The

dead man. Among many peoples the belief is general that a previously existing soul, whether human, animal, or vegetable, spontaneously, without union of the sexes, enters the body of a woman and causes pregnancy, whence a new being reappears in a new form. Such beliefs or theories can be explained in part only on the ground of wide-spread ignorance of the invariable physiological conditions of reproduction. As the cause of death, so also the cause of birth remained hidden. The relation of the mother to the offspring is constant and unequivocal, while that of the father, owing to economic or religious conditions, is often indifferent and not well understood. Even where knowledge of the laws of reproduction have become more extended and better established, tradition still maintains its hold in popular myths concerning the birth-stories of great men in primitive times (cf. Hartland, ut sup., and his Legend of Perseus, 3 vols., London, 1894-96). Nowhere, perhaps, has comparative religion discovered a more impressive instance of virgin birth than in the Eleusinian Mysteries. The supreme moment of the solemn celebration of these rites was marked by the marriage of the sacred mother and the birth of the sacred child. mother was Brimo, a maiden, a goddess of the underworld, the Thessalian Kore or Demeter, the goddess of the fruits of the cultivated earth. At night, in deep darkness, and in perfect chastity, the mimetic marriage was enacted by the hierophant and the chief priestess of Demeter. Immediately afterward the hierophant came forth into a blaze of torches, and with a loud voice cried to the initiates that the great and unspeakable mystery was accomplished: "Holy Brimo has borne a sacred child, Brimos," the mighty has borne the mighty, and holy is the generation that is spiritual, heavenly, from above, and mighty is he who is so engendered (Philosophumena, p. 170, Paris, 1860; cf. Harrison, ut sup., pp. 525, 548 sqq.; Tertullian, Ad Nationes, ii. 7). Since the begetting and the birth were both symbolical, the mystic rite was performed without physical contamination, the "mother" remaining a maiden still. Thus at the very heart and culmination of the ceremonies at this sacred shrine in ancient Greece, centuries before its appearance in the Septuagint, the dogma had been created, " A virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son."

The legendary theory has a vast background and makes an impressive showing. The point is not so much that birth from a virgin is alleged-this is seldom the case-as that the conception is super

natural. That the stories are some26. Criti- times gross signifies that they are an cism of the integral part of the religions in which Legendary they are found; a spiritual religion would transform the supernatural Theory. agency into forms of action worthy of a spiritual being. The most vigorous advocates of this theory do not, however, claim that they have more than presumptive evidence for their view; the historical connection between the universal myth of supernatural birth and the stories of the New Testament has not yet been traced.

It remains to consider the dogmatic bearings of

the virgin birth. To the tenet of the Luthera church of Germany, "that the Son of God 'com. ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary is the foundation of Christianity," Harnack replies "It is a dangerous but fallacious dilemma that the idea of the God-man stands or falls with the virgin birth" (Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 39), and he adds, "If this were the case, ill would fare Mark, ill Paul, ill John, ill Christianity." Rope (ut sup., p. 695) declares that "Good Christian ma may take opposite sides of this question, withou giving up that which is vital and cardinal to the faith." It formed no part of the preaching or mes sage of the apostles, and no doctrinal use is made of it in the New Testament On the supposition that the writers d the New Testament outside of the Fis and Third Gospel knew of the virgi

27. Is the Dogma Essential to Christianity?

birth, they never availed themselve of it in the formulation of any do trine. Other theories of the person of Christ wen both suggested, and were more or less constitutin in the earliest Christian teaching (see SON OF GOD). The divine element in Christ has been explained as an endowment conferred at his baptism. Pad John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews make very significant use of both the fact and the nature of the preexistent element in Christ's per son. It has been contended that between preexist ence and the nativity account in Matthew and Luke there is an irreconcilable contradiction, since both of these Gospels speak as if, by the action of the Spirit of God, a new individual in all respects came into being (cf. A. Réville, Histoire du dogm de la divinité de Jésus-Christ, p. 30, Paris, 1869; Orr, ut sup., pp. 208 sqq.). It is true that the Kenosis theories (see CHRISTOLOGY, KENOSIS) have been proposed, and with elaborate and ingenious re finement have been made to serve as mediators be tween the Pauline and Johannean conscious pre existence, on the one hand, and on the other, the narratives of the infancy and the development of Jesus; but instead of elucidating, they have made still more perplexing the profound mystery of the person of Christ, and are falling into disfavor.

The dogmatic use of the virgin birth involves two considerations-sinlessness and incarnation. Its bearing on sinlessness rests on two postulates, that contamination derived from Adam's sin through natural generation is inevitable, and that there was in Jesus Christ a divine, preexistent element which is not in us; hence his human nature 28. Dog- differed from ours, and, accordingly, matic Bear- he was not affected by Adam's sin ing on In the position that sinlessness de Sinlessness. pended upon the virgin birth, there is assumed the Augustinian doctrine of the fall of man, and also the invariable hereditary taint of sin transmitted through ordinary processes of human birth. Of this basis of sinlessness the New Testament knows nothing. Paul finds the secret of Jesus' character in the peculiar nature of his person in relation to preexistence (cf. Phil. i 5 sqq.; Rom. viii. 3, ix. 5; Gal. iv. 4; II Cor. vii. 9). For John the Logos doctrine offered the key to the supreme grace and truth of Christ. In the ear

lier preaching, the clue to the perfect fulfilment of both the royal and the prophetic hopes of Israel in a person of divine excellence is found in the divine designation of Jesus as the Messiah. Schleiermacher suggested that the exclusion of Joseph from participation in the conception of Jesus does not relieve the difficulty (Der christliche Glaube, § 97, 7th ed., Gotha, 1889; cf. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, i. 153-154, Tübingen, 1835), for Mary was likewise subject to original sin, and must have contributed of her sinful principle to Jesus. Moreover, Schultz has shown that the Scriptures represent woman as weaker and more susceptible to temptation than is man (Die Lehre von der Gottheit Jesu, p. 593, Gotha, 1881). To avoid this general conclusion, different positions have been taken: (1) that in the conception Mary was wholly passive; hence no sinful impulse was communicated from her to the new life; (2) Jesus was born not of (ek) but through (dia) Mary, a docetic position of certain Gnostics (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Valentinum, xxvii., ANF, vol. iii.); (3) by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (q.v.), Mary, although born of a human father and mother, was herself miraculously preserved from both hereditary and actual sinfulness. Yet from the common Protestant point of view it is objected that the assumptions underlying these positions are invalid; the laws of natural generation are themselves ordained by God, and, accordingly, are not sinful. Even if the conception was as alleged, still during the period of gestation her influence was normal with the unborn child (Lobstein, ut sup., pp. 84 sqq.). Calvin maintained that Jesus was perfectly immaculate, not because man had no part in his conception, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit so that his generation was as pure and holy as it would have been before Adam's fall (Institutes, II., xiii. 3-4).

