble, Le Journal de Claude d’Espence, in Mémoires de la société d’histoire de Paris, xvi., 1889; H. Amphoux, Michel de l’Hôpital, pp. 185 sqq., Paris, 1900.

POLAND, CHRISTIANITY IN.

I. Before the Reformation.

1. Slavic Foundations.

When Poland received Christianity in the tenth century, it comprised the territory between the Russian grand duchy in the east, Prussia and Pomerania in the northeast and north, the Wendish tribes in the northwest, the German empire as far as the Oder in the west, and Moravia in the south and southwest. After Duke Mieczyslaw of Poland had been defeated in 963 by the Wends, he sought protection from them by submission to the German emperor. But in spite of the favorable opportunity thus afforded for the introduction of Christianity from Germany, no efforts were made in this direction. Christianity was introduced as a resultant of the Slavonic mission of the Greek Oriental Church; and, in particular, according to the oldest and most reliable reports from Bohemia, where it had obtained a permanent foothold under Duke Boleslaw I. the Pious. Duke Mieczyslaw married in 966 Dambrowka, the sister of Boleslaw II., duke of Bohemia, and in 967 accepted Christianity, followed immediately by the nobles and a part of the people. Further expansion was promoted by priests from Bohemia; and at the order of the duke all his subjects were baptized. All idols were to be broken, burned, or thrown into the water.

2. German Influence and Organization.

At this point Germany began missionary work in Poland. Under the protection of the emperor, Jordan, a German priest, worked with great zeal and under many difficulties, as missionary. The Poles had indeed accepted Christianity after the example of their duke, nominally; but in secret they were still attached to their old gods, and at a later time heathenism was yet strong enough to produce a reaction. The ecclesiastical organization of the country soon followed the acceptance of Christianity by the duke. This could not possibly have been accomplished by the efforts of the Slavonic-Greek mission; but the close political connection of Poland with Germany and the feudal relation of the duke to the emperor effected in the course of time close relations with the German-Occidental Church, and from these a firm foundation and organization of Polish Christianity proceeded. Mieczyslaw, in 977, after the death of his first wife, married Oda, the daughter of the Saxon Margrave Dietrich, under whose influence the Greek rite gave way to the Roman forms of church service (see Roman Catholics, "Uniate Churches"). Otto the Great conceived comprehensive plans for a permanent Christianization of the Slavonic people who were compelled to submit to his power. At his instance and with his cooperation, the first Polish bishopric, Posen was founded in 968. At first included under the archbishopric of Mainz, it was later incorporated in the archbishopric of Magdeburg. Thus the connection of the Polish Church with the Roman Church was established, and under the influence of the political conditions the Roman Church gained the ascendency over the unwilling Greek element. As the Roman missionaries from Germany did not speak the Polish language, they could not gain that influence over the people to which the Slavonic missionaries owed most of their success. Conflicts arose, and it became very difficult to introduce the institutions of the Roman Church. The pope found it necessary to make temporary concessions; and preaching and liturgy were allowed in the vernacular. Until his death in 992 Mieczyslaw remained a faithful adherent of the imperial power. Under his son from his first marriage, Boleslaw Chrobry, "the Brave" (992 to 1025), one of the most powerful and valiant of the old Polish dukes, the tie of Poland with the Roman Church became still closer. Although Poland had not been fully Christianized even externally, it became under him a center for the further expansion of Christianity among the neighboring peoples, in that he made the mission serve his warlike undertakings. Boleslaw Chrobry had safeguarded St. Adalbert (see Adalbert of Prague) on his missionary tour to Prussia and afterward redeemed his remains; and over his grave in Gnesen he contracted an intimate friendship with Emperor Otto III. Gnesen became an archbishopric and the center of the Polish Church. Seven bishoprics were placed under its jurisdiction, among them Colberg, Cracow, and Breslau; and thus there was established the first comprehensive organization of the Polish Church. But with the foundation of the archbishopric of Gnesen Poland's connection with the archbishopric of Magdeburg and with the German Church and empire was loosened, and there gradually grew up a more immediate connection with Rome. As he had protected Adalbert on his missionary tour to Prussia, so Boleslaw aided powerfully the bold undertaking of Brun of Querfurt, the enthusiastic disciple of Adalbert, to bring the Gospel to the wild people of the far east. Boleslaw also sent to Sweden missionaries whose efforts were very successful. The further he extended his power over the neighboring Slavonic people, the stronger became his desire for a great Christian-Slavonic kingdom, the crown of which he asked from the pope. In 1018 the Greek empire in Constantinople feared its power and the Russian kingdom, in the capital of which, Kief, he erected a Roman Catholic bishopric, succumbed to it.

