freedom and moral law. Originally the word for guilt signified a debt, then the liability for debt, still later it stood for crime and the state of one who had violated custom or law without reference to the ideal nature of these, as liable to punishment. With reference to the law of God, guilt was the condition of one who having transgressed the law was liable to penalty. In the Old Testament guiltofferings were coupled with sin‑offerings, both of which assumed violation of the covenant relations which demanded atonement. It involved the assumption that legal requirement, not so much personal as arbitrary and external, had been disturbed and that satisfaction had to be made. This idea has its ethnic parallels. In Roman law culpa designates the transgression of law where no dolus can be attributed to the conscious intention. Aitia, which stood for cause, meant also guilt; even heroes lay under a burden of guilt which could not be ethically attributed to them; hence it appears as a fate‑haimwrmene. The German Skulda was one of the fates. The earliest Christian term for guilt was not aitiabut opheilema, "debt" (of. Matt. vi. 12).
Guilt thus appears in two relations‑civil and personal. In civil affairs one may come under obligations to compensate for an action legally defective, by the payment of money or other equivalent. By a criminal act, in addition to the injury done, the criminal has violated a social order for which the only satisfaction is punishment; this, while not repaying the injured party, compels a recognition of the order violated. Here the relation is no longer external, involving debt and things, but personal, involving crime and persons. Thus the necessity of punishment cleaves to the transgressor. According to the New Testament guilt has the following relations: (1) to the object violated by the sin (I Cor. xi. 27; Jas. ii. 10); (2) to the sin with which it is connected (Mark iii. 29); (3) to the penalty to which the evil‑doer is liable (Matt. xxvi. 66); (4) to the person to whose jurisdiction one is answerable on the grourld of violated obligation (Rom. iii. 19).
Several theories have been proposed to account for the consciousness of guilt: (1) It is grounded in part in the participation of all men in Adam's sin, and in part in the corruption which is the punishment of that sin. (2) A blameworthy deed committed by each individual of the race in a prenatal state announces itself in the universal consciousness of guilt (Julius Milller). (3) The consciousness of guilt is an incident of human development; " in his direct and unformed condition, man is in a situation in which he ought not to be, and he must free himself. This is the meaning of the doctrine of original sin." This condition is therefore inevitable, but to be transcended, and with its disappearance guilt will also disappear (Hegel); or through the painful‑guilty‑consciousness of natural weakness as something that should not be, one becomes susceptible to redemption by which he attains perfection (Schleiermacher). (4) Guilt is a social phenomenon. All men are involved in the general consequences and sufferings caused by sin. This is the truth contained in the doctrine of origi‑
indifference and lethargy and be led to confess and
forsake their blameworthy share in a general im
moral and irreligious condition. So far at least
as they consent to those social conditions which
violate the ideal moral order they are guilty. But
the line between individual and social guilt is hard
to define. (5) Guilt attaches only to those actions
and to that character which are self‑originated and
for which one is therefore responsible. He has
freely identified himself with the moral conditions
in which he is found. Accordingly he is out of
tune with the moral order of the world, society,
and his own better self. His acts become habitual,
his choice cumulative, registered in a permanent
alienation from God. And the wrong act has not
only its outer, but its inner consequences, and these
latter cleave to the sinner and he is answerable to
God. This constitutes his guilt. The prophets, in
their revolt from the earlier Hebrew notion of sin
as derived from social solidarity, carried the idea
of individual sin and guilt to the very breaking
point (Jar. xxxi. 29, 30: Ezek. xviii. 2, 4, 9, xxxiii.
12‑20). In personal life there may be guilt where
there is no immediate consciousness of it. There are
degrees of guilt, but no guilt is infinite. Strictly
speaking, there is neither inheritance nor transfer
of guilt. C. A. BECgwiTH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is treated in the treatises on systematic theology (see DoGwA, Dooxemce); in the works on BIBLICAL THEOLOGY (q.v.); and in the commentaries on the passages cited in the teat. Consult
also the literature under SIN; J. Miller, Die chriatlicha
Ldrs con der Sands, 2 vole., Stuttgart, 1877, Eng. trahel.,
Edinburgh, 1877; DCG, i. 898‑698.