A further dogmatic use of the virgin birth grounds the incarnation on it. While one can not a priori affirm that such a birth was a necessary form of divine action, nor that the doctrine of the incarnation is historically traced to such a birth, yet this would seem the more congruous to the event (cf. W. N. Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology, pp. 289 sqq., New York, 1898). The affirmation is further made that, given an eternal preexisting

being who is born without changing 29. Dog- or taking a new personality, but merematic Bear- ly by assuming a new nature and ening on tering new conditions of experience, Incarnation. this can not be thought of as occurring by the ordinary process of generation, since this involves the beginning of a new personality. Denial of the virgin birth, therefore, is tantamount to the reduction of Jesus to the rank of a purely human personality, however intimate his relation with God (cf. Gore, Dissertations, pp. 6465). In addition it is maintained that the spiritual miracle in the person of Christ requires a corresponding physical miracle, and since this goes down to the ultimate ground of Mary's nature, a second miracle of the same sort with reference to Joseph would be unnecessary; while the mode of the event symbolizes the unique character of the person (Orr, ut sup., pp. 223 sqq.). On the other hand, many of

those who deny the virgin birth deny not only the virgin life (cf. A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 410, New York, 1892), but also the traditional theory of the incarnation; the latter, however, not because of denial of the virgin birth. The Nicene Creed connected the incarnation with the virgin birth, but this was for the sake, not of basing the incarnation on the birth of Christ, but of showing its reality, i.e., the reality of his human nature as against Gnostic interpretations and tendencies (cf. A. C. McGiffert, Apostles' Creed, New York, 1902). That view of the incarnation which seeks the proof of Christ's divinity in his ethical and spiritual revelation of God naturally lays less stress upon the virgin birth than upon the character of his consciousness and the impression he makes upon men.

It has been urged that in the doctrine of the virgin birth the divinity of Christ is lowered from a spiritual to a natural basis, his full humanity sacrificed, and an illusory wall reared between the natural and supernatural (cf. Lobstein, ut sup., pp. 106 sqq.). Those who hold that the idea of the virgin birth is an amalgamation of Jewish Messianism and Hellenistic Logos doctrine, or who maintain that the most exalted Christology owes nothing to this tradition, have no dogmatic interest in this question (cf. Biblical World, x. 1 sqq.). One may ignore the inquiry into origins, or may declare this to be a secret hidden in the personality of Jesus (cf. A. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, iii. 426, Bonn, 1874; A. Harnack, What is Christianity? 3d ed., London, 1904).

30. Summary.

The conclusions may be thus summarized: (1) The first and third Gospels are our sole authority for the virgin birth of Jesus. (2) The stories as they appear in these Gospels are independent of each other and are from different sources, but whether they were written or oral, and whether Matthew's account is dependent on Joseph and Luke's on Mary, does not appear. (3) The writings of Paul and John contain no indisputable reference to these stories--they neither presuppose, nor contradict, nor draw conclusions from them; they do, however, involve a superhuman and pre-earthly being who became incarnate in Jesus. (4) With unimportant exceptions the entire early Church in the interest of Jesus' real humanity and divine nature acknowledged the virgin birth. (5) The connection proposed between the story of the virgin birth and stories of supernatural births in the Old Testament, in classic antiquity, in the wide-spread hope of a world Redeemer, and in folk-lore, has not been established. (6) The doctrine has important bearings on the incarnation and sinlessness of Jesus, but it is not essential either to these or to Christian experience. (7) The story itself, in comparison with all other stories of supernatural births, is one of unique and incomparable beauty, befitting the creative entrance of Jesus into our earthly lot, to live the life of God under human conditions; he who knows the mystery of the beginnings of life, and remembers with what meaning this story has been invested by men of deepest insight through the Christian centuries, will not tear it from the Gospels, but will with the holy Catholic Church confess, "I believe in Jesus Christ,

Christian character; the scientific treatment of virtue will then afford a satisfactory presentation of its unity and origin. At the same time the ground is won also for asceticism and the consideration of the means to virtue. The latter has been defined as “ all that has an advantageous influence for the actual exercise and accomplishment of acts in accord with duty." It may include everything, then, within the ethical horizon, even temptation and offenses as tests, and involve the help of God, moral motives, fate, nature, vocation, and every personal relation. Means they become so far as they are used for a special purpose, the practise of virtue or morality, i.e., ascetics. With such was concerned the ancient Church in dependence upon the applied ethics of the Stoics. Ascetics has been defined by Rothe as conduct designed simply to gain personal virtue, without regard to any other end whatsoever lying outside the acting subject. Against the admission of such a view to scientific ethics it is objected that every moral act must have reference to society as well as to the individual; and that duty comprehends life as a whole, and no moment in its course can be conceived as involving merely mediate obligation. But certainly duty demands at every moment the performance of what is most expedient to the purpose. One is bound therefore to the exercise of the means of virtue, if it be fitting. That social relations are to take the place of these modes of activity can be claimed only if the training and purification of personal character are overlooked, in which also one discharges some of his social indebtedness. In character-culture pedagogy and asceticism are materially identified, for self-culture follows training as maturity supersedes immaturity, and what argues for the means of pedagogy argues for the means of asceticism as well. Finally, self-culture has to rid itself of the unethical false culture. Reactionary efforts and preventives are indeed indispensable; but they become superfluous in an ideal self-unfolding. Christian ethics in its intense rebound from immoral corruption, leading to a total disentanglement from a sin-ridden world, swung to the untrue pole of social seclusion and futile performances. On the contrary, only modes of conduct are valid for means to virtue which are justified and required for Christians in general, and their special place is to be perceived in that they afford an advantage to conduct in the building of character and alienation of evil, not otherwise to be gained. Moderation is requisite of itself; it must be raised to abstinence if an evil is to be conquered. The difficulty is that the pedagogy from without the individual possesses no knowledge of the situation within, while the individual himself is not sufficiently master safely to treat himself. Hence Christian asceticism presupposes sanctification, which God affords continually, and in this the means to virtue and grace are provided (Titus ii. 11-12). In the last analysis religious and ethical means to virtue are brought to the same plane; religion and ethics are not exclusive circles, but among ethical means to virtue the most important are the religious. The means to virtue may, accordingly, be more strictly defined as moral modes of conduct with special reference to the development of personal character,