3. Reaction and Turmoils.

After the external reception of Christianity, the people still clung tenaciously to heathenism. The annual celebration of the destruction of the old gods at which their images were thrown into the water, took place for a considerable time with the singing of dirges. Only by harsh penal codes were the uncultured minds of the people turned to the observance of Christian morals and church usages. Adultery and fornication were punished with mutilation, and eating of flesh during Lent with the knocking out of teeth. Mieczyslaw II. carried out his father's policy for the maintenance and extension of the Church. He built churches and founded a new bishopric, Cujavia, in the territory of the Wends on the Vistula. But the terrible disorders in Poland following his death in 1034 involved also the Church. The external and forced Christianization had been so ineffective that the very existence of the Church was threatened. Many of the nobility and the people fell back into heathenism; cities and churches were destroyed, and the laity rebelled against the clergy. From Germany efforts were no longer made to aid and strengthen the Polish Church. Under Conrad II. the archbishopric of Magdeburg had forgotten its missionary duty to the east and especially to Poland. Since 1035 its influence upon the Polish church and the latter's connection with the German Church ceased. The bishopric of Posen was placed under the archbishopric of Gnesen; Gnesen was destroyed by the duke of Bohemia; Casimir, the son of Mieczyslaw II., found refuge in Germany, and after the recovery of his inheritance reestablished the Church by placing land and church under the protection of the royal power of Germany. But a long time passed before the old order was reestablished. Under Boleslaw II., who had regained the throne, a terrible civil war ensued. In the following period the progress of the Church was hindered by political disturbances, so that prosperous development by the planting and fostering of Christian life was impossible, though the missionary activity of the Polish Church was revived under Boleslaw III. From Poland in the second quarter of the twelfth century the Christianization of Pomerania was accomplished by Otho of Bamberg, while Pomerania became politically dependent upon Poland. Strenuous efforts were made to expand the church in Prussia in order to subjugate it the more securely to the dominion of Poland. Such missionary efforts, however, did not indicate vigorous life in the Church so much as political energy in the sovereigns. The division of the kingdom after Boleslaw's death (1139) among his four sons wrought new ecclesiastical troubles and disturbances; and before the time of the Reformation peaceful developments did not obtain. The princes either showered possessions and privileges upon the clergy from selfish or party interests at the expense of the nobility and the people, whose hatred was thus intensified while the moral condition of the clergy was corrupted, or they violently attacked the rights and property of the bishoprics. A synod at Leucyka in 1180 forbade princes to appropriate the property of deceased bishops under penalty of excommunication. The favors of the princes to the clergy involved the latter in continual battles with the nobility; violent dissensions between clergy on the one side and nobility and laity on the other were caused by the payment of tithes to the Church, and by the arbitrary extension of clerical jurisdiction.

4. Ecclesiastical Independence.

In close connection with the national element and the opposition of Slavism to Romanism and Teutonism, the opposition to the popes is one of the characteristic features of the Polish church. The princes energetically guarded their right to fill bishoprics, granted them by Otto III. Pope Martin V. complained in letters to the king of Poland that the rights and liberties of the Church were trampled under foot and that the authority of the Holy See was not obeyed. The clergy shared with princes this desire for independence of the pope. Hence the complaint of Gregory VII. in a letter of 1075, "the bishops of your land are absolutely independent and unsubmissive to regulation." A bishop of Posen dared to refuse to announce an interdict of Innocent III. against one of the dukes. Marriage of priests had come in through the Greek origin of the Polish church; thence came general opposition to the law of celibacy among the Polish clergy. About 1120 all priests in the diocese of Breslau were married. In the middle of the twelfth century the majority of the Polish clergy were the same; and a synod of Gnesen (1219) complained that the former prohibitions of the marriage of priests had remained without effect. The appeal of the Polish nation from the pope to a general council at the time when Pope Martin V. did not condemn the work of John of Falkenberg, the Dominican monk who in the interest of the Teutonic order had preached murder and rebellion against the Polish people and their king, was a memorable protest against the absolutism of the papacy. The immorality of the clergy, their simony, unchastity, political intriguing, and lack of church discipline produced an anticlerical and antiecclesiastical movement among the people. The religious needs of the country, which had been so shamefully disregarded by the clergy, were so urgent that the Reformation found open doors among the Poles.

