401 religious encyclopedia nationalism

Regeneration Regensburg

Wacker, Wiedergeburt and Bekehrung, Giiteraloh, 1893; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, chaps. x. xiii., xvii., New York, 1894; C. Thieme, Die sittliche Trtebkraft dee Glaubens, Leipsic, 1895; R. Eucken, Der Bampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt, Ib. 1898 ; idem, Der Wahrheitegehalt der Religion, ib. 1901; J. B. Mayor, Commentary on James, pp. 186 189 London, 1897; C. Andresen, Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt auf theiati­scher Grundlage, Hamburg, 1899; H. Cremer, Taufe, Wie­dergeburt, and %indertaufe, Gatexsloh, 1901; J. Herzog, Der Begrif der Bekehrung, Giessen, 1903; O. Scheel, Die dogmatische Behandlung der Taufe in der modernen po8i­tiven Theologie, Tfbingen, 1908; P. Lessau, Wsedergeburt in der Taufe, Neumtinater, 1909; N. H. Marshall, Con­version; or, The New Birth, Ithaca, 1909; DB, iv. 214­221; DCG, ii. 485 489; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, faso. YYYiv. 1020 21; and the literature in CONVERSION.

For notices of a cognate idea in other religions cf.: E. Crawley, Mystic Rose, 305, 270 sqq., New York, 1902; idem, Tree of Life, pp. 58 57, London, 1905; G. Anrich, Dos antike Mysterienwesen, GSttingen, 1894; B. Spencer and F. J. Gillen, The Native Tribes of Central Australia, p. 248, London, 1899; and much of the literature under MITHRA, MITHRAIBM.

REGENSBURG, re'gens burg", BISHOPRIC OF:

A German diocese founded in the eighth century. Christianity evidently, entered Regensburg previ­ous to the reign of Constantine, but after the Ro­mans withdrew, the community of Roman Chris­tians disappeared. After the refoundation of the city, when the Bavarians had conquered the coun­try, the ducal house of Agilolfings, apparently of Frankish descent, was Christian, and it may be conjectured that here, as in Bavaria, the land be­came Christianized through the combined influence of the Franks and of Celtic missionaries. Although the region was long controlled by abbots with quasi­episcopal authority, it was not until the eighth cen­tury that the see of Regensburg was formally erected. For more than two centuries a Benedictine monastery took the place of a cathedral chapter, but in 974 the diocese and abbey were sepa­rarated. The ancient diocese was practically conter­minous with the modern, for though Bohemia was long administered as a missionary province of Re­gensburg, Bishop Wolfgang (971 994) surrendered it so that it might be made a separate see.

(A. IIAUCg.)

With the Reformation Regensburg became a stronghold of Protestantism, and the adherents of the ancient faith were compelled to struggle against intense opposition. Nevertheless, constant efforts were made to reform all that was amiss in matters pertaining to the Roman church, and education made progress, especially under Jesuit auspices. The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in the seven­teenth century again struck heavily at the diocese, but after this peril was over, the Roman Catholics of Regensburg once more bent every effort to the improvement of religion and education. From 1805 to 1817 Regensburg was made a metropolitan see Of Somewhat uncertain ecclesiastical standing, and in the latter year was degraded to a suffragan diocese of Munich Freising. In 1821, however, it regained the independence as a separate see which it still enjoys. It now forms part of the archdiocese of Munich Freising, and had, in 1909, 470 parishes and 32 deaneries, 1,086 secular and 147 regular priests, a seminary and lyceum at Regensburg, and a Roman Catholic population of 826,751.

ia i8°°k

vPe

THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG

Btsixooxsra:: T. Ried, Coda ohmnotopioo diplomatisua epiasoPouua Ratisbonensis, 2 vols., Regensburg, 1818; M. Hansia Ds spiawpotu Ratiabonansi prodt»nws, Vienna, 1754; F. Janner, GeschicUs der Bischefs oos; Rvenaburp. 3 vob., Regensburg, 1889; Hauck, ICD, passim. Lists of the bishops are in MGH, Script., aiii (1881). 39 sqq.. and (lame, Bales episcoporum, supplement, pp. 78 78.
REGENSBURG BOOS. See REGENsBUBq, CoN­FEBENCE OF.

REGENSBURG, CONFERENCE OF: A confer­

ence held at Regensburg in 1541, which marks the

culmination of attempts to restore religious unity

in Germany by means of conferences.

