the am Urmia-See and in Kurdutan, Leipsie. 1868; idem, Kurape/asste syrisde Grammatik, Leipeic,1898; S. D. Luzzato, Elements prammaticali del Caldeo biblico a del dialetto talmudico babllonese, Padua, 1865, Eng. tranal. by G. Goldammer, New York, 1877; E. Kautzsch, Gramrriatik des biblischen Aramaischen, Leipsic, 1884; J. Levy, Chaldtiuches WSrterbuch fiber die Targumim and einen grossen Theil des rabbiniachen Schriftthums, 2 vols., Leipsie, 1867-68; C.. Broekelmann, Lexicon Sbriacum, Berlin, 1895; R. Payne Smith and J. Payne Smith (Mrs. Margoliouth), Compendioua Syriac Dictionary, Oxford, 1903; A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, Freiburg, 1896. For the Aramaic and Nabatazan inscriptions, CIS, i. and ii. For the important inscriptions of Senjirli in northern Syria, D H. Mailer, Die alten aemitischen Inaehriften von Sendsehirli, Vienna. 1893; Ausgrabungen in Sendachirli, in Mittheilungen des k6niglichen Museums, Berlin, 1893 sqq. On the extent of the Aramean settlements and their possessions in northern Palestine consplt: Schrader, KAT, pp. 28-29, 36, 182, 232, 239; and H. Winckler, Oriantalische Porechungen, vol. iii., part 3, Leipsic, 1905.

ARATOR, a-r6'-ter: Christian poet of the middle of the sixth century. He was a Ligurian of noble family, and was educated by the archbishop Laurentius at Milan; the poet Ennodius was his friend, and the latter's nephew Parthenius was Arator's fellow student at Ravenna. He chose a diplomatic career and for a time acted as comes domesticorum, and afterward as comes privalorum of the Ostrogothic king Athalaric. He then entered the priesthood and was made subdeacon at Rome by Pope Vigilius, to whom lie dedicated his epico-didactic poem, De actibus apostolorum libri ii. (read in public in 544) In 1076 and 1250 hexameters he describes the deeds of the apostles to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, taking the Acts of Luke as a basis. He treats his subject with some poetical skill and with rich allegorical expositions, which are often in bad taste. He aims to show the superiority of Peter to Paul, and the work contains traces of Mariolatry, hagiolatry, and relic-worship. An epistle of Arator's to Vigilius, a second to an abbot Florianus, and a third to his early friend Parthenius are also extant. His main work was much read in the Middle Ages, and exists in many manuscripts of the tenth and eleventh centuries. It and the letters are in MPL, lxviii. 46-252, and there is an edition by A. Hilbner, Neisse, 1850.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. Leimbaeh, Ueber den Dichter Arator in TSK, xlvi. (1873) 225 eqq., and the works on Latin literature.

ARCADIUS, dr-k6'-di-us, FLAVIUS: Eastern Roman emperor 383-408; b. in Spain, about 377; d. at Constantinople May 1, 408. He was the elder son of the emperor Theodosius and the empress Elia Flavilla, and was educated in secular sciences at Constantinople by the sophist Themistius, and by Arsenius, an ascetic, in the Christian religion. In 383 his father conferred upon him the title of Augustus, and in 384 he was made consul. When in 394 Theodosius went to the West to over throw the usurper Eugenius, the government was left in care of Arcadius, with the assistance of the minister Rufinus. By the unexpected death of the emperor, Jan. 17, 395, at Milan, Arcadius became emperor of the East. By nature good-hearted and yielding, also without energy and narrow-minded, he became the weak tool of those who knew how to obtain his favor, above all of Rufinus, a cunning

and unprincipled Gaul, and, afterhis murder, of the eunuch Eutropius, who covered his selfish atrocities with the name of the lawful ruler, and finally till his fall (399) united all power in himself. Arcadius was also influenced by his wife Eudocia, the beautiful daughter of Bauto, a Frank. Under him the Byzantine empire assumed that oriental character, which it subsequently retained. His piety was sincere, and he worshiped the relics of saints and martyrs devoutly. Even before he was sole regent he interdicted the public worship, instruction, and organization of the heretics (Cod. Theod., XVI. v. 24; a. 394), and in the following year withdrew all former privileges (XVI. v. 25). Investigations had to be made for heretics in the imperial chancery, and among the court-officials (XVI. v. 29). Closely connected with this was his procedure against polytheism. In 397 he ordered that the material from temples in Syria should be used for the repair or construction of public roads, bridges, aqueducts, and walls (XV. i. 36), and in 399 he issued an order to the prefect of the East to destroy all rural sanctuaries. In all this Chrysostom was his hearty supporter. The most important result was probably the destruction of the Marneion and of seven other temples in Gaza in 401 (cf. the interesting account in Marcus's life of Porphyrius, bishop of Gaza, and J. Driseke, Gesammelte patristische Untersuchungen, Leipsic, 1889, pp. 208 sqq.). Yet it can not be said that Hellenism suffered much under Arcadius; compared with the policy of Theodosius, there was even a certain relaxation (cf. V. Schultze, Geschichte des Unterganges des griechi8chr6mischen Heidentums, i., Jena, 1887, 353 sqq., ii., 1892, passim). Toward the Jews Arcadius was surprisingly friendly, and it has been suspected that they secured the favor of Eutropius by money. They had a jurisdiction of their own similar to that of the bishops, and the right of sanctuary analogous to the ecclesiastical (Cod. Theod., II. i. 10; IX. xlv 2; cf. Grmtz, Ge3ehiehte der Juden, iv. 387 sqq) Seditions from within, and inroads of the barbarians from without, made the rule of the weak emperor a sad chapter of Byzantine history, which, however, must not be judged wholly according to the unfriendly or hostile heathen sources (especially Eunapius and Zosimus) Quite a number of reforms were decreed during his government which is also not lacking in other good measures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are in the writings of Zosimus, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Chryaostom; consult further Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xxxi.; S. R. Sievers, Studien cur Geschichte der romisden Kaiser, 335 eqq., Berlin, 1870; F. w. Unger, Quellen cur byzantiniachenKun8tgeaehichte, vol. i., Vienna, 1878; A. Guldenpen

Bing, Geschirhte des oabr6miadwn Rcichea unter den Kai sern Armdiua and Theodosius ll., Halls. 1885; A. Puech. St. Join Chrysostome et Yes meeurs de son temps. Paris, 1891; C. W. C. Oman, Story o/ the Byzantine Emptre, London, 1892.

[Sacred] Secret," i.e., initiation into the mystery): A term first applied by Dallacus and G. T. Meier to the practise of maintaining a studied reticence (fides salentii) concerning the form and character of introduction into the Church, as if this were

other bishop, but also certain rights of oversight and precedence over several other bishops whose dioceses are included in his province. In the third century, by analogy with the political divisions of the Empire (see EPARcHy), there grew up an organization of several bishoprics under the leadership of a metropolitan, the bishop of the provincial capital; it was his place to conduct episcopal elections, to confirm the choice and to consecrate the one chosen, and to convoke the bishops of his province in an annual synod. In concert with them, he regulated the affairs of the province, and the synod formed a court of appeal from the decisions of individual bishops, as well as one of first instance for charges brought against them. In the following centuries the metropolitan system was adopted by the Christian countries of the west .as well. In the Merovingian period, however, the joint power claimed by the princes in filling episcopal sees and the importance attained by national councils robbed the position of the metropolitans of much of its independence; nor were they able to recover it in the Carolingian era, between the domination assumed by Charlemagne and the papal claims to an immediate decision in weighty matters, for which the pseudo-Isidorian decretals had furnished a basis. The rights of a metropolitan were accordingly limited in the thirteenth century legal compilations of the Corpus Juria Canonici to the following particulars: (1) The confirmation of episcopal elections and consecration of bishops in his province; (2) calling and presiding over provincial councils; (3) general oversight of his suffragans, visitation of their dioceses, and imposition of censures and penalties on them, though not of deposition; (4) hearing,of appeals from episcopal courts; and (5) the so-called Jus devolutionis (q.v.). The first of these he lost in the fifteenth century, when confirmation and consecration of bishops were reserved to the pope. The Council of Trent confirmed the second, but limited the third by requiring the assent of the provincial council. At the same time, however, he was charged with the erection, maintenance, and direction of seminaries in the dioceses of his suffragans, and with the enforcement of their obligation of residence. An archbishop has the title of " Most Reverend," and ranks immediately after patriarchs. He wears the pallium (q.v.) as a special symbol of his jurisdiction, and a particular kind of cross (crux erectaoor gsstatoria) is carried before him within his own province. The . title apXcmfatcmrot is frequently applied in the fourth century to the metropolitan of Alexandria, but after the development of the great patriarchates it came to denote other bishops of large cities who were undistmguishable in rank from metropolitans; and the titles have been practically synonymous in the West---though there are a few Roman Catholic archbishops (such as those of Amalfi, Lucca, and Udine) who are not metropolitans, and in the case of titular archbishops (see BisHoP, TiTuLAR) it follows from the nature of their office that there is no metropolitan jurisdiction. In the Anglican communion, the title of archbishop was for a long time confined to the metropolitans of England and Ireland, owing

and sacramental gift, but the elements and the ritual performance. 1n Theodoret's dialogue Inconfttaw (iv. 125, ed. Schultze), the orthodox shrinks from openly naming bread and cup The Im- lest " some one uninitiated be presmediate Ob- ent," and vaguely calls the body and ject of the blood of the Lord a gift. The dire Discipline. . was, of course, to withhold even from the eyes of the initiated the act and the " mystic symbols "; hence the exclusion of the unbaptized from the miaaa fidelium and the watch at the door by the ostiaries. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were the real object of the discipline. To keep people in actual ignorance was, of course, impossible, but the silence observed produced the impression of a mystery. The Lord's Prayer at the Supper held the same position as ',gin confession in baptism; the character of secret objects was given to both (cf. Sozomen, Hiat. eccl., i. 20; Ambrose, De Cain et Abel, I. ix. 37). The opposite to the confession of the neophyte was the renunciation, which was also kept secret. Everything which preceded and followed baptism necessarily partook of the secrecy. The eucharist as the climax of the whole mystagogy is the mystery par excellence. Dogmas were mysteries (Basil, De spir. sattc., xavii. fib) only in so far as the Church generally claimed to possess wonderful mysteries, especially the dogma of the Trinity on account of its relation to the baptismal symbol; but no secrecy of the dogma was intended. With the disappearance of the catechumenate the arconi disciPlina ceased, although in the Greek liturgy the formula for dismissing the catechumens remained; but the cult of the Greek Church now actually assumed the character of a mystico-allegorical drama, a mystery of the heathen kind, though of a higher type. N. BONWETBCH.

BIBLIOGRAPHY; I. Casaubon. De re4ue eaeria et ecclesiaatieia, Geneva, 1854; G. T. Meier, De reeondita veterie ecdseIm theoloyia, Helmstedt, 1870; E. von Schelstrate, Antiquitae i7lwtrata circa concilia psneralia et pronineialia and Commentatio de a. Antioeheno eoneilio, Antwerp, 1878, 1881; W. E. Tentsel, Exercitationea aeledo:, ii., Leipeic, 1892, contains Tentzel's Diessrtatia do diaciplina arcani, 1883; $eheletrate's Diseertatio apolopetica de discipline arcani contra diaputationem E. Tentselii, 1885; and Tentsel'e reply, Animadversiowe; G. C. L. T. Frommsnn, De discipline arcani, Jena, 1833; R. Rothe, De diacipLina arcani origins. Heidelberg, 1841; K. A. Credner, in the Janaer allgemeine Li#eraturseitunp. 853 eqq.. 1844: T. Hatnaek, Der chrrosUieha t3erneindepotteadienat im aPoetoliechen and allkatholiwAon ZsitaLter, pp. 1-M, Erlangen , 1854; G. von Zeasehwits,13yatem der ICatachetik, i.154-209, Leipeio, 1883; N. Bonweteeh, Weaen, Entatehung, and Fortganp der Arkan-disciplin, in ZHT, aliii. (1873) 203299; T. Zahn, (iiauLxnarepel and Tau/LMksnntnie in der allen Kuche, in ZICW, i. (1880) 315 eqq.; E. Bratke, Die 3teLiunp des Clemens Alexandrines sum anfieken Myakrientoeun, in T$IC, lx. (1887) 847-708; E. Hatch, The InRu· snoe o/ Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, chap. z., London, 1890; H. Holtamsnn. Die %a

der allen Ruche, in ThsoiogierJu Abhandlungan Weizatirker astsidmet, pp. 88-78, Freiburg, 1892; G. Anrich, Daa antike Myaterieraouen in aeiwm EinRuea auf daa Cluiatentunt, GSttingen, 1894; G. Wobbermin, Relipionepasrhiehtliche $tadien our Frays der BesinRwaunp dea Urehrirfertums dureh daa antike Mysterienweaen, Berlin, 1898; P. Batiffol, Lludea d'hiatoire et de thEolopie posikroe. Paris. 1902; H. Gravel. Die Arkandieeiplin, part i.. llflneter, 1902.

ARCHBISHOP: A bishop in the Roman Catholic and some parts of the Anglican Church, who has not only the charge of his own diocese like any

an increasing tendoncy to its use, and the proposal I

in der kaWwliedunKirche.Freiburg, 1878; Hauck, RD, iii. 18 sQq.

ARCHDALL, MERVYN: Anglican bishop of Kiltaloe, Ireland; b. Feb. 18, 1833. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1858), and wag successively curate of Templecrone (185657), Trinity Church, Dublin (1857-62), Lislee (1882-63), vicar of Templebready (1863-72), and rector of St. Luke's, Cork (1872-94). He was archdeacon of Cork from 1878 to 1894, canon of

bishop, the archpriest more in liturgical functions the archdeacon in those of church government.

a number of archpriests whose functions are ferent from those indicated. The diocese is

vided into parishes (much larger than the modern parishes), frequently following political divisions in their boundaries. The inhabitants of a parish, considered as a single community, have one church, often on the site of a heathen temple, set .apart for the principal ecclesiastical functions. This is the church for Sunday service, baptism, funerals, and the payment of church taxes. Through the surrounding country are scattered other Smaller churches used for less important functions, and served by clergy who are representatives of the parish priest. With the increase in the number of priacipsl or " baptismal " churches, the importance of the archprieeta diminished. From the ninth century their place was taken by rural dean,, who had the oversight of more than one archpresbyterate; and, as they were generally taken from among the *""Priests, frequently Detained that title. The archdeacons did not hold everywhere the same reIation to the archpriests. Under Leo the Great (440461) they appear in charge of church property and jurisdiction in the dioceses. By the ninth century,

priests to be named to this office, and finally none but priests held it, who were placed over the mhpriests. About the same fAme in France, somewhat later in Getmany, the custom arose of dividing the dioceses into several of these archdeaconriea. With the development of the cathedral chapters, it became usual for the head of the chapter to be archdeacon, or, if there were several archdeacons in the diocese, the office was held also by canons or other heads of collegiate bodies. The

power of the archdeacon gradually increased; by the beginning of the thirteenth century he is already known as jtu3ez ordinaries, and has an independent right to make canonical visitations, to decide many cases (especially matrimonial), to examine candidates for ordination, and to install beneficed clergy. The bishops found it necessary to repress the presumption of the archdeacons, and.

in some cases (as at Tours 1239, LiEge 1287, lb!" 1310) they obtained legislation in councils against further growth of these powers; in other cases they set up officials of their own to exercise the Jurisdiction which the archdeacons either had or claimed. Among these latter are the officialea forane'i, with a concurrent jurisdiction, and above both, for the

exercise of appellate jurisdiction and of the rights reserved to the bishops, the officialea Pr'fnciPales and vicars-general. Since neither the archdeacons

m usage grew up, which were first reduced to some art of uniformity by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. By it the archdeacons were

disappeared entirely in many dioceses, and their functions are nowadays discharged usually by the

Bmloaurer: J. G. Pertaab, Von Urrprunp der Archdia;eae. Hildwheim. 1743; Branoid, Daa aposfoliisdw Alkr der ArohdiaQOmlwfirds, Wittenberg, 1788; A. J. Binterim, DenkvMJrdipksibw der cJLriehkatkoliedwn Ruche. I. i. 388434. Mains. 1826; DCA, L 186-188; A. 8ohr8der, Die Rt&hpi&olu"gdwArchi-dinkamik.Aupburg.*18W; and-the works on canon law.

ARCHELAUS, ar"ke-Ig'vs. Bee HsaoD AND am Fein:.

templefurniture, and various Assyrian, Egyptian, and Phenician monuments and sculptures illustrate Israelitic architecture (temples,

Distinc- branch of historical study, namely dons. the history and antiquities of the related peoples, and neither the beginnings nor progress of Hebrew history can be understood without a good knowledge of the older and of the contemporary Semites out of whom Israel grew, by whom its fortunes were determined, and whose genius influenced vitally its religious and social character. For example, in the first order of value for Biblical study must be placed the history and religion of Babylonia and Assyria, and the religious and social institutions of the ancient Arabians and Arameans. (2) The distinction between the relevant and the irrelevant in the history and antiquities of the related or neighboring peoples. Here the vaguest notions are encouraged by a loose application of the term archeology. For example, Egypt is constantly looked to for illustration of the Bible and for confirmation of its records, and a large part of the material pub-

lished by the Society of Biblical Archeology, and the greater portion of many separate works upon the same theme are devoted to Egyptian research, which has yielded very little for the understanding of Biblical history, and virtually nothing for the illustration of the religious and social life of the Hebrews. The reason therefor lies partly in the unique and unsympathetic character of Egyptian culture, partly in the fact that Egypt had very seldom any controlling influence on Palestine during the formative period of Israel, and partly in the circumstance that the Egyptian records are not so businesslike and accurate as, for example, those of Assyria and Babylonia, which form an indispensable supplement to Biblical history. (3) The distinction between ancient and modern conditions. It is a common error to suppose that the study of Bible lands and the manners and customs of their present habitants furnish Biblical archeology accurately reproduced. A(; a matter of fact such a study is informing only along the line of external resemblance. The outward life of the Semitic peoples has remained in many respects like its ancient past because of a similarity of occupation and the slow march of civilization. Occasional Bible texts here and there are illumined by a referende to modern customs. But there is a world-wide difference in the Nearer East, as elsewhere, between the life and spirit of the past and the present. The Bible itself, regarded in the light of its own political, social, and religious atmosphere, is the great handbook of Biblical archeology, whose primary elements, moreover, are not so much facts as conditions and principles, such as the inseparable relation between God and his people, between the people and the land, and between God and the land; the immediate and direct action of the Deity in all events and in all phenomena; the unity and actual identity of what are called the sacred and the secular, of religion and life, or of religion and morals; the solidarity of the community as the basis of the State and the ground of the responsibility of the individual; and a world-consciousness without abstract ideas and to which even God himself was the most concrete of realities. J. F. M.

BIBLYOGR·PHr: Of works on Biblical archeology or useful as sources, the more important of ancient time are: Enos_ biue, " On the Names of plsm in the Holy Scripture." commonly called the onomaatieon. translated into Latin by Jerome, with title, De situ et nominibua locorum Be. brafeorwn, both in P. de Lagarde. Onomastiea sacra. GStr tingen, 1870, 1887; Epiphaniue, " On Weights and Measures," ed. Lagarde, SHmmida. ii. 149-216, Gottingen, 1880. More modern works: C. Sigoniue, Ds republics Hebraica, Bologna, 1582; B. Arias Montanus, Anhluitates Judaica, Leyden. 1593; T. Godwin, Moses et Aaron, Oxford, 1616; ed. J. H. Hottinger. Frankfort. 1710; P. Cuneue, De republics Hebraica, Lyons, 1617; J. Spencer, De lepibw Hebr- ritualibw, Cambridge, 1685; rev. ed. by L. Chappelow, 1727, by C. M. Pfaff, Ttlbingen, 1732; J. Lund, Die open jadisehen j qeaiptMmer, Goaeediends, and Gmohnheitan, Hamburg. 1695; M. Leydekker. De repubti0a flebrmorurn. Amsterdam, 1704; A. Relsad, pal., "* a monu"e"s »ekribus illustrate. Utrecht. 1714; A. G. Wihnet, Antiquitates Ebrmormw, Gottingen, 1743; J. D. Miehaelfe, Mosaisehes Redd, Frankfort, 1771-75, Biehl. 1777. Eng tranel., London, 1814; H. E. Warnekroe. Rntw,at der hebrdishen AlferWUmer, Weimar. 1782, 1794, 1832. Most of the works which had appeared at 4he time were collected by B. Ugolino in his Thesaurus at*uifatum mcrarum, 34 vole., Venice. 1744-M. From this time on there are numssrous works, wlch as those of

1894 (goes well with Bensinger); C. Clermont-Ganneau, Recuesl des monuments inddif ou peu connus, art, are*& olopie, epigraphic, 3 vols., Paris, 1897-1900; Recent Be-

march in Bible Lands, ed. H. V. Hilprecht. Philadelphia, 1898; T. Nicol, Recent Arrhmolopy and the Bible, London, 1899; a useful book is H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, Philadelphia, 1903; the various histories of Israel by Wellhausen, Stade, Kittel, and others are also important. For Arabian Antiquities we under ARABIA, and for Egypt and Asia Minor see those articles. For the medieval itineraries and modern works of travel, consult R. RShrieht. Bibliotheca qeopraphica Palaatina, Berlin, 1890; a useful bibliography will be found in J. F. Hurst, Literature of Theology, 118-130, New York, 1896.

ARCHEOLOGY, CHRISTIAN: The science which investigates and exhibits the ecclesiastical and religious forms of life and conditions of the Christian community for the.period terminating with the Middle Ages. It may be divided into: (1) Law and government, including such topics as constitution, the clergy, monasticism, discipline, church law, synods, relations to the State, etc.; (2) worship-the various forms of divine service, festivals, such acts as baptism, confirmation, the marriage ceremony, burial, consecrations (of churches, altars, bells, holy water, etc.), benedictions and maledictions, exorcism, etc.; (3) artarchitecture, painting, sculpture, church furniture, burial arrangements, etc.; (4) private and public life-the giving of names, marriage, position of women, prayer, education, slavery, occupations, corporations and societies, amusements, pilgrimages, superstitions, benevolent institutions, etc. Church music and books are better treated, it would seem, under the head of worship than of art. Tke sources of Christian archeology are the same as for church history. One of the most important and the last to receive the attention it deserves is furnished by monumental remains.

