Put Your Arrow On
Scripture Reference;
Wait Three Seconds,
Scripture Appears!
ALWAYS Read Bible!








Cambridge Comprehensive Bible Dictionary™
By The Cambridge Theological Seminary™ USA





Comprehensive Bible Dictionary




Understanding the Future According to "HIS WORD",
Understanding History - Providentially - as "HIS-STORY!"
And Today, From Where We've Been, To Where God's Leading!"



FACT: Wikipedia is the "World's Most-Referenced Resource!"
FACT: We Recognize Wikipedia's Great Success

See Founder Jimmy Wales on CELEBRATED ATHEIST PAGE]


"CHRISTIPEDIA™ Recommendation!

Use Conservapedia, Theopedia, Biblipedia, Islamipedia;
Scriptipedia, Ameripedia, Christipedia, Musicipedia, etc;
We plead for support toChristian Researchers, Scholars

"CHRISTIPEDIA™" is a “Trademark” Of NewtonStein Academy,
Of Cambridge Theological Seminary™, American Bible Church;
The Web

God's Eternal Guarantee!

"Heaven and Earth Shall Pass Away;
But GOD'S WORDS Shall NOT Pass Away! (Matthew 5:18) "
--Jesus the Messiah, AD-33



    Statement On Holy Scriptures;

    The ‘Lens’ Through Which All Knowledge Is Understood;


    "IF" there exists any such thing as 'The Word of God'; [and ALL evidence proves such does exist:]

    "THEN" by inherent definition - it must be:

      Holy, Inspired, Inerrant, Intrepid, Infallible, Infinitive, Invincible, Indestructible, Inexhaustible, Inalienable, Immutable, Implacable, Impossible-to-Improve: Eternal and Indubitable NEVER FAILING and ALL CONQUERING!

      DEDUCTING from the simple fact - that God equates His Word with Himself:

        "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, . . ." John 1:1 (and other Scriptures),
    Thus 'GOD'S WORD' can have no lesser standard than stated above;


      As true in history, archeology, geography, Earth science, medical science, nutrition, gerontology, agriculture, botany, astronomy, physics, chemistry, climatology, government, law, psychology, sociology - and every subject it touches - as in Theology, Divinity and Doctrine:

    And "IF IT BE NOT" - true in all subjects mentioned above; and And "IF IT BE NOT"

      Holy, Inspired, Inerrant, Intrepid, Infallible, Infinitive, Invincible, Indestructible, Inexhaustible, Inalienable, Immutable, Implacable, Impossible-to-Improve: Eternal and Indubitable in EVERY FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE:
    Whatever else it may be, it cannot be ‘The Incomparable Word’ of the Great Creator God!


Do You Qualify for
An Honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Cambridge Theological Seminary?
If you believe God's Word as Stated Above:
(Click for a Free Evaluation)

Please Visit Top Webpages


[1] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "GREAT COMMISSION MANDATE!” Some Sobering Questions; (Very Brief!)

[2] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – "God’s Goals” v. “Satan’s Goals” – WHO WINS? (Very Brief!)

[3] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Greatest PLAN of Evangelization DO THE MATH, Part-1 (Very Brief!)

[4] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –Jesus said: “I WILL Build MY Church!”
(But Did He Really Mean It?)

[5] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Alarming Church News! USA! (Brief)

[6] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christ’s Commission: Does it Mean “Global Domination?”

[7] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Can You Face The Truth? Part-2 (MESSAGE)

[8] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Can You Face The Truth? Part-2 (MESSAGE)

[9] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Jesus and Paul on the “End-of-the-World” by-NewtonStein

[10] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - Conservative Activists: "Who's Who in Christian Conservative Politics?

[11] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Is Our Modern Church Ignorant of Christ’s Purpose?

[12] "RAPTURE-READY™" – Why Jesus did not come back in 2009! (Do you Know?)

[13] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Preachers’ Greatest Sin: (Are You guilty?)

[14] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christ Warns: A “Five-Fold-Question!”

[15] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – OPEN LETTER to Our Fellow Laborers

[16] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Are All Denominations Wrong? Mostly?

[17] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Who Will save Christianity?

[18] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – A Workable Plan that would-Truly Revive Christianity!

[19] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "American Christianity Rides The Titanic!

[20] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Founding Fathers’ Kingdom, Now Dominion!

[21] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Great Falling Away Prophesied by Apostle Paul!

[22] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Biblical End of World, Basic Terms and Concepts

[23] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christianity Is Dying In Western Civilization: WHY?

[24] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christian Myths! Do You Believe Them?

[25] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Church Growth Goals Priority Page

[26] "RAPTURE-READY™" – Modern Christianity Is A Mess!

[27] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – The “Anti-Christ Home Page

[28] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – TOP-TEN Messages To Maximize Your Ministry

[29] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Calling All Christians Unite, Christ Commands!

[30] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christianity Is Confusing and Getting WORSE! WHY?

[31] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Every-Minister A Hero

[32] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Legal Abortion: Is It Good for Christians?

[33] " CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Southern Baptists Dying: WHY?

[34] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Satan’s TOP-TEN Greatest-Lies! Do You Believe Any?

[35] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –Truth Test-3 Questions For Christians

[36] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Evangelicals Call for Government School Exodus!

[37] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Hall of Faith Christian Activist Ministers, 2nd-half 20th Century "

[38] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –The Early Christian-Church Outlaws Homosexuality!


[40] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Our GOD-GIVEN Rights, Guaranteed in the Bible: Called “Civil” and “Human” Rights

[41] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Rush Limbaugh Quotes" on Christ and Christianity!

[42] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"

[43] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "GREAT COMMISSION MANDATE!" Some Sobering Questions;

[44] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Hall of Faith Christian Activist Ministers, 2nd-half 20th Century "

[45] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –The Early Christian-Church Outlaws Homosexuality!


[47] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Our GOD-GIVEN Rights, Guaranteed in the Bible: Called “Civil” and “Human” Rights

[48] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Rush Limbaugh Quotes" on Christ and Christianity!

[49] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"

[50] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"







By Cambridge Theological Seminary,

From the Inspired, Inerrant View of God's Word!

Combining the best Bible Dictionaries of Yester-year,



Simply Move Your "ARROW" over any Scripture Reference

Wait three Seconds and the Scripture will appear!

Do You Qualify for
An Honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Cambridge Theological Seminary?
If you believe God's Word as Stated Above:
(Click for a Free Evaluation)


The "Cambridge Comprehensive Bible Dictionary™"

Edited, Supplemented, Amplified

By NewtonStein;

Cambridge Theological Seminary™

(See Also The Cambridge Concise Bible Dictionary™)



    — Royal city of the Chanaanites, which was apportioned as the share of the tribe of Juda, and afterwards yielded to the Levites.

Dagon (fish).

    Dagon was very possibly the source of the Mermaid: Idol of the Philistines, the form of which was half man and half fish. Scripture tells us that the Ark of the Covenant, having been captured by the Philistines and placed in the temple of Dagon, the next day the priests found the head and hands of the idol cut off upon the threshold (Judg. xvi. 23; I. Ki. v.).

    — Place whither our Saviour went after haing embarked with His disciples on the Sea of Tiberias. In- stead of Dalmanutha, which is found in St. Mark (viii. 10), we read in the Vulgate (Matt. XV. 39), Magedan, and, in the Greek text, Magdala, a fishing, ssea shore community very nearby

    — Province of Austria, on the Adriatic sea, capital Zara. It is believed that the Gospel was preached in Dalmatia in the time of the Apostles, because it is said in the Second Epistle to Timothy (iv.




    20), that Titus, disciple of St. Paul, went to Dalmatia.

    Dalmatic. — A Church vestment worn by the deacon while ministering at high Mass. It is a long robe, open on each side, and differs from the chasuble by hav- ing wide sleeves, and instead of being marked on the back with the cross, which superseded the senatorial latus-clavus, it is ornamented with two stripes, that were originally the Augusti-clavi, worn upon their garments by the less dignified among the ancient Romans. It derives its name from Dalmatia, the people of which place invented it, and was originally a vestment peculiar to the regal power, and, as such, was adopted and used in pub- lic by several of the Roman emperors. In the earliest ages of the Church the deacons wore a garment called colobium, a kind of tight, narrow tunic with very short sleeves, and which, in the times of the Roman Republic, was worn by the more substantial citizens, but afterwards became a senatorial robe. In the reign of Constantine, Pope St. Sylvester conceded to the deacons of the Roman Church the use of the dalmatic on particular solemni- ties, a privilege which was gradually ex- tended to other Churches by succeeding Popes, as we learn from St. Gregory the Great {Epistola, CVII). The custom of wearing the dalmatic under the chasuble was anciently peculiar to the Roman Pontiff, but was afterwards allowed as an episcopal favor to certain prelates of the Church. For many centuries, however, every bishop has been entitled to assume this, together with his other vestments, whenever he celebrates high Mass. An- ciently the dalmatic was white, and its stripes were narrow and scarlet, according to St. Isidore, and, as may be observed in the fresco-paintings of the Roman Cata- combs, and in the mosaics which decorate so many of the ancient churches of Rome. The Greek dalmatic closely resembles that of the Latin Church. It extends farther down the person, and its sleeves are closer and longer than ours. With the Greeks, as in the Western Church, it is customary to employ purple-colored vestments during the season of fasting.

    Damasus (name of two Popes). -^Z>

    and Apollinarian heresies, and confirmed the decrees of the General Council of Con- stantinople. He was very solicitous for the preservation of the Catacombs and adorned the sepulchres of many martyrs with epitaphs in verse, which he himself composed. For his secretary he chose St. Jerome, his faithful friend, and induced him to publish a corrected version of the Bible, known as the Latin Vulgate. Dam- asus II. — Pope in 1047. Raised to the Pontificate by Henry the Black, emperor of Germany, without having been elected ; he died twenty-three days after his coro- nation.

    Damianists. — Members of a Christian sect founded by Damian, Patriarch of Alexandria (569). They formed a branch of the Accephali Severians; admitted in God only one nature, but without distinc- tion of persons. In fact, they called God Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but believed these three names to be mere denomina- tions.

    Damianus. See Cosmas.

    Damianus (St. Peter) (988-1072). — Cardinal ; born at Ravenna. He combated the corruptions of his time. The Popes Stephen IX., Nicholas II., and Alexander II. sent him, in turn, into France and Savoy in order to reform there the different re- ligious orders. In Germany, he prevented the divorce of the Emperor Henry IV. from Bertha of Suza.

    Damiende Veuster (Joseph) (1840-1889). — Roman Catholic priest and missionary; was born in Belgium. He devoted his life to the welfare of the lepers in the govern- ment hospital, on the island of Molokai, Hawaii, until he, himself, fell a victim to the disease.

    Dan (Hebr. he has fudged). — Son of Ja- cob and of Bala, ser\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-ant-maid of Rachel, born in the year 1788 b. c. Father of the tribe of Dan. The tribe of Dan counted, when they left Egypt, 62,700 warriors. It had for share the lands to the east of Juda and of Benjamin ; the Philistines separated it from the sea. The Danites established a colony in the city of Laish, comprised in the share of Nephtali, but occupied by the Sidonians, and called it Dan. The city at the northern extremity of Israel gave rise to the saying, "From Dan to Bersabee," which meant from one end of the country to the other.

    Dance of Death



    Dance of Death. — A certain class of al- legorical representations illustrative of the universal power of death, and dating from the fourteenth century. The drama was constructed simply, consisting of short dialogues between Death portrayed by a skeleton figure, and a number of followers. They were enacted originally in churches, and by religious orders. After a time an illustration was attached to each strophe, and these eventually became the chief point of interest. Being transferred from the quiet convent to more public places, they gave a new impulse to popular art, and series of scenes founded upon the Dance of Death are to be found treated in painting, sculpture, and tapestry through- out Europe. The more ancient name was Dance Macabre, a word whose origin has given rise to a great amount of dispute among etymologists.

    Dancers. — Religious enthusiasts of the fourteenth century. They were known as the " Dancers," from a wild and indecent dance (St. Guy's or St. John's Dance), which formed the main feature of their exer- cises. They continued to dance until ex- hausted, and then fell into convulsions. Some derived their origin from King David (II. Ki. vi. 14; I. Par. xv. 29), and others believed them possessed by the devil. The latter opinion seems to have been the more generally accepted, for the ecclesi- astical forms of exorcism were em- ployed to free them from the possession of the evil spirit. They were eventually pursued by the Inquisition.

    Dancing. — A measured rythmical move- ment of the feet, usually accompanied by some musical instrument. Dancing seems to have been originally a religious exer- cise. The Hebrews celebrated by dancing their passage of the Red Sea; David danced before the Ark. The priests of Egypt, like those of China and India, represent by dancing the movements of the stars. Among the Greeks and Romans, dancing {saltatio) comprised: the re- ligious dances, consisting in slow and grave movements round altars; the gymnastic and martial dances, serving as prepara- tion for combat and exciting to chivalry {cybistic, sfheristic, pyrrhic, bellicrepa, etc.) ; the combined military and religious dances, as those of the priests of Cybele in Phrygia and Crete, and that of the Salians at Rome ; the mimic dances, which took place in theatres ; the dances exe-

    cuted during festivals by male dancers, and especially by professional female dan- cers, the latter being dressed only in a long transparent veil. Dancing in churches took place until the twelfth century, and reli- gious dancing continued to exist in Spain until the seventeenth century. Dancing is not illicit in its nature ; therefore, we can- not condemn it absolutely, as though it were essentially evil. The holy Fathers blame only indecent dances and the abuse of dancing. However, even the most de- cent dances are seldom without danger; very often they are more or less dangerous, according to the circumstances and dispo- sitions of those who attend them ; there- fore, it would be imprudent to counsel and approve of them.

    Daniel. — Prophet of Israel during the Babylonian Captivity. He had the gift of explaining visions and dreams; his science procured for him the favor of Nabucho- donosor, who raised him above the magi and the first dignitaries of the kingdom. Daniel either retired later on or lost his high position, for he had to be recalled to the mind of Balthasar when there was question of explaining the mysterious in- scription of the festival. Under Darius the Mede, he was again raised to the rank of one of the first three dignitaries of the State, which caused him to be hated by the courtiers, and, consequently, bad treat- ment, as being thrown into the lions' den, from which he was miraculously de- livered. He preserved an elevated posi- tion at least until the third year of the reign of Cyrus. Daniel was a man of ex- traordinary virtue and wisdom.

    The Book of Daniel is composed of two parts : the first, written in Chaldaic, (twelve chapters), contains historical facts and prophecies ; the second, in Hebrew (two chapters), contains the history of Susanna and that of Bel and the Dragon. The Jews refuse to rank Daniel among the Prophets properly speaking, because he never lived in the Holy Land. The Greeks celebrate his feast on December r7th, and the Latins on July 21st.

    Dante-Alighieri. — This famous epic poet of Italy and of all Europe in the Middle Ages, was born at Florence, in 1265, and died in poverty at Ravenna, in 1321, after an agitated existence. His Divine Comedy, — "Hell," "Purgatory," and "Heaven","— is the great Christian poem of the scholastic times. It is divided into three parts, of 33




    cantos each, with a prolog^ue to the whole. " Hell" is the vice punished ; " Purgatory" is the expiation that purifies ; " Paradise " is the triumphant and rewarded virtue. The Divine Comedy has been translated into English by Gary, Longfellow, Norton, and others. "Hell " has remained the most fa- mous part, but the two other f>arts are not inferior to it, except, perhaps, in the mat- ter, which lent less to the imagination. Dante is one of the greatest poets man- kind has produced. He can be placed be- side Homer and Virgil, and above Tasso and Milton.

    Darboy (Ghorgk) (1814-1871). — A French prelate. Born at Fayl-Billot, Haute- Marne; shot at Paris, May 24th, 1871. Archbishop of Paris (1863-1871). He was arrested and assassinated by the Commu- nists.

    Darby ("John). — English sectarian, founder of the Plymouth Brethren. Died in 1882. See Plymouth Brethren.

    Darius (name of three kings). — i. Da- rius, the Mede, son of an unknown Xerxes (Assuerus) and otherwise of whom not much is known. After the taking of Babylon by Cyrus he reigned over Babylonia during two years (Dan. v. 31 ; vi. iff. ; ix. i ; xi. i), and can be identified neither with Cyrus himself nor with Darius Hystaspes, but was a governor upon whom Cyrus had bestowed the rights of a sovereign. Perhaps he was the Gobryas discovered in the cuneiform inscriptions. 2. Darius, son of Hystas- pes, the known Persian king (I. Esd. iv. 5, 24; vi. iflF. ; Aggeus i. i; ii. i, 11). 3. Darius Codomanus, the last of the Persian kings. (H. Esd. xii. 22; I. Mach. i. I.)

    Darwinism. See Man and Evolution.