(David Erdmann†.)

II. Reformation and After.

1. Need and Preparation.

In the middle of the fifteenth century Poland bordered in the west upon Hungary, Bohemia, and Silesia; in the north on the Eastern Sea from Danzig to Courland; in the east it included Lithuania and the greater part of White Russia; and in the south, Red Russia, Volhynia, Podolia, and Kief; while its influence spread over Moldavia and Walachia (Roumania), and the Crimea. A grandson of Ladislas Jagiello (1348–1434) was king of Bohemia and Hungary. Relations by marriage brought neigh boring dominions under the kings of Poland, which was now at the zenith of its power and extent. Three sons of Casimir (1444–92) became kings of Poland; the third one, Sigismund (1513–48), taking for second wife the Italian princess Bona Sforza, who wrought an influence detrimental to Poland and the Reformation. The heart of the kingdom, namely, Little Poland, was Slavic, and thus mild, peaceable, and deeply religious. Cyril and Methodius, the Slavic apostles of the ninth century, had translated a part of the Scriptures into the mother tongue; the pious people held firmly to worship in the vernacular and to ecclesiastical independence; and thus the foundation for the Reformation spirit was laid. The king was only the chief of the nobles, who in a century of strife had risen to an eminence of independence and power which stood also in defense of the bishops and resisted the popes. The bishops had been appointed by the lords for centuries and stood by their side; for they were first of all Poles. An archbishop of Gnesen had been regent. In 1176 WaIdensians from the south of France and later the Hussites found refuge in Poland, in spite of the individual opposition of the bishops, the synods, and the Inquisition; and they were protected. As elsewhere so in Poland the revival of learning and humanism prepared the way for the Reformation. The classics were read by nobles and clergy; German and Italian scholars were welcomed; multitudes of young Poles returned from schools abroad, bringing back the spirit of the humanities; and Erasmus obtained the most enthusiastic admirers. But perhaps nowhere else was the moral and spiritual destitution so great as in Poland. The law of celibacy was generally violated among the priesthood; nepotism prevailed among the bishops; and ecclesiastical positions were sold to the highest bidder.

