Handbook for Bible Students

“C” Entries

Calendar, Day, Methods of Reckoning Hours of.—The time when this [the trial of Jesus] occurred, is fixed by John, “about the sixth hour.” This is the only note of time for the trial before Pilate with the exception of that of its commencement. It is therefore of great value to us. And yet it appears directly to contradict Mark 15:25, which even places our Lord’s crucifixion at the third hour. [pp. 372, 37 3] ... Now since the reading [Greek word] [hekte, sixth] stands critically unassailable, we are driven to assume that John has here reckoned his hours from another initial point from that adopted by the Synoptists. [p. 374] ... The chronologer Ideler, whose opinion on such subjects demands the utmost respect, remarks, bringing a crowd of passages in proof: HBS 62.2

“The case was entirely different as regards the hours with ourselves and the ancients. However much the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans differed from one another in the commencement of the civil day, they all reckoned their hours in the same manner. They divided the natural day ⁵ as well as the night into twelve hours all through the year, reckoned from the rising of the sun to its setting, and again from its setting to its rising, so that midday corresponded with the beginning of the seventh hour of the day, and midnight with that of the seventh hour of the night.” [pp. 376, 377] HBS 62.3

There is no doubt that the fact that even those nations who commenced their civil day at midnight reckoned their hours by the rising and setting of the sun, is connected with the imperfection of the measures of time then in use, which for a long period could only have been employed for the determination of the variable hours, ... which were fixed by the length of the natural day, or the time from sunrise to sunset, and also by the circumstance that various expedients were adopted to supply the deficiencies of those measures, the whole of which, however, were calculated by the length of the natural day. HBS 63.1

The use of hours of variable length was not generally laid aside until the invention of clockwork in the twelfth century. Some time, however, before the birth of our Lord, hours corresponding to one twenty-fourth part of the civil day became generally known. It was only at the time of the equinoxes (and therefore at the 15th of Nisan). that those hours exactly corresponded with the variable hours. And therefore at that time the hours of the civil day could be counted from midnight, without interfering with the methods usually adopted for measuring time. HBS 63.2

This is what John must have done in the passage in question. And he did so all the more readily as the feast he was about to speak of, viz., the 15th of Nisan, as distinguished from the Passover of the preceding evening, began in obedience to Exodus 12:29, exactly at midnight.... That the hours are reckoned in this way by John will be plain to every reader of his Gospel, if not from his acquaintance with the evangelical narrative, yet from the relation the fact therein stated bears to the celebration of the festival then kept, the 15th of Nisan.—“A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels,” Karl Wieseler, translated by the Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A., pp. 372-377. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1864. HBS 63.3

Calendar, Jewish.—The Romans had two different computations of their days, and two denominations for them. The one they called the civil, the other the natural day; the civil day was from midnight to midnight; and the natural day was from the rising to the setting sun. The natural day of the Jews varied in length according to the seasons of the year: the longest day in the Holy Land is only fourteen hours and twelve minutes of our time; and the shortest day, nine hours and forty-eight minutes. This portion of time was at first divided into four parts (Nehemiah 9:3); which, though varying in length according to the seasons, could nevertheless be easily discerned from the position or appearance of the sun in the horizon. Afterward the natural day was divided into twelve hours, which were measured from dials constructed for that purpose.... The Jews computed their hours of the civil day from six in the morning till six in the evening; thus their first hour corresponded with our seven o’clock; their second to our eight; their third to our nine, etc. HBS 63.4

The knowledge of this circumstance will illustrate several passages of Scripture, particularly Matthew 20, where the third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours (verses 3, 5, 6, 9) respectively denote nine o’clock in the morning, twelve at noon, three and five in the afternoon. (See also Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:9, 30.) The first three hours (from six to nine) were their morning: during the third hour, from eight to nine, their morning sacrifice was prepared, offered up, and laid on the altar precisely at nine o’clock; this interval they termed the preparation ([Greek word] [paraskeue]). Josephus confirms the narrative of the evangelists. As the Israelites went out of Egypt at the vernal equinox, the morning watch would answer to our four o’clock in the morning. HBS 63.5

Before the captivity the night was divided into three parts, or watches. Psalm 63:6; 90:4. The first or beginning of watches is mentioned in Lamentations 2:19; the middle watch in Judges 7:19; and the morning watch, or watch of daybreak, in Exodus 14:24. It is probable that these watches varied in length according to the seasons of the year; consequently those who had a long and inclement winter watch to encounter, would ardently desire the approach of morning light to terminate their watch. This circumstance would beautifully illustrate the fervor of the psalmist’s devotion (Psalm 130:6), as well as serve to explain other passages of the Old Testament. These three watches are also mentioned by various profane writers. HBS 64.1

During the time of our Saviour, the night was divided into four watches, a fourth watch having been introduced among the Jews from the Romans, who derived it from the Greeks. The second and third watches are mentioned in Luke 12:38; the fourth in Matthew 14:25; and the four are all distinctly mentioned in Mark 13:35. “Watch, therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh; at even ([Greek word transliterated as follows] [opse], or the late watch), or at midnight ([Greek word; transliterated as follows] [mesonuktion]), or at the cockcrowing ([Greek word transliterated as follows] [alektorophoonias]), or in the morning ([Greek word transliterated as follows] [prooi], the early watch). Here, the first watch was at even, and continued from six till nine; the second commenced at nine and ended at twelve, or midnight; the third watch, called by the Romans gallicinium, lasted from twelve to three; and the morning watch closed at six. A double cockcrowing, indeed, is noticed by St. Mark 14:30, where the other evangelists mention only one. Matthew 26:34; Luke 22:34; John 13:38. But this may be easily reconciled. The Jewish doctors divided the cockcrowing into the first, second, and third; the heathen nations in general observed only two. As the cock crew the second time after Peter’s third denial, it was this second or principal cockcrowing (for the Jews seem in many respects to have accommodated themselves to the Roman computation of time) to which the evangelists Matthew, Luke, and John refer. Or, perhaps, the second cockcrowing of the Jews might coincide with the second of the Romans. HBS 64.2

It may be proper to remark that the word “hour” is frequently used with great latitude in the Scriptures, and sometimes implies the space of time occupied by a whole watch. Matthew 25:13; 26:40; Mark 14:37; Luke 22:59; Revelation 3:3. Perhaps the third hour mentioned in Acts 23:23 was a military watch of the night. HBS 64.3

The Jews reckoned two evenings: the former began at the ninth hour of the natural day, or three o’clock in the afternoon; and the latter at the eleventh hour. Thus the paschal lamb was required to be sacrificed “between the evenings” (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:4); which, Josephus tells us, the Jews in his time did, from the ninth hour until the eleventh. Hence the law, requiring the paschal lamb to be sacrificed “at even, at the going down of the sun” (Deuteronomy 16:6), expressed both evenings. It is truly remarkable that “Christ our passover,” the antitype of the paschal lamb, “expired at the ninth hour, and was taken down from the cross at the eleventh hour, or sunset.” HBS 64.4

Seven nights and days constituted a week; six of these were appropriated to labor and the ordinary purposes of life, and the seventh day, or Sabbath, was appointed by God to be observed as a day of rest, “because that on it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made.” Genesis 2:3. This division of time was universally observed by the descendants of Noah.... HBS 64.5

The Hebrews had their months, which, like those of all other ancient nations, were lunar ones, being measured by the revolutions of the moon, and consisting alternately of twenty-nine and thirty days.... HBS 64.6

Originally, the Jews had no particular names for their months, but called them the first, second, etc. Thus the deluge began in the second month, and came to its height in the seventh month, at the end of 150 days (Genesis 7:11-24; 8:4); and decreased until the tenth month, when the tops of the mountains were seen. Genesis 8:5. Afterward they acquired distinct names; thus Moses named the first month of the year “Abib” (Exodus 12:2; 13:4), signifying green, from the green ears of corn at that season; for it began about the vernal equinox. The second month was named “Zif,” signifying in Chaldee glory or splendor; in which the foundation of Solomon’s temple was laid. 1 Kings 6:1. The seventh month was styled “Ethanim,” which is interpreted harvests by the Syriac version. 1 Kings 8:2. The eighth month “Bul,” from the fall of the leaf. 1 Kings 6:38. But concerning the origin of these appellations critics are by no means agreed: on their return from the Babylonish captivity, they introduced the names which they had found among the Chaldeans and Persians. Thus, the first month was also called “Nisan,” signifying flight, because in that month the Israelites were thrust out of Egypt (Exodus 12:39); the third month, “Sivan,” signifying a bramble (Esther 3:7; Nehemiah 2:1); and the sixth month “Elul,” signifying mourning, probably because it was the time of preparation for the great day of atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month. Nehemiah 6:15. The ninth month was called “Chisleu,” signifying chilled, when the cold weather sets in, and fires are lighted. Zechariah 7:1; Jeremiah 36:22. The tenth month was called “Tebeth,” signifying miry. Esther 2:16. The eleventh, “Shebet,” signifying a staff or a scepter. Zechariah 1:7. And the twelfth “Adar,” signifying a magnificent mantle, probably from the profusion of flowers and plants with which the earth then begins to be clothed in warm climates. Ezra 6:15; Esther 3:7. It is said to be a Syriac term. 2 Mac. 16: 36. HBS 65.1

The Jews had four sorts of years,-one for plants, another for beasts, a third for sacred purposes, and the fourth was civil and common to all the inhabitants of Palestine. HBS 65.2

1. The year of plants was reckoned from the month corresponding with our January; because they paid tithe-fruits of the trees which budded at that time. HBS 65.3

2. The second year was that of beasts; for when they tithed their lambs, the owner drove all the flock under a rod, and they marked the tenth, which was given to the Levites. They could, however, only take those which fell in the year, and this year began at the month Elul, or the beginning of our August. HBS 65.4

But the two years which are the most known are the civil and ecclesiastical years. HBS 65.5

3. The civil year commenced on the fifteenth of our September, because it was an old tradition that the world was created at that time. From this year the Jews computed their jubilees, dated all contracts, and noted the birth of children and the reign of kings. It is said also that this month was appointed for making war; because, the great heats being passed, they then went into the field. In 2 Samuel 11:1 we read that “David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel, to destroy the Ammonites, at the return of the year [marginal rendering], at the time when kings go forth to battle,” that is, in the month of September. HBS 65.6

The annexed table exhibits the months of the Jewish civil year with the corresponding months of our computation: HBS 65.7

1. Tisri corresponds with part of	September and October
2. Marchesvan	October and November
3. Chisleu, or Kisleu	November and December
4. Thebet	December and January

5. Sebat	January and February
6. Adar	February and March
7. Nisan, or Abib	March and April
8. Jyar, or Zif	April and May
9. Sivan	May and June
10. Thammuz	June and July
11. Ab	July and August
12. Elul	August and September

Some of the preceding names are still in use in Persia. HBS 66.1

4. The ecclesiastical or sacred year began in March, or on the first day of the month Nisan, because at that time they departed out of Egypt. From that month they computed their feasts, and the prophets also occasionally dated their oracles and visions. Thus Zechariah 7:1 says that “the word of the Lord came unto him in the fourth” day “of the ninth month,” even in Chisleu; which answers to our November, whence it is evident that he adopted the ecclesiastical year, which commenced in March. The month Nisan is noted in the Old Testament for the “overflowings of Jordan” (Joshua 3:15; 1 Chronicles 12:15), which were common at that season, the river being swollen by the melted snows that poured in torrents from Mt. Lebanon. HBS 66.2

The following table presents the months of the Jewish ecclesiastical year, compared with our months: HBS 66.3

1. Nisan, or Abib, (Nehemiah 2:1; Esther 3:7) answers to part of March and April HBS 66.4

2. Jyar, or Zif April and May HBS 66.5

3. Sivan (Esther 8:9) May and June HBS 66.6

4. Thammuz June and July HBS 66.7

5. Ab July and August HBS 66.8

6. Elul (Nehemiah 6:15) August and September HBS 66.9

7. Tisri September and October HBS 66.10

8. Marchesvan October and November HBS 66.11

9. Kisleu, or Chisleu (Zechariah 7:1; Nehemiah 1:1) November and December HBS 66.12

10. Thebet December and January HBS 66.13

11. Sebat (Zechariah 1:7) January and February HBS 66.14

12. Adar (Ezra 6:15; Esther 3:7) February and March HBS 66.15

The Jewish months being regulated by the phases or appearances of the moon, their years were consequently lunar years, consisting of twelve lunations, or 354 days and 8 hours; but as the Jewish festivals were held not only on certain fixed days of the month, but also at certain seasons of the year, consquently great confusion would, in process of time, arise by this method of calculating. The spring month sometimes falling in the middle of winter, it became necessary to accommodate the lunar to solar years, in order that their months, and consequently their festivals, might always fall at the same season. For this purpose, the Jews added a whole month to the year as often as it was necessary, which occurred commonly once in three years, and sometimes once in two years. This intercalary month was added at the end of the ecclesiastical year after the month Adar, and was therefore called Ve-Adar, or the second Adar: but no vestiges of such intercalation are to be found in the Scriptures.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. III, pp. 168-174. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 66.16

Calendar, Hours of Day and Night.—Each month [in Egyptian chronology] was divided into three decades (the Egyptians do not seem to have ever used, or even known, the week of seven days); each day into twenty-four hours, twelve hours of actual day time and twelve hours of actual night time. The hours of day and night, consequently, were not always of the same length. The sixth hour of night corresponded to midnight, and the sixth hour of day to noon.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, art. “Egypt,” p. 333. HBS 66.17

Calendar, Jewish Week.—The week consists of seven days, distinguished from one another by their place in the week. They are called the first day, the second day, the third day, and so on to the seventh day, which is besides called “Shabbat” (rest) or “Yom ha-Shabbat” (day of rest). As the Sabbath is the most important day of the week, the term “Shabbat” denotes also “week”-that is, the period from one Sabbath to the next; and a year of rest is also called “Shabbat” (or “Shabu’a”). Friday, as the forerunner of Shabbat, is called “‘Ereb Shabbat” (the eve of Sabbath). The term “‘ereb” admits of two meanings: “evening” and “admixture” (Exodus 12:38); and “‘Ereb Shabbat” accordingly denotes the day on the evening of which Sabbath begins, or the day on which food is prepared for both the current and the following days, which latter is Sabbath. HBS 67.1

The idea of preparation is expressed by the Greek name ?ánáóe oo? [paraskeuç], given by Josephus (“Ant.” xvi. chap. 6, par. 2) to that day (compare Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; Matthew 27:62; John 19:42). In Yer. Pesahim iv. 1 the day is called “Yoma da’Arubta” (day of preparation). Another term frequently employed in describing the day is the Aramaic “me’ale” (bringing in, that is, the Sabbath). Saturday evening, i. e., the evening after the termination of Sabbath, is correspondingly called “Moza’e Shabbat” in Hebrew and “Appuke Yoma” in Aramaic (“leading the day out”). The name originally given to Saturday evening is also applied to denote the whole of “Sunday.”-The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. III, art. “Calendar, The Week,” p. 502. HBS 67.2

Calendar, Week, Adopted at Rome in the Time of Hadrian, 117-138, a. d.—Attention has recently been called, in connection with our subject, to a circumstance which is important,-the adoption by the Roman world of the Egyptian week almost contemporaneously with the founding of the Christian church. Dion Cassius speaks of that adoption as recent, and we are therefore warranted in conjecturing the time of Hadrian as about that wherein it must have established itself.—“A Dictionary of the Bible,” William Smith, LL. D., Vol. III, p. 1072. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1863. HBS 67.3

Calendar, Week, Dion Cassius on.—Most of the city [Jerusalem], to be sure, he [Pompey] took without any trouble, as he was received by the party of Hyrcanus; but the temple itself, which the other party [that of Aristobulus] had occupied, he captured only with difficulty. For it was on high ground and was fortified by a wall of its own; and if they had continued defending it on all days alike, he could not have got possession of it. As it was, they made an exception of what are called the days of Saturn, and by doing no work at all on those days afforded the Romans an opportunity in this interval to batter down the wall. The latter, on learning of this superstitious awe of theirs, made no serious attempts the rest of the time, but on those days, when they came round in succession, assaulted most vigorously. Thus the defenders were captured on the day of Saturn, without making any defense, and all the wealth was plundered. The kingdom was given to Hyrcanus, and Aristobulus was carried away. HBS 67.4

This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extending from Phonicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be applied to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed, has increased to a very great extent, and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances. They are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life, and especially by the fact that they do not honor any of the usual gods, but show extreme reverence for one particular Divinity. They never had any statue of him even in Jerusalem itself, but believing him to be unnamable and invisible, they worship him in the most extravagant fashion on earth. They built to him a temple that is extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and roofless, ⁶ and likewise dedicate to him the day called the day of Saturn, on which, among many other most peculiar observances, they undertake no serious occupation. HBS 67.5

Now as for him, who he is and why he has been so honored, and how they got their superstitious awe of him, accounts have been given by many, and moreover these matters have naught to do with this history. The custom, however, of referring the days to the seven stars called planets was instituted by the Egyptians, but is now found among all mankind, though its adoption has been comparatively recent; at any rate, the ancient Greeks never understood it, so far as I am aware. But since it is now quite the fashion with mankind generally, and even with the Romans themselves, and is to them already an ancestral tradition, I wish to write briefly of it, telling how and in what way it has been arranged.—“History of Rome,” Dion Cassius, Vol. III, book 37, pp. 125-131. London: William Heineman, 1914. HBS 68.1

Calendar, Seven-day Period Introduced into Roman Chronology.—In the Roman chronological system of the Augustan age the week as a division of time was practically unknown, though the twelve calendar months existed as we have them now. In the course of the first and second century after Christ, the hebdomadal, or seven-day, period became universally familiar, though not immediately through Jewish or Christian influence. The arrangement seems to have been astrological in origin and to have come to Rome from Egypt.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, art. “Calendar,” p. 158. HBS 68.2

Calendar, Roman Period of Eight Days.—The Romans were accustomed to divide the year into nundina, periods of eight days; and in their marble fasti, or calendars, of which numerous specimens remain, they used the first eight letters of the alphabet to mark the days of which each period was composed. When the Oriental seven-day period, or week, was introduced, in the time of Augustus, the first seven letters of the alphabet were employed in the same way to indicate the days of this new division of time. In fact, fragmentary calendars on marble still survive in which both a cycle of eight letters-A to H-indicating nundina, and a cycle of seven letters-A to G-indicating weeks, are used side by side (see “Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,” 2nd ed., I, 220. The same peculiarity occurs in the Philocalian Calendar of a. d. 356, ibid., p. 256). This device was imitated by the Christians, and in their calendars the days of the year from 1 January to 31 December were marked with a continuous recurring cycle of seven letters: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. A was always set against 1 January, B against 2 January, C against 3 January, and so on.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, art. “Dominical Letter,” p. 109. HBS 68.3

Calendar, Months, Jewish and English.— HBS 69.1

N. B.—The civil months are six months later than the sacred months. HBS 69.2

Sacred Month	Name of Month	Corresponding English Month	Festival of Month
I	Abib, or Nisan	April	14th day. The Passover 16th day. Firstfruits of barley harvest presented
II	Zif	May	14th day. Second Passover, for those who could not keep the first
III	Sivan	June	6th day. Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks
IV	Thammuz	JulyFirstfruits of wheat harvest, and firstfruits of all the ground
V	Ab	August
VI	Elul	September
VII	Tisri, or Ethanim	October	1st day. Feast of Trumpets 10th day. Day of Atonement 15th day. Feast of Tabernacles Firstfruits of wine and oil
VIII	Bul	November
IX	Chisleu	December	25th day. Feast of Dedication
X	Tebeth	January
XI	Shebat	February
XII	Adar	March	14th and 15th days. Feast of Purim

-“The Companion Bible,” part I, “The Pentateuch,” Appendix, p. 74. London: Oxford University Press. HBS 69.3

Calendar, The Festive.—The symbolical character which is to be traced in all the institutions of the Old Testament, appears also in the arrangement of its festive calendar. Whatever classification of the festivals may be proposed, one general characteristic pervades the whole. HBS 69.4