    Dataria (a papal oflSce). — The Dataria, so called from the fact that papal conces- sions or favors are properly dated, and the date registered by an official of the Pontifical court, is a tribunal from which are issued dispensations pro foro externo, in matters ^eser^'ed to the Pope. .Hence, it is necessary to recur to this tribunal for dispensations from public impediments of marriage and public irregularities. A car- dinal is generally at the head of this tribu- nal ; he is named Pro daiarius, because the datary is not properly a cardinal's office.

    David. — King of Israel and Prophet, born at Bethlehem, in the eleventh century B.C.; died at Jerusalem at the age of 71 years. Eighth and youngest son of Isai, of the tribe of Juda. David was one of the most remarkable men in either sacred or profane history. His first appearance is as a shepherd youth, who alone of all Israel ventures to accept the challenge of the proud Goliath, and vanquishes him in mor- tal combat. God led him on to become a mighty warrior, the ruler and king of all Israel, and the founder of the royal family, which continued till the downfall of the Jewish State. But, notwithstanding his external pomp and power. David is best known and honored for his piety, and as being "the man after God's own heart." He indeed became guilty' of great sins ; but he humbled himself in the dust on account of them, and God forgave him. His royal race was spiritually revived in the person of our Saviour, who was descended from him according to the flesh, and who is, therefore, called "the son of David," and is said to sit upon his throne. His history is chiefly found in the Books of Samuel and the First Book of Chronicles. He was distinguished as the " sweet singer of Israel," and his Psalms are full of ex- pressions of deep devotional feeling. The Church honors David as a penitent saint, a patriarch and a Prophet.

    Deacon {a servant, attendant, minister). — The first seven deacons were not ordained merely to assist the poor, because St. Stephen gave himself up to preaching and St. Philip administered baptism. The Apostles who had received the plenitude of the sacerdotal power, communicated it, in proportionate extent, to the bishops, priests, and deacons. The latter were as- signed to the bishops as associates for the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, for the distribution of the Holy Eucharist which they carried to those absent, and even for a part of the power of adminis- tration of the dioceses. The ceremonies for the ordination of the deacon are very ancient ; thev consist especially in the im- position of hands, and the presentation of j the stole and dalmatic. The ordination of the deacon is begun with the following address of the bishop : " Dearest child, who art about to be promoted to the Levit- ical order, consider earnestly to what grade in the Church you ascend. For it is the duty of the deacon to minister to the




    altar, to baptize, and preach . ' ' After many prayers, when the moment of ordination has come, the candidate goes up to the altar and kneels before the bishop, who places his right hand on his head, saying : " Receive the Holy Ghost, in order that you may have strength, and to enable you to resist the devil and his temptations. In the name of the Lord." Through the im- position of the hands of the bishop, the candidate has now received the sacred in- delible character of the deacon. He is now permitted to stand near the priest at the altar, to baptize and preach, and sing the Gospel in the Church of God both for the living and the dead, and there- fore the bishop gives him the insignia of his office.

    Deaconess (widow and daughter who, in the primitive Church, were employed in certain ecclesiastical ministries). — Although women have always been con- sidered in the Catholic Church as incapable of receiving sacred orders, they have, how- ever, exercised, since the apostolic times, certain functions that approached the min- istry entrusted to the deacons. They as- sisted the female catechumens at baptism, and also devoted themselves to the care of the sick. They were supported at the expense of the Church if their personal means were insufficient for their mainte- nance. They were called deaconesses or subdeaconesses, episcopals or episcopesses, and presbyteresses.

    Dean (an ecclesiastical title). — Civil officials so called, were known to the Ro- man law, and are mentioned in the codes of Theodosius and Justinian. The title was thence adopted for Christian use. In the monasteries, for every ten monks a decanus or dean was nominated, who had charge of their discipline. The senior dean, in the absence of the abbot or pro- vost, governed the monastery; and since monks had the charge of many cathedral churches, the office of dean was thus intro- duced into them. Custom gradually de- termined that there should be only one dean in a cathedral, and he eventually as- sumed the chief charge of its ecclesiastical and ritual concerns, especially in regard to the choir. He became also general as- sistant to the bishop. These deans often served as deputies of the bishop to expe- dite matters of minor importance in cer- tain districts of the diocese. In the course of time, the name dean was given to eccle-

    siastics placed at the head of a parish. These are called rural deans ; and it is their office to inspect the country curates or to transmit to them the orders of the bishop. Generally, in European countries a rural dean is named for each county. According to the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the bishops of the United States are also advised to appoint similar deans in different parts of their diocese.

    At Rome, the Dean of the Sacred College, who is generally the oldest car- dinal bishop according to the date of his ordination, and the cardinal bishop of Ostia, presides at all the reunions of car- dinals, at which the Pope does not preside himself.

    Death (the extinction of life). — The time of man's probation and merit ends with this mortal life. "The dust (shall) return into its earth from whence it was, and the spirit return to God who gave it " (Eccles. xii. 7). Since man's earthly career ends with death, his soul, which is not of the dust, but created immortal by God, returns to God, its Creator and last end, to receive its recompense. Hence Christ exhorts us to work while it is day, before " the night (of death) cometh, when no man can work " (John ix. 4). Besides, there is no reason to believe that a new probation will follow after death. For in that case man, who is now urged on to virtue by the uncertainty of death and the certainty of eternal retribution, would be tempted, by the prospect of a new proba- tion, to indulge his passions in the present life and put off his conversion and the service of God till after death.

    Debora. — Jewish prophetess, judge in Israel. Governed the Hebrew people dur- ing forty years (1396-1356 b. c). In 1392, she assembled the tribes, placed at their head Barac, of the tribe of Ephraim, in order to throw off the yoke of Jabin, king of Asor. The troops of the latter were defeated near Thabor, and Sisara, their general, was killed while asleep, by Jahel. Debora celebrated the victory by a fa- mous canticle, which is found in the fifth chapter of the Book of Judges. Debora. — Nurse of Rebecca, accompanied Jacob on his return from Mesopotamia into the Promised Land, died there, and was buried at the foot of Bethel, under an oak tree, which from that time was called "Oak of Tears."




    Decalogue (the Commandments of God and the Church). — The Commandments of God are called the Decalogue, which is a word derived from the Greek, meaning ten words; they are also called the Ta- bles of the Law, because God gave them to Moses on Mount Sinai, engraved on two tablets of stone. See the subject Com- mandments.

    First Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me; thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing to adore it." By the first Commandment it is ordained to us to acknowledge God with sentiments of faith, hope, charity, and religion, ren- dering to Him that devotion and wor- ship He exacts from us. Thus faith, hope, and charity, are the three theological vir- tues, and religion (which occupies the first rank among the moral virtues), belong especially to the first precept of the Deca- logue. 2d Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." This Commandment forbids blas- phemy, regulates the oath and the vow. (See these subjects.) 3d Commandment: "Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day." The Church has established the worship and celebration of the Sabbath on the day of Sunday (day of the Lord), in commemoration of the resurrection of our Divine Saviour Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Church can establish and, in fact, has established, feasts for the celebration of the principal mysteries of religion, to honor the Blessed Virgin, the martyrs and the saints. To hear Mass with devotion, assist at Vespers and other exercises of piety that take place in Church, approach the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist, listen with respect and attention to the word of God, make some spiritual reading, visit the sick, relieve the poor, console the afflicted, are the principal acts which the true Faithful are accustomed to perform on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Rigorously speaking, the one who con- tents himself with hearing Mass on Sun- days and holy days, if otherwise he abstain from all servile work, satisfies the third Commandment, at least in the sense that he does not commit a mortal sin. — 4th Commandment: "Honor thy father and thy mother." According to the meaning of the sacred language, the father com- prises not only the one who, after God, has given us life, but also those who, according to the order of Divine Provi-

    dence, are placed over us in both the spirit- ual and temporal order. Their power is an emanation from God's power. Thus, the fourth precept contains the duties of chil- dren in regard to their parents, and of inferiors in regard to their superiors ; as, by a natural reciprocity, it contains the duties of parents in regard to their chil- dren, and of superiors in regard to their inferiors. 5th Commandment : " Thou shalt not kill." (See Homicide, Abor- tion, War, Suicide). 6th and 9th Com- mandments : " Thou shalt not commit adultery." " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." These two command- ments forbid all kinds of luxury, that is, all sins against chastity. This offense com- prises not only fornication, adultery, but also the thoughts, the desires, the looks, the words, etc., and generally all the acts that may lead to impurity. — 7th and loth Commandments: " Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." The seventh Commandment for- bids to injure our neighbor in his property by robbery or theft, by cheating, usury, or in any other unjust way. And the tenth forbids all voluntary desire for our neigh- bor's goods. See Justice, Property, Usury, etc.

    The Commandments of the Church have always existed in teaching, in tradi- tion, and in practice; but nothing proves that they were ever formulated into a uni- form text until the Council of Trent, and this Council itself never gave to them a precise form. Father Canisius, a Jesuit, was the first who, in his great Catechism, Sunima Doctrince cliristiance, in 1554, con- ceived the idea of drawing up an abridg- ment of the religious duties imposed by the Church. He reduced them to five. The third Plenary Council of Baltimore reduced them to the following six : i. " To rest from ser- vile work and to hear Mass on all Sundays and holy days of obligation." 2. " To fast and to abstain from flesh-meat on the days appointed by the Church." 3. "To con- fess our sins at least once a year." 4. "To receive worthily the Blessed Eucharist at Easter or within the time appointed." 5. "To contribute to the support of our pas- tors." 6. "Not to marry persons within the forbidden degrees of kindred or other- wise prohibited by the Church, nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times." In regard to the sixth precept of the Church, we are commanded to con- tribute willingly, according to our means.




    to the support of our pastors and our Churches, and of religious institutions. St. Paul says : "So the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel" (I. Cor. ix. 13, 14). For the explanation of the other five Command- ments of the Church, see Confession, Communion, Fast, Abstinence, Lent.

    Decapolis (Gr. ten cities). — A region in Northern Palestine, mainly on the east side of the Jordan, mentioned in Matt, (iv. 25); Mark (v. 20). Writers do not agree as to the names of the cities.

    Decius (Roman emperor) (249-251). — Decius ordered a most violent persecution against the Church, which, in extent and severity, surpassed all preceding perse- cutions. He published an edict, command- ing all Christians throughout the Empire to abandon their religion and to offer sacrifices to the gods. The most exquisite tortures were devised against the Chris- tians in order to induce them to apostatize. The property of those who fled was con- fiscated, and they themselves were obliged to remain in exile. By the imperial de- cree, bishops were to suffer death at once. Decius was slain in battle by the Goths.

    Decretals. See Canon Law.

    Dedication (consecration of a church or chapel). — The dedication of a church is a liturgical solemnity performed only by the bishop, who consecrates the building for divine service to the exclusion of all profane usage. It is believed that the solemn dedication of churches began under the reign of Constantine the Great. St. Ambrose, in the fourth century, tells us that the deposition of relics in the building recently erected, was one of the conditions of dedication. The ceremonies comprise the sprinkling with holy water, special prayers, the anointing of the walls, and the double inscription of the alphabet (Greek and Latin), which the bishop traces on the floor of the church. In the United States, most of the churches are simply blessed. Feast of the Dedication we call the anniversary of the day on which a church has been dedicated ; also the feast of the saint to whom the church is dedicated.

    Defender of the Faith. — A title of honor sometimes bestowed upon sovereigns who protected the Church in both her temporal and spiritual interests. This title was con- ferred by Pope Leo X. on Henry VIII.

    King of England, in 1521, as a reward for writing against Luther.

    Defensor Matrimonii. — A clerical officer, appointed by the bishop, charged with de- fending the validity of marriage, whenever such cases come before the ecclesiastical court. It is his duty to collect and present evidence against the plaintiff.

    Degradation, Deposition (terms in eccle- siastical law). — Degradation is an act de- priving an ecclesiastic of his orders or privileges or of both. There are two kinds of degradation : the simple or verbal; the actual or soletnn. By the first, the accused is deprived of all his orders and benefices. By the second, he is with great ceremony stripped of his ecclesiastical vestments and ornaments and publicly reprimanded by the bishop, deprived of his orders and benefices, as in simple degradation, and of his various privileges. He remains, how- ever, a priest, and can, in special emergen- cies, administer the sacraments. Also the degraded priest is not exempt from the vow of chastity or from saying his brevi- ary. Degradation is now resorted to only in extreme cases. Deposition debars a priest from the privileges and duties of his order, but differs from degradation in that the latter is always perpetual, while the former may be only temporary, and consistent with the hope of restoration.

    Deism. — System of those who, rejecting all revelation, believe only in the existence of God. Certain commentators confound Deism with Theism, seeking to designate thereby only the common foundation of all the philosophical doctrines which pro- fess the belief in a God. But in the general acceptation, the Deist is the one who affects to limit his belief to the faith in a rational, impersonal God, whose attri- butes and providence he does not seek to determine. For him, God is only the first cause, the great indispensable mechan- ism of the world's movement. Deism does not puSh its inquiries any farther, and for the most of its followers the immortality of the soul as well as the divine personality are insoluble problems, about which the human mind should not concern itself.

    Delegate. See Legate.

    Deluge .{the Noachian). — By the Noa- chian Deluge is understood the inundation which took place at an unknown date in ancient times, and which, according to




    the account of Genesis, covered the whole earth and caused the destruction of all mankind, with the exception of Noe and his family. After having described this extraordinary phenomenon we shall es- tablish its historic reality, extent, and nature.

    1. Description. — i. Moral Cause and Prophetic Announcement. — The malice of men, descended from the union of the Sethites and Cainites, and their violence increasing continually, and having at- tained its extreme limits, God repented of having created man, and resolved to exter- minate guilty mankind and all the beings that had been the instruments or witnesses of their crimes. Noe alone, who was just, found grace in His eyes, together with his sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. The means chosen by God to revenge His outraged justice and to purify the earth was a general inundation, which would destroy the life of all living beings. The instrument of salvation, which should pre- serve the hope of mankind, was an ark or vessel. God Himself indicated its di- mensions and designated the men and ani- mals that should enter therein to repeople the earth. He also ordered Noe to place therein the food necessary for its future occupants (Gen. vi. 1-21). The Deluge was, therefore, in the designs of God, a chastisement for the crimes and perversity of men, and at the same time a means of preservation and of the reconstitution of a new mankind in the true faith and good morals. It was a providential event, willed by God's wisdom as well as by His justice.

    2. Realization. — When Noe had com- plied with all the divine orders, while his contemporaries continued, in spite of the warnings given to them, their indifferent and dissolute life, God ordered him to complete his preparations and to enter into the ark with his wife, his sons, and their wives, eight persons in all (I. Pet. iii. 20). As to the number of animals of each kind that were to be taken into the ark, the commentators have never been in accord. Some believe that God had fixed seven pairs of pure animals and two of impure animals; others have counted only seven pure and two impure individuals, the expressions " seven, seven; two, two," being distributive numbers. Seven days afterwards, all having been done as God had commanded, and the Lord Himself having closed the door of the ark, the waters of the Deluge spread over the

    earth. It was the seventeenth day of the second month and six hundredth year of the life of Noe. "All the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the flood gates of heaven were opened, and the rain fell upon the earth during forty days and forty nights." Thus only two physical causes of the inundation are meta- phorically indicated : the invasion of sea water upon the earth and a torrential rain. It has been believed that " the fountains of the deep" designated the sub- terranean sources abundantly gushing forth their waters, but they are rather the waves of the ocean which, leaving their natural reservoirs, broke over the firm earth and covered it. The Hebrew word tehom, em- ployed here, more often means the sea (Is. li. 10; Ps. xxxvi. 7; Ixxviii. 15; Amos vii. 4) than the subterranean fountains ( Job xxxviii. 16; Ps. Ixxi. 20). "The flood gates of heaven," which, being opened, allowed the escape of cataracts, signify in the popular conception of the earthly at- mosphere the clouds which burst and spread a furious rain, gesem. The inun- dation was progressive, and the waters, increasing, raised the ark and submerged the whole surface of the earth. All the living beings and all men, except those shut up in the ark, perished. While the saving vessel floated and the hand of God held its rudder (Wis. xiv. 6), the waters rose, and their height became such that they surpassed by fifteen cubits the sum- mits of all the mountains that are under heaven. They covered thus the earth during one hundred days (Gen vii. 1-24). 3. Diminution and Cessation. — At the end of this time God remembered Noe and the beings that were in the ark and He caused the Deluge to cease. The causes of the inundation acted no longer, the foun- tains of the deep and the flood gates of heaven were closed, and the rains stopped. A brisk and warm wind, which God sent upon the earth, gradually diminished the waters by evaporation. They decreased by and by and withdrew into the places from whence they had gone forth. The sea re- gained its bed, and the clouds reformed themselves into atmosphere. On the twenty-seventh day (according to the Vul- gate, or the seventeenth, according to the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, the Targum and several ancient versions) of the seventh month, the ark rested on Mount Ararat, in Armenia. The decrease of the waters continued until the beginning of the tenth




    month. On the first day of this month the summits of the mountains appeared. Forty days later Noe, desirous to know whether the surface of the earth was dry, opened the window of the ark and sent forth a raven, which did not return. He also sent forth a dove, which, not findins; where her foot might rest, returned. Seven days afterwards he again sent a dove, and in the evening she came back, carrying a bough of an olive tree, with green leaves, in her mouth. At this sign Noe under- stood that the waters had entirely disap- peared. After seven days more he a third time sent forth a dove, which did not return. Opening the covering of the ark Noe saw that the face of the earth was dried. Then God commanded Noe, to- gether with his family and the animals, to leave the ark. The duration of the Deluge was one year and eleven days. Or, as the months refer, in the Biblical account, to the lunar year, the total duration of the Deluge corresponds to a solar year of three hundred and sixty five days. The rescued patriarch offered to the Lord a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Jehovah was pleased with its odor and promised to punish guilty mankind no more by the waters of a deluge (Gen. viii. 1-22). God blessed Noe and his children, established with them a covenant, and chose the rain- bow as a visible and perpetual sign of His promise to submerge the earth no more by a flood similar to that which had taken place (Gen. ix. 1-17).