and with particular regard to the imperfections of the individual, different in each one. Since, however, individuals are not absolutely different, the means to virtue may be reduced to categories, though this can properly be done only in connection with the theory of character-culture, or virtue, as a whole, and in this sense ascetics becomes a necessary part of ethics. An enumeration of the means to virtue seems unnecessary; since a classification is self-suggestive, according to the various aspects of the development of character. Protestant ascetics is essentially different from Roman Catholic. The latter makes the individual means laws imposed by the Church, and forcing them from their vital moral relations considers the acts meritorious in themselves, thus transforming them from means. Finally, it develops classes to the abuse of the individual as well as society on the whole, based on the distinction between the legitimate secular and the perfect spiritual life (see CONSILIA EVANGELICA). On the other hand, Protestants variously represent a point of view by which they regard Christian ethics as the fruit of the inner law so that discipline and means to virtue are ignored as such.

(M. KÄHLER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the literature under ETHICS. VISHNU. See HINDUISM. VISIGOTHS. See GотHS, § 6.

VISITATIO LIMINUM SANCTORUM APOSTOLORUM: The visiting of the church of SS. Peter and Paul at Rome, and also of the Curia, in compliance with either a vow or the law of the Roman Catholic Church. Such visitations in consequence of vows were frequent in the Middle Ages; but the popes were compelled to limit such visits, and in 1478 Sixtus IV. issued a special papal reservation on the subject. The papal reservation is no longer set forth in the quinquennial faculties.

The most important form of the visitation is that required by law for the exercise of the necessary supervision over the Church. By a Roman synod of 743 all bishops residing near Rome were required to visit the pope each year about the middle of May, while those whose sees were distant were enjoined to write annually concerning the condition of their dioceses. After 1079 this duty was made incumbent on all metropolitans by Gregory VII., and was soon extended to all bishops, though intervals of varying length were accorded in proportion to the distance of their dioceses from Rome.

In the bull Romanus pontifex (Dec. 20, 1584) Sixtus V. enacted that the bishops of Italy and the neighboring islands, Dalmatia, and Greece should visit every three years; those of Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Bohemia, Hungary, England, Scotland, and Ireland every four years; those of the remainder of Europe, northern Africa, and the islands east of the American continent every five years; and those of all other lands every ten years. This was confirmed by Benedict XIV. in his constitution Quod sancta (Nov. 23, 1740), and he extended the requirement to all possessing quasiepiscopal jurisdiction. It is generally held that titular bishops are also bound to make the visitation. The visitation should be performed in person at

, Order

of

the designated intervals; but if this is impossible, the prelate concerned may be represented by a special, properly qualified plenipotentiary. The visitation comprises three parts, attested by the Congregatio super statu ecclesiarum: the visit to the "church of the apostles" (the church occupied by the pope and the Curia; normally St. Peter's, Rome), and an oral and written statement of the affairs of the diocese of the bishop concerned.

(E. FRIEDBERG†.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Bangen, Die römische Kurie, pp. 177 sqq., Münster, 1854; A. Lucidi, De visitatione liminum, Rome, 1878; P. Melcher, De canonica diœcesi visitatione, Cologne, 1893; Sägmüller, in TQS, lxxxviii (1900), 69, 91; KL, xii. 1011-13.

VISITATION, ORDER OF THE: A Roman Catholic order founded by St. Francis of Sales (q.v.) and named in honor of the visitation of the Virgin (Luke i. 39 sqq.). While, however, Francis termed himself the father of the order, he designated as their mother their real founder, Jeanne Frémiot Françoise de Chantal, with whom he was bound by a sort of spiritual union. According to the biographers of both, Francis saw in a dream her who was to aid him in establishing a female religious order, later recognizing the lady of his vision in Mme. de Chantal. She, in her turn, though having no dream, received a manifestation of the bishop who was destined to be her spiritual guide and friend. While preaching at Dijon in the Lent of 1604, the attention of Francis was attracted, in his very first sermon, to a lady who listened to him with especial devoutness. At the close of his sermon he learned that she was the Baroness de Chantal, daughter of Frémiot, the Burgundian president of parliament, sister of the archbishop of Bourges, a widow of some years' standing, and then residing, not altogether happily, on the estate of her fatherin-law with her four small children. She was profoundly dissatisfied with her confessor, and immediately recognized in Francis her true spiritual guide. The pair met at her father's house, but not till later did she reveal her sufferings to Francis, and afterward she made a full confession. Among other things, she spoke of her desire to pass the remainder of her life in the Holy Land, to which Francis at first gave no response, and she also begged him to take her under his spiritual guidance. After several days he consented to become her spiritual guide, though cautioning her against haste and against the danger of the intrusion of any earthly element in their relations. He then left Dijon with the promise to write to her frequently. The bond thus formed became ever closer, though at first Mme. de Chantal bitterly reproached herself for her course, especially fearing that she had transgressed the laws of the Church by placing herself under the guidance of the bishop, though the latter pointed out that St. Theresa also had had a special spiritual mentor in addition to her confessor. But she long remained in doubt, her faith wavered, it was difficult for her to subject her unbelief to the Church, and her meditations seemed fruitless. In this feeling of vague unrest there seems to have been an unconscious element of personal affection for Francis of Sales. He became to her something more than

not

a priest and a confessor, and though she could give this indefinable quality no specific name, she felt it estranged her from the Church. But she did: cease from pious meditations and works of asceti cism, nor did she abandon the thought of retiring from the world. Francis, with whom she often di cussed the subject, no longer kept her wavering between hope and fear. After the middle of 160 he repeatedly implied that her spiritual regenera tion was nearing perfection, and he urged her more and more to contemplate as her final step complete self-renunciation and perfect submission to God Though as late as Aug., 1606, he had not decided whether she should become a nun, in a personal in terview he received her vow of celibacy and obedi ence, and approved her determination to bring up her daughters in convents.