The It was a continuation of negotiations at

Conference. Hagenau (June, 1540; see HAGENAu,

CoNFEBENcE oF) and at Worms (q.v.),

where the deliberations began on Jan. 14, 1541, on

the basis of the Augsburg Confession and the Apol­

ogy, but after four days were adjourned by the

emperor to the session of the diet which was soon to

meet at Regensburg. On Dec. 15, 1540, a secret

conference took place between Johann Gropper,

canon of Cologne, and Gerhard Veltwick, the im­

perial secretary, on the one side, and Butter and

Capito, the delegates of Strasburg, on the other.

An agreement was reached on the questions of orig­

inal sin and justification, but the concession made

by the Roman Catholics at Hagens

on the basis of the Augsburg Confession and the

Apology, was withdrawn. On Jan. 5 Butter laid

a German draft of the conclusions leached before

the Landgrave, who approved it as preliminary to

an agreement and sent it to Joachim II., elector of

Brandenburg, with the request to communicate

it to Luther and the other princes of the Protestant

league. The document was essentially identical

with the later so called Regensburg Book, which

formed the basis of the Regensburg Conference in

place of the Augsburg Confession. It was divided

into twenty three articles, some of which closely

approached the Evangelical view; but it decided

no dogmatic question and did not exclude the Ro­

man conceptions. On Feb. 13, 1541, the book was

in the hands of Luther. In spite of the apparent

concessions made in regard to the doctrine of justi­

fication, he perceived that the proposed articles of

agreement could be accepted by neither party. On

Feb. 23 the emperor entered Regensburg. In con­

sideration of his difficult political situation, espe­

cially of the threatening war with the Turks and

the negotiations of the French king with the Evan­

gelicals, it was his desire to pacify Germany. The

conference was opened on Apr. 5. The interlocutors

were Gropper, Pflug, and Eck on the one side, But­

ter, the elder Johannes Pistorius, and Melanchthon

on the other. Besides the presidents, Count Pala­

tine Frederick and Cardinal Granvella, six witnesses

were present, among them Burkhardt and Feige,

chancellors of Saxony and Hesse, and Jakob Sturm

of Strasburg. The first four articles, on the con­

dition and integrity of man before the fall, on free

will, on the cause of sin, and on original sin, passed

without difficulty. The article on justification en­

countered great opposition, especially from Eck,

but an agreement was finally arrived 4t; aaither

Elector John Frederick nor Luther was aattalled

with this article. With respect to the articles on the doctrinal authority of the Church, the hierarchy, discipline, sacraments, etc , no agreement was pos­sible, and they were all passed over without result. On May 31 the book with the changes agreed upon and nine counterpropositions of the Protestants was returned to the emperor. In spite of the oppo­sition of Mainz, Bavaria, and the imperial legate, Charles V. still hoped for an agreement on the basis of the articles which had been accepted by both parties, those in which they differed being post­poned to a later time. As it was perceived that all negotiations would be in vain if the consent of Luther were not obtained, a deputation headed by John of Anhalt arrived at Wittenberg on June 9. Luther answered in a polite and almost diplomatic way. He expressed satisfaction in reference to the agreement on some of the articles, but did not be­lieve in the sincerity of his opponents and made his consent dependent upon conditions which he knew could not be accepted by the Roman Catholics. Be­fore the deputation had returned, the Roman party had entirely destroyed all hope of union. The formula of justification, which Contarini had sent to Rome, was rejected by a papal consistory. Rome declared that the matter could be settled only at a council, and this opinion was shared by the stricter party among the estates. Albert of Mainz urged the emperor to take up arms against the Protes­tants. Charles V. tried in vain to induce the Prot­estants to accept the disputed articles, while Joa­chim of Brandenburg made new attempts to bring about an agreement. With every day the gulf be­tween the opposing parties became wider, and both of them, even the Roman Catholics, showed a dis­position to ally themselves with France against the emperor.

Thus the fate of the Regensburg Book was no longer doubtful. After Elector John Frederick and

Luther had become fully acquainted its with its contents, their disinclination

Outcome. was confirmed, and Luther demanded

most decidedly that even the articles agreed upon should be rejected. On July 5 the estates rejected the emperor's efforts for union. They demanded an investigation of the articles agreed upon, and that in case of necessity they should be emendated and explained b)• the papal legate. Moreover, the Protestants were to be com­pelled to accept the disputed articles; in case of their refusal a general or national council was to be convoked. Contarini received instructions to an­nounce to the emperor that all settlement of relig­ious and ecclesiastical questions should be left to the pope. Thus the whole effort for union was al­ready frustrated, even before the Protestant estates declared that they insisted upon their counter­propositions in regard to the disputed articles.