    The modern critics see in the Biblical narrative, which we have rapidly analyzed, an awkward combination of two different and contradictory accovmts of the Deluge, the one Elohistic and the other Jehovistic. To believe them, the difference between the documents follows evidently from the con- tradictions, the repetitions that it is easy to remark therein, from the particular style of each source, and especially from the use of the divine names Elohim and Jehovah. The Elohistic account is complete, while the Jehovistic has reached us only in frag- ments.

    These conclusions do not carry the evi- dence that is attributed to them, and the critical analysis of the narrative of the Deluge is far from being as certain as is pretended. The Elohistic parts do not constitute a complete whole ; they present breaks and are not free from repetitions. Notwithstanding its repetitions, the pres- ent narrative forms an harmonic and

    progressive whole, and the repetitions, by insisting on the principal circumstances, define them the more and are very striking in their effect. Besides, they are conform- able to the customs of the Hebrews and to the ample and redundant accounts of the Orientals. The cuneiform legend of the Deluge, of which we shall speak very soon, and which offers no trace of Elohism and Jehovism, has the same repetitions and con- tains the features which are declared to be peculiar to the two original documents. The Biblical narrative is the work of a single compiler, who, if he did employ an- terior sources, has molded them into a re- markable unity.

    II. Historic Reality of the Del- uge. — The Biblical Deluge is no astro- nomical myth ; it is a fact whose historical truth is evident from the Mosaic account alone. This account reproduces the He- brew tradition of the remembrance of the cataclysm. But for this fact we have other proofs, which have been provi- dentially brought to light in a time when the Biblical narrative is most vehemently attacked.

    Diluvtcin Traditions, i. The Chaldean Tradition. — There exist, outside of Gen- esis, many diluvian traditions. The most important, and the one that approaches nearest to the Mosaic account, is the Chal- dean tradition, of which we possess two versions unequally developed : that of Berosus, preserved by Eusebius {Chron., I. I., c. iil.), and that of the poem of Gil- games, deciphered in 1872. According to the interpretation of Berosus, under the reign of Xisuthros occurred the great flood whose history is related in the sacred mon- uments in the following manner: "The great Deluge took place under Xisuthros. The god Ea appeared to him in a dream, and announced that on the 15th of the month Daisios (a little before the summer solstice), all men should perish by a flood. He was therefore to collect all that was consigned to writing, and bury it at Sip- para, the city of the Sun. There he was to build a vessel and to enter into it with his family and dearest friends ; and he was to cause animals, birds, and quadrupeds to enter it with him, taking sufficient pro- vision. He was, moreover, to prepare everything for navigation. And when Xisuthros asked in what direction he should steer, he was told : ' Towards the gods,' and he was enjoined to pray that good might come of it for men.




    " Xisuthros, on this, obeyed, and con- structed a vessel five stadia long (3,033 feet, 9 inches) and two broad (1,213 f^^t, 6 inches) ; and having brought together all that had been ordered, went into it with his wife, his children, and his intimate friends.

    "The Deluge having come, and soon going down, Xisuthros loosed some of the birds ; but these finding no food, nor place to alight, returned to the ship. A few days later he again set them free, but they returned, their feet stained with mud. Sent off a third time, they never came back. Xisuthros from this understood that the earth was bare, and, having made an open- ing in the roof of the ship, saw that it had grounded on the top of a mountain. He then descended with his wife, his daughter, and his pilot, and having worshiped the earth, raised an altar and sacrificed to the gods. At the same moment he vanished, with those who accompanied him.

    " Meanwhile, those who had remained in the vessel, finding he did not return, de- scended and began to seek him, calling him by name. But they saw Xisuthros no more. A voice from heaven, however, was heard, commanding that they should be pious toward the gods, and telling them that he had received the reward of his piety, by being carried away to dwell henceforth in the midst of the gods, and that his wife, his daughter, and the pilot of the ship, shared the same honor. The voice further said that they were to return to Babylon, and dig up the writings buried at Sippara in order to transmit them to after generations. The country in which they found themselves was Armenia. They, then, having heard the voice, sacrificed to the gods and returned on foot to Babylon. Of the vessel of Xisuthros, a portion is still to be found in the Gordyan Mountains in Armenia, and pilgrims bring thence asphalt which they have scraped from its fragments. It is used to keep off the in- fluence of witchcraft."

    The other version, which is still more interesting, is written on cuneiform tables exhumed from the library of Assurbani- pal, at Ninive, and preserved in the British Museum, at London. These tab- lets were copied in the seventh century B. c. from a very ancient copy, which came from Erech, in Chaldea. The date of the original is unknown. However, George Smith makes it go back to at least seventeen centuries b. c. The account of

    the Deluge is only an episode of an epopee in twelve cantos, which relate the exploits of the hero Gilgames. There is a picture of him on the eleventh tablet and it con- stitutes the eleventh chant, which exists almost entirely. Gilgames had gone to his ancestor, Samas-napistim, in a far-away country and difficult of access, whither the gods had transported him to make him enjoy an eternal happiness. Samas-nap- istim relates to his grandson the history of the Deluge and of his own preservation. The city of Surippak, on the Euphrates, was already very ancient, when the gods resolved upon a deluge. Ea revealed his design to Samas-napistim and ordered him to build a vessel, whose dimensions he indicated to him, and he suggested to him the answer to give to the questions of the inhabitants of Surippak. Samas-nap- istim was to tell them that he wished to fly before the wrath of Bel, who soon would in- undate the country. The vessel completed, Samas-napistim offered a sacrifice, gath- ered together his riches and caused to enter into the ship his servants, male and female, the cattle of the fields and seeds of life. As soon as the rain fell, he himself entered into the vessel, and shut its door. The storm raised by the gods was so fright- ful that they themselves were alarmed. Mankind became again the slime of earth. The wind, the deluge, and the storm reigned seven days and seven nights. On the seventh day, at dawn, it stopped raining, the sea became quiet and the wind calm. The light having reappeared, Samas- napistim beheld no land ; the whole was a watery desert. His vessel was stopped by the mountain of Nizir and could not pass over it. After being seven days thus anchored, Samas-napistim sent out a dove, which went, circled about, and, finding no place to alight, came back. A swallow did the same. A raven did not return. Then Samas-napistim sent out the animals from the vessel and offered to the gods a sacrifice of an agreeable odor. Bel was filled with anger against the gods because Samas-napistim had been preserved. Ea reproached Bel for his passion and advised him to punish in future only the guilty, instead of sending upon earth a universal deluge. Bel, becoming appeased, caused to enter into the vessel Samas-napistim and his wife, blessed them, conferred upon them itnmortality, and made them to dwell "at the mouth of rivers." (See George Smith's Assyrian Discoveries.)




    This legend presents, with the Biblical account of the Deluge, numerous points of contact. The resemblances existing in the general progress of the narrative, in the order of composition, and sometimes even in the details of the style, render the rela- tionship of both documents unquestion- able. Notable divergences, however, are apparent. Without speaking of the poly- theistic and mythological character of the Chaldean poem, the latter has been com- posed among a maritime people and car- ries the imprint of the morals and customs of the inhabitants of the Persian gulf, while Genesis describes the Deluge for a continental people. If the analogies prove the community of foundation, the diver- gences, which are characteristic, establish the peculiar individuality of both accounts. As to the original relations of both tradi- tions, the critics are not in agreement. Some admit the dependence of both docu- ments, Hebrew and Chaldean, or at least of the two traditions which they represent. In the eyes of certain rationalistic critics, who lower the date of the Pentateuch, the account of Genesis would be a direct and quite late borrowing from the cuneiform poem; it would be only a purified edition thereof, an adaptation to the religious ideas of the Hebrews and a monotheistic and much abbreviated transformation. The borrowing, if there was any, did not take place in a recent epoch, and it is not the work of one man, but the work of sev- eral generations. The transformation of the Chaldean legends was done by the He- brews in their popular tradition before the account was reproduced in the Biblical doc- uments. " Nothing prevents us from as- serting that the history of the Deluge had been known to the ancestors of Israel dur- ing their sojourn in Mesopotamia, and that it had been preserved, becoming modified and purified, among the descendants of Abraham until the moment when we find it fixed in the Biblical texts." (A.Loisy, Les Mythes Chaldeen de la Creation et du DSluge, p. 93.) But other critics acknowledge with more probability in the Chaldean legend and in the Mosaic narrative two parallel accounts, sprung from a common and primitive tradition more or less faithfully preserved. They represent two independent forms, national and localized by the Semitic tradition. They are sister traditions, which, under the empire of physical and moral, ethnical and geographical causes, have become di-

    versified. The mother tradition has been better preserved in the account of Moses than in the Babylonian document, where it became disfigured by the mythological al- terations.

    2. Other Diluvian Traditions. — Tradi- tions in regard to the Deluge are found among most of the nations. All of them bear a likeness to the account of Genesis, but with divergences of views which have given rise to three different interpretations : (i) According to one, the diluvian tradi- tion is universal, and all the nations have kept the remembrance of the Noachian Deluge. The existence of this remem- brance has already been proven among most of them, and if a nation seems to have this no longer, it is because it has not yet furnished all its traditions, or because it has lost that of the Deluge in consequence of migration, mixture with other popu- lations, or on account of some other his- torical circumstance. Now, all these dilu- vian traditions are more or less mutilated fragments of the sole and true primitive tradition. The transformations which they have undergone are explained by the local adaptation of the cataclysm, and were pro- duced by restriction. The event, general and universal as it was, became local, par- ticular, and restricted. (2) A critical and scientific study of these remembrancesof the Deluge enables us to distinguish the real diluvian traditions, which have reference to the Noachian Deluge, from the pseudo- diluvian traditions, which have reference to local inundations. The really diluvian traditions are either original and aboriginal, that is, having their origin in the countries where they are preserved and peculiar to the peoples that hold them, or else imported by foreigners into the region where we find them, and consequently borrowed. Now, if the diluvian tradition is not absolutely universal, it exists in all the great races of mankind, except one, the negro race, among whom researches have been made in vain for some trace thereof. The Aryan or Indo-European races, Semitic or Syro- Arabic, Chamite or Cushite races, have their own diluvian tradition and have not bor- rowed from one another; among them it is primitive. The yellow race possesses it, but by importation. The American populations know it, but we cannot tell with certainty whether their traditions are original or whether they are of Asiatic or European importation. In the number of pseudo- diluvian legends, we can rank the deluges




    of Ogyges and of Deucalion, the great in- undation placed by the historical books of China under the reign of Yao, and the legend of Botchica, among the Muyscas of South America. (3) Finally, other critics draw still more rigorously the conclusions from the critical study of the diluvian tra- ditions, and end by acknowledging as really diluvian and aboriginal only the Chaldean tradition. It was imported from Mesopotamia, — they say, — its native coun- trv, into the neighboring countries ; it be- came the stem and has brought forth the Hebrew, Phoenician, Syrian, Arabic, Phryg- ian, and Armenian branches. The antero- Asiatic traditions are the only really diluvian ; all the others are pseudo-diluvian traditions. Be this as it may, even if we reduce the really diluvian traditions to a minimum, the fact of the Deluge re- mains historically certain. Its historical certitude rests upon a group of real tradi- tions, which have transmitted to us the remembrance of the great cataclysm that struck mankind at the beginning of history. 3. Geology. — The first geologists be- lieved that in the strata of the terrestrial surface they had direct proofs of the sub- mersion of the globe in an historical epoch, and they attributed to the Mosaic Deluge the formation of alluvial soils, which in consequence thereof they named diluvium. Their opinion is generally abandoned to- day. The contemporary geologists ac- knowledge that an inundation like the Noachian Deluge, which lasted only one year, could not leave on the soil traces durable enough to be recognized with cer- tainty centuries after, nor characteristic enough to be distinguished from those of other foregoing inundations. The phe- nomena which their predecessors regarded as geological proofs of the Deluge they refer to anterior epochs, and explain them through the action of other causes. They have established, indeed, that there are several kinds of diluvium, and in each of them several layers due to different factors and referring to distant epochs. They have been produced by a long series of revolutions in which water plays an im- portant, but not an exclusive role. The alluvial gravels, which constitute the gray diluvium, have been carried away from the mountains into the valleys by water currents more powerful than our existing rivers and flowing under other conditions of slope and level. The loess is due to torrents formed by very heavy rains, which

    graded down the slopes and carried away fine clay and fragments of stone. The red diluvium is the result of alternatives of frost and thaw on the surface of a soil constantly frozen in its depths. (A. de Lapparent, Traite de geologic.) The er- ratic blocks, those immense rocks trans- ported hundreds of miles from the mountains from which they had been torn, have not been rolled b^' the waters, for their angles are neither broken nor rounded, but have been carried along by the immense glaciers which in the Qua- ternary times covered a part of the globe. The caves and fissures of rocks filled with human and animal bones strongly cemented together and mingled with frag- ments of the surrounding rocks were formed in the time when the excessive cold obliged the inhabitants of Europe to seek shelter in the caves. Their bones became heaped up with those of animals for whom these grottoes served as haunts, and the whole became soldered through the action of the water which infiltrated. The bone caves and the osseous breccia are not, therefore, any more than the diluvial grounds and the erratic blocks, certain proofs of the Noachian Deluge. However, geology, which does not confirm directly the existence of the Deluge, does not con- tradict it. It even shows its possibility, when it establishes the traces of consider- able inundations in the Tertiary and Quaternary times. Therefore, the Biblical Deluge cannot be declared unscientific nor impossible.

    III. Extent of the Deluge. — The Biblical text presents the Deluge as uni- versal ; but this universality has been understood in three different ways, and the inundation has been held as universal: (i) As to the surface of the globe. (2) As to the earth inhabited by men. (3) As to the region occupied by only a portion of man- kind. Hence there are three opinions in regard to the extent of the cataclysm : The . first admits the absolute and geographical universality of the Deluge ; the second its anthropological universality; the third its universality restricted to a fraction of mankind.

    I. Absolute and Geographical Uni- versality. — Most of the ancient ecclesias- tical writers, fathers, doctors, theologians, and commentators, believed that the Del- uge had been complete in the widest sense of the word, and that it had covered the whole earth. They gave to the Mosaic




    account the meaning which it presents at first sight, and they understood it to be an inundation which had submerged the globe and destroyed every animal and every man. The terms employed by Moses appeared to them as allowing of no other exception than that which they indicate, and which relate to Noe and his family. The absolute universality of the Deluge is described in Genesis in very strong and very precise terms, and the text is so clear that for centuries it has been understood in this sense. Nothing indicates that the universality of the cataclysm must be re- stricted, and the context, from the fact that it excepts Noe and that it excepts no other person, excludes all restrictive inter- pretation. God, in fact, had resolved to produce the Deluge in order to destroy all flesh that was under heaven. Representa- tives of every species of the terrestrial animals were gathered into the ark for the preservation of the species upon earth. The waters inundate everything and cover the highest mountains. All flesh perishes, and the only living beings left are those which are shut up in the ark. God prom- ised to Noe that there shall never be another deluge to destroy all flesh. Now, there have been since partial deluges, that of Deucalion among the Greeks and the great inundation of the Chinese. If the Noachian Deluge had not been universal, God, therefore, would have violated His promise. The pledge which he has given, the rainbow, can be seen in all countries. It is universal. Therefore, the Deluge, whose sign it is, must have been universal. In presence of such a formal text the ob- jections drawn from physical sciences against the absolute universality of the Del- uge have little value; and even if reason could not sufliciently solve them, the faith of the Christian would not be shaken. For God, who had regulated all in view of a universal catastrophe, had power enough to realize eflfects which science is incapable of explaining. Besides, the difficulties which an absolutely universal deluge raises are not as strong as they are sometimes imagined, and it is not certain that the quantity of existing water was not sufficient for the general submersion of the globe, especially if we admit that the irruption of the seas on the continents did not take place everywhere at the same time, but successively covered all the countries of the world. The absolute universality of the Deluge is confirmed by a passage of

    the Second Epistle of St. Peter, iii. 6 and 7. The Apostle compares the Deluge with the universal conflagration which will take place at the end of time. Then the world will perish by fire as it perished at a former time by water. The comparison between the two catastrophes exists only under the relation of extent ; it would be inexact if both had not the same universality. These exegetical arguments, joined to the unani- mous interpretation of the ancients and the universality of the diluvial traditions, have determined some modern exegetists to admit that the deluge covered the entire earth and destroyed all men and all animals.