The first definite intimations of the purpose d Francis to establish a community of female religiou under the direction of himself and Mme. de Chantal date from 1607. He planned to locate the community at Annecy, the seat of the bishop of Geneva since the Reformation, so that his association with Mme. de Chantal should become still closer, though the ostensible reason was that there she might be nearer her married daughter, the baroness of Thorens. In the spring of 1610 Mme. de Chantal, abandoning her father and her children, went to Annecy, where, in the night before the dedication of the house of the new order, she seemed to see her father and children invoking divine wrath upon her, her distress being increased by the fear that she had led astray the mind of Francis. After three hours of agony, however, she conquered her temp tation, and henceforth the mystic bond between the bishop and his spiritual child became even more strong. Mme. de Chantal was no less devoted to Francis than he to her, giving him constant proofs of her solicitude both for his body and his soul. On the other hand, her affection for her children so diminished that, when her son was about to visit her in Annecy, Francis was obliged to admonish her to give him cordial greeting. She died at Moulin Dec. 13, 1641, was beatified by Benedict XIV. in 1751, and canonized by Clement XIII. in 1767.

The order of the nuns of the Visitation was es tablished in the summer of 1610, when, on Trinity Sunday, Mme. de Chantal and two others received their habit from the hands of Francis of Sales. The order had no solemn vows, no monastic seclusion, and no habit, except a black veil and black cloth ing. Though Mme. de Chantal had exercised extreme asceticism, this was not made incumbent on the order, and only the recitation of the shorter office of the Virgin was required of the sisters. Re treats were always permitted to women not belong ing to the order; and in imitation of the Virgin's visit to St. Elizabeth the nuns were obliged to visit the poor and the sick. In conformity with the usage of the earlier Church, all the houses of the order were to be subject to their diocesan, and every year. the sisters interchanged their rosaries, breviaries, crucifixes, etc. The congregation, as it was at first called, increased rapidly, but Francis soon found himself obliged to impose a more rigorous rule of Augustinian type, in which form the order was

officially recognized by Paul V. in 1618, and confirmed by Urban VIII. in 1626. The order had no special head, but was placed under the control of the diocesan. A simple black habit with a long black veil and a black head-band was required, and conventual seclusion was introduced, thus rendering it no longer possible to visit the poor and sick. On the other hand, there was no intensification of asceticism. At the death of Francis the order had thirteen houses, to which Mme. de Chantal added eighty-seven. The order reached its greatest prosperity in the eighteenth century, when it had about 200 houses; and about the middle of the nineteenth century it had approximately 100 houses with 3,000 nuns in France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Syria, and North America. At the end of the nineteenth century it had 164 convents with about 7,000 nuns: eight in Germany, four in Austria, two in Switzerland, and one in Spain. Other convents are to be found in Italy, Portugal, England, Syria, and North America, but by far the greater number were in France. In consequence of the change in the character of the order in 1618, the chief activity of the nuns of the Visitation became the education of girls, especially of higher Roman Catholic society. During the Jansenistic troubles nuns of this order were sent to Port Royal to take the place of the expelled Cistercian nuns.

(EUGEN LACHENMANN.)

The order was introduced into America at Georgetown, D. C., in 1799. There were in 1911 twenty-one houses or academies, with 795 sisters or postulants, 27 professed religious, and 1,935 pupils.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the foundress consult her Lettres inédites, ed. C. Barthélemy, 2 vols., Paris, 1860; the Acta beatificationis et canonizationis, Rome, 1732; Sainte J. F. Frémyot de Chantal, sa vie et ses œuvres, 8 vols., Paris, 1874-79; H. de Maupas du Tour, La Vie de mère

J. F. F. de Chantal, Paris, 1644; E. Bougaud, Hist. de Ste. Chantal et des origines de la Visitation, 13th ed., Paris, 1899. Other accounts are by: G. Beaufils, Annecy, 1751; C. A. Saccarelli, 2 vols., Augsburg, 1752; W. H. Coombes, 2 vols., London, 1830; G. Hetten kofer, Augsburg, 1836; F. M. de Chaugy, 3 vols., Vienna, 1844; E. M. de Barthélemy, Paris, 1860; Emily Bowles, London, 1872; Cecilia A. Jones, London, 1874.

On the order consult: Helyot, Ordres monastiques, iv. 309 sqq.; the Annecy ed. of the works of St. Francis of Sales, especially vol. vi.; the Constitutiones, Paris, 1622, 1645, etc.; C. Menetrier, Projet de l'hist. de l'ordre de la visitation, Annecy, 1701; L. Clarus, Leben der besten Mütter des Ordens von der Heimsuchung Mariens, 2 vols., Regensburg, 1861; H. Heppe, Geschichte der quietistischen Mystik in der katholischen Kirche, pp. 4358, Berlin, 1875; St. Jane Frances Frémyot de Chantal. Her Exhortations Clifton, 1888; Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen, ii. 288-295; KL, x. 1558-61.

VISITATION OF THE SICK: One of the occasional offices in the Book of Common Prayer. Its Scriptural basis is found in James v. 14-15 (cf. also Mark vi. 13), and its necessity, even though the ministrations of the clergy were not explicitly requested, is insisted upon by the canons of many councils, while in the English Church canon lxvii. is devoted to the clerical obligation to visit the

sick.

The office as found in the Book of Common Prayer is derived chiefly from the corresponding office in the Sarum Use, and possesses peculiar in

terest historically in its retention of more than one old usage which Puritanism strove in vain to dislodge. For a correct understanding Opening of the office (which now differs conPart of siderably in the American Book from the Office. the English) from the Sarum Use to the present time, it seems best to take as the standard of discussion the office as contained in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1549). Omitting the requirement of the Sarum Use, that on the way to the house of the sick the seven penitential Psalms with their antiphon should be recited, the priest, after saying, "Peace be in this house, and to all that dwell in it," recites Ps. cxliii. (omitted in all later Books; the sprinkling with holy water, required by the Sarum Use, is also omitted, even in the First Book) with the anthem Remember not Lord our iniquities," etc., followed by the Kyrie, the Lord's Prayer, and several versicles and responses. Then come two of the nine collects of the Sarum Use, followed by the exhortation of the sick " after this fourme, or other lyke," with provision for curtailment if the person visited be very ill. The articles of the Apostles' Creed are next rehearsed, and the sick man is examined as to his forgiveness of all his enemies and his discharge of all debts, and is admonished of his duty to make his will and to be charitable to the poor, the special wording of these portions being left to the discretion of the priest.