The history of the science begins with the first work of Protestantism on church history, the " Magdeburg Centuries" (15511-74; see MAGDEBURG CENTofuEs), which, however, makes no distinction between archeology and history; the same is true of the work of the Roman Catholic scholar, Cesar Baronius (cf. the epitome of Baronius's Annalm by C. Schulting, Cologne, 1601). As an independent science Christian archeology may be said to have originated with Joseph Bingham's massive work, Origin" Wdeaiaatica, or the Antiquities of the Christian Church (10 vols., London, 1708-22; see

BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Piper, Einleitung in die monumeatale Theologie, Gotha, 1887; F. X. Kraus, Ueber Begriff, Um-

1111ace or in the church house. The court is rarely convened. The judge is the only ecclesiastical judge authorized to sentence clergymen of the Church of England to deprivation. Appeals from the decision of the court are heard by the judicial committee of the Privy Council. The present judge (1906) is Sir Arthur Charles, appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury in 1899 and holding a life office.

ARCHEVITES, ar'ke-vans: The name of a people mentioned only in Ezra iv. 9, possibly one of the tribes settled by the Assyrians in Samaria (II Rings xvii. 24). While it is possible that

the name was an official designation, it is better taken as meaning "inhabitants of Erech" (see APHARsAcHrras).

BIBLIOG19APHY: A. J. Binterim, Denkwardigksikn der chrietkatholisdea Kirche, I ii. 83 eqq.. Mainz, 1825; G. Waits,

ARCHIEREUS, ar"ki-$r'e-us: A common designation in the Greek Orthodox Church for the higher clergy in distinction from the other from presbyter down.

ARCHIMARDRITE, er"ki-man'drait (Gk. archimandrites, " ruler of the fold," itandra, " fold," being applied to a monastic association as consisting of the sheep of Christ): A name given to the head of a larger monastic community, either the abbot of a single monastery or, more in accord with the meaning of the word, the general abbot of several monasteries belonging to one congregation. The title was in general use in the East as early as the fifth century. In the West it is found in the rules of Isidore of Seville (vi.) and Columban (vii.), of the latter part of the sanje century. From the tenth century it served as a general designation of prelates, even of archbishops. In 1094 Roger of Sicily put all Basilian monks of Sicily and Calabria under as archimandrite, who was later superseded by a secular prelate. By a brief of Urban VIII., Feb. 23, 1635, the archimandrite of Messina was granted quasiepiscopal jurisdiction, the use of the pontificals, and other privileges. The abbots of the Greek Uniate Churches in Poland, Galicia, Transylvania, Hungary, Slavonia, and Venice also have the title " archimandrite." In the Russian Church the archimandrites enjoy high honor and wear marks of respect which elsewhere belong only to bishopsinfulee, staves, crosses, and the like. They are genemlly under the diocesan bishop, though many had become immediately subject to the patriarch of Constantinople or the Russian metropolitan previous to the formation of the Holy Synod. Consult Du Cange and, for a most exhaustive treatment, AOL, s.v.

I. General Treatment: Christian architecture, as a separate and independent thing, exists no more than a Christian state. The conception of a state is not altered by the fact that its citizens happen to be Christians; nor does architecture receive its essential form from being used for Christian or non-Christian purposes. Some of the problems of architecture were altered with the advent of Christianit3, as it had now to build churches instead of temples, one of the most important tasks ever laid upon architecture, and in fact for many centuries almost the only important one. The first question to be considered is the origin of this problem, the origin, that is, of specially designed church buildings.

The oldest documents referring to Christian worship show that the faithful assembled in the house of

some member of the Church. At Je:. The rusalem they met from house to house

First (Acts ii. 46); at Troas in an upper Places of room (Acts xx. 7-8); Paul designated Christian Gaius as the host of the whole church

that when they came together as a church, they met in his house. The mention of upper rooms does not prove that such were the only parts of the houses in which these gatherings took place; and we must remember that these houses were usually the small houses of poor people, constructed in the usual manner of the Greco-Roman world. Since the rooms were generally small, there would be no place for the assembly as soon as it got beyond a small number, except in the atrium or court-yard; the contention that divine worship could not have been held there, because the sacred mysteries would have been exposed to profane eyes, can not be upheld, as the arcani discipline (q.v.) is of later growth. This domestic worship was in harmony with the spirit of early Christianity, full as it was of ideas of one family of brethren. A Christian house was the ideal place for it. The primitive Church, therefore, lacked not only the means but the motive to erect any special building for divine worship; it had no temples, and expressly rejected the idea of building them (of., e.g., Minucius Felix, Octariua, x., xxxii.).

Nevertheless, it wag not long before special buildings were erected for worship, and considered holy. To understand the change, it is necessary to try to fix the date at which this took place. Un-

and Romanesque Basilica (5 18). lfrenah Eadeeisatical Development

questionably special places existed in Alexandria in the time of Origen (cf. his " On Prayer," xxxi. 5,

Berlin ed., p. 398); but the date may a. The be put further back by observation First of the popular use of the term ekkluia.

Buildinga. bly of citizens, it came in Christian use to denote, first the gathering of the believers, then the Christian community either local or universal, and finally the meeting-place. This last use is common by the beginning of the fourth century; it is found in Eusebius and in his Latin contemporary Lactantius (De mort. peraec., sii., p. 186, ed. Brandt and Laubmann). But still earlier, Clement of Alexandria (Strom., vii. 5, p. 846, ed. Potter), Hippolytus (In Dan., i. 20, p. 32), and Tertullian (De idol., p. 36), shortly before or shortly after the year 200, all apply the word to a distinctly recognized place of worship. The two latter also call it " the house of God." The Greek term kyriakort (Eng. " church "),with its Latin equivalent domini cum, appears somewhat later. But by about 200 there were at least two recognized names for a Christian place of worship, and the existence of a name demonstrates the prior existence of the thing. Whether these buildings belonged to the community or to individual Christians can scarcely be answered with certainty for the third century; the theory of corporate ownership is doubtful at the beginning of this period, though it becomes demonstrable toward the close. The edict of Constantine and Licinius, given in Eusebius, Hilt. eccl., x. b, in 313 assumes a generally recognized corporate possession of many Christian meeting-places.

Between the spring of 58, when Gains was receiving the church of Corinth in his house, and the

time about 200, when a Christian goes 3. Changes into a special " house of God," ChrisDemanded tianity had ceased to be the close by Altered brotherhood which it was at first; it Circum- had developed a complicated organiza-

The neat question, as to the form of these earliest distinct churches, is one which it is

impossible to answer certainly from direct tradition. But it can not be avoided, because on it depends another, as to the origin of the Christian

basilica, than which there is none q. Origin more important in the whole range of of the ecclesiastical archeology. The ba-

present day, and this development is unintelligible without an attempt to arrive at a theory of the origin of this structural form. Its definition is hot matter of controversy; it is an oblong building, divided by rows of pillars into three (or sometimes five) aisles, the central one the highest and covered with a flat roof, with a projecting addition, generally semicircular, more rarely square, at one end. When, however, it is asked how such a building came to be constructed for Christian worship, there is no such possibility of agreement. It has been held to have originated from the forensic basilica or the so called private basilica; from the Roman dwelling-bouse or the ulla cimiterialis; and from the demands of Christian worship by a new creation. The limits of an article like the present preclude minute examination of these various theories; but obvious objections lie against all of them, as they are expressed by their defenders. The most certain fact in this whole discussion is that when the Church was established under Constantine, it did not need to go in search of a form for its buildings; the form already existed, substantially the same in all parts of the empire. It is not too much to say that we are forced to consider the form found in the beginning of the fourth century as the product of a long course of development. From what has been said, it follows that this development took place approximately from 180 to 300. Eusebius (Hiat. eccl., viii. 1, b) indicates, that before 260 the churches were what we might call small oratories, but increased in size after that date-though this increase must not be exaggerated; the facts that the famous church of Nicomedia could be razed to the ground in a few hours (Laetantius, De mort. persec., xii., p. 187; Athanasius, Apol. ad Const., xv., ed. Maur, i. 1, p. 241), and that the churches of Treves and Aquileia needed to be replaced by larger buildings as early as 336, show that it was only relative. Thus, though the hypothesis of a development from the private house of the earliest age is attractive, it does not lead directly to the basilican form, which in its essence requires a considerable size; a basilica for one or even two hundred people could not have been constructed. What we need, and what these various theories do not provide, is an intermediate stage.

A direct prescription as to church-building is found for the first time in a fourth century passage

incorporated with the Apostolic Con s. First stitutions (11. lvii. 3), which shows

Step to- what was then regarded as essential. ward a This was very little; it is limited to a Church marking of the distinction between

for the bishop. Accordingly, the place set apart for the clergy was a more or less fixed dimension; its form might vary-it might be

made either by the cutting off of one end, or by the addition of a semicircular or oblong space, in the middle of which was the bishop's seat. That the semicircular or apsidal form finally prevailed is due partly to acoustic considerations--the bishop preached from his throne-and partly to the esthetic motive which made this form a popular one in the architecture of the imperial period. The space assigned to the laity, as long as they were comparatively few in number, could only be a simple oblong, the form which appears as normal in the Apostolic Constitutions. This general type, of a simple oblong room with an apse at one end, may safely be taken as that of the churches which after 260 were demolished or abandoned. None of them is preserved; but churches like Santa Balbina in Rome and that of Hidra in Africa show that this form did not at once disappear even when the basilica became the recognized type. The Hidra church is particularly instructive; it is square and small-if the measurements given by Kraus are correct, the sides are only about 20 feet, with a corresponding apsidal presbyterium. This is the church for not more than 100 people which we need for our intermediate stage.

The development from this to the basilica falls probably in the period between 260 and 303, which

was marked by great activity in build6. Second ing. The motive of the change was Step. the need for more space; the problem

was, how to attain this end without upsetting the recognized plan of an oblong auditorium with an added apse for the clergy. The proportional lengthening of the main hall could not go far, as the extension of the width was limited. The only thing to do was to break up the width, and thus came a division of aisles. The final solution, that of a wide central division with narrower side aisles, does not seem to have been reached at once; the basilica at Hidra shows the singular arrangement of side aisles wider than the middle section. A period of experiment must have come first; but, given the division, both esthetic and practical considerations inevitably suggested the plan finally adopted. The middle section being the main division, its raising to a greater height followed, for purposes of lighting, especially since other buildings must have frequently stood on each side of the church. This arrangement was not new; it has been found, for example, in the temples of Hierapolis and Samothrace: and thus it is not surprising that the same or a similar solution of the problem was found simultaneously in different places-though it probably required some time for this solution to be universally recognized as the best, as it was in the fourth century. The designation of churches as basilicas must have begun in the third century, since it is already a familiar term at the beginning of the fourth. This transition was the easier because the original meaning of the word had been practically superseded by what was nearly the sense of our word " hall."

With the reign of Constantine begins the building of large and splendid churches, through his encouragement and the activity of the bishops, first in the East, later in Rome and the West. The earli-

est was the church at Tyre under Licinius; then follow, under Constantine, the buildings at Jeru-

salem, Bethlehem, Mamre, Constanti7. Church- nople, Nicomedia, Heliopolis, and per-

and the churches of Ravenna, belong to the fifth and sixth centuries. Thus we are dependent on the descriptions of the lost buildings, the first of which is the unfortunately too rhetorical account given by Eusebius (Hiat. eccl., x. 4) of the church at Tyre. According to this picture, it corresponded in essential details to the type of basilica found in Africa and the West; but we learn from the latter not to suppose that everything desccribed by Eusebius was uniformly present.

Though the adoption of the basilican style did not exclude creative freedom on the part of the archi-

tect, no further development of the 8. Basilica idea ever took place in the Roman

tented itself with endless reproductions of an accepted type, and reproductions which were successively poorer. The basilican style in itself, however, was capable of development to a marked degree. Among the artistic creations of the ancient world, it was the one which was destined to have the greatest future. It is conceived wholly in the ancient spirit, as is shown particularly in the feeling for space which regulated its dimensions. The relation of height to length and breadth shows that the beauty of the building was sought in broad, dignified extent. That it grew up in an era of decaying art is evident on the face of it. Only in the rows of columns which divide the aisles is constructive necessity made to minister to beauty; nowhere in the rest of the building is there any attempt to please. There is nothing more depressing in the history of architecture than the straight brick walls, only broken here and there by a few small windows, that enclose it. Decoration of a sumptuous kind partly makes us forget this poverty; but the decoration is purely arbitrary, extraneous, not required by the nature of the plan.

The basilica, then, was the normal type of churches built to hold congregations assembled for worship. But these were not the only ecclesiastical

buildings thought of after the fourth y. Change century. Special ritual observances

structure, which became the normal one for baptisteries and memorial chapels. As to the former, when we remember that adult baptism was frequent, that immersion was customary; and that the observance of regular seasons for baptism made the number of candidates large, we see that a comparatively large pool was required; and the building constructed to enclose it naturally allowed for placing it in the center, and so could be only circular. The building of memorial churches was begun by Constantine with that of the Holy Sepulcherat Jerusalem, and again the circular or polygonal form was proscribed by its relation to the sacred

object or the tomb which they were intended to

enshrine. The simple structure might be enriched

by a number of small chapels or niches, or sur

rounded by a corridor; a cupola or dome necessa

rily covered it. Here it was not so much the work

ing out of a new form as the adaptation of one

already existing; even when the chapels were pro

longed so as to make the ground-plan into a Greek

cross, it was scarcely a new form. Examples are

the Lateran baptistery and the two at Ravenna,

the tombs of Galls Placidia and Theodoric at Ra

venna, and the church of Santa Costanza in Rome,

When an attempt was made to use these build

ings for general purposes of worship, a new problem

arose in the laying out of the approved places for

clergy and people. Churches of this type were used

. in the East for congregational purposes as early

as Constantine's reign; according to

:o. Me- Eusebius's description (Vita Const., iii.

morial 50, p. 207), that which the emperor built

Nazianzen in his see city(Orat.,xviii. 39, M PG, xxxv.

1037), while Gregory of Nyasa (EVist., xxv., MPG,

xlvi. 1093) describes a similar one. But we know

nothing of the interior arrangements of these.

Later (not before the second half of the fifth cen

tury) comes the puzzling church of Santo Stefano

Rotondo on the Celian Hill, whose size proves

that it was meant for public worship. This, the

ugliest building of the kind ever constructed, only

shows how far the Roman architect was from

understanding his task; he built a church as he

would have built a memorial chapel, without real

izing the total difference in requirements. Yet, in

spite of all the difficulties presented by this form,

especially by the absence of perspective when the

altar was placed in the middle, a certain number

of churches were built with which no basilica can

compare in beauty-really the highest achieve

ments of the older ecclesiastical architecture. The

best of these is San Vitals at Ravenna (early sixth

century). Here one of the eight chapels is removed,

and a longer apse put in its place, which gives a cer

tain effect of length-though only by a disturbance

of the harmony of the original plan. Much more

admirable is the solution found in the church of

Sts Sergius and Bacchus, and, more completely,

in. St. Sophia, both in Constantinople. But here

the essence of this central form of structure is not

only disturbed, as in San Vitals-it is absolutely

abandoned. In the Greek and Russian churches

the domed church became the accepted type,

after the model of St. Sophia. The ground,

plan of the latter was not commonly followed,

the cruciform being preferred; and thus, when

each arm of the cross was surmounted with its

cupola, as well as the central space, they became

simply a number of similar connecting rooms, and

the main attraction of the type, its impressive

The new peoples who were to carry on the work of civilization during the Middle Ages inherited in the basilica a type capable of great development, though not, as it came to them, much developed.

It was the only type which had great influence on medieval architecture. The men of the Middle

Ages were by no means blind to the ii. Basilica attractions of the style which we call

they did not determine the future progress of ecclesiastical architecture, which has the basilica for its true starting-point.

It is worth while to examine the attitude of the different modern nations toward this inheritance of the past. In Rome building activity was never at a standstill, though a large part of it was mere restoration. But for six centuries after Gregory the Great (d. 604), people did not conceive the idea that they could build otherwise than as their fathers had built. The new churches of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, Santa Maria in Trastevere and San Lorenzo fuori Is Mura, simply reproduce the scheme of the basilica; yet when Honorius III. (1216-27) began the latter, Gothic churches had been building in France for more than fifty years. Rome, then, has nothing to do with the history of medieval church architecture. The rest of Italy was not quite so unfruitful. Tuscany is far from poor in admirable medieval buildings. These are partly in the old line of development-San Miniato at Florence, for all its attractive features, shows no trace of new constructive ideas-and partly carry it further. This Is especially the case with the cathedral of Pisa, which is not only the most successful example of what Tuscan artists could do in the handling of large masses and in richness of deco-

ration, but carries the basilican prints. Combi- ciple a distinct step further. It is

nation of enlarged into a frankly cruciform Basilica and shape, and carries the principal fea-

Domed ture of the Byzantine style, the Styles, dome. But, however celebrated are

the beauties of this cathedral, one can not deny that the combination of these two widely different forms is less successful here than in San Vitale and St. Sophia. There is an especially irreconcilable antagonism between the dome and the flat roof of the nave. The cathedral of Pisa does not unfold the possibilities latent in the basilican type-it merely attaches to this type a foreign element. In the north of Italy a more decisive forward step was taken, when its architects boldly faced the problem of the vaulting of the basilica. The answer was not found at once. In Sant' Ambrogio at Milan the execution of the vault ing is at the expense of the lighting of the nave, and the church is gloomy in spite of Italian suns. San Michele at Pavia and the cathedral of Parma were the first to succeed in obviating this defect.

But the progress of wide development of the baafcan scheme is not connected with the Lombard churches it goes on across the Alps, where from the Frankish period its course is uninterrupted. Its first effort was the so called Romanesque basilica, though the name is modern and not very satisfactory.

not as obscure as that of the original basilica but

here, too, difficulties abound. The

:3. The Ro- weakest feature of the old basilica was

manesque the arrangement of the transverse sec

Basilica. tion; and it was here that the inno

vators took up the task. Cruciform

basilicas had been built in the Frankish kingdom

even before Charlemagne; and the emphasis laid

upon this shape leads us to think that symbolic

more than artistic considerations determined its

adoption. Yet the esthetic gain was considerable.

It led to the lengthening of the choir or chancel

into a harmonious proportion to the total length of

the ehurch. The raising of the choir above the

level of the nave has been thought to have orig

inated in the increasing veneration of relics; altars

had long been erected over the graves of the mar

tyrs, but now the narrow crypts of the earlier

period gave place to larger chapels, with the result

indicated. Possibly the same motive led to the

addition of a second apse at the western end of the

church, which was, in any case, a step toward con

necting the church and the tower. Towers had not

been a part of the original basilica, except in some

cases in Syria. At the very beginning of the Middle

Ages, without, it would seem, any influence from

the East, the oldest towers begin to appear in Italy

-unlovely erections in the shape of a cylinder or

a parallelepiped, which display the inability of

the period to construct an architectural work di

vided into well-related parts. No attempt was made

to connect them with the church. In the Frankish

kingdom the construction of towers is at least as

old as in Italy-in any case pre-Carolingian; but here

we meet with attempts to break up the unwieldy

mass and to place it in relation to the church. An

other change was in the supports of the roof. The

old columns were replaced by heavier pillars, ca

pable of bearing a greater weight; and this was again

a step in advance. The use of columns in the ba

silicas was a degradation of this fine element of

classical architecture, which was not designed to

support the lofty walls of the nave of the Christian

church. The architects of the fourth and fifth

centuries were insensible to the discordance be

tween their form and their use; but whether or not

the German innovators felt it, they removed it.

The tendency to go beyond tradition thus .showed

itself in the most various ways in the Frankish em

pire; how far it had gone by the first half of the ninth

century may be seen in the plans of St. Gall. The

final result was the Romanesque basilica which dom

inated all the Christian countries north of the Alps.

Though, however, there is this general agreement

in type, each country developed along its own lines.

The most instructive illustrations may

314. Varia- be taken from France and Germany.

tions in the In the latter country the plan of the

Detail of old basilica was preserved in these

the Roman- particulars: The threefold division of

esque the congregation's part, the raising

Basilica. and direct lighting of the nave, the

flat roof, and the termination of the

whole building in an apse or choir. Four main

features were new. The. first is the preference for

.the cruciform structure, from which sprang the establishment of fixed proportions for the whole church; the square formed by the intersection of the two arms of the cross was taken as the unit, to be repeated once on each of three sides, and twice or three times on the other. The second new feature is the connection of the tower or towers with the church, so that under various arrangements, with one, two, or more towers, the aim was always to present them as an integral part of the building. The third point is that the attention was no longer concentrated on the interior; by the development of fagades and doorways, by the breaking up and diversifying of the wall-surface, the exterior of the church took on a new character of imposing beauty. Fourthly, the individual elements of the whole were freely worked over and transformed. The old models were not cast aside-the acanthus capital was imitated for a long time-but new forms, appropriate both to the material and to the special end in view, were boldly created. Outside, however, of these general characteristics, there was the greatest freedom in design. In one place an apse was added on the eastern side of each transept, forming a termination to the side aisles. In another, the side aisles were carried out beyond the transept, and then terminated each by an apse. In a third, these aisles were curved around the main apse, and relieved by smaller apsidal formations projecting from the curve. Here the semicircular apse was employed; there the polygonal shape was preferred, or the old rectangular preserved. The same freedom is found in the supports; sometimes columns still uphold the roof of the nave, sometimes pillars, or an alternation of both. The presence or absence of galleries afforded scope for infinite variety. This is what gives the Romanesque basilica not the least of its charms. No style excludes mere slavish copying of models more than this; none offered greater opportunities to the artistic imagination.

And yet the flat-roofed basilica was only a preparation for a still higher form-the vaulted church.

It was probably less artistic dissatia:g. The faction with the flat roof that brought

stituting stone vaulting for a wooden roof. Medieval histories are full of accounts of devastating conflagrations in the principal churches. The change was made gradually; after architects had tried their hands at vaulting the side aisles, they came in 1097 to carry a vault over the broad nave of the cathedral of spires. Cross-vaulting was here employed, thus distributing the weight of the vault among four supporting pillars. The example was soon .followed in Mainz and Worms, in the abbey church of Leach, and elsewhere; and the advantages of this style were speedily recognized.