GUITMUND, gwit'mund, CHRISTIAN:Bishop of Aversa (13 m. n.n.w. of Naples); b. in Normandy, probably c. 1020; d. about 1095. He was instructed by Lanfranc at Bec. Later he was a monk in the monastery of La‑Croix Saint‑Leufroi in the diocese of Evreux (department of Eure, between Gaillon and Evreux). Thence William the Conqueror called him to~England after the battle of Senlac (Oct. 14, 1066), with the intention of offering him later an English bishopric, but he could not induce Guitmund to remain. At the beginning of 1077 he was in Rome, where he entered a monastery under the name of Christianus. He soon gained great influence at the papal court. In an account of the events in Rome in Dec., 1083, he appears as the leader of the Gregorian party. After the death of Gregory he vehemently opposed the election of Victor III. (pope 1086‑87), but was more favorably inclined toward Urban 11. (1088‑99). To him he owed his election as bishop of Avers&, about July, 1088.
Guitmund's fame rests upon his attack on Berengar of Tours and his formulation of the common doctrine of the Lord's Supper in his Ltbri tree de corpords et sanguinis Domini writate in euchmmristia. The work originated between 1073 and 1078, probably in La‑Croix‑Saint‑Leufroi, and aims to refute Berengar's book Des acra cans. Guitmund tries (1) to prove from the conception of divine omnipotence the possibility of the "essential" change; (2) to confute the esthetic objection to the idea of
a "chewing" of Christ. In this connection he
argues (3) that in every paitide of the elements the
whole Christ is partaken, and (4) that the special
manner of the change which takes place in the
Lord's Supper corresponds exactly to the special
manner . of generation in the birth of Christ, and is
as difficult to be understood by the intellect as it is
easy to be grasped by faith. In the second book
he refutes (5) the objection of Berengar that the
incorruptible body of the heavenly Christ is, accord
ing to the doctrine of the Church, considered sub
ject to the process of digestion, and tries (6) to
invalidate Berengar's proofs from the Fathers. :In
Fathers that the doctrine of transubstantiation is
in accordance with the doctrine of the Church, and
(8) to confute :three similar heterodox views on the
Lord's Supper that had originated with Berengar.
Besides his principal work, Guitmund wrote also
on the Trinity‑Confes8io de sancta trinitate, Christi
humanitate carpawiaque ac 8anguinis Domini nostri
veritate, and Epistola ad Erfastum of which only a
fragment is preserved. (H. B6HMER.)
BiBLIOasAPB7: The oditio princapa of his work on the Eucharist was published by Erasmus, Bawl, 1530; that and the Confessio were issued by Ulimmier, LSwen, 1561; these two and the Epietola are in MPL, exlix. His life is in Orderieus Vitalis, Hist. eccl., iv. 8. Consult: Histoire litWraire de la France, viii. 553‑572; J. Bach, DopmenpeerhicW des Afiuelalters, i. 586‑587, Vienna 1873; A. Seeberg, Lehrbuch den Dogmenpesrhichte, ii. 60, Leipsic, 1898; Harnaek, Dogma, vi. 52; KL, v. 1359‑60; Ceillier, Autewe sacres, ix. 759‑760, xiii. 131, 175, 516‑525.
GUIZOT, gf"z8', FRANgOIS 'PIERRE GUILLAUME:French historian and statesman; b. at Nimes (32 m. w.s.w. of Avignon) Oct. 4, 1787; d. at Val‑Richer, a former Augustinian monastery near Lisieux (35 m. e. of Caen), Sept. 12, 1874. He was descended from a family of Huguenot pastors. His father, an advocate of liberal views, having been guillotined during the Reign of Terror, he was taken by his mother to Geneva and educated there under her care. In 1805 he went to Paris to study law, but soon devoted himself to literature, and in 1812 became professor of history at the Sorbonne. He belonged to the school of doctrinaires, who sought to unite liberalism and conservatism and retain under a limited monarchy the liberties won by the Revolution. His lectures found an enthusiastic reception; but for this very reason they were soon prohibited. From 1830 to 1848 he devoted himself to politics and held various posts including that of minister of public instruction (1832‑34), and that of premier (1840‑48). He reformed the educational system of France from top to bottoM, introducing particularly valuable improvements in the primary and secondary schools. During the revolution of 1848 the popular indignation against him was so great that he sought safety in England. After his political fall he lived mostly in retirement and took an increasing interest in religious affairs. In 1852 he became president of the consistory, in which capacity he fought the liberals tooth and nail. Whether in the consistory, or the cabinet, or the professor's chair, he showed always the same firm and unyielding disposition. He was the chief support of orthodoxy in the Reformed Church in V.‑7
France and was largely responsible for the division of the Church which occurred at and after the Synod of 1872. He believed strongly in the necessity for authority and had no patience with criticism, either of religion or politics., F,W, him religion was above all, the sanction of order and authority. Hence his great admiration for the Roman Catholic Church.