Then follows one of the most vital survivals of the old Use, against which Protestant objection has been most strenuously made. The rubric in the first Edwardine Prayer Book reads: "Here shall the sicke person make a speciall confession, yf he fele his conscience troubled with any weightie matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolue hym after this forme, and the same forme of absolucion shalbe used in all pryuate confessions " the form being " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath lefte power to his Churche to absolue all sinners, which truely repent and beleue in hym: of his great mercy forgeue thee thyne offences: and The by his autoritie committed to me, I Absolution. absolue thee frō all thy synnes, in the name," etc. This declaratory absolution, which is also employed in the various unofficial uses for private confession in the Anglican communion, was retained even in the strongly Protestantized second Edwardine Prayer Book (1552) and was included in the proposed Scotch Book of 1619. On the rise of the Commonwealth the Puritans in 1640 (and again at the Savoy Conference of 1661) sought to change this to "I pronounce thee absolved," but they were unsuccessful, and the ancient form, found in the Uses of Sarum and York, is still retained in the English Book, although the Sealed Book" of 1661 added to the rubric " if he humbly and heartily desire it" (the form retained in the present English Book). In the strongly Protestantized Irish Book (1877) confession is optional, which is true only in a qualified sense of the English Books ("here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession," etc.), and the form of absolution is the imprecatory one of the Communion Office. The same form was chosen in the ill-starred" Proposed

Vivekananda

Book" of the American Church (1786), but three years later that communion took the step of expunging from the office any allusion to both confession and absolution, which have thus far been unrestored in the United States.

The declaratory absolution is followed by a prayer of absolution, derived from the York and Sarum Uses, and also found in the Gelasian Sacramentary, but the two following collects in the older uses were omitted in all English Books and their derivatives. In the Sarum Use the visitation office Old Office here ends, and that of unction begins. for Unction, The opening Psalm of that office (lxxi., and for which the American Book substiConcluding tutes Ps. cxxx.) is still retained, folPortions. lowed by another noteworthy survival -the sole instance of the Antiphon (q.v.) in the Anglican ritual: "O Saueour of the world saue us, which by thy crosse and precious bloud hast redemed us, helpe us we beseche the, O God" (used also in various unofficial special offices for the Passion Service on Good Friday). After another collect, expanded from one in the Gregorian Sacramentary for the visitation of the sick, the First Prayer Book has the rubric: If the sicke person desyre to be annoynted, then shal the priest annoynte him upon the forehead or breast only, makyng the signe of the crosse, saying thus" (followed by a prayer of noteworthy beauty, omitted in all later books). This unction, which, despite the Scriptural warrant of James v. 14, was offensive to Puritanism, disappeared in the second Edwardine Book, and has never been restored. With the recitation of Ps. xiii. the first Edwardine office closes, the second Book ending abruptly just before unction; but in 1661 the Aaronic blessing was added, together with four occasional prayers (for a sick child, etc.), to which the American Book adds three more, one of which is also included in the Irish Book.

The office for the visitation of the sick is immediately followed in all Books by that for the Communion of the Sick (q.v.), with which are inseparably connected the various questions regarding the very ancient practise of Reservation of the Sacrament (q.v.), at least so far as communion of the sick is concerned, a use which even the Calvinistic Thirty-nine Articles did not forbid (cf. Art. xxv.).

As regards the practical use of this office, it is to be observed that it is a formal rite to be employed but once for a person in severe illness; it does not form part of ordinary visits to the sick-room. It is a solemn recognition of the person over whom it is used as one who is in the fellowship of the Church, and for whom the Church, by its authorized Minister, offers prayer to God; and it is also a solemn recognition of the fact that the sicknesses and infirmities incident to human naPractical ture are a consequence of sin, a part Use of the of that heritage of death which came Office. upon us through the Fall" (Blunt, p. 460). It is to be used, moreover, only over those who have had the training of the church, particularly as its employment is prefatory to the reception of the Eucharist. To dissenters the visitation office would, in all probability, be unintelli

218

gible and even terrifying, unless they were resolved to be reconciled with the church and to accept he last consolations. These latter remarks would apply with doubled force to those who have led irreligious or wicked lives, in which cases the office is applica ble only after much instruction and much progress toward true penitence. Otherwise, the sick man might view" the comforts of the Office more prom inently than would be advisable for those who do not fully appreciate the necessity of repentance toward the attainment of pardon and true peace" (Blunt, ut sup.). Through a false and un-Christian fear of solemn preparation for death the use of the visitation office is well-nigh abandoned. This is most regrettable. There is no implication of death in the office; indeed, the American Book has a Thanksgiving for the beginning of a Recovery" (similarly the Irish Book). And even if such implication of approaching death be seen, the true churchman will have no fear of death, though he may well dread it without the final blessing and ab solution of the church and the last solemn rite of the Eucharist.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Blunt, Annotated Book of Common Prayer, revised ed., pp. 460-471, London, 1903; F. Procter and W. H. Frere, New History of the Book of Common Prayer, 26th ed., pp. 622-626 (with abundant references to older literature and copious bibliography), London, 1910.

VISITATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY, FEAST OF THE. See MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST, III

VITALIAN, vai-tê'li-an: Pope 657-672. He was born at Segni, and on July 30, 657, was enthroned as the successor of Eugenius I. He an nounced his accession to the Emperor Constans II., thus signalizing the resumption of friendly ecclesiastical relations between Rome and Constantinople; the emperor in return confirmed the privileges of the Roman church. Vitalian was unsuccessful, on the other hand, in his attempt to assert jurisdiction over Maurus, bishop of Ravenna, whom he cited to appear at Rome, only to meet with refusal. Vitalian thereupon deposed Maurus, who in his turn pronounced the ban on the pope. Vitalian seems to have been influential in England, where Theodorus, archbishop of Canterbury, actively promoted the interests of Rome and sought to secure uniformity with the Roman Church. Vitalian died Jan. 27, 672. (A. HAUCK.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The letters are in MPL, lxxxvii. 999 sqq. Consult Liber pontificalis, ed. T. Mommsen in MGH, Ges pont. Rom., i (1898), 186-189; Bede, Hist. eccl., iv. li Jaffé, Regesta, i. 235-237; Agnellus, Vitæ pontificum Ravennatum, chaps. 110 sqq., Modena, 1708, also in MGH, Script. rer. Langob. (1878), pp. 349 sqq.; Mann, Popes, ii. 1-17; J. Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche, ii. 539, Bonn, 1885; Bower, Popes, i. 459-466; Platina, Popes, i. 156-158; Milman, Latin Christianity, ii. 281-282; KL, xii. 1015-18; DCB, iv. 1161-63. VITALIS, ORDERICUS. See ORDERICUS VITALIS VITICULTURE. See WINE, HEBREW.