Besides the new possibility of reaching a strictly symmetrical disposition of the ground-plan, other changes came in. The great Romanesque churches were usually monastic or collegiate, and thus served not only for the worship of the laity in general but also for the daily offices of canons or monks. Consequently, in opposition to the natural arrangement

of the building, the choir was cut off from the nave by a high stone screen in many of these churches, and served for the offices, a special altar for the worship of the laity being often erected at the east end of the nave. The rood-screen sometimes bore a lofty platform for reading the Scriptures to the congregation assembled m the nave, the ledOri'am· The connectiun of the monastic or collegiate buildings with the church led to the laying out of cloisters, around a rectangular court, one side of which was frequently formed by the church.

If the Romanesque basilica in its find form is compared with the ancient, a notable difference will be observed. The idea of length

16. Differ- prevailed in the earlier conception; ences be- the eye was led on entering at once to tween the the altar and the preabyterium behind Ancient it. The later style did not abandon and Ro- the idea of length, but modified it manesque greatly; the disposition of all spaces Basilica. is conditioned by the principle of grouping. The place for the congregation is not a single unbroken space like the central division of the old basilica, but a group of small rectangular spaces; the eye does not go directly, but by a succession of steps, to the altar. So the small apses were grouped about the main apse, the side aides about the nave, the place for the congregation with the place for the clergy. The same idea of grouping prevails equally m the exterior. It is upon this quality that the picturesque character of the Romanesque basilica and its real superiority over the ancient rests, for art requires rhythm rather than mere uniformity.

:7. French many, we see there a bewildering richEcclesias- ness of forms and motives. The tendtical Devel- envy there also was from the fiat roof

plan, adapted as it is to the preservation of the impression of length. But since the ground-plan was generally similar to the German, the result was not altogether harmonious.

After the twelfth century, the predominance of the Romanesque basilica was first endangered and then altogether broken down by the

x8. Intro- introduction of the Gothic style. This duction of name again, invented by the ignorant the Gothic vanity of the Italians, is admittedly Style. unsatisfactory, but there is no accepted substitute for it. The origin of the Gothic style may be traced in the simplest way to the effort to find the best manner of forming the cross-vaulting; but its universal acceptance throughout so large a part of Europe shows that it must have provided what the age was unconsciously seeking. The north of France is its birthplace. The preliminary steps were taken at Saint-Denis under Abbot Suger (1140-44); here first the walls lost all significance as supporting elements, and were only retained to enclose the space. This is really the essential point of the Gothic style--so to construct the vaulting, and so to support the superstructure by buttresses as to render the roof independent of the walls, and also, by the use of pointed arches, of the rectangular floor-space. Free disposition of space was won, but little use was made of it. The relation of the middle to the side aisles remained the same as in the Romanesque; so did the enrichment of the choir by radiating chapels, and the greater height of the nave. But while the main features of both ground-plan and elevation ware still the same, all the individual parts were new and harmonious with each other. The introduction of the pointed arch in the vaulting led to its adoption for all arches. It has been said that in this style the vertical principle reached its extreme development; but this is misleading. The Gothic cathedral is essentially a structure of length, as much as the churches that went before it. The choir which terminates it is as much as ever the principal member, to which the arches of the nave lead the eye. The fact that in the facades of the French cathedrals the vertical lines are everywhere broken by horizontal elements can not be taken as an inconsistency-these most perfect specimens of Gothic art are not likely to have violated a Gothic principle. All we can say is that the development of height which was present in the Romanesque is continued in the Gothic. This bold soaring into the air was taken as symbolic of spiritual aspiration; it was a logical consequence which fitted the age of the sehoolmen. Growing wealth and luxury also found their satisfaction in the increased beauty of the design.

The enthusiastic approval of the new style showed itself first in France. Simultaneously with SaintDenis the rebuilding of- the cathedral

Channel, though in England it took on a distinct character by the infusion of Norman elements. In Germany there was a period of transition. Certain elements were gradually introduced, as in the nave of Bamberg and the choir of Magdeburg. Its complete victory dates from the beginning of the thirteenth century; by the middle of that century was begun the cathedral of Cologne, of which it must at least be said that it carries out Gothic principles with an unsurpassed logical fulness. But this very completeness was a reason why the ambitious architects of those ages were unwilling to rest in it. Numerous variations were afterward introduced, many of which really led away from Gothic principles while they retained Gothic features. By the suppression of the triforium the wall regained its place; the abandonment of side aisles in other places, the construction of a single large hall, even sometimes with a flat roof, vindicated once more the claims of breadth as against height, in a way which seems to appeal to modern feeling, if one may judge from the praise bestowed upon these buildings of really very varying artistic value.

Italy never did more than play with the Gothic style. Unlike the northern architects, who looked upon it as a solution of a problem which had long puzzled them, the Italians merely imported it as a foreign fashion, partly under the influence of the mendicant orders. It opened new possibilities to the fancy of Italian architects, but they never made it their own.

After the downfall of Gothic predominance, there is no longer any unity of development. The tendencies of the Renaissance led away

Present in the direction of the early basilica; Single Pre- and one of its great services to eccledoxninant siastical architecture is its conquest of

II. English Ecclesiastical Architecture: Some able attempts have been made in recent years to limit the term " Gothic 11 to buildings of the highest and

most developed type, churches, in short, erected within the narrow confines of the Royal Domain of France. The contention is perhaps one of terms rather than of facts. At least it is certain that if the highest type of Gothic is that of the Royal Domain-which is unquestionably true-the art had a very wide distribution throughout Europe. This was brought about partly by the bands of traveling craftsmen, who journeyed from city to city, from country to country, and by the natural desire to build in the new style, which was copied wherever its beauties and structural qualities were known.

But while it is not difficult to trace the new style to its point of origin in the Royal Domain, it speedily lost its essentially French characteristics in taking root in new soil. The Gothic of the various countries of Europe exhibits distinctive characteristics of its own, which not only differentiate it from the Gothic of the Royal Domain, but give it a character and feeling, almost a form thoroughly national and individual. Of few countries is this more clearly the case than England, whose Gothic monuments are among the most splendid in Europe and exhibit some of the most remarkable manifestations of this beautiful style.

Normandy Romanesque appeared in England before the Conquest. It began with the commence-

ment of Westminster Abbey by Ed:. Roman- ward the Confessor in 1085. For the esque Archi- next hundred years the building art

art of Normandy, but richer, more complete, more varied, and with a much more numerous series of monuments. Most of the AngloSaxon churches were rebuilt completely, and many wholly new churches and foundations erected, many of them of great size.

A new epoch in English architecture was occasioned by the introduction of the Cistercian Order about 1140. Between 1125 and the end of the twelfth century more than a hundred Cistercian abbeys were founded in England. Until about 1175 the larger share of the work was done by the monks and canons regular; at that date the secular canons became the leaders in building, and the English Gothic monuments were chiefly built by them. Hence the larger number of English Ro-

manesque churches was due to the a. Intro- regular orders, while the Gothic

such wholesale destruction of Romanesque monuments as happened in France. There, many great Romanesque churches were completely rebuilt in the newer Gothic. In England, on the contrary, many extensive Romanesque parts were retained to which Gothic additions were made at various periods. The great churches of England, therefore, offer very much more variety in style than the great churches of France. And this is as true of the smaller churches as of the larger. Another interesting fact concerning English churches is that most of the greatest churches have either always been cathedral churches or are now cathey drals. A number of English bishops had their

seats in monks' churches, while many other monastic churches became cathedrals in the time of Henry VIII. or were made so later. The English cathedrals, therefore, comprise nearly all of the largest medieval churches remaining in England.

The classification of English Gothic monuments by periods has been a subject of much study. The determinating feature is the window tracery, always an essential and characteristic element. In a general way three leading periods may be distinguished: Early English or Lancet,

Apart from the special features indicated by this classification, EnglishGothic had certain other general characteristics all of which helped materially in producing a characteristic style of building. Compared with the churches of France those of England were low and long. While the French builders delighted in structural experiments, and in the cathedral of Beauvais attempted a lightness and delicacy of construction which was never surpassed in Europe, those of England avoided such dangerous efforts. Their use of the flying buttress, a leading and typical feature of French 4. .Charac- Gothic, was of the slightest. But teristics of while they did not, because of this,

The English builders of the medieval period appear to have always had a special predilection toward enriched and decorative ceilings. The most beautiful, even if'the least structural form of stone roofing, was reached in their fan-vaults. Their wooden ceilings were equally notable. Many English open-timbered ceilings, with decorated trusses and paneled surfaces, are works of extraor. dinary beauty, and thoroughly characteristic of early and late English Gothic.

While the history of English Gothic architecture is largely written in its cathedrals, the great churches are very far from completing the record of English medieval building. The English parish church is a thoroughly interesting and highly characteristic form of building, often very mixed as to styles and dates, most generally small and low in proportions,

but almost always beautiful in design 5. The and charmingly environed. Some few

also constitute an important group of typical English churches. The royal chapels at Windsor and Westminster, King's College Chapel at Cambridge, and Merton College Chapel at Oxford are among the most notable achievements of English Gothic architecture. Nor should the lesser monuments, the chapels within churches, the screens and tombs, be neglected by the student of English medieval architecture, for the architectural and sculptured parts of these minor structures often exhibit an exquisite delicacy of design and remarkable command of decorative forms.

Of churches built in the Renaissance style England has but few. The most notable is St. Paul's Cathedral in London. This great and splendid church is the masterpiece of Sir Christopher Wren.

It was begun in 1675 and the upper6. Renais- most stone was placed on the lantern

and ranks among the greatest domes of the world. Wren's churches in the city of London are an important group of English churches. Designed in a characterized rendering of the classic style, they constitute the last original contribution to English church architecture.

Modern English church architecture is almost wholly a restudy of the architecture of the past. Up to within the last quarter of the nineteenth century this study, while often zealously made,

was without real understanding of the 7. Modern nature of either Romanesque or GothEnglish Ar- is architecture. Gothic models were

imagined that in copying Gothic forms, they were doing all that was necessary to obtain a genuinely Gothic building. But the spirit, the feeling, the truth of the older art was forgotten or ignored in the new. Even the old forms were unintelligently used and the spirit was completely wanting.

Toward the close of the nineteenth century, however, a group of London architects attacked the problem of church-building in a new way. The old forms were restudied and used as the old builders might have used them. A new spirit of reverence in church architecture was developed, and a number of notable churches built which illustrated a genuine mastery of Gothic forms and uses that make the beat of recent English churches structures truly worthy of attention.

III. EccietdasdcalArchitectureinAmerica: Ecclesiestical architecture in America is much more a reproductive architecture than in any other country.

Alone of all the great countries of modern times the United States has no historic architecture of its own. Great Britain and the Continent abound in historic examples of building of every sort, but America has nothing that is old save what it itself has created. The earliest architecture of America was necessarily purely constructive, that is to say, without artistic intent or purpose. As the colonies developed, more attention was given to the building of churches and meeting-houses, and some of the structures erected in this period have genuine interest and real merit. But colonial architecture was but the copying of English forms, in most cases by untrained men who hardly understood what they were copying. The interest which attaches to these buildings, which were confined to New England, the eastern, and some of the southern States, is often very real, but they offer little material for the modern architect, who, even at his best, is scarcely more than a copier or a modifier.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Dictionaries: A. Cates, Dictionary of Architecture, 22 parts, London, 1852-92 (a monumental work); Viollet-le-Duc. Dictionnaire raisonn6 de l'architecture trangaise, 10 vols., Paris, 1854-69; W. J. and G. A. Audsley, Dictionary of Architectural and Allied Arts, 10 vols., London, 1880-83; J. W. Mollett, Dictionary of . . . Art and Architecture, ib. 1883; J. Gwilt, Encyclopedia of Architecture, ib. 1888; P. Planat, Encyclopedie do 1'architecture, 6 vols., Paris, 1886-92 (a standard); H. Louppen, Diction naire d'architecture, Paris, 1891; Russell Sturgis, Dictionary of Architecture and Building, 3 vols., New York, 1901.

History of architecture: C. J. Bunsen, Die Ba8ili ken des christlichen Rome, mil Atlas, 2 vole., Munich, 1842; A. A. Lenoir, Architecture monaetique, 2 vols., Paris, 1852-56; J. A. Messmer, Ureprung, Enhoickelung and Bedeutung der Basilica, Leipsic, 1854; C. von Liltaow, Die Meietermerke der Kirchtnbaukunet, Leipsic, 1862; E. Hiibsch, Monuments de 1'architecture chr& tienne, Paris, 1866; J. Fergusson, History of Architecture in all Countries, i.; ii., iv., 4 vols., London, 1874-76 (the standard work); C. E. Norton, Studies o/ Church Buildings in the Middle Ages, New York, 1880; T. R. Smith and J. Slater, Classic and Early Christian Architecture, London, 1882; G. Dehio and G. von Bezold, Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandee, 2 vols. text, 8 vols. plates, Stuttgart, 1884; G. B. Brown, From Schola to Cathedral, Edinburgh; 1886 (on the relation of architecture to the life of the church); W. Liibke, Geschichte der Architektur, Leipsic, 1886; A. Gosset, evolution hiatorique de la eon. ed-uction des egliees chritiennes, Paris, 1887; Great Cathedrals o/ the World, 100 photographs, Boston, 1888; J. Ruskin, Stones o/ Venice, 3 vols., London, 1886; idem, Beven Lamps of Architecture, London, 1888; H. Holsinger, Die altchrisaiche Architektur, Stuttgart, 1889; G. Clauses, BasQiq- et mosaiquea chrftiennee. 2 vole., Paris, 1893; Der Kirchenbau des Protestantismus, Berlin, 1893; J. T. Perry, Chronology of Mediaeval and Renaissance Architw. ture, London, 1893 (careful and trustworthy); R. P.

Spiers, The Orders of Architecture, Greek. Roman, Italian, London, 1893; A. D. F. Hamlin, History of Architecture., New York. 1896; A. Cboisy. Histoire de 1architeature, 2 vols., Paris, 1899; J. C. Ayer, Rise arid Development of Christian Archaodopy, Milwaukee, 1902; W. Durandus. Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments, notes by J. M. Neale and B. Webb, London, 1906.

Architecture in various lands: Great Britain, England. G. A. Poole, History of Architecture in England, London, 1848; J. F. Hunnewell, England a Chronicle in Stone. London. 1887; Cathedrals, Abbeys and Churches of England and Wales, 2 vols., London, 1891; J. A. Goteh and W. T. Brown, Architecture of the Renaissance in England. 2 vols., London, 1891-94 (accurate, deals with the period 15601630); W. J. Loftie. Inzgo Jones arid Wren; the Rise and Decline of Modern Architecture in England, London, 1893; M. G. van Rensselaer, English Cathedrals, New York, 1893; T. S. Robertson, Progress of Art in English Church Architecture, London, 1898; R. BlomBeld, Renaissance Architecture in England, London, 1901; Cathedral Churches of England, New York, 1901; H. Muthesius, Die neuere kirchlicho Baukurist in England. Berlin, 1901; E. S. Prior. Gothic Art in England, London 1900; idem, Cathedral Builders in England, ib. 1905; F. Bond, English Cathedrals, ib. 1903; idem, Gothic Architecture in England, ib. 1906.

Scotland: D. MaeGibbon and T. Rose, Ecclesiastical Architecture of Scotland . to the Seventeenth Century. 3 vols., New York, 1896-97; M. E. L. Addis, Cathedrals and Abbeys of Presbyterian Scotland, Philadelphia, 1901.

Ireland: G. Petrie, Ecclesiastical Architecture in Ireland Anterior to the Norman Invasion, Dublin. 1845 (rich in illustrations); R. R. Bras, Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland, Dublin, 1874: M. Stokes, Early Christian Architecture in Ireland, London, 1878.

France: E. E. Viollet-le-Due, Dictionriaire raisonn~ de l'archilecture frangaise, ut sup.; H. A. Revoil, Architecture romane du midi de la France, 3 vols., Paris, 1873; J. F. Hunnewell. Historical Monuments of France, Boston, 1884; C. Enlart, Monuments religieux de 1'architecture romane et de transition dins to rkgion picarde Paris. 1895; A. St. Paul, Hietoire moriumentale de la France, Paris. 1895; F. Miltoun, Cathedrals of France, 2 vols., Boston, 1903-04.

Germany: W. Lfibke. Ecclesiastical Art in Germany, Edinburgh, 1870; H. Otto, Handbuch der kirchliehen Kunab architektur des deutechen Millelalters, 2 vole., Leipsic, 188385; Th. Kutsehmann, Romanesque Architecture and Orriamentik in Germany, New York, 1901.

Italy: Waring and McQuaid, Examples of Architectural Art in Italy and Spain, London, 1850; E. A. Freeman, Historical and Architectural Sketches, London, 1876, chiefly on Italy; O. Nothes, Die Baukunet des Mittelallers in Italien, Jena, 1884; J. Ruskin, Examples of the Architecture of Venice, London, 1887 and often; W. J. Anderson, Architecture of the Renaissance in Italy, New York 1901; C. A. Cummings, History of Architecture in Italy from Constantine to . . the Renaissance. Boston, 1901; C Salvatore, Italian Architecture During the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Century, Boston, 1904; C. H. Moore, Character of Renaissance Architecture, London, 1905.

Other lands: Owen Jones, Plans . . of the Alhambra. 2 vole., London, 1842-45, 100 plates; C. Rudy, The Cathedrals of No's Spain, London, 1906; A. F. Calvert, Alhambra: Mohammedan Architecture, ib. 1906; A. Heales; Churches of Gottland. London, 1890; idem. Architecture of as Churches of Denmark, i b. 1892: M. Schuyler, American Architecture, New York. 1892.

Gothic architecture: J. K. Calling, Details of Gothic Architecture. 2 vole., London, 1852-56, republished New York, 1900 (from measurements of twelfth to fourteenth century examples, 190 lithographs); Gothic Ornament, 3 vols.. London, 1855; G. E. Street, Gothic Architecture in Spain aril in Italy, 2 vole., London, 1869-74; M. H. Bloxam, Principles of Gothic Ecclesiastical Architecture, i., ii., London, '1882; L. Gonse, L'Art gothique, Paris. 1890; E. Corroyer, L'Arehikdure gothique, Paris. 1892, Eng. tranal., London. 1893; C. Englart, Oripiries frangaoises de l'architecture pothique en ltalie, Paris. 1894; C. H. Moore, Development and Character of Gothic Architecture, London, 1899.

ARCHITECTURE, HEBREW: Before David and Solomon the Israelites had no architecture

The present village of Siloah (Silwdn) on the Mount of olives furnishes a type of their oldest houses and towns; it lies on the steep hillside, and the houses are not detached but half caves, the elope of the land making it possible to utilize the natural rock for one or more walls. Because their subjects did not know how to build houses David and Solomon had to import Phenician workmen for their palaces. Thiswasprobablythebeginningof Hebrew architecture. It is not probable that a Jeroboam II. did not adorn his capital with a palace and temple. In Jerusalem, however, Solomon's structures seem to have been the first and last of any size (but cf. Jer, xxii. 14), and his operations were too great for tie financial resources of his land (I Kings ix. 1023). The prophet Amos (v. 11) looks upon the

building of houses of hewn stone by the rich of Israel as something new and reprehensible (cf. Isa. ix. 10). After the Exile the Temple was rebuilt with help from Phenicia (Ezra iii. 7), but the new structure fell far short of Solomon's in splendor and impressiveness. The community was too poor for

great secular buildings. Not until the days of Hellenism was there any building activity, and then the Greco-Roman style dominated. It is therefore correct to say that architecture as an art never existed among the Hebrews; whenever their building was more than a mere mechanical trade they

Accordingly it is impossible to speak of a. Hebrew architectural style or school. Nevertheless, Hebrew building had certain characteristics, imposed first of all by natural conditions. Wood in Palestine

was and is scarce and expensive (the beams for Solomon's temple had to be imported from Lebanon, I Kings v. fi-10), and the most available material was the easily worked limestone in the mountains, and clay in the lowlands. The house, developed from the cave, consisted generally of but one room; it was low and had few windows or doors. The clay houses were roofed by means of a few unhewn tree trunks, branches, and brush, over which s layer of earth was placed and the whole covered with a mixture of clay and straw. The stone houses had domed roofs; the earliest were made by placing stones on the corners and others upon these until the space was covered. But the Hebrews early learned to construct arches, probably from the Babylonians or Pheniciana.

Solomon's temple was a atone building, wood being used only for decoration and the roof. Its massive walls, the absence of pillars (the two columns at the entrance bore no weight), and the use of great squared stones (I Kings v. 17-18; vii. 9-12) are cEaracieristic, and show that wooden structures did not furnish the pattern. The Syrians and Phenicians attained great skill in building with squared stones; a noteworthy feature is a smoothly chiseled or sunken border from two to four inches wide about the outer face of each atone. In Solomon's palaces wood was more freely used; the " house of the forest of Lebanon " (I Kings vii. 2-5) has its name from the fact. Here foreign models were evidently followed, which are naturally to be sought in the lead from which the wood was

L Europe: The great value and also the extreme importance of ecclesiastical records, for historical inquiry as well as in the daily life of the minister and other church officials, in former times were not properly perceived and appreciated. Works on canon law have usually little to say on the subject. Within the last few decades, however, the representatives of historical theology have pointed out the duty of the Church to attend to a careful administration and preservation of its archival treasures. A number of provincial synods :. Germany. in Germany, including the Austrian general synod, have passed important resolutions in that direction, and the later ecclesiastical legislation has provided for reorganisation of the ecclesiastical archives and registry. The archival system of the Moravian Brethren is excellent. In 1888-89 a fire-proof building was erected for the archives at Herrnhut (cf. A. Glitsch, Versuch einer Geschichte der historisehen Sam»tlungen der Brfider-Unitat, Herrnhut, 1891). The archives collected in Coblenz in consequence of a resolution passed by the eighth Rhenish provincial synod in 1853 are arranged in a model way. The interest in the same has steadily grown, and since the publication of a catalogue, they have been constantly consulted. Those Reformed Dutchmen, who as fugitives from Spanish persecution fled from the Netherlands to the countries of the Rhine, brought thither their Presbyterian church-order and synodical institutions, and taught Germany to take care of its ecclesiastical archives.

The first national synod of the Reformed Church of France held at Paris in 1559 enjoined that in every church all important matters

2. France. relating to religion should be registered, that the material should be collected by a pastor at each district synod, and that tire material gathered by each provincial synod was to be brought to the general synod. Since that time ecdeaiastfcal archives, especially in those parts where the oldest constitution after Calvin's idea L-18

(founded in 1852) has contributed largely toward their preservation and revision.