    2. Relative and Anthropological Uni- versality. — Many commentators and theo- logians of our day believe that the Noachian Deluge must be restricted to the portion of the earth that was colonized when it took place. According to them, all men, except the family of Noe, were engulfed in the floods ; but the inundation did not cover the whole globe nor destroy all the animals. The universality of the Deluge is neither geographical nor zoolog- ical; it is only anthropologically univer- sal.

    This interpretation appears to them necessary in order to cut short the grave objections which zoology and physics raise against the absolute universality of the Del- uge. The placing in the ark, which was pro- portionately insufficient, of all the animal species known to-day and of the provisions necessary for their varied nourishment during a year; the care required for their keeping and for the providing of which there were only eight persons ; the neces- sity for the animals that had come from different zones to accommodate themselves to a uniform temperature ; the restocking of the entire globe, at a time when no traces are left of the migrations of animals peculiar to America and Oceania, — for in- stance, at a time in which the fauna has always been localized, and when certain animal species have never existed outside their respective zones ; the preservation of the fresh water fishes and of salt water fishes in the mixture of rain and river water with that of seas, — all this causes insurmount- able difficulties. On the other hand, in the domain of physics, we can hardly ex- plain the production of the immense mass of water necessary to inundate the entire globe. The quantity of the water known is insufficient. Even without keeping




    account of the cre^aces and sinkings of the earthly surface, it needed, above the level of the sea, a volume of water of a depth equal to the height of the most elevated peak of the Himalayas, /. e., a height of more than 29,000 feet. Admitting that there was sufficient water, the simultane- ous submersion of both hemispheres would be physically impossible. Such a submer- sion would bring on a change in the atmos- phere that would modify the conditions of life upon earth. To have recourse to the divine almighty power to explain these impossibilities is to multiply the miracles which the sacred account does not mention and which the principles of a wise exegesis do not permit us to introduce uselessly.

    Besides, the text of Genesis can be in- terpreted legitimately b}- restraining the limits of the inundation. The general and absolute expressions, "all living flesh under heaven, all that exists upon earth ; all the high mountains under the whole heaven" (Gen. vi. 17; vii. 19), must be understood according to the genius pe- culiar to the Oriental languages. Now the Orientals often employ the hyperbole, not only in their poetical writings, but even in their historical books, and nothing is more frequent in the Bible than to designate determined countries by the words "the whole earth." The famine which reigned in the time of Jacob in the neighboring countries of Palestine and Egypt prevailed over "the whole earth" (Gen. xli. 54, 56, 57). The entering of the Israelites into Palestine causes fear among all the nations that dwell under the whole heaven (Deut. ii. 25), that is, among all the neighboring peoples. So also in Deut. xi. 25, and in II. Par. xx. 29. All the earth that desired to see Soloman(III. Ki. X. 24) was only the part that had heard mention of him. At the first Christian Pentecost, there were at Jerusalem men of every nation under heaven, that is, Jews of all the countries of the dispersion. The ancient exegetists remarked among the Biblical writers the use of absolute and general terms to express particular facts (St. Jerome, In Isaiam, xiii. 5). It is, therefore, permitted to apply to the ac- count of the Deluge in Genesis this method of restriction, which is necessary in other Biblical passages. Besides, this account presents positive indications of restriction. The dove did not find where her foot might rest, for the waters were upon the whole earth (Gen. viii. 9). The

    traveling bird had evidently not flown over the entire globe, and "all the earth" simply designates here the space which the dove had explored. Finally, in the interpretation of the Biblical account, we must keep account of the subjective point of view of the narrator and readers. Now, Noe and his descendants, as well as Moses and his contemporaries, did not know the entire globe; their geographical knowl- edge was limited. The account of the Deluge, for a long time transmitted by oral tradition and finally consigned to writing, is conformable to their knowledge. It referred only to the country then known by them, to the mountains which they had seen, to the animals which surrounded them and of which they had heard. It is, therefore, legitimate to restrain the sacred text to the lands inhabited, and, in spite of contrary appearances, this restriction is not in contradiction with the narrative of Moses. As to the words of St. Peter, they would signify, if taken rigorously, that the earth was destroyed by water in the time of the Deluge, as it will be destroyed by fire at the end of time. How- ever, the aim of the Apostle is not to com- pare the two catastrophes from the point of view of the extent, but only from the point of view of the certainty of the fact, and of the effects produced.

    The restriction of the universality- of the Deluge to the lands inhabited is not op- posed to ecclesisastical tradition, which has not acknowledged without exception the absolute universality of the inundation. The anonymous author of the ^uestiones ct Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (q. xxxiv.), re- futes some ancient writers who maintained that the Deluge did not invade all the earth, but only the countries which men inhabited at that time. Theodore of Mop- suestia held this opinion, as John Philipon, in the seventh century, tells us (De Mundi Creatione, 1. i., c. xiii., in Gallandius, Bibliotheca Veferum Patrum, Venice, Vol. XII.) (1778), p. 486. Cardinal Cajetan ( In Genrsim, viii. 18) excluded the summits of the highest mountains. In the second half of the seventeenth century, three Protes- tant writers taught the restricted univer- sality of the Deluge. Isaac Vossius {De Vera yEtate Mun'ii) became the champion of this theory and answered the objections of George Horn ( Castigationes ad Ohjecta Georgii Hornii, et Auctuarium CastigatiotiHtn ad Scriptum de yEtate Mundi. The Hague, 1569 ). Abraham




    van der Mill put forth the same opinion in a writing published later on (Z>e Origine Animalium et Mtgratione Populorum, Geneva, 1667). His son-in-law, Andrew Colvius, communicated the manuscript of his father-in-law to Vossius, who addressed a letter to him: Ad Andream Colvium Epistola qua Refellunttir Argumenta qucB Diversi Scripto de .^tate Miindi Oppo- suere (The Hague, 1659). An anonymous dissertation {De Diluvii Universalitate Dissertatio Prolusoria, 1667), attributed to George-Gaspard Kirchmeier, restricts the Deluge to all Asia, the only part of the world which men occupied at that time. In 1685, the works of Vossius and of Horn on the Biblical chronology and the Deluge were examined by the Congrega- tion of the Index. Mabillon, who then happened to be staying in Rome, was con- sulted on the subject, and, in the session of January 29th, 1686, he read his Votum de !^uibusdam Isaaci Vossii Opusculis (published in \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\?, Posthumous Works (1724), Vol. II, p. 59-74). Of the three points incriminated, he studied only the last, the only one contestable, namely, that which concerns the extent of the Deluge. He de- tailed the reasons that were favorable and unfavorable, and concluded that according to his opinion, there was no danger in tolerating the view of Vossius, and that it is best not to censure it. When, however, the Congregation judged it wiser to con- demn it, it had to strike at the same time the works of Horn. The Congregation kept account of the conclusions of Mabillon, and by a decree of July 2d, 1686, condemned at once ten short treatises of Vossius and two of Horn. The motives of the censure are unknown It may be pre- sumed that the opinion of the Deluge re- stricted to the inhabited earth was not directly attacked, and that the decree pro- hibits only the reading of works of Prot- estant writers. Be this as it may. This opinion of the Deluge being restricted to the inhabited earth was taken up again, and is held by many Catholics to-day. Certainly it is maintainable and does not appear to be contrary to orthodoxy.

    3. Universality Restricted to a Part of Mankind. — Other savants, among whom are some Catholic writers, restrict the Deluge still more, and say that not all men perished by the Flood, but that entire races, long ago removed from the theatre of inundation, were preserved. These races would be, according to several, those

    which had sprung forth from Cain, and only the descendants of Seth would have been struck by the Deluge. Some even believe that the populations outside the valley of the Euphrates were spared. This opinion rests upon the same reasons as the second, of which it is only a more rigorous application. It avoids the scientific diffi- culties which paleontology, ethnology, and linguistics, oppose to the existence of a deluge which would have engulfed all men. A multitude of facts, becoming more numerous every day, permits us to affirm that since the Quaternary times man has occupied the four parts of the world, that he reached the extremities of the an- cient world, and that he touched those of the new. Now the paleontologists do not discover, by the fossil bones of men, in the history of the races, the breaks or gaps which the Deluge would necessarily have left therein. As far back as the historic monuments go, the existence of white, yellow, and black races is estab- lished. The negro appears with his dis- tinctive characteristics on the most ancient monuments of Egypt. Since the variations were produced slowly under the influence of the surroundings, "the most ancient races formed themselves, according to all appearance, in consequence of the changes our globe has undergone and of the first migrations." (A. de Quatrefages, His- toire Generale des Races, p. 169.) Lin- guistics confirm the conclusions of ethnology. The languages, if we admit their natural formation, would not have had time to become diversified from the time of the Deluge until the epoch when we see them all formed. The stretching out of the Biblical chronology of the Deluge until Abraham is insufficient to explain entirely the established facts. Therefore, these facts justify the restriction of the Deluge to a portion of mankind.

    Besides, this restriction can be perfectly reconciled with the account of Genesis. If, by the avowal of the followers of the anthropological universality, the expres- sions apparently so absolute, " all the earth, all animals," can be legitimately in- terpreted in a restrictive sense, the similar expression, " all men," in the same con- text, may also be understood of a portion of mankind, of individuals who inhabited the theatre of the catastrophe. To refuse to admit the restriction of the word all when there is question of men, when one admits it for the earth and animals, would




    be an inconsequence which nothing could justify. There are as many motives to re- strict the universality to mankind as to the earth and animals. The moral corruption, which was the cause of the Deluge, was not absolutely universal, except in the country where Noe lived. The narrative of Genesis relates the facts according to the ordinary manner of speaking, accord- ing to which " all the earth " designates the country submerged by the waters ; "all men" the inhabitants of this country. On the other hand. Genesis is not the history of mankind, but only that of the ancestors of God's people. For, in its narrative of the Deluge, it left out of its purview entire races descended from the sons and daughters of Adam and the other patriarchs. Its account of the Del- uge, which besides has a well-marked local color, speaks no longer of these races and has in view only the inhabitants of the country where the facts occurred. Finally, by the avowal of all, the ethnographic table of the tenth chapter of Genesis is not complete, and makes no mention of the yellow, red, and black races. These races undoubtedly derive their origin from indi- viduals who did not belong to Noe's line. The Abbe Motais (Le Deluge Bibliquc, p. 301-33) believed that he had found in the Pentateuch traces of the survivors of the Deluge, and he named the Cainites, the Amalekites, the Sodomites, and the giant populations of Palestine, the Emim, the Zomzommim, the Avorim and the Horim. But these traces are hardly probable.

    To this interpretation the defenders of the universality of the Deluge as to man- kind object, not without foundation, that the Biblical account contains various features which are directly and positively opposed to all restriction of the cataclysm to a portion of mankind. The man that God desires to destroy by the Deluge is the man that He has created, and whom He repents of having made (Gen. vi. 5-8) ; hence it is all mankind and not merely a portion. Besides, Noe, after leaving the ark, is represented as the father and chief of all men that shall live after the Deluge (Gen. ix. i, 19). Finally, the plan of Genesis does not necessarily eliminate before the sixth chapter the children of Cain and the other descendants of the patriarchs outside the principal line, which must be that of God's people. This line- age is completely isolated only at the he- ginning of the history of Abraham. To

    the third opinion, is also opposed the Bib- lical texts which are quoted outside of Genesis, and which affirm that all men perished in the cataclysm. But " the hope of the world fleeing to a vessel, which was governed by thy hand, left to the world seed of generation " (Wis. xiv. 6), may be understood of Noe, father of the postdilu- vian men, even in the hypothesis of other surviving races. " Noe was found perfect, just, and in the time of wrath he was made a reconciliation. Therefore was there a remnant left to the earth, when the flood came" (Ecclus. xliv. 17, 18). When our Saviour Jesus Christ compares the end of the world with the Deluge, which carried ofT, if not all men, at least all the voluptu- ous of the time (Matt. xxiv. 37-39), His comparison has reference not to the uni- versality of the victims, but to the unex- pected character of the Deluge and of the last judgment, and He only savs : "In spite of the admonitions and certain signs, the contemporaries of Noe were surprised by the Deluge, which exterminated them all." When St. Peter speaks of the eight souls that were saved in the ark (I. Pet. iii. 19, 20), his purpose was not to prove the necessity of universality of baptism, but its efficaciousness. He compares the water of baptism with that of the Deluge in so far as it saves, not in so far as it de- stroys; and he affirms that all the baptized will be saved as certainly as were saved the small number of souls that were con- tained in the ark at the time of the Deluge. When the same Apostle says that God did not spare the primitive world and saved only Noe, the eighth person, that is, seven other persons with him. bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly (II. Pet ii. 5-7), we can explain his words as referring to the world in the midst of which was living Noe the preacher of jus- tice. Therefore, these texts neither prove for nor against the ethnographic univer- salit)' of the Deluge.

    If to the third opinion is objected the unanimous accord with which the Fathers acknowledge the anthropological univer- sality of the Deluge, its followers answer that we are permitted to deviate from the common sentiment of the Fathers in re- gard to this point as legitimately as to the subject of the geographical and zoological universality. They say, it is true, that the testimony of the Fathers in regard to the inundation of the globe and to the de- struction of the animals does not consti-




    tute an ecclesiastical teaching, while it affirms the destruction of mankind as a point of faith, as a truth connected with faith, because it gives it as a basis to a cer- tain type, to the figurative meaning of the ark, representing the Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The exist- ence of the type is unquestionable. But it is not from the nature of the type that there is an equation between it and the antitype which it represents. A relatively universal fact may serve as type to an abso- lutely universal fact. The house of Rahab is considered by the Fathers as a figure of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The eight persons who were in the ark represented all the saved. The contemporaries of Noe, the only inhabit- ants of the country submerged, may rep- resent all those outside the Church who will be damned, without the typical meaning of the Deluge losing any of its value. The relative universality as to men is therefore sufficient to maintain the truth of the type. The Fathers, it is true, sup- port themselves upon the absolute univer- sality of the destruction of men. However, they did not make this a necessary condi- tion of the prophetic type ; they did not expressly exclude the relative universality, and their manner of expressing themselves does not exclude it in an equivalent man- ner. Therefore, they have not authori- tatively decided a question which did not propose itself to them.

    If the third opinion cannot quote in its favor the authority of the ancients, it counts, however, many followers. It is not altogether new. Jerome Oleaster, a Dominican, admitted that the Cinites (Num. xxiv. 21) descended from Cain. Isaac de la Peyrere restricted the Deluge to Palestine. August Malbert, Fredr. Klee, Ch. Schoebel, Omalius d'Halloy, Motais, do the same. A great number of writers, without positively adopting it, hold it as maintainable and probable. If science should be able to establish by a rigorous demonstration, or by an ensemble of precise and convergent indications, the anthropological nonuniversality of the Deluge, we could admit that the Biblical account is not opposed to this view. But, up to the present, science has not estab- lished this fact, and we can satisfy its actual legitimate claims by removing fur- ther back the date of the Deluge. There- fore, it is not necessary to adopt the opinion which restricts the Deluge to only

    a portion of mankind. We would be con- strained to do this only were the non- universality to become an incontestable truth, and we could do so, because faith does not teach anything to the contrary. Meanwhile, it is wise and prudent to ad- here to the second opinion.

    IV. Nature of the Deluge. — As long as people admitted the absolute uni- versality of the Deluge, they beheved in its miraculous character. A direct inter- vention of God was, indeed, necessary to explain the submersion of the entire globe, and the absolute universality of the inun- dation carries with it as the logical con- sequence a miraculous origin. The ancient exegetists might hesitate and fail to agree as to the precise point when the immediate action of God made itself felt; they were unanimous in acknowledging in the Bibli- cal Deluge a fact produced outside the ordinary laws of nature, a miraculous fact. But since they commenced to re- strict the inundation to determined limits, either to the region which men then occu- pied, or to the countries known by the Hebrews, or to some particular land, it has appeared as an event provoked un- doubtedly by a special intention of God, but realized by natural forces ; as a fact providential in its aim, miraculous in its prophetic announcement, but natural in its mode of production. There is room, then, to ask whether the Deluge was pro- duced by a direct intervention of God, or whether it has been the effect of physical causes merely directed by Providence.