The supposed results of the religious conference were to be laid before a general or national council or before an assembly of the empire which was to be convoked within eighteen months. In the mean time the Protestants were bound to adhere to the articles agreed upon, not to publish anything on them, and not to abolish any churches or monas­teries, while the prelates were requested to reform

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA

their clergy at the order of the legate. The peace

of Nuremberg was to extend until the time of the

future council, but the Augsburg Recess was to be

maintained. These decisions might have become

very dangerous to the Protestants, and in order

not to force them into an alliance with his foreign

opponents, the emperor decided to change some of

the resolutions in their favor; but the Roman Cath­

olics did not acknowledge his declaration. As he

was not willing to expose himself to an interpella­

tion on their part, he left Regensburg on June 29,

without having obtained an agreement or a humilia,

tion of the Protestants, and the Roman party looked

upon him with greater mistrust than the Protes­

tants. (T. KOLDE.)

BraLIOGRAPBY: Sources are: M. Butzer, Acta coao9ua in comitiis imperii Ratisbonos, Augsburg, 1542; idem, Alle Handlunpen and Schrifen zu VerpleicAuny der Religion . zu Regenapuerg. ib. 1542; J. Eck, Apologia . . . ad­roersua mucoree et caluranias Bucers, hwietadt, 1542; idem,Au$Butzer8 jalach auazsehreibenSehutzrode, ib. 1542; id , Replica adversus scripts secunda Buceri, ib. 1543; J. Calvin, in CR, xxxiii. 509 eqq. Consult: M. Leon, Brielro A8el Landpsafis Philip nit Bucer, 3 vole., Leipsie, 1880; K. T. Hergang, Doe Relipionapespraeh zu Regena­burp . . . and da. Regeneburper Bush, Cassel. 1858; T. Brieger, Gaaparo Contarini and das Repenaburper Kon­k0rdienioerk, Goths, 1870; idem, De formula coneordia Ratisbonensis oripfne of indole, Halle, 1870; H. 8chafer, De lsbri Ratisbonensi. origins atqw hiatorChristian Church, iii. 139 sqq.; and literature on BuTsza; CorrTssim; Ecc; LUTSm$; and the RaronrsTloN :N G8$1VNl.

REGINO, r6 gf'n8: Abbot of Prism; b., accord­ing to a sixteenth century tradition, at Altrip (a village near Ludwigshafen, 36 m. s. of Mainz) in the ninth century; d. at Treves 915. He entered the monastery of Prism, and in May, 892, was chosen abbot, but was forced by jealous opponents to resign in 899. He then went to Treves, where Archbishop Ratbod entrusted to him the restora­tion and administration of the monastery of St. Martin, which had been destroyed by the Normans. Since, however, he was buried in the monastery of St. Maximinus near Treves, it would seem that he was not in control of St. Martin's at the time of his death. All the known works of Regiuo were com­posed at Treves. In 906 he wrote his Ubri. duo de synodalibus causis et discaplinis eccleaiasticis (best ed. by F. G. A. Wasserschleben, Leipsic, 1840) to further episcopal discipline; he also composed a treatise on the theory of church music, the De har­monica inatitutione (ed. C. E. H. de Coussemaker, Scraptores de musicd medii rzj, Paris, 1863 76, ii. 1 73). His most important work, however, was the Chronica, from the birth of Christ to 906, which was completed by 908 and was the first German attempt at a universal history (best ed. by F. Kurtze, MGH, Scrivt. rer. Germ., Hanover, 1890). The work falls into two books, from 1 to 741 and from 741 to 906, the latter portion being practically restricted to Frankish history, especially of the wpm Frankish kingdom. This send part is of great value for Lothringian history, and it was con­tinued to 967 at the monastery of St. Maximinus, apparently by Adalbert, subsequently archbishop

of Magdeburg. (O. HOLDER EoaER.)

1=:b11,17 Book

BixwoeEATBY: J. C. F. Bahr, Geachichte der r6mieden Literwur in karolingiachen Zeitalter, pp. 184 188 535­538. Cwbrube. 1840; E. Dtannnler, in Jahrbficher der deutachen Geechichts. Jahrbacher des oatfrankieehon Retches, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1887 88; H. Ermisch, Die Chronik der Repino bis 813, Gdttingen, 1872; J. Hartung, m Forach­unyen der deutxhen GesrhicUe, xvii. 382 368, ib. 1878; J. Laserth, in Archsv >mr aatmeichiache GeacAichte. 1xi (1880). 4 19; P. Schulz, Die Chronik des Regina vom Jahr 818 an, Halle, 1888; A. Ebert, Allpemeine GeschicUe der Lineratur des Mitedaltera, in. 228 331, Leipeie, 1889; H. Iaenhart, Ueber den Verfasser and die GlaubrueMs0keit der Continuatio Repinonis, Kiel, 1890; Wattenbach, DGQ. i (1904), 311 314; F. Kurze, in NA, xv. 293330; ADB, xxvii. 557.