Unquestionably, the number seven marks in Scripture the sacred measurement of time. The Sabbath is the seventh of days; seven weeks after the commencement of the ecclesiastical year is the Feast of Pentecost; the seventh month is more sacred than the rest, its “firstborn,” or New Moon, being not only devoted to the Lord like those of the other months, but specially celebrated as the Feast of Trumpets, while three other festivals occur within its course,-the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and its octave. Similarly, each seventh year is sabbatical, and after seven times seven years comes that of jubilee. Nor is this all. Seven days in the year may be designated as the most festive, since in them alone “no servile work” was to be done, while on the so-called minor festivals (Moed Katon)., that is, on the days following the first of the Passover week and of that of Tabernacles, the diminution of festive observances and of restrictions on labor marks their less sacred character.—“The Temple, Its Ministry and Services, as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ,” Rev. Dr. Edersheim, pp. 165, 166. Boston: Ira Bradley & Co., copyright 1881. HBS 69.5

Calendar, New Year.—No definite and fast assertion is made in the Old Testament of the month with which the New Year began. While the autumn festival is designated as “the end of the year” (Exodus 23:16), the “return of the year” is marked as “the time when kings go forth to battle.” Probably the autumn marks simply the end of the season, the beginning of which is the sowing of the crops, coincident with the time when the operations of war can be carried on; while the season of the winter rains marked a pause when the staple business life was interrupted. [p. 473] ... HBS 70.1

The reckoning of the regnal years of the kings is based upon the year which began in the spring, and is parallel to the Babylonian method in which this prevailed.... HBS 70.2

After the exile the Babylonian names for the months gradually came into use, this being determined by Persian control of Hither Asia and the official use by the Persians of these names. In Zechariah 1:7; 7:1, the names of the months may be interpolations; but in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra the names are used as customary, while in Esther the numbers are added for the sake of clearness. The Chronicler adheres to the usage in the law. The names used by the Jews are as follows: Nisan, Assyr. Nisanu (Nehemiah 2:1, etc.); Iyyar, Assyr. Airu (Targum on 2 Chronicles 30:2); Siwan, Assyr. Simanu (Esther 8:9); Tammuz, Assyr. Duzu (Targum Jerusalem, Genesis 8:5); Ab, Assyr. Abu (Targum Jerusalem, Numbers 20:29, etc.); Elul, Assyr. Ululu (Nehemiah 6:15); Tishri, Assyr. Tishritu (Targum Jerusalem, Leviticus 23:24); Marheshwan, Assyr. Arah-shamnu (Targum Jerusalem, Deuteronomy 11:14); Kishlew, Assyr. Kislimu (Nehemiah 1:1, etc.); Tebeth, Assyr. Tebetu (Esther 2:16); Shebat, Assyr. Shabatu (Zechariah 1:7); Adar, Assyr. Adam (Esther 3:7 etc.). The beginning of the month was doubtless in both early and later times determined by actual observation of the new moon. The intercalation of a month was in late times determined by the Sanhedrin, but whether that month was called Adar or (with the Babylonians) Elul is not determined. Reckoning by cycles belongs to times in the Christian era. HBS 70.3

From Nehemiah 2:1 compared with Nehemiah 1:1 it appears that the regnal years of Persian kings were reckoned from the first of Tishri.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XII, art. “Year, The Hebrew,” pp. 473, 474. HBS 70.4

Calendar, Jewish and Mohammedan.—In the construction of the Jewish calendar numerous details require attention. The calendar is dated from the creation, which is considered to have taken place 3,760 years and three months before the commencement of the Christian era. The year is lunisolar, and, according as it is ordinary or embolismic, consists of twelve or thirteen lunar months, each of which has twenty-nine or thirty days. Thus the duration of the ordinary year is 354 days, and that of the embolismic is 384 days. In either case, it is sometimes made a day more, and sometimes a day less, in order that certain festivals may fall on proper days of the week for their due observance. [p. 1000] ... HBS 70.5

The Mohammedan era, or era of the Hegira, used in Turkey, Persia, Arabia, etc., is dated from the first day of the month preceding the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, i. e., Thursday, the 15th of July, a. d. 622, and it commenced on the day following. The years of the Hegira are purely lunar, and always consist of twelve lunar months, commencing with the approximate new moon, without any intercalation to keep them to the same season with respect to the sun, so that they retrograde through all the seasons in about thirty-two and one-half years. They are also partitioned into cycles of thirty years, nineteen of which are common years of 354 days each, and the other eleven are intercalary years having an additional day appended to the last month.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. IV, art “Calendar,” pp. 1000, 1001. HBS 71.1

Calendar, Planetary Names of Days from Egypt.—The weekly calendar of seven days was unknown to the early Greeks. Their week consisted of ten days. The early Romans divided the year into months and the months into three unequal and varying parts,-the Kalends, of thirteen to fifteen days; the Ides, of seven to nine days; and the Nones, of nine days. The Egyptians, like the Assyrians and Babylonians, were advanced astronomers, and in very remote time, but how early is not known, had their weeks of seven days each. How they came to have weeks of seven days like the Akkadians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians, is not known. Nor is it known why they also called their days for the sun, the moon, and five of the planets. This Egyptian division of time was introduced into Rome and supplanted the Roman calendar, but the time of the innovation is not certainly known, some authorities placing it in the second and others in the fourth century of the Christian era.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XI, art. “Sunday,” p. 147. HBS 71.2

Canaan.—Canaan signifies “the lowlands,” and was primarily the name of the coast on which the great cities of Phonicia were built. As, however, the inland parts of the country were inhabited by a kindred population, the name came to be extended to designate the whole of Palestine, just as Palestine itself meant originally only the small territory of the Philistines. In Isaiah’s prophecy upon Tyre (23:11) the word is used in its primitive sense, though here again the Authorized Version has misled the English reader by mistranslating “the merchant city” instead of “Canaan.” Sidon, “the fishers’ town,” was the oldest of the Canaanite or Phonician cities; like Tyre, it was divided into two quarters, known respectively as Greater and Lesser Sidon. Heth or the Hethites adjoined the Phonicians on the north.... The Amorite was the inhabitant of the mountains of Palestine, in contrast to the Canaanite, or lowlander, and the name is met with on the Egyptian monuments. The towns of Arka and Simirra (or Zemar) are both mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser II, while the city of Arvad or Arados (now Ruâd) is repeatedly named in the Assyrian inscriptions. So also is Hamath (now Hamah), which was conquered by Sargon, and made by him the seat of an Assyrian governor.—“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., p. 40. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 71.3

Canon, Definition of.—The term “canon” properly signifies a measuring reed or rule; and is sometimes applied to the tongue of a balance, which indicates by its position whether the scales are in equilibrium. Hence, canonical books are those which form the divine rule, by which men ascertain whether they are walking orderly in the straight path of God’s law, and by which they examine themselves, whether they are in the faith, and weigh their lives, as it were, in the balance of the sanctuary. In a word, the canon of Scripture is the divinely inspired code of belief and practice.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 5, 6. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851. HBS 71.4

Canon, Old Testament, How Anciently Classified.—The Old Testament, according to our Bibles, comprises thirty-nine books.... But, among the ancient Jews, they formed only twenty-two books, according to the letters of their alphabet, which were twenty-two in number; reckoning Judges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and his Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets (so called from the comparative brevity of their compositions), respectively as one book.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. I, p. 39. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 72.1

Canon, Old Testament, How Preserved and Authenticated.—Our present concern is with the Old Testament; and I would now proceed to show that its books, as soon as they were written, were delivered by Almighty God to the keeping of his own people, the Jews; that by them they were received as inspired, and preserved pure and entire till the coming of Christ; that they, and they alone, were acknowledged by him as the sincere word of God; that, being so authenticated by Christ, they passed into the hands of the Christian church; and have been preserved unadulterated and unmutilated, and conveyed by an uninterrupted succession even to ourselves at this day.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 29. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851. HBS 72.2

Canon, Old Testament, Christ’s Relation to.—Our blessed Lord was a constant attendant at the worship of the synagogue, and he took part in the public reading and exposition of the sacred books of the Jews: thus he gave a practical testimony and a personal sanction to the tenets of the Jews concerning those books. He, the Son of God, received as divinely inspired Scripture what the Jews received and delivered to him as such. He affirmed those books to be written by the Holy Ghost; and claimed to be received as the Messiah on the authority of their prophecies. He frequently called those books, “The Scriptures;” he commanded the Jews to search their Scriptures; he said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail;” and again, “Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle [that is, one yod, the smallest letter, and one point of a letter] shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;” and again, “The Scripture cannot be broken.” HBS 72.3

He declared that the Sadducees erred by not understanding the Scriptures. “They have Moses and the prophets: let them hear them.” He defined the prophetical age between the limits of Abel and Zacharias. In his walk with the two disciples to Emmaus, after his resurrection, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” He said to his apostles, “These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.” So spake the Lord of life. And, therefore, the writings of Moses and all the prophets, and the Psalms,-that is, all the books received by the Jews under these names,-were “all the Scriptures” to Christ. HBS 72.4

It is therefore clear that [Original illegible] blessed Lord joined with the Jews in receiving what they received as Scripture. And therefore he joined with them also in not receiving what they did not receive as such. He therefore did not receive the Apocrypha as inspired.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 51, 52. London: Francis and John Rivington, 1851. HBS 73.1

Canon, Roman Catholic View of Manner of Determining.—Tradition we have hitherto described as the consciousness of the church, as the living word of faith, according to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted and to be understood. The doctrine of tradition contains, in this sense, nothing else than the doctrine of Scripture; both, as to their contents, are one and the same. But, moreover, it is asserted by the Catholic Church that many things have been delivered to her by the apostles, which Holy Writ either doth not at all comprise, or at most, but alludes to. This assertion of the church is of the greatest moment, and partially indeed, includes the foundations of the whole system. Among these oral traditions must be included the doctrine of the canonicity and the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures; for in no part of the Bible do we find the books belonging to it designated; and were such a catalogue contained in it, its authority must first be made matter of inquiry. In like manner, the testimony as to the inspiration of the Biblical writings is obtained only through the church. It is from this point we first discern, in all its magnitude, the vast importance of the doctrine of church authority, and can form a notion of the infinite multitude of things involved in that doctrine.—“Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), 5th edition, pp. 292, 293. London: Thomas Baker, 1906. HBS 73.2

Note.—This book was first printed in 1832.—Eds. HBS 73.3

Canon, Old Testament, Additions to, by the Church of Rome.—The Church of Rome at the Council of Trent placed other books [the Apocrypha] on an equal footing with those thus delivered to the church of the Jews by God, and which alone were treated as divine by Christ and his apostles; and the Church of Rome anathematized, and still anathematizes, all who do not and cannot receive these other books as of equal authority with those whose inspiration is guaranteed by Christ. What is this but with profane irreverence to dictate to the Supreme Being himself? Must we not say to you, “Apud vos de humano arbitratu Deus pensitatur; nisi homini Deus placuerit, Deus non erit?” [With you is God considered according to human judgment; unless God be acceptable to man, will he not be God?] What is it but to elevate human authors into divine, and, after the manner of ancient Rome, as St. Chrysostom says, [Greek words] [cheirotonein theous (choose gods by vote-hand raising)] to create gods by a show of hands?-“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 120, 121. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. HBS 73.4

Canon, Old Testament, The Roman Catholic.—The most explicit definition of the Catholic canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows: “The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.” The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, art. “Canon,” p. 270. HBS 73.5

Canon, Old Testament, According to Josephus.—We have not a multitude of books among us, disagreeing and contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but are confined to twenty-two, that we are bound to believe, and those twenty-two books comprise the history of the world from the beginning to this day. Five of them treat of the creation of the world, and the generation of mankind, and so to the death of Moses, in a series of little less than three thousand years. HBS 74.1

From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, and king of Persia, every one of our prophets wrote the history of the times in which he lived, comprehending the whole in thirteen books; the other four books containing divine poems and moral precepts. There has, indeed, been a continuation of our history from Artaxerxes to this instant; but it is not esteemed, in point of authenticity, comparable to that of our forefathers, as there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time. The former writings are the objects of our implicit belief; for, during many ages of the world, no attempt has been made either to add to or diminish from them, or even so much as to transform or disguise them. As we hold these writings divine, we call them so; and are trained, from earliest infancy, to meditate upon, observe, and maintain them as such: nay, we are enjoined rather to suffer death than give them up.—“The Works of Flavius Josephus,” Whiston’s translation, “In Answer to Apion,” book 1, par. 11. HBS 74.2

In this enumeration of Josephus, it will be seen that the Jewish sacred books-thirty-nine in our Bible-are reckoned as twenty-two (after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet), viz., five of the law, thirteen of the prophets, and four remaining books. These last are Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. The middle class includes all the historical and prophetical books, likewise Job, and the reduction in the number from thirty to thirteen is explained by Judges-Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets, each being counted as one book. In his twenty-two books, therefore, Josephus includes all those in the present Hebrew canon, and none besides-not the books known as the Apocrypha, though he was acquainted with and used some of these.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Bible, The,” p. 461. HBS 74.3

Canon, Muratorian Fragment.—The document thus designated is a very ancient list of sacred writings of the New Testament, first published in 1740 by Muratori (Ant. Ital. Med. Aev. iii. 851). He had found it in a seventh or eighth century manuscript in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, of which he had formerly been librarian.... This is, as far as we know, the earliest attempt to make an enumeration of the New Testament writings recognized by the church. The document is approximately dated by means of a reference in it to the episcopate of Pius at Rome, which it speaks of as “nuperrime temporibus nostris [very lately, in our times].” The latest date assigned for the death of Pius is a. d. 157, and it is contended that no one would speak of an event as having occurred “very lately and in his own time,” if it was then more than twenty years ago. So we get about a. d. 180 as the latest admissible date for this document. [p. 1000] ... HBS 74.4

The first line of the fragment is evidently the conclusion of its notice of St. Mark’s Gospel; for it goes on to speak of St. Luke’s as in the third place, St. John’s as in the fourth. It is clear that a notice of St. Matthew’s Gospel and of St. Mark’s must have come before; but we have no means of testing the conjecture that the document had previously given a list of Old Testament books. The document would appear to have undertaken to throw light on the choice of topics in the Gospels and on the point where each began (compare Irenaus, iii. 11). It is stated that St. Luke (and apparently St. Mark also) had not seen our Lord in the flesh, and had based his narrative on such information as he could obtain, beginning from the birth of John.... The document goes on to say that the variety in the Gospels makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by one and the same sovereign Spirit the same fundamental doctrines are fully taught in all concerning our Lord’s birth, life, passion, resurrection, and future coming. At the date of this document, therefore, belief was fully established not only in the pre-eminence of four Gospels, but in their divine inspiration. HBS 75.1

Next comes a notice of the Acts of the Apostles, in which St. Luke’s choice of topics is accounted for by his having only designed to record what fell under his own notice, and having therefore left unmentioned the martyrdom of Peter and the journey of Paul to Spain. HBS 75.2

Thirteen epistles of St. Paul are then mentioned: (a) Epistles to churches, in the following order: 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans. It is observed that though Paul, for their correction, wrote twice to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, he only addressed seven churches by name, in this following the example of “his predecessor,” St. John, who, in writing to seven churches, showed that he was addressing the universal church. (b) Epistles to individuals: Philemon, Titus, and two to Timothy, written from personal affection, but hallowed by the honor of the catholic church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline.—“A Dictionary of Christian Biography,” Smith and Wace, Vol III, art. “Muratorian Fragment,” pp. 1000, 1001. London: John Murray, 1882. HBS 75.3

Canon, New Testament, When Determined.—What now are the facts concerning the books of the New Testament as they emerge to historical recognition about the close of the second and the beginning of the third century? HBS 75.4

a. A translation of the writings upon which the faith of the church was founded, was made into the Syriac language some time during the second century, and was in authoritative circulation in the valley of the Euphrates. This translation contains all of our present New Testament except Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation, and no other books. HBS 75.5

b. About the same time translations appear in the Latin, and are in circulation in Northern Africa and Italy. A catalogue of New Testament books known as the Muratorian Canon, prepared about the year 170, has been preserved, and well represents the limits assigned to the Sacred Writings by the churches in Northern Africa and Italy. This catalogue includes the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. Combining these two catalogues, we have distinct documentary evidence of the canonical recognition by the churches of the second century of every book of the New Testament except 2 Peter.—“The Divine Authority of the Bible,” G. Frederick Wright, pp. 73, 74. Boston: Congregational Sunday-School and Publishing Society, copyright 1884. HBS 75.6

Canon, New Testament, the Second Epistle of Peter.—The amount of direct evidence to substantiate the canonical authority of this epistle is less than that of any other portion of Scripture. There is no distinct evidence of its having “been referred to by any author earlier than Origen” (about 220); though Clement of Alexandria is reported by the church historians Eusebius and Photius to have written a “commentary upon all the disputed epistles, in which this was certainly included.” In the fourth century Didymus, a celebrated writer of Alexandria, refers frequently to the epistle. We may safely adopt the words of Canon Cook concerning it: “The historical evidence is certainly inconclusive, but not such as to require or to warrant the rejection of the epistle. The silence of the Fathers is accounted for more easily than its admission into the canon after the question as to its genuineness had been raised. It is not conceivable that it should have been received without positive attestation from the churches to which it was first addressed.”-“The Divine Authority of the Bible,” G. Frederick Wright, p. 78. Boston: Congregational Sunday-School and Publishing Society, copyright 1884. HBS 76.1

Canon, Formation of New Testament.—Modern advocates of infidelity, with their accustomed disregard of truth, have asserted that the Scriptures of the New Testament were never accounted canonical until the meeting of the Council of Laodicea, a. d. 364. The simple fact is, that the canons of this council are the earliest extant, which give a formal catalogue of the books of the New Testament. There is, indeed, every reason to believe that the bishops who were present at Laodicea did not mean to settle the canon, but simply to mention those books which were to be publicly read. Another reason why the canonical books were not mentioned before the Council of Laodicea, is presented in the persecutions, to which the professors of Christianity were constantly exposed, and in the want of a national establishment of Christianity for several centuries, which prevented any general councils of Christians for the purpose of settling their canon of Scripture. But though the number of the books thus received as sacred and canonical was not in the first instance determined by the authority of councils, we are not left in uncertainty concerning their genuineness and authenticity, for which we have infinitely more decisive and satisfactory evidence than we have for the productions of any ancient classic authors, concerning whose genuineness and authenticity no doubt was ever entertained. HBS 76.2

We receive the books of the New Testament as the genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, for the same reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, of Casar, Tacitus, and Quintus Curtius; namely, because we have the uninterrupted testimony of ages to their genuineness, and we have no reason to suspect imposition.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. I, pp. 64, 65. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 76.3

Canon, Authority of Books Not Established by.—The gathering of all the separate books is called canonization, and as some one has truly said, “Canonization created a book, not a revelation.” The collection into a volume was inevitable, especially in view of the example of the Old Testament, but it must never be forgotten that the gathering together into one volume did not for the first time constitute the books authoritative. The heart of this whole question has been well put in words that deserve special emphasis and careful consideration: “The New Testament is not an authorized collection of books, but a collection of authorized books.” The authority lies in the books, not in the collection. HBS 76.4

For this reason, when heretics collected their books, the church naturally bore testimony to what it believed to be the inspired and authoritative Scripture.—From an Address by W. H. Griffith Thomas, D. D., printed in “God Hath Spoken,” pp. 102, 103. Philadelphia: Bible Conference Committee, copyright 1919. HBS 77.1

Canon, Early Recognition of the Gospels.—There can be no doubt that by the close of the first century and the early part of the second, opinion was practically unanimous in recognition of the authority of the four Gospels of the canonical Scriptures. Irenaus, bishop of Lyons (180 a. d.), recognizes four, and only four Gospels, as “pillars” of the church. The Harmonies of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (168-180 a. d.), and of Tatian, and the Apology of Justin Martyr carry back the tradition to a much earlier period of the century, and, as Liddon proves at considerable length (Bampton Lectures, 2nd ed., 210-219), “it is scarcely too much to assert that every decade of the second century furnishes its share of proof that the four Gospels as a whole, and St. John’s in particular, were to the church of that age what they are to the church of the present.”-The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr; M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Apocryphal Gospels,” p. 195. HBS 77.2