    The prophetic' announcement of the catastrophe does not prove that the cata- clysm itself was miraculous. Other events, announced in the Bible as divine ven- geance, as exemplary chastisements, have been phenomena entirely natural in them- selves. The destruction of Jerusalem, foretold by Jesus Christ with details more circumstantial than those of the Deluge, was nevertheless realized by natural and human agencies. All the prophesied facts are not miracles. In order that prophecy may be realized, God does not need to der- ogate from the natural laws ; it is enough that, without affecting their regular func- tions. He directs them towards the end He has in view, and that the physical causes act spontaneously at the moment He has fixed. God certainly intervened, when He directed Noe to leave the ark (Gen. viii. 15-17), and when he contracted with him a new covenant (Gen. viii, 21,




    22; ix. 1-17). But we can maintain that His direct action did not malie itself felt in the production of the inundation. While the Chaldean legend of the Del- uge makes the gods intervene in the very execution of the inundation, the account of Genesis, which shows God acting be- fore and after the event, does not speak of His action in the realization of the cata- clysm. It expressly indicates the physical causes which entered into play, a torrential rain and the invasion of the sea on the continent (Gen. vii. 11-12), without put- ting them into the hands of God. The progress and the decrease of the inundation are also presented as effecting themselves naturally (Gen. vii. 17-19, 24, and viii. 2-14). The whole course of the inundation is therefore described in Genesis as natural. The indications of the direct action of God in the realization of the Deluge, which some have believed they found in the account of Moses, are neither certain nor evident. The reading of the Italic version: '■'■ Intrahunt ad /

    If the Deluge may be considered as a natural event, it is logical to seek to dis- cover the mode of its realization. Investi-

    gations have not been wanting in this task, and the attempts at scientific explanations may be classified, according to their ten- dencies, into four groups, (i) The cos- mic theories appeal to a change in the position of the axis of the poles. The more or less displacement of the earthly axis would have had for an effect the diversion of all the oceans on the continents and the production of a gigantic bar of water which would have 'nade the tour of the world, passing over the highest mountains. It is difficult to indicate an adequate cause for this sudden displacement of the earthly axis. Some have suggested the shock of a comet and the upheaval of mountains, which might have changed the value of the angle of inclination of the earthly axis on the plane of the ecliptic. (2) The ad- herents of the volcanic theories approach the Deluge with the recent catastrophe of the Sunda Isles, and explain the inundation by an upheaval of sea water, produced by the eruption of a volcano. (3) The hold- ers of the orogenic theories connect the cataclysm with mountainous upheavals or to lowerings like that which swallowed up the Atlantides. (4) The sei.smic theory, supporting itself principally upon the scientific interpretation of the cuneiform legend of the Deluge, explains the inunda- tion by a seismic force or earthquake, which took place at the bottom of the Per- sian Gulf and threw on the plains of Meso- potamia the waves of the sea. A terrible cyclone became united with the eagre, and the seismic wave, and carried the ark from the city of Surippak, situated on the shore of the Euphrates, to the mountains of Nizir. It is impossible to tell which of these theories comes nearest to the truth. Each one of them has something in its favor and all have the merit of showing that the Deluge, which is historically cer- tain, is physically possible.

    Demas. — Disciple of St. Paul, followed and served him at Rome during his cap- tivity ; but left him afterwards to return to his own country of Thessalonica.

    Demiurge. See Gnosticism.

    Demon. See Devil.

    Denarius. See Weights.

    Denmark (Christianity in). See An-


    Denmark, Norway and Sweden ( the Church in). — Until recently the Northern,

    Deo Gratias



    or Scandinavian, kingdoms appeared to be the most hopeless of all European countries for the propagation of the Catho- lic faith. The moral degradation of the people and the cruel laws against dis- senters, Catholics especially, were insu- perable obstacles to the progress of the Church in these countries. Conversion to Catholicism was a crime involving con- fiscation of property and banishment in Denmark as well as in Sweden and Nor- way. But now the Church has been re- stored its almost complete liberty, a few restrictive laws, only, remaining unre- pealed. In Denmark, for which mission, in 1892, a vicariate apostolic was estab- lished, the Catholics number over 4,000, with about thirty priests, and eighteen churches and chapels. Twenty-two schools, two orphan asylums, and two hospitals are served by over one hundred sisters, while the Jesuits conduct a flourishing college at Copenhagen. In 1868 the mission of Sweden was erected into a vicariate apos- tolic, and that of Norway, in the year 1892. In the former country, there are over 1,300 Catholics, mostly converts, with ten priests and as many churches, and some sixty sisters laboring in three hos- pitals and ten boarding and day schools ; while in Norway, where, until 1815, no Catholic priest could reside under pain of death, there are now over twenty Catholic missionaries, having the care of about 1,000 souls, nearly all converts. Some twenty-five sisters have the management of two hospitals and ten schools. It seems, indeed, that both in Denmark and in Sweden the people in many places were well disposed towards the Catholic Church, and converts are rapidly increasing in numbers.

    Deo Gratias. — Latin words which sig nify Thanks be to God, and which serve as the response to several liturgical prayers, particularly at the end of Mass, after the last blessing of the priest, and at the end of meals after the words: "Tu autem Dotnine misere nobis."

    Deposition. See Degradation.

    Derbe. — A small town of Lycaonia, to ■which Sts. Paul and Barnabas fled from Lystra (Acts xiv. 20). It was not far from the pass called the "Cilician Gates."

    Descartes. See Cartksiaxism.

    Desecration. See Profanation.

    Desert. — In Scripture, desert usually means an uncultivated tract or pasture ground, though sometimes, as " the wilder- ness of Juda" (I. Ki. xvii. 28), it denotes an utter waste. The " great and terrible wilderness " of the Sinaitic peninsula has some barren wastes of sand, but in many parts there are plain signs of previous fer- tility. This and the Arabah, through which the Jordan runs, and which extends to the Red Sea, were the chief of the Scripture deserts.

    Deusdedit (name of two Popes). — Deus- dedit I. — Pope from 615 to 618, born at Rome. Deusdedit II. or Adeodatus. — Pope from 672 to 676 ; born at Rome.

    Deuterocanonicals and Protocanonicals.

    — For the first five centuries, and more, after Christianity began, the recognized Canon of inspired Scriptures did not find its way into every part of the Church's wide domain. It happened, therefore, that the leaders of the Christian movement were not correctly informed as to the col- lection which the whole Church acknowl- edged to be God's written word. This, and the fear of confounding any of the canonical Scriptures with the Apocrypha, then in circulation, had the eflfect of caus- ing a few of the highest in authority among the ancient Fathers, to support the divine character of several Old and New Testa- ment books. Scriptures thus challenged are Deuteroranonical, because, the fact of their being actually on the Canon was not generally known until the seventh century. These books and parts of books were ranked as secondary, while the first place was assigned to those Scriptures {Proto- canonical) whose inspiration was never doubted by any one in the Church. Both enjoy the same authority, for both are de- clared to be canonical by the infallible de- crees of the Church. In the New Testa- ment, the Deuterocanonical Scriptures are the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews; the Epistle of St. James; the Epistle of St. Jude; the two Epistles of St. Peter; the three Epistles of St. John, together with his Apocalypse ; the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; the passage regard- ing our Lord's bloody sweat (Luke xxii.) and the history of the woman taken in adultery (John viii.). In the Old Testa- ment the Deuterocanonical Scriptures are : Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasti- cus, Baruch, the two books of Machabees, the part of the book of Daniel containing




    the history of Susanna (xii.), of Bel and the Dragon (xiv.), the Canticle of the three children in the fiery furnace (iii.)i and the last seven chapters of Esther.

    Deuteronomy (fifth book of the Penta- teuch). — This Greek term, which means literally the second la-w, was given to the fifth book of the Pentateuch, because it is to some extent a repetition of what is con- tained in Leviticus, Numbers, and Exodus. In it, Moses, finding his end near, de- livered a farewell address, in which he goes over again all the most prominent enactments in the divine legislation, and concludes with a strong exhortation to fulfill these laws to the letter, since upon this faithful obser\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ance would depend God's special care for them.

    Devil (evil spirit, enemy of men). — The devils are fallen angels condemned by God into hell in order to punish them for their revolt. Sat'an is their chief, and they make constant efforts to turn away from God His whole creation, to pervert the will of men to opposition with the will of God and to destroy the sources of sal- vation and beatitude. The>- tempt man and harass his conscience, or sometimes, in the full possession of himself, by ob- session. They seek to corrupt or destroy what sers'es to benefit man. But they have only an effective power in so far as God grants it to them for the fulfillment of the trial imposed upon man, in view of merit or demerit. The devil is a liar and the father of lying.

    The objections raised against the ex- istence of the devil and against this Catholic doctrine are as follows: i. Are there, and can there be, angels, pure spirits, subsisting outside of matter.? 2. How can we admit that the pure spirits, even after having become bad, can act on the material world and produce the physical phe- nomena attributed to them by Christianity.? When they can do this, why are they not hindered by divine goodness and omnipo- tence? This belief in devils is certainly the result of ignorance and superstition. 3. Indeed, the pretended magic explains itself through the fraud of the one and the credulity of others; the temptations and passions are only facts of the physical and emotional order, a little more acute and more lively than ordinary. The diabolical possessions of former times are identical with the insanity, hysteria, or epilepsy of the present, the mediums, the spiritists,

    the hj'pnotizers, and the somnambulists of our time were called magicians and sorcer- ers in the Middle Ages. Modern science has carried the light into these infernal darknesses, and demonstrated that the credulity of the common people has been surpassed only through the absurdity and cruelty of the ecclesiastical and civil judges in their procedure against magic and witchcraft. Where the hangman in- terfered, the physician alone should have exercised his benevolent art, but the phy- sician himself was a party to the prevail- ing extravagance. 4. Finally, the Biblical accounts indicating a belief in the Demon can be interpreted in a purely natural manner, equally satisfactory to both reason and science.

    Such are, in summary, the principal ob- jections circulated among us, as to the subject of the Christian doctrine regarding the devil and his works. Let us briefly answer them, and first let us consider the most positive objection which questions the existence, the possibility itself, of the angelic spirits. When the purely spiritual substance is impossible, God can- not exist, nor the human soul, spiritual by its essence, although several of its func- tions are of the sensible and organic order ; and thus we fall entirely into the material- istic mire. The demons certainlv were not bad by nature ; God created them good, had sanctified them by His grace, had destined them to the eternal and per- fect holiness of heaven. But he had created them free and had imposed upon them, like on all the good angels, a trial prepara- tory to perpetual sanctification.

    The failure of Satan and his followers in this trial is differently explained by the theologians, but certified by revelation. Very probably these bad angels had pre- sumed to claim their existence was without the supernatural help of God, and that they were not created for the end He had proposed to them ; and this criminal pride, whose perversity and absurdity is astonishing, was justly punished by damnation. That time and grace were not granted to the guilty, was because of the excellency of the nature and grace they had received from God, and which should have restrained them from all evil and from all voluntary forfeiture. Man, the most fragile and the most inclined to sin, will be treated with compassion and mercy : a Redeemer will be promised and sent to him.




    2. The action of the evil spirits on the material world is certainly possible, be- cause all the angels were originally created by God to play an active role in the uni- verse, and the sin of rebellion committed by certain ones among them has not essen- tially changed their nature. If the angel, because he is spiritual, cannot act on the creatures of the world, how could God create the creatures of the world? How can He control them, direct them, govern them? How can the human soul inform, vivify, and direct its own function? And when God and the soul can act in the physical order, why should the angel be incapable of action? But when God, the soul, and the angel, who occupies an inter- mediary rank between them, cannot do this, nothing exists of the natural religion and revelation, nothing of rational moral psychology, and again we fall into the mire of the most gross materialism : for then, God did not make the world, and the world does not manifest Him; God could not re- veal anything of that which Christianity attributes to Him ; the soul is a simple func- tion of the brain, and the angel a mere imagination of this function. Such con- clusions prove neatly the false structure on which they are founded.

    However, we do not believe that the action of the devils or demons is not at all dependent on and under the government of divine Providence. Certainly it would be inconsistent with divine justice to allow these evil spirits unlimited liberty for dis- order and violence. But restricted within certain limits, controlled and dammed by the infinite wisdom and goodness, their malice must and can only result in final good to man, except when the latter be- comes, by his own fault, a deplorable victim of them. It is of faith that no man is tempted, attacked, above his strength, and the help of grace is never refused the one t^ho sincerely desires it in order to escape sin and remain faithful to God. St. Au- gustine very justly compares the demon to those dogs who guarded the entrance of the Roman houses, and of which an an- cient mosaic proclaimed to the visitor: " Cave canem!" [be careful of the dog). The demon, according to the Bishop of Hippo, is chained and he bites only the im- prudent who go too near him. His furies only serve to the sanctification of the just.

    Undoubtedly, the ignorance and super- stition of the pagans in different epochs, and among diverse nations of antiquity,

    have attributed to the demons, of whom they had a false notion, a number of cruel- ties and sorceries in which they had no part. Certainly, in the Christian world, this ignorance and superstition did not en- tirely disappear, and we find traces thereof in the Middle Ages and even in modern times. But such fallacies are not the source of the simple and true teaching of the Church on the existence of the devil. The absurd exaggerations and the gro- tesque counterfeits cannot confound the truth nor besmirch it with mixture of their muddy floods. The Church deplores the excesses and the errors of those who mis- understand and poorly apply its teaching, but she cannot be held responsible for their lack of knowledge.

    3. We know very well that the history of magic is replete with doubtful statements and exaggerated and misconstrued facts, but there are also many other magic feats indeed possible, which a sound philos- ophy admits, the reality of which a pru- dent criticism acknowledges, and the diabolical character of which a wise the- ology establishes. Theology, indeed, through the application of the principle of causality to the facts duly certified by the historic criticism, can establish them if they do not manifestly pass beyond the sphere of natural agencies, and if they are not evidently repugnant to a supernatu- rally good cause, to God, to His angels, or to His saints. When both conditions have been fulfilled, it is necessary to conclude on a diabdcal action. When the doubt exists as to the intrinsic nature of the effect, it will exist equally as to the nature of the cause. Such is the doctrine officially adopted by the Church in the remarkable chapter, de Exorcisandt's, and inserted under Title X of the Roman Ritual. Such is also the tenor of the doctrine contained in the Bible and tradition in regard to the rela- tions of man with the demon, and as to a proper judgment in their connection.

    Pontifical authority, in its dogmatic teaching, has never deviated from these principles and it cannot be held responsi- ble for the forgetfulness or the abuses to which they have been subjected. It never denied that our temptations are often simply subjective, or that they cannot be explained by the physical and moral sur- rounding in which we live ; but it could not be more liberal, for this would be a denial of the evidence itself, the possibility and the reality of the attacks and the diaboli-




    cal violences, theoretically recognizable by certain marks, determined by theology, although practically often difficult to dis- cern.

    That sometimes pathological cases, poorly diagnosed, are confounded wit,h di- abolical possession, we are quite disposed to admit ; but that there has been no real possession and that disease alone explains all that has been established as strange in the history of the mental aberrations and of the extraordinary phenomena of the intel- lectual, moral, physiological and physical order, it is impossible for sound reason to admit. This is especially what faith in the Biblical revelation will refuse to grant to the rationalistic interpretation of the facts in question. Disease alone cannot impart the perfect and immediate knowledge of a foreign language, of a science, before and afterwards unknown to the subject, of se- cret things with which the afflicted has no sensible relations, explainable by the na- ture of the sensorial acts. Neither the mental diseases, hysteria, nor the hyp- notic state exclude the patient from the laws of the physical world, and do not con- fer upon him powers absolutely dispro- portionate to his potentiality.

    Now the facts are there ; related by the Gospels, by the Apostles, by the most in- telligent, and by the most holy among the Fathers of the Church, and these facts are authenticated beyond question : St. Paul- inus attests to having witnessed a pos- sessed walking on the vault of a church, his head downwards ; Sulpicius Severus saw a possessed raised in the air, his arms ex- tended, at the approach of the relics of St. Martin; Kernel, physician of Henry II. of France, and the celebrated Protestant Ambrose Pare, mention a possessed who spoke Greek and Latin without having ever learned these two languages (see Bergier's Dictionnaire de TJieoloffie, Art. Demoni- aques). The History of theConvuhionaries of St. Medard, in the last century, reports no less extraordinary and notorious facts, which absolutely defy natural explanation. Their character appears to be clearly su- pernatural, but is certainly not divine ; it is, therefore, diabolical.