VITRINGA, vî-trin'нã, CAMPEGIUS: Dutch Reformed, Old-Testament scholar; b. at Leeuwarden, Frisia, May 16, 1659; d. at Franeker Mar. 31, 1722. He was educated at the universities of Franeker (1675-78) and Leyden (1678-79), and in 1681 became professor of oriental languages at the

former university. Two years later he succeeded his teacher Marck in the theological faculty, and in 1693 the professorship of church history was also added to his duties; at considerable financial sacrifice he remained at Franeker until his death, declining repeated invitations to Utrecht. Theologically he was a child of his communion, ardently devoted to the doctrine of absolute predestination, and his views of the Scriptures and their inspiration were in accord with post-Reformation orthodoxy. In textual criticism, on the other hand, his attitude was more free. His importance as an exegete lies especially in the care and accuracy with which he applied the entire exegetical apparatus to determine the true meaning of his text, with due regard also for its historical background.

The chief work of Vitringa, and that on which his fame rests, was his commentary on Isaiah (2 vols., Leeuwarden, 1714-20), which forms the basis for the commentaries of J. E. Leigh (6 vols., Brunswick, 1726-34), J. J. Rambach (ed. E. F. Neubauer, Züllichau, 1741), and A. F. Büsching (2 vols., Halle, 1749-51). Vitringa planned a similar work on Zechariah, but did not live to complete it, though the prolegomena and the commentary as far as Zech. iv. 6 were edited by H. Venema (Leeuwarden, 1734). The same scholar edited also Vitringa's posthumous Commentarius ad canticum Mosis Deut. xxxii. (Haarlem, 1734). On the New Testament Vitringa wrote Anakrisis Apocalypsios Joannis apostoli. (Franeker, 1705), in which prophecy is applied to polemics against the Roman Catholic Church. His Latin lectures on the interpretation of the parables were edited in Dutch, with his cooperation, by J. d'Outrein under the title Verklaeringe van de evangelische parabolen, etc. (Amsterdam, 1715); in this work the personages of the parables are made to apply to historical figures. Lectures by him formed the basis of the Dutch exegesis of Galatians and Titus (Franeker, 1728) and of the first eight chapters of Romans (1729). His Observationum sacrarum libri sex (Franeker, 1683-1708) were chiefly exegetical in character, and based on public disputations.

In the department of Biblical history and archeology Vitringa wrote his Archisynagogus observationibus novis illustratus (Franeker, 1685), in which he sought to trace the names and functions of the officers in the primitive Church to the Jewish synagogue. He thus became involved in a controversy with Rhenferd, in the course of which he composed his De decem viris otiosis (Franeker, 1687). Another controversy gave rise to his Anleidinge tot het rechte verstand van den tempel, die de prophet Ezechiel gezien en beschreeven heeft (2 vols., Franeker, 1687), in which he maintained that Ezekiel's temple corresponded exactly to Solomon's, and was perfectly copied by Zerubbabel and Herod; while to the criticisms of the younger Cocceius he replied in his t'Rechte verstand van den tempel Ezechiels verdeedigt en bevestigt (Haarlem, 1693). The chief work of Vitringa, next to his commentary on Isaiah, was his De synagoga vetere libri tres (Franeker, 1694; Eng. transl., The Synagogue and the Church, London, 1842), in which he amply atoned for the deficiencies of his earlier Archisynagogus. He also

Visitation of the Sick Vivekananda

wrote Hypotyposis historiæ et chronologiæ sacræ (Leeuwarden, 1698; enlarged ed., Franeker, 1708); and Geographia sacra, the latter unskilfully edited by D. G. Werner (Jena, 1723).

Vitringa wrote also on Biblical theology, dogmatics, and polemics. Here belongs his Doctrina Christianæ religionis per aphorismos summatim descripta (Franeker, 1690), to which, after the fourth edition (1702), was appended his Hypotyposis theologia elencticæ graviores exhibens controversias quæ super Christianæ religionis doctrina ecclesiæ reformatæ cum diversis ejusdem sectis intercedunt. Against Roell, who defended a sort of tritheism, Vitringa wrote his Geloove der kercke angaande de geboorte des Sons ende de tydelicke Dood der geloovige (Franeker, 1695); and he was also the author of Typus doctrinæ prophetica in quo de prophetis et prophetiis agitur hujusque scientiæ præcepta traduntur (appended to the Hypotyposis historia et chronologia sacræ after 1708); Typus theologiæ practica sive de vita spirituali ejusque affectionibus (Franeker, 1716; setting forth the right imitation of Christ); and the Dutch "Meditations on the Miracles of Jesus Christ (Franeker, 1725), in which the fulfilment of the types and prophecies contained in the miracles of Christ is sought in the history of the Church. In the domain of practical theology his principal work was Animadversiones ad methodum homiliarum ecclesiasticarum rite instituendarum (Leeuwarden, 1721).

Two of Vitringa's sons also lived to write on theology. Horatius, though dying at the age of nineteen (Oct. 8, 1704), was the author of Animadversiones ad Johannem Vorstium de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti (ed. L. Bos, in his Observationes miscel laneæ, Franeker, 1707); and Campegius (b. at Franeker Mar. 23, 1693; d. there Jan. 11, 1723; professor of theology at Franeker after 1715) wrote an Epitome theologia naturalis and Dissertationes sacræ, both of which were edited after their author's death by H. Venema (Franeker, 1731).

(E. KAUTZSCH†.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The funeral oration by A. Schultens, printed in the Basel edition of the commentary on Isaiah, and the brief Vita by T. de Hase, printed in the Jena ed. of the Observationes sacra, formed the material included in Niceron, Mémoires, XXXV. 30 sqq. Other editions of the commentary on Isaiah contain the results of the working over of this material, with corrections. Consult also L. Diestel, Geschichte des A. T. in der christlichen Kirche, pp. 436 sqq., Jena, 1869.

VITUS, SAINT: See HELPERS IN NEED.

