Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4,25 Mb.
Date conversion27.04.2018
Size4,25 Mb.
1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38


Malay Archipelago Mallet

MALEBRANCHE, mal"branch', NICOLAS: French philosopher; b. in Paris Aug. 6, 1638; d. there Oct. 13, 1715. He studied theology at the Sorbonne, then at the age of twenty‑two entered the Congregation of the Oratory, and spent the rest of his life in seclusion. The reading of Des­cartes' Traits de l'hamme led him to devote himself exclusively to philosophy, in the history of which he appears as the most prominent disciple of Des­cartes, at some points developing and carrying farther the ideas of his master. 'He is the father of Occasionaliam. This depends upon the Car­tesian distinction between spirit and matter, soul and body. The relation between these two oppo­sites, which Descartes left unexplained or only vaguely explained, Malebrsnche made the subject of his deepest meditation. Hence resulted his peculiar doctrine, that events taking place in the one sphere occasioned God to effect corresponding readjustments in the other, so that nothing could be truly understood unless " seen in God." The principal representation of his system is found in his first work, De la recherche de la verith (Paris, 1674; two Erg. translations appeared in the same year, each in two vole., Oxford and London, 1694); but further developments are found in his qp1f~Pr, ‑Baliona ehreEienrces (1677), De ha nature et de la grdce (1680; Eng. transl., 1695), Meditationa chrE­tienrtes et mrstaphysiquea (1683), Traifk de morale (2 vole., 1694; Eng. tranal., London, 1699), and especially in his Entretiens sur la mEtaphysique et sur la religion (2 vole., 1688). His De la nature et de la gr8ce deprived him of the favor of Bossuet, and implicated him in a long and bitter controversy with Antoine Arnauld. His doctrines were often said to incline toward Spinoziam, but on this point he found a warm defender in Leibnitz. While his metaphysics have now only very little interest, the noble piety of his works still impresses and the ele­gance of the representation exercises its charm. His works, first published in Paris, 1712, were again edited by Genoude and Lourdoueix (2 vole., Paris, 1837); also by J. Simon (1842, new ed.i 1858 ~ ~~ 4 vols.,1871, incomplete).

BrsuooxAra:: A. JoIY. Tmitd de morale de Mate6rancha, Paris, 1882; idem, Malebranehe ib. 1901; J. P. Damiron, Eesai cur 1'hist. de la philosophic, pp 352‑396, ib. 1848; E. A. BIemPigaoa, dude cur Malebraruhe, ib. 1882; F. Bower, Modern Phsioaophy, PP. 7,3‑88, New York, 1877; P. Ands?, De la vie de . . Makbmnclea Paris, 1886; A. Farny etude cur la ‑m7e de MaIebranche Chaux de Fonde, 1886; E. Caird Essays on Literature and Philoso­phy, 2 vole., New York 1892; end, in general, works on the history of modern philosophy.

MALLET, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG: German pul­pit‑orator; b. at Braunfels (37 m. e.n.e. of Cob­lenz) Aug. 4, 1793; d. at Bremen May 5, 1865. He was educated in the universities of Herborn and Tiibingen, and during his student days served in

the Napoleonic ware of 1814‑15. In Dec., 1815, he became assistant 1n

SG, EAR11A oburejl,

Bremen, and succeeded the aged pastor, Bueh, two Years later. In 1827 he was chosen third pastor at the large church of St. Stephen in Bremen, where he officiated for the remainder of his life, becoming first pastor after the deaths of his superiors, Miiller and Pletzer.