    We desire to say that we do not so con- sider all the spiritists, hypnotizers, me- diums, somnambulists, and magnetizers. Their doings prove considerable ability, however often allied to fraud and purely natural phenomena. But when, in their extraordinary conditions, we meet with

    other phenomena that cannot be explained by natural causes, we are obliged to con- sider them effected by diabolical obses- sion and possession as witnessed in the earlier ages. Because we behold such phenomena, which the philosophic and scientific explanations of our contempo- raries do not explain, is no argument against diabolical possession, but on the contrary, affirms it. It will be asserted, perhaps, that the method and principle of causality, whose usage we maintain, have no longer any scientific value ; we answer that they have more than ever the guaranty of common sense, in virtue of which they have perfectly resisted the tests of modern criticism, and that we ad- mit no kind of superstition or of credulity, nor the claims of a science without com- mon sense and without philosophy, no more than a supernaturalism without con- trol, nor a mysticism without discrimina- tion. See Possessions {Diabolical).

    Devolution. — Right of which the colla- tion of a vacant benefice returns to the superior, in the case where the bishop has neglected to provide beforehand in a de- lay of six months.

    Diaconiutn. — i. In the ancient basilicas, a room near the altar, where the deacons prepared the sacred vessels and ornaments, and where the priests dressed and un- dressed. — 2. A room in the Greek churches corresponding to the sacristy of the West- ern church, usually on the south side of the bema.

    Diana of the Ephesians or Ephesian Artemis. — An ancient Asiatic divinity whose worship was adopted by the Ionian Greeks. She was a personification of the fruitfulness of nature, and was quite dis- tinct from the Greek goddess, though assimilated to her by the Ephesians from some resemblance of attributes. She was represented wearing a mural crown, and with many breasts, and having the lower part of her body cased, like a mummy, in a sheath bearing mystical figures.

    Diatessaron. — A harmony of the four Gospels. The first work of this kind was that of Tatian (latter half of the second century), a Christian Apologist, but after- wards a Gnostic.

    Didache. See Apostles {Doctrine of the Twelve).

    Didon (Henry). — A French priest and author; born at Thouvet, Isere, March 17,




    1840; educated at Grenoble Seminary, and a disciple of Lacordaire; became a mem- ber of the Dominicans in 1862. Having visited Rome, he returned in 1868 and commenced preaching with great effect in Paris and other cities of France. In 1871 he delivered the funeral sermon at Nancy on Monseigneur Darboy. His first book was Ma7i According to Science and Faith, and his first printed sermon, " What Is a Monk?" In consequence of some startling sermons in 1879, dealing with the Church and Society, he was sent into tem- porary seclusion in the monastery of Car- bara, in Corsica. A subsequent visit to Germany and the Holy Land furnished liim with themes for The Germans, in which he pointed out that theory and prac- tice have nothing in common in the Father- land ; and for Lcf^ Vie de Jesus (1891), op- posing the views of Renan, which had an immense circulation and was translated into English.

    Didymus the Blind (309-399). — Doctor of the Church of Alexandria, Greek Father, born at Alexandria. Didymus was a writer 6f eminence; but of his numerous writings only a few remain, of which his Three Books on the Trinity, a work on The Holy Spirit, which St. Jerome trans- lated into Latin, and a treatise Against the Manicheans are the principal.

    Dies Irae. — The name generally given (from the opening words) to the famous mediaeval hymn on the " Last Jvidgment." Its authorship is generally ascribed to the Franciscan, Thomas of Celano (died, 1255). At what time the Church adopted it, and made it a portion of the service of the Mass, cannot be ascertained with any ex- actness; but it must have been in any case before 1385. Several alterations were then made in the text ; that, however, is believed to be the original which is engraved on a marble tablet in the Church of St. Francis at Mantua. It has been frequently trans- lated into English.

    Dimissorial. — A letter authorizing the bearer for ordination. It can be issued only by the bishop, or, under special cir- cumstances, by the vicar-general. How- ever, it may be given by the Pope to ordinands from any part of the world.

    Diocese. — The name of a populated ter- ritory under the ecclesiastical government of a bishop, who is assisted by priests

    within his jurisdiction. It is divided and subdivided into parishes, stations, etc.

    Diocletian. — Roman emperor (284), re- signed (305) and refused to resume the scepter. The tenth persecution took place under his reign.

    Diodorus of Tarsus. — Diodorus was born in the beginning of the fourth cen- tury at Antioch, and received his education at Athens. He was appointed bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia and took part in the General Council of Constantinople, A. d. 381. Died in the year 390. Of his many writings, apologetical, controversial, doc- trinal, and exegetical, which he composed against the pagans, Jews, and the prevail- ing heresies of the age, only fragments have reached us.

    Diognetus {Letter to). — The author of this Letter is unknown. Up to the seven- teenth century St. Justin was thought to be the author of this remarkable, though long unnoticed Letter. However, it must be considered much older than the writings of St. Justin. For the author calls him- self a disciple of the Apostles (c. 11), and represents Christianity as of quite recent appearance. Again, none of the older Fathers mention it among the works of St. Justin. The view, moreover, taken by the author of the epistle as to Judaism and Christianity, is wholly different from that of St. Justin. Finally, there is a great diflference of style and language between the two. No book of Justin is written so logically, clearly, and elegantly as this epistle. With regard to the person of Diognetus, all we know is that he was a heathen of distinction, who was desirous of a closer acquaintance with the Chris- tian religion.

    In this important Letter the writer answers with great rhetorical skill and warmth the three following questions of Diognetus: i. Why do Christians reject heathenism and Judaism? 2. What God do they adore, who love each other even unto the contempt of the world and death? 3. If the Christian religion be the true one, why did it not come sooner into the world ?

    Answer to the first question : Because the gods of the heathen are senseless images of wood, stone, and metal, and the entire Jewish religion consists of empty ceremonies, and contains, moreover, much that is unreasonable. To the second ques-




    tion : The Christian religion is something supernatural, not like other religions in- vented by men, but revealed by God Him- self, and for this reason it brings forth virtues unknown before. To the third question : It was, first of all, necessary that man should become convinced of his own spiritual poverty and helplessness, from which God alone could deliver him. This God did by sending His only begotten Son into the world, and giving Him up to death, in expiation, and to have a share in the true knowledge of God and in eternal salvation. Chapters xi. and xii. must be considered as a later addition, because they differ both in matter and form from the preceding ones.

    This Letter is also highly important from a dogmatical point of view. It contains, among others, the following doctrinal truths: i. That no man can, through his own endeavors, attain to the perfect knowledge of God, but only through the Logos. 2. That Christ is God's own and only begotten Son and incomprehensible Logos, and far above the angels. 3. That the Son of God became man in order to re- veal to us the divine mysteries and to make satisfaction for our sins by His sacri- ficial death. 4. That justification, besides cleansing from sin, implies also interior sanctification. 5. That the Church alone possesses the doctrine of the Apostles.

    Dionysius (St.). — Pope from 259 to 269, born in Calabria. Successor to Sixtus II. ; reorganized the ecclesiastical circum- scription of Rome. F. Dec. 26.

    Dionysius sumamed Exiguus. — A Ro- man abbot, was a Scythian by birth, and flourished under the Emperors Justin and Justinian in the sixth century. He is the reputed founder of the Christian era, also called Dionysian era, which has been in general use among Christian nations since the tenth century. He likewise laid the foundation of Canon Law by his collection of ecclesiastical canons. His collection com- prises the so-called canons of the Apostles and of several Councils, and the decretal epistles of the Popes from Siricius, who succeeded Damasus (354) to Anastasius II., who succeeded Gelasius (496). His death occurred about 536.

    Dionysius of Alexandria. — Born of a noble and wealthy pagan family at Alexan- dria. He was a pupil of Origen, who con- verted him to Christianity. He succeeded

    Heracles as chief of the Catechetical School in the year 231, and upon the death of the latter, in 248, as Bishop of Alex- andria, which he continued to be until his death in 264. Under Decius he had been condemned to death, but was rescued by Christian peasants ; in the reign of Valer- ian he was exiled from his see. With much success Dionysius defended the or- thodox faith against the heresies of Sabel- lius, Paul of Samosata, and Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, and opposed with vigor the schism of Novatian.

    Dionysius of Paris (St.). — Martyr and first Bishop of Paris; lived in the second half of the third century. He is often confounded with Dionysius the Areopa- gite. By the persecution of the Christians under Septimus Severus, in which St. Irenaeus suffered martyrdom in 202, the Church in Gaul had become terribly dev- astated. Hereupon Pope Fabian sent seven new missionaries (ecclesiastical his- torians generally call them bishops) to gather the scattered Faithful and found new Churches. St. Dionysius was one of these seven apostolic men and he founded upon an island in the Seine a bishopric. God had bestowed upon him the gift of miracles, and he converted many idola- ters and finally built a Church. Our saint suffered martyrdom, it appears, under the Valerian persecution (some claim under that of Maximian Hercules). The legend says that St. Dionysius, after having been beheaded, carried his own head to the place where they then buried him. Later on a chapel was built over his tomb, and this was enlarged by St. Genovefa (469) into a church. F. Oct. 9.

    Dionysius the Areopagite, who after- wards became the first Bishop of Athens, and who, in all probability, was the same that Pope Clement I. sent to Gaul, and was the first bishop of Lutetia (Paris). (Acts xvii. 15-34). What are known as the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite are not genuine, as they were written not earlier than the fourth or fifth century.

    Dioscorus of Alexandria. — Patriarch of Alexandria, died in 454. Successor of St. Cyrillus, in 444, he adopted the heresies of Eutyches and raised a schism to which the Council of Chalcedon (451) put an end by deposing him.

    Diptychs. — In the early Church, a reg- ister in which the monasteries and churche?




    inscribed the names of bishops, benefac- tors, and of the dead and living Faithful, of whom they made commemoration dur- ing divine service. There remains of this ancient custom in the canon of the Mass a Memento of the living and a Memento of the dead whom the priest secretly com- memorates and for whose souls he more particularly wishes to pray.

    Discalced {zvitJiout shoes; barefooted). — A term applied to certain religious orders, whose members are barefooted.

    Disciples of Christ or Campbellites. — An organization of Christians within the United States which in 1894 ^^^ nearly 5,000 ministers, 9,000 churches, and 800,000 communicants; founded about 1812 by se- ceders from the Presbyterian Church of .western Pennsylvania, who determined to reject creeds and dogmas and to accept the Bible as their only rule, and of whom Thomas and Alexander Campbell were leaders. They have a congregational form of government, believe in immersion as the only true baptism, but administer the Lord's Supper every Sunday without in- quiry as to whether those present have been immersed or not. They believe in the Holy Trinity, in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, in the moral de- pravity of the human race and its need of a new birth, in the Church of Christ as a divine institution, in the fulness and free- ness of the Gospel to all who will embrace it, and in the everlasting punishment of the wicked.

    Discipline {Ecclesiastical). — The eccle- siastical discipline has a rigorously obli- gatory character on account of the power given to the Church to establish laws. But it is founded not only upon a formal precept, it may also result from custom. There is a distinction between a particular discipline of a certain country and the uni- versal discipline, which is founded upon Scripture, the apostolic traditions, the de- cisions of Councils and the general cus- toms. The prescriptions founded on the divine ordinances are unchangeable, the others may be modified by legitimate authority.

    Discipline {Penitential). See Cate-


    Discipline of the Secret. — The primi- tive Christians, following the example of Christ and His Apostles (I. Cor. iii. 2), 17

    maintained a certain reserve in regard to the doctrines of Christianity. They kept from the pagans and catechumens the full knowledge of the sacred mysteries lest these mysteries might be exposed to ridi- cule and profanation. This practice, called the " Discipline of the Secret," was observed with special care in regard to the Holy Eucharist, which was represented in allegories, parables, and symbols. The early Fathers, speaking of this mystery, do so in the most careful manner, using such expressions as: "I shall be understood by the Faithful." " My meaning is clear to the initiated." This explains, in a certain sense, the evil reports of the pagans re- garding the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, such as : " Drinking of blood," "Eating of the flesh of a child concealed in bread." Wrong as these reports were, they furnished an undeniable proof of the antiquity of the Holy Mass and of the faith in the Real Presence of our Lord under the form of bread. See Catechu-


    Dispensation. — Exemption, an act by which one dispenses a person from some- thing. The Pope alone has the right to dis- pense from the general laws of the Church, and no bishop can do this, except by ex- traordinary faculties, if recourse to the Holy See will be impossible, and under con- dition to ask later on for the confirmation of the dispensation. The bishop can dis- pense, by ordinary right, in the cases pro- vided by law, or in virtue of special powers received from the Pope and re- newed every five years, or also in virtue of personal indults. Dispensation is granted either for the temporal jurisdiction of the Church, or for spiritual jurisdiction or for conscience. The papal dispensation for the temporal jurisdiction proceeds from the Dataria, and for spiritual jurisdiction from the Penitentiary. The dispensation of justice, in forma fndiciali, requires an in- quiry; the dispensation of grace, in forma gratiosa, requires only the truth of the facts, without inquiry. The general char- acter of gratuity of dispensation must be understood in the sense that the one who grants it draws no personal benefit from it. But the expenses of the chancery, the componendes claimed in certain cases, or sums applied to the needs of pious insti- tutions, are not contrary to gratuity. The componendes are proportionate to the state of the fortune of the applicant.




    Dissenters. — Those who refuse to ac- cept the authority or doctrines, or conform to the ritual or usages of an established Church ; a nonconformist : specifically ap- plied in England to those who, while they agree with the Church of England (the Episcopal) in many essential doctrines, differ from it on questions of Church gov- ernment, relation to the State, and rites and ceremonies.

    Ditheism. — Religious system in which is acknowledged two first principles : the principle of the good and that of evil. The religion of Zoroaster is a ditheism.

    Divination (pretended art of foretelling the future). — The Romans believed in their augurs, the Greeks had faith in the Pythoness, the Chaldeans in their astrolo- gers, the Middle Ages and half-civilized nations had recourse to sorcerers, modern times have their spiritualists, somnambu- lists, and soothsayers. The Church has condemned every species of divination. But she believes in prophecy as divine revelation proved by extraordinarj- signs and miracles, having for its object the sal- vation of men, serving as confirmation to religion, in all superior to the power of man and to the forces peculiar to his genius.

    Divorce. — According to the ordinary usage of language, the term divorce signi- fies a dissolution of the marriage bond, which was raised by our Saviour to the dignity of a sacrament. The divorce is, therefore, very different from the sepa- ration of bed and board. In regard to the complete dissolution of the marriage bond, the Catholic doctrine distinguishes three periods, ruled by different laws : —

    I. Before Moses, in virtue of the pri- mordial right supernaturally established by God and conformable to the vow. if not to the formal prescriptions of natural law, marriage is absolutely indissoluble; di- vorce can be engaged in only against the Divine will ; after-marriages are purely and simply adulteries and concubinages for the divorced party. Jesus Christ has declared : " From the beginning there was no divorce " (Matt. xi. 8); and God said in giving Eve as a spouse to Adam : " Man shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen. ii. 24). There- fore, concludes the Saviour, " what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matt. xix. 6).

    2. The hard-heartedness of the Jews moved God to mitigate the primitive rigor of matrimonial legislation. Moses permits, in certain cases, the usage of the bill of repudiation and allows second nuptials. Evidently, this concession, without violat- ing the strict natural law, tolerates, how- ever, a lowering of the dignity of marriage, and a diminution of its prophetic significa- tion in regard to the incarnation and the union of the Redeemer and of His Church. Also, Jesus Christ, without condemning the divorce of the past, constates that it does not correspond to the ideal which God had in view from the beginning; and He declares that He does not wish to preserve such an imperfection in mankind ; that He has come to renew and elevate the marital vows to a higher perfection (Matt. xix. 4-8).

    3. When the primitive marriage, al- though not a sacrament, was nevertheless indissoluble, how much more justly the Christian marriage, ranked among the sacraments and producing sanctifying grace, should be this in future ! The teach- ing of Christ is absolute on this point: " Man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh ; God Himself has joined them, and let no man separate them; the man who marries another while his wife is living is an adulterer " (Mark x. 11, etc.; Luke xvi. 18; Matt. xix. 4, etc.; Cf. Rom. vii. 2, etc. ; I. Cor. vii. 10, etc.).