VIVEKANANDA, vi've-ka-nān'da, SWAMI: Vedantist; b. at Calcutta Jan. 21, 1863; d. at Belur (near Calcutta) July 4, 1902. He was educated at the university of his native city, where he also studied law, and, after teaching for a short time in a private college in Calcutta, renounced the world to become a teacher of the Vedanta. In 1893 he left India for the United States as a delegate to the Parliament of Religions at the World's Fair at Chicago, and in the following year he founded the Vedanta Society in New York City. He lectured before this organization and its branches until 1900, when he returned to India to supervise the education of the monks in the monastery of Belur, training them as teachers of the Vedanta. He issued Karma

Yoga (New York, 1896); Vedanta Philosophy (ad- | dresses at Harvard; 1896); Raja Yoga (London, 1896); From Colombo to Almora (Madras, 1897); My Master (biography of Ramakrishna; New York, 1901); Jnana Yoga (1902); besides the posthumous volume of selections from his speeches and writings (Madras, 1905); Inspired Talks, Recorded by a Disciple (New York, 1909); The Science and Philosophy of Religion; a comparative Study of Sankhya Vedanta and other Systems (1909); and The East and the West (Madras, 1909). A memorial edition of his Complete Works is in course of publication (London, 1907 sqq.).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Short Account of the Life and Teachings of the Swami Vivekananda (Dacca, 1904); Mary E. Noble ("Sister Vivedita "), The Master as I saw him; being Passages from the Life of the Swami Vivekananda, New York, 1910.

VIVÉS Y TUTO, vi'ves-i-tu'tō, JOSÉ CALASANTIO: Cardinal; b. at San André da Llevaneras (a village in the diocese of Barcelona), Spain, Feb. 15, 1854. At the age of fifteen he entered the Capuchin order in Guatemala, and for many years labored in North and South America, as well as in France and Spain. In 1896 he became definitorgeneral of the Capuchins, and in 1899 was created cardinal-deacon of San Adriano al Foro. He is prefect of the Congregation for the Affairs of Religious.

VOCATION. See CALLING.

VOELTER, fel'ter, DANIEL ERHARD JOHANNES: German theologian; b. at Usslingen (7 m. e.s.e. of Stuttgart), Württemberg, Sept. 14, 1855. He was educated at the universities of Tübingen, Göttingen, and Berlin (Ph.D., Tübingen, 1882), and was connected with the University of Tübingen as lecturer in the theological seminary (1880-84) and as privat-docent (1884-85); since 1886 he has been professor of the New Testament at the Evangelical Lutheran Seminary and the University of Amsterdam. He has written Die Entstehung der Apokalypse (Freiburg, 1882); Der Ursprung des Donatismus (1883); Die Ignatianischen Briefe (Tübingen, 1892); Das Problem der Apokalypse (Freiburg, 1893); Petrusevangelium oder Aegypterevangelium ? (Tübingen, 1893); Die Visionen des Hermas (1900); Der Ursprung des Mönchtums (1900); Aegypten und die Bibel (Leyden, 1903); Die Offenbarung Johannis neu untersucht und erläutert (Strasburg, 1904); Die apostolischen Väter, i.ii. (Leyden, 1904-10); Paulus und seine Briefe (Strasburg, 1905); Der erste Petrusbrief, seine Entstehung und Stellung in der Geschichte des Urchristentums (1906); Mater Dolorosa und der Lieblingsjünger des Johannesevangelium (1907); Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu (1907); Die Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu (Strasburg, 1910); and Die evangelische Erzählung von der Geburt und Kindheit Jesu (1911).

VOETIUS, vō-î'shi-us, GISBERTUS (GIJSBERT VOET): Dutch Reformed; b. at Heusden (25 m. 8. of Utrecht) Mar. 3, 1589; d. at Utrecht Nov. 1, 1676. He was educated at the University of Leyden (1604-11), and in 1611 was made pastor of the village of Vlijmen; in 1617 he accepted the position of minister in his native town, where he preached

eight times a week, devoted himself to the study of Arabic, and was privat-docent in various branches of theology, logic, physics, metaphysics, and oriental languages. In 1618 he was a delegate to the Synod of Dort, where he exercised strong influ ence against the Remonstrants. For a time he preached also at Gouda against the Arminianism which had there taken root, and when, in 1630, the Roman Catholic stronghold of Bois-le-Duc was wrested from the Spanish, he eagerly devoted him. self to promoting the Reformed cause there. In 1634 he accepted the professorship of theology and oriental languages at the newly founded academy of Utrecht, where he passed the remainder of his life. In 1637 he served also as pastor of the Utrecht congregation. He had already written, while still at Heusden, his Proeve van de cracht der godtsalicheyt (Amsterdam, 1628) against Daniel Tilenus, formerly professor of theology at Sedan. In all his teaching he laid no less stress on orthodoxy of belief than on uprightness of life. His vast learning excited admiration, and his zeal for knowledge was insatiable. He lectured on theology, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, and urged his students to hold meetings for personal devotion. Throughout his life he was a bitter and uncompromising foe of Arminianism; as professor at Utrecht he continued his attacks in his lectures and disputations, as well as in his Thersites heautontimorumenos (Utrecht, 1635) and Catechisatie over den catechismus der Remonstranten (1641). His exegesis was designed simply to give a philological demonstration of the truth of the accepted doctrine of his church rather than the religious and Christian truths taught in the Bible. He was inferior as an exegete, and his dogmatics bore an essentially scholastic character. These traits appear strongly in his Selecta disputationes theologica (5 vols, Utrecht, 1648-69; selected disputations ed. A. Kuyper, Amsterdam, 1887). The least deviation from rigid Calvinism was inadmissible in his opinion, and his tendency was, accordingly, prevailingly polemic. He was as Calvinistic in his theory of the relations of Church and State as in his theology, and constantly opposed all forms of patronage, maintaining that the Church should be entirely independent of the State, views set forth in his Politica ecclesiastica (3 vols., Amsterdam, 1663-76; selected treatises ed. F. L. Rutgers and P. J. Hoedemaker [2 parts, Amsterdam, 1885-86]). A bitter enemy of the Roman Catholic Church, as evinced in his Desperata causa papatus (Amsterdam, 1635), written against the Louvain Professor Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ypern after 1636, Voetius became involved in a long controversy with Maresius over a question of toleration (cf. his Specimen assertionum partint ambiguarum aut lubricarum, partim periculosarum [Utrecht, 1642]). Both antagonists, however, united against a common foe, Johannes Cocceius (q.v.). The more liberal tendencies of Cocceius, combined with an exegesis of greater independence and a relative depreciation of practical Christianity, aroused the wrath of Voetius. The resulting controversy racked the Dutch Reformed Church till long after the death of the two protagonists, when a truce was patched up between the factions, so that at Amsterdam, for example, a

system of rotation was adopted whereby an adherent of Voetius should first be made pastor, then a follower of Cocceius.