2. Reformation.

The fires of the Reformation first broke into flame along the German border. As early as 1520 the Dominican Andreas Samuel at the cathedral of Posen and later John Seklucyan, a preacher at the church of Mary Magdalen, preached the Gospel, emphasizing the need of a reformation of the Church. In 1519, Jacob Knade, a vicar at the church of Peter and Paul in Danzig, married; and this step, together with his fearless reform preaching, met with wide public approval. In Posen, the castellan Lukas of Gorka received the Evangelical preachers under his protection against the bishop. The archbishop of Gnesen hurried to Danzig to suppress the movement but the magistrate upheld his right, even against the king, to permit Evangelical preaching and the entrance of the Reformation. From here it spread by way of Elbing into Prussia; George of Polentz, bishop of Samland, joined it; Albert of Brandenburg, Grand Master of the German Order in Prussia, called as preacher to Königsberg Johann Briessman (q.v.), Luther's follower (1525); and changed the territory of the order into a hereditary grand duchy under Polish protection. From these borderlands the movement penetrated Little Poland which was the nucleus for the extensive kingdom. All measures on the part of the church powers and king to stem the tide proved ineffective. In spite of the prohibition, especially against Wittenberg, the nobility continued to send its sons to the universities of Bologna, Padua, Orleans, and Paris, and even to Strasburg and Geneva, whence Calvin's "Institutes" were welcomed in Poland. The Italian Lismanin, confessor to Queen Bona, joined the Reformation; and placed himself as well as Prince Radziwil, chief reformer in Lithuania, in communication with Calvin. The latter dedicated his commentary on Hebrews to the king of Poland (1549), which honor the latter accepted. From 1545 a constantly widening circle of spiritually awakened Poles collected at the house of the eminent and wealthy Andreas Trzecieski of Cracow; among these were Wojewodka, later prefect of Cracow, Orzechowaki, Przyluski, author of the "statues of the realm," and, in particular, Rej and Fricius Modrevius. From this source the movement spread everywhere among the minor as well as the greater nobility; but the prime cause of the Reformation is to be sought in the deep religious sense of the Slavic people, who eagerly accepted the preaching of the Gospel in place of the means of the deteriorated Church. In the mean time the movement proceeded likewise among the nobles of Great Poland; here the type was Lutheran, instead of Reformed, as in Little Poland. Before the Reformation the Hussite refugees had found asylum here; now the Bohemian and Moravian brethren, soon to be known as the Unity of the Brethren (q.v.), were expelled from their home countries and, on their way to Prussia (1547), about 400 settled in Posen under the protection of the Gorka, Leszynski, and Ostrorog families. During 1553—1579, this band increased to seventy-nine congregations, due to their industrious and sane activity, during the quarter-century leadership of George Israel. In Little Poland, owing to political conditions, there was for a long time a lack of organic home leadership. The churches could not continue successfully under the control of Geneva and the Rhine. Efforts were made to import proper men from abroad, which resulted most wisely in the choice of Johannes a Lasco (q.v.). He was a Pole, acquainted with the Reformers of his native land, a fugitive first in East Friesland and then in England, and one who had specially proved his fitness for organization and leadership. His return was delayed and the Synod of Kozminek (1555), under the pressure of threatened disorganization, adopted a plan of union, the result of which would have meant absorption into the Unity of the Brethren. A year later, upon his arrival, Lasco insisted upon the integrity and independence of the home church. In the fifth decade of this century the movement entered into its final tests in the struggles of the bishops and the nobles of the Reformation in the diets. In the diet of 1552, Leszynski refused to bow the knee and remove the hat at the opening of the mass. This diet secured freedom of conscience by granting the Roman Catholic Church the right of judgment on heresies but not of penalty. The Diet of Warsaw (1556) provided that every noble was free to establish in his house and on his estate that worship which seemed to him fitting, if it were grounded on the Scriptures. It also voted an address to Pope Paul IV. demanding of the Council of Trent worship in the vernacular, communion in both forms, consecration of priests, abolition of the papal contributions, and the calling of a national council for the correction of abuses and the unification of church bodies. However, the king was weak. He sent the bishop of Przenysl as delegate; the diet was unrepresented and never accepted the resolutions of the council. King Sigismund August died in 1572 without heir, and unfortunately at this stage the country was thrown into the strife of electing a sovereign. The choice fell upon Prince Henry of Valois, duke of Anjou, who had been recommended by Coligny before Sigismund's death. In spite of the division, united action was taken at the Diet of Warsaw (1573) under the Reformed leadership of Crownmarshal Firley of Little Poland, guaranteeing equal rights and freedom to all creeds. The Reformed representatives of Poland also exacted a pledge from the king of France before they cast their votes for his brother, guaranteeing freedom of faith and worship and a safe return of the fugitives to his kingdom.. Until the time of coronation the Jesuits plotted to make this oath void, and when Henry showed signs of weakening before reaffirming the oath at the coronation, Firley fearlessly stepped forward, seized the crown in his hand, and cried out in a loud voice, "If thou wilt not swear thou shalt not reign." The frightened king forthwith took the oath.

3. Counter-Reformation.

This episode was an outward mark of a Counter-Reformation which had been developing for some time. Two movements within the bosom of Protestantism exposed it the more to the reaction. First, antitrinitarianism, imported from Italy, toward which even Lismanin inclined, had its supporters and centered itself at Pinczow. Against this, Lasco (q.v.) placed himself in energetic and successful opposition. In the second place was the irreconcilable division of the three Protestant bodies over against the united front of the Jesuit Roman Catholics. The Church of Little Poland and Lithuania was Calvinistic; that of Greater Poland and Prussia, and, with occasions, that of Courland and Livonia, was Lutheran, the churches of which were early intermingled with many congregations of the Unity of the Brethren. Lasco strove for such a union with his last energy, but failed. Ten years after his death a general synod at Sendomir (1570) adopted a consensus identifying themselves in a union against the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation. It was shaken by conflict as soon as it had been adopted. The general synod at Thorn (1595) reendorsed the consensus of Sendomir, making it binding upon all the clergy and subscriptions necessary under the penalty of dismission. Yet the measures fell into oblivion. In 1728 the general synod of Danzig recalled it from obscurity and resolved to adhere to it; but though never revoked, it was in time forgotten. Meanwhile the Counter-Reformation proceeded, conducted sagaciously by Rome, not only by availing of these internal divisions of Protestantism, but also by following its own independent designs, regardless of the survival of the Polish nation. The foreigner Stanislaus Hosius (q.v.), bishop of Ermland, was the leader and an irreconcilable antagonist of the dissidents. The Jesuits who worked by his side did perhaps nowhere else so effective and pernicious a work. While these laid their insidious plans in the houses of the nobles, Hosius knew how to make the most of the dissident polemical writings for the cause of Rome. A further aid was the papal nuncio at Cracow, Commendone, but most of all the king, Sigismund III. (1586–1632), called by contemporaries "king of the Jesuits." The Evangelicals lost their rights and liberty of conscience. The Jesuits also directed their efforts against the Eastern Church so that in 1599, at Wilna, a compact of Evangelicals and Greek adherents was made to which either side made appeal from time to time until the final dismemberment of Poland. After a decade of warfare the Jesuits came out victorious, and the Evangelical cause and the kingdom went down together. Two centuries more, however, ensued before the victory was complete.