In Holland, the Walloon general synod appointed in 1878 a Commission de Phistoire et de la biblio-

thbque des tglism Wallonea, which pub3. Hotline. lishes bulletins containing an account

of its work. The Dutch Reformed Church has adopted some good rules, and its archives are in the Willem's Church in the Hague; a catalogue is published.

zerland, sung der allgemeinen geschichtsfor Scandinavia, schenden Gesellachaft der Schweiz, Bern,

After the Magdeburg Centuries 5. The Papal proved that the so called Isidorian

archives became almost msecesaibie for scientific research until Pope Leo XIII. opened them to scholars of all nations, and appointed

a historical commission to edit and publish them. The subarchivists, however, may deny access to works of a familiar character or those which it

II. America: The American Baptist Historical Society has its headquarters in Philadelphia with

the American Baptist Publication r. Bap- Society and is gathering much valuable

The polity of the Congregationalists makes each congregation a law unto itself and the archives are

kept in the congregations. In this z. Con- way much valuable material has never gregation- found its way into print or even into

tional Library was founded in Boston in 1853 to be a repository of such material, and much has been gathered there. Other valuable repositories are Yale University library, which has Henry Martyn Dexter's collection; the Massachusetts Historical Society and the Prince Library in Boston; and the library of the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester. The various state bodies and the National Assemblies held at Albany, N. Y., in 1852, in Boston in 1865, and triennially since 1871, publish their minutes. Since 1854 a Year Book (Boston: Congregational Publishing Society) has been published, which gives statistics and a list of ministers, etc.

Among the Lutherans the Historical Society of the General Synod has its collection of documents

in the library of the Gettysburg;Pa.) 3. Lu- Theological Seminary; there is an

and the archives are in the Krauth library, Mount Airy, Philadelphia. By resolution of the Synod of Pennsylvania all congregations are requested to have their history written up to date and copies deposited in the synodical archives; also biographical sketches of all deceased clerical members. Valuable material is preserved in Amsterdam; at the Gloria Dei Church, Philadelphia; Old Swedes' Church, Wilmington, Delaware; and m St. Matthew's German Church, New York City. The great source of information relating to the early Lutheran history in Pennsylvania

is the so called Hallesche Nachrichten, or more exactly Nachrichten von den vereinigten deutschen evangelisch-lutheranischen Gemeinden in Nord America, obsonderlich in Pennsylvanien (2 vols., Halls, 1750-87; new ed. by Mann; Schmucker, and Germane, vol. i., Allentown, 1886).

The archives of the various branches of Methodists are to be sought in the published journals of the

General Conferences and minutes of 4. Method- the Annual Conferences, also in the

denominational publishing houses. The archives of the Moravian Church are at Bethlehem, Pa., and embrace the minutes of various synods, conferences, etc.

The constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States requires each one of the church courts, in their regular gradation (viz., the church session, presbytery, synod, and general assembly) to keep fair and full records of its proceedings. Further, the church session, composed of the pastor

and the ruling elders of a particular g. Presby- congregation, is required to submit

tory, the presbytery; the presbytery submits fits records to the synod; and each synod submits its records to the general assembly. This system secures a proper record in the first place; then corrects errors, both as to fact and law; and also introduces uniformity of both record and action into all church procedure. The first Presbyterian congregations in America were founded early m the seventeenth century and the written records of some of them go back into that century. The first presbytery was formed in Philadelphia in 1706 and its manuscript records are in existence with the exception of the first page. The General Synod was established in 1717, and its manuscript records are complete. The first general assembly met in 1789, and its records are likewise intact. Many of the records of the presbyteries and synods are published regularly in printed form from year to year, and the minutes of the proceedings of the general assembly have been published from 1789 to the present time. The complete records of the General presbytery, General Synod, and General Assembly from 1706 to 1869 have been reprinted in eleven volumes, edited by Rev. Dr. Win. H. Roberts, stated clerk of the General Assembly. The volumes from 1870 to date are issued separately. The Presbyterian Historical Society, located in the Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia, renders invaluable service to all Presbyterian and Reformed. Churches in the United States by providing proper accommodations for historical records of all description.

In the matter of the preservation of its archives, the Protestant Episcopal Church has always been

careful, having had for a number of 6. The years a joint commission on archives,

a custodian of the standard Bible and of the standard prayer-book, and, further, a

recorder of ordinations. Reports from these several officials are submitted and published triennially, and efforts are made from time to time to add to the already valuable collection of archives such material as may appear to be worthy of preservation.

The Reformed Church in America (Dutch Reformed Church) has a special fire-proof room set apart for its archives in the Sage Library at New

De oripine, historia. irdiei3ua. scrinii at biUsogecm sedis aposWica. Rome. 1886; S. Lewenfeld, Gesahiehte des pepsaiden Arrhivs bis zum Jahre 1817 and Zur neuesten Gewhichte des papsaiden ArcAios, in Historouhee TasdenbuA, ad. W. Maurenbrecher, 6th ser. 5-8, Leipsic. 188687; A. Pieper, RSmieche Archioe,'in the ROmiechs QuartalscArift, i., Rome, 1887; Von Pflugk-Hartung Usber Ar Aim and Repieter der Pdpete, in Z%O. sii., Goths. 1890

ARCHONTICI (dr-cen'ti-sai or -sf). See GNos TlClget.

ARCIMBOLDI, ar"chfm-bol'di, GIOVANNI AnGELO: Archbishop of Milan 1550-55; d. at Milan Apr. 6, 1555. He belonged to an old and famous family in Milan, where his father was senator and councilor and his uncle archbishop. Before reaching his thirtieth year, he was apostolic protonotary and referendary to Leo X., who employed him in various financial matters connected with the building of St. Peter's, and on Dec. 2, 1514, named him commissary-general of the indulgence for a large part of Germany and for Scandinavia, with the rank and powers of a legate a latere. Another document of September, 1516, entrusted him with the functions of a political peacemaker in Sweden. He spent some time in North Germany, especially at Ltibeck and Hamburg, and made full use of his powers, which included various means of raising money by the sale of titles and privileges. He then went through the diocese of Ratseburg to Holstein, and came in 1516 or 1517 to Copenhagen. In return for a payment of 1100 Rhenish florins, King Christian granted him license to prbclaim his indulgences in Denmark. He reached Sweden in March, 1518, having promised Christian to work for him and his policy of union between the three Scandinavian kingdoms. 8ten Sture the younger, then viceroy, as leader of the national party, was striving for the complete independence of Sweden, and at this time was especially involved in a struggle with the prelates of the union party; he had forced, sword in hand, the resignation of the ambitious and stubborn archbishop Gustav Trolls. At the end of the year, Arcimboldi was in Stockholm and Upsala; and Sten Sture spared no pains to win over the clever and power!.al legate, and fully succeeded. At the assembly of Arboga in December, 1518, the appointed peacemaker confirmed the canonically unjust sentence of the Swedish Diet against Gustav Trolle, induced probably by the rich presents he received and by the hope of gain'vlg th9 metropolitan dignity. Meantime he took in large sums of money from all Sweden and Norway in return for his indulgences. But Christian II. was naturally little pleased with the behavior of the legate; besides complaining to the pope, he seized his treasures, imprisoned his brother Antonio, and threatened to do the same to him. Arcimboldi saved himself by flight to Lund, then fn Danish tenitory, whence he passed through Swedeu again and so back to LVbeck, where the difference in big reception showed the approach of the Reformation, and where he found affixed tt? the churchdoors a bull obtained from the pope by Christian, excommunicating Sten Sture and all who had aided him in the deposition of Trolls. He returned to Rome and succeeded in changing the pope's

views, which was the easier as Christian had shown an inclination toward the Reformation, and had also (1520) aroused the horror of Europe by beheading a large number of Swedish nobles in order to strengthen his position. Arcimboldi was not, however, fully restored to favor for some years. In return for the influence of his family, exerted to win Milan for Charles V., he was made bishop of Novara in 1525, and archbishop of Milan in 1550.

BIBLIOCfSAPHY: B. Zimmermann, De J. A. Areietfwldo, UP_ sale, 1781; J. M. E3ohrbok, Chriatliche Hirchanpsachichts eeit der Reformation, 111, Leipaic, 1805: F. L. G. Raumer, (ieachichte Europm sail dam Ends dee ftlatuhnfen Jahrhurr darts, ii. 103. LeiPeic. 1833; J. Weidling, 6 chwadieeha Qoachichte %m ZeitaIter der Reformation, Goths. 1882; K. Hamann, Ein Ablaesbriej Arciniboldi aus dam Jahre 1618, Hamburg, 1884: sad literature on the Reformation in Sweden.

AREOPAGUS (Gk. Areioa Pagoa, "Mail's Hill "). See GREECE, I.

ARETAS, ir'e-tae (later Gk. form Arethas, on coins and inscriptions Charethath): The name of four princes of the Nabatsean kingdom in the e. and e. of Palestine, whose capital was Petra, In the Bible (according to correct readings) only two of them are named-in II Macc. v. 8, the earliest of the name whom we know, or Aretas L, with whom in 189 B.C. the high priest Jason sought refuge from Antiochus Epiphanea; and the one who is probably to be designated Aretas IV., mentioned in II Cor. xi. 32. According to Josephus (Ant., xviii. 5) his daughter was the first wife of Herod Antipae, who was put away to make room for Herodias (Matt. aiv. 3 and parallels). This divorce caused enmity between him and Herod, and disputes over boundaries brought on a war, in which Aretas was victorious (c. 38 A.D.). At the command of Tiberius, the proconsul of Syria, Vitellius, took the field against him; but while the expedition was on its way toward Petra, it was recalled by the news of Tiberius's death (Mar. 18, 37). It is difficult to determine how a " governor " (Gk. ethnarchEe) under Aretas came to have power at Damascus about the same time, as mentioned in II Cor. xi. It is unlikely that, as Marquardt and Mommsen conjecture, the city had belonged to the Nabateean territory since the days of Aretas III. More probable is the widely held view that Aretas IV. took forcible .possession of it temporarily before, during, or after the expedition of Vitellius, at least during the winter of 38-37. Another theory is that Caligula, who (unlike his predecessors) was unfriendly to Herod, conceded to Herod's opponent the sovereignty of the city which had once belonged to the Nabata;an princes. Zahn has sought to solve the problem in a surprising way by trying to show that this " governor " or ethnarch of King Aretas was a Bedouin chief subject to him (cf. Schiirer, in TSK, hi.,1899, pp: 95 eqq.), who had no authority is Damascus, but watched the gates of the city, from the outside. Another difficulty is offered by the fact that Luke (Acts ix. 23-25) attributes the peril of Paul at Damascus not to the ethnarch under Aretae, but to the Jews. It is possible, however, that the Jews caused the ethnarch's action and also watched the gates them-

Bisnroassrar: 8ohitrer, (ieachichta, i. 728-744, Eng. transl., I. i. 34b-382 (contains history of the Nsbatesan kings and s very full bibliography); K. Wieeeler, Chronolopis den apostoIiaehan Zeitaltar, 142-143, 387-17b,. GBttingen. 1848; Guteohmid, in J. Euting. Nabatuiacha Inachr%ften. Berlin, 1885: ConYbeare and Howeon, Paul, i., chap. iii., appendix, Lotidon,1888; C. Clemen, Chronolopit der yaul%asachen Bria/a,; 22. Halle, 1893; T. Zahn, in NHZ, 1904, 39 eqq.

ARETHAS: Archbishop of Ceesarea; b. at Patree about 880. In the light of recent investigations and discoveries he appears as a vigorous ecclesiastical ruler in the Byzantine empire, and as a powerful promoter of learning, who took up and carried on the traditions of the school of Photiue. The period of his life was one of great interest in scholarship and in the collection of the surviving treasures of antiquity. He became archbishop of Caeearea under the Emperor Leo VI. (d. 912), and as such was next in rank to the patriarch of Constantinople. He must have lived to a good old age, as we have a manuscript letter of his to the emperor Romanus (d. 944). In his episcopal capacity, he was a defender of orthodoxy as it was understood by Photius. He despised both the Nestorians and the " insane " Eutychians, whom he classed with the Manicheane; he rejected Tatian's doctrine of the Logos as equally heretical with the Arias. The tendency to the veneration of relics sad of the Virgin Mary appears here and there in his works. Both these and his actions display s passionate temperament, with an unswerving steadfastness when he has once taken aside. Leo VI. came into conflict with the canon law by his decision to marry for the fourth time, probably induced by the desire for a male heir. The story of this conflict (904-907) unfolds a remarkable picture of Byzantine polities, as conditioned by the mutual relations of Church and State. While the Saracens were threatening the frontier of the empire, Leo labored diligently to gain the consent of the patriarch Nicholas to his fourth marriage; but Nicholas was reluctant to give it, and appealed to the disapproval of Arethas in support of his action in refusing to admit the empgror to the Church. When the patriarch showed a more conciliatory temper, Arethas refused to follow him, and was banished after the downfall of Nicholas. He won the letter's successor, Euthymius, to his way of thinking, and adhered to his support when Nicholas was restored after the death of Leo. Euthymius, after an outward reconciliation with his competitor, retired to e life of asceticism, dying in 917. The hatred of his enemies pursued him even to the grave; but three years later Arethas was able to show his constancy by accomplishing the reverential translation of his remains. These data for the biography of Arethae are illustrated by a number of letters sad occasional writings collected in the unpublished

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. C. T. Otto, Des Pab~archea Genaadius .. Confession . . . nebst Euure fiber Aredae' Zeitaikr, Vienna, 1864; Rettig, in TBK, iv. (1831) 755-758; C. de Boor, Vita Esthyrnii, Anekdoton sur Geschidte Leoe des Weisf chaps. xii., xv., xvi., xviii.. a, Berlin. 1888; Krumbacher, Geachichte. pp. 233-234.

ARETIUS, a-r5'-shf-us (Grecized from Marts'), BENEDICTUS: Scientist and theologian; b. at Batterldaden, in the canton of Bern, Switzerland, 1505; d. at Bern March 22, 1574. He studied at ,Strasburg and at Marburg, where he became profassor of logic; was called to Bern as school-teacher, 1548, and became professor of theology, 1564. His chief work, Theologian problemata (Bern, 1573), was a compendium of the knowledge of the time and was highly valued. His Examen theologicum (1557) ran through six editions in fourteen years. His works also include a commentary on the New Testament (1580 and 1616) and on the Pentateuch (1602· 2d ed., with commentary on the Psalms added, 1618), a commentary on Pindar (1587), a description of the flora of two mountains of the Bernese Oberland, Stockhorn and Niesen (Stras-

burg, 1561), a Hebrew method for schools (Basel, 1561), and a defense of the execution (in 1566) of the Antitrinitarian Valentin Gentilis (Geneva, 1567).

BmwoUBAPHT: J. H. Graf, Gesakichts der Mtik and der Natwwswmchaften in Bemiechen Landen, i. 25-29, Bern, 1888.

ARGENTINA: A South American republic, bounded on the north by Bolivia and Paraguay, on the east by Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, and the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by the Atlantic, and on the west by the Andes, which separate it from Chile. It is divided into fourteen provinces and nine territories (gobernaciones), and has an area of 1,125,100 square miles and a population of about 4,200,000. The capital is Buenos Ayres (permanently founded, 1580). The republic had its origin in a struggle against Spain which broke out in 1810 and was an outcome of the Napoleonic interference in the mother country. The constitutive assembly was replaced in 1818 by a constitution, although the war with Spain did not end until 1824. This constitution, as amended in 1860, provides for a congress of two chambers, the Senate and the Deputies, and each province has also an elected assembly for its own government.

The constitution declares the state religion to be Roman Catholic and requires the president or his substitute to be of that faith, but establishes the right of governmental exequatur for all papal mandates, and grants other creeds the free exercise of their religion. The hierarchic organization of the Roman Catholic Church naturally began soon after the Spanish conquest, but did not receive its present form until 1865. The archbishop of Buenos Ayres, which was an episcopal see as early as 1582, has the capital under his control, which contains nearly 800,000 inhabitants. The suffragan bishop-

ric$ are those of Paraguay (founded 1547), Cordoba (1570), Salta (1806), San Juan de Cuyo (1834), Parang (1859), La Plata (1897), Santa F5 (1897), and Tucuman (1897). Cordoba, the first city of the country to have a cathedral, is also the richest in religious buildings.

In 1884 a Vicar-Apostolic of Carmen de PatagDnes was appointed with jurisdiction over southern Argentina and northern Patagonia. He draws his priests from the Salesians, as does also the apostolic prefecture for southern Patagonia, erected in 1883. , Throughout Patagonia an active missionary propaganda is carried on among the aborigines, of whom some 30,000 are estimated to be unbaptized.

Although almost half the inhabitants of Argentina are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, and come from the most varied countries of Europe, the great majority of these newcomers belong to the Roman Catholic Church, on account of the predominance of Italians (about 500,000), Spaniards (about 200,000), and Roman Catholic Swiss. For decades the latter have flocked in great numbers to northern Argentina. The relatively small number of Protestants in the republic is estimated at . about 33,000. Of these between 23,000 and 24,000 belong to the Gerqaau eypod of Is Plats,

which llfso includes the Evangelicals of Paraguay and Uruguay. To them must be added a group of congregations of the Swiss Reformed, the Anglican Church (with a number of places of worship in Buenos Ayres), and North American Presbyterians, who are most numerous in the capital, as well as in Rosario and Bahia Blanca.

Education is under the control of the State by a law of 1868, and the number of public schools, which has steadily increased, is now 3,400, in addi-

tion to parochial schools. The high schools consist of sixteen " lyceums," and there are likewise two universities, of which that at Cordoba is the more distinguished.

BIBLIOGRAPHT: T. A. Turner, Argentina and the Argentines, New York, 1892; Comte A. de Gubernatie. L 'Argentina, Florence, 1898; Annuario de la direcci 6n general de estadurtica, Buenos Ayres, 1899; C. Wiener, La Rbpublique Argentine, Paris, 1899; Encyclopedia Britannica, Supple mad, s.v.

to the Council of Conetantlnople, 381. Arian Reaction. Athanasiue (§ 5). Various Synods and Parties (¢ t3).

Orthodoxy under Theodosius the Great, 381.

Arianism is a heresy, named from its most Prominent representative, Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria (d. 336; see ARIUS). It denied that the Son was of the same substance (Gk. homoousios) with thp Father and reduced him to the rank of a creature, though preexistent before the world. No Christological heresy of ancient Christianity was more widely accepted or tenacious. During a part of the fourth century it was the ruling creed in the Eastern Church, though there were constant and vigorous protests by the orthodox party. It was also the form of Christianity to which most of the barbarian Teutonic races were at first converted.

I. History: The roots of the Arian conflict lie deep in the differences of the ante-Nicene doctrine of the Logos, especially in the contradictory elements of Origen's Christology, which was claimed by both parties. Origen attributed to Christ eternity and other divine attributes, which lead to the Nicene doctrine of the identity of substance, but, on the other hand, in his zeal for the personal distinctions in the Godhead, he taught with equal emphasis a separate essence and the

of Nicomedia, exercised a controlling influence on the views of Arius; Harnack (History of Dogma, iv. 3) calls him " the Arius before Arias." The first opponent of Arius was Alexander, bishop Of Alexandria, and the greatest doctrinal opponent of the Arian Christology was Athanasius.

1. From 818 to the Council of Niceea, 826: The

origin of the controversy is involved in some ob

scurity, and the accounts are not easy to reconcile.

The earliest date for the clash of views is 318. The

Christological question had become s burning one

in Egypt. Alexander both in church and presby

terial gatherings had taken it up and refuted false

views, as Arius afterward reminded him (Epi

phanius, Epist. Arii ad Alex.). According to Socrates

(i. 5), Alexander gave the first im

s. Outbreak pulse to the controversy by insisting,

of the Con- in a meeting of presbyters and other

troversy. clergy, on the eternity of the Son;

· whereupon Arius openly opposed, and

charged him with Sabellianism. . He reasoned

thus: " If the Father beget the Son, he must be

older than the Son, and there was a time when the

Son was not; from this it further follows that the

Son has his subsistence (Gk. hypOatosis) from noth

ing." The accounts of Sozomen (i. 15) and Epi

phanius differ in dating the conflict from discussions

among the presbyters and laymen, and Sozomen

represents Alexander as at first taking no decided

position between the two opinions. In 320 or 321

Alexander convened a synod of about a hundred

Egyptian and Lybian bishops at Alexandria, which

excommunicated Arias and his followers. Arias

found powerful friends in Euaebius of Nicomedia,

Eueebius of Cssarea, Paulinus of Tyre, Gregory of

Berytus, Aetius of Lydda, and other bishops who

either shared his view, or at least considered it inno

cent. He took refuge with Eusebius at Nicomedia,

which had been the imperial residence since Dio

cletian, and spread his views in a half-poetic work,

Thalia (" The Banquet"), of which Athanaeius has

preserved fragments. Alexander defended him-,

self and warned against Arias in a letter which he

sent to many bishops (Epiphanius, hx. 4, says 70;

Socrates gives the letter, i. 6). Arias made ap

peal to Eueebius of Casearea and others to secure

his reinstatement as presbyter, and a Palestinian

synod went so far as to authorize him to. labor in

Alexandria, subject to the authority of the bishop,

Alexander. In s short time the whole Eastern

Church became a metaphysical battle-field. The

attention of the Emperor Constantine was called to the controversy, and in a letter to Alexander and Arius he pronounced it a mere logomachy, a wrangle over things incomprehensible; he also sent Hosius of Cordova to Egypt to mediate between the contending parties (Socrates, i. 7, gives the letter, as does also Eusebius, Vita Const., ii.). From political considerations, however, at the suggestion of certain bishops, he called the first ecumenical council of the Church, to settle the Arian controversy together with tho question of the time of celebrating Easter and the Meletian schism in Egypt.

2. The Council of Wioaea, 326: The council met at Mews, in Bithynia. It consisted of three hundred and eighteen bishops (about one-sixth of all the bishops of the Greco-Roman Empire), resulted in the formal condemnation of Arius, and the adoption of the " Nicene Creed," which affirms in unequivocal terms the doctrine of the eternal deity of

gotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate, and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven; from thence he cometh to judge the quick and the dead." To the original Nicene Creed is added the following anathema: "And those who say there was a time when he [the Son] was not; and he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or thing, or the Son of God is created, or changeable, or alterable; -they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church." This anathema. was omitted in that form of the Nicene Creed which is usually, though incorrectly, traced to the Constantinopolitan Synod of 381, and which after the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, entirely superseded the Nicene Creed of 325, in its primitive form. (See below, § 8.)