Canon, New Testament According to Eusebius.—This appears also to be the proper place to give a summary statement of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. And here, among the first, must be placed the holy quaternion of the Gospels; these are followed by “The Book of the Acts of the Apostles;” after this must be mentioned the epistles of Paul, which are followed by the acknowledged first epistle of John, as also the first of Peter, to be admitted in like manner. After these, are to be placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall offer the different opinions in due time. These, then, are acknowledged as genuine. HBS 77.3

Among the disputed books, although they are well known and approved by many, is reputed, that called the epistle of James and Jude. Also the “Second Epistle of Peter,” and those called “The Second and Third of John,” whether they are of the evangelist or of some other of the same name. Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called “The Acts of Paul,” and that called “Pastor,” and “The Revelation of Peter.” Besides these, the books called “The Epistle of Barnabas,” and what are called “The Institutions of the Apostles.” Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, “The Revelation of John,” which some, as before said, reject, but others rank among the genuine.—“An Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius, translated by Rev. C. F. Cruse, D. D., p. 128. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1847. HBS 77.4

Canon, Not Determined by Any Council.—I need not tell you that the Council of Nicaa did not meddle with the subject of the canon, and so we need not trouble ourselves to discuss the proofs that the members of that venerable synod were frail and fallible men like ourselves. The fact is, that, as I have already told you, authority did not meddle with the question of the canon until that question had pretty well settled itself; and, instead of this abstention weakening the authority of our sacred books, the result has been that the great majority have far higher authority than if their claims rested on the decision of any council, however venerable. They rest on the spontaneous consent of the whole Christian world, churches the most remote agreeing independently to do honor to the same books.—“A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament,” George Salmon, D. D., p. 227. London: John Murray, 1885. HBS 77.5

Canon, New Testament, When Established.—The voice of the universal church, ever unanimous, from apostolic times, on the first canon, ⁷ and unanimous, from the date of the Council of Nice, on the second, finally became, in the course of the fourth century, unanimous on the second-first ⁸ likewise. The temporary and late hesitations of the churches of the West regarding the epistle to the Hebrews had already almost entirely disappeared; and the temporary and late hesitations of the churches of the East regarding the Apocalypse, had, from the early part of the fourth century, disappeared likewise. The canon was thus, universally and forever, recognized in all the churches of Christendom.—“The Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” L. Gaussen, D. D., p. 82. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1862. HBS 78.1

Many persons speak of the list of Sacred Scriptures as if it had furnished nothing but uncertainty to Christians for three centuries, and as if the divine authority of the books of the New Testament had never been distinctly recognized till the end of the fourth. It is, however, on the contrary, an incontestable fact, that the first canon1 was, at no time, anywhere an object of any uncertainty to the churches of God, and that all the writings of which it consists, that is, eight ninths of the New Testament, were, from the moment of their appearance, and through all succeeding ages have been, universally recognized by all the churches of Christendom.—Id., p. 84. HBS 78.2

Canon, New Testament, How Made.—The books of the New Testament were given by the Holy Spirit into the hands of the church, they were forthwith publicly read: this was their canonization. HBS 78.3

Let us apply the essayist’s principle to profane authors. The works of Horace and Martial were not published at once, by their respective authors, but at intervals of several years. Now that they are collected together in one volume, we have what may be called a Canon of Horace and Martial. But how was this formed? Did a junta of grammarians sit down at a table and decide what books were to be received as making it? No: the Canon of Horace and Martial made itself, by the general reception of their books, as the works of their respective authors, as soon as they were written. So, much more the canon of the New Testament made itself by the public usage of the church in all parts of the world.—“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 91. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. HBS 78.4

Canon, New Testament, When Commenced and Completed.—The whole canon of the Scriptures of the New Testament was commenced and completed during the latter half of the first century.... HBS 78.5

The primitive church ... saw her New Testament canon forming in her hand, as a nosegay is gradually formed in the hand of a lady walking through plots of flowers with the proprietor of the garden by her side. As she advances, the latter presents to her flower after flower, till she finds herself in possession of an entire bunch. And, just as the nosegay attracts admiring attention before it is filled up, and as soon as the few first flowers have been put together, so the New Testament canon began to exist for the Christian church from the moment the earliest portions of inspired Scriptures had been put into her hands.—“The Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” L. Gaussen, D. D., pp. 14, 15. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1862. HBS 78.6

Canon, New Testament, Not Settled by Councils.—We allow that no catalogue of the books of the New Testament is found in the extant decrees of any council of the church more ancient than those of Laodicea and Carthage, toward the close of the fourth century. But, waiving the argument that the decrees of many earlier councils have been lost, and that such catalogues may have existed in them, we affirm, and shall proceed to prove, that the books of the New Testament had been received as inspired not only long before that age, but in and from the time in which they were written; and that those two councils, in publishing these lists, did not imagine that they were making, or could make, any book to be canonical which was not canonical before. They did not intend to enact anything new, but only to declare what was old; just as the Church of England, in the sixteenth century, when she published a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament in her Sixth Article, did not pretend to give any new authority to those books, but only affirmed what the church had believed concerning them from the beginning.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 134, 135. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851. HBS 79.1

Not one author, either of the fourth, or fifth, or sixth century, appeals, on the subject of the canon, to the decisions of any council. Thus, when Cyril, patriarch of Jerusalem, who was born (it is believed) twenty years after Athanasius, gives us his catalogue of inspired books, he refers to no council, and only appeals to “the apostles, and the ancient bishops who presided over the churches, and transmitted to us those books as inspired.” HBS 79.2

Likewise, when Augustin, about the end of the same century, or rather the beginning of the fifth, wrote an answer to certain persons who had inquired of him “which books were truly canonical,” he simply referred to the testimony of the various churches of Christendom, and not to any council whatever. HBS 79.3

Likewise, when Rufinus, a presbyter of Aquileia, about the year 340, gives his catalogue (also identical with ours), he simply professes to present “the tradition of their ancestors, who had transmitted these books to the churches of Christ, as divinely inspired,” and he declares that he gives it just as he had copied it from the records of the Fathers. HBS 79.4

Lastly, when Cassiodorus, a Roman consul in the sixth century, gives us three catalogues of the books of the New Testament (one from Jerome, another from Augustin, and another from an ancient version), he, too, makes no reference to any decree or to any council. HBS 79.5

Let it, then, be no longer said that the authority of councils fixed the canon of Scripture. It was, indeed, fixed; but the authority of councils had nothing to do with it. It was the will of God that Christians individually, and Christian congregations, enlightened by the testimony of successive generations of believers, should form their opinions on the subject of the canon with entire liberty of judgment, that the authenticity of the sacred books might be rendered more manifest.—“The Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” L. Gaussen, D. D., pp. 88, 89. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1862. HBS 79.6

Canon, New Testament, Relation of Church to.—It is said that the church is more ancient than Scripture; that there was a church of God on earth before the Old Testament; and that the Christian church existed before any of the New Testament was written; and therefore, it is said, Scripture depends upon the church. But this proceeds on the false assumption that the authority of Scripture is grounded on the fact of its being written; whereas it is wholly derived from its being the word of God. Scripture is God’s word written; the writing of the word is no necessary condition of its existence, though it is a quality very useful for the preservation and diffusion of the word. [pp. 16, 17] ... HBS 79.7

The church, then, is a divinely instituted society of believers, who are born by water and the word; the church is cleansed and sanctified by the word, for “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” She therefore owes all her being and her beauty to the word; and she is, therefore, posterior to the word, though not to the writing of the word. This word proceeds from Christ, the Alpha and Omega of all God’s revelations; and by God’s will, for our salvation, it was consigned to writing, and it has been committed by God to the custody of the church, who is commanded to preach the same; but it is as preposterous to affirm that it owes its authority to the church, as it would be to say that a royal writ depends for its validity on the Keeper of the Great Seal; or that the power of the monarch is derived from the herald who proclaims his accession to the throne. HBS 80.1

It is to be observed, also, that, by resolving our belief in the canon of Scripture into the tradition of the church, as the sufficient and final cause of our assent to the same, we should, in fact, be undermining the foundations of the church herself, and leave ourselves without any ground for belief in her teaching; for this belief rests on the word of God. But if the word of God is to depend entirely for its authority on the witness of the church, then we shall have, in fine, the church bearing testimony to herself,-a kind of evidence which no one can be bound to receive. And this objection is much stronger against the Romish theory, when we remember that it would require us to resolve our faith in the canon of Scripture, not into the tradition of the primitive universal church, but into that of the existing Roman branch of it, which is at variance with that of the catholic church; so that, in fact, it would leave us without any sure ground for belief, either in Scripture or the church.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 16-19. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851. HBS 80.2

Canon, New Testament, Accepted at Nice.—The discussions which took place at Nice were in accordance with the principle thus laid down, if the history of Gelasius be trustworthy. Scripture was the source from which the champions and assailants of the orthodox faith derived their premises; and among other books, the epistle to the Hebrews was quoted as written by St. Paul, and the catholic epistles were recognized as a definite collection. But neither in this nor in the following councils were the Scriptures themselves ever the subjects of discussion. They underlie all controversy, as a sure foundation, known and immovable.—“A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament,” Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., p. 495. Cambridge: Macmillan & Co., 1855. HBS 80.3

Canon, New Testament, How Guaranteed.—Thus we perceive that the reception of the New Testament, by the primitive church, as the unerring word of God, is guaranteed by irrefragable proofs. It is evinced by catalogues; it is proclaimed by councils; it is shown by the fury of persecutors, and by the fraud of heretics; by the courage of martyrs, and by the zeal of the church. It is declared by a continued succession of writers, from the age of the apostles to our own.—“On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 153. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1851. HBS 80.4

Canon, New Testament, from Apostolic Times.—We, therefore, proceed to observe that we possess an uninterrupted series of writings from the apostolic times to the present day; and that these contain quotations from the books of the New Testament; and that we have commentaries upon it, reaching downward to us, in unbroken succession, from the third and fourth centuries; and that many of these commentaries exhibit the text of these books; and that we have hundreds of ancient manuscripts of these books from all parts of the world; that we have ancient versions of them in numerous languages; and that these various and independent witnesses coincide with each other, and concur in testifying the fact that the Scriptures of the New Testament existed in primitive times as they exist now, and have been transmitted, pure and entire, from the hands of the apostles to our own.—Id., pp. 141, 142. HBS 81.1

Canon, Roman Catholic View of.—Pope Gregory VII, in the eleventh century, said very boldly, “Not a single book or chapter of Scripture shall be held canonical without the Pope’s authority.”-“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 108. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. HBS 81.2

Canon Law (Corpus Juris).—Various collections of church law were made from an early period in her history, but those which are contained in the Corpus Juris are the most celebrated. The Corpus Juris is usually divided into two volumes. The first contains the Decretum of Gratian, a Benedictine monk, who composed his work about the middle of the twelfth century. It is a private collection, and so the documents of which it is composed have only the authority derived from their origin, unless custom or subsequent approbation has given special canons greater weight. The second volume, on the contrary, contains several official collections, made by the authority of the Holy See. These are the Decretals of Gregory IX, the Sext, and the Clementines. Any papal constitution contained in these collections has authority from the very fact of its insertion in the Corpus Juris. The second volume also contains the Extravagants of John XXII, and the Common Extravagants, both of which are private collections, although inserted in the Corpus Juris. HBS 81.3

The Corpus Juris contains the ancient law of the Catholic Church, which has been modified and accommodated to the times by more recent councils and constitutions of the Holy See. The Council of Trent especially made many changes demanded by the altered circumstances of the times, and the popes have at different times issued a great number of constitutions and laws to meet the constantly changing wants of the church. These constitutions are usually quoted by giving the Pope’s name and the initial words, together with the date of the document.—“A Manual of Moral Theology,” Rev. Thomas Slater, S. J. (R. C.), Vol. I, p. 120. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1918. HBS 81.4

Canon Law, Contents of.—The first great collection of canons and decretals which the world was privileged to see was made by Gratian, a monk of Bologna, who about 1150 published his work entitled Decretum Gratiani. Pope Eugenius III approved his work, which immediately became the highest authority in the Western Church. The rapid growth of the papal tyranny soon superseded the Decretum Gratiani. HBS 81.5

Succeeding popes flung their decretals upon the world with a prodigality with which the diligence of compilers who gathered them up and formed them into new codes, toiled to keep pace. Innocent III and Honorius III issued numerous rescripts and decrees, which Gregory IX commissioned Raymond of Pennafort to collect and publish. This the Dominican did in 1234; and Gregory, in order to perfect this collection of infallible decisions, supplemented it with a goodly addition of his own. This is the more essential part of the canon law, and contains a copious system of jurisprudence, as well as rules for the government of the church. HBS 82.1

But infallibility had not exhausted itself with these labors. Boniface VIII in 1298 added a sixth part, which he named the Sext. A fresh batch of decretals was issued by Clement V in 1313, under the title of Clementines. John XXII in 1340 added the Extravagantes, so called because they extravagate, or straddle, outside the others. Succeeding pontiffs, down to Sixtus IV, added their extravagating articles, which came under the name of Extravagantes Communes. The government of the world was in some danger of being stopped by the very abundance of infallible law; and since the end of the fifteenth century nothing has been formally added to this already enormous code.—“The Papacy,” Rev. J. A. Wylie, LL. D., pp. 130, 131. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1851. HBS 82.2

Canon Law.—Corpus Juris Canonici [Collection of Canon Law].—I. Definition: The term corpus here denotes a collection of documents; corpus juris, a collection of laws, especially if they are placed in systematic order. It may signify also an official and complete collection of a legislation made by the legislative power, comprising all the laws which are in force in a country or society. The term, although it never received legal sanction in either Roman or canon law, being merely the phraseology of the learned, is used in the above sense when the Corpus Juris Civilis of the Roman Christian emperors is meant. The expression corpus juris may also mean, not the collection of laws itself, but the legislation of a society considered as a whole. Hence Benedict XIV could rightly say that the collection of his bulls formed part of the Corpus Juris (Jam fere sextus, 1746). HBS 82.3

We cannot better explain the signification of the term Corpus Juris Canonici than by showing the successive meanings which were assigned to it in the past and which it usually bears at the present day. Under the name of Corpus Canonum were designated the collection of Dionysius Exiguus and the Collectio Anselmo Dedicata. The Decree of Gratian is already called Corpus Juris Canonici by a glossator of the twelfth century, and Innocent IV calls by this name the Decretals of Gregory IX (Ad Expediendos, 9 Sept., 1253). HBS 82.4

Since the second half of the thirteenth century, Corpus Juris Canonici, in contradistinction to Corpus Juris Civilis, or Roman law, generally denoted the following collections: (1) the Decretals of Gregory IX; (2) those of Boniface VIII (Sixth Book of the Decretals); (3) those of Clement V (Clementina), i. e., the collections which at that time, with the Decree of Gratian, were taught and explained at the universities. At the present day, under the above title are commonly understood these three collections with the addition of the Decree of Gratian, the Extravagantes of John XXII, and the Extravagantes Communes.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Corpus Juris Canonici,” p. 391. HBS 82.5

Canon Law, Contents of.—The Corpus Juris Canonici is the collection of ecclesiastical laws in five parts. The first part contains the Decretum of Gratian divided into three parts. The second contains the Decretals divided into five books. The third contains the sixth book of the Decretals, which is also divided into five books. The fourth contains the Clementines, also in five books. The fifth contains the Extravagantes of John XXII, and the Communes, or the Decretals of John XXII, and of other pontiffs from Urban IV to Sixtus IV. The Decretum of Gratian has no force of law except that which the decretals contained in it have of themselves. But the other parts of the canon law have the force of law, and are universally binding, for they contain the pious utterances of the pontiffs and the decrees of the councils.—“Theologia Moralis,” Ligorio (R. C.), Vol. I, p. 32, 3rd edition. Venice, 1885. HBS 82.6

Canon Law, Decree of Gratian.—It was about 1150 that the Camaldolese monk, Gratian, professor of theology at the University of Bologna, to obviate the difficulties which beset the study of practical, external theology (theologia practica externa), i. e., canon law, composed the work entitled by himself Concordia Discordantium Canonum, but called by others Nova Collectio, Decreta, Corpus Juris Canonici, also Decretum Gratiani, the latter being now the commonly accepted name. In spite of its great reputation, the Decretum has never been recognized by the church as an official collection.... HBS 83.1

Considered as collections, the Decree of Gratian, the Extravagantes Joannis XXII, and the Extravagantes Communes have not, and never had, a legal value, but the documents which they contain may possess, and as a matter of fact, often do possess, very great authority. Moreover, custom has even given to several apocryphal canons of the Decree of Gratian the force of law. The other collections are official, and consist of legislative decisions still binding, unless abrogated by subsequent legislation.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Corpus Juris Canonici,” pp. 392, 393. HBS 83.2

Caste, Power of.—Brahmanism is so intensely racial that it may well be described as the apotheosis of blood, or as the pride of race deified. There is no law so inexorable or so pitiless as the law of caste; it binds the Hindu peoples, even though split into a multitude of states, into a unity more absolute than the most imperious despotism has ever, or could ever anywhere have, achieved.—“The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,” Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., p. 232. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. HBS 83.3

Catechism of Trent.—The “Profession of the Tridentine Faith” was followed in 1566 by the elaborate Roman Catechism, the preparation of which the council had at first essayed, but finally handed over to the Pope. In 1564, Pius IV, advised by Cardinal Borromeo of Milan, intrusted the work to a learned and distinguished commission of four prelates under Borromeo’s supervision,-Marini, Foscarari, Calini, and the Portuguese Fureiro, who were assisted in matters of style and rendering by eminent Latin scholars. The teaching is Dominican (three of the four commissioners belonging, as did the Pope, to that order) and Thomist-a feature which insured for it the opposition of the Jesuit order. It is not meant for the young or for popular reading, but for the equipment of the teaching clergy. It is exceedingly long and comprehensive, but admirably arranged and lucidly expressed. It contains four parts which follow a lengthy introductory treatment of preliminary topics, and treats successively of (1) the Apostles’ Creed, (2) the Sacraments, (3) the Ten Commandments, and (4) the Lord’s Prayer. It is noteworthy that, while it adds to the Tridentine teaching sections which deal with the limbus patrum, the authority of the church, and the doctrine of the church, it omits all reference to indulgences and the rosary. Apart from its franker Augustinianism, the catechism reproduces very faithfully the substance of the Decrees of Trent, whose circumspection and whose massiveness it reflects.—“A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,” William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., p. 119. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. HBS 83.4

Catechisms, Roman Catholic.—Although the Vatican Council refused by a large majority to accept the catechism submitted to it, numerous authorized local catechisms are in circulation for popular use throughout the Roman Catholic world, more or less completely revised to bring them into harmony with the new decrees. Of the older catechisms, besides that of Trent, which was for clerical rather than popular use, those of the learned Jesuit, Peter Canisius (a. d. 1554 and 1566), and Cardinal Bellarmine (a. d. 1603), may be mentioned as having commended themselves especially to papal as well as to clerical and popular acceptance. Among the most influential and authoritative expositions of Roman Catholic doctrine with an apologetic or polemic purpose are the Disputationes de Controversiis Christiana fidei adversus huius Temporis hereticos of Robert Bellarmine (a. d. 1587-1590), the Exposition de la Doctrine de l’Église Catholique sur les matieres de Controverse of Bossuet (a. d. 1671), the Symbolik of J. A. Möhler (a. d. 1832), and the Pralectiones Theologica of the Jesuit Perrone (a. d. 1835 ff.).—Id., p. 123. HBS 84.1

Celibacy.—Celibacy, in the Roman Catholic Church, means the permanently unmarried state to which men and women bind themselves either by a vow or by the reception of the major orders which implies personal purity in thought and deed.... Very early in the history of the church the idea grew up that the unmarried state was preferable (Hermas, I. ii. 3; Ignatius to Polycarp, v), and grew into a positive contempt of marriage (Origen, Hom. vi. in Num.; Jerome, Ad Jovinianum, i. 4). As early as the second century examples of voluntary vows of virginity are found, and the requirement of continence before the performance of sacred functions. By the fourth century canons began to be passed in that sense (Synod of Neocasarea, 314 a. d., canon i; Synod of Ancyra, 314 a. d., canon x). Unmarried men were preferred for ecclesiastical offices, though marriage was still not forbidden; in fact, the clergy were expressly prohibited from deserting a lawfully married wife on religious grounds (Apostolic Canons, v).... HBS 84.2