4. Later History.

The correspondence of Hosius reveals the return of the descendants of the illustrious fathers of the Reformation to Roman Catholicism. At an assembly in the palatinate of Cracow, in 1606, a warning call went up from the knighthood, referring to the compact, for the king to heed the senate; but the Protestant party was vanquished in that body, though at a diet in 1609, freedom from penalty and the right of legal appeal were obtained. The Jesuits continued their machinations; the king was wholly in their power, and in Cracow, Posen, Wilna, and elsewhere, they incited the populace and students to destroy the churches of the dissidents. At the close of Sigismund's reign, Poland was in rapid decline; the Jesuits had smothered the spiritual life and obtained complete possession of the schools; the people had lost a sense of their rights; and abroad the nation had fallen from its rank of influence. Wladislas IV. (1632–48), just and irenic, who called a colloquy at Thorn in 1645 looking toward the union of all churches, would not restrain the Jesuit activities. August II. (1696–1733) lent himself to their policies, having himself, as king of Saxony, apostatized to Roman Catholicism, in order to secure the throne of Poland. At the Diet of Grodno (1719) Casimir Ancuta, the Jesuit lawyer of Wilna, secured unlawfully the expulsion of the last dissident, Piotrowski. With the triumph of the Counter-Reformation is associated also the doom of the once glorious kingdom. The further history of Poland is involved in that of the countries among which its territory was divided.

(H. Dalton.)

Bibliography: On I. as sources consult: Chronicæ Polonorum, ed. J. Szlachtowski and R. Köpke, in MGH, Script., ix (1851), pp. 423 sqq.; Chronica Polonorum, in Stenzel, Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum, vol. i., Cracow, 1872–88; Acta historica res gestas Polonim illustrantia, issued by the Cracow Academy, 1878 sqq.; Thietmar, Chronicon, most convenient in the ed. of F. Kurze, Hanover, 1889; Monumenta Poloniæ historica, 6 vols., Lwów, 1864–93. Consult further: C. G. Friese, Kirchengeschichte des Königreichs Polen, vol. i., Breslau, 1786; C. Meyer, Geschichte des Landes Posen, pp. 383 sqq., Posen, 1881; C. Schiemann, Geschichte Polens, Berlin, 1884–85; W. R. Morfill, Poland, London, 1893; W. P. Angerstein, Der Konflikt des . . . Boleslaus II. (1058–80) mit dem Bischof Stanislaw, Thorn, 1895; K. S. Krotoski, St. Stanislaw, Bishop Krakowski, Torun, 1902; E. Schmidt, Geschichte des Deutschtums im Lande Posen, Bromberg. 1904; Hauck, KD, iii. 202–204, 272 sqq., 629 sqq. On II. consult: the literature under Lasco, Johannes A; Acta conventus Thorun., Warsaw, 1646; D. E. Jablonski, Hist. consensus Sendom., Berlin, 1731 (cf. H. Dalton, D. E. Jablonski, ib. 1903); C. G. Friese, ut sup., vols. ii.–iii.; S. Lubienski, Historia reformationis Polonicæ, Antwerp, 1685; C. V. Krasinski, Hist. of Rise, Progress and Decline of the Polish Reformation, 2 vols., London, 1838–40; idem, Religious Hist. Of the Slavonic Nations, Edinburgh, 1851; J. Lukasiewitsch, Die Reformation in Gross-Polen, Darmstadt, 1843; G. W. T. Fischer, Versuch einer Geschichte der Reformation in Polen, 2 parts, Grätz, 1855–56; Schnaase, Die böhmischen Brüder in Polen, Gotha, 1866; J. Sembrzycki, Die polnischen Refomirten and Unitarier in Preussen 1543, Königsberg, 1893; E. Borgius, Aus Posens and Polens kirchlicher Vergangenheit, Berlin, 1898; O. Koniecki, Geschichte der Reformation in Polen, 2d ed., Posen, 1901; G. Krause, Die Reformation in Polen, Posen, 1901; Wotschke, Andreas Samuel und Joh. Seklucyan, Posen, 1902; K. Vö1ker, Der Protestantismus in Polen, Leipsic, 1910; and the list of important periodical literature in Richardson, Encyclopaedia, p 862.