Guizot was thoroughly unselfish and a man of unimpeachable integrity. Though he filled the highest political offices and as premier had the entire power of France in his hands, he died a poor man. It may be added that he took part in founding the Socidt6 Biblique in 1826, and the Soci&k de 1'Histoire du Protestantisme, 1857. A few of his most important works are: Histoire gfn&aL de la civilisation en Europe (Paris, 1828), and Histoire de la civilisation en France (5 vols., 1829‑32), both translated into English by W. Hazlitt under the title, The History of Civilisation (3 vols., London, 1856); Histoire de la Rdvolution d'Angleterre (2 vols., 1826‑27, extended to 6 vols., 1850‑56; Eng. transl., 2 vols., Oxford, 1838; also transl. by W. Hazlitt, London, 1856);' Vie, correspondance et &rits de Washington (6 vols., 1839‑40, Eng. transl., London, 1840); Mfmoiree pour servir d l'hiatoire de mon temps (8 viols., 1858‑67; Eng. tranel. in part, Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Time, 4 vols., London, 1858‑61); Llglise et la soci6tg chr6tienne (1861; Eng. transl., The Christian Church and Society in 1861, London, 1861); Mdditations sun l'essence de la religion chrotienne (1864; Eng. transl., Meditations on the Essence of Christianity, London, 1864), subsequently supplemented; Les Vies de quartre granda ChrUiena frangai8 (viol. i., 1868; Eng. transl., Saint Louis and Calvin, London, 1869); and L'Histoire de France . . . racontkx h mss petite‑enfants (7 vols., 1870‑79; Eng. transl., History of France . . . to the Year.1789, 8 vols., London, 1872‑81). Other works of his have . ap‑: peared under English titles, and illustrate the range of his activities, e.g.: Memoirs of George Monk, Duke of Albemarle (London, 1838); Democracy and its Mission (1848); On the Causes and Success of the English Revolution of 16.¢0‑1888 (1850); Essay on the Hist. of the Origin of Representative Government (1852); The Fine Arts, their Nature and Relations (1853); Hist. of England (3 vols.,
1877‑79). His Life of Oliver Cromwell (1854 and
often) is an extract from his " History of the Eng
mate Life, London, 1$$0 (by big dgllfty)i D. 01arle, The Life and Writings of M. Guizot, Boston, 1875; J. F. Simon, Mors, Guizot, RJmusat Paris, 1885; C. A. SainteBeuve, Essays on Men and Women, London, 1890; A. BardOux, Guixot, Paris, 1894.
GULICIi, gu'lik, JOHN THOMAS: Congregationalist; b. at Waimea, Kauai, Hawaii, March 13, 1832. He was educated at Williams College (A.B., 1859)
and Union Theological Seminary (1861). He then went as a missionary to China under the auspices of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions and was stationed at Peking in 1864‑65 and Kalgan in 1865‑75. From 1875 to 1899 he was a missionary in Japan, being stationed at KobS
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
in 1875‑82 and Osaka in 1882‑99, but in 1899 he returned to the United States and retired from active life. He has written Evolution, Racial and Habitudinal (Washington, 1905).