Within its own boundaries the Latin Church has held more and more strictly to the requirement of celibacy, though not without continual opposition on the part of the clergy. The large number of canons on this subject enacted from the eighth century on, shows that their enforcement was not easy. After the middle of the eleventh century the new ascetic tendency whose champion was Gregory VII had a strong influence in this matter. Even before Hildebrand’s accession to the Papacy, the legislation of Leo IX (1054), Stephen IX (1058), Nicholas II (1059), and Alexander II (1063), had laid down the principles which as Pope he was to carry out. In the synod of 1074 he renewed the definite enactment of 1059 and 1063, according to which both the married priest who said mass and the layman who received communion at his hands were excommunicate.... HBS 84.3

After the Reformation had done its work, Charles V endeavored by the Interim of 1548 to bring about the abolition of these rules, and with several other princes requested the discussion of the question at the Council of Trent. The council, however, maintained the system as a whole, and the following rules are now in force: (1) Through the reception of major orders or the taking of monastic or other solemn vows, celibacy becomes so binding a duty that any subsequent marriage is null and void. (2) Any one in minor orders who marries loses his office and the right to go on to major orders, but the marriage is valid. (3) Persons already married may receive the minor orders if they have the intention of proceeding to the major, and show this by taking a vow of perpetual abstinence; but the promotion to the higher orders can only take place when the wife expresses her willingness to go into a convent and take the veil. The Council of Trent further lays down that the functions of the minor orders may be performed by married men in default of unmarried-though not by those who are living with a second wife. HBS 84.4

In the nineteenth century attempts were not lacking, even within the Roman Catholic Church, to bring about the abolition of celibacy. They were rather hindered than helped by temporal governments, and always firmly rejected by Rome. Celibacy has been abolished among the Old Catholics; and modern legislation in Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland authorizes the marriage both of priests and of those who have taken a solemn vow of chastity. Austria, Spain, and Portugal still forbid it. The evangelical churches at the very outset released their clergy from the obligation of celibacy, professing to find no validity in the arguments adduced in its favor on the Roman side.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, art. “Celibacy,” pp. 465, 466. HBS 85.1

Celibacy, Canon on.—Canon X. If any one saith that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 164. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. HBS 85.2

Celibacy, Evils of.—To tell the truth, the parish clergy were not in a temper to think of their own moral elevation, being in sad straits owing to the oppression practised by the monasteries and cathedral chapters, which, after having appropriated most of the parishes, refused to give their secular vicars more than the merest pittance. So widespread was concubinage that a French council complained (Paris, or Sens, c. 23, 1429) of the general impression being prevalent that fornication was merely venial. At Constance and Basel the abrogation of clerical celibacy was proposed by no less a person than the emperor Sigismund. Even small towns in this age owned their public brothels. HBS 85.3

Faced by all these evils, the heads of the church made proof of astounding forbearance, preferring to leave things alone, so long as their own right, and claims, and revenues were left untouched. The period was deeply conscious of its own irregularities. Throughout it we have to listen to complaints, and demands for reform. Though this is, of course, a pleasing feature, yet the fact that, in spite of countless desires and efforts, two centuries did not suffice to purge the church, is a sad witness to the deeply rooted character of the evils.—“Manual of Church History,” Dr. F. X. Funk, Roman Catholic Professor of Theology in the University of Tübingen, Vol. II, p. 77. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1910. HBS 85.4

Note.—This work was published in London in 1910, having the imprimatur of Archbishop Bourne’s vicar-general, dated May 16, 1910.—Eds. HBS 85.5

Censorship of Books.—After the printing press was invented and used to advance the cause of the Reformation, measures for its regulation were introduced by the church, which first established a formal censorship of books. In a letter addressed to the archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, Treves, and Magdeburg, Alexander VI ordered (1501) that no book should be printed without special authorization. The Lateran Council of 1515 sanctioned the constitution of Leo X. which provided that no book should be printed without having been examined in Rome by the papal vicar and the master of the sacred palace, in other countries by the bishop of the diocese or his deputy and the inquisitor of heresies. HBS 85.6

Further and more detailed legislation followed, and the Council of Trent decreed (Session IV): “It shall not be lawful to print, or cause to be printed, any books relating to religion without the name of the author; neither shall any one hereafter sell any such books, or even retain them in his possession, unless they have been first examined and approved by the ordinary, on pain of anathema and the pecuniary fine imposed by the canon of the recent Lateran Council.” On these regulations are based a number of enactments in different dioceses which are still in force. The council decreed also that no theological book should be printed without first receiving the approbation of the bishop of the diocese; and this rule is extended in the monastic orders so far as to require the permission of superiors for the publication of a book on any subject. HBS 86.1

The Council of Trent left the further provision concerning the whole subject to a special commission, which was to report to the Pope. In accordance with its findings, Pius IV promulgated the rule submitted to him and a list of prohibited books in the constitution Dominici gregis custodia of March 24, 1564. Extensions and expositions of this ruling were issued by Clement VIII, Sixtus V, Alexander VII, and other popes. The present practice is based upon the constitution Sollicita ac provida of Benedict XIV (July 10, 1753). The maintenance and extension of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was intrusted to a special standing committee of cardinals, the Congregation of the Index, which from time to time publishes new editions (the latest, Turin, 1895). There is also an Index Librorum Expurgatorum, containing books which are tolerated after the excision of certain passages, and another Librorum Expurgandorum, of those which are still in need of such partial expurgation. The prohibition to read or possess books thus forbidden is binding upon all Roman Catholics, though in special cases dispensations from it may be obtained. The most recent regulation of the whole matter was made by the bull Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII, Jan. 25, 1897.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, art. “Censorship and Prohibition of Books,” p. 493. HBS 86.2

Censorship of Books, Index Defined.—Index of Prohibited Books, or simply Index, is used in a restricted sense to signify the exact list or catalogue of books, the reading of which is forbidden to Catholics by the highest ecclesiastical authority. This list forms the second and larger part of the codex entitled Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which contains the entire ecclesiastical legislation relating to books.... HBS 86.3

A book is prohibited or put on the Index by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Roman Inquisition, of the Sacred Office, or of the Index, which decree, though approved by the Pope (in formâ communi), always remains a purely congregational decree. It need scarcely be mentioned that the Pope alone, without having recourse to any of the congregations, may put a book on the Index, either by issuing a bull or a brief, or in any other way he chooses.... With regard to the Congregation of the Index, however, Pius X, when reorganizing the Roman Curia by the Constitution “Sapienti consilio” (29 June, 1908), decreed as follows: “Henceforth it will be the task of this Sacred Congregation not only to examine carefully the books denounced to it, to prohibit them if necessary, and to grant permission for reading forbidden books, but also to supervise, ex officio, books that are being published, and to pass sentence on such as deserve to be prohibited.” ... HBS 86.4

The last and best edition of the Index, published by Leo XIII (Rome, 1900) and now in force, was reprinted in 1901, and again under Pius X in 1904 and 1907.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, art. “Index of Prohibited Books,” pp. 721, 722. HBS 87.1

Censorship of Books.—Numerous editions of the Index [Librorum Prohibitorum] have appeared from time to time. That issued under Benedict XIV (Rome, 1744) contains between nine and ten thousand entries of books and authors, alphabetically arranged; of these about one third are cross references. Prefixed to it are the ten rules sanctioned by the Council of Trent, of which the tenor is as follows: The first rule orders that all books condemned by popes or general councils before 1515, which were not contained in that Index, should be reputed to be condemned in such sort as they were formerly condemned. The second rule prohibits all the works of heresiarchs, such as Luther and Calvin, and those works by heretical authors which treat of religion; their other works to be allowed after examination. The third and fourth rules relate to versions of the Scripture, and define the classes of persons to whom the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue may be permitted. The fifth allows the circulation, after expurgation, of lexicons and other works of reference compiled by heretics. The sixth relates to books of controversy. The seventh orders that all obscene books be absolutely prohibited, except ancient books written by heathens, which were tolerated “propter sermonis elegantiam et proprietatem,” but were not to be used in teaching boys. The eighth rule is upon methods of expurgation. The ninth prohibits books of magic and judicial astrology; but “theories and natural observations published for the sake of furthering navigation, agriculture, or the medical art are permitted.” The tenth relates to printing, introducing, having, and circulating books. Persons reading prohibited books incur excommunication forthwith (statim).-“A Catholic Dictionary,” Addis and Arnold (R. C.), art. “Index of Prohibited Books,” p. 481. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1893. HBS 87.2

Censorship of Books, Classifications of the Index.—The first list of forbidden books was drawn up by the Theological Faculty of Paris, in 1554, and the first list of this kind which had the sanction of law was the one promulgated in Spain in 1558 by Philip 2. Subsequent to this decree, a much larger Index was authorized in 1559 by Paul IV, and possessed a threefold classification: (1) The works of authors whose complete writings, also on secular subjects, were forbidden; (2) certain particular writings of authors whose remaining productions were not prohibited; and (3) anonymous writings, religious and otherwise, including every publication of that kind subsequent to the year 1519. Among these productions were many which did not touch upon the subject of religion and had been in the hands of the learned for hundreds of years, and there were some books among them which had been commended by former popes, as, for example, the “Commentary on the New Testament,” by Erasmus, which was approved on Sept. 10, 1518, in a brief by Pope Leo X. The Bishop of Badajor suggested a fivefold classification of the Index: (1) Heretical books, which were to be burned; (2) anonymous books, which were to be allowed when unobjectionable; (3) books of mixed content, which were to be expurgated; (4) translations of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular, and prayer books, which were to be forbidden or allowed, according to their character; (5) books on magic, black art, and fortune telling.—“Modernism and the Reformation,” John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 175. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. HBS 87.3

Census in Luke’s Gospel.—It should in all candor be noted just what archeology has proved concerning this matter, and what points are still, from the archeological side, outstanding. It has proved that the census was a periodic occurrence once in fourteen years, that this system was in operation as early as 20 a. d., and that it was customary for people to go to their ancestral abodes for enrolment. It has made it probable that the census system was established by Augustus, and that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, though these last two points are not yet fully established by archeological evidence. So far as the new material goes, however, it confirms the narrative of Luke.—“Archeology and the Bible,” George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., p. 437. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916. HBS 88.1

Chittim.—Chittim was one of the sons of Javan, who was one of the sons of Japheth, by whose posterity “the isles of the Gentiles were divided” (Genesis 10:5), and peopled, that is Europe, and the countries to which the Asiatics passed by sea, for such the Hebrews called islands. Chittim is used for the descendants of Chittim, as Asshur is put for the descendants of Asshur, that is, the Assyrians: but what people were the descendants of Chittim, or what country was meant by “the coasts of Chittim,” it is not so easy to determine. The critics and commentators are generally divided into two opinions, the one asserting that Macedonia, and the other that Italy, was the country here intended; and each opinion is recommended and authorized by some of the first and greatest names in learning; as not to mention any others, Grotius and Le Clerc contend for the former, Bochart and Vitringa are strenuous for the latter. But there is no reason why we may not adopt both opinions; and especially as it is very well known and agreed on all hands, that colonies came from Greece to Italy; and, as Josephus saith, “that all islands and most maritime places are called Chethim by the Hebrews;” and as manifest traces of the name are to be found in both countries, the ancient name of Macedonia having been Macettia, and the Latins having before been called Cetii. What appears most probably is, that the sons of Chittim settled first in Asia Minor, where were a people called Cetëi, and a river called Cetium, according to Homer and Strabo. From Asia they might pass over into the island Cyprus, which Josephus saith was possessed by Chethim, and called Chethima; and where was also the city of Cittium, famous for being the birthplace of Zeno, the founder of the sect of the Stoics, who was therefore called the Cittiean. And from thence they might send forth colonies into Greece and Italy. This plainly appears, that wherever the “land of Chittim” or the “isles of Chittim” are mentioned in Scripture, there are evidently meant some countries or islands in the Mediterranean.—“Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Thomas Newton, D. D., pp. 76, 77. London: B. Blake, 1840. HBS 88.2

Christmas, Origin of.—It is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that the day of our Lord’s birth cannot be determined, and that within the Christian church no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance. How, then, did the Romish Church fix on December the 25th as Christmas Day? Why, thus: Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen at that precise time of the year, in honor of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. HBS 88.3

This tendency on the part of Christians to meet paganism halfway was very early developed; and we find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own superstition.... Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostasy went on, till the church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under pagan superstition. HBS 89.1

That Christmas was originally a pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin. In Egypt, the son of Isis, the Egyptian title for the queen of heaven, was born at this very time, “about the time of the winter solstice.” The very name by which Christmas is popularly known among ourselves-Yule day-proves at once its pagan and Babylonian origin. “Yule” is the Chaldee name for an “infant” or “little child;” and as the 25th of December was called by our pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, “Yule day,” or the “Child’s day,” and the night that preceded it, “Mother night,” long before they came in contact with Christianity, that sufficiently proves its real character. Far and wide, in the realms of paganism, was this birthday observed. HBS 89.2

This festival has been commonly believed to have had only an astronomical character, referring simply to the completion of the sun’s yearly course and the commencement of a new cycle. But there is indubitable evidence that the festival in question had a much higher reference than this-that it commemorated not merely the figurative birthday of the sun in the renewal of its course, but the birthday of the grand Deliverer. HBS 89.3

Among the Sabeans of Arabia, who regarded the moon, and not the sun, as the visible symbol of the favorite object of their idolatry, the same period was observed as the birth festival. Thus we read in Stanley’s “Sabean Philosophy:” “On the 24th of the tenth month,” that is December, according to our reckoning, “the Arabians celebrated the birthday of the Lord-that is, the moon.” The Lord Moon was the great object of Arabian worship, and that Lord Moon, according to them, was born on the 24th of December, which clearly shows that the birth which they celebrated had no necessary connection with the course of the sun. HBS 89.4

It is worthy of special note, too, that if Christmas day among the ancient Saxons of this island was observed to celebrate the birth of any lord of the host of heaven, the case must have been precisely the same here as it was in Arabia. The Saxons, as is well known, regarded the sun as a female divinity, and the moon as a male. It must have been the birthday of the Lord Moon, therefore, and not of the sun, that was celebrated by them on the 25th of December, even as the birthday of the same Lord Moon was observed by the Arabians on the 24th of December.—“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 92-94, 7th edition. London: S. W. Partridge & Co. HBS 89.5

Christmas, Not Observed in Early Church.—It is now generally granted that the day of the nativity was not observed as a feast in any part of the church, east or west, till some time in the fourth century. If any day had been earlier fixed upon as the Lord’s birthday, it was not commemorated by any religious rites, nor is it mentioned by any writers.—“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, p. 17. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 89.6

Chronology, Eponym Canon.—The “Eponym Canon” ... has been of great service in connection with Assyrian chronology. The eponym was an official of high rank who held office for one year. A careful record of each name was kept, the name of the reigning king was also inscribed in another column, and any great event might be mentioned. In one list we are told that during the year of office of an eponym named “Pur-Sagali in the month Sivan (i. e., May-June), an eclipse of the sun took place; and recent astronomical calculations prove that an eclipse of the sun, visible at Nineveh, took place on June 15, 763 b. c. With this year as a fixed point we can accurately assign correct dates to all the important events.”-“The Bible and the British Museum,” Ada R. Habershon, p. 47. London: Morgan and Scott, 1909. HBS 90.1

Chronology, Differences in Ancient.—The chronology of ancient nations-China, Babylon, Egypt-has been considered as subversive of the Scriptural view as to the age of the human race. But it is a well-known fact that experts differ very seriously upon the point. Their calculations range, for Egypt-starting from the reign of King Menes-from 5,867 (Champollion) to 4,455 (Brugsch), and from 3,892 (Lepsius) to 2,320 (Wilkinson). As to Babylon, Bunsen places the starting-point for the historic period in 3,784, Brandis in 2,458, Oppert in 3,540-a difference of thousands of years (cf. Bavinck, “Geref. Dogmatik,” II, 557). Perhaps here, too, future research will bring the scientific and the Biblical view into fuller harmony.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Anthropology,” p. 151. HBS 90.2

Chronology, Data for Old Testament.—External data are now much more abundant than they were in the times of Ussher and the other great Biblical chronologists. To the Jewish and Greek and Latin sources which they possessed, have now been added an immense body of facts accumulated in the explorations of the past sixty years. HBS 90.3

5. Jewish Sources.-Certain extra-Biblical Jewish sources of chronological information have long been known to scholars. HBS 90.4

a. In the Septuagint and in the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch are some numerals and other chronological data that differ from those in our Hebrew Bibles. The differences are especially important for the pre-Abrahamic times, but are not limited to these. HBS 90.5

b. Josephus abounds in chronological data, in addition to those which he has copied from the Bible. His numerals have been carelessly copied, and it is evident that he had only very confused ideas of such matters as, for example, the succession of the kings of Persia. But he is generally reliable as a witness transmitting tradition, and in certain conditions his testimony to a number as traditional is of great importance. HBS 90.6

c. The Seder Olam is a Jewish chronological work written early in the Christian era. The Seder Olam Zutta is an appendix to it, written many centuries later. HBS 90.7

6. Greek and Roman Sources.-Herodotus, about b. c. 445, Diodorus Siculus, b. c. 44 nearly, Strabo, who died 25 a. d., with other classical writers, abound in chronological materials, more or less trustworthy, for the peoples with whom the Israelites came into contact. HBS 90.8

7. Other Ancient Sources.—Certain ancient writers, Babylonian, Egyptian, Tyrian, etc., are cited by Josephus and the classical histo rians and their successors. Prominent among these are Berosus for the Babylonian history, and Manetho for the Egyptian. Accounts of them may be found in books of reference. Manetho wrote in Greek, at Alex andria, probably in the third century b. c. Fragments of his history of Egypt are preserved in Josephus (Cont. Ap., i, 14, 26, and contexts) and in Julius Africanus (see 8b). The fragments are often confused and contradictory, but they are still an important source for Egyptian chronology. HBS 91.1

8. Compendiums of Chronology.-There were ancient attempts to arrange history in chronological schemes, some of which have relations with the chronology of the Bible. HBS 91.2

a. The introduction of eras began early. We are familiar with the Roman methods of dating by consulships, or from the founding of the city; and with the Greek methods by Olympiads, or by the terms of the Archons. Among usages of this sort the so-called Seleucid era is especially connected with the Biblical chronology, being that so often mentioned in the books of the Maccabees and in Josephus as “the year of the Greeks.” It was initiated by the Seleucid Greek dynasty at Antioch, its first year corresponding to b. c. 312. HBS 91.3

b. Lists of dated historical events have been known from ancient times. To say nothing of the work of Manetho and Berosus and others (mentioned in 7), a famous book of this kind is the “Chronographia” of Julius Africanus, written about 220 a. d., and now extant only in the fragments quoted by Eusebius in his “Chronicon,” written about 325 a. d., and in the citations made, in part from the “Chronicon” and in part from a copy of Africanus, by the monk Georgius Syncellus of the ninth century. HBS 91.4

c. On the whole the most important of these compendiums is the one which is commonly described as the Canon of Ptolemy, made by Claudius Ptolemaus, an Alexandrian geographer and astronomer and mathematician, in the second century after Christ. In the form in which it is available for our use it is a list of sovereigns, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Egyptian, and Roman, beginning b. c. 747, and extending to the time of the author. By its aid the date of any astronomical or other occurrence of that period can be stated as in such and such a year of such and such a king. In the Ussher chronology this canon is undervalued, but it is now regarded as accurate. At certain points Ptolemy may have been mistaken as to his political facts, but not so as to affect his presentation of the succession of the years. HBS 91.5

9. Additional Sources Uncovered by Modern Explorations.-These are numerous and valuable, both for enabling us to understand the data that were previously known, and as furnishing additional data. We can here look only at some of the more important. HBS 91.6