POLANUS, VELERANDUS: Leader and pastor of Walloons in the middle of the sixteenth century. All that is known of him is that with Johannes a Lasco (q.v.) he led his congregation with two others from England, whither they had fled from the Netherlands, to settle at Frankfort. There he met the persistent opposition of Hartmann Beyer (q.v.) because of his adherence to the Reformed creed and polity, and was deprived of his church, while ultimately the right to hold service was forbidden to the congregation.

POLE (POOLE), REGINALD: English cardinal and statesman; b. at Stourton Castle (13 m. w. of Birmingham), Staffordshire, Mar., 1500; d. in Lambeth Palace, London, Nov. 17, 1558.

Life Previous to the Cardinalate.

On his mother's side he was of the blood royal, and, after his father's death, was educated by Henry VIII. In 1517 he obtained the benefice of Roscombe, which was supplemented by other benefices as he rose in the prelacy. In 1521 he went to Italy to complete his studies at Padua. In Paris, at the close of the third decade of the century, he was successful in obtaining an opinion from the University of Paris favorable to the king's divorce. He then returned to England to devote himself to theological studies in the cloister of Sheen. In 1531 he declined the proffered archbishopric of York, and in the following year be returned to Italy by way of Avignon. In Italy he lived a number of years in close friendship with Bembo, Contarini, Matteo Giberti, Alvise Priuli, and Giovanni Morone.

Until 1535 Pole was regarded as neutral in the divorce question, and had received from England the incomes of his benefices. Now, however, the king demanded Pole's opinion in writing, and after considerable delay he complied in his De unitate ecclesiæ, which brought about a total change in his position, since he became a decided partizan of the opposition. The king demanded that Pole should give an explanation of his treatise in person, but at this juncture he was called to Rome by Paul III., chiefly to take part in preparing the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia.

Pole as Cardinal.

Pole was created cardinal of Santa Maria in Cosmedin on Dec. 22, 1536, and now wrote an Apologia ad Angliæ Parlamentum, firm in substance, but moderate in tone. In 1537 he was sent as by Paul III. as legate to the Netherlands, whence he was to fan the insurrection in England. The rebellion, however, was crushed, and the king declared Pole guilty of high treason. The cardinal now left the Netherlands, but neither the emperor nor Francis I. would receive him, and it was only in Italy that he felt safe. But the pope rehabilitated him by again employing him as legate, this time to the emperor; but his family in England suffered heavily, for Henry arrested the cardinal's brothers and mother, and when the younger brother gave evidence against the others, they were brought to the scaffold. Meanwhile, in 1541, Pole had been appointed legate of the patrimony, i.e., governor of the Papal States, and was thus led to fix his residence at Viterbo. There certain colloquies on religious questions were held, the participants including Vittoria Colonna, Pietro Carnesecchi, and Marco Antonio Flaminio. These discussions, however, were afterward deemed heretical by the Inquisition, because both the point of departure and the mainstay of the argument lay in the doctrine of justification by faith, the merit of good works being excluded.

After the death of Edward VI., Pole, in 1554, again beheld his native land, this time as papal legate. He found Queen Mary already married to Philip II., and the reaction in full swing. He took active part in the work and urged the enforcement of the stern ancient laws against the Protestants. But all his zeal could not induce his enemy, Giovanni Pietro Caraffa, who, in 1555, ascended the papal throne as Paul IV. (q.v.), to forget that Pole himself was at one time under suspicion of heresy. The new pontiff recalled the English legation, and summoned Pole before the tribunal of the Holy Office in Rome. Only his procrastination, and then his death, delivered him from appearing there.