Mallet was preeminently a preacher of simplicity

and orthodoxy, as may be seen from the collection

of his sermons and addresses ed•ted by his son at

Bremen in 1867. He was also active as an editor,

and in 1832 founded at Bremen the Bremen Kirchen­

bote, which ran until 1847, when it was replaced by

the Brewer Schliissel (1848‑50) and the Brewer Post

(1856‑60). He polemized against the Roman

Catholics and against rationalism, to both of which

he was bitterly opposed. In this spirit he wrote

Ueber den Heiligenr urtd Bilderdienat in den romi­

schen Kirche (Bremen, 1842), Zeugniase (2 parts,

1845), Gestkndnias (1345), and Memoiren sense

Weltmannea (1847). From 1848 to 1852 he was

involved in a controversy with the pantheistic pas­

tor, Rodolf Dulon, against whom he wrote several

pamphlets and who was finally dismissed from his

position. Mallet's activity in all movements for

Christian union and missions was untiring. In

1819 he assisted in the establishment of the first

Bremen missionary society, and in 1834 in the

foundation of the first young men's association

and a society for the dissemination of Christian

tracts, while in 1844 he devoted much of his energy

to the furtherance of the Gustav‑Adolf‑Verein.

His principal writings, in addition to those already

mentioned, are: Die Weisen ants dew 141orgenlande

(Bremen, 1852); Passions‑ und F'estpredigten

(Frankfort, 1859); Altea and Neuea (Bremen, 1864);

and the posthumous Netcea and Alter; edited by his

son (Bremen, 1868). (J F. IHEN j'.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. A. Wilkens, Friedrich Mallet ~ • sine Biographic, Bremen, 1872 (a model biography); H. Hup­feld, Friedrich Ludwig Mallet, ib. 1885; W. H. Meurer, Zur Erinnerun9 an Friedrich Ludwig Mallet, ib. 1872.

MALVEI9DA, TOMAS: Spanish Dominion; b. at Xativa (43 m. s.s.w. of Valencia) 1566; d. at Valencia May 7, 1628. He devoted his chief efforts to the text of the Bible, although he also wrote on dogmatics and church history. In 1600 he sub­mitted to Cardinal Baronius a list of passages in the Annales ecclesiastici, and the Roman Martyrol­ogy which he deemed incorrect, and the cardinal thereupon summoned him to Rome, where the gen­eral of his order entrusted him with the correction of the Dominican breviary, missal, and martyrol­ogy, his work appearing in 1603. At the direction of the Congregation of the Index, Malvenda re­vised the Bi6liotheca. patrum of Margarin de la Bigne (9 vole., Paris, 1575‑76), and in 1607 pub­lished at Rome his critical notes on this work. About the same time he began his Annales ordinis fratrum prcedicatortcm, but carried it only through thirty years (ed. D. Gravina, 2 vola., Naples, 1627). In 1610 Malvenda was recalled to Spain and ap­pointed by the grand inquisitor on a committee to prepare a Spanish Index lZrorum prohibitoretm. His chief . work, however, was his commentary on the Bible, together with a new translation from the Hebrew, as far as Ezek. avi. (5 vole.; Lyons, 1650). Among his numerous other writings spe­cial mention may be made of his Ltbri reovem

de Antichristo (Rome, 1804) and his De paradiso

voluptatis (1605).

(O. ZtScsnz,at.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. QuEtif and J. ,~L' Chard, $cr6ptorsa ordinis prosdicatorum, ii. 454‑455, Paris, 1721; L. E. Du Pin, Nouvelle bibliotUque des auteura ecelbaiaa:iques, xvii. 88­93, 35 vole., Paris, 1898‑1711; H. Hunter, Nomenclafor litermsua theolagias recentioria, i. 312‑314, Innsbruck, 1892; F. H. Reuseh, Der Index den verbWenen Bticher, i. 554‑555, Bonn, 1883; KL, viii. 582.