It is possible that Alexander and Hosius had come to an understanding, before the council met, concerning the use of the term honwousios (Socrates, i. 7, says they discussed the ousiA and hypostasis); Harnack positively takes this position, Loofs hesitates. The creed was signed by nearly all the

is the first instance of such signing of a doctrinal symbol. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nioa;a signed the creed, but not the condemnatory formula appended, and for this they were deposed, and banished for a short time. Two Egyptian bishops-Theonas and Smundus-persistently refused to sign, and were banished, with Arius, to Illyria. This is the first example of the civil punishment of heresy, and opened the long and dark era of persecution for all departures from the catholic or orthodox faith. The books of Arius were burnt, and his followers branded as enemies of Christianity. The Nicene Creed has outlived all the subsequent storms, and, in the improved form

recognized at Constantinople in 381, it remains to this day the most generally received creed of Christendom; and, if the later Latin insertion, the filioqxu, be omitted, a bond of union between the Greek, the Roman, and the orthodox Protestant Churches.

8. From the Council of Nicsea, 826, to the Council of Constantinople, 881: Not long after the Nicene Council an Arian and semi-Arian reaction took place, and acquired for a time the ascendency in the empire. Arianism now entered the stage of its political power. This was a period of the greatest excitement in Church and State: Council was held against council; creed was set up against creed; anathema was hurled against anathema. " The highways," says the impartial heathen historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, " were covered with galloping bishops." The churches, the theaters,

the hippodromes, the feasts, the mart. Arlan kets, the streets, the baths, and the

the Arians even exceeded the orthodox. The interference of emperors and their courts only poured oil on the flames, and heightened the bitterness of contest by adding confiscation and exile to the spiritual punishment of synodical excommunication. The unflinching leader of the orthodox party was Athanasius (q.v.), a pure and sublime character, who had figured at the Council of Nicaea as a youthful archdeacon, in company with Alexander, whom he succeeded as bishop (326); but he was again and again deposed by imperial despotism, and spent twenty years in exile. He sacrificed everything to his conviction, and had the courage to face the empire in arms (hence the motto: Athanasius contra mundum). He was a man of one idea and one passion, the eternal divinity of Christ,-which he considered the cornerstone of the Christian system. The - politicoecclesiastical leader of the Arian party was Eusebius of Nicomedia who, probably owing to the influence of the Emperor Constantine (Socrates, i. 25 etc.), was recalled from exile and baptized Constantine on his death-bed. Constantine was turned favorably to Arius, accepted a confession he prepared, recalled him from exile, and ordered him to be solemnly restored to the communion of the catholic Church at Constantinople; he even demanded his restoration in Alexandria by Athanasius; but, on the day preceding his intended restoration, the heretic suddenly died (336). In the year following, Constantine himself died, and his son Constantine II. recalled Athanasius from his first exile. In the West the Nicene statement found universal acceptance. But in the East, where Conetantius, the second son of Constantine the Great, ruled, opposition to the Nicene formula was well-nigh universal, and was maintained with fanatical zeal by the court and by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was transferred to Constantinople in 338. Athanasius was attacked on personal charges with great vehemence by the Eusebians who sought to supersede the doctrine of the homoousia by indirect methods. He was banished to Gaul in 335. Eustathius of

posed at a synod at Antioch in 330 (Socrates, i. 23), the charge being that he advocated Sabellianism. Marcellus of Ancyra, another vigorous defender of the Nicene symbol, was also deposed at a synod in Constantinople. Arius's death occurred a little later, but the work of punishing his opponents went on. Athanasius was deposed a second time (339), and took refuge with Julius of Rome, who, with the great body of the Western Church, believed him a martyr.

It is unnecessary to follow the varying fortunes of the two parties, and the history of councils, which neutralized one another, without materially advancing the points in dispute. The most important are the synod of Antioch, 341 (q.v.), which set forth an orthodox creed, but deposed Athanasius; the orthodox synod of Sardica, which declared Athanasius and Ma,rcellus orthodox, and the Arias coun-

355, which condemned Athanasius in obedience to Constantine; the second synod at Sirmium, 357; the third, 358; at Antioch, 358; at Ancym, 358; at Constantinople, 360; at Alexandria, 362. Aided by Constantius, Arianism, under the modified form represented by the term hovwi ouaioa (" similar in essence," as distinct from the Nicene honwousios and the strictly Arian hetero ousios), gained the power in the empire; and even the papal chair in Rome was for a while desecrated by heresy during the Arian interregnum of Felix Il. But the death of Conatantius in 361, the indifference of his successor, the Emperor Julian, to all theological disputes (the exiled bishops were at liberty to return to their sees, though he afterward banished Athanasius), the toleration of Jovian (d. 364), and especially the internal dimensions of the Arians, prepared the way for a new triumph of orthodoxy. The Eusebians, or semi-Arians, taught that the Son was similar in substance (homoiouaios) to the Father; while the Aetians (from Aetius, a deacon of Antioch who revived Arianism) and the Eunomians (from Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus in Mysis) taught that he was of a different substance (heteroousim), and unlike (anomoios) the Father in everything as also in substance (hence the names Heteroousiasts and Anomoians or Anomccans). A number of compromising synods and creeds undertook to heal these dissensions, but without permanent effect.

On the other hand, the defenders of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius, and, after his death in 373, the three Cappadocian bishops,-Basin the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa,triumphantly vindicated the catholic doctrine against all the arguments of the opposition. The Cappadocians made the homoouaios the startingpoint of their discussions, as is apparent from the

had Arianism condemned at two Roman synods, 369, 377. When Gregory of Naziansus was called to Constantinople in 379, there was but

one small congregation in the city which had not become Arias; but his able and eloquent sermons on the deity of Christ, which won him the title of " the Theologian," contributed powerfully to the resurrection of the catholic faith. The using influence of monasticism, especially in Egypt and Syria, was bound up with the cause of Athanasius and the Cappadociane; and the more conservative portion of the semi-Arians gradually approached the orthodox in spite of the persecutions of the violent Arias emperor, Valens.

4. The Final Triumph of the Nicene Orthodoxy under Theodosius the Great, 881: Theodosius was a Spaniard by birth, and reared in the Nicene faith. On entering Constantinople he removed the Arians from the charge of the churches and substituted the orthodox party. During his reign (379-395) he completed externally the spiritual and

6. Arianism among the Barbarians: The church legislation of Theodosius was confined, of course, to the limits of the Roman Empire. Beyond it, among the barbarians of the West, who had received Christianity in the form of Arianism during the

reign of the Emperor Valens, it maintained itself for two centuries longer, though more as a matter of accident than choice and conviction. The Ostrogoths remained Arians till 553; the Visigoths, till the Synod of Toledo in 589; the Suevi in Spain, till 560; the Vandals, who conquered North Africa in 429, and furiously persecuted the catholics, till 530, when they were expelled by Belisarius; the Burgundians, till their incorporation in the Frank Empire in 534; the Lombards in Italy, till the middle of the seventh century. Alaric, the first conqueror of Rome, Genseric, the conqueror of North Africa, Theodoric the Great, King of Italy, were Arians; and the first Teutonic translation of the Scriptures of which important fragments remain came from the Arian or semi-Arian missionary Ulfilas.

II. The Creed of Arianism: The Father alone is God; he alone is unbegotten, eternal, wise, good, unchangeable. He is separated by an infinite chasm from man. God can not communicate his essence. The Son of God is preexistent, " before time and before the world," and" before all creatures." He is a middle being between God and the world, the perfect image of the Father,

The subsequent development of Arianism by Aetius and Eunomius brought out no new features, except many inconsistencies and contradictions. The controversy degenerated into a heartless and barren metaphysical war. The eighteen or more creeds which Arianism and semi-Arianiem produced between the first and the second ecumenical councils (325-381) are leaves without blossoms, and branches without fruit.

The Arians supported their doctrine from those passages of the Bible which seem to place Christ

on a par with the creature (Prow. viii. 22-25; Acts ii. 36; Col. i. 15), or which ascribe to the incarnate Christ (not the preexistent Logos) s*Argu- in his state of humiliation lack of meats of the knowledge, weariness, sorrow, and Arians. other changing affections and states of mind (Luke ii. 52; Mark xiii. 32; Heb. v. 8, 9; John xii. 27, 28; Matt. xxvi. 39), or which teach some kind of subordination of the Son to the Father (especially John xiv. 28: " The Father is greater than I," which refers, not to the essential nature, but to the state of humiliation). Arius was forced to admit, in his first letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that Christ was called God (even " the full, only-begotten God," according to the famous disputed reading for " only-begotten Son," in John i. 18. Cf. Hon's first dissertation). But he reduced this expression to the idea of a subordinate, secondary, created divinity. The dogmatic and phjlosophical arguments were chiefly negative and rationalistic, amounting to this: The Nicene view of the essential deity of Christ is unreasonable, inconsistent with monotheism, with the dignity and absoluteness of the Father, and of necessity leads to Sabellianism, or the Gnostic dreams of emanation.

On the other hand, Arianism was refuted by Scriptural passages, which teach directly or indirectly the divinity of Christ, and his

3. Refuta- essential equality with the Father. tion of The conception of a created Creator,

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources (1) on the orthodox aide, the church histories of Rufinus. Socrates, 8osomen, and Theodoret, and most of the Fathers of the fourth century, especially the dogmatic and polemic works of Athanasius (Oratimm contra Arianos, etc.), Basil (Ado. Eunomium), Gregory of Nasiansue (Oratiorbs theolopico;). Gregory of Nyssa (Con. Ha Bunomium). Epiphanius (Ancoratue), Hilary (De lrinitate), Ambrose (De fide), Augustine (De trinifate and Contra Maximum Arianum). (2) On the Arian side, the fragments of the Thalia, and epistles of Arius to Eumbius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria, preserved in Athanasiue, Epiphanius, Socrates and Theodoret; the fragments of the church history of Philostorgius; Eusebius, Vita Constantini; Fragments Arianorum, in Mai, Nova colleciio, iii.,,gome, 1828. For the synodical transactions, Mansi, Concilia vols. ii.-iii. Later literature: L. Maimbourg, Histoire de l'Arianiame Paris, 1675; G. Bull. Defensio fidei Nicarna< Oxford, 1703, Eng. tranal..1851; C. W. F. Walch, Vollatandipe Historie der getaersien, vohl.

ARIAS, S"Alas, BENEDICTUS (Called Montanus): Spanish scholar; b. probably at Fregenal de la Sierra (215 m. s. w. of Madrid), Estremadura, Spain, Nov. 12, 1527; d. at Seville July 6, 1598. He studied in Seville and Alcala and became especially proficient in languages; became a priest of the knightly order of St. Iago and accompanied Bishop Martin Perez Ajala of Segovia to the Council of Trent. King Philip II. called him from a life of scholastic retirement at Aracena near Seville and sent him to Belgium in 1568 to superintend the preparation of the Antwerp Polyglot (see Bl BLES, POLYGLOT, II.), and when the work was completed (1572) he went to Rome to present it to the pope. On his return to Spain the king rewarded him with a pension and several remunerative appointments, such as court chaplain and librarian at the Escorial. He was blamed for preferring the Hebrew text to the Vulgate and for introducing the Targums into the Polyglot. The Jesuits, to whom he was opposed, were particularly active with charges against Win, but he succeeded in clearing himself at Rome. Besides the Apparatus to the Antwerp Polyglot (containing dissertations De Hebraicis idiotismie, De arcano sermons, etc.), he wrote commentaries on many of the books of the Bible, Antiquitatum Judaicarum libri ix. (Leyden, 1593), Liber generationis et regenerationis Adam (Antwerp, 1593), translated into Latin Benjamin of Tudela's travels (1575), and wrote Latin poems.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Afemoriae do la real academia de (a hiaforia, vii. 1-199, Madrid, 1832.

ARIBO, a"rf'66: Bishop of Freising 764-784. If, as is probable, he is the boy whose story he tells in the Vita Corbixiiani, xxxiv., he was born at Mais near Meran, and educated by Bishop Erembert of Freising. His signature appears first as witness to a document of 748. Under Bishop Joseph he

was ordained and filled the office of notary, soon afterward of archpriest, and later of abbot of Scharnitz. After Joseph's death (Jan. 17, 764), he was raised to the bishopric of Freising, whose possessions he increased considerably. The opposition of Tassilo, duke of Bavaria, to Frankish rule made trouble for him; he took the Frankish side, and appears to have been deprived of his bishopric by Tassilo, since in 782 Abbot Atto of Schledorf was in charge of the diocese, while Aribo did not die until May 4, 784. He wrote two biographies, one of St. Corbinian, whose relics he translated to Freising, probably in 768 (not fully completed; afterward retouched by the monk Hrotroc), and one of Emmeram, abbot and bishop of Regensburg. The former in its original form, ed. S. Riezler, was published at Munich in 1888; as completed, in C. Meichelbeck, Historia Friaingenaia, i. (Augsburg, 1724), and in ASB, Sept., iii. 281-296; the latter is in Analecta Bollandiana, viii. (1889) 220255, and in MGH, Script. rer. Merov., iv. (1902), pp. 452-524, and ASB, Sept., vi. 474-486.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Rettberg, HD. ii. 258-259; Wattenbach, DOQ, i. 138, 171; Hawk, %D, ii. 387.

ARISTEAS, ar"is-tl!as: The name assumed by the author of a letter professing to give the history of the translation into Greek of the Hebrew Pentateuch for Ptolemy II. Philadelphus. The letter stated that, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus, Ptolemy sent Aristeas to the high priest Eleazar to obtain experienced men to render the Hebrew Law into Greek for the library at Alexandria. Eleazar chose seventy-two men, six from each of the tribes, who went to Egypt, were received with great honor, completed their task, and were sent back with presents for themselves and the high priest. There is a legend that five were Samaritans and that their copies were preserved. This narrative was for centuries the account accepted by Jews and Christians of the origin of the Septuagint. It appears in Aristobulus (as quoted by Eusebius, Praparatio euangelica, xiii. 12), Philo (Vita Moaie, ii.), Josephus (Ant., XII. ii. 2 eqq.), Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and so on down to Whiston. The letter has been shown to be unhistorical, e.g., Demetrius Phalereus was banished from Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Its purpose was the glorification of the Hebrew race, religion, and literature. Its statements are entirely discredited by modern criticism, and its author is entirely unknown.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. The letter was printed with a number of editions of the Bible, e.g., that of J. Andreas, 1471; was translated into English by J. Done, London, 1633, was edited in Greek with English translation, London, 1715; it in appended to Swete a Introduction to We Septuagint, London, 1902; and was translated with notes by H. St. J. Thaekeray, London, 1904. H. Hody wrote in 1685, Contra Historian Aristees de L%% Interpretibw Dissertatio. and followed it in 1705 with his great Ds bibliorum teztibus oripinals3us, which completely demolished the letter as a foundation for history. C. Hayes vainly attempted a defense in 1736. Consult also: E. Nastle, Septuapintastudien, vol. ii., Ulm, 1896; J. E. H. Thomson, in PEP, Quarterly Statement, p. 82. Jan., 1902 (on the legend wltioh includes Samaritans among the Seventy).

ARISTIDES, ar"ie-tai'dfz, ILARCL41WUS: An Athenian philosopher, who, according to Eusebius (Hint. eccl., iv. 3), wrote a popular Christian apology. Little was known of the work till 1891, when Harris and Robinson published a complete Syriac version and proved at the same time that the greater part of the apology is contained in the legend of Barlaam and Josaphat (q.v.), extant in many Greek manuscripts and numerous translations. Since'that time much attention has been paid to the work. It is addressed to Antoninus Pius and has points of contact with the Kerygma of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and Justin, but more especially with the letter to Diognetus.. After speaking of the true idea of Cod (chap. i.), it takes up the origin of the nations which followed error and those which followed the truth. The barbarians are treated in chapters iii.-vii., the errors of the Hellenes in viii.-xiii. with an excursus on the Egyptians (xii.), chapter xiv. is devoted to the Jews, and xv.-xvii. speak of the Christians, especially of their life and customs, in an attractive and instructive manner. Through the apology the name Aristides obtained a certain literary popularity among the Armenians. A homily " On the Call of the Thief and the Answer of the Crucified " (Luke xxui. 42-43) and a fragment of a letter " To All Philosophers " are ascribed to him. Other names from old Christian literature besides that of Aristides were applied to literary frauds in Armenia from the fifth to the seventh century (cf. F. C. Conybeare, in The Guardian, July 18, 1894).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Greek and Syriac texts (the latter from a manuscript of Mount Sinai), with introduction and translation, were published by J. R. Harris and J. A. Robinson in T3, i., Cambridge, 1891; there is a translation by D. M. Kay in ANF, ix . 259-279; the Armenian text was published by the Meehitsriete at Venice in 1878. Consult Harnaek, Liueratur, i. 98, 1893; J. R. Harris, The newly recovered Apology of Afwt>de1. its Doctrine and Ethics, London, 1891; M. Picard, L'Apolopie d'Arisftde, Paris, 1892; R. Rasbe, in TU, ia.,1892; P. Pape, in TU, xii., 1894; R. Heeberg, Der Ayolupet Aristides, Erlangen, 1894; J. A. Robinson, Apology of Aristides, Edinburgh, 1898; Krfer, History, where ·a bibliography of the principal contributions to periodical literature up to 1897 is given.

ARISTO OF PELLA: Reputed author of a " Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ." The work was known to Celsus, and

Origen (Contra Celaum, iv. 52) defends it against his contemptuous opinion without naming the author. Maximus Confessor in his scholia to the " Mystic Theology " of Dionysius the Areopagite (chap. i., p. 17, ed. Corderius) ascribes it to Aristo of Pella, and Eusebius (Hilt. eccl., iv. 6) quotes from Aristo (without naming the work) concerning the war of Bar-Kokba. Citations in Jerome show that the author used the Bible-version of Aquila. A letter, wrongly attributed to Cyprian (Opera, iii. 119-120, ed. Hartel), states that a certain Celsus made a Latin translation of the Dialogue, probably in the fifth century, and tells that Jason was a Jewish Christian and Papiscus an Alexandrian Jew and that the former converted the latter. The work was probably written between 140 and 170 and was

ARISTOBULUS, ar"is-to-biii'los: 1. The name of several notable persons in the last period of Jewish history, belonging to the Hasmonean and Herodian families. See HABMONEANs; HEROD Arrn HIS FAmmy.

2. A Jewish Alexandrian writer of the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor, according to Clement of Alexandria. (Stromata, II. xv. 72; xxii. 50; V. xiv. 97; VI. iii. 32), Origen (Contra Celsum, iv. 17), Anatolius (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vii. 32), and Eusebius (Prop. evan., vii. 14; viii. 10; xiii. 12; Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 124-125). In II Macc. i. 10 an Aristobulus is mentioned as teacher of one of the Ptolemies and the most influential member of the Jewish Alexandrian diaspora, and a letter is addressed to him written under Philometor. Clement and Eusebius identify the author quoted by them with the one mentioned here. Accordingly Aristobulus flourished about 170-150 B.C. Clement (V. xiv. 97) states that he wrote " abundant books to show that the peripatetic philosophy was derived from the law of Moses and from the other prophets," and Eusebius (Chron.) that he wrote expositions of the writings of Moses, which he dedicated to Philometor. Fragments are found in Eusebius (Prop., viii. 10 and xiii.12; cf. Hiet. eccl., VII. xxxii.1fr19). They express two of the fundamental thoughts of the Alexandrian Jewish apologists,-that the heathen writers derived their wisdom from the writings of Moses, and that the anthropomorphism of the Old Testament must not be taken literally. It is questionable, however, whether this Aristobulus is a historical person. Hody, Willrich, and others have brought forward weighty reasons for thinking him a Jewish fiction. Whether the instructor of Philometor was first invented and afterward the apologist or vice ver8a must be left undecided.

B-LIOasAMf: H. Willrich, Juden and Grischen vor der makkabaiachen Erhbbunp GSttingen, 189b; M. Joel. Blicke in die Relipionepesrhicftts su Anfang des tweikn Jahr. AB, 79-100, Breedau, 1880; Elter, De Aristobulo Judaro. Bonn, 1894-95 (of value); Schfirer, Geeshicdte, iii. 884-392, 1898, Eng. tmnel., II. iii. 237-243 (very full in its list of books, for which the article in %L is also worth consulting).

ARISTOTLE, ar'is-tat-I: Greek philosopher; b. at Stagira, in Thrace, 384 B.C.; d.=at Chalcis, on the island of Euboaa, 322 B.C. At the age of seventeen he became a scholar of Plato in Athens and remained with him twenty years; after Plato's death (347 B.C.) he went to the court of Hermias, at Atarneus in Mysia; in 343 B.C. he was summoned by King Pip of Macedon to become teacher of his son Alexander. After the latter became king, Aristotle opened a school in Athens (probably in 334B.c.) near the temple of Apollo Lykeios (whence it was called the Lyceum, while from his habit of giving instruction while walking back and forth the school has been called peripatetic, from Gk.

peripateo). After Alexander's death the anti-Macedonian party in Athena forced him to retire to Chalcis.

The philosophy of Aristotle is a strongly pronounced dualism; matter and form, God and the world, are distinct though inseparable existences. The harmony of this duality is an equally pronounced pantheism; God is an act rather than a will, a process and not a person. But the dualism of Aristotle is not materialistic; the form, God, is the principal constituent, and his pantheism is absolutely monotheistic, directly opposed to every form of polytheism. Therefore it may be inferred that he would win sympathy in the Christian Church; and while some of the Fathers attack him vehemently (as Irenaeus) and others (as Justin Martyr) pass him by in silence, there are those among them (as Clement of Alexandria) who consider him a precursor of Christ, holding the truth in so far as it could be held before Christ came. Then, when the dialectical elaboration of the Christian dogmas began, his great labors on logic were by no means neglected. The heretics used them in the fourth and fifth centuries, and the catholics followed the example in the sixth and seventh.