    In case of adultery, there may be a separa- tion from bed and board, says our Saviour again (Matt. v. 31, etc.), but permission is not given to contract another marriage which would be only adultery. In vain do the Greek schismatic Church and the Protestant sects pretend that adultery is a legitimate cause for absolute divorce. The tradition of the Fathers and the prac- tice of the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all the others, maintains indis- solubility even in this case, although one of the texts of the Gospel, where there is question thereof (Matt. xix. 9), is very obscure on account of its extreme con- ciseness. The Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 7) has anathematized the con- tradictors of the Church on this point; and only a few years ago, the reigning sover- eign Pontiff, Leo XIII., expounded, with great sublimity and energy, the unchange- able doctrine of the Holy See on this sub- ject (Cf. Encycl. Arcanum).

    The objections to this doctrine can be ranked under three principal heads, ac-




    cording to the considerations of the natu- ral, ecclesiastical, and divine right in the question of divorce.

    I. They pretend that the indissolubility of marriage is in no way founded on the natural right; that the contrary is the case, when we consider the grievous moral and physical injuries which sometimes result from the perpetuation of the conju- gal tie. That where the divorce is granted proves that the idea of liberty is better understood and more sincerely put into practice, while to hold marriage indisso- luble, proves the predominance of tyran- nical and barbarous theories in the people. Marriage has for its principal basis the con- sent of the parties to the contract ; when this consent is revoked the matrimonial contract is dissolved. This engagement can be perpetual in the intention of the parties contracting, but not by juridical reality, because the individual liberty caIn never be alienated in an irrevocable manner by any agreement whatsoever. The people that admit the divorce are not less moral nor less prosperous than those who reject it. One can even affirm that the possibil- ity to break the marriage becomes its safe- guard. Mere separation of person and property is not sufficient to correct the great evils of an unhappy marriage, but, on the contrary, has a much worse influ- ence on the public morals than the di- vorce itself.

    2. They dispute that the divine teach- ing, soundly interpreted, is hostile to the divorce. Moses, or rather God Himself, had permitted it under the Old Law; but under the New Law Jesus Christ has ad- mitted it expressly in the case of adultery (Matt. V. 32; ix. 9). St. Paul admits it in case that one of the parties, both pre- viously unbelievers, becomes baptized (L Cor. vii. 15).

    3. As to the ecclesiastical right, that of the Orientals is clearly in favor of divorce for adultery; and the interpreters of the Scripture do not hesitate to support this legislation on the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. As to the Occidentals, they un- doubtedly adopted another course, but not all of them, nor at all times, as is clearly proved : (a) From the contradictory de- cisions and practices of the Fathers and of the Councils, (b) The sentences of di- vorce pronounced by the Court of Rome itself, (c) The identity of the results of the ecclesiastical law, which forbids the divorce, but leaves to the spiritual author-

    ity the right to pronounce the nullity of marriage, and of the civil law which ac- knowledges and sanctifies with entire sin- cerity the power to divorce, (d) Conse- quently, and in fact, the contradiction which exists between the very severe doc- trine of the Roman Court and its very indulgent practice in matters of dissolution of marriage, (e) The strange anomaly of a Church denunciating the concessions of the State in the matter, and nevertheless showing itself more lenient than the latter, at least in regard to the rich and powerful of this world. The final objection is, that if the conjugal indissolubility did ever find a particular strength in the religious belief of the sacrament of marriage and in the blessing of the priest, the seculariza- tion of family legislation and the institu- tion of the civil marriage have supplanted this mystic unity and supernatural order.

    We answer these diverse objections in order : —

    I. We grant without hesitation that the natural right is not essentially and abso- lutely opposed to every divorce; the de- cisions of Moses and of St. Paul, above quoted, prove this. It is possible, indeed, that the consequences of the divorce, like the divorce itself, do not necessarily de- stroy completely the existence of the family and of the civil society, their rights, their interests, their most sacred weal. But when the natural right does not absolutely proscribe the divorce, it tolerates it only with great reluctance and in cases where the aggravation is extreme : the honor of conjugal society, the purity of the individ- ual and general morals, the care and good example due to the children, the peace of the families and of the nations, are well maintained by the indissoluble marriage, and, as history proves, are never so greatly threatened as in countries where divorce has been freely practiced.

    That the indissolubility of unhappy unions has disagreeable features and en- tails unfortunate conditions arising from the incompatibility of temperaments or interests, nobody denies ; but the question is to know whether the superior interests of the religious and social order are not more grievously injured by the divorce than by the indissoluble marriage.? Now, simple common sense and the history of all times answer with decided affirmation in favor of the latter. Morality deterio- rates more and more under the influence of divorce; the delicacy of morals dls-




    appears to make room to rudeness, to insensibility, to brutality; the calculating and negotiating spirit penetrates freely into the domestic hearth, and marriage becomes a simple contract of society, a mere matter of speculation.

    The Catholic Church could never up- hold it, and she will always contest this obnoxious custom.

    As to the physicians and to the physi- ologists who uphold the divorce in the name of animalism, we oppose to them the rights and dignity of the soul, which taust not be sacrificed to the flesh, and we challenge them to show that their princi- ples do not lead directly to the justification of frequent and regular adultery, and to the replacing of all matrimonial legislation by a regime of prostitution and free love.

    The divorce, indeed, is not, as pre- tended, a distinguishing sign of progress, of liberty, and independence; it is the re- sult and the proof of the overflowing of evil instincts, of license granted to shame ful passions. One can see this among the savage races and attribute to its baleful influence their state of moral and religious decline. But it plaj^ed no part in the cen- turies of faith, of honor, and virtue; chiv- alry and divorce are contradictory terms ,- materialism and divorce attract and sup- port each other. Now materialism is the enemy of liberty and the precursor of tyranny.

    It is true that the contract of marriage is constituted by the free will of the en- gaging parties ; but by a will which con- forms itself to that of God and which for- ever pledges its liberty as to this point. When It refuses to do this and pretends to contract only for a time, it produces a com- pact which is no longer the sacred compact of marriage, but the shameless compact of concubinage. But can one thus alienate his liberty? Certainly, answers sound philoso- phy, in accord with Catholic theology and with revelation. This alienation is so use- ful to the family, to the spouses, to the chil- dren, to the entire society, that it should find grace in the eyes of utilitarianism it- self.

    When the nations, who practice the di- vorce, are also prosperous and sometimes even more flourishing than others, it is because the poison has not had time to produce its effects or because the practice has not become sufficiently general to re- veal its dreadful effects on matrimonial welfare. Let it spread freely, let it enter

    into the whole social body, and then will become manifest the hideous corruptions of the Roman and Mohammedan decline. Besides, we must not conclude from the material prosperity on the moral pros- perity, a thousand times more valuable; nor compare a people which admits di- vorce with a people monogamous, but unfaithful to other laws equally necessary. In order that this comparison may be a legitimate and logical one, we must take two peoples at times when both are ob- servant of the moral law, and see whether the one which practices divorce will re- main as virtuous as the one which does not. This test has not yet been made and appears even impossible, but a clear, im- partial reasoning must admit that the free exchange of husbands and wives is not con- ducive to the sanctification of the family or to the purification of society. Is it not absurd to maintain that the power to di- vorce will contribute protection to the conjugal union ? Could we not say equally well that the suppression of all penal sanc- tion would subserve to the execution of all contracts ?

    We willingly grant that the mere sepa- ration of person and property is no remedy to all the inconveniencies of badly matched unions, especially since it imposes upon them the impossibility of forming new marriages, and that thus it is the occasion of disorders, adulteries, and scandalous concubinages. But the divorce itself, whatever may be done or said, certainly is the cause of great damage to the social peace, to the stability of the family, and to the education of the children. VVhen it facilitates new unions, it does so only at the expense of the preceding unions,^-only by means of the corruption and dissolu- tion of which it is a perpetual provocation. It is, therefore, false to say that the conse- quences of divorce are less evil than those of separation.

    2. God, it is true, through his agent Moses, permitted, or rather tolerated, di- vorce under the Old Law; but He suffi- ciently manifested His disapprobation of this infraction of the regulations of the primitive order. The condescension of the legislator toward morally weak genera- tions, incapable of bearing entirely the bur- den of the law, does not compel Him to abandon forever His first commandments. He can, and even must, under certain cir- cumstances, try to restore the superior level of moral perfection, in which He




    had first placed his subjects ; He can, and even must, according to the rules of wis- dom, labor to surpass this level, in elevat- ing more and more the conscience and conduct of His people. Jesus Christ, there- fore, could again take up the perfection of the primordial idea of marriage, and no man can lawfully, to-day, argue against Him and His Church for the tolerance granted, during forty centuries, to mankind in its decline.

    Besides, it is wrong to consider as un- certain and obscure the teaching of Jesus Christ on this important subject. In the famous passages invoked by the Protes- tants to convince us that He admitted the divorce in cases of adultery. He affirms : (i) That it is opposed to the practice tol- erated by Moses (Matt. v. 31-32) ; (2) That whosoever puts away his wife, exposes her to lewdness (Ibid. 32); (3) That every man marrying a woman put away is an adulterer (Ibid.). He admits one exception, — the case of adultery; but He does not admit it, (a) neither in general thesis, for He would fall back into the practice of the ancients, which He wishes to reform; (d) nor to authorize second nuptials, for He states in an absolute manner that to unite with a discarded wife is adultery; (c) but solely to permit a simple repudi- ation, a separation of the persons. His teachi'ng, indeed, is this : The definitive putting away or repudiation of the wife is forbidden, because this measure exposes her to disorder ; if, however, she has fallen into disorder by her adultery, she loses her right to the home of her husband, who, in consequence, can discard her. The texts of St. Mark (x. 11-12) and of St. Luke (xvi. 18), reporting the doctrine of the Master without reservation in re- gard to adultery, permit no doubt of the foregoing interpretation. St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (vii. lo-ii), is still more decided against the practice of divorce among Christians ; it is, indeed, because their marriage has become a sacra- ment and has found in this supernatural consecration a restoration and unquestion- able confirmation of its natural and prim- itive stability.

    As to the pagan marriages, they had certainly the force and stability of the primitive marriage, but without that superaddition which the sacramental dig- nity, among Christians, grants to it. And when it happened that one of the married became converted to Christianity, and the

    other refused, not only to do likewise, but even to live in peace with him or her, without offending his or her God, and with- out grave danger to his or her soul, the converted party, in virtue of a privilege established or at least promulgated by St. Paul (I. Cor. vii. 15), could contract a new union with a person baptized, a Christian, and thus break the tie of the first marriage. But this privilege can in no manner be put into practice when there is question of invalidating sacramental marriage.

    3. Of what consequence is it to the Ro- man doctrine that the Oriental heretics and schismatics, like the Protestants, and other adversaries of the Catholic Church, who admit adultery as cause for divorce, invoke the celebrated text of St. Matthew (xix. 9) before examined ? Is it sufficient to weaken the Church's doctrine, shake her government, because some deny, contra- dict, and revolt against her? Then none of her dogmas, none of her precepts, would be unassailable, because there are none that have not been, at least, attacked. Besides the authority of the Catholic Church is not derived from a public opinion conform- able to its decisions; but it comes from God Himself, wherein it finds its first and irrefragable authority.

    Even in the West, we must admit, there has been more than once, in several coun- tries, especially in epochs of ignorance or moral weakness, unfortunate retrogressions in handling this question of divorce. Through ignorance or through condescen- sion to the often violent demands of the powerful, several writers, several prelates, even several particular councils, have sanc- tioned or permitted the divorce in case of adultery. But history proves that it was always against the will of the Apostolic See. The Pope never ceased to maintain the sacred indissolubility of the family, not as subservient to his own fancies or interests, but according to the laws and the rights which he received from God and the Apostles through tradition. In- deed, tradition grants to the Roman Pon- tiff the right to dissolve, under certain circumstances, the marriage contracted in right but not confirmed by fact : tnatri- moniuin non consummatum, and tradition grants the same Pontifical power to ab- solve from the solemn vows of profession made in a religious order. Let us re- mark, however, these are very peculiar cases and very rare, five or six perhaps,


    262 Doctors of the Church

    per year, in the entire world. There are, it must again be admitted, cases of nul- lity which, duly established by ecclesias- tical authority ^fter very rigorous inquiry, lead to sentences of separation, not of di- vorce., because the marriage never did exist. These cases are equally rare. Is anyone authorized, we may ask all men of good faith, to state that the Church is practically more favorable to the divorce than the modern nations, which sanction many thousands of divorces every year, and for causes which are often frivolous and contemptible.? Where is the con- tradiction between the teaching and the practice of the Church.? When she re- proaches the modern governments for establishing legislation favorable to the divorce, is this simply on account of jeal- ousy, on account of arrogance, to exercise alone a power which she exclusively arro- gated in times of barbarity.? Is it not, on the contrary, because the Christian mar- riage, sacred and sacramental, can derive its essence only from the divine author- ity of her founder.? Rich and poor in this respect are equal in her eyes ; and it is an atrocious calumny to say that she permits the divorce to the one and refuses it to the other. To become convinced of these facts it is only necessary to consult a collection of decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Trent, or some review of the sentences promulgated by the Roman Court, for example, the Acta Sanctce Sedis, in course of publication.

    Modern infidelity may deny the reality of the religious and sacramental character of the Christian marriage ; it may declare marriage secularized and laicized; it may destroy the belief of the people in its supernatural dignity : but these things will remain as they are ; the marriage re- mains indissoluble, the divorce culpable, the spiritual authority alone competent to decide in questions of the conjugal tie. ,

    The few failings which were noted, from 1803 to 1805, in some French officialties, especially in that of Paris, on the subject of the divorce of Napoleon I., have abso- lutely nothing to do with the matter. Rome never had anything to do with the second union of the emperor, and Pope Leo XIII., in his Encyclica Arcanum of Feb. loth, 1880, affirms that Pius VII. most courageously resisted Napoleon who, exalted by his successes and by the gran- deur of his empire, was deaf to the com- mands of the Pontiff; and Pius VII. him-

    self, in 1813, writing to Josephine, Napoleon's first wife, says to her, in speak- ing of the emperor, " your husband."

    Docets. — Heretics in the early Church. They denied the reality of the human form and nature of Jesus Christ, and con- sequently the mystery of His Incarnation. The Docetae, or Phantasiasts, as they were also called, granted to Christ only a seem- ing body and maintained that His suffer- ings and death were only apparent.

    Doctor. — The word doctor signifies primarily a teacher, especially one who has received public license to teach from some university ; thus we have doctors of medi- cine, of law, and of theology. Originally no one was allowed to teach publicly until he had received the degree of doctor, and even now it is obligatory on the holders of certain positions in the Church to qualify themselves by obtaining the degree of Doctor of Theology or of Canon Law; but for the most part, the degree no longer has any special privileges. Some eminent teachers of the thirteenth and following centuries received complimentary epithets which have remained in use, and become a kind of proper name, although the special appropriateness is often obscure. The best known term of this kind is the name of "Angelic Doctor," applied to St. Thomas Aquinas. More loosely, the name of doctor has been applied to all teachers, without reference to academical qualifi- cation ; but in a special sense it is given to certain servants of God who have joined eminent learning to remarkable sanctity, and on whose feasts the Church has sanctioned the use of a special Mass and Office. Four such, belonging to the East- ern Church, have been recognized, — Sts. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Chrysostom; and as many in the West, — Sts. Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great. It is possible that the selection of this number was primarily the work of Christian artists, but it has been long sanctioned by the Church. The first increase in the number occurred in the sixteenth century, when the title was formally conferred by St. Pius V. upon the Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas, and by Sixtus V. upon the Fran- ciscan, St. Bonaventure — each Pope pro- moting his religious order.

    Doctors of the Church, we call those men who have rendered eminent service




    to ecclesiastical science. These are : Sts. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bernard, Francis of Sales and Alphonse de Liguori.

    Dogmas and Matters of Opinion. — A

    dogma is a point of doctrine, a proposition regarded as incontestable, especially in religion and philosophy. Every truth re- vealed by God, or Christ, or the Holy Ghost is, by that very fact, a divine or Christian dogma ; when authoritatively proposed by the Apostles, it became an Apostolic Dogma; when fully promulgated by the Church, an Ecclesiastical Dogma. In the language of the Church, a dogma pure and simple is at the same time eccle- siastical, apostolic, and divine. But a merely Divine Dogma — that is, one re- vealed by God but not yet explicitly pro- posed by the Church — is called a Material (as opposed to a Formal) Dogma.

    Dogmas may be classified according to their various subject-matters; their pro- mulgation, and the difTerent kinds of moral obligation to know them.

    Dogmas may be divided in the same way as the contents of Revelation (which see) except that matters revealed per accidens are not properly dogmas. It is, however, a dogma that Holy Scripture, in the genu- ine text, contains undoubted truth throughout. And consequently the denial of matters revealed per accidens is a sin against faith, because it implies the asser- tion that Holy Scripture contains error. This principle accounts for the opposition to Galileo. The motions of the sun and the earth are not indeed matters of dogma, but the great astronomer's teaching was accompanied by — or at any rate involved — the assertion that Scripture was false in certain texts.