Italian Roman Catholic; b. in the island of Chios Dec. 3, 1713; d. at Corneto, near Montefiascone (50 m. n.n.w. of Rome), June 7, 1792. He was taken to Italy by his parents at an early age and was educated in the cloister of St. Mark at Florence by the Dominicans, of whose order he afterward became a member. In 1736 he was ordained priest and was made by Benedict XIV. a doctor of divin­ity and a member of the Congregation of the Index. Under Pius VI. he became master of the holy pal. ace and in 1779 secretary of the Index. Among his works may be named: De rations tempontm Athanasacanorum, deque aliquot aynodia iv. aeculo celebrates, epiatoke iv (Rome, 1748), directed against G. D. Manse; Originum et areliquitatum Chriatian­arum Zibri xz (four books only were published; 6 vole., 1749‑55; new ed., 8 vole., 1839‑51); De' costume de' primitive Cristiani lt'bri tre (3 vole., Venice, 1757; new ed., 2 vole., Florence, 1853; Germ, transl., 3 vole., Augsburg, 1796); Del di­ritto libero dells sheers di acquistare a di posaedere beni temporali (3 vole., Rome, 1769‑70); and De rations regendce Christiana reipublicee, degas legitima Romani ponlificis auctoritate (3 vole., Rome, 1778­1778), directed against J. N. von Hontheim (q.v.).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Hunter, Nomenclator literariua, iii. 412­413, Innsbruck, 1888; KL, viii. b83‑b84; Lichtenberger, EBR, viii. 822‑823.


MAMMON: Aramaic for "wealth" or "gain." It is a word of uncertain etymology, and is found in the Aramaic (" what one has saved "), in Syriac, and in Carthaginian and Phenician (lucrum, " wealth "), possibly in the Arabic (" a deposit "). The Targum of Onkelos renders by it the Hebrew for "ransom" (Ex. xxi. 30; Num. xxxv. 31), also the word " gain " (Gen. axxvii. 26; Ex. xviii. 21). Accordingly in Matt. vi. 24 and Luke avi. 9, 11, 13, the word must mean " possession," " wealth," or "money." The meaning was not necessarily sinis­ter; the accompanying adjectival expression gives it that sense in the Targum on I Sam. viii. 3; Ira. xxxiii. 15; Ezek. xxii. 27; Hos. v. 11; Prov. xv. 27; Hab. ii. 9; and Ezek. xxii. 13. In Luke xvi. 9 sqq. the meaning is not that money sinfully so­gained is best spent in alms (Holtzmann), but that the earthly possessions of the children of the king­dom of God are called " unrighteous " because net properly held by them, since their rightful possession is the kingdom of God. The good which is foreign [to one's nature] he is to bestow in order to obtain that possession which is really his own. There is known no god or demon " ma,mon " as Weirs (on Luke xvi. 9) supposed. (G. DALMAN.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The commentaries on the passages cited, particularly that of Plummer on Luke ivi. 9‑13 (New

York, 1898); the lexicons (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) on the word; DB, iii. 224; EB, iii. 2912‑15; JE, viii.

278 (elaborate).

MAMRE. See JUDEA, IL, 1, § 5.
MAN. I. Origin of Man.

II. Unity of the Human Race. III. Antiquity of Man.

While in man the natural realm finds the cul­mination of its development, there develops in him at the same time a new realm, the kingdom of the spirit. The noblest philosophical thinkers, ancient and modern, as well as the Scripture, corroborate this view of the twofold nature of man. They place man in close connection with the preceding works of creation, and at the same time represent him as the product of a new creative thought and act (Gen. i. 26, ii. 7).

I. Origin of Man: Man was created in God's image. The consensus gentium bears testimony to the truth of this Biblical sentence. According to most pagan myths of creation, the human race was created by the gods or the deity. Some anthropol­ogists like to base their theories upon legends in natural religions (India, Tibet, etc.), which trace the original man back to the ape; but other leg­ends as numerous and as old as those (ancient Mexico, West Africa, South Arabia, Indo‑China) consider apes as degenerated and fallen descend­ants of men. More important are the traditions of the civilized nations of antiquity, which almost unanimously agree that man is the creature of God. Of these may be mentioned the Chinese tradition about Fo‑hi or Pao‑hi, the Babylonian, with its many points of agreement with the Biblical account the Egyptian Book of the Dead, with its praise of the " Divine Architect, who made the world to be the home of man, the image of the Creator "; Hesiod's and Ovid's poems.