In the Latin Church Aristotle was introduced by Bo6thius and Cassiodorus. His study received a powerful impulse from the Jewish and Arabic doctors, who translated his works into Syriac and Arabic; and the anxiety which the Roman Church felt with respect to his metaphysical works, and which led to their condemnation and exclusion from the universities, disappeared after the time of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. The Renaissance, which brought the works of Aristotle to the West in the original Greek text, developed an Aristotelian and a Platonic school; but when the Renaissance grew into the Reformation, and the splendid edifice which had been built up on Plato and Aristotle-the medieval scholasticismtumbled down, Aristotle lost at once his .influence on Christian theology (see ScHoLAsTIcxsm; also ALBEBTUS MAGNus; THOmAs AQumAs). At present, however, he is an increasing force in theology. His " Metaphysics " is the inspiration of all who seek for the ultimate meaning of reality-matter, form, efficient cause, final cause or end, and God. His "Ethics" and "Polities' remain the most original and stimulating source for the study of those personal and social virtues which Christianity has to train. His principle of attention to the individual and the concrete, his minute and unwearied investigation of phenomena, his analytic insight to which these disclose their secret, profoundly affect the spirit and method of ethical and religious thinkers who study his works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Aristotle's works were very numerous and are imperfectly preserved The standard complete

tion is by Immanuel Bekker, 5 vole., Berlin, 1831 ~; single works have been published by many editors. There is an English translation by different hands in Bohn' e " Classical Library," 7 vole.; of English books devoted to Separate works the following may be mentioned: The Constitution of Athena, by T. J. Dynes, London, 1891; F. G. Kenyon, London, 1891; E. Posts, London, 189192; J. E. Sandys, London, 1893. The Psychology, by E. Wallace, London, 1882; W. A. Hammond, London, 1902.

The Ethics, by F. H. Peters, London, 1881; A. Grant, London, 1885; I. Bywater, Oxford, 1892; J: E. C. Welldon, London, 1892; F. Harvey, Oxford, 1897; and St. J. Stock, Oxford, 1897. The Poetics, by S. H. Butcher. London, 1903, and H. Morley, London, 1901. The Poli tics, by W. E. Bolland, with introductory essays by Andrew Lang, London, 1877; B. Jowett, Oxford, 1885; J. E. C. Welldon, London, 1888; J. E. Sandys, London, 1893; W. L. Newman, 1902. The Rhetoric, by J. E. Ssndys, Cambridge, 1877. Youth and 01d Ape, Life and Death, by W. Ogle, London, 1897. The Posterior Analytics by E. Posts, Oxford, 1850; E. S. Bouchier, London, 1901. The Parts of Animals, by W. Ogle, London, 1882. On the general subject, valuable works are: G. H. Lewes, Aristotle, London, 1864; G. Grote, Aristotle, 2 vols., London, 1879. An edition of the ancient commentators is in course of publication by the Berlin Academy (1882 aqq.). For bibliography, consult M. Schwab, Bibliographic d'Aristote, Paris, 1896; J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. iii., part 1, pp. 75-99 (indispensable); for special lexicon, M. Kappes, Arlatoteles Lezikon, Erklurung der philosophiachen termini technici des Arietoteles, Paderborn, 1894; the histories of philosophy should be consulted for the system and influence of Aristotle.

ARIUS, a-rai'us or A'ri-Us: One of the most famous of heretics; b. in Libya (according to others, in Alexandria) about 256; d. at Constantinople 336. He was educated by Lucian, presbyter in Antioch (see LUCIAN THE MARTYR), and became presbyter in Alexandria. The bishop of that city, Alexander, took exception to his views concerning the eternal deity of Christ and his equality with the Father and thus, about 318, began the great controversy which bears the name of Arius. He is described as a tall, lean man, with a downcast brow, austere habits, considerable learning, and a smooth, winning address, but quarrelsome disposition. The silence of his enemies conclusively proves that his general moral character was irreproachable. His opponents said that he cherished a personal grudge against Alexander, because he was not himself elected bishop; but the subordination views which he had imbibed in the Antiochian school are sufficient to explain the direction of his development and the course of his life. Condemned by a synod at Alexandria in 320 or 321, he left the city, but was kindly received both by Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, and it was evident that not a few of the Asiatic churches favored his ideas. A reconciliation was brought about between him and Alexander; but hardly had he returned to Alexandria before the strife broke out again, and with still greater violence. In spite of his many and powerful friends, Arius was defeated at the Council of Nicwa (325), and banished to Illyria. Soon, however, a reaction in his favor set in. The Eusebian party espoused his cause more openly, and through Constantia, the sister of the emperor, he got access to the court. He was formally recalled from banishment; and all the chiefs of the Eusebians were assembled in Constantinople to receive him back into the bosom of the Church, when he suddenly died the day before the solemnity at the age of over eighty years, at a time and in a manner that seemed to the orthodox to be a direct interposition of Providence, and a condemnation of his doctrine; while his friends attributed his death to poison. AthanasiU9 relates the fact in a letter to Serapion (De morte Arii) on the authority of a priest, Macarius of Constantinople.

Epiphanius (Har., lxviii. 7) compares his death to that of Judas the traitor. Socrates (Hilt. eccl., i. 38) and Sozomen (Hilt. eccl., ii. 30) give minute accounts with disgusting details. Arius's principal work, called Thalia (" the Banquet "), which he wrote during his stay with Eusebius at Nicomedia, was a defense of his doctrine in an entertaining popular form, half poetry, half prose; with the exception of a few fragments in the tracts of Athanasius, it is lost. A letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and one to Alexander of Alexandria, are extant (cf. Fabricius-Harles, viii., Hamburg, 1802, p. 309). It should be borne in mind that all knowledge of Arius is derived from the accounts of his enemies and opponents, written during the course of an exceedingly bitter controversy. See AmAmBM; AmaANAslus; and consult. the works there mentioned.

According to the Pentateuchal narrative, the ark of the covenant was the receptacle of the tables of the law (called " tables of the covenant," Deut. ix. 9, 11, 15; " tables of the testimony," Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15, xxxiv. 29), attesting the divine will, the foundation of the community between God and Israel. It is so called in Num. x. 33, xiv. 44; Deut. x. 8. (cf. Heb. ix. 4)R in Ex. xxv. 22, xxvi. 33-34 " ark of the testimony " is found. According to the description of Ex. xxv.

r. Descrip- 20-21, it was a chest of ahittim tion. (acacia) wood, standing on four feet,

two cubits and a half (three feet nine inches) long, a cubit and a half (two feet three inches) wide and high; it was overlaid with gold inside and out, decorated with a golden crown (rim or molding), and had a gold ring at each of the four corners above the feet, through which passed staves overlaid with gold that the ark might be carried; these staves were never to be removed. The cover was a massive golden plate, at the end of which figures of cherubim were placed, facing each other and looking toward the cover, while their outspread wings extended over the latter. The place of the ark was at the rear of the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle.

These cherubic figures direct the thought to Yahweh as enthroned over the ark (Ps. lxxx. 1; Jer. iii. 16-17). As it contained the tables of stone upon which were written the ten commandments, God was enthroned over that which was binding upon the people to which nothing could be added

and from which nothing could be taken s. Meaning away. The Hebrew word kapporeth

of Kappo- is beet taken in the sense of "cover," reth. not as " expiatory vessel," as is often

done after the Septuagint, which translates it by hilsat6rion (Vulg. propUiotorium). Passages like Lev. xvi. 14-15; I Chron. xxviii. 11,

do not necessarily require the latter interpretation. For when on the great day of atonement, according to the first passage, the high priest sprinkled the blood of atonement upon the first part of the kapporeth, he did it because it bore the throne of God, to which the blood was to be brought near; and in the same manner the designation of the Holy of Holies as beth ha-kapporeth in the passage in Chronicles, can be rejected as unsuitable to this interpretation only by those who overlook that the kapporeth is not to be thought of without the cherubim which bear the presence of God, which presence it is which makes the place of the ark the Holy of Holies.

With the chests used in the idol worship of some nations of antiquity, the ark of the covenant had nothing at all in common. For those

According to the explicit statement in I Kings viii. 9, a passage which precludes the idea that Solomon made any change in the old Mosaic sanctuary, there was ndthing in the ark save the two tables of stone. When the 4. Contents author of the Epistle to the Hebrews of the Ark. (ix. 4) says that in the ark of the covenant were the golden pot that had manna (Ex. xvi. 33) and Aaron's rod that budded (Num. xvii. 10), he follows a tradition which proceeded from an inaccurate conception of these passages. For when Aaron is commanded (Ex. xvi. 33) to put the pot with manna " before Yahweh," and when Moses is told (Num. xvii. 10) to bring Aaron's rod again " before the testimony," it does not follow that these things were kept inside of the ark. A comparison with other passages where similar expressions are used does not lead to the inference that the pot of manna and the rod were kept in the Holy of Holies, but rather that they were in the sanctuary.

At the destruction of Solomon's temple the ark seems to have been burned; at least the second temple had an empty Holy of Holies.

In the preprophetic age, °' the ark " was the most important symbol of the Hebrew religion, and its functions belonged almost wholly to that period. The preceding sketch takes for granted that the descriptions of it given in

6. Charac- Exodus correspond to its form, conter of the dition, and contents as it actually Accounts appeared throughout its many vicissiin Exodus. tudes. But it is now generally admitted that they are an idealization, like the accounts in the same priestly code of the tabernacle itself. The tradition, however, that the ark was transported from Sinai to Palestine, and was moved from place to place till it was finally lodged in the shrine of David in Jerusalem and thence naturally transferred to the temple of Solomon, is doubtless based on fact.

The chief significance of the ark in the history of religion is that it represents in unique fashion the transition stage between the primitive conceptions of the Deity and those announced by the prophets. The advance made by the Mosaic revelation upon the previous beliefs of the Hebrews is signally shown in its representation

whether the version of the decalogue contaided in Ex. xx. (E) or that of xxxiv. (J) was the one that was laid in the ark. So long as both versions were in vogue neither could have been regarded as exclusively sacrosanct. Possibly some sacred stone was first placed in the ark as a talisman. It is noteworthy that the place in the Jordan where the ark stood when the waters were divided was marked by a heap of stones-a sacred memorial (Josh. iii. iv.). The first period in the history of the ark came to an end with its capture by the Philistines when it was demonstrated that the power of Yahweh did not necessarily accompany those who trusted to its presence for victory (I Sam. iv.). This was doubtless a wholesome lesson; but the moral of it was weakened in later times by the sacerdotalists who added to the genuine tradition stories of the terrible punishments inflicted both upon the Philistines and Hebrews who failed, though unwittingly, fully to appreciate the sanctity of the ark (I Sam. v., vi.).

In the next period the ark, instead of being itself an object of worship and an instrument of blessing or cursing, became a sacred relic in a permanent sanctuary. The transition stage was the time between its return from the Philistine

8. The country and its triumphal transSecond portation to Jerusalem (I Sam. vii. Period. 1-2; II Sam. vi. 1-11). The circumstances are obscure. But this much seems plain: That there was no fitting sanctuary for the ark now that Shiloh, the national religious center, had been destroyed; that the ark itself, having teased to be a beneficent wonder-worker, was kept in seclusion; and that during the whole of the unsettled reigns of Saul and of David in Hebron it was never regarded or appealed to as a national palladium, not even in the most anxious days of battle. When a permanent seat of worship and of central government had been provided by David, it was natural that the most venerable monument of the national religion (cf. Jer. iii. 16) should be securely housed and guarded. But it had lost its practical efficiency. We do not read of its being again taken forth with the army (II Sam. xi. 11 merely implies that it had not as yet a fitting temple of its own); and David himself in his utmost peril refused to have it carried with him when he left Jerusalem before Absalom (II Sam. xv. 24 eqq.). With its removal to the temple of Solomon it disappears from the record of Israel's religion. It was superseded by the living word of Revelation, J. F. MCCURDY.

the scene of his first labors. Subsequently the legendary Trophimus was identified with the person of that name mentioned in the New Testament (Acts xx. 4, xxi. 29; 11 Tim. iv. 12). As a result of the dispute between Hilary, Bishop of Arles from 429 (see HILARY, ST., of ARLES), and Pope Leo the Great, the primatial dignity was abolished in 445 and the office of metropolitan was transferred to Vienne. So firmly grounded, however, was the authority of Arles by this time that in 450 the claims of the church of Trophimus to the primacy and the vicariate were brought- before the pope by nineteen bishops of Gaul, and though Leo refused to admit the validity of these claims he receded so far from his position as to divide the metropolitan dignity between Vienne and Arles. Actually, Arles retained such preeminence as to make it still the first of Gallic episcopates. The incursion of the Visigoths into Provence in 466 severed all relations between Arles and Rome for nearly thirty years, but the rise of the Arian power in southern France and in the north of Italy, led to a reestablishment of the Roman connection, in defense of the threatened cause of orthodoxy. Upon Ceesarius, bishop of Arles, was conferred, in 513, the pallium as token of the vicarial office (for the first time in the history of the Western Church) together with the right of exercising pastoral supervision over the churches in Gaul and Spain. As administrator and, more important still, as a formulator of ecclesiastical legislation Caesarius made his influence felt throughout the country and traces of his work were to be found in Spain, Ireland, Italy, and Germany (see CJYBAmUB OF ARLES). But with the rise of the national Frankish Church and the removal of the political center of the kingdom to the north the authority of the bishops of Arles rapidly declined. AS late as 613 they appear in the character of papal vicars but their importance soon became second to that of the bishops of Lyons. In 794 the number of suffragans under the authority of the Archbishop of Arles was eight; in 1475 they numbered only four. The bishopric was abolished in 1802 but the title of primat des primate des GauW is still borne by the archbishop of Vienne. [Among the ninety-six incumbents of the see the most distinguished, besides those already mentioned, were Vigilius (588-610), who was apostolic vicar under Gregory the Great over all the bishops of Burgundy and Austrasia, Cardinal Peter de Foix (1450-62), an important ecclesiastical statesman, and the last archbishop, Jean Marie Dulan (177592), who was guillotined at the age of eightyseven by the revolutionary authorities.].

BIBLIOGRAPHY: For sources consult Epistolm Arelatenses penuan(v and Epistolas Viennenses apurio°, in MGH, E put., iii. (1891) 1-109. On the general subject, M. Trichaud, Histoire de la eaente 6gliee d'Arles, 4 vole., Paris, 1858-65; E. LSning, Geschiahte des deutechen Kirckenreehta, i. 436-498, Strasburg, 1878; J. Langen, Geschichte der romiechen Kirche, i. 742-785, Bonn, 1881; W. Gundlach, Der Strea der Bw tamer Arles and Vienne. Hanover, 1890; D. Bernard, La Basilique primahale de St. Trophtme d'Arles, Paris, 1893; L. Duchesne, Pastes _piecopaua de 1'aneianne Gaule, i., chap. ii. 84-144, Paris, 1894.

ARLES, SYNODS OF: The first great western synod was held at Arles, in the presence of the em-

peror Constantine, who called it, and under the presidency of Marinus, the bishop of the place, in 314 (316?). Thirty-three bishops were present, representing almost all the western provinces, from Africa to Britain. The significance of the synod in regard to the Donatist controversy will be treated under DoNATism. The canons are principally interesting as showing how the Church endeavored to adapt itself to the alteration in its circumstances brought about by the recognition of Christianity. They declare that the acceptance of a government office is no reason for forsaking the fellowship of the Church, and that those who refused to serve in the army when summoned should be excommunicated, while they refused to consider charioteers and actors as members of the Church unless they renounced their professions. The principal enactments, however, related to -clerical and lay

discipline. Important regulations as to ecclesiastical usages were the prescription of unanimity in keeping Easter, the forbidding of the African custom of rebaptizing heretics, and the requirement of the presence of three bishops at least for an episcopal consecration. Another synod was held at Arles in 353 during the Arian controversy; it is not included in the usual enumeration. What is called the second synod was held in the fifth century, not before 443. Its 56 canons are mostly reafrmations of older decrees. It is called in question by Duchesne (Pastes episcopaux, Paris, 1894, p. 141). The next synod, in 451, declared its adhesion to the " Tome of St. Leo " on the Incarnation. What is usually called the third, a few years later, decided a local dispute between a bishop and an abbot. After two more synods, in 463 and about 475 (for the latter see LuCIDUS), the so called fourth met under the presidency of Caesarius in 524, and was largely concerned with means for increasing the number of the clergy. The fifth was held in 554, to establish more firmly the episcopal authority. No others worth mentioning occur until the reforming

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The acts are in Manai, Concilia, the canons of 1, 2, 4, and b in H. P. Brume, Canones apoatodorum et coneiliorum, ii., Berlin, 1839; of 4 and 6 in AfCfH Corn cilia, i. (1893), ii. (1904); consult Hefele, Concilien9eechichte, passim.

ARMAGH, BISHOPRIC OF: An ancient episcopal see in Ireland, traditionally reputed to have been founded by St. Patrick about 445, and now existing in connection with both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Churches. It had exclusive metropolitan

jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland until 1152, when a national council at Kells provided for the elevation of three other sees, those of Cashel, Dublin, and Tuam, to archiepiscopal rank, Armagh still holding the primacy. Of the earlier archbishops the most famous was St. Malaehy (d. 1148; see MwLACay O'MoRawIR, ST.); the friend of St. Bernard and reformer of the Irish Church. Edward VI., in the course of his efforts to establish Protestantism, attempted to transfer the primacy to Dublin, and the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin is at present designated as °' primate of Ireland," while his colleague of Armagh has been known as " primate of all Ireland " since the beginning of the eighteenth century. The Roman Catholic succession was maintained with the greatest difficulty in the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; one archbishop was assassinated, another died in the Tower of London, and a third (Plunket) was executed in 1681 on the charge of complicity in the " Popish Plot." The diocese comprises Louth, the greater part of Armagh and Tyrone, and a section of Derry. The Anglican diocese included that of Clogher from 1850 to 1886 when Clogher was restored as a separate jurisdiction. For additional details on the earlier history, see CELTIC CHURCH 1N BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

Negotiations for Union with Rome

and the Greek Church (§ b).

hot. The native geographers regarded their land as the middle of the world.

L History: The older history of Armenia is learned from Assyrian accounts and native cuneiform inscriptions. The Assyrians called the country Urartu (see A88YRTA), corresponding to the Biblical land or kingdom of Ararat (II Kings xix. 37; Ira. xaxvii. 38; Jer. li. 27). The native name for the people is Chaldini from Challis, their chief god. The oldest inhabitants are distinguished from the later by their language, which is allied to the Ural-Altaic family. Originally living east of Lake Van, the Urarteans pressed to the south and east and founded a kingdom as rivals of the Assyr-

ians. Their capital was the well-fortified gardencity Van-Tuspa. The temple of the national god Chaldis became the center of the theo-

i. The Old cratically organized kingdom. By Armenian means of the Menuas canal (at Kingdom- present the Shamiram Su), King Men-

The advance of Indo-Germanic tribes in the sixth eentury B.C. added greatly to the population of Armenia. The Persians and Greeks

The overthrow of the Pa,rthian Arsacidw and the establishment of the rule of the Sassanida' in Persia in 226 was of great importance for

3. The Per- Armenia. As relatives of the desian Period, throned legitimate heirs, the Arme226-642. nian princes were the sworn enemies of the Persian kings. In 238 the Armenian King Chosrov was murdered at the instigation of the Persians. During the following disturbances the latter succeeded in occupying the country temporarily and forcing upon it the hated Mazdaism, till in 261, by the victory of Odenathus of Palmyra, the country received its freedom. The king's son Trdat (Tiridates), who had fled to Roman territory, restored the kingdom and mainL-19

tained it in the closest connection wth Rome and in continual struggle with the Persians. The conversion of the king and people to Christianity necessitated a policy friendly to Rome, which came to an end by the unhappy issue of Julian's campaign and the disgraceful peace of Jovian, 363. The Persians occupied Armenia and King Arsaces (Arshak) was made a prisoner. Valens, perceiving the great mistake, made Arshak's son Pap king (367-374). But the nobility and priests had the upper hand. From 378 to 385 the kingdom was governed by the clerically inclined Manuel the Mamikonian. In 387 Theodosius the Great divided the kingdom with the Persians; the Romans received a piece of the West with Garin (Theodosiopolis), but four-fifths of Armenia came to Persia. Till 428 nominal Armenian kings ruled under Persian supremacy; then marzbans (" frontier-governors ") were appointed, some of whom were Armenians. On the whole, the Persians showed.great consideration for the country. Many revolts favoring the Byzantines were unsuccessful, but after the Emperor Maurice reinstalled Chosrov Parvez in 591, the latter peacefully ceded almost all Armenia to the empire. With the rise of the Mohammedan power it fell under Arab rule.

The first century of the califs was an epoch of national and literary development, and Ashot I.,

Califs and in becoming the prince of princes the Inroads and in obtaining in 885 the royal of the Turks crown from the calif. The new

II. Literature: An Armenian literature corn. mences with the introduction of the Armenian writing. Until the fourth century they wrote Syriac, Greek, or Persian. Armenian works add to belong to this early time, are partly translations,

partly later forgeries. The orations of Gregory the Illuminator (Venice, 1838; ed. Ter Mikelian, Vaghanhabad, 1896; German, by J. F. Schmid,

in the Zenop Giak, a Syrian bishop and Fourth afterward abbot of the monastery Century. Burp Garabed in Taron, a history of

The founders of the Armenian national literature are the catholicos Sahag (d. 439) and his friend

menian Till their time there existed no ArmeAlphabet. nian translation of the Holy ScripTranslaticns. tures, and the Bible lessons and

prayers were read either in Syriac or Greek. Mesrob's plan for a special alphabet for the Armenians was favored by Sahag and by King Vramsliapuh (395-416). With the help of the Greek hermit and calligrapher Rufinus, the alphabet, mostly following the Greek, was produced (cf. H. Habsehmann, Ueber Auasprache and Unachrexbung des Akarmenischm, in ZDMG, xxx., 1876, 53 eqq.; V. Gardthausen, Ueber den griechuchen Uraprung der armenischen Schnft, ibid. 74 eqq.). For the Iberians and Albanians, two neighboring nations but dependent upon Armenian culture, Mesrob also invented alphabets. The Armenian alphabet was first applied to the translation of the Bible. But as all Greek books had been destroyed, and the study of Greek was interdicted in the schools, the translation was made from the Syriac version, and not from the original text. Men were sent, however, to Constantinople to study the Greek language and examine authentic copies of the Scriptures; and the result of these exertions was a truly admirable translation, produced after 432 (see BIBLE VEB sioNs, A, VI.). The liturgical books for the church service, the church history of Eusebius, and, the life of St. Anthony by Athanasius, were also translated into Armenian. Of translations, the Greek text of which has perished, the following may be mentioned: Certain treatises of Philo; the chronicle of Eusebius; the apology of Aristides;

homilies of Severianus of Gabala; the commentaries of Ephraem Syrus on the Bible; and certain writings of Basil the Great, Chryaostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanaeiua, and others. All these works belong to the golden period. To the later school of translators are attributed translations of Plato's works, Aristotle's categories, and Porphyry's commentary on them, Ignatius' shorter epistles, writings of Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Euthalius, and others.