GULICK, LUTHER HALSEY: Congregationalist and missionary; b. in Hawaii, of missionary parents, June 10, 1828; d. in Springfield, Mass., Apr. 8, 1891. He was educated in Hawaii, and in medicine in the C :legs of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, and in 1851 went as missionary of the American Board to Micronesia. There he labored successfully till 1860, when his health compelled him to retire. He went to Hawaii, and from 1863 till 1870 he was secretary of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association. He was then employed by the American Board to visit Spain and Italy with a view of establishing missions there, and was also under consideration as one of the secretaries of the Board; but from 1875 till 1890 was the agent of the American Bible Society, first of its work in both Japan and China, and after 1881 for China only; later Siam was added. Ill health compelled him to return to the United States in 1890, and he shortly thereafter resigned.
GUNDULF, gi‑ln'dulf: 1. Heretical teacher of the first half of the eleventh century. About 1025 a number of heretics were arrested in Arras and committed to a synod convened in the city for final sentence. The defendants named as their teacher an Italian called Gundulf, who had escaped pursuit. It would appear that he had acquainted them with the precepts of the Gospels and the apostles, beside which no other source of faith was to be regarded. They rejected the church doctrine of the sacraments, and opposed zealously all liturgical developments, the veneration of saints (except the martyrs and apostles), and prayers for the dead. Ecclesiastical hierarchy was supplanted among them by sectarian preachers called from the laity, while the ecclesiastical means of grace were superseded by individual " election " to the state of justification. Their moral ideal consisted in forsaking the world, mortifying the flesh, subsisting by the labor of their hands, and showing love to all; the married estate appeared to them sinful. On declaring themselves ready to recant, the accused were allowed to make reconciliation with the Church. Undoubtedly Gundulf and his adherents may be classed with the Cathari, who were then spreading from northern Italy into the districts beyond the Alps.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. d'Achtiry, Spicilepium, i. 606 qq., Paris, 1723 (contains the Acts of the Synod of Arras and the
letters of Bishop Gerhard of Cambrai); Mansi, Concilia, xix. 423 eqq.; P. Fredericq, Corpus docurnentorum inquisitionis Neerlandica, i. 1‑5, The Hague, 18$9. Consult also: C. Schmidt, Hiat. et doctrine de la secte des
Catharee, i. 35 sqq., Paris, 1849; J. J. 1. van DSllinger, Beitrdge zur $aktenpesehichte des Mitfelaltere, i. 65 aqq., Munich, 1890.
2. Bishop of Rochester; b. near Rouen, France, c. 1024; d. at Rochester Mar. 7, 1108. He received his education at Rouen, became a clerk of the cathedral there, and in 1059, on his return from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, became a monk in the monastery at Bee. Here he met Anselm of Canterbury
in 1060, with whom he formed a lifelong friendship. Lanfranc, the prior at Bee, became greatly attached to him, took him to Caen in 1066, and on his appointment to the archbishopric of Canterbury, in 1070, he made Gundulf his proctor and placed him in charge of the estates of the archbishopric. Through Lanfranc's influence Gundulf was appointed bishop of Rochester, being consecrated in Christ Church, Canterbury, Mar. 19, 1077. Gundulf, who was a famous architect, at once rebuilt the church at Rochester and made his chapter monastic, substituting for the five canons sixty monks. He also built the White Tower in the Tower of London, a castle at Rochester for William Rufus, a nunnery at Malling, and the so‑called St. Leonard's tower at West Malling. In 1078 he founded a hospital for lepers at Chatham. He was well liked by William Rufus, and by Henry I.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Vita by a contemporary is in H. Wharton, Anglia sacra, ii. 273‑292, cf. i. 336 sqq., London, 1691, and MPL, clix. 813‑836. Consult: T. Wright, Biopraphia Britannica literaria, ii. 41‑43, London, 1846;
T. D. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue of Materials, p. 103,
no. 156, in Rolls Series, ib. 1862‑71; Hiatodre littiraire de la France, ix. 369; W. R. W. Stephens, The English Church . . . 1086‑187,2, pp. 25, 35,104, 275, London, 1901; DNB, xxiii. 339‑341.