It is only since the middle of the eighteenth cen­tury that the materialistic philosophy of men like Lamettrie, Holbach, Helvetiua (qq.v.) degraded man to a mere animal, or even a machine. In re­cent times many anthropologists have adopted the same view. Carolus Linnaeus (1707‑1778) classi­fied man with the ape as the highest representative of the vertebrates, but pronounced him to have been " created with an immortal soul, after the di­vine image," and called him " the only one among the creatures blessed with a rational soul for the praise of God " (Systems Nature, 6th ed., 1748). J. F. Blumenbach (1752‑1840), the real founder of anthropology as a science, never doubted that man was distinguished from the whole animal world by his upright walk, perfectly developed hands, pro­truding chin, and articulate speech. Other in­vestigators, basing their theories on the study of embryology, paleontology, and experiments in breeding animals and plants, have come to the conclusion that man is the result of a process of development, some primeval type of ape being his immediate ancestor (see EVOLUTION). This view has been advanced especially by Charles Darwin, Thomas H. Huxley, John Lubbock , E. B. Tylor, and in Germany by Ernst Haeckel, Oakar Schmidt, H. Schaaffhausen, p. Caspari, and others.


Xalmesbury Man

This theory, however, is only a hypothesis the scientific untenableneas of which is evident from the following facts: (1) There are anatomical dif­ferences between man and even the moat devel­oped apes (gorilla, chimpanzee, etc.), so important that the assumption of their common origin is sub­ject to the greatest difficulties. According to the investigations of &by, Bischoff, R. Owen, and others, the capacity of the lowest human skull (the natives of New Holland) is seventy‑five cubic inches; while the largest capacity of the gorilla is thirty‑four cubic inches. The average weight of the brain of a European is fifty‑seven ounces; that of the negro, from thirty‑eight to fifty‑one ounces; but that of the gorilla from seventeen to nineteen ounces. (2) No validity can be attached to the embryological proof, consisting in the supposed identity of the fetal phases of the development of man with those of the higher mammals, especially the apes. The enact repetition of lower animal forms of existence in the steps of the development of the embryo does not take place in reality, as Haeckel has asserted. His, Goette, $olliker, and other authorities on the doctrine of evolution de­cidedly disagree with Haeckel in many details. (3) The proof from paleontology is also full of gaps and deficiencies. The assumed human apes (pithecanthropt) have so far been found neither in a living nor in a fossil condition. Neither the Neanderthal skull, nor the Engis skull, nor the Cro‑Magnon skull, nor any other human remains excavated in a fossil condition show an essential approach to the type of the ape. (4) The doctrine of descent assumes far the sake of certain analogies genealogical relations of affinity and ‑ehliages of organisms in great numbers, but not one case of a definite and permanent change of an organic species into another has 'been accurately observed. It as­sumes a process of natural selection such as a gardener or a breeder pursues; but as far as em­pirical knowledge goes, the character of the indi­vidual vegetable and animal species has never changed. In order to substantiate its view, its advocates postulate millions of years; but whether the epochs of geological formation really require such an immense amount of time as Darwin needed for his hypothesis is still doubted by geologists. Geology, too, shows that the specific groups of organic beings were distinct from the very begin­ning. The truth of the Biblical words that " God created everything after its kind," is confirmed as

Much ay the natural lit of the pffthi world as Ly

the facts of the former ages of geology. (5) The Darwinian hypothesis of descent does not give due consideration to the great difference between man and animal in a psychological respect. Man repre­sents an entirely new phase of existence, being dis­tinguished from the preceding organisms by his freedom, self‑consciousness, and endowment of

speech. Conservative investigators like Agaasiz, Rudolf Wagner, Wigand, and Dubois‑Iteymond

have always ridiculed the hypothesis that considers the higher nature of man the product of a purely natural development. In the same way, men like A. de Quatrefagea and the French physiologists fol­lowing him, E. Bouchut, Tandon, and others, and


rent German critics of Darwin like Hans Driesch, Haack% and Gustav Wolff acknowledge the radical distinction between man and animal; and Wallace, who with Darwin 'is the author of the theory of natural selection, holds that in the case of man, the natural selection was the work of God.