REGIONARIUS, re"gi on 8 'A us: In the pre­medieval Roman Church an official, primarily a deacon, placed over one of the ecclesiastical regions, originally seven in number, of the city of Rome. The institution is ascribed by the Liber pontificalis to both Clement I. and Fabian, the latter being the more probable. Each deacon was assisted by a subdeacon and a notary, while the Ordo Romanus also mentions legionary acolytes, and Gregory I. seems to have established " legionary defenders." The seven rVianarii of Rome later became the car­dinal deacons, whose number was raised to fourteen, and the legionary notaries were developed into the prothonotaries (see PROTHONoTART ArosToLlc).

(A. HAUCx.)

REQIUM E%EQUATUR. See PLACET.

REGULA FIDEI (" RULE OF FAITH ") : A term used so frequently in early Christian literature from the last quarter of the second century that an understanding of it is necessary to a correct idea of the religious conceptions of that period. Different forms with more or less the same meaning occur. Ho kanon tks alftheina (" canon of truth "), regula veratudia (rule of truth), probably the oldest form, was used apparently by Dionysius of Corinth (c. 160), then by Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, Hip­polytus, Tertullian, and Novatian; ho kanon ties pisteas, regvZa fides, by Polyerates of Ephesus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and by the later Latin writers. The equivalent use of these two ex­pressions is important for the determination of the original significance attached to them. The truth itself is the standard by which teaching and prac­tise are to be judged (cf. Ireneeus, Han, II., xxviii. 1; ANP, i. 399). It is presupposed that this truth takes for the Christian community a definite, tangi­ble form, such as the law was for the Jews (Rom. ii. 20), in a body of doctrine not merely held and taught by the Church, but clearly formulated. Be. sides the expressions already discussed, another is

worth mentioning, found only in Greek writers and the versions from them   ho ekkleaiwtikos lad, or ho kanon tfs ekkUsias (Clement of Alexandria and Origen).

The ante Nicene church never considered as the Rule of Faith the Bible or any part of it. Certain expressions of recent writers show that it is not un­necessary to point out that the word kanon, with or without qualifying additions, is never used until after Eusebius to designate the Bible, and that even after the word had begun to be applied to the collection of Scriptural books, the sense mentioned

Regina Fidel THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 446

Reid

above is never given to it by the Greeks. This is

explained by the fact that the early Church used

this word for something else the baptismal form­

ula. It is quite evident that in the oldest and most

explicit witnesses for the use of the word, Iremeus

and Tertullian, this was known primarily as the

rule of faith. When the former (I., ix. 4) says " he

who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of

the truth which he received by means of baptism,"

the expression " rule of truth " can not mean any

sum total of truths as to which instruction has been

conveyed before or after baptism, but only a formula

which the neophyte has made his own by a profes­

sion of faith made at the time of baptism. This was

" the faith," which the convert received from the

teaching Church and was to keep as the standard

for his subsequent life and for the testing of all doc­

trines presented to him. With Tertullian the regula

fidei is identical with the sacramentum fidei, the rule

of faith with that which he so often designates as

the oath of allegiance of the soldiers of Christ (Ad

martyras, iii.). The prevalent view in both these

authors is the same as that expressed by Augustine

when he says to the catechumens at the traditio

symboli, " receive, sons, the rule of faith which is

called `the symbol' " (Serm., ecxiii.; Serm. i., ad

catechumenos de symbolo). That similar expressions

are occasionally used of the Nicene creed shows at

least that the Rule of Faith was a formulated con­

fession, and thus that in the ante Nicene period it

could not refer to anything but the baptismal creed,

the only one then existing. In a word, the early

Fathers considered Christ himself as the giver of

the Rule, though they admitted freely that its ac­

tual words were an expansion of the nucleus re­

corded in the Gospels, regarding it as only a devel­

opment of the baptismal formula; and, on the other

hand, the whole body of teaching current in the

undisputed Catholic Church was to them but an

expansion of the creed, and thus the term " Rule

of Faith " could be, as it is occasionally found, ap­

plied to this whole body. (T. ZAHN.)