    With regard to their promulgation by the Church, dogmas are divided into ma- terial and formal. Formal dogmas are subdivided into defined and undefined.

    With regard to the obligation of know- ing them, dogmas are to be believed either implicitly or explicitly. Again the neces- sity of knowing them is of two kinds-: Necessity of means and necessity of pre- cept; that is, the belief in some dogmas is a necessary condition of salvation, apart from any positive command of the Church, while the obligation to believe in others arises from her positive command. The

    former may be called fundamental, because they are most essential. We do not, how- ever, admit the latitudinarian distinction between fundamental articles, that is, which must be believed, and nonfunda- mental articles which need not be believed. All Catholics are bound to accept, at least implicitly, every dogma proposed by the Church.

    The criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief, " Tuas Libenter,^' addressed by Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich.

    The following are the criteria of a dogma of faith : Creeds or symbols of faith gen- erally received ; dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to faith and morals; the universal and con- stant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church ; universal practice, es- pecially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed ; the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal ; the teaching of theologians when manifest and universal.

    Between the doctrines expressly defined by the Church and those expressly con- demned stand what may be called matters of opinion or free opinions. Freedom, however, like certainty, is of various de- grees, especially in religious and moral matters. Where there is no distinct defi- nition there may be reasons sufficient to give us moral certainty. To resist these is not, indeed, formal disobedience, but only rashness. Where there are no such reasons this censure is not incurred. It is not possible to determine exactly the boundaries of these two groups of free opinions ; they shade off into each other, and range from absolute freedom to a morally certain obligation to believe. In this sphere of the approximative theology, as it may be styled, there are: (i) Doc- trines which it is morally certain that the Church acknowledges as revealed ; (2) theological doctrines which it is morally certain that the Church considers as be- longing to the integrity of the faith, or as logically connected with revealed truth, and consequently the denial of which is approximate to theological error; (3)



    Dominical Letter

    doctrines neither revealed nor logically deducible from revealed truths, but use- ful, or even necessary, for safeguarding rev- elation. To deny these would be rash. See Theology.

    Dolcino (Fra). See Apostolians.

    Dollinger (JoHANN Joseph Ignaz von). — A German theologian ; born at Bamberg, Bavaria, Feb. 28, 1799; died at Munich, Jan. 10, 1890. He was the son of Ignaz Dollinger, the celebrated atonomist and physiologist. He was ordained priest, and for a time was engaged in parochial duties, and in 1826 became professor of Church history and canon law in the Uni- versity of Munich. In 1845 he entered the Bavarian Parliament, representing the Uni- versity of Munich, and four years later voted in the Frankfort Diet for the sepa- ration of Church and State. In 1S61 he advocated the abandonment by the papacy of its temporal power, and in 1870 opposed the action of Vatican Council in decreeing the infallibility of the Pope. April 17, 187 1, he was excommunicated by the Arch- bishop of Munich. After this he became the leader of the "Old Catholic" move- ment and presided over its congress. He published Kirche und Kirchen, Papst- thum und Kirchenstaat (1861), Papstfabeln des Mittelalters (1863), etc.

    Dominic (St.) and Dominicans. — St. Dominic (1170-1221), born at Calahorra, in old Castile, was distinguished in his early youth by piety and love of study. Having been ordained a priest, he went, in company with his bishop, to the south of France, where he witnessed the atroci- ties committed by the Albigenses. The sight of so many ruined souls moved him to devote his life to their conversion. It was then that our saint propagated the use of the holy Rosary, which was re- vealed to him in a vision by the Blessed Virgin. After spending ten years in this toilsome mission, St. Dominic, in 1215, founded a new order, the chief object of which was to furnish to the Church zealous preachers and missionaries for the in- struction of the Faithful, and the con- version of the heretics. He selected the Rule of St. Augustine for the use of his order, adding certain statutes, which were borrowed chiefly from those of the Pre- monstratensians. The habit which he gave to his religious consisted of a white tunic and scapular, with a long black mantle,

    from which latter robe was derived their name, "Black Friars." Pope Honorius III., in 1216, approved the new society under the title of "Preaching Friars" {Fratres PrcBdicatores). The same Pon- tiff appointed Dominic " Master of the sacred Palace," which office is to this day held by a member of the order. Also St. Dominic founded an order for women to whom he gave the rule of the Friars, and a Tertiary Order for people living in the world. The order of St. Dominic has contributed to the Church, besides count- less saints, three Popes, sixty cardinals, about a hundred and fifty archbishops, and upwards of eight hundred bishops. F. Aug. 4th.

    The first foundation of the Dominican Order in the United States was made in 1807 at Springfield, Ky., by Father Fen- wick, afterwards Bishop of Cincinnati. The Dominican Friars, in the United States, have houses in the States of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, California, District of Columbia, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New York, etc.

    Dominica in Albis {the Sunday of -white garments). — The first Sunday after Easter, so called because in the early Church those who had been baptized on Holy Saturday appeared for the last time on that day in their white baptismal robes.

    Dominical or Linteum Dominicale. — The

    dominical was a linen cloth on which women formerly received the Blessed Eucharist, while the men received it in the bare hand. In the course of time the " Communion Cloth " was substituted for the dominical.

    Dominical or Sunday Letter. — One of the seven letters. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, used in calendars to mark the Sundays throughout the year. The first seven days of the year being marked by the above letters in their order, the following seven, and all consecutive sets of seven days, to the end of the year, are similarly marked, except that in leap years the 24th and 25th of February receive the same letter; so that on whatever day the first Sunday of the year falls, the letter which marks it will mark all the other Sundays of the year, except in case of leap year, when, after February 24th, the dominical letter for the remainder of the year changes to the one preceding. (Many modern writers make the change of letter to occur after the end




    of February, the 29th taking no letter.) After twenty-eight years the same letters return in their order. The use of the dominical letter is primarily to aid in de- termining the date of Easter; but it may be used, by calculation, for finding the day of the week on which a given date falls in any year, past or future.

    Dominus Vobiscum. — These Latin words, signifying the Lord be -with you, are found in several passages of the Old Testa- ment and are the common salutation in the Mass and office. Booz said to the reapers : "The Lord be with you." And they an- swered him: "The Lord bless thee" (Ruth ii 4). Such, too, was the salutation of the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary (Luke i. 28). The response: "And with thy spirit," is furnished by the words of St. Paul to Timothy (IL Tim. iv. 22). In olden times when travelers met, they greeted thus one another in passing, a cus- tom still kept up in some parts of Ger- many and Spain

    Donation {Pretended) of Constantine. —

    A document, under the Pontificate of Syl- vester (314-335), which purports to be the instrument of the donation, granted to the Bishop of Rome, besides certain marks and insignia of honor, such as the tiara, the lorum, and imperial robes, also the tem- poral sovereignty over Rome and the provinces, towns, and castles of all Italy. The document probably originated in France, in the ninth century, and was pos- sibly intended for the Greeks, by whom the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor was ill received. The assertion that it was fabricated in the interest of the Papacy is without foundation. Up to the twelfth century, the document was never found to have been made use of in Rome, or re- ferred to by the Popes, although its au- thenticity was then universally admitted. While the document is proved to be a forgery, yet, it is certain that Constantine bestowed large possessions on the bishops of Rome. The Roman See has never looked upon the apocryphal document as its strongest bulwark ; the Popes place upon entirely diflferent grounds the foun- dation of the papal prerogatives and the powers exercised by the Apostolic See.

    Donatists. — Schismatics who spread the error of the Novatians on the invalidity of baptism administered by heretics, taught the invalidity of the sacraments conferred

    by unworthy priests, and maintained that the Church must reject the sinners from her communion. This schism, commenced in 311, and, combated by St. Augustine, disappeared in the first half of the fifth century.

    Donus or Domnus L (St.). — Pope from 676 until 678. Born at Rome ; obtained the revocation of the edict which declared the Archbishop of Ravenna independent of the jurisdiction of the Holy See. — Donus or Domnus II. Pope, some claim, from 974 to 975. But it is proved to-day that there never was a Pope Donus II.

    Dor {The Actual Tentura). — Ancient city and harbor of Phenicia on the Medi- terranean, about nine miles from Caesarea (Jos. xii. 23), belonging to the Persians, Egyptians, Syrians, and Romans. A bishop of Dor assisted at the Council of Constan- tinople in 553.

    Dositheus. — Head of a Samaritan sect spoken of by Origen, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and other Fathers of the Church. His followers pushed the precept of keep- ing holy the Sabbath so far, as to remain in the place and posture in which this day surprised them. They also disapproved of second marriages.

    Douay Bible. See Bible.

    Dove. — In Christian art, the dove is em- ployed as an emblem of the Holy Ghost, no doubt from the fact of this being the form in which the Spirit descended on our Lord at His baptism. The dove being used to symbolize purity, it is generally repre- sented as white, with its beak and claws red, as they occur in nature. In the older pictures a golden nimbus surrounds the head, the nimbus being frequently divided by a cross, either red or black. In stained- glass windows we see the dove with seven stars, significative of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Holding an olive branch, the dove is an emblem of peace. When seen issuing from the lips of dying saints and martyrs, it represents the human soul.

    Doxology. — A Greek word which signi- fies an exclamation or prayer, in honor of the majesty of God, such as St. Paul vises at the close of his Epistles, and sometimes even in the middle of an argument (Rom. ix. 5). The " Gloria in exrelsis" is called the great Doxology, and the " Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," the small Doxology. See Gloria





    Dream. — Revery, idea, imagination of a sleeping person. The dream distin- guishes itself from reveries, which leave nothing behind and appear to be a sort of whimsical imagination of the mind during the numbness of the senses. The dream, because it presents a whole, a co-ordained ensemble, approaches more the real. It is also often believed that the dream contains a truth and that it presents a prophetic meaning. We see in Holy Scripture, that on account of these circumstances which strike our mind, God did not disdain, in certain cases, to make use of the dream to make His will known to us. Jacob beheld in a dream the mysterious ladder rising unto heaven ; in a dream God appeared to Moses and the prophets ; the dream of the Pharao explained by Joseph, and that of Nabuchodonosor explained by Daniel are well known. However, if the dreams do not contain a divine element or a concealed truth, we are not permitted to attach any supernatural meaning to dreams.

    Druids. — Ministers of religion among the Gauls. They were divided into three classes : the Priests, called Ovates, studied the phenomena of nature, healed the sick, foresaw the future, and inquired about the divine will by the flight of birds, the en- trails and blood of victims; the Bardes, heroic and religious poets, depositaries of the national traditions, celebrated the memory of the brave fallen in battle, and distributed praise and blame ; above these two corporations were the Druids prop- erly speaking, the most elevated in genius.

    Druses. — The name of a people of Syria, who dwelt on Libanon. It is claimed that they descended from the French, who fol- lowed Godfrey of Bouillion to the conquest of the Holy Land in 1099.

    Drusilla. — Third daughter of Herod Agrippa (Acts xii.) and a woman of great personal beauty, who married the king of Emesa, but forsook him and married Felix, procurator of Judea, and was present at the hearing he gave to St. Paul at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 24). According to Josephus, she perished in the eruption of Vesuvius, in 79 A. D.

    Du Bois (John) (1764-1842). — Ameri- can prelate; born in Paris, died in New York. Was ordained priest in 1787, and received his appointment of assistant at the great Church of St. Sulpice, Paris. The Revolution brought him to America, and

    he arrived at Norfolk, Virginia, in 1791. At Mount St. Mary's, Maryland, he opened a school, which soon developed into Mount St. Mar3''s College, of which he was long president. His college was also a theo- logical seminary, where some of the great- est bishops and priests of the country were educated. He was appointed Bishop of New York in 1826, where he found but few churches and priests.

    Duel (single combat). — Dueling is strictly forbidden by the Church ; any one concerned in dueling becomes guilty of a grievous sin, and those playing the princi- pal part become guilty of a double crime, by willingly exposing themselves to death, and by attempting to take the Hfe of an- other. The duel is only considered per- missible as preventing greater disaster, or as conducive to public welfare, as was the case when David fought Goliath (I. Ki. xvii. 50). The Church has forbidden duel- ing (also when the contest is not for life or death), and punishes with excommuni- cation, not only the parties themselves, but also all accomplices, counselors, assistants, witnesses, and spectators, who by their presence approve and sanction it He who perishes in a duel is likewise deprived of Christian burial.

    Dulia. See Worship.

    Dungal. — Eminent Irish scholar, lived in the beginning of the ninth centur}'. He was one of the most learned men of his time, was an excellent theologian, poet, and scholar. When Claudius, Bishop of Turin, openly attacked the use of hoh- im- ages, Dungal came forward as a learned apologist in their behalf, in a work entitled Responsa contra Perversas Claudii Sen- tentias, A. D. 827. His reply to Charle- magne on the two solar eclipses which happened in the year 810, proves the writer to have been well acquainted with all that the ancients had taught upon the subject. He was appointed chief teacher in the great school at Pavia by Lothaire II.

    Dunkers. — Members of a sect of Ger- man-American Baptists, so named from their manner of baptism. Their proper name is "Brethren." Driven from Ger- many by persecution early in the eighteenth century, they took refuge in Pennsylvania, and thence extended their societies into neighboring states, and are especially found in Ohio. They condemn all war and liti- gation, acknowledge the authority of the

    Duns Scotus



    Bible, administer baptism by triple immer- sion, and only to adults, practice washing of feet before the Lord's Supper, use the kiss of peace, laying on of hands and anointing with oil, and observe a severe simplicity in dress and speech. They have bishops, elders, and teachers, and are com- monly supposed to accept the doctrine of universal redemption.

    Duns Scotus (John) (i 274-1308). — Scotch philosopher, the great light of the Franciscans. He was the glorious de- fender of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, a doctrine of which his Order was ever the champion. Al- though dying before his fortieth year, his works comprise twelve folio volumes. For his polemical acuteness, he was called the " Subtle Doctor " {Doctor subtilis). The " Scotists " regarded him as their leader in the disputations with the '* Thomists."

    Dunstan (St.) (Archbishop of Canter- bury). — Born in 924, in the county of Somerset, near the monastery of Glaston- bury, where he was educated. He built a monastery of which he became the first abbot and founded five others in various places. Sent into exile by King Edwy, he was recalled by his successor Edgar,

    who named him Bishop of Worcester, and Archbishop of Canterbury in 961. F. May 19th.

    Dupanloup (Felix Antoine Phili- bert). — Born at St. Felix, near Cham- b^ry, France, Jan. 3d, 1802; died Oct. nth, 1878. A French prelate. He was made Bishop of Orleans in 1849; was elected deputy to the National Assembly in 1871 ; and became a life senator in 1875. He was opposed to the dogma of the papal Infallibility, but finally accepted it.

    Durandus of Saint-Pourgain. — French philosopher, born at Saint-Pour5ain (Puy- de-D6me), died in 1326. He entered at the Dominicans, and, after the year 1313, he lectured in Paris, where he was called the "Resolute Doctor" {Doctor resolutissi- mus), and subsequently became Bishop of Meaux. He died in 1333. Durandus ac- quired prominence by his advocacy of Nominalism. According to him, whatever has not determinate notes may indeed be an object of thought, but cannot be said to enjoy true being. In his principal work on the Sentences of the Lombard, he assails the extreme advocacy of the princi- ples of Aristotle, then so universally ac- cepted. FOOTNOTE-1: General info:

      Mixed Theology answers especially to the wants of our time. It consists of articles whose characteristics are philosophical, scientific, artistic, and literary. This class of articles has for object to urge our contemporary adversaries, with the help of demonstrative resources that are offered by philosophy, the sciences, arts, and belles-lettres, to admit the great truths, continually attacked by them.

      They address themselves to all kinds of readers, and, by studying them carefully, may they put into practice the declared proposition of Pope Pius IX., before it was taken up again and embodied into the decrees of the Vatican Council: "The use of reason precedes faith and leads man to it with the help of revelation and grace"; Rationis usus jidem prcecedit, et ad earn kominem ape revelationis et gratice conducit. If some of the articles appear to have been given too much space, then the importance of the subjects makes up for this.

      Historical Theology has for its object, as the name implies, Theologico- Historic Generalities and Varieties. It comprises Popes, Councils, Particular Churches, Religious Orders, Famous Schools, Biographies and Bibliographies, Religious Sects, Ecclesiastical Dignities, etc.

      Finally, Pure Theology consists of Theological and Exegetical Genralities and Varieties ; God and the Creation ; Christ and all that is directly connected with Our Lord ; the Church and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ; Grace and the Sacraments ; Ecclesiastical Morals and Precepts, etc.

      These are, in great outlines, the subjects treated in the Ecclesiastical Dictionary. We shall be judged in the future. For to-day, our only ambition is to be appreciated in the simple exposition of the subjects contained in our work; and we trust that the book will find many readers, who are solely animated by the love of truth.