II. Unity of the Human Race: The fact that the human race descended from one pair (Gen. i. 27) is confirmed by numerous traditions of pagan­ism. It is true, however, that there appeared also polygeniam or sutochthonism, the theory of epony­mous ancestors (see EPONYM), which was repre­sented especially by the Greeks and revived in the period of the Renaissance. Blumenbach opposed polygenism in his work, De generic hurnani vorietate nativa (Gbttingen, 1795); similarly Prichard, John Herschel, the two Humboldts, and others. Since the appearance of Darwin's doctrine of evolution the theory of monogenism has been adopted more generally. Several of the moat important ethnol­ogists, Oskar Peschel, T. Waitz, A. de Quatrefages, Keane, adhere to the theory of the unity of the human race, or at least to its origin from a com­mon hearth, if not from one single pair. In favor of Biblical monogeniam may be advanced: (1) The different races of men do not lose their power of procreation by intermarriage. Blumenbach, Buf­fon, Johann Miiller, Waitz, Quatrefages, and others have emphasized this fact as decisive for the unity of the race. (2) Among all human races, the skele­ton, the period of pregnancy, and the average duration of life are the same. (3) Apparent di­vergencies of the races in the formation of the skull, the quality of akin, hair, etc., may be explained by climatic conditions. (4) Linguistic objections against monogeniam do not stand upon a solid basis, since in the course of hundreds and thou­sands of years languages are subject to consider­able changes. (5) Archeology and the science of religions furnish important material for the. proof of the original unity of the human race. The wide circulation of certain religious traditions in primi­tive history, especially of the legends of the flood, can hardly be explained otherwise than by the as­sumption of primitive relations of affinity. More­over, the legends of the, American people pointing to repeated immigrations of their ancestors from Eastern Asia contradict the assumptions of Amer­ican autochthoniam or activism, as it was repre­sented by George Squier, H. Bancroft, Lorenz Die­fenbach, J. G. MUller, and others. (6) The different races of humanity reveal a thoroughgoing uni­formity and spiritual relationship also in a psycho­logical and ethical respect. Even the moat bar­barous tribes are capable of participating in the higher spiritual interests of humanity. The idea of the impotence of the Christian religion as a civilizing power over against the stupid resistance of lower races (cf. De Gobinesu, Easai suf l'ire­egaliM den races humainea, Paris, 1853) has been amply refuted by the activity of Christian mis­sionaries among the savages of all parts of the world.

IB. Antiquity of Man: The usual system of Biblical chronology makes the period from Adam to Christ cover 4,000 years (see TIZ®, BIBLICAL RECKONING

OF). Such a short period seems to be inconsistent with the alleged unity of the race, but the effects of sin must not be left out of account in determin­ing this question. There is much in the chrono­logical tables of the Old Testament to make any calculation based upon them of questionable ac­curacy. There is at any rate some truth in the words of Chalmers, that " the sacred writings do not fin the antiquity of the globe," and those of Le Air and De Sacy, " There is no Biblical chro­nology." It is quite possible that the lists of the patriarchs in Gen. v. and xi. are incomplete. The Bible, in fact, seems to allow for a longer duration o£ the human race by several thousands of years than the usually accepted chronology makes out. The records of Egyptian history seem to make an extension of the chronology necessary (see EGYPT). The primitive history of Babylonia may be traced back even further than that of Egypt. From re­cent discoveries in Babylonia (q.v., III., ~ 6), espe­cially those of Hilprecht (since 1893) it seems to be sufficiently evident that South Babylonia possessed a royal dynasty already before Sargon, so that it may be safely assumed that the beginnings of Baby­lonian culture date back at least 5,000 years (see BABYLONIA, V., § 1, VI., 1‑2). Of leas value are the arguments based upon geological calculations according to which the age of man is measured by ten thousands of years. There is as yet no reliable geological chronometer, but it is proved by recent discoveries in caves that man must have lived at the close of the great ice period, that is, during the great geological deluge; but when this period began and when it ended, remains still a matter of uncer­tainty. Quatrefagea justly criticizes the lavish extravagance with which many Darwinians Cal­culate time. Even Lyell wen obliged, in the later edition of his Geological Eviderecea of the Antiquity of Man (London, 1863), to modify his earlier state­ments.. E. B. Tylor, it is true, in his Anthropology (London, 1881) holds that some dozens of 6eaturies within the period of historical time are not sufficient to explain the gradual development of the distinctions of the human race, but, on the other hand, he declares the oldest human remains from the earliest stone period as " lying back out of the range of chronology."