K. Benrath.

Bibliography: Among the works of Pole the following are most significant: Ad Henricum Octavum Brittanæ regem, Pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis defensione, Rome, 1554 (extract in English, The seditious and blasphemous Oration of Cardinal Pole, . . . Translated . . . by Fabyane Wythers, London, 1560); De concilio, Venice, 1562; De summo pontifice Christi in terris vicario, Louvain, 1569; Reformatio Angliæ, London, 1556; A Treatise of Justification, Louvain, 1569.

The one authoritative life was written in Italian by Beccatelli, Lat. transl. by A. Dudith, found in Ital. and Lat. in Epistolæ Reginaldi Poli, 5 vols., 1744–57, an Eng. transl. is by P. Pye, London, 1760. A life still worth consulting is that in English by T. Phillips, Oxford, 1764. Consult further: the anonymous life prefixed to Christ. Longolii Orationes, Epistolæ et Vita, Florence, 1524; W. F. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. viii., London, 1869; N. Pocock, Records of the Reformation, 2 vols., Oxford, 1870 (contains original documents); N. Sander, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, London, 1877 (Roman Catholic); F. G. Lee, Reginald Pole . . . an historical Sketch, London, 1888 (deals only with the beginning and end of the cardinal's career); A. Zimmerman, Kardinal Pole, Sein Leben and seine Schriften, Regensburg, 1893 (accurate); W. Clark, The Anglican Reformation, New York, 1897; F. A. Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries, London, 1899; J. Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, London, 1903 (many details); Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii. passim, Cambridge, 1903; C. M. Antony, The Angelical Cardinal Reginald Pole, London, 1909; M. Haile, Life of Reginald Pole, London and New York, 1910; J. Gillow, Biographical Dictionary of English Catholics, v. 330–341, London, n.d.; DNB, xlvi. 35–46.

POLEMICS.

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 schismatics, 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 non-Christian 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 Irenæus (q.v.). The Apologeticum and De præscriptione hæreticorum 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, and philosophical freethinkers was dogmatic in character from Agobard of Lyons to Savonarola's Triumphus crucis. Then came, in the sixteenth century, the controversy between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The writings of the Jesuits especially were polemic. Alfonso de Castro wrote Adversus omnes hæreses libri quatuordecim (Paris, 1534), being followed by Franciscus Coster's Enchiridion controversiarum (Cologne, 1585) and Gregorius de Valentia's De rebus fidei hoc tempore controversis (1591). The chief work here, however, was the Disputationes de controversiis Christianæ fidei (3 vols., Rome, 1581–91) of Bellarmine (q.v.), who was followed by Martin Becan (d. 1624) with his Manuale controversiarum hujus temporis (Mainz, 1623). Jesuit polemics against Protestantism have continued without intermission, one of the most noteworthy works of this character in recent years being the Il Protestantesimo e la regola di fede (3 vols., Rome, 1853) of G. Perrone (q.v.). More popular circles had already been reached by Bossuet' Exposition de la doctrine de l’église catholique sur les matières de controverse (Paris, 1671).