GUNKEL, gun'kl, JOHANN FRIEDRICH HERMANN : German Protestant; b. at Springe (14 m. s.w. of Hanover) May 23,1862. He was educated at the universities of G6ttingen, Giessen, and Leipsic, and in 1889‑94 was privat‑docent at Halle. Since the latter year he has been associate professor of Old Testament exegesis at the University of Berlin. In addition to editing the Forschungen zur Religion Itnd Literatur des Alien and Neuzn Testaments in collaboration with W. Bousset since 1903, he has written Wirkung des heiZigen Geiatea (G6ttingen, 1888); Sch6pfung and Chaos in Urzeit and Endzeit (1895); Der Prophet Esra (Tilbingen, 1900); Genesis fitberseW ltnd erkldrt (Gbttingen, 1900); Die Sagen der Genesis (1901; Eng. transl. by W. H. Carruth, The Legends of Genesis, Chicago, 1901); Israel and Babylonien (G6ttingen,1903; Eng.transl. by E. S.B., Israel and Babylon; The Influence of Babylon on the Religion of Israel); Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Yeratdndnis des Neuen Testaments (1903); Ausgewdhdte Psalmen (1904); and Literaturgeschichte Ismels and des alien Judentums (Leipsie, 1906).
GUMWWDER PLOT: A conspiracy on the part of certain Roman Catholics in England to destroy the king, lords, and commons by blowing up the parliament house at the opening of parliament on Nov. 5, 1605, and thus overthrow the government in the interest of Roman Catholicism. The conspiracy grew out of the resentment felt toward James I. for his rigid enforcement of the old penal laws of Elizabeth against Roman Catholics. In order to facilitate his accession to the English throne he had promised a number of prominent Roman Catholics that fines against recusants would no longer be exacted. Spanish diplomacy having been tried upon James in vain, the Gunpowder Plot was hatched by Robert Catesby, John Wright, and Thomas Winter early in 1604. Thomas Percy and Guy Fawkes were soon sworn into the plot, and later several others, including Everard Digby,
99 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA~f
Francis Tresham, and Ambrose Rookwood, all men of we$lth and prominence. A building adjoining the parliament house was rented in Percy's name, and in Dec., 1604, the conspirators began to excavate a passage from their cellar. After they had bored about half way through the wall, which was nine feet thick, they were able the following March to rent, also in Percy's name, a cellar immediately under the House of Lords. Here they stored thirty‑six barrels of powder, covering them with stones and bars of iron, and concealing all beneath lumber and fagots of various kinds. By May, 1605, all was in readiness; but parliament was not to meet till Nov. 5. While he did not originate the plan, Fawkes was the leading conspirator in all these preparations, and on account of his coolness and courage he was entrusted with the important work of firing the powder on Nov. 5. Ten days before the plot was to have been consummated, Lord Monteagle, a Catholic and a friend of several of the conspirators, received an anonymous letter warning him not to attend the opening session of parliament. He at once showed the letter to Lord Salisbury, who communicated the matter to the king. On Nov. 4 the lord chamberlain, while going over the parliament house, noticed a suspicious abundance of fuel in the cellar occupied by Fawkes. That night the cellar was searched, the powder was discovered, and Fawkes was arrested just as he was returning from a midnight conference with Percy. Under severe torture Fawkes made a full confession on Nov. 9; and on Jan. 27, 1606, all the conspirators were condemned to be drawn, hanged, and quartered. Fawkes, with three others, ascended the scaffold on Jan. 31, 1606. Four fellow conspirators had been executed on the preceding day. What part, if any, the Jesuits took in the plot is still a mooted question, though it is pretty certain that Henry Garnett, the head of the order in England, had a guilty knowledge of it. He was executed on May 3, 1606. On Jan. 21, 1606, parliament set apart Nov. 5 as a day of national thanksgiving. This act was not repealed for two hundred years. It was long customary on this day to. dress up in rags an effigy of Fawkes, parade it through the street, singing rimes, and finally burn the effigy at night. The discovery of the plot was disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics in England, as thereafter the laws against them were enforced more rigidly than ever.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Jardine, A Narrative o/ the Gunpowder Plot, London, 1857; J. Gerard. The Condition of Catholics under James 1. Father Gerard's Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot Ed., with his Life, by J Morris, ib. 3d ed, 1881; DNB, ix. 283‑284, xviii. 266‑268, lxii. 218‑219; S. R. Gardiner, What Gunpowder Plot Was, London, 1897; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, ii. 18, 26, 38, ib. 1897; w. H. Frere, The English Church . . 1668‑me6, pp. 324‑327, ib. 1904; and in general the histories of the period.