A controversy of exceptional bitterness was waged by Voetius against the Cartesian philosophy, which he deemed incompatible with Reformed theology. He had kept silent while Henricus Renerius, professor of philosophy at Utrecht from 1637 to 1639, had adopted the Cartesian method in all his lectures; but his wrath became public when a like course was pursued by Renerius' successor, Henricus Regius (De Roy). Voetius was able to compel Regius to cease lecturing on philosophy, and secured a majority vote from the Utrecht faculty forbidding the use of the new system of philosophy in instruction. He himself polemized against Descartes, and had Martinus Schoock, professor of logic and physics at Groningen, prepare an attack entitled Admiranda methodus nova philosophie Renati des Cartes (Utrecht, 1643). Descartes replied in the Epistola ad celeberrimum virum Gisbertum Voetium (Amsterdam, 1643), whereupon Voetius continued his attacks, at the same time denying connection with the polemic ostensibly written by Schoock. He was even able to have Descartes condemned by the magistracy of Utrecht as a slanderer and circulator of libelous writings. When, however, the matter was taken up officially by the academic senate at Groningen, Schoock revealed Voetius' Utrecht complicity in the Admiranda methodus. was ordered to make amends to the philosopher, and the printing, publishing, and selling of all writings for or against Descartes were forbidden on June 2, 1645, though Voetius still continued his attacks on this" fanatic and fantastic philosophy." Less explicable was the struggle with Jean de Labadie (q.v.), which occupied the closing decades of Voetius' life. He had originally been the friend of Labadie, and had been instrumental in securing his call from Geneva to Middelburg in Zealand, besides encouraging his efforts to inject new life into the dry orthodoxy of the Dutch Reformed. When, however, the activity of Labadie assumed a separatistic tendency, Voetius became his opponent. A disputation De ecclesiarum separatarum unione et syncretismo (Amsterdam, 1669), defended under his auspices, dealt a severe blow to Labadie, and the breach widened continually.

Unlike Cocceius, Voetius founded no school in the strict sense of the term. His true importance lay in the practical nature of his theology and in his encyclopedic theological learning. In addition to the works already mentioned, his chief productions were: Exercitia pietatis (Gorinchem, 1644); the anonymous Erpenii bibliotheca Arabica cum augmenta (Utrecht, 1667); Diatribe de theologia (1668); and especially his Exercitia et bibliotheca studiosi theologia (1644), the last an outline of a four-years' course in theology of impracticable difficulty. A portion of his correspondence has also been edited by A. C. Duker under the title Eenige onuitgegeven brieven van en aan Voetius (The Hague, 1893). (S. D. VAN VEEN.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The funeral orations by C. Gentman and A. Essenius were published at Utrecht, 1677. Consult: C. Burman, Trajectum Eruditum, pp. 396-397, Utrecht, 1738; A. Ijpeij (Ypey), Geschiedenis van de kristlijke

Vogtherr

Kerk in de achstiende Euw, viii. 122 sqq., 12 parts, Utrecht, 1797-1811; M. Goebel, Geschichte des christlichen Lebens in der rheinisch-westphalischen Kirche, vol. ii., 3 vols., Coblenz, 1849–60; A. C. Duker, Schoolgezag en eigen Onderzoek, Leyden, 1861; idem, Gisbertus Voetius, 2 vols., ib. 1897-1907, new ed., 1910; G. H. Lamers, in Stemmen voor Waarheid in Vrede, 1879, i. 607–624.

VOGEL, fō'gel, KARL ALBRECHT VON: German Lutheran; b. at Dresden Mar. 10, 1822; d. at Vienna Sept. 11, 1890. Completing his education at Leipsic in 1844, he taught for two years at Dresden, and then studied for a semester at Berlin, after which he returned to Dresden, teaching there for another two years, besides being tutor to Prince Theodore of Thurn and Taxis; he studied again at Jena in 1848, and a final year at Berlin, becoming in 1850 privat-docent at Jena. Four years later appeared his chief work, Ratherius von Verona und das zehnte Jahrhundert (2 vols., Jena, 1854), which gained him in 1856 the appointment of associate professor, when he lectured on church history and on the New Testament; in 1861 he became professor of New-Testament exegesis in the Protestant theological faculty at Vienna, where, however, relations were less satisfactory than he had hoped. As a delegate of the faculty he was present at the jubilee of the University of Bonn in 1868, and in 1871 and 1877 he attended the general synods, and was otherwise active in church work. In 1871 he was dean of his faculty, and in his closing years (1887-90) was president of the board of examiners for Protestant theological candidates.

Vogel found his chief delight in works of practical piety. For a time he was interested in the thankless task of Jewish missions in Vienna, and after 1883 was active in conducting a Sunday-school founded by his wife at their home. He was also chairman for a time of the Lower Austrian section of the Gustavus Adolphus association, and established the women's branch of this organization, introducing deaconesses into the Austrian capital. Besides the work already mentioned, and a collection of sermons (Weimar, 1859), mention may be made of his Peter Damiani (Gotha, 1856); Der Kaiser Diokletian (1857); and Beiträge zur Herstellung der alten lateinischen Bibelübersetzung (1868).

(GEORG LOESCHE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Günther, Lebensskizzen der Professoren der Universität Jena, p. 46, Jena, 1858; the funeral oration by A. Formey, Vienna, 1890; Evangelische Kirchenzeitung für Oesterreich, 1890, pp. 312-313; ADB, xl. 94. VOGTHERR, fōt'har, GEORG: German Reformer; b. at Hall (35 m. n.e. of Stuttgart) Mar. 11, 1487; d. at Feuchtwangen (26 m. e. of Hall) Jan. 18, 1539. In 1517 he became vicar at the collegiate church in Feuchtwangen, where he was the only one of the staff who dared to remain when the Peasants' War raged in the vicinity of the city in 1525. In the following year he was deprived of his benefices for his maintenance of Protestant teachings, and was forced to support himself by manual labor and as a notary. When, in 1528, Margrave George the Pious introduced Protestantism in his principalities of Brandenburg, Ansbach, and Brandenburg-Kulmbach, Vogtherr was appointed to the collegiate staff in Feuchtwangen, where he became municipal pastor and superintendent in 1535.

(F. VOGTHERR.)