His Remains were edited by H. 1 Hallywell (1686).

BIHuOcuRApH7: Besides the literature under CAHH$iDO1 PLAToNIsT8, consult: C. H. Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, iii. 545-546, 5 vols., Cambridge, 1842-53; idem, Memorials of Cambridge, new eel., 2 vols., ib. 185820; J. Ware. Antiquities and Hint. of Ireland, 9 parts, London, 1704-05; H. Cotton, Fedi eccleaim Hibernica, vol. iii., 5 vols., Dublin, 1845-60; J. Worthington, Diary and Correspondence, eel. J. Crossley for Chetham Society, Manchester, 1847 sqq.; DNB, 1. 1 2.

RUST, ISAAK: German Evangelical; b. at Mussbach (59 m. n.w. of Stuttgart) Oct. 14, 1796; d. at Munich Dec. 14, 1862. He was educated at the University of Heidelberg (1815-17); and was first vicar, then teacher at the progymnasium at Speyer (1817-20), where he also lectured for a term on philosophy at the Lyceum. In 1820 he became pastor at Ungstein, where he wrote his Philosophie and Christentum, tiler Wissen and Glauben (Mannheim, 1825), in which, from a rationalistic point of view, he traced the intellectual and religious development of mankind in parallels through three stages: paganism, the stage of feeling; Judaism, of understanding; and Christianity, of reason. Similar views were maintained in his De nonnuUis guts in theologia rostra cetatis dogmatiea desiderantur (Er langen, 1828), a polemic against Schleiermacher. In 1827 Rust was called to Erlangen as pastor of the French Reformed church; and, in 1830, was appointed associate professor of theology, and full professor in 1831. His Geist aus Luthers Schnften, odor Concardanz tier Ansichten and Urteile des grossert Reformators (in collaboration with F. W. Lomler, E. Zimmermann, and others; 4 vols., Darmstadt, 182731), and Stimmen der Reformation ured der Refo»natoren an die Pursten and VSlker dieaer Zeit (Erlangen, 1832), indicate his change to orthodoxy. In 1833 Rust was appointed director of the consistory of Erlangen in place of a pronounced rationalist. His arbitrary spirit and zeal for the Palatine union and against the rationalistic element raised such opposition that, in 1836, the supreme consistory sent two councilors to the Palatinate, where they held ineffectual conferences with clerical and lay members of the synod. Rust remained in the consistory, however, where he exercised a reactionary influence on theological education, Biblical instruction, and missions, and on the synods. Opposition to him and his measures continued, until, in 1846, he was appointed to the supreme consistory at Munich. In the stormy year of 1848, however, his removal was repeatedly demanded, and the separation of the unionistic Palatinate Church from the consistory was urged again and again. This took place in 1849, to avert which Rust had meantime been retired from the supreme consistory, but continued to be court chaplain, and in 1850 was appointed ministerial councilor and referee for Palatine ecclesiastical affairs in the ministry of worship. Henceforth his influence on the church was not such as to evoke opposition, and in 1861 he retired from active life.

(J. SCHNEIDER)

BrHLJOGBAP8:7: H. E. G. Paulus, Die proteetandaoh-evanDdiech-unierte Kirche in der baierischen Pfala, Heidelberg, 1840; G. F. Kolb, Kurse Geachichte der vereinipten yroteatantsach-evangdiach-chrutliehan Ksrcha der bawnschan

Pfais, Speyer, 1847; E. F. H. Medicus, GeachicUe der evanpdiachen Kirche im Kiinipreich Bayern, supplement vol., Erlangen, 1865; F. W. Laurier, Die evanpdiachpr»tsdantieche Kirchs der Pfala, Kaiserslautern, 1868.

RUSTON, WILLIAM OTIS: Presbyterian; b. in New York City Dec. 6, 1852. He was graduated from the College of the City of New York (B.A., 1872), and from Union Theological Seminary, New York City (1875); was pastor at Fairmount, N. J:, 1875-77; at West Union, Ia., 1877-86; at Dubuque, Ia., 1886-1903; professor of sacred languages and literature in the German Presbyterian Theological School of the Northwest, since 1903; and president of the same, 1904-08.

RUTH, BOOK OF: A book of the Old Testament placed in the English canon between Judges and I Samuel. It is a narrative of events which purport to have taken place in the period of the Judges, about the Moabitess Ruth, who, through a series of singular incidents, became the ancestress of David. Elimelech, a Bethlehemite, driven by famine, emigrated, with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Malilon and Chilion, to the land of Moab, where he and his two sons died after these had taken Moabitish wives, Ruth and Orpah. After remaining ten years in Moab, Naomi decided to return to her native land and advised her daughters-in-law to leave her; but Ruth, with filial attachment, followed her back to Judah. There, while gleaning in a field belonging to Boaz, a kinsman, she was well treated by him. Naomi instructed her to offer herself in marriage to her well-to-do kinsman, he being, to a certain extent, bound to take the childless widow and " to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance." Boaz accepted the obligation, after a nearer relative, to whom he gave the opportunity of redeeming the land of Elimelech and taking Ruth, had declined. The son of Boaz and Ruth became the grandfather of David.

The grace and freshness of the narrative have always been admired. It bears internal evidence of its truth, for it is not likely that a fiction would have ascribed a Moabitish ancestress to David. However, it has an especial spiritual significance; it indicates that God's people was ordained to draw fresh strength from a heathen source. Ruth is mentioned as an ancestress of the Messiah in Matt. i., beside Tamar and Rahab. Tamar, mother of Pharez (Gem. xxxviii.), of the same genealogy, is also mentioned by the narrator of Ruth as a source of divine blessing (iv. 12); not only as a foreigner, but as the mother of the offspring from a marriage based on the obligations of kinship, which Judah unknowingly and involuntarily had to fulfil. Still, in spite of the inner significance of this mixture of Jewish with foreign blood, in the house of David, it seems clear that it could not have been the invention of a didactic " tendency." Just as little could the story have been conceived for the sake of commending the levirate marriage, since that is taken for granted and not especially urged. Political and mythological motives have been ascribed to the book, but on insufficient grounds. The book presents a historically faithful picture of ancient customs and traditions. It is not certain to what