The original literature of the Armenians is almost exclusively historical and theological. To Mearob's

of a history of Armenia to the death of Meareb (440), the only native source for the preChristian period of the country. It probably originated in the seventh or early eighth century and was first published at Amsterdam, 1695, and with a Latin translation' by W: and G. Whiston, London, 1736; the best edition is that of the Mekhitarists (Venice, 1843) in the complete edition of Moses's works; French tranal., in Langlois, u. 46 sqq., German by M. Lauer (Regensburg, 1869). To Moses is also ascribed a rhetoric and geography, edited with the history by the Whistons; a better recension is offered by A. Soukry, in his French and Armenian edition (Venice, 1881; cf. von Gutschmid, ut sup., 282 eqq., 322 eqq.; A. Carri6re, Moue de %horen et lee gf&dogim patriareaks, Paris, 1891, and Nouvedles sources de Mofae de Khoren,Vienna,1893).

One of the most eminent of Armenian historians is Eghishe (Eliseaus) Vartabed, author of a history of the religious war of the Armenians against the Persians under Yezdigerd II., 439-151 (Eng. trand., by C. F. Neumann, London, 1830). His junior contemporary, Lazar of Parpi, wrote a history of Armenia from 388 to 405. John Mandakuni, catholicos 480-487, wrote homilies and prayers. To the seventh century belongs Bishop Sebeos'a history of Heraelius. Toward the end of the century the church history of Socrates was translated into Armenian, and an orthodox Armenian wrote in Greek an important but partial sketch of Armenian church history from Gregory the Illuminator to his own time.

To the eighth century belong John of Odzun, surnamed the Philosopher, and Stephen, arch-

4. The writings of Dionysius Areopagita, Eighth and Cyril of Alexandria, Nemesius, Atha-

manus to the Armenians. In the same century Armenian translations were made of the writings of Georgius Pisida, Heaychius of Jerusalem, Theodore of Ancyra, Evagrius, Antipater of Bostra, Johannes Climaeus, and Titus of Crete. Toward the end of the century Levond (Leontius), " the great Vartabed," wrote a history of the Arabian inroads into Armenia and the ware with the Empire, 661-788

To the tenth century belong two historical works, one by the catholicos John, an Armenian history from the beginning to the year 925; the other by Thomas Artsrum, giving the history of the Arts rnniana to 936. In the same century lived Chosrov the Great, who wrote an exposition of the Armenian breviary; Mesrob the Priest, the biographer of Nerses the Great and author of a history of the Georgians and Armenians; and Gregory of Narek, a celebrated writer of hymns, prayers, homilies, etc. Historians include Uchtanes, Bishop (of Urha, i.e., Edessal), and Moses of Kalankaituk. To the eleventh century belong Stephen Asolik of Taron, author of a history to the year 1004; Aristakes of Laadiverd, who in his history from 989 to 1071 describes the catastrophe of Armenia caused by the Seljuka; and Gregorios Magistros (1058), whose letters are important for contemporary history.

Another flourishing period is the twelfth century under the reign of the dynasty of the Rupenides. To this time belong Nerses Klayetsi or Shnorhali, catholicos 1166-73, who wrote poems and prayers, the latter translated into thirty-six languages; Ignatius, author of a commentary on Luke; Sarkis Shnorhali, who wrote on the catholic epistles; Matthew of Edema, whose history, comprising the period from 952 to 1132, and continued by Gregory the Priest to 1162, contains many interesting notices concerning the crusades; Samuel of Ani, author of a chronicle to the year 1179, continued later to 1664; Nerses of Lambron, Archbishop of Tarsus, whose dogmatic works and spiritual addresses are published with the dogmatic letters of Gregory Tla, catholicos 1173-80; Michael the Great, patriarch of the Syrians 1166-99, who wrote a chronicle to the year 1198; and Mekhitar Gosh (d. 1213), author of 190 fables.

The thirteenth century was also rich in authors. Vartan the Great wrote a chronicle to the year 1268, and an exposition of Biblical passages. Giragos of Gandsak wrote a history consisting of two parts: one comprising the older Armenian history to 1165; the other contemporaneous, treating of the Mongols, Iberians, and the author's country, Albania, to 1265. His contemporary, the monk Maghakia wrote a history of the Mongolian inroads to 1272. Stephen Orbelian; archbishop of Siunik 1287-1304, wfote a history of Siunik. Scraped, brother of King Hetum I. (1224-69), composed a chronicle to 1274, continued to 1331. Mekhitar of Ayrivank wrote a chronography to 1289. To the period of decay belong Thomas of Metsop, of the fifteenth century, author of a history of Timur and his successors. To the seventeenth century belongs Arakel of Tabriz, author of a history from 1602 to 1661. With the eighteenth century commences the literary activity of the Mekhitarists (q.v.) and an entirely new era, animated by Western science.

III. The Armenian Church: Armenia has the glory of being the first land which made Christianity the reigion of the country. Later legend places the first preaching of Christian doctrine there in the apostolic time and claims for the land the graves of the four apostles, Bartholomew, Thadda'us (Lebbasus), Simon, and Judas. The most prominent and important are Bartholomew and

There can be no doubt that Christianity was introduced in Armenia very early. Before Gregory the Illuminator, the true apostle of a. Gregory Armenia, Merujan, the bishop of the the Illumi- Armenians, wrote a letter on repent-

Athenogenes (Atanagines), who were now made the national saints. Gregory then went south and at Ashtishat in the country of Taron destroyed the most celebrated sanctuary of the country, the temple of Vahagn, Anahid, and Astghik, and in its place the splendid Christ-Church, " the first and great church, the mother of all Armenian churches;' was erected. From Taron Gregory went to the province of Ararat, where stood the famous sanctuary of the god Vanatur of Bagavan. This, too, was turned into a church of St. John and St. Athenogenes, and the people who had gathered there from the northeast were baptized.

Three things may be noticed in this newly constituted Armenian Church. First, its national character. Gregory preached in the native tongue; the sons of the former idolatrous priests were educated in a Christian school, which formed the seminary for future bishops; pupils of this school gradually occupied the twelve episcopal sees, established by Gregory. The second feature is the compulsory conversion, and the third the

Judaic character of the church. The 3. History patriarchate has its parallel rather

in specific Christian distinctions; like the episcopate, it became hereditary in some families. The superior clergy, as a rule, were married. Gregory was followed by his younger son, Ariatakes, who in 325 .attended the Council of Nicsea; then by his elder son Vrtanes, who made his elder son Gregory catholicos of the Iberians and Albanians. Nerses, great-grandson of Vrtanea, ordained catholicoa at the urgent wish of king and people, in 385 convened a synod at Ashtishat, which regulated marriages between relatives, limited the excessive mourning over the dead, and founded the first monasteries, the first asylums for widows, orphans, and the sick, and the first caravansaries for travelers. King Arshag, displeased with the order of things; appointed an anticatholicos, but when Arshag was made prisoner by the Persians, Nerses acted as regent for the minor king Pap (387-374). As soon as the latter became of age he abolished many things introduced by Nerses, and poisoned him before 374. Basil of Ckesarea anathematized the Armenian kingdom and refused to consecrate a new catholicos. But King Pap found pliant clerics who were willing to receive ordination from native bishops. After Nerses's death Armenia was definitely freed from all spiritual connection with Csesarea and made ecclesiastically independent. About 390 Sahsg the Great, the Parthian, Nerses' son, was made catholicos. His government forms the most important turning-point of the Armenian Church. Like his father he promoted monasticism; he opposed the deposition of the last king Ardaehes and the turning of Armenia into a Persian satrapy (428). But the nobility had its way and the Persian government, by making use of this opposition, deposed the influential Sahag and appointed two Syrians in succession as catholicoi. Through the efforts of Sahag and Meerob, the Syrian language was now superseded by the Armenian. The continued connection with Greece preserved the Armenian

Church from being crippled and isolated. At the request of the nobility, Sahag was again made catholicos, before he died (Sept. 15, 439). He was the last in the male line of the family of Gregory the Illuminator. The family estate went to his daughter's sons, the Mamikonisns, whereas the dignity of catholicos, after Grew-Oriental custom, was now given to monks. Sahag's successor, Joseph, held a synod at Sahapivan to remove certain abuses. The Council of Chalcedoa (451),which later Armenians condemned, had no effect upon the contemporaries, because King Yezdigerd II. (438--457) endeavored to make Mazdaism the ruling religion in Armenia. The princes yielded at first, but soon the people revolted, and the magi and their temples had to suffer. Vartau the Ma,mikonian stood at the head, but the Armenians were defeated in 451 and many of the nobles and clerics were deported to Persia, where they suffered martyrdom after many years of imprisonment. One of these martyrs was Joseph the catholicos (454). The persecution ceased in 484, and during the time of peace which now followed, the Armenians were wholly influenced by the ruling Greek-Oriental theology, and Zeno's Henotikon (482) became their rule of faith. The synod at Vagharshabad, which was convened in 491 by the catholicos Babken and which was attended not only by the Armenian bishops but also by the Albanian and Iberian, solemnly condemned the Council of Chalcedon. This synod is epoch-making in the Armenian Church. From now on the Armenians, as well as the Syrians and Egyptians accept only the strict Monophysitie doctrine as orthodox (cf. A. Ter Mikelian, Die armenische Hirche is ihren Beziehungen xur byza»tiniachen, Leipaie, 1892). With the Persian government the clergy had thus fax lived in peace. But an effort to erect a temple of. fire in the capital Duin in 571 led to a massacre of the magi and Persians. The Armenians for the time being attached themselves to the Romans. Many priests and the catholicos fled to Constantinople, where the latter died. Armenia remained under Persian sway.

main church; the catholicos and the bishops received the sacrament from a Greek priest. Justinian II. (689-690) succeeded in making a new union with the catholicos Sahag III. (677-703) and his bishop, whom he had called to Constantinople; but having returned to their homes, they repudiated it. Under the patriarchate of Elia (703713), Nerses Bakur, catholicos of the Albanians, and Queen Sparam tried to introduce the Chalcedonian belief into their country. But the Armenian catholicos protested against them to the calif Abd al-Malik and with the help of Arabian soldiers the two leaders were taken to Damascus bound in chains and the Albanian orthodoxy was saved. During the ninth and tenth centuries under the rule of the Bagratunians the Church became again influential. Many monasteries were built, and many theologians and famous ascetics are mentioned. Even Monophysitic coreligionists from Colchis and the Roman empire entered the Armenian monasteries. But this growth of religious life also developed hatred of the Greeks. In vain was the correspondence between the patriarch Photius and the catholicos Zakaria (853-876). The very friendly letters of Nicolaus Mysticus and of the catholicos John the Historian (897925), touched merely upon the oppressed condition of the Armenian empire, avoiding all theological questions. Anania (943-965), however, following the counsel of " the deep thinkers " advised to rebaptize the Greeks. His mild successor, Vahanik, being suspected of heresy, was deposed. An effort of the zealous metropolitan of Sebastia to discuss again the question of the two natures, was frustrated by the catholicos Khachik (971-990) in a long letter still extant (Stephanus Asolik, iii. 21) and the orthodox Armenian doctrine was defended by quotation from the Fathers. Khachik's successor, Sargis (992-1019) resided at Ani, the famous residence of the Bagratuniang, where Queen Katramide, wife of Gagik (989-1020) had built a splendid cathedral. A hard time began for the Armenian Church when in the ninth century the realm was annexed by the Byzantine empire. A large orthodox hierarchy was established in the new provinces. At the head stood a metropolitan with the title of Keltzene, Kortzene, and Taron, besides twentyone bishops. Of course, they were shepherds without sheep. The Greeks continued their efforts to force upon the Armenians the Chalcedonian faith. The opposition was much strengthened by the ill-treatment of the higher clergy. Khachik II. (1058-65) was kept a prisoner at Constantinople for three years. The revenues of the catholicos decreased to such a degree that the incumbent often was in want. But with Vahram, the son of Krikor, catholicos 1065-1105, the patriarchate became again hereditary, as in the beginning. Krikor's seven successors till 1202 were his relatives on either the father's or mother's side. They were called Pablavuni, because they traced back their supposed pedigree to Gregory the Illuminator and the Buren Pahlav. There is no doubt that this family rendered great services to the Armenian Church in different times. Jealousy and self-interests were sometimes the cause of anticatholicoi,

only considered those as lawful who belonged to

Gregory's house. In 1147 Gregory III. Pahlavuni

(1113-66) bought of the widow of Count Jocelin

of Edessa the fortress Hromkla, which remained

the residence of the Armenian catholicoi till 1293.

The close relation between the Armenian king

dom of Cilicia and the Latin states of Syria and

Palestine, soon brought the Armenian Church

into closer contact with Rome. At first the Arme

nians welcomed the crusaders as enemies of the

Greeks. But they soon changed their minds when

they had to suffer (as, e.g., in Edessa) under their

rule. Negotiations for a union were

g. Negotia- soon resumed. From political mo

tions for tives the kings especially, sometimes

Union with also the catholicoi, favored these

Rome and ineffectual negotiations. Levon II.,

the Greek " because he ascribed his greatness

Church. to the apostles Peter and Paul in

Rome," wished to obtain a royal

crown from Pope Celestine III. and Emperor Henry

VI. Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz,

brought the crown in 1198 with three papal injunc

tions: (1) To celebrate the principal festivals on

the same days as the Roman Church; (2) Con

tinual devotion by day and night; . (3) To fast on

Christmas-eve and Easter-eve. The king pacified

the nobles and the clergy with the words " Be

not disturbed, I will play the hypocrite." During

the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a small

fraction of the Armenian nation had become

definitely united with Rome. The Vartabed John

of Cherni learned the Latin language from the

Dominican Bartholomew and in connection with

him founded a special branch of the Dominicans,

the Unitores. He introduced the Latin language

into the service of the Church, declared the Armenian

sacraments invalid, rebaptized the laymen, and

reordained the ministers who followed him. One

of his adherents, Nerses Balienz, bishop of Urmia,

who with others had been expelled from the Church

and driven from Armenia, in order to revenge him

self went to Avignon and calumniated the Arme

nian Church before the pope, charging it with one

hundred and seventeen errors. They were com

municated to the catholicos, refuted at a synod in

Sis in 1342, and the pope was satisfied by this

thorough refutation. The fanatical action of the

Unitores generally effected the very opposite result.

With the Greeks, too, negotiations concerning

union took place. Emperor Manuel Comnenus

after 1165 corresponded with Nerses IV. Shnorhali

(catholicoa 1166-73). This correspondence was

continued by Nerses' successor Gregory IV.

(1173-80); but the Synod of Hromkla (1179)

rejected all proposals of the Greeks. The death of

Manuel (1180) and of the catholicos Gregory, who

was disposed toward a union, made an end to all

union endeavors. Another effort made in 1196

by the " ecumenical " council at Tarsus in the

interest of King Levon II. was also fruitless. Dur

ing the Persian persecutions the Armenians migra

ted to the West. Rich mercantile colonies existed,

especially in Poland. The escaped catholicoa

Melkiseth died at Lemberg in 1626, after having

founded a bishopric there for which he had consecrated Nikolaios. At the instance of the Jesuits the latter joined the union.

With the seventeenth century a new period begins for the Armenians. From Echmiadzin

(Vagharshabad), the seat of the cab. From tholicos, clerics were sent out to estab-

were established at Lemberg 1616, at Julfa and Leghorn 1640, at Amsterdam 1660 (transferred to Marseilles in 1672), at Constantinople 1677, and elsewhere. Till then the Armenians were little better educated than the Syrians or Copts. The merit of making them acquainted with European culture belongs to Mekhitar and his order,, the Mekhitarists (q.v.). In 1828 Persian Armenia came under Russian away, and again a new period commenced for the national Church.

The national Armenian Church, whose adherents are erroneously called Gregorians, considers as its head the " supreme patriarch and catholicos of all Armenians," residing at Echmiadzin, who is elected by a national council consisting of members of all Armenian eparchies. Connected with the patriarchal see is a theological-philosophical academy. An incomplete catalogue of the library at Echmiadzin was published by Brosset (Catalogue de la bibliotMque d'Edschmiadzin publid par M. Brosset, St. Petersburg, 1840). Besides the supreme patriarchate there are two lower ones, those of Jerusalem and Constantinople.

The Armenians who are united with the Roman See (the .so called Uniates or United Armenians) have

maintained themselves since the times q. The Ar- of the crusaders and the Unitores,

Rome, but the clergy and people remained anti-Roman. When, however, the order of Mekhitarists was established, a catholicate in connection with Rome was founded. Abraham Attar-Muradian in 1721 founded in the Lebanon the monastery of Kerem, which accepted the rule of St. Anthony (see ANTONiAwB, 1). His suecessora besides their own names take also that of the prance of the apostles. For the better regulation of the affairs of the Catholic and United Armenians, Pius IX. issued, July 12, 1867, the bull Reversurus. But a great portion of the United, protected by the Turkish government, did not recognize the injunctions of the bull, and in 1870 they renounced the Roman See, calling themselves Oriental Catholics. The most prominent men among the United and most of the Venetian Mekhitarists aided with them. On May 20, 1870, Pope Pius IX. suspended many priests, and when they did not yield, he excommunicated four bishops and forty-five other priests. The result was that the separatists now formed an independent organization under the civil patriarch John Kapelian, who, however, submitted to Pope Leo XIII. in 1879. In 1880 Anton Hassrm was made the first Armenian cardinal. He died at Rome in 1884. His successor as patriarch of Cilicia with residence at Constantinople was Stephen Aaarian, surnamed Stephanus Petrue X., to whom the pope sent an

encyclical in 1888, in which the preservation of the Armenian language and liturgy for religious purposes is guaranteed to the Armenians, and everything is confirmed which Benedict XIV. enjoined concerning their own and other Oriental liturgies (of. D. Vernier, Histoire du patriarchal Armgnien catleolique, Paris, 1890).

The evangelical movement among Armenians had its origin early in the nineteenth century in several attempts to revive religion is the Eastern Churches. A large number of Armenians in Turkey, inhabiting Cilicia and central and southern Asia Minor, have lost their own language, speaking Turkish, but writing it with Armenian letters.

Evangelical two Armenian ecclesiastics prepared Armenians a version of the New Testament in Turkish for these people, which was afterward printed (1819) at St. Petersburg. About the same time the Church Missionary Society of London sent a mission to Malta to advance the cause of religion in the Greek and other Oriental Church. This mission came in contact with Armenians before its abandonment in 1830. In 1823 the Basel Mission Institute sent two of its graduates, Mr. Zaremba (who was a Russian count by birth) and Mr. Pfander (afterward renowned as a missionary to Mohammedans in India and in Turkey). These men, driven from the Caucasus by the Czar Nicholas L, left a strong evangelical Armenian body, which still perseveres, at Shushi, Shemakhi, and Baku. About this time as Armenian scholar of Conetantinople, acting for the British Bible Society, translated the New Testament into modern, or colloquial Armenian, the ancient and ecclesiastical language being unintelligible to the common people. This wen published at Paris in 1823, and became another of the influences vaguely at work for reform.

The chief advance in this direction same through the American Board, of Boston, Mass., which sent missionaries to Turkey in 1819 and has steadily

prosecuted its purpose of enlightening the members of the Oriental Churches up to this time. Turkey being in turmoil at this time, the mission printingpress was established at Malta; explorations were made throughout Syria, Greece, Egypt, Asia Minor, and finally, in 1830-31, through a large part of Eastern Turkey besides the Caucasus and Persia. As a result, stations of the American Board were founded among the Armenians at Smyrna (1820), Constantinople (1831), Brousa, and Trebizond (1833). The printing plant for Armenian, Turkish, and Greek was removed from Malta to Smyrna in 1835 and there Bible work was pressed forward. A translation of the Bible into modern Armenian, by Elias Riggs, was published in 1852, and.the translation of the Bible into Turkish written with Armenian letters by William Goodell was published in 1841-the first translation of the Old Testament into this language. These two translations placed the Bible within reach of all the Armenians of the Turkish empire. In 1904 the circulation of the Scriptures among Armenians in Turkey amounted to nearly 30,000 copies.

The purpose of the American Board in entering the field of the Armenian Church was by no means hostile to it. Not the Armenians but the assurance of the Mohammedans that they had tested Christianity and found it wanting was the real objective. The first missionaries at Constantinople laid their plans before the Armenian patriarch, and during twelve years had his friendly approval, dally for their schools. A less liberal patriarch punished with severe persecution. from 1845 to 1847 Armenians who had adopted the idea of individual study of the Bible. Finally the British Government interfered in behalf of religious liberty, solemnly proclaimed by the Sultan in the Hatti Sherif of 1839. All Armenians who chose to escape the pains of the ban by declaring themselves Protestants were protected by Turkish police against the rancor of the patriarch; and in 1852-54 the " Protestant Community " as it is officially called, or the " Evangelical Community " as it is called by its members, was formally recognised, with a layman as its representative before the throne, and with all the rights of a separate religious organization. Since then evangelical Greeks, Bulgarians, Syrians, Jews, etc., have been added to this body.

The American Board's missions among the Armenians have extended throughout Asiatic Turkey, to the Persian frontier on the east, and to the Arabic-speaking provinces of Syria and Mesopotamia on the south. The central stations number 13 and the outstations 241, with 161 missionaries (of whom 63 are unmarried women) and 956 native workers. The commnnicanta in its congregations (1905) number 14,542, and the adherents 50,738. It should be noted, however, that separate statistics of the Armenians in these congregations are not kept. It is perhaps safe to estimate them at about seventy percent of the whole number. Educational work is extensive and effective. There are 22,152 scholars of all grades and both sexes is the 529 primary and intermediate schools, the six colleges for men and women, and the four theological seminaries, which receive candidates for the min-

istry of the Old Armenian Church as well as those of the Evangelical body. Robert College at Constantinople, founded by Christopher Robert of New York with Cyrus Hamlin for its first president, is not included in these statistics. It is not connected with the mission, nor is it in any sense propagandist. Yet its liberal education of Armenians has tended to strengthen the position of the Evangelical Armenian body. A publishing house at Constantinople, removed from Smyrna in 1853, and with uninterrupted productiveness since it was founded in Malta in 1822, issues school books, religious books, hymnals, commentaries, and other helps to the study of the Bible, besides a family newspaper that appears in an Armenian and a Turkish edition.