10. Assyrian Data.-a. The most important single document is the one which, following Mr. George Smith, we will call the Assyrian Eponym Canon. Other Assyriologists give various other designations to it. For certain purposes the Assyrians named the year after a certain public official; and the canon is a list of these officers, one for each year. No complete copy is known, but by piecing together what remains of several different copies there is a continuous list of about 265 names, up to b. c. 647, with a broken list for the decades later than that. So the list covers the time from soon after the close of Solomon’s reign to the reign of Josiah. Some copies have historical notes appended, and these are generally, though not always, confirmed by the other Assyrian data. It is possible that some of the existing copies were made as early as the seventh century before Christ, before the downfall of Assyria. There are some slight discrepancies, but the list is in a high degree trustworthy. HBS 91.7

b. There are also now available many records of Assyrian kings. For example, we have annals of Shalmanezer II, Tiglath-pilezer III, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Asshurbanipal, giving dated accounts of their exploits, year by year, besides other accounts which mention occasional dates. Long numbers are also given. For example, Sennacherib says that he brought back certain gods which had been taken to Babylon 418 years previously, in the time of Tiglath-pilezer. In some of these records a king mentions another as his son, or mentions his father or grandfather, thus marking the reigns as continuous. These records variously supplement and interpret the canon. HBS 92.1

c. In addition there have been discovered records of temples, votive tablets, laws, records of business transactions, including dated events that serve to fill out those in the important documents. HBS 92.2

d. The Assyrian chronology has two methods of designating any given year. The year which we designate b. c. 678 is in the Canon of Ptolemy the third year of Esarhaddon, king of Babylon (and Assyria). The Assyrians would sometimes designate it in the same way, the third year of Esarhaddon. But they would also designate it as the year of the eponym of Nergal-sar-utsur, and the following year as that of Abramu, and so forth. HBS 92.3

11. Babylonian Data.-No Babylonian eponym list is known. But there are Babylonian documents, especially what may in a general way be called the Babylonian chronicles, written in the Persian period or earlier, including lists of dynasties, lists of kings with the number of years they reigned, and other lists with dated records of exploits in the reign of each king. The data also include long numbers, especially summaries of the duration of the successive dynasties. Add to these the same kinds of private documents as are found among the Assyrian sources. HBS 92.4

12. Assyrio-Babylonian Data.-From very early times the history of Assyria and that of Babylonia were interwoven, and there are some chronological materials that are common to the two. HBS 92.5

a. There are fragments of writings that gave a synchronous history of the two countries. They describe the relations and the exploits of Babylonian and Assyrian kings who were contemporaries, frequently dating events by year, month, and day. Some of them carry the chronology far back, but they exist in so mutilated a form that they do not give us a continuous chronology. HBS 92.6

b. Some of the long numbers compare Babylonian events with Assyrian. HBS 92.7

13. Egyptian Data.-These are abundant and various, but they give us no continuous scheme of dates. All alleged continuous schemes are inferential. That none of them are final may be inferred from the fact that they are numerous, and increasing in number. The older sources give us three different and disagreeing recensions of the numbers of Manetho. The newer sources include tables giving lists of kings, and superabundant materials for some parts of the history, including portraits of kings and distinguished men, their authentic mummies, memoranda of their exploits and their business transactions and their religious worship and their home life and their ideas. In these materials are immense numbers of dates. At points in the history we are able to date minutely fragmentary successions of events. But anything like a complete Egyptian chronology is still out of reach. HBS 92.8

14. Astronomical data.-Ancient records sometimes mention astronomical phenomena that are capable of being identified, and of being verified by calculation. A particularly important instance of this kind is an eclipse of the sun mentioned in the Assyrian records as occurring in the tenth year of Asshur-daan III, the calculated date of which is June 15, b. c. 763. HBS 93.1

Correct astronomical calculations are in themselves decisive, but the identification of the phenomena on which they are based is often merely conjectural. Most attempts to connect them with Biblical dates are insufficiently grounded. Men connect them with many Egyptian facts of different kinds, but no consensus has been reached. HBS 93.2

15. Connecting Links between the Biblical and the Ethnical Chronologies.-With Assyria and Babylonia these are numerous and exact, and the continuity with modern chronology is complete. For instance, the first year of Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon was the year that began in March, b. c. 604. This was the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah (Jeremiah 25:1, etc.). From such coincidences one may derive a complete scheme of dates. The Egyptian connections are less certain and less exact.—“The Dated Events of the Old Testament,” Willis Judson Beecher, D. D., pp. 7-10. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, copyright 1907. HBS 93.3

Chronology, Prominence of the Number Seven in.—A prominent feature in the Hebrew calendar of worship is the dominance of seven. Every seventh day was set apart from labor as a time of rest and holy convocation. Every seventh year the land rested from tillage; at the end of seven of these periods of seven years, the land rested a second year, and was restored to the family to which it originally belonged, whatever changes of tenure might have taken place during the cycle. There were seven days of rest and holy convocation during the year, in addition to those which occurred weekly. The seventh month of the year was ushered in with the sound of trumpets, proceeding first from the sanctuary, and immediately propagated through the land; and its first day was one of the seven annually recurring sabbaths. It was also signalized by the assignment to it of those festivals which were not bound to some other time of the year by historical association or natural fitness; the day of atonement, the festival of tabernacles, and the day of rest and convocation, which closed not only this particular festival, but all the annually recurring solemnities of the year, being included in the seventh or sabbatical month. The Passover, and the festival of tabernacles, occupied each seven days; and this was the limit of all solemnities which lasted more than one day. HBS 93.4

The observance of the seventh day of the week is expressly connected in the decalogue with the work of God in creating the world; and the number seven, whenever it determined the length of festivals or the time of their occurrence, as in the instances cited above, conveyed, to one versed in Hebrew symbolism, thoughts of the union of the infinite with the finite, of the divine with the human, of Jehovah with his people.—“History and Significance of the Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews,” Edward E. Atwater, pp. 371, 372. New York: Dodd and Mead, 1875. HBS 93.5

Chronology, Uncertainty of the Jewish Calendar.—Amid the uncertainty of the Jewish calendar of that time, an astronomical reckoning of the year of his [Christ’s] death can scarcely be established.—“A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,” Dr. John C. L. Gieseler, Vol. I, p. 55. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1846. HBS 93.6

Chronology. -Chronological Table of the Patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, 2500 Years. ⁹ -This table exhibits the years of the birth and death of the patriarchs, the comparative length of their lives, who of them were alive at the same period, and the rapid decrease in the length of life after the deluge. Thus, Lamech the father of Noah was born a. m. 874, and died a. m. 1651; he was contemporary with Adam 56 years, and he died but five years before the flood. Shem was born nearly 100 years before the flood, and lived many years after both Abraham and Isaac were born. HBS 94.1

[Table not converted.] HBS 94.2

-“Gleig’s Wonderful Book Concerning the Most Wonderful Book in the World,” Rev. George Robert Gleig, M. A., p. 71. Philadelphia: The Vir Publishing Company, 1915. HBS 94.3

Chronology, Some Ancient Dates.— HBS 95.1

b. c. HBS 95.2

1276, circ., Exodus of Israel HBS 95.3

1120-1090, Tiglath-pileser I HBS 95.4

1080-50 XXth Eg. dynasty HBS 95.5

1050-945, XXIst Eg. dynasty HBS 95.6

931, circ., Division of the kingdom HBS 95.7

930-728, XXII-XXVth Eg. dynasties HBS 95.8

884-60, Assurnatsirpal king of Assyria HBS 95.9

860-25, Shalmaneser II king of Assyria HBS 95.10

854, Shal.’s battle at Karkar HBS 95.11

851, Probable date of death of Ahab HBS 95.12

850, circ., Moabite Stone set up HBS 95.13

842, Jehu paid tribute to Shal. II HBS 95.14

812-783, Adad-nirari III king of Assyria HBS 95.15

804-797, Adad-nirari’s western campaigns HBS 95.16

745-27, Tiglath-pileser III king of Assyria HBS 95.17

740, Capture of Arpad HBS 95.18

739, Syria reduced HBS 95.19

732, Damascus captured HBS 95.20

727-22, Shal. IV king of Assyria HBS 95.21

722-05, Sargon II king of Assyria HBS 95.22

722, Fall of Samaria HBS 95.23

720, Hamath reduced HBS 95.24

720, Eg. army defeated HBS 95.25

717, Fall of Carchemish HBS 95.26

715, Importations into Samaria HBS 95.27

711 (or 713), Ashdod reduced HBS 95.28

710 Merodach-Baladan’s alliance against Sargon HBS 95.29

705, Death of Sargon HBS 95.30

705-681, Sennacherib king of Assyria HBS 95.31

701, Campaign against Judah HBS 95.32

681, Death of Sennacherib HBS 95.33

681-668, Esarhaddon king of Assyria HBS 95.34

678, Esarh. in West-land HBS 95.35

675-4, Esarh. in the desert HBS 95.36

673, Esarh. against Egypt HBS 95.37

670, Esarh. against Egypt HBS 95.38

668-26, Assurbanipal king of Assyria HBS 95.39

662, Destruction of Thebes HBS 95.40

650, circ., Destruction of Susa HBS 95.41

648, Assurb, king of Babylon HBS 95.42

626, Death of Assurbanipal HBS 95.43

625, Nabopolassar’s appointment HBS 95.44

607-6, Fall of Nineveh HBS 95.45

605, Neb.’s battle with Necho HBS 95.46

604-561, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon HBS 95.47

561-559, Evil-Merodach king of Babylon HBS 95.48

559-555, Nergalsharezer king of Babylon HBS 95.49

555-538, Nabonidus king of Babylon HBS 95.50

559, Rise of Cyrus HBS 95.51

549, Cyrus absorbed Media HBS 95.52

538, Fall of Babylon HBS 95.53

529, Death of Cyrus HBS 95.54

529-2, Cambyses king of Persia HBS 95.55

522, Suicide of Cambyses HBS 95.56

521-485, Darius (I) Hystaspes HBS 95.57

516, Capture of Babylon by Darius HBS 95.58

516, Completion of second temple HBS 95.59

515, Behistun inscription inscribed HBS 95.60

508, Scythia invaded HBS 95.61

490, Battle of Marathon HBS 95.62

485-64, Xerxes I (Ahasuerus) king of Persia HBS 95.63

485, Egypt subdued HBS 95.64

483, Feast of Xerxes HBS 95.65

480, Battle of Salamis HBS 95.66

479, Battle of Plataa HBS 95.67

464-24, Artaxerxes (1) Longimanus king of Persia HBS 95.68

458, Ezra’s return from Babylon HBS 95.69

445, Nehemiah’s return from Susa HBS 95.70

436, Nehemiah’s return to Susa. HBS 95.71

-“The Monuments and the Old Testament,” Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., pp. 321-323. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, copyright 1907. HBS 95.72

Chronology, Synchronisms of Sacred and Profane.—We have, then, ... the following synchronisms: HBS 95.73

1. The 1st of Nebuchadnezzar coincides wholly or in part with the 4th of Jehoiakim. Jeremiah 25:1. HBS 95.74

2. The 10th of Zedekiah, which we have found = 589 b. c. (1 Nisan), coincides wholly or in part with the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah 32:1. HBS 95.75

3. The epoch of Jeconiah’s captivity, and therefore of the reign of Zedekiah, lies in the 8th of Nebuchadnezzar. 2 Kings 24:12. HBS 95.76

4. The 10th day of the 5th month of the 11th of Zedekiah falls in the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar. 2 Kings 25:8.—“Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,” Henry Browne, M. A., p. 168. London: John W. Parker, HBS 96.1

Chronology, Life of Paul.—The chronology of the life of Paul cannot be fully determined from the Bible itself. Such chronological data as the New Testament affords help us only to a relative chronology. Could the year of one of the dates given by the New Testament be determined by a date of the Roman Empire, it would enable scholars to fix with approximate certainty the other dates. Hitherto the endeavor to do this has centered about the recall of Felix from Palestine and the coming of Festus (Acts 24:27), but there has been so much uncertainty about the date of this recall, that systems of chronology, differing from one another by from four to five years, have been constructed. A fragmentary inscription has come to light from Delphi, which seems to give us the desired aid for our Pauline chronology in that it fixes the date of the coming of Gallio to Corinth (Acts 18:12). This inscription, as its lacunae are supplied by Deissmann, is as follows: HBS 96.2

“Tiberius Claudius Casar Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, of tribunican authority for the twelfth time, imperator the twenty-sixth time, father of the country, consul for the fifth time, honorable, greets the city of the Delphians. Having long been well disposed to the city of the Delphians.... I have had success. I have observed the religious ceremonies of the Pythian Apollo ... now it is said also of the citizens ... as Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia, wrote ... on this account I accede to you still to have the first....” HBS 96.3

At this point the inscription is too broken for translation, although the beginnings of several lines can be made out. The importance of the inscription lies (1) in the fact that it mentions Gallio as proconsul of Achaia, and (2) in the reference to the twelfth tribunican year and the twenty-sixth imperatorship of Claudius. It can be deduced from these, in comparison with other inscriptions of his, that this letter was written between January and August of the year 52 a. d. If Gallio was then in office, and had been in office long enough to give information to Claudius of material importance to the purpose of the emperor’s letter to the Delphians, Gallio must have arrived in Corinth not later than the year 51. According to Dio Cassius, Claudius had decreed that new officials should start for their provinces not later than the new moon of the month of June. Gallio must, therefore, have arrived in Corinth not later than July. HBS 96.4

Paul’s stay in Corinth extended over eighteen months (Acts 18:11), and the narrative in Acts implies that a large part of it had passed before Gallio went there. Paul must, then, have arrived in Corinth not later than the end of the summer of the year 50. As the journey described in Acts 16 must have occupied some months, the council at Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, cannot have taken place later than the year 49 a. d. In Galatians 2:1 Paul says that this visit occurred fourteen years after the visit which followed his return from Damascus. As the Jews in counting time usually reckoned the two extremes as a part of the number, even if a part of them only should really have been included, the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, mentioned in Galatians 1:18, must have occurred not later than 36 a. d. nor earlier than 35 a. d. As this visit occurred “three” years after his conversion, we find, if we make similar allowance for the possibilities of Jewish reckoning, that his conversion occurred not later than 34 a. d., and possibly as early as 31 a. d.—“Archeology and the Bible,” George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., pp. 439, 440. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union. HBS 96.5

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.
Table I.—Patriarchal Period.
[Table not converted.]
Credit for tables on pages 97-124 will be found on page 124. HBS 97.1

Table II.—Period of the Judges.
[Table not converted.]
Table III.—The Undivided Monarchy. ¹⁰
The dates are those of the Received Chronology.
[Table not converted.] HBS 98.1

Table IV.—The Divided Kingdoms.
[Table not converted.] HBS 99.1

Table IV.—The Divided Kingdoms-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 100.1

Table IV.—The Divided Kingdoms-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 101.1

Table V.—Later Kingdom of Judah.
[Table not converted.] HBS 101.2

Table V.—Later Kingdom of Judah.—continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 102.1

Table V.—Later Kingdom of Judah.—continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 103.1

Table VI.—The Restored Commonwealth.
[Table not converted.] HBS 103.2

Table VI.—The Restored Commonwealth.—continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 104.1

Table VII.—Connection between the Old and New Testaments.
[S signifies a sabbatic year.]
[Table not converted.] HBS 105.1

Table VII.—Connection between the Old and New Testaments-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 106.1

Table VII.—Connection between the Old and New Testaments-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 107.1

Table VII.—Connection between the Old and New Testaments-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 108.1

Table VIII.—The Gospel History.
The leading events only of our Saviour’s life are inserted here, the full details having been given in the Table of the Harmony of the Gospels.
[Table not converted.] HBS 109.1

[Table not converted.]

Table VIII.—The Gospel History-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 111.1

[Table not converted.]

Table VIII.—The Gospel History-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 113.1

[Table not converted.]

Table IX.—The Apostolic History.
[Table not converted.] HBS 115.1

[Table not converted.]

Table IX.—The Apostolic History-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 117.1

[Table not converted.]

Table IX.—The Apostolic History-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 119.1

[Table not converted.]

Table IX.—The Apostolic History-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 121.1

[Table not converted.]

Table IX.—The Apostolic History-continued.
[Table not converted.] HBS 123.1

[Table not converted.]

-“A Dictionary of the Bible,” William Smith, LL. D., Teacher’s edition. Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, copyright 1884. HBS 124.1

Church, Meaning of the word.—The word “church” (from Greek kyriakon, “the Lord’s,” i. e., “house” or “body”) meant in original Christian usage either the universal body of Christian believers or a local congregation of believers. In the Romance languages the idea is expressed by a word from another root (Fr. eglise, Ital. chiesa, from Greek ekklçsia “the [body] called together” or “called out”). The Old Testament had two words to express the idea, ‘edhah and kahal (Leviticus 4:13, 14), both meaning “assembly,” the latter implying a distinctly religious object.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Church, The Christian,” p. 77. HBS 125.1

Church, Historical Notes on.—In the West, on the other hand, the definite organization of the church at large took shape in the papal monarchy; the further history of Catholicism and its idea of the church is really a history of the Roman primacy.... HBS 125.2

The first medieval Christian body which, while holding fast to the general Christian faith, abandoned that doctrine of the church sketched above [the Roman Catholic view], was the Waldenses. They considered themselves members of the church of Christ and partakers of his salvation, in spite of their exclusion from organized Christendom, recognizing at the same time a “church of Christ” within the organization whose heads were hostile to them. There is not, however, in their teaching any clear definition of the nature of the church or any new principle in reference to it. HBS 125.3

The first theologian to bring forward a conception of the church radically opposed to that which had been developing was Wycliffe; and Huss followed him in it. According to him the church is the “totality of the predestinated;” there, as in his doctrine of grace, he followed Augustine, but took a standpoint contrary as well to Augustine’s as to that of later Catholicism in his account of the institutions and means of grace by which God communicates the blessings of salvation to the predestined, excluding from them the polity of priest, bishop, and pope. He denied the divine institution both of papal primacy and of the episcopate as distinct from the presbyterate, and attributed infallible authority to the Scriptures alone. The idea of both Wycliffe and Huss was thus not of an actually existing body of united associates, but merely the total of predestined Christians who at any time are living holy lives, scattered among those who are not predestined, together with those who are predestined but not yet converted, and the faithful who have passed away. HBS 125.4

Luther defended Wycliffe’s definition at the Leipsic Disputation of 1519, in spite of its condemnation by the Council of Constance. But his own idea was that the real nature of the church was defined by the words following its mention in the creed-“the communion of saints,” taking the word “saints” in its Pauline sense. These (although sin may still cling to them) are sanctified by God through his word and sacraments-sacraments not depending upon an organized, episcopally ordained clergy, but committed to the church as a whole; it is their faith, called forth by the word of God, which makes them righteous and accepted members of Christ and heirs of eternal life. Thus the Lutheran and, in general, the Calvinist conception of the church depended from the first upon the doctrine of justification by faith. In harmony with Luther’s teaching, the Augsburg Confession defines the church as “the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are rightly administered.” In one sense the church is invisible, since the earthly eye cannot tell who has true faith and in this sense is a “saint,” but in another it is visible, since it has its being here in outward and visible vital forms, ordained by God, in which those who are only “saints” in appearance have an external share.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Church, The Christian,” pp. 81-83. HBS 125.5

Church, Idea of, Confirmed.—Two causes contributed to confirm the idea of the church: 1. The external history of the church itself, its victory over paganism, and its rising power under the protection of the state. 2. The victory of Augustinianism over the doctrines of the Pelagians, Manichaans, and Donatists, which in different ways threatened to destroy ecclesiastical unity. The last-mentioned puritanic and separatistic system, like that of Novatian in the preceding period, maintained that the church was composed only of saints. In opposition to them, following Optatus of Mileve, Augustine asserted the system of Catholicism, that the church consists of the sum total of all who are baptized, and that the (ideal) sanctity of the church was not impaired by the impure elements externally connected with it. The bishops of Rome then impressed upon this Catholicism the stamp of the papal hierarchy, by already claiming for themselves the primacy of Peter. But however different the opinions of the men of those times were respecting the seat and nature of the true church, the proposition laid down by former theologians, that there is no salvation out of the church, was firmly adhered to, and carried out in all its consequences.—“A History of Christian Doctrines,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. II, p. 62. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880. HBS 126.1