From the very beginning the spirit of man has been the principal factor of .his being. It is his true Ego. Judged according to its original con­ception and its higher divine destiny, humanity is a thoroughly good and noble principle; but by the invasion of sin into the development of the race its innate nobility has degenerated. Without redeem­ing help from above, without the intervention of the incarnate, Son of God, a return to the normal and original condition would be impossible. While humanity is still far removed from the full realiza­tion of its ideal in an ethical and religious respect, faith in the final victory of the good in humanity over the evil moat not be given up, as little as the striving after the highest development of culture must cease. The realm of Christ and the realm of true humanity form concentric circles; the ideal of humanity is very little distinguished from the Christian ideal of life. The trae aim of humanity



is rightly understood only by those of its apostles

who see in the pioneers of foreign and home

missions of Christianity their self‑evident allies,

and in the holy spirit of Christ the perfec­

tion toward which all spiritual life of humanity

moat tend. (O. Zbc>i1.Eat.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the Biblical doctrine of man consult the works in and under the article BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, es­pecially the treatises by H. Schultz, and W. Beyechlag. For the tres;tment in systematic theology cpneult the sec. tion on Anthropology in the works cited under DOaE(w, DoaacwaZCa. Further works in the same line are: M. Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, New York, 1878; idem, Scriptural Idea of Man, ib. 1883; J. Laidtaw, Bible Doc­trsue of Man, Edinburgh, 1879; and Bishop Butler's fa­mous Sermons, new ed., Edinburgh, 1888.

From the scientific standpoint the reader is referred to the article EVOLUTION and the literature under it, par­ticularly the works of Darwin, Huxley, Fiake, Mivart, Wallace, Romanes, 1.e Come, Weiemann, CIO% MeCoah, Dodson, Calderwood, Haeckel. Consult further: the Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man, London, 1889; L. Figuier, Primitive Man, ib. 1870; C. Lyell, Antiquity of Man, ib. 1873; H. Spencer, Descriptive Sociology, 8 vole., ib. 1873­1882; J. F. McLennan, Studies %n Ancient History, ib. 1888; A. Quatrefagea. The Human species, ib. 1888; J. Lubbock, The Origin of Civilisation and Primitive Con­dition of Man, ib. 1881; C. F. Keary, The Dawn of His­tory. ib. 1888; H. Lotae, Microcoamue, books iv. aqq., Edinburgh, 1888; E. Clodd, Ch%tdhood of the World, Lon­don, 1889; G. F. Wright, Ice‑Age of America and its Bear­inpa on the Antiquity of Man, New York, 1889; 0. Ziema­een, Makrokoam>a Weltanschauung, Goths, 1893; A. H. Keane, Ethnology, Cambridge, 1898; B: Plats, Der Meaech, Leipeic, 1898; C. Gutberlet, Der Me»ech, U, sprung and E>Paderborn, 1903; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, new ed., London, 1903; A. H. Wallace Man's Place in Nature, New York, 1903; L. H. Morgan: Ancient Society, reprint, New York, 1907.