A small number of Armenians have joined the evangelical movement through the mission of the (American) Disciples of 'Christ. Many, whose statistics are not separately kept, have connected themselves with the American Presbyterian missions in Persia. Reckoning all these together, and adding to them the evangelical Armenians in the Russian Caucasus and is the territory taken from Turkey in the war of 1877-78, the total number of Evangelical Armenians may be estimated in these countries at about 80,000.

The Protestant Armenians have organized churches in New York City, Troy, N. Y., Worcester, Mass., Providence, R. I., and Fresno, Cal., besides a number of missions, or places where services, more or less regular, are held. The great majority are connected with the Congregational denomination, but there are Presbyterians. The Gregorians have an archbishop at Worcester, 'and vartabeds or priests at New York, Worcester, Providence, Boston, and.Fresno. These visit other places in their vicinity to perform rites or ceremonies that may be desired. They have church buildings at Worcester and Fresno. The attendance upon

church services is said to be on the whole excellent in those communities where there are regular organizations. It is to be noted that there are many small communities where members identify themselves with the local churches.

BIamoaRAPH.Y: Descriptive and geographical works: H. Hyvernat and P. Mflller-Simonie, Relation des missions seiantifiquee . . . notes eur la giopraphie at i'histoire aneienne de I'Arminie et 1" inscriptions du bassin do Van, Paris, 1892; H. F. Toner, Turkish Armenia and Eastern Asia Minor, London, 1881; E. Nogubree, Armhnie. G60praphie, histoire, religion. maurs, liadrature, Paris, 1897; H. F. B. Lynch, Armenian Travels and Studies, London, 1901. On the people: A. Megorovian, 2tude ethnopra phique et furidique our la famille et Ls rnariage armhnien, Paris, 1895; J. Creagh, Armenians, Koorde and Turks, 2 vole., London, 1880; J. B. Teller, Armenia and its People, London, 1891; G. H. Filian, Armenia and her people. New York, 1896. On the language and literature: F. J. B. Ananian, Dictionary of Modern Armenian Language. Venice. 1869; F. M. Bedrossian, Enp: Armenian and Armenian-Enp. Dictionary, 2 vole., London, 1875-79; J. H. Petermann, Brevis lingua Armenicas prammaticd, Berlin, 1872; K. H. Gulian, Elementary Modern Armenian Grammar. London, 1902; P. Sukias Somal, Quadro delle opera di vari autori anticamente tradottiin Armeno, Venice. 1825, and Quadro della scoria letteraria di Armenia, Venice, 1829; C. F. Neumann, Versuch liner Geschichte den armenischen Littsratur, Leipsic, 1&36, a German adaptation of the preceding; M. Patcanian, Catalogue de la liu&ature arminienne depuis 1e commencement du iv. sitcle iusque vers Is milieu du xvii., in M6langea a siatiquee, iv. l., St. Petersburg. 1860; F. Ntve, L'Arminie ehritienne et sa litttrature, Louvain, 1886.

For the history the sources accessible in European languages are: M. Chamchian. History of Armenia from B.C. 88,17 to A.D. 1780, translated from the original Armenian by J. Avdall, with continuation to date, 2 vole.. Calcutta, 1827; J. Saint-Martin, M6nroir" historiques at gdopra phiques sir I'Armdnie, 2 vole., Paris, 1818-19; M. Broeset, Lee Ruin" d'Ani, 2 parts, St. Petersburg, 1860-61; idem. Collection d'historisns armhnism, 2 vole., St. Petersburg. 1874-76; V. Langlois. Collection den histordena aneisns et modarnes de I'Arminie. 2 vole., Paris, 1869-69; E. Dulaurier, Le Royaume de la Petite-Armftie, in Recued den historians des croisadee: documents arminnisns, i.. Paris, 1869; idea, ttuds our i'organisation politique, relipieuse. et administrative du royaume de la Petite-Arm6nie, in JA, nor. v.. xvii. (1861) 377 eqq., xviii. (1861) 289 eqq. Consult N. T. Gregor, Hist. of Armenia from Earliest Apes, London, 1897 (a handy manual); Nersee Ter-MikseGan, Das armenische Hymnarium, Leipeie. 1906 (a hiet. of the development of hymnology in the Armenian Church).

For the native religion of Armenia, consult H. Geiser, Zurarmenischen GMerlehM in the Berirhte den k6niplichen sachrischen Gesssliechxft den Wissenschaften su Lsipaw. phil.hist Class*, xlviii. (1896) 99-148; A. Canibre, Les Huit Sanetuairae de 1'Armdnie paienne, Paris, 1899. The works mentioned in the text have all been printed, either by the Mekhitariste, at St. Petersburg, or elsewhere; some are accessible in translation, either independently or in collective works like those of Broeset and Langlois, mentioned above. For the history of the Armenian Church. missions, and modern religious conditions consult; E. DuIsurier. Hietoire. dopmee, traditions, et iiturpie de 1'6pliee armhnienne o risntale, Paris, 1865; S. C. Malan, Life and Time of St. Gregory the Illuminator. London, 1868, a

travel. from the Armenian; idea, The Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Armenian Church of St. Gregory, ib. 1870, trawl. from. the Armenian; idea, Confession of Faith of As Holy Armenian Church, i b. 1872; C. H. Wheeler, Ten Years on the Euphrates. New York, 1868; R. Anderson, History of the Missions of the American Board to the Oriental Churches, 2 vole.. Boston, 1870; E. F. K. Forteecue, The Armenian Church, London, 1872; F. Nbve, L'Arminis chraienne, Louvain, 1886; D. Vernier, Hietoire du patriarcat arm6nien catholique. Lyons, 1891; F. C. Conybeare, The Armenian Church, in Religious Systems of the World, London, 1893, and The Key of Truth: a Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Text and travel., London, 1898; H. Geiser, Die Anfange den armeniscben Kirche; in the Beridte der k6niglich sdchsiachen Gesellechaft der WimenacAaften su Leipzig, phil.-hist. Claws. xlvii. (1895) 109-174; W. St. C. Tisdall, Conversion of Armenia to the Christian Faith, London, 1896; Melodies of the Holy Apostolic Church of Apia, the liturgy, etc., translated by J. B. Melik-Belgar, Calcutta, 1897; E. Lohmann, Im Kloster su Sit, gin Beitrag su den Geschichte den Beziehunpen swiaehen dam deutachsn Reiche and Armenien im Mitteialter, Striegau, 1901; K. Beth, Die orientalusche Christenheit den Mittelmeerldnder. Reieeetudien our Statiotik and Symbolik den . armenieshen . . Kirchen, Berlin, 1902; A. Harnack, Die Mission and Auebreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Leipsic, 1902, Eng. travel., London, 1904, passim; 8. Weber, Die katholischa KircheinArmenien. Freiburg, 1903 (the most complete account of Armenian church history to the beginning of the sixth century from the Roman Catholic standpoint); E. Ter-Minassiants, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beeiehungen su den syrischen Kirchen big sum Ends den dreiaehaten Jahrhunderts, T U, new series, xi. 4. The recent disturbances in Armenia have called forth a number of works (some of them to be used with caution), such as F. D. Greene, The Armenian Crisis and the Rule of the Turk, London, 1895; G. Godet. Lea Souffrancea de 1'Arminie, Neuchdtel, 1896(containing a list of churches. monasteries, and villages destroyed, and names of ministers murdered); J. Lepsius, ArmenienundEuropa, Berlin, 1896; J. R. and H. B. Harris. Letters from Armenia, New York. 1897; A. Naaarbek, Through the Storm. Picture of Life in Armenia, New York, 1899; H. O. Dwight, Conetantinople and its Problems, New York, 1901.

ARMINIUS, JACOBUS Uakob Hermanss), AND ARMINIIANISM: A Dutch theologian and the theological system he is supposed to have held. Arminius was born at Oudewater (18 m. e.n.e. of Rotterdam) Oct. 10, 1560; d. at Leyden Oct. 19, 1609. After his father's early death he lived with Rudolphus Snellius, professor in Marburg. In 1576 he returned home and studied theology at Leyden under Lambertus Danmus. Here he spent six years, till he was enabled by the burgomasters of Amsterdam to continue his studies at Geneva and Basel under Beza and Grynmus. He lectured on the philosophy of Petrus Ramus and the Epistle to the Romans. Being recalled by the government of Amsterdam, in 1588 he was appointed preacher of the Reformed congregation. During the fifteen years which he spent here, he gained the general respect, but his views underwent a change. His exposition of Rom. vii. and ix., and his utterances on election and reprobation gave offense. His learned but hot-headed colleague, Petrus Plancius, in particular opposed him. Disputes arose in the consistory, which for the time being were stopped by the burgomasters.

Arminius was suspected of heresy because he regarded the subscription to the symbolical books as not binding and was ready.to grant to the State more power in ecclesiastical matters than the strict Calvinists would admit. When two of the professors of the University of Leyden, Junius and

Churches. In Holland it became allied with the more liberal tendencies,-Socinian, rationalistic, universalistic, thus withdrawing itself from the traditional interpretation of Christianity. The number of its professed adherents in that country (most of them in Amsterdam) is not large (see REMONBTR.ANTs). In England also it developed a strong affinity with Socinianism in its doctrine of God and the person of Christ, and with Pelagianism in its conception of human nature. About the time of the Restoration, according to Hallam (Literary History of Europe, ii., London, 1855,p.131), the Arminians were called Latitude-men or Latitudinarians (q.v.) and were addicted to Greek philosophy and natural religion. During the eighteenth century Arminianism was advocated by many of the leading writers of Great Britain,Tillotson, Jeremy Taylor, Chillingworth, Burnet; by Hoadly, a Socinian; and by Whitby, John Taylor; and Samuel Clarke, Arians. With many others it was rather a repudiation of Calvinism than a definitely formed theory. In America Arminianism showed itself now as an advocacy of freedom of thought and thus of toleration; now as emphasis on natural human duties rather than on speculative theology; now as silent, now as outspoken protest against the tenets of Calvinism. Owing to the writings of Whitby, John Taylor, and Samuel Clarke, its influence greatly increased in the eighteenth century. To Jonathan Edwards its menace formed the motive for his greatest work, The Freedom of the Will. The name itself was made to cover many things for which Arminianism proper was not responsible-rationalistic tendencies of thought, depreciation of the serious nature of sin, indifference to vital piety, and laxity of morals. Arminianism became more a condition than a theory. In spite of opposition, however, in part .on account of its later profound spirit through Wesley, and in part by virtue of its essential truth, it has thoroughly leavened the Christian thought of America. A sign of the times is, that theological schools confessedly Arminian educate young men for Churches which are traditionally Calvinistic, and ministers holding Arminian views are received by such Churches as thoroughly "orthodox." C. A. B.

BIHwomAP87: The works of Arminius were published Frankfurt, 1631, Eng. tmnel., by J. and W. Nichols, London, 1826-28; the latter contains life by Brandt and the oration by P. Bertius; best Am. ed. of the works and life, New York. 1842; the life is published separately, London, 1864. On the original doctrines, The Confession of Faith of those called Armenian# .... As Doctrines of the Minis ters . . . known by the name of Remonstrant*, lransl. out o/ the Original, London. 1684. The official Ads are in Aata etfnoali nationalis Dordrechti, Dordyeeht, 1620. Fr. transl., 1624, and in J. A. Fabricius, BsViofaw Gram. xi. 723. Hamburg, 1706; the Canons are in P. Schaff, Creeds o/ Christenom, iii. 660-897, New York, 1877; the collection of minutes in Ada et ecrspla eynodalia Dorraacena, Harderwyek. 1620; consult: M Graf, Beitrap sun fieschichte der Synods won DorbecM, Basel, 1826. On the earlier Anminianiem, G. Brandt, Historia reformationis Beloica, 3 vole.. The Hague, 1700, Eng. tranal., 4 vole., London, 1720; J. Nichols, Calvinism and Arminianism compared in their Principles and Tendency. 2 vole., London, 1824; RL, i. 1376-84. On late; phases, W. Cunningham, Reformers and Theology of So Reformation, Essay vii., Edinburgh, 1862; idem. Historical Theology, chap. acv., Edinburgh, 1862; J. L. Girardeau, Calvinism

and Evangelical Arminianism compared, Columbia, 1890; G. L Curtiw Arminiansens sn Hsetory. Cincinnati. 1894.

ARMITAGE, THOMAS; Baptist; b. at Pontefract (20 m. s.s.w. of York), Yorkshire, England, Aug. 2, 1819; d at Yonkers, N. Y., Jan. 20, 1896 He became a Methodist preacher at the age of sixteen; emigrated to America in 1838; joined the Baptists in 1848 and was pastor of the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church, New York (then located on Norfolk Street and known as the Norfolk Street Church), from that year till Jan. 1, 1889. He was one of the founders of the American Bible Union (1850) and its president 1856-75. He published Preaching, its Ideal and Inner Life (Philadelphia, 1880); A History of the Baptists Traced by their Vital Prirteiplea and Practices from the Time o/ our Lord and Saviour Jam Christ to the Present (New York, 1887; revised and enlarged eel., 1890).

ARNAUD, dr"nb', HENRI: Waldensian; b. at Embrun (58 m. se of Grenoble), Department of Hautes Alpes, France, Sept. 30, 1641; d. at Sch6nenberg near Ddrrmena (19 m. n.w by w. of Stuttgart), Wiirttemberg, Sept. 8, 1721. He studied at Basel, probably visited Holland, and continued his studies at Geneva; became pastor at Maneille in the valley of St. Martin, 1670, and later at an unknown place in Dauphm6; fled to La Torre, Piedmont, probably shortly after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (October, 1685). He counacted resistance to the persecution of the Waldensians undertaken by Victor Amadeus II., Duke of Savoy, at the instigation of Louis XIV of France, and, when this failed, with the remnant of his people (about 3,000 in number) took refuge in Switzerland. There he was active in plotting for a return, and in August, 1689, he led about 900 of the eidles back to their old homes, where they maintained themselves against the French and Savoyard troops until political conditions (the influence of William of Orange and a breach with France) led the Duke to withdraw his opposition (1690). In the ensuing war with France he rendered good service to the duke, but resumed his spiritual duties in 1692. In 1698, on the renewal of persecution following a fresh alliance with France, he again went into exile in Switzerland, visited Germany, Holland, and England in the interest of his people, and in 1699 settled in Wiirttemberg as pastor of the Waldensians living in and about Diirrmens. He wrote Hiatoire de la glorieuse rentr& des Vaudois dans fear roall6es (Cassel, 1710; later eels., Neuchl:tel, 1845, Geneva, 1879; Eng. transl by H. D Acland, London, 1827).

BIBr.Ipa6APa7: For his life in German conenlt H. H. 13;lsiber. Henri Arnaud. aarh den Qaellea. Stuttgart. 1880; in Italian. E. Combs, Florence, 1889; Fr. eel. of the latter, abridged. with the addition of aerwin letters. Lo Tour, 1889.

ARNAULD: The name of a famous French famlBy, known especially for their connection with Jansemsm The well-known lawyer Antoine Arnauld (1560-1619) foreshadowed the position of his children by defending the University of Paris

against the Jesuits in 1594. Of his twenty children, ten died young; and nine of the others devoted themselves to religion. The most noteworthy are: The eldest, Robert Arnauld (d'Andilly; b. in Paris 1588; d. there Sept. 27, 1674), who held various positions in the government and at the court, but retired in 1640 to Port Royal and devoted himself to church history. He is best known by his translations into French, especially of Josephus and St. Augustine's " Confessions," and the Vies des saints pbnea du desert (2 vols., Paris, 1647-53; Eng. tranal., 2 vols., London, 1757) -Jacqueline Marie Arnauld (known in religion as Marie Ang6lique de Ste. Madeleine; b. in Paris Sept. 8, 1591; d. Aug. 6, 1661) entered the abbey of Port Royal when only seven, and became abbess at eleven. Aroused to fervent devotion in 1609, she began a strict reformation of her abbey according to the Cistercian rule. She resigned the position of abbess in 1630 and introduced the custom of triennial elections. From 1626 to 1648 she was in Paris, at the new house known as Port-Royal de Paris.-Henri Arnauld (b. in Paris 1597; d. at Angers June 8, 1692) was at first a lawyer, but entered the priesthood, was elected bishop of Toul but declined the election since it had occasioned disputes, and became bishop of Angers in 1649. He was an east and zealous diocesan, and a decided Janseniat; he was one of the four bishops who refused to subscribe the bull Unigenifus, which condemned the Auguatinus of Jansen. His Noociacimis d la cow do Rome et ert dif&entea wars d'Italie was published after his death (5 vols., Paris, 1748).--Aatoine Arntutld (b. in Paris Feb. 6, 1612; d. in Brussels Aug. 8, 1694), known as " the great Arnauld," like his brother Henri, studied law at first, but entered the Sorbonne in 1634, tatting- his doctor's degree and being ordained priest in 1641. In 1643 he published his work De la ft*twatte communion, written under St. Cyran's influence (we Du VESoIES DS HAVesxxa, JzAN), with which he began a lifelong struggle against the Jesuits. Its cold and rigid severity was opposed to their system, and they attacked it bitterly. Arnauld carried the war into the enemy's country with his Thtsolopw morale rtes JFsuites (n.p., 1643), and, though for thirty years from 1648 he lived in retirement at Port Royal, his pen was never idle. He defended the cause of Jansen, maintaining in his two famous letters to the Due de Liancourt (1655) that the five condemned propositions were not found in the Augustinus. The Sorbonne condemned these write, and in 1656 expelled him, with sixty other doctors who refused to submit to the decision, from its fellowship. He was obliged to go into biding for a time, and, with Nicole, was sheltered by the Duchess de Longueville. But he was still, as he had been since the death of Saint Cyran (1643), the active head of the Janeeniat party, working diligently to confirm the nuns of Port Royal in their opposition to the papal decrees, supplying Pascal with the material for his "Provincial Letters," and publishing numerous pamphlets and treatises against the Jesuits. When the " Peace of Clement IX." put a temporary end to the strife, Arnanld was able to turn his

weapons against the Protestants, notably in the controversy with Claude on the Lord's Supper, which produced his Perpanttk de la loi de l'4glise catholique touchant l'Euckaristie (Paris, 1664). He still, however, continued to attack the Jesuits, and his defense of the " Gallican liberties " against the king in the controversy over the Droit de r4yale (see REGALE) brought him into such disfavor with the government that in 1679 he again went into hiding and soon after left France for Brussels, where the Spanish governor protected him. Here he wrote two. works of special interest to Englishepeaking people, the Apologia pour lea catholrquea (2 vols., Lidge, 1681-82), a defense of the English Roman Catholics against the charge of conspiracy, especially as brought by Titus.Oates, and an attack on William of Orange (1689). Of more general interest is his controversy with Malebranche, which produced the Traits des vraies e6 des fausses idea (Cologne, 1683) and ]Uft=ions philmophiques et th&logiques sur Is nouveau systmu de la nature et de la grdce du Pbre Malebranche (3 vols., 1685-86). During this period he collaborated with Quesnel in his translation of the New Testament, as he had previously with Nicole and other members of the Port Royal group in their educational works, especially the often-reprinted " Logic." He was a man of wide learning, acute penetration, eloquent style, and untiring diligence, but unbendingly obstinate and set in his own ideas, so that at Port Royal it was a rule never to contradict him, lest he should be unduly excited. His works were published at Lausanne (48 vols., 1775,83).Angtique (de Saint Jean) Arnauld, daughter of Robert (b. in Paris Nov. 24,1624; d. Jan. 29,1684), entered the abbey of Port Royal in her nineteenth year under her aunt's training; became subprioress in 1653 and abbess in 1678. Her firmness of character, and undaunted courage made her the principal support of the nuns during the long and grievous persecution brought upon them by their adherence to Janeemet opinions. Of several works which she wrote, the most important is the Mfoires pow servir d l'hiatoire de Port Royal (3 vols., Utrecht, 1742).-For all the members of the Arnauld family see Jexszrl, Coariarrus, JAW81cN1sm; Pour ROYAL.

AMT, arnt~ AUGUSTM: German Jesuit; b. at Berlin June 22, 1851. He was educated at the universities of Berlin (1872-74), Breslau (1875), and Cracow (1880-84). He was professor of German at the Seminary of Vals, France, in 1878,80, and from 1883 to 1889 he was professor of theology at Cracow, while since the latter year he has been editor of the Katholiadur Sonntagablatt far die Dims Breslau. He has written Homer and Virgil, eine Parnllete (Leipsic, 1873); Der UnaterblidAeRa$aube der Alten (Gifterdoh, 1873); Blutendmusa aua Luthera Werken (Berlin, 1875); Wo tat Wahrheitf (Freiburg, 1875); Pensions aseem dacha Schriften (3 vols., Regeneburg, 1886-87); Der heilige Stanisdaus Koatka (1888); De pra·atantia Societatis Jesu (Cracow, 1890); De rytunm relations juridica (Rome, 1895); De lrZria pro ks"is (Regensburg, 1895); Conferenzen fiber die Konatitutionen der Ursulinerinnen (Breslau, 1897);

Betstunden fur die ewige Anbdung (1897); BiZlia Sacra: die heilige Sduift (Regensburg. 1898); Der JubilaeumebeicAtvater (1900); Handbuchlein der Mdaaigkeitsbruderwhsaften (Breslau, 1900); Vor sehriften fiber daa Verbot der Budher (Trier, 1900); Die kwchhclu;rt RZCAfbeatimmungen uber die Fraw enkongregationen (Mains, 1901); Novizenbuchlein der grauen Schwestern (Breslau, 1901); Kandi.datenbaddein der grauen Schweatem (1901); Jubikeu»u<buchdein (1901); Die vier heiligen Evangelien (Regensburg, 1903); Daa Neue Testament (1903); and Erlasse and Verordnungen (1906) He has likewise written much in Polish, and is the author of numerous briefer contributions.