Church of Rome, Novelty of Some Doctrines of.—Novelty of some of the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome shown by the dates of their admission among the Articles of Faith (“Catechism of Differences Between the Church of England and the Church of Rome,” Elliot Stock, Paternoster Row): HBS 126.2

1. Transubstantiation-first book on the subject, by Paschase Radbert, a. d. 831. Strongly opposed at the time by many doctors of the Western Church; defined and declared an Article of Faith in the fourth Council of Lateran	1215
2. Communion in one kind. Council of Constance	1415
3. The Seven Sacraments-first mentioned by Peter Lombard, a. d. 1140; stated in a decree of instruction for the Armenians, which has been claimed as a decree of the Council of Florence, 1439, but which was drawn up after the Greeks and Armenians had left the council, and which runs only in the name of Pope Eugenius IV, though he claims for it the sanction of the council. Made an Article of the Faith by the Council of Trent	1547
4. Purgatory taught by Pope Gregory, a. d. 600. Made an article of Faith in the Council of Florence	1439
5. Tradition placed on an equal footing with Scripture. Council of Trent	1546
6. Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Council of Trent	1547
7.The necessity of the priest’s intention to give validity to the sacraments was stated in Pope Eugenius’s decree to the Armenians. Made an Article of the Faith by the Council of Trent	1547
8. The sacrifice of the mass as a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice. Council of Trent	1562
9. Invocation of saints made an Article of the Faith. Council of Trent	1563

10. Adoration of images condemned by Council of Constantinople, a. d. 754; approved by Council of Nice, a. d. 787; rejected by Council of Frankfort, a. d. 794. Made an Article of the Faith by the Council of Trent	1563
11. Scripture to be interpreted only in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Creed of Pope Pius IV	1564
12. The supremacy of the Pope first promulgated as an Article of the Faith by Pope Pius IV in his Creed	1564
13. Indulgences.-Restrictions imposed on the practice of issuing indulgences by the fourth Council of Lateran, 1215. Council of Trent decrees that the use of them is to be retained in the church, and anathematizes those who declare them to be useless	1563
14. The immaculate conception made an Article of the Faith by Pope Pius IX	1854
15. The infallibility of the Pope proclaimed by the Vatican Council	1870

-“The Claims of Rome,” Samuel Smith, M. P., pp. 99, 100. London: Elliot Stock, 1903. HBS 126.3

Commandments, Division of.—The ten commandments have been divided in various ways. The table below exhibits the principal differences: HBS 126.4

Commands	English(Reformed)	Jewish (Talmud)	Massoretic	Greek (Origen)	Roman and Lutheran
I	v.2,3	2	3-6	3	3-6
II	v. 4-6	3-6	7	4-6	7
III	v. 7	7	8-11	7	8-11
IV	v. 8-11	8-11	12	8-11	12
V	v. 12	12	13	12	13
VI	v. 13	13	14	13	14
VII	v. 14	14	15	14	15
VIII	v. 15	15	16,	15	16
IX	v. 16	16	17-	16	17-
X	v. 17	17	-17	17	-17

The difference between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran is this: that the Roman Catholic makes commandment IX protect the wife, while the Lutheran makes it protect the house. The Massoretic divisions agree with the Roman Catholic. The English Reformed division agrees with the Jewish and Talmudical division in including verse 2, but differs in including verse 3 in commandment I instead of in commandment II.—“The Companion Bible,” part 1, “The Pentateuch,” Appendix, p. 34. London: Oxford University Press. HBS 126.5

Conclave.—Strictly a room, or set of rooms, locked with a key; in this sense the word is now obsolete in English, though the New English Dictionary gives an example of its use so late as 1753. Its present loose application to any private or close assembly, especially ecclesiastical, is derived from its technical application to the assembly of cardinals met for the election of the Pope. [p. 827] ... HBS 126.6

Each cardinal is accompanied by a clerk or secretary, known for this reason as a conclavist, and by one servant only. With the officials of the conclave, this makes about two hundred fifty persons who enter the conclave and have no further communication with the outer world save by means of turning-boxes.... Within the conclave, the cardinals, alone in the common hall, usually the Sistine Chapel, proceed morning and evening to their double vote, the direct vote and the “accessit.” HBS 126.7

Sometimes these sessions have been very numerous; for example, in 1740, Benedict XIV was only elected after 255 scrutinies [ballots]; on other occasions, however, and notably in the case of the last few popes, a well-defined majority has soon been evident, and there have been but few scrutinies. Each vote is immediately counted by three scrutators [tellers], appointed in rotation, the most minute precautions being taken to insure that the voting shall be secret and sincere. When one cardinal has at last obtained two thirds of the votes, the dean of the cardinals formally asks him whether he accepts his election, and what name he wishes to assume. HBS 128.1

As soon as he has accepted, the first “obedience” or “adoration” takes place, and immediately after the first cardinal deacon goes to the Loggia of St. Peter’s and announces the great news to the assembled people. The conclave is dissolved; on the following day take place the two other “obediences,” and the election is officially announced to the various governments. If the Pope be not a bishop (Gregory XVI was not), he is then consecrated; and finally, a few days after his election, takes place the coronation, from which the pontificate is officially dated. The Pope then receives the tiara with the triple crown, the sign of his supreme spiritual authority. The ceremony of the coronation goes back to the ninth century, and the tiara, in the form of a high conical cap, is equally ancient.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VI. art. “Conclave,” pp. 827, 829, 11th edition. HBS 128.2

Concordat of Napoleon.—Thus was concluded this famous Concordat, the principal clauses of which we reproduce: HBS 128.3

“The Government of the Republic acknowledges that the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion is the religion of the great majority of the French. His Holiness equally acknowledges that this same religion has drawn, and still expects at this moment the greatest good and éclat from the establishment of the Catholic worship in France, and the particular profession which the First Consul of the Republic makes of it. Consequently, after this mutual acknowledgment, as well for the good of religion as for the maintenance of internal tranquillity, they have agreed to this which follows: Article 1. ‘The Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion shall be freely exercised in France. Its worship shall be public, conformed to the police regulations which the Government shall judge necessary for the public tranquillity.’” HBS 128.4

Then follows the article, which announces the new circumscription of the dioceses, and demands of the French incumbents a friendly resignation, if they do not wish that the government of the bishoprics should be authoritatively provided for by new incumbents. HBS 128.5

Article 4 was thus worded: HBS 128.6

“The First Consul of the Republic shall nominate, within the three months which shall follow the publication of the bull of His Holiness, to the archbishoprics and bishoprics of the new circumscription. His Holiness will confer the canonical institution, according to the forms established with regard to France, before the change of Government.” HBS 128.7

Article 6 reduces the political engagements of the new bishops to a simple oath of fidelity to the government. It was understood that, if in their diocese or elsewhere, there was formed any plot to the prejudice of the state, they should give notice of it to the government. HBS 128.8

Article 10 declared that the bishops shall nominate to the cures, but that their choice shall fall only on persons approved by the government. HBS 128.9

The last articles stipulate that, for the sake of peace and the happy re-establishment of the Catholic religion, His Holiness shall not in any way disturb the acquirers of alienated ecclesiastical property; that the government shall secure to the bishops and parish priests a suitable maintenance; and, in fine, that it shall possess the same rights and prerogatives enjoyed by the ancient government. HBS 128.10

A last clause declared that a new convention should be necessary, in case that one of the successors of the First Consul should be Protestant. HBS 129.1

Thus the Papacy obtained, despite itself, it is true, the exorbitant right of deposing the bishops, but in return, the civil power nominates the new incumbents under the reserve of the confirmation of the papal bulls.—“The Church and the French Revolution,” E. de Pressensé, D. D., pp. 454, 455. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1869. HBS 129.2

Concordats.—Concordats are now usually understood to be treaties between the sovereign of a state and the Pope of Rome, whereby the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church in the country concerned receive general regulation.—The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Concordats and Delimiting Bulls,” p. 210. HBS 129.3

Confirmation, Canons on.—Canon I. If any one saith that the confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism whereby they who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face of the church; let him be anathema. HBS 129.4

Canon II. If any one saith that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred chrism of confirmation offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 66. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. HBS 129.5

Confirmation.—Confirmation, a sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.... With reference to its effect it is the “Sacrament of the Holy Ghost,” the “Sacrament of the Seal” (signaculum, sigillum. [Greek word] [sphragis]). From the external rite it is known as the “imposition of hands” ([Greek words] [epithesis cheiron]), or as “anointing with chrism” (unctio, chrismatio, [Greek words] [chrisma, muron]). The names at present in use are, for the Western Church, confirmati o, and for the Greek, [Greek words] [to muron]. HBS 129.6

In the Western Church the sacrament is usually administered by the bishop. At the beginning of the ceremony there is a general imposition of hands, the bishop meantime praying that the Holy Ghost may come down upon those who have already been regenerated: “Send forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit, the Holy Paraclete.” He then anoints the forehead of each with chrism, saying: “I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Finally he gives each a slight blow on the cheek, saying: “Peace be with thee.” A prayer is added that the Holy Spirit may dwell in the hearts of those who have been confirmed, and the rite closes with the bishop’s blessing. HBS 129.7

The Eastern Church omits the imposition of hands and the prayer at the beginning, and accompanies the anointing with the words: “The sign [or seal] of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” These several actions symbolize the nature and purpose of the sacrament: the anointing signifies the strength given for the spiritual conflict; the balsam contained in the chrism, the fragrance of virtue and the good odor of Christ; the sign of the cross on the forehead, the courage to confess Christ before all men; the imposition of hands and the blow on the cheek, enrolment in the service of Christ, which brings true peace to the soul.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Confirmation,” p. 215. HBS 129.8

Confucianism, Failure of.—Confucius is a sage whose authority is based on his wisdom or his power in revealing to persons and states the secret of a happy life; but death, whether his own or another’s, is to him too great a mystery to be understood; the wise man can only sit dumb before it.—“The Philosophy of the Christian Religion,” Andrew Martin Fairbairn, M. A., D. D., LL. D., p. 482. New York: George H. Doran Company, copyright 1902. HBS 130.1

Confucius, Morality of.—Confucius sometimes soared to the highest morality known to the pagan world. Chung-kung asked about perfect virtue. The master said: “It is when you go abroad, to behave to every one as if you were receiving a great guest, to have no murmuring against you in the country and family, and not to do to others as you would not wish done to yourself.... The superior man has neither anxiety nor fear. Let him never fail reverentially to order his own conduct, and let him be respectful to others and observant of propriety; then all within the four seas will be brothers.... Hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles, and be moving continually to what is right.” Fan-Chi asked about benevolence; the master said: “It is to love all men.” Another asked about friendship. Confucius replied: “Faithfully admonish your friend, and kindly try to lead him. If you find him impracticable, stop. Do not disgrace yourself.” This saying reminds us of that of our great Master: “Cast not your pearls before swine.” There is no greater folly than in making oneself disagreeable without any probability of reformation. Some one asked: “What do you say about the treatment of injuries?” The master answered: “Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.”-“Beacon Lights of History,” John Lord, LL. D., Vol. I, pp. 162, 163. New York: James Clarke & Co., copyright 1888. HBS 130.2

Confucius, Writings of.—Confucius left behind voluminous writings, of which his Analects, his book of Poetry, his book of History, and his Rules of Propriety are the most important. It is these which are now taught, and have been taught for two thousand years, in the schools and colleges of China. The Chinese think that no man so great and perfect as he has ever lived. His writings are held in the same veneration that Christians attach to their own sacred literature. HBS 130.3

There is this one fundamental difference between the authors of the Bible and the Chinese sage,-that he did not like to talk of spiritual things; indeed, of them he was ignorant, professing no interest in relation to the working out of abstruse questions, either of philosophy or theology. He had no taste or capacity for such inquiries. Hence, he did not aspire to throw any new light on the great problems of human condition and destiny; nor did he speculate, like the Ionian philosophers, on the creation or end of things. He was not troubled about the origin or destiny of man. He meddled neither with physics nor metaphysics, but he earnestly and consistently strove to bring to light and to enforce those principles which had made remote generations wise and virtuous. He confined his attention to outward phenomena,-to the world of sense and matter; to forms, precedents, ceremonies, proprieties, rules of conduct, filial duties, and duties to the state; enjoining temperance, honesty, and sincerity as the cardinal and fundamental laws of private and national prosperity. He was no prophet of wrath, though living in a corrupt age. He utters no anathemas on princes, and no woes on peoples. Nor does he glow with exalted hopes of a millennium of bliss, or of the beatitudes of a future state. He was not stern and indignant like Elijah, but more like the courtier and counselor Elisha. He was a man of the world, and all his teachings have reference to respectability in the world’s regard. He doubted more than he believed. HBS 130.4

And yet in many of his sayings Confucius rises to an exalted height, considering his age and circumstances. Some of them remind us of some of the best proverbs of Solomon. In general, we should say that to his mind filial piety and fraternal submission were the foundation of all virtuous practices, and absolute obedience to rulers the primal principle of government.—“Beacon Lights of History,” John Lord, LL. D., Vol. I, pp. 156, 157. New York: James Clarke & Co., copyright 1888. HBS 131.1

Councils, Reasons for Calling.—Six grounds for the convocation of great councils, particularly ecumenical councils, are generally enumerated: HBS 131.2

1. When a dangerous heresy or schism has arisen. HBS 131.3

2. When two popes oppose each other, and it is doubtful which is the true one. HBS 131.4

3. When the question is, whether to decide upon some great and universal undertaking against the enemies of the Christian name. HBS 131.5

4. When the Pope is suspected of heresy or of other serious faults. HBS 131.6

5. When the cardinals have been unable or unwilling to undertake the election of a pope. HBS 131.7

6. When it is a question of the reformation of the church, in its head and members.—“A History of the Church Councils,” Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D. D. (R. C.), to A. D. 325 (first volume), p. 5. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. HBS 131.8

Councils, Confirmation of Decrees of.—The decrees of the ancient ecumenical councils were confirmed by the emperors and by the popes; those of the later councils by the popes alone. On the subject of the confirmation of the emperors we have the following facts: HBS 131.9

1. Constantine the Great solemnly confirmed the Nicene Creed immediately after it had been drawn up by the council, and he threatened such as would not subscribe it with exile. At the conclusion of the synod he raised all the decrees of the assembly to the position of laws of the empire; declared them to be divinely inspired; and in several edicts still partially extant, he required that they should be most faith-fully observed by all his subjects. HBS 131.10

2. The second ecumenical council expressly asked for the confirmation of the emperor Theodosius the Great, and he responded to the wishes of the assembly by an edict dated the 30th July, 381. HBS 131.11

3. The case of the third ecumenical council, which was held at Ephesus, was peculiar. The emperor Theodosius II had first been on the heretical side, but he was brought to acknowledge by degrees that the orthodox part of the bishops assembled at Ephesus formed the true synod. However, he did not in a general way give his confirmation to the decrees of the council, because he would not approve of the deposition and exclusion pronounced by the council against the bishops of the party of Antioch. Subsequently, however, when Cyril and John of Antioch were reconciled, and when the party of Antioch itself had acknowledged the Council of Ephesus, the emperor sanctioned this reconciliation by a special decree, threatened all who should disturb the peace; and by exiling Nestorius, and by commanding all the Nestorian writings to be burnt, he confirmed the principal decision given by the Council of Ephesus. HBS 131.12

4. The emperor Marcian consented to the doctrinal decrees of the fourth ecumenical council, held at Chalcedon, by publishing four edicts on the 7th February, 13th March, 6th and 28th July, 452. HBS 131.13

5. The close relations existing between the fifth ecumenical council and the emperor Justinian are well known. This council merely carried out and sanctioned what the emperor had before thought necessary and decided; and it bowed so obsequiously to his wishes that Pope Vigilius would have nothing to do with it. The emperor Justinian sanctioned the decrees pronounced by the council, by sending an official to the seventh session, and he afterward used every endeavor to obtain the approbation of Pope Vigilius for this council. HBS 132.1

6. The emperor Constantine Pogonatus confirmed the decrees of the sixth council, first by signing them (ultimo loco, as we have seen); but he sanctioned them also by a very long edict, which Hardouin has preserved. HBS 132.2

7. In the last session of the seventh ecumenical council, the empress Irene, with her son, signed the decrees made in the preceding sessions, and thus gave them the imperial sanction. It is not known whether she afterward promulgated an especial decree to the same effect. HBS 132.3

8. The emperor Basil the Macedonian and his sons signed the acts of the eighth ecumenical council. His signature followed that of the patriarchs, and preceded that of the other bishops. In 870 he also published an especial edict, making known his approval of the decrees of the council. HBS 132.4

The papal confirmation of all these eight first ecumenical councils is not so clear and distinct.—“A History of the Church Councils,” Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D. D. (R. C.), to A. D. 325 (first volume), pp. 42-44. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. HBS 132.5

Councils, Relation of the Pope to.—We see from these considerations, of what value the sanction of the Pope is to the decrees of a council. Until the Pope has sanctioned these decrees, the assembly of bishops which formed them cannot pretend to the authority belonging to an ecumenical council, however great a number of bishops may compose it; for there cannot be an ecumenical council without union with the Pope. HBS 132.6

This sanction of the Pope is also necessary for insuring infallibility to the decisions of the council. According to Catholic doctrine, this prerogative can be claimed only for the decisions of ecumenical councils, and only for their decisions in rebus fidei et morum [in matters of faith and morals], not for purely disciplinary decrees.—Id., p. 52. HBS 132.7

Councils, List of the Ecumenical.—Here, then, we offer a corrected table of the ecumenical councils: HBS 132.8

1. That of Nicaa in 325. HBS 132.9

2. The first of Constantinople in 381. HBS 132.10

3. That of Ephesus in 431. HBS 132.11

4. That of Chalcedon in 451. HBS 132.12

5. The second of Constantinople in 553. HBS 132.13

6. The third of Constantinople in 680. HBS 132.14

7. The second of Nicaa in 787. HBS 132.15

8. The fourth of Constantinople in 869. HBS 132.16

9. The first of Lateran in 1123. HBS 132.17

10. The second of Lateran in 1139. HBS 132.18

11. The third of Lateran in 1179. HBS 132.19

12. The fourth of Lateran in 1215. HBS 132.20

13. The first of Lyons in 1245. HBS 132.21

14. The second of Lyons in 1274. HBS 132.22

15. That of Vienne in 1311. HBS 132.23

16. The Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418; that is to say: (a) The latter sessions presided over by Martin V (sessions 41-45 inclusive); (b) in the former sessions all the decrees sanctioned by Pope Martin V, that is, those concerning the faith, and which were given conciliariter. HBS 133.1

17. The Council of Basle, from the year 1431; that is to say: (a) The twenty-five first sessions, until the translation of the council to Ferrara by Eugene IV; (b) in these twenty-five sessions the decrees concerning the extinction of heresy, the pacification of Christendom, and the general reformation of the church in its head and in its members, and which, besides, do not strike at the authority of the apostolic chair; in a word, those decrees which were afterward sanctioned by Pope Eugene IV. HBS 133.2

17b. The assemblies held at Ferrara and at Florence (1438-42) cannot be considered as forming a separate ecumenical council. They were merely the continuation of the Council of Basle, which was transferred to Ferrara by Eugene IV on the 8th January, 1438, and from thence to Florence in January, 1439. HBS 133.3

18. The fifth of Lateran, 1512-17. HBS 133.4

19. The Council of Trent, 1545-63.—“A History of the Church Councils,” Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D. D. (R. C.), to A. D. 325 (first volume), pp. 63, 64. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. HBS 133.5