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 Schlüsselburg, Hæreticorum catalogus (1597–99); Nicolaus Hunnius (d..1643), Diaskepsis de fundamentali dissensu doctrinæ Lutheranæ et Calvinianæ (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 für 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 theologiæ elenchticæ (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 theology which detects and refutes errors that endanger Christian faith and the purity of the Christian Church; and by Johann Peter Lange, whose Christliche Dogmatik (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 Möhler'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 Döllinger, Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung und ihre Wirkungen (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 Protestantismus nach den Prinzipien and Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe (Tübingen, 1834), Carl Immanuel Nitzsch's Protestantische Beantwortung der Symbolik Dr. Möhlers (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 Hase's Handbuch der protestantischen Polemik gegen die römisch-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 römische 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 für 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 incorporated 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 dignified defenders of supernatural religion appear Richard Bentley (q.v.), Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking (London, 1713), a reply to Anthony Collins, Discourse of Free Thinking (ib. 1713); Thomas Sherlock, Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (ib. 1729), against Woolsen, Discourse on Miracles (ib. 1727–29); and W. Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses (ib., vol. i., 1737–38, vol. ii., 1741). (2) Against the Arminians—also including the Arians—of whom were Daniel Whitby, Discourse concerning . . . Election and Reprobation (ib. 1710); Samuel Clarke, Boyle Lectures, 1704–05, and Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (ib. 1712); and John Taylor, The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin (ib. 1740), which gave rise to many rejoinders by D. Waterland (cf. Works, vol. i. "Life" by Van Mildert, Oxford, 1823) and others in Great Britain, and in New England by Jonathan Edwards (q.v.), Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will (Boston, 1754). (3) The Unitarian controversy in New England was ushered in by the election of Henry Ware as Hollis professor of divinity in Harvard College in 1805. The principal writers from the side of orthodoxy were Moses Stuart (q.v.), professor of sacred literature in Andover Theological Seminary, Letters to Rev. William E. Channing, D.D., on the Divinity of Christ (Andover, 1819); Samuel Worcester, Letters to Rev. Dr. William E. Channing (three pamphlets, Boston, 1815); and Leonard Woods (q.v.), also professor in Andover, Letters to Unitarians (Andover, 1820), Reply to Dr. Ware's Letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists (ib. 1821), and Remarks on Dr. Ware's Answer (ib. 1822). (4) The Tractarian Movement in Great Britain (1833–41; see Tractarianism), brought to a crisis by John Henry Newman's Tract No. 90, provoked a steadily rising storm of opposition first from the Christian Observer (Mar., 1834), and at last from Archibald Campbell Tait (Archbishop of Canterbury, 1868–1882) who, with three other Oxford tutors, signed a protest against Newman's tract. Owing to the violent controversy which ensued the series was "discontinued." (5) The Liberal Movement in the established church centered in Frederick Denison Maurice (q.v.), whose Theological Lectures (ib. 1853) was vehemently opposed by R. W. Jelf, principal of King's College; and by Henry Mansel, Man's Conception of Eternity (ib. 1854); Maurice's What is Revelation? (ib. 1859) was subjected to severe criticism by Mansel's Examination of the Strictures on the Bampton Lectures, 1858 (ib. 1859). (6) In America the (N. W.) Taylor- (Bennet) Tyler controversy (see New England Theology) involved the questions of depravity, the self determining power of the will, regeneration, and the divine permission of sin. (For Taylor, cf. The Quarterly Christian Spectator, New Haven, 1832–1833; also, G. P. Fisher, Discussions in History and Theology, New York, 1880. For Tyler, cf. The Spirit of the Pilgrims, Boston, 1832–33; also, Letters on the New Haven Theology, ib. 1837.) (7) In 1835–1837 there culminated in the Presbyterian Church a heated discussion, in which a fierce attack was made upon Albert Barnes and Lyman Beecher, occasioned by their view of the atonement and related subjects. (8) In the latter part of the last century (1882–93) the so-called "Andover heresy," originating in a chapter in Progressive Orthodoxy (Boston, 1886), advocated probation after death for those who had been deprived of probation in this life. The controversy focused on the policy of the A. B. C. F. M., whether those who maintained this view were eligible to appointment as missionaries of the board. It was permanently settled in 1893 by instructions to the prudential Committee to commission one who held to this position. It is possibly significant that Andover Theological Seminary, which was founded in part to combat Unitarianism. among other heresies, celebrated its centennial, 1908, by affiliation with the Harvard Divinity School whose history had been identified with the Unitarian body.

C. A. Beckwith.

Bibliography: G. B. Crooks and J. F. Hurst, Theological Encyclopaedia and Methodology, pp. 437 sqq., New York, 1894; P. Schaff. Theological Propædeutic, pp. 411–412, ib. 1904; J. B. Röhm, Protestantische 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 à l’étude de la théologie protestante, pp. 182–183, Paris, 1904; and the literature under Theology as a Science.

POLENZ, GEORGE OF. See George of Polenz.

POLIANDER, JOHANNES (JOHANN GRAMANN, GRAUMANN): German Reformer; b. at Neustadt on-the-Main (42 m. s.e. of Frankfort) July 5, 1487; d. at Königsberg 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 Würzburg, to cause his appointment as cathedral preacher at Würzburg 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 Königsberg, where he became pastor of the Altstadt, 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 "Frölich 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 Königsberg (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 the general ecclesiastical visitors who divided the country into parishes, regulated the income of the ministers and the new ecclesiastical conditions. At the same time he was active in combating the sectaries brought from Silesia by Schwenckfeld. At the colloquy of Rastenburg in 1531 Poliander was the decisive factor in the victory over the Anabaptists. Until his death he stood in intimate relations of counselor and friend with Albrecht.