MANASSEH, ma‑nas'e: Thirteenth king of Judah, eon and successor of Heztkiah. His dates, according to the old chronology, are 696‑641 a.c., according to Kamphausen, 685‑641, according to R. Kittel (Geschichte Ilea Volkes Israel, ii. 516 sqq., Goths, 1909), 697 or 686‑641. In order to under­stand the reign of Manasseh, it is necessary to bear in mind the events which took place toward the end of Hezekiah's reign‑the inroad of &nnacherib into Judah and the rescue which followed, a result of which was a revival of faith in Yahweh. With the enthronement of Manasseh came a revulsion and a reversal of the religious tendencies, restoration of the sanctuaries closed by Hezekiah and of the heathenish or semi‑heathenish rites formerly prac­tised, particularly that of child‑sacrifice. This was accompanied by a persecution of the religion of the prophets who had led in Hezekiah's reform. Manas­eeh was swayed more by the sentiments of the masses of the people than by the little circle of earnest followers of the Yahweh cult. Undoubt­edly the chief occasion of this change was the po­litical situation. Assyria had reached the height of its power, and the vigorous Esarhaddon sat on the throne and conducted victorious campaigns in the Syrian region and against the Phenicians, the Arabs, and the Egyptians. He was followed by his equally able son Aashurbanlpal, Who P,StBblished the Assyrian power in those districts on a still firmer basis. Manasseh, therefore, abandoned the pro‑Egyptian policy of his father and threw him­self, politically and religiously, into the arms of Assyria, in spite of the predictions of the coming VIL‑10


fall of that empire. The apparent success of the

gods of Assyria influenced the religious situation,

and the anti‑Yahwiatic acts of Manasseh were

probably met by the resistance of the faithful,

which resulted in the persecution of the latter.

The Chronicler (II Chron. xsxiii. 1‑20) reports that

Manasseh was taken prisoner and carried bound to

Babylon and afterward restored to his kingdom.

This statement hag b22n muth questioned, since ii

did not seem probable that as an Assyrian prisoner

Manasseh would be carried to Babylon [McCurdy,

His", Prophecy and the Monuments, vol. ii.,

changes " Babylon " to " Nineveh 'I; but this is

answered by the fact that in his later years Aashur­

banipal often dwelt at Babylon. The Chronicler

also mentions that Manasseh added to the defenses

of Jerusalem. (R. KITTEL.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are TI Kings xxi. 1‑18 (of which verses b and 7‑lb are by a later hand), and II Chron. xxxiii. 1‑20. Consult the pertinent sections in the litera­ture under ARAB; ISRAEL, especially R. Kittel, ut sup.; and Kittel's commentary on Kings and Chronicles, G&ttin­gen 1900; the articles in the Bible Dictionaries, and S. R. Driver, in D. G. Hogarth, Authority and Archeology, pp. 114‑118, London, 1899.

MANASSEH BEN ISRAEL: Jewish theologian and patriot; b. at La Rochelle (78 In. s. of Nantes), France, in 1604; d. at Middelburg (47 m. s.w. of Rotterdam), Holland, Nov. 20, 1657. He received his education at Amsterdam, where he became a noted pulpit orator. He is best known for his service to his people by securing for them through personal intercession with Cromwell per­mission to nettle under protection in England, erect a synagogue in London, and purchase ground there for a cemetery. His principal work was El Concilitulor (part 1, Frankfort, 1632, parts 2‑4, Amsterdam, 1641‑51), an attempt to reconcile all passages in the Old Testament which seem to conflict.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: JR, viii. 282‑284; DNB, zxxvi. 13‑14.


MANCHESTER, CHARLES: Church of God; b. at Burritt, Ill., Dec. 28, 1858. He was educated at Park College, Mo. (A.B.,1883), and Oberlin Theo­logical Seminary (B.D., 1886). Having lien or­dained a minister in his denomination as early as 1879 be held pastorates at Mt. Carroll, Ill. (1886­1888), Decatur, Ill. (1888‑$9), and Milmine and Lodge, Ill. (1889‑90), while from 1890 to 1896 he was preacher in a church at Barkleyville, Pa., and also principal of the academy in the same place. He was then connected with Findlay College, Find­lay, O., from 1896 to 1904, being successively pro. fesaor of Greek and philosophy (1896‑1901), and

professor of philosophy and theology (1901‑04), in addition to being acting president of the same in­stitution from 1396 to 1900, and president from that year t019(h4, N11Og IOU be bas (fin pastor of a church of his denomination at Wooster, O. He

was secretary of the Board of Missions of the Gen­eral Eldership of the Church of God from 1893 to

1901, and was editor of the Missionary Signal, which he founded, from 1893 to 1896 and of the Findlay College News from 1897 to 1904.

1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page