The list of ecumenical councils as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church is as follows: 1. Nicaa I, 325; 2. Constantinople I, 381; 3. Ephesus, 431; 4. Chalcedon, 451; 5. Constantinople II, 553; 6. Constantinople III (first Trullan), 680-681; 7. Nicaa II, 787; 8. Constantinople IV, 869; 9. Lateran I, 1123; 10. Lateran II, 1139; 11. Lateran III, 1179; 12. Lateran IV, 1215; 13. Lyons I, 1245; 14. Lyons II, 1274; 15. Vienne, 1311-12; 16. Constance, 1414-18; 17. Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-42; 18. Lateran V, 1512-17; 19. Trent, 1545-63; 20. Vatican, 1869-70. The first seven of these are accepted by the Greeks, the others rejected; they also accept the second Trullan Council or Quinisextum, 692 (rejected by the West), considering it a continuation of the first Trullan or third Constantinople. The eighth general council of the Greeks was held in Constantinople in 879 and rejected by the Latins.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Councils and Synods,” p. 281, footnote. HBS 133.6

Councils, Present Constitution of.—The principles now accepted are that these assemblies may only be called by the Pope and presided over by him or his delegates; that their membership is confined to the cardinals, bishops, vicars apostolic, generals of religious orders, and such dignitaries, to the exclusion of the laity; that the subjects discussed must be laid before them by the Pope, and their decisions confirmed by him. They are thus nothing more than assemblies of advisers about the Pope, with no independent power of their own.—Id., p. 282. HBS 133.7

Councils, Relation of Council of Trent to Protestantism.—The work of the Council of Trent completed the preparations of the Roman Church for the great fight with Protestantism. Armed at all points, she took the field against her foe, under the command too of a peerless captain. Pope Pius IV did not long outlive the assembly which he had so vigorously wielded, and in 1565 made way for Pius V (Michael Ghislieri), the perfect and pattern pontiff. In him the Roman Church enjoyed a fervent, vigilant, devoted, laborious, self-denying, and consummate head; in him the Reformation encountered a watchful, unweary, implacable, and merciless enemy. [p. 245] ... HBS 133.8

Amid the multitude of pontifical cares and duties, all diligently attended to and exactly fulfilled, he gave closest heed to the supreme care and duty of extirpating heretics, and as the head of the Roman Church outdid his deeds and outnumbered his trophies as the head of the Holy Office. He conducted the operations of the Roman Catholic reaction with great skill, astonishing energy, and much success. He carried the war against Protestantism into every land and pressed into the service every mode of assault, every form of seduction and violence; teaching, preaching, imprisonment and torture, fire and sword, Jesuits, inquisitors, and soldiers.—“The Papal Drama,” Thomas H. Gill, pp. 245, 246. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1866. HBS 134.1

Councils, Vatican, Lord Acton on.—The Council of Trent impressed on the church the stamp of an intolerant age, and perpetuated by its decrees the spirit of an austere immorality. The ideas embodied in the Roman Inquisition became characteristic of a system which obeyed expediency by submitting to indefinite modification, but underwent no change of principle. Three centuries have so changed the world that the maxims with which the church resisted the Reformation have become her weakness and her reproach, and that which arrested her decline now arrests her progress. To break effectually with that tradition and eradicate its influence, nothing less is required than an authority equal to that by which it was imposed. The Vatican Council was the first sufficient occasion which Catholicism had enjoyed to reform, remodel, and adapt the work of Trent. This idea was present among the motives which caused it to be summoned.—“The History of Freedom,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.), pp. 493, 494. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909. HBS 134.2

Before the council had been assembled a fortnight, a store of discontent had accumulated which it would have been easy to avoid. Every act of the Pope, the bull Multiplices, the declaration of censures, the text of the proposed decree, even the announcement that the council should be dissolved in case of his death, had seemed an injury or an insult to the episcopate. These measures undid the favorable effect of the caution with which the bishops had been received. They did what the dislike of infallibility alone would not have done. They broke the spell of veneration for Pius IX which fascinated the Catholic episcopate. The jealousy with which he guarded his prerogative in the appointment of officers, and of the great commission, the pressure during the elections, the prohibition of national meetings, the refusal to hold the debates in a hall where they could be heard, irritated and alarmed many bishops. They suspected that they had been summoned for the very purpose they had indignantly denied,-to make the Papacy more absolute by abdicating in favor of the official prelature of Rome. Confidence gave way to a great despondency, and a state of feeling was aroused which prepared the way for actual opposition when the time should come.—Id., pp. 531, 532. HBS 134.3

When the observations on infallibility which the bishops had sent in to the commission appeared in print, it seemed that the minority had burnt their ships. They affirmed that the dogma would put an end to the conversion of Protestants, that it would drive devout men out of the church and make Catholicism indefensible in controversy, that it would give governments apparent reason to doubt the fidelity of Catholics, and would give new authority to the theory of persecution and of the deposing power. They testified that it was unknown in many parts of the church, and was denied by the Fathers, so that neither perpetuity nor universality could be pleaded in its favor; and they declared it an absurd contradiction, founded on ignoble deceit, and incapable of being made an article of faith by pope or council. One bishop protested that he would die rather than proclaim it.—“The History of Freedom,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.), pp. 545, 546. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909. HBS 134.4

The debate on the several paragraphs lasted till the beginning of July, and the decree passed at length with eighty-eight dissentient votes. It was made known that the infallibility of the Pope would be promulgated in solemn session on the 18th, and that all who were present would be required to sign an act of submission.... It was resolved by a small majority that the opposition should renew its negative vote in writing, and should leave Rome in a body before the session. Some of the most conscientious and resolute adversaries of the dogma advised this course. Looking to the immediate future, they were persuaded that an irresistible reaction was at hand, and that the decrees of the Vatican Council would fade away and be dissolved by a power mightier than the episcopate and a process less perilous than schism. Their disbelief in the validity of its work was so profound that they were convinced that it would perish without violence, and they resolved to spare the Pope and themselves the indignity of a rupture. Their last manifesto, La derniere Heure, is an appeal for patience, an exhortation to rely on the guiding, healing hand of God. They deemed that they had assigned the course which was to save the church, by teaching the Catholics to reject a council which was neither legitimate in constitution, free in action, nor unanimous in doctrine, but to observe moderation in contesting an authority over which great catastrophes impend.—Id., pp. 549, 550. HBS 135.1

Councils, Vatican, a Mark of the Age.—Few events of the nineteenth century stand out in bolder relief, and many will be forgotten when the Vatican Council will be remembered. It will mark this age as the Council of Nicaa and the Council of Trent now mark in history the fourth and the sixteenth centuries.—“The True Story of the Vatican Council,” Henry Edward Cardinal Manning(R. C.), p. 2. London: Burns and Oates. HBS 135.2

Councils, Vatican, a Remedy for Evils.—We have entered into a third period. The church began, not with kings, but with the peoples of the world, and to the peoples, it may be, the church will once more return. The princes and governments and legislatures of the world were everywhere against it at its outset: they are so again. But the hostility of the nineteenth century is keener than the hostility of the first. Then the world had never believed in Christianity; now it is falling from it. But the church is the same, and can renew its relations with whatsoever forms of civil life the world is pleased to fashion for itself. If, as political foresight has predicted, all nations are on their way to democracy, the church will know how to meet this new and strange aspect of the world. The high policy of wisdom by which the pontiffs held together the dynasties of the Middle Age[s] will know how to hold together the peoples who still believe. Such was the world on which Pius the Ninth was looking out when he conceived the thought of an ecumenical council. He saw the world which was once all Catholic tossed and harassed by the revolt of its intellect against the revelation of God, and of its will against his law; by the revolt of civil society against the sovereignty of God; and by the anti-Christian spirit which is driving on princes and governments toward anti-Christian revolutions. He to whom, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, the whole world was committed, saw in the Council of the Vatican the only adequate remedy for the world-wide evils of the nineteenth century.—“The True Story of the Vatican Council,” Henry Edward Cardinal Manning (R. C.), pp. 36, 37. London: Burns and Oates. HBS 135.3

Councils, Vatican, Summary of Its Doings.—The chief importance of the Council of the Vatican lies in its decree on papal supremacy and infallibility. It settled the internal dissensions between ultra-montanism and Gallicanism, which struck at the root of the fundamental principle of authority; it destroyed the independence of the Episcopate, and made it a tool of the primacy; it crushed liberal Catholicism; it completed the system of papal absolutism; it raised the hitherto disputed opinion of papal infallibility to the dignity of a binding article of faith, which no Catholic can deny without loss of salvation. The Pope may now say not only, “I am the tradition” (La tradizione son’ io), but also, “I am the church” (L’église c’est moi)!-“Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion,” William E. Gladstone, p. 65. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1875. HBS 136.1

Councils, Vatican, Submission to, Explained.—The following considerations sufficiently explain the fact of submission: HBS 136.2

1. Many of the dissenting bishops were professedly anti-infallibilists, not from principle, but only from subordinate considerations of expediency, because they apprehended that the definition would provoke the hostility of secular governments, and inflict great injury on Catholic interests, especially in Protestant countries. Events have since proved that their apprehension was well founded. HBS 136.3

2. All Roman bishops are under an oath of allegiance to the Pope, which binds them “to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his successors.” HBS 136.4

3. The minority bishops defended episcopal infallibility against Papal infallibility. They claimed for themselves what they denied to the Pope. Admitting the infallibility of an ecumenical council, and forfeiting by their voluntary absence on the day of voting the right of their protest, they must either on their own theory accept the decision of the council, or give up their theory, cease to be Roman Catholics, and run the risk of a new schism. HBS 136.5

At the same time this submission is an instructive lesson of the fearful spiritual despotism of the Papacy, which overrules the stubborn facts of history and the sacred claims of individual conscience. For the facts so clearly and forcibly brought out before and during the council by such men as Kenrick, Hefele, Rauscher, Maret, Schwarzenberg, and Dupanloup, have not changed, and can never be undone. On the one hand we find the results of a life-long, conscientious, and thorough study of the most learned divines of the Roman Church, on the other ignorance, prejudice, perversion, and defiance of Scripture and tradition; on the one hand we have history shaping theology, on the other theology ignoring or changing history; on the one hand the just exercise of reason, on the other blind submission, which destroys reason and conscience.—Id., p. 81. HBS 136.6

Councils, Vatican, a Triumph for the Jesuits.—In the strife for the Pope’s temporal dominion the Jesuits were most zealous; and they were busy in the preparation and in the defense of the Syllabus. They were connected with every measure for which the Pope most cared; and their divines became the oracles of the Roman congregations. The papal infallibility had been always their favorite doctrine. Its adoption by the council promised to give to their theology official warrant, and to their order the supremacy in the church. They were now in power; and they snatched their opportunity when the council was convoked.—“The History of Freedom,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.), p. 498. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909. HBS 136.7

Councils, Vatican, Canons Concerning the Church of Christ Proposed by Pope Pius IX, but Not Adopted.—The following is an abridged view of the substance and effect of the twenty-one canons (Documenta, ii, p. 101): HBS 137.1

1. If any man say that the religion of Christ is not made manifest in a society, let him be anathema. HBS 137.2

2. If any man say that the church has no certain and immutable form, let him be anathema. HBS 137.3

3. If any man say that she is not external and visible, let him be anathema. HBS 137.4

4. If any man say that she is not one body, let him be anathema. HBS 137.5

5. If any man say that she is not a society necessary to the obtaining of eternal salvation, let him be anathema. HBS 137.6

6. If any man say that her intolerance in the condemnation of all sects is not divinely commanded, or that such sects ought to be tolerated, let him be anathema. HBS 137.7

7. If any man say that she may err in doctrine, depart from her original institution, or cease to exist, let him be anathema. HBS 137.8

8. If any man say that she is not a final dispensation, let him be anathema. HBS 137.9

9. If any man say that her infallibility extends only to things contained in revelation, let him be anathema. HBS 137.10

10. If any man say that she is not a perfect society, but an association (collegium) which may be subjected to secular rule, let him be anathema. HBS 137.11

11. If any man say that bishops have not by divine appointment a proper power of ruling, which they are freely to exercise, let him be anathema. HBS 137.12

12. If any man say that the power of the church lies only in counsel or persuasion, but not in legal commands, in coercion and compulsion by external jurisdiction, and in wholesome pains, let him be anathema. HBS 137.13

13. If any man say that the true church, out of which none can be saved, is any other than the Roman, let him be anathema. HBS 137.14

14. If any man say that Peter was not prince of the apostles and head of the whole church, or that he received only a primacy of honor and not of jurisdiction, let him be anathema. HBS 137.15

15. If any man say that he had not successors, or that the Roman Pontiff was not his successor in the primacy, let him be anathema. HBS 137.16

16. If any man say that the Roman Pontiff has only a right of supervision or direction over the universal church, and not a full and supreme power of jurisdiction, or that his power over the churches, taken separately, is not immediate and ordinary, let him be anathema. HBS 137.17

17. If any man say that the power of the church is not compatible with that of supreme civil power, let him be anathema. HBS 137.18

18. If any man say that the power necessary to rule civil society is not from God, let him be anathema. HBS 137.19

19. If any man say that all rights among men and all authority are derived from the state, let him be anathema. HBS 137.20

20. If any man say that the supreme rule of conscience lies in the law of the state, or in public opinion, and that the judicial power of the church does not extend to pronouncing them legitimate or illegitimate, or that by civil law that can become legitimate which by divine law is illegitimate, let him be anathema. HBS 137.21

21. If any man say that the laws of the church have not binding force unless confirmed by the civil power, and that it is competent to the civil power to judge or decree in causes where religion is implicated, let him be anathema. HBS 138.1

The logical succession of ideas was manifest. The first five canons established the principle that the Christian church is a society which has form, visibility, unity, and is necessary to salvation. The next series pronounced this church to be intolerant (6), infallible (7), final as a dispensation (8), infallible in matters not contained in revelation (9), a perfect society not subject to the civil power (10), ruling by bishops (11), and possessing legislative, judicial, and compulsory power (12), because none can be saved out of her (13). The fourteenth canon, and the two following ones, establish the unlimited dominion of the Pope over all bishops; while the eleventh establishes the ruling power of bishops, but leaves the sphere of it undefined, not even saying that it is over the church. And this undefined ruling power of bishops is placed between the independence of the church in relation to the civil power on the one hand, and her own compulsory power and the absolute authority of the Pope over the bishops on the other. HBS 138.2

The seventeenth canon affirms that the power of the church is compatible with civil authority,-which without a doubt it is, so long as the civil authority abides within the limits traced for it by the church. That authority may also, in the sense of Rome, be, in its order, supreme,-that is, not subject to any other civil authority, but always subject to the Pope, who is an authority of a higher order than the civil. HBS 138.3

The eighteenth canon bases all civil authority on divine right. This is capable of more than one interpretation. First, it may mean that all existing authority is to be viewed as from God, whether it originated in conquest, prescription, or vote; or, secondly, it may mean that no civil authority is legitimate which has not divine sanction; and as among the baptized that sanction cannot be received except through the Pope, the consequence of such an interpretation would be obvious. HBS 138.4

The nineteenth canon deliberately confounds natural and legal rights, as if the laws that create and protect legal rights were not themselves the outgrowth of natural rights. In the same way it confounds natural authority and legal authority. HBS 138.5

The twentieth seems to put civil law and mere public opinion on the same level, and places both one and the other under the judgment of the church, and that as to their legitimacy or illegitimacy. “Judgment,” of course, does not mean criticism, instruction, remonstrance, or warning. It means what the word would mean anywhere, in such solemn legislative language, namely, judicial sentence. “Legitimacy” or “illegitimacy,” again, does not mean wisdom or folly, goodness or badness, but means what it says. Divine law includes church law, and what it forbids no civil law can warrant. Therefore the power claimed in this fundamental proposition is that with which we are already acquainted in the literature of the movement for reconstruction, that, namely, of declaring what laws of a particular state are or are not legitimate; every such state being considered as a province of the universal theocratic monarchy.—“The Pope, the Kings, and the People,” William Arthur, A. M., pp. 435-437, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903. HBS 138.6

Creation, Hebrew and Babylonian Account of.—It is a widely current theory that the cosmology of the Hebrews, as reflected in Genesis 1 to 2:4a, as well as in the prophets and in the poetic productions of Israel, was borrowed from the Babylonians. [p. 44] ... HBS 139.1

The sole argument of value that has been advanced for the Babylonian origin is, that in purely Israelite environment it is impossible to see how it should have been supposed that the primeval ocean alone existed at the beginning, for the manner in which the world rises in the Hebraic story corresponds entirely to Babylonian climatic conditions, where in the winter water holds sway everywhere until the god of the spring sun appears, who parts the water and creates heaven and earth. This cosmology, it is held, must therefore have had its origin in the alluvial plains, such as those of Babylonia, and not in the land of Palestine, still less in Syria or the Arabian desert. It also involves a special deity of spring or of the morning sun, such as Marduk was, and Yahweh was not. [p. 45] ... HBS 139.2

The Marduk-Tiamat myth, which belonged to the library of Ashurbanipal, is a late and elaborated attempt to explain the origin of things. The chief purpose of the legend as it has been handed down, is the glorification of the god Marduk, who, as is well known, absorbed the prerogatives and attributes of the other gods, after Hammurabi caused him to be placed at the head of the Babylonian pantheon. That is to say, it is quite apparent that the writer composed the work from existing legends. [p. 46] ... HBS 139.3

The composite character of the Babylonian creation myth being well established, and likewise that the amalgamation of the diversified elements took place some time prior to the establishment of Ashurbanipal’s library, it seems reasonably certain that the two cosmologies, which are clearly distinguishable, represent a Semitic myth coming from the West, in which Marduk, the god of light, is arrayed against Tiamat, the god of darkness, and a Sumerian myth, presumably from Eridu, resulting in the establishment of order by Ea, as against the chaos, which is personified by Apsu. HBS 139.4

Scholars are mistaken in assuming that there has been a complete transplanting of the Babylonian myth to the soil of Yahwism, or that the author of the Biblical story had before him not only the cosmological system of the Babylonians, but that particular form which has been incorporated into the Assyrian epic. On the contrary, in the light of these discussions, it seems reasonably certain that the Western Semites who emigrated to Babylonia carried their tradition with them to that land, which in time was combined with the Sumerian, resulting in the production discovered in the library of Ashurbanipal. [pp. 53, 54]-“Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites,” Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., pp. 44-46, 53, 54. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1909. HBS 139.5

Creation, Babylonian Tradition of.—It has been generally seen that this cosmogony bears a remarkable resemblance to the history of creation contained in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. Some have gone so far as to argue that the Mosaic account was derived from it. Others, who reject this notion, suggest that a certain “old Chaldee tradition” was “the basis of them both.” If we drop out the word “Chaldee” from this statement, it may be regarded as fairly expressing the truth. The Babylonian legend embodies a primeval tradition, common to all mankind, of which an inspired author has given us the true groundwork in the first and second chapters of Genesis. What is especially remarkable is the fidelity, comparatively speaking, with which the Babylonian legend reports the facts. While the whole tone and spirit of the two accounts, and even the point of view from which they are taken, differ, the general outline of the narrative in each is nearly the same.—“The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. I, pp. 143, 144. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. HBS 139.6

Creed, The Apostles’.— HBS 140.1

1. I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: HBS 140.2

2. and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; HBS 140.3

3. who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; HBS 140.4

4. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; HBS 140.5

5. the third day he rose from the dead; HBS 140.6

6. he ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; HBS 140.7

7. from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: HBS 140.8

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost; HBS 140.9

9. the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; HBS 140.10

10. the forgiveness of sins; HBS 140.11

11. the resurrection of the body; HBS 140.12

12. and the life everlasting.—“A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,” William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., p. 64. HBS 140.13

Creed, The Apostles’, Tradition Concerning.—For centuries men believed the wonderful story told relative to the origin of the Septuagint, because the Septuagint was able comfortably to carry just such a story; and because the story satisfied the law of harmony and fitness. HBS 140.14

This story is something like the story told of the Apostles’ Creed, which is the creed of all Christendom. To begin with, the creed bears the apostles’ names. It is called the Apostles’ Creed. I find it printed in my copy of the New Testament Apocrypha; and this story, affirmed by Ambrose, accompanies it: HBS 140.15

The twelve apostles as skilful artificers assembled together and made by their common advice this creed, by which the darkness of the devil is disclosed that the light of Christ may appear. Each apostle inserted an article; so that the creed is divided into twelve parts. The apostles, beginning with Peter, contributed as follows: HBS 140.16