REGULARS: A term used ecclesiastically to de­

note those of either sex observing a common rule

of life and bound by monastic vows. It expresses

membership in an order, as opposed to secular,

which involves living in the world.

REHOBOAM, ri"ho b6'am: Son and successor of

Solomon, first king of Judah after the division, his

own imprudence being in large measure the cause

of that division. His dates according to the old

chronology were 975. 957; according to Kittel

937 920. Sources are I Kings xi. 43 xii. 24,

xiv. 21 31; II Chron. ix. 31 xii. The Book of

Kings relates that after the death of Solomon, the

Israelites went to Shechem to make Reboboam

king. Naturally, this does not signify election, since

Israel was not strictly an elective monarchy; never­

theless, the people seem to have retained the right

to impose conditions under which it would recog­

nize succession. At Shechem, the leaders of the

northern tribes demanded a lessening of the bur­

dens imposed upon the people. Rehoboam, at first

inclined to consent, was induced to listen to the

advice of his younger counselors, and harshly re 

fused; whereupon he was rejected and his rival Jeroboam was chosen in his stead. Although the ostensible reason was the heavy burden laid upon Israel because of Solomon's great outlay for build­ings and for luxury of all kinds, the real reason must rather be sought in the inborn opposition between the north and the south. The two sec­tions had acted independently until David (q.v.), by his victories, succeeded in uniting all the tribes, though the Ephraimitic jealousy was ever ready to develop into open revolt. Religious considerations were also operative. The building of the Temple was a severe blow for the various sanctuaries scat­tered through the land, and the priests of the high places must have supported the revolt. Josephus (Ant., VIII., viii. 3) makes the rebels exclaim: " We leave to Rehoboam the Temple his father built."

Rehoboam's reign was uneventful, and he opposed but a feeble resistance to the revolt of the north. The only event of importance was the campaign of Shishak of Egypt, which occurred in Rehoboam's fifth year and revealed the weakness of divided Irsael. The notice in II Chron. xi. 6 sqq., that Re­hoboam built fifteen fortified cities, indicates that the attack was not unexpected. Nevertheless, in spite of its strong position, Jerusalem appears to have offered no serious defense, and the treasures collected by Solomon became the booty of the Egyptians. The cities mentioned in Shishak's in­scription at Karnak indicate that his campaign ex­tended beyond Judah, and it seems that Jeroboam was not spared, since the Megiddo of the inscription must be the well known city of the northern king­dom. Possibly this may signify that Jeroboam, al­though the instigator of Shishak's invasion, had placed himself under the protectorate of Egypt, and that his cities were regarded by Shishak as his own. W. Spiegelberg regards the Egyptian account as untrustworthy and thinks the accounts of the Old Testament alone reliable (Aegyptologische Rand­glossen zum A. T., Strasburg, 1904).

(R. KrrrFr..)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the works on the history of Israel named under ARAB and ISRAEL, IIIsToBY or, consult: F. Vigouroux, La Bible et tee d6eouvertes modernea, iii. 407 427, Paris, 1896; idem, Dictionnaire, faso. xxxiv. 1102 05; Maspero, in Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute of Great Britain, xxvii. 63; DB, iv. 222­223; EB, iv. 4027; JE, x. 362 363; and the commen­taries on the sources.

REICHEL, rai'shel, OSWALD JOSEPH: Church of England; b. at Ockbrook (33 m. s. of Sheffield) Feb. 2, 1840. He received his education at Queen's College, Oxford, where he was Taylorian scholar, Ellerton theological essayist, and Johnson and Den­yer theological scholar; was made deacon and priest, 1865; served that year as curate of North Hinck­sey, Berkshire; was vice principal of Cuddesdon College, Oxford, 1865 70; and vicar of Sparsholt with Kingston Lisle, 1869 86. He translated E. Zeller's Socrates and the Socratic Schools (London, 1868), and his Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (1870); edited and continued the family tree from documents begun and continued by ancestors in 1620, 1690, 1787, and 1820 (1878); and has written The Duty of the Church in Respect of Christian Mis­sions (1866); The See of Rome in the Middle Ages

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA

(1870); Sparaholt Feast (1883); English Liturgical Vestments in the Thirteenth Century (1895); Solemn Mass al Rome in the Ninth Century (1895); A Com­plete Manual of Canon Law (2 vole., 1895 96); and a number of brochures on local history and antiqui­ties.