Peter-“I believe in God the Father Almighty, HBS 140.17

John-“Maker of heaven and earth, HBS 140.18

James-“And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, HBS 140.19

Andrew-“Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, HBS 140.20

Philip-“Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; HBS 140.21

Thomas-“He descended into hell, and the third day he rose again from the dead; HBS 140.22

Bartholomew-“He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. HBS 140.23

Matthew-“From thence shall he come to judge the quick and the dead; HBS 140.24

James, the son of Alpheus-“I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, HBS 140.25

Simon Zelotes-“The communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, HBS 140.26

Jude, the brother of James-“The resurrection of the body, HBS 140.27

Matthias-“And the life everlasting. Amen.”-“Between the Testaments, or Interbiblical History,” Rev. David Gregg, D. D., LL. D., pp. 35-37. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1907. HBS 140.28

Creeds, Names of.—Thus by the end of the seventh century the so-called Catholic or Ecumenical Creeds had assumed the forms in which they have come down to us. Sacred as the church has deemed them, and highly as it has valued them as bonds of unity and defences of the faith, they bear the marks of free handling, and became occasions of dissension. Their very titles reveal a certain wilfulness and pretension in their adoption. The Apostles’ Creed is not the creed of the apostles: the Nicene Creed is not the creed of Nicaa, but the creed of Constantinople, based on the creed of Jerusalem, reinforced by elements from Nicaa, Chalcedon, and Toledo: the Athanasian Creed is not the creed of Athanasius, but the anonymous composition of Gallic orthodoxy at least a century later than the champion of the Nicene faith. Nor is one of them in its current form strictly catholic or ecumenical, for the Greek Orthodox Church gives no dogmatic sanction to the Quicunque Vult, the Apostles’ Creed, or the Te Deum, and denounces the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which is current in the West, while in the churches beyond the Greek and Roman pale there is every conceivable variety of attitude toward each and all of them. The application to them, therefore, of the title of catholicity and ecumenicity, involves a similar kind, though not perhaps an equal degree, of pious exaggeration to that which is inherent in its use in the official designations of the great churches of the East and West.—“A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,” William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., pp. 406, 407. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. HBS 141.1

Creed of Pope Pius IV, Epitome of Doctrines of Trent.—This creed was adopted at the famous Council of Trent, held in the sixteenth century, when the doctrines of the Reformation were already widely diffused through Europe, and joyfully accepted and held by the young Protestant churches of many lands. The Council of Trent was indeed Rome’s reply to the Reformation. The newly recovered truths of the gospel were in its canons and decrees stigmatized as pestilent heresies, and all who held them accursed; and in opposition to them this creed was prepared and adopted.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 77, 78. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. HBS 141.2

This creed of Pope Pius IV is the authoritative papal epitome of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. The importance of this council “depends upon the considerations, that its records embody the solemn, formal, and official decision of the Church of Rome-which claims to be the one holy, catholic church of Christ-upon all the leading doctrines taught by the Reformers; that its decrees upon all doctrinal points are received by all Romanists as possessed of infallible authority; and that every popish priest is sworn to receive, profess, and maintain everything defined and declared by it.”-Id., p. 80. HBS 141.3

The creed of Pope Pius IV,-which contains twelve articles not merely unknown to the primitive church, but, for the most part, contrary to what it received from Christ and his apostles, and destructive of it,-with an express declaration that “out of this faith” so enforced “there is no salvation.”-“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 6. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848. HBS 141.4

Pius IV now devoted his undivided attention to the completion of the labors of the Council of Trent.... Pius had the satisfaction of seeing the close of the long-continued council and the triumph of the Papacy over the antipapal tendencies which at times asserted themselves. HBS 141.5

His name is immortally connected with the “Profession of Faith,” which must be sworn to by every one holding an ecclesiastical office.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. “Pius IV,” p. 129. HBS 142.1

Creed, Roman, Authoritative Statement of.—The Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and in general all the doctrinal decrees which the first four general councils have laid down in respect to the Trinity, and to the person of Christ, those Protestants who are faithful to their church, recognize in common with Catholics; and on this point the Lutherans, at the commencement of the Augsburg Confession, as well as in the Smalcald Articles, solemnly declared their belief. Not less explicit and public were the declarations of the Reformed. These formularies constitute the common property of the separate churches-the precious dowry which the overwise daughters carried away with them from the maternal house to their new settlements: they cannot accordingly be matter of discussion here, where we have only to speak of the disputes which occasioned the separation, but not of those remaining bonds of union to which the severed yet cling. We shall first speak of those writings wherein, at the springing up of dissensions, the Catholic Church declared her primitive domestic laws. HBS 142.2

1. The Council of Trent.-Soon after the commencement of the controversies, of which Luther was the author, but whereof the cause lay hidden in the whole spirit of that age, the desire from many quarters was expressed and by the emperor Charles V warmly represented to the papal court, that a general council should undertake the settlement of these disputes. But the very complicated nature of the matters themselves, as well as numerous obstacles of a peculiar kind, which have seldom been impartially appreciated, did not permit the opening of the council earlier than the year 1545, under Pope Paul III. After several long interruptions, one of which lasted ten years, the council, in the year 1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV, was, on the close of the twenty-fifth session, happily concluded. The decrees regard dogma and discipline. Those regarding the former are set forth, partly in the form of treatises, separately entitled decretum or doctrina, partly in the form of short propositions, called canones. The former describe, sometimes very circumstantially, the Catholic doctrine; the latter declare in terse and pithy terms against the prevailing errors in doctrine. The disciplinary ordinances, with the title Decretum de Reformatione, will but rarely engage our attention. HBS 142.3

2. The second writing, which we must here name, is the Tridentine, or Roman catechism, with the title Catechismus Romanus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini. The fathers of the church, assembled at Trent, felt, themselves, the want of a good catechism for general use, although very serviceable works of that kind were then not altogether wanting. These, even during the celebration of the council, increased to a great quantity. None, however, gave perfect satisfaction; and it was resolved that one should be composed and published by the council itself. In fact, the council examined the outline of one prepared by a committee; but this, for want of practical utility and general intelligibleness, it was compelled to reject. At length, when the august assembly was on the point of being dissolved, it saw the necessity of renouncing the publication of a catechism, and of concurring in the proposal of the papal legates, to leave to the Holy See the preparation of such a work. The Holy Father selected for this important task three distinguished theologians, namely, Leonardo Marino, archbishop of Lanciano; Egidio Foscarari, bishop of Modena; and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. They were assisted by three cardinals, and the celebrated philologist, Paulus Manutius, who was to give the last finish to the Latin diction and style of the work. HBS 142.4

It appeared in the year 1566, under Pope Pius IV, and as a proof of its excellence, the various provinces of the church-some even by numerous synodal decrees-hastened publicly to introduce it. This favorable reception, in fact, it fully deserved, from the pure evangelical spirit which was found to pervade it, from the unction and clearness with which it was written, and from that happy exclusion of scholastic opinions, and avoidance of scholastic forms, which was generally desired. It was, nevertheless, designed merely as a manual for pastors in the ministry, and not to be a substitute for children’s catechisms, although the originally continuous form of its exposition was afterward broken up into questions and answers. HBS 143.1

But now it may be asked, whether it possess really a symbolical authority and symbolical character? This question cannot be answered precisely in the affirmative; for, in the first place, it was neither published nor sanctioned, but only occasioned, by the Council of Trent. Secondly, according to the destination prescribed by the Council of Trent, it was not, like regular formularies, to be made to oppose any theological error, but only to apply to practical use the symbol ¹¹ of faith already put forth. Hence, it answers other wants, and is accordingly constructed in a manner far different from public confessions of faith. This work, also, does not confine itself to those points of belief merely which, in opposition to the Protestant communities, the Catholic Church holds; but it embraces all the doctrines of the gospel; and hence it might be named (if the usage of speech and the peculiar objects of all formularies were compatible with such a denomination), a confession of the Christian church in opposition of all non-Christian creeds. If, for the reason first stated, the Roman catechism be devoid of a formal universal sanction of the church, so it wants, for the second reason assigned, all the internal qualities and the special aim which formularies are wont to have. In the third place, it is worthy of notice that on one occasion, in a controversy touching the relation of grace to freedom, the Jesuits asserted before the supreme authorities of the church, that the catechism possessed not a symbolical character; and no declaration in contradiction to their opinion was pronounced. HBS 143.2

But if we refuse to the Roman catechism the character of a public confession, we by no means deny it a great authority, which, even from the very circumstance that it was composed by order of the Council of Trent, undoubtedly belongs to it. In the next place, as we have said, it enjoys a very general approbation from the teaching church, and can especially exhibit the many recommendations which on various occasions the sovereign pontiffs have bestowed on it. We shall accordingly often refer to it, and use it as a very important voucher for Catholic doctrine; particularly where the declarations of the Council of Trent are not sufficiently ample and detailed. HBS 143.3

3. The Professio Fidei Tridentina [Tridentine Profession of Faith] stands in a similar relation. HBS 143.4

4. Shortly after the times of the Council of Trent, and in part during its celebration, there arose within the Catholic Church doctrinal controversies, referring mostly to the relation between grace and freedom, and to subjects of a kindred nature; and hence, even for our purposes, they are not without importance. For the settlement of the dispute, the apostolic see saw itself forced to issue several constitutions, wherein it was obliged to enter into the examination of the matter in debate. To these constitutions belong especially the bulls, published by Innocent X, against the five propositions of Jansenius, and the bull Unigenitus, by Clement XI. We may undoubtedly say of these constitutions, that they possess no symbolical character, for they only note certain propositions as erroneous, and do not set forth the doctrine opposed to the error, but suppose it to be already known. But a formulary of faith must not merely reject error; it must state doctrine. As the aforesaid bulls, however, rigidly adhere to the decisions of Trent, and are composed quite in their spirit; as they, moreover, have reference to many important questions, and settle, though only in a negative way, these questions in the sense of the above-named decrees; we shall occasionally recur to them, and illustrate by their aid many a Catholic dogma. HBS 143.5

It is evident from what has been said, that the Catholic Church, in fact, has, in the matters in question, but one writing of a symbolical authority. All that, in any respect, may bear such a title, is only a deduction from this formulary, or a nearer definition, illustration, or application of its contents, or is in part only regulated by it, or in any case obtains a value only by agreement with it, and hence cannot, in point of dignity, bear a comparison with the original itself.—“Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 11-15. HBS 144.1

Note.—The preface to the first edition of Dr. Moehler’s work is dated “Tubingen, 1832.” Since that time the creed of the Roman Church has been enlarged by the addition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and the canons and decrees of the Vatican Council, 1869-70. These added dogmas are now of the same authority as the canons and decrees of Trent.—Eds. HBS 144.2

Creed, Roman, Principal Authorities for.—The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are laid down in the ecumenical creeds, the acts of nineteen or twenty ecumenical councils, the bulls of the popes, and especially the Tridentine and Vatican standards. The principal authorities are the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (1563), the Profession of the Tridentine Faith, commonly called the Creed of Pius IV (1564), the Roman Catechism (1566), the decree of the Immaculate Conception (1854), and the Vatican decrees on the Catholic faith and the infallibility of the Pope (1870). The best summary of the leading articles of the Roman faith is contained in the Creed of Pope Pius IV, which is binding upon all priests and public teachers, and which must be confessed by all converts.—Philip Schaff, D. D., in “New Universal Cyclopedia,” Johnson, Vol. III, art. “Roman Catholic Church,” part 2, p. 1702. HBS 144.3

Criticism, Laws of.—I am not aware that the laws [“of the modern historical criticism”] in question have ever been distinctly laid down in a compendious, or even in an abstract form. They are assumed throughout the writings of our best historians, but they are involved in their criticisms rather than directly posited as their principles. I believe, however, that I shall not misrepresent them if I say that, viewed on their positive side, they consist chiefly of the four following canons: HBS 144.4

1. When the record which we possess of an event is the writing of a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible witness and had means of observing the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be accepted as possessing the first or highest degree of historical credibility. Such evidence is on a par with that of witnesses in a court of justice, with the drawback, on the one hand, that the man who gives it is not sworn to speak the truth, and with the advantage, on the other, that he is less likely than the legal witness to have a personal interest in the matter concerning which he testifies. HBS 144.5

2. When the event recorded is one which the writer may be reasonably supposed to have obtained directly from those who witnessed it, we should accept it as probably true, unless it be in itself very improbable. HBS 144.6

Such evidence possesses the second degree of historical credibility. HBS 145.1

3. When the event recorded is removed considerably from the age of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to believe that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, but the probable source of his information was oral tradition; still, if the event be one of great importance and of public notoriety, if it affected the national life or prosperity,-especially if it be of a nature to have been at once commemorated by the establishment of any rite or practice,-then it has a claim to belief as probably true, at least in its general outline. This, however, is the third, and a comparatively low, degree of historical credibility. HBS 145.2

4. When the traditions of one race, which, if unsupported, would have had but small claim to attention, and none to belief, are corroborated by the traditions of another, especially if a distant or hostile race, the event which has this double testimony obtains thereby a high amount of probability, and if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly deserves acceptance. The degree of historical credibility in this case is not exactly commensurable with that in the others, since a new and distinct ground of likelihood comes into play. It may be as strong as the highest, and it may be almost as weak as the lowest, though this is not often the case in fact. In a general way, we may say that the weight of this kind of evidence exceeds that which has been called the third degree of historical probability, and nearly approaches to the second.—“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 39, 40. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 145.3

Cross, Babylonian Origin of.—The same sign of the cross that Rome now worships was used in the Babylonian mysteries, was applied by paganism to the same magic purposes, was honored with the same honors. That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians-the true original form of the letter T-the initial of the name of Tammuz.... That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the mysteries, and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol. To identify Tammuz with the sun it was joined sometimes to the circle of the sun, sometimes it was inserted in the circle. Whether the Maltese cross, which the Romish bishops append to their names as a symbol of their episcopal dignity, is the letter T, may be doubtful; but there seems no reason to doubt that that Maltese cross is an express symbol of the sun; for Layard found it as a sacred symbol in Nineveh in such a connection as led him to identify it with the sun.—“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 197, 198, 7th edition. London: S. W. Partridge & Co. HBS 145.4

Cross, Pagan Form of Punishment.—As an instrument of death the cross was detested by the Jews. “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Galatians 3:13; cf. Deuteronomy 21:23); hence it became a stumbling-block to them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor was the cross differently considered by the Romans. “Let the very name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears.” HBS 145.5

The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death punishment still well known among the Mongol race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Persians, and Babylonians. Alexander the Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall of the city. The Jews received this form of punishment from the Syrians and Romans. The Roman citizen was exempt from this form of death, it being considered the death of a slave. The punishment was meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of the enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in vogue in the Roman Empire till the day of Constantine, when it was abolished as an insult to Christianity. HBS 145.6

Among the Romans, crucifixion was preceded by scourging, undoubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then bore his own cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in itself proves that the structure was less ponderous than is commonly supposed. When he was tied to the cross, nothing further was done, and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to the cross, at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. The number of nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, on which the feet rested or on which the body was partly supported, seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing through the transfixed members. HBS 146.1

The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated by the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained position of the body, and insufferable thirst. The wounds swelled about the rough nails, and the torn and lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood, and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened, and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death. The sufferings were so frightful that “even among the raging passions of war, pity was sometimes excited.” HBS 146.2

The length of this agony was wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had elapsed. Instances are on record of victims of the cross who survived their terrible injuries when taken down from the cross after many hours of suspension. Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term. HBS 146.3

The sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment. Mark 15:44. The peculiar symptoms mentioned by John 19:34 would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which the Saviour died, independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. II, art. “Cross,” pp. 761, 762. HBS 146.4

Crucifixion, Description of.—Crucifixion was a punishment which the ancients inflicted only on the most notorious criminals and malefactors. The cross was made of two beams, either crossing at the top at right angles, or in the middle of their length like an X. There was, besides, a piece on the center of the transverse beam, to which was attached the accusation, or statement of the culprit’s crime; together with a piece of wood that projected from the middle, on which the person sat as on a kind of saddle, and by which the whole body was supported. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, gives this description; and it is worthy of note that he lived in the former part of the second century of the Christian era, before the punishment of the cross was abolished. The cross on which our Lord suffered, was of the former kind, being thus represented on all ancient monuments, coins, and crosses. HBS 146.5

Crucifixion is one of the most cruel and excruciating deaths, which the art of ingeniously tormenting and extinguishing life ever devised. The naked body of the criminal was fastened to the upright beam by nailing or tying the feet to it, and on the transverse beam by nailing and sometimes tying the hands to it. Those members, being the grand instruments of motion, are provided with a greater quantity of nerves, which (especially those of the hands) are peculiarly sensible. As the nerves are the instruments of all sensation or feeling, wounds in the parts where they abound must be peculiarly painful, especially when inflicted with such rude instruments as large nails, forcibly driven through the exquisitely delicate tendons, nerves, and bones of those parts. The horror of this punishment will appear when it is considered that the person was permitted to hang (the whole weight of his body being borne up by his nailed hands and feet, and by the projecting piece in the middle of the cross) until he perished through agony and want of food. There are instances of crucified persons living in this exquisite torture several days. “The wise and adorable Author of our being has formed and constituted the fabric of our bodies in such a merciful manner that nothing violent is lasting. Friendly death sealed the eyes of those wretches generally in three days. Hunger, thirst, and acute pain dismissed them from their intolerable sufferings. The rites of sepulture were denied them. Their dead bodies were generally left on the crosses on which they were first suspended, and became a prey to every ravenous beast and carnivorous bird. HBS 147.1

1. “Crucifixion obtained among several ancient nations, the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Carthaginians.... But this manner of executing criminals prevailed most among the Romans. It was generally a servile punishment, and chiefly inflicted on vile, worthless, and incorrigible slaves. In reference to this, the apostle, describing the condescension of Jesus, and his submission to this most opprobrious death, represents him as taking upon him the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7, 8), and becoming obedient to death, even the death of the cross. HBS 147.2

2. “It was universally and deservedly reputed the most shameful and ignominious death to which a wretch could be exposed. In such an exit were comprised every idea and circumstance of odium, disgrace, and public scandal.” Hence the apostle magnifies and extols the great love of our Redeemer, “in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” and “for the joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame” (Romans 5:8; Hebrews 12:2), disregarding every circumstance of public indignity and infamy with which such a death was loaded. “It was from the idea they connected with such a death, that the Greeks treated the apostles with the last contempt and pity for publicly embarking in the cause of a person who had been brought to this reproachful and dishonorable death by his own countrymen. The preaching of the cross was to them foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:23); the promulgation of a system of religion that had been taught by a person who, by a national act, had publicly suffered the punishment and death of the most useless and abandoned slave, was in their ideas the last infatuation; and the preaching of Christ crucified, publishing in the world a religion whose Founder suffered on a cross, appeared the last absurdity and madness. The heathens looked upon the attachment of the primitive Christians to a religion whose publisher had come to such an end, as an undoubted proof of their utter ruin, that they were destroying their interest, comfort, and happiness by adopting such a system founded on such a dishonorable circumstance. HBS 147.3

“The same inherent scandal and ignominy had crucifixion in the estimation of the Jews. They indeed annexed more complicated wretchedness to it, for they esteemed the miscreant who was adjudged to such an end not only to be abandoned of men, but forsaken of God. He that is hanged, says the law, is accursed of God. Deuteronomy 21:23. Hence St. Paul, representing to the Galatians the grace of Jesus, who released us from that curse to which the law of Moses devoted us, by being made a curse for us, by submitting to be treated for our sakes as an execrable malefactor, to show the horror of such a death as Christ voluntarily endured, adds, ‘It is written in the law, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’ Galatians 3:13. And from this express declaration of the law of Moses concerning persons thus executed, we may account for that aversion the Jews discovered against Christianity, and perceive the reason of what St. Paul asserts, that their preaching of Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumblingblock. 1 Corinthians 1:23. The circumstance of the cross caused them to stumble at the very gate of Christianity.”-“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. III, pp. 158-160. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 148.1

Curia.—Curia is a comprehensive term used in the phrase, Curia Romana, “The Court of Rome,” for the entire system of officials of various kinds and degrees who compose the administration of the Pope.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art “Curia,” p. 323. HBS 148.2