401 religious encyclopedia nationalism

RESERVATION, MENTAL: A secret mental restriction or repression in thought, an offense against the duty of truthfulness by which a part of the truth is concealed, and so an intentional deceit prepared. It may refer either to the past or the future; to the statement of what is alleged to have happened or to be at hand, or to an assurance of something to be rendered or kept. The assertory as well as the promissory oath can thus give occasion to its commission. It may also occur in daily social intercourse. Mental reservation plays a consider­able r8le in the lax moral system of the Jesuits. Many of their authors as well as some Roman Cath­olic moralists outside supported the use of this reservation. Among the former J. Caramuel was the most thorough going in his Haplotes de restric­tionibus mentalibus (Leyden, 1672). Antoninus Diana (d.1663) taught that " if any one voluntarily offers to take an oath, by necessity or for some utility, he may use double meanings, for he has a just ground for using them " (Resolutiones mortdta, II., tract 15, 25 26, III., tract 5, 100 and 6, 30). So if any one requests a loan from another which the other can not give, he may say that he does not have it, reserving the mental addition, in order to loan it to him. If.one is asked about a crime of which he is the only witness, he can say that he does not know it, adding mentally, as an openly known crime. On proper grounds, an ambiguous oath does not involve perjury, if, without change of form, the ambiguous sense may be produced; one does not need to confess to a committed offense be­fore a court, if thereby an injury to self is invited; one can deny having committed it, with the reser­vation in mind, " in prison." Knowingly to lead any one to take a false oath is no sin because the person

493 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA vanervaMon

Rho takes the oath is knowingly.doing no evil; and to swear falsely from habit is a pardonable sin. For numerous parallel instances of the older and later moralists cf. Count P. von Hoensbroech, Das Paprttum, vol. ii., Die ultramontane Moral, pp. 223 sqq. (Leipsic, 1902), among which occur the scan­dalous example from J. P. Gury's Cases conscienda: (Lyons, 1864) of Anna the adulteress, and the author's own citation from the Roman Analeda ecclesiastics of June, 1901; both of which cases in­volve an equivocating denial of an offense after absolution.

Protests against the system of mental reserva­tion are found not only among Protestants of all classes, but the more serious Roman Catholic the­ology either defined it more or less closely or else condemned it positively; as, for example, the au­thor on moral theology, G. V. Pautuzzi (d. 1679), Ethiaa Christians. (Venice, 1770). The methods of modern Jesuit moralists are said to be wholly sub­servient to the apology and justification of moral restrictions. A. Lehmkuhl (KL, x. 1082 89) rep­resents, as the only correct view, that which asserts that cases may arise in which a restrictio late men­talis, or external reservation or ambiguous state­ment, may be employed. In such cases the one speaking does not deceive so much as the one ar­riving at an erroneous judgment deceives himself. In such cases where the reservation is permissible, if the matter is of sufficient importance, the state­ment may be reenforced by oath without commit­ting perjury. See JEsurrs, II., § 6.

(0. Z6Cxz.ERt.)

BIBLIOOHAPHY: Apologetic treatment is found in: J. P. Gury. Cases conscientia, 8th ed., pp. 183 184, Paris, 1881; A. Lehmkuhl, Theolopia moralis, i. 251 252, 453, Freiburg, 1890; F. KSssing, Die Wahrheitsliebe, pp. 106 sqq., Fader­born, 1893; V. Catrein, Moralphilosophie, ii. 75 sqq., 86 sqq., Freiburg, 1899; J. Adloff, RSmisch katholische and esan­pelische SitUichkeltskontroverse, Strasburg, 1900. Critical discussions are: H. Reuchlin, Pascads Leben, pp. 108 sqq., 346 sqq., Stuttgart, 1840; F. G. L. Strippelmann, Der christliche Eid, i. 137 sqq., Cassel, 1855; J. Huber, Der Jesuitenorden, pp. 293 294, Berlin, 1873; W. Herrmann, Romiache and euangelische SiWichkeit, Marburg, 1901; Graf von Hoensbroech, Das Papsttum, ii. 223 244, Leip~ sic, 1902.

RESERVATION, PAPAL: The act of the pope in reserving to himself the right to nominate to certain benefices. From the close of the twelfth century instances occur in which, when clericals from elsewhere died at Rome, the vacancies were disposed of by the pope. Thus Innocent III. (1198­1216) in the first year of his pontificate gave the prebend in Poitiers of Aimericus de Portigny, who died at Rome, to his nephew who was serving in the papal chancellery, and repeatedly thereafter disposed of vacant places in like manner. The bish­ops thus interfered with tried to meet the encroach­ment upon their powers by means of procurators at Rome. The popes, however, were loath to forego the privilege they had gained, and Clement IV. in 1265 made a formal " reservation of churches, dig­nities, patronages, and benefices which happen to become vacant in the presence of the Apostolic seat," to which Honorius IV. added, in 1286, the case of one who had resigned his benefice into the pope's hands. Gregory X. ordered that appoint 

ment must take place within a month, in default of which the right would return to the bishops or their vicars general. Boniface VIII. reaffirmed this ordinance; construed " in the presence of the apos­tolic seat " to be a radius within two days' jour­ney of the residence of the Curia, for the respective cases; and ordered that parochial churches that had become vacant during the disoccupation of the papal chair or that the pope had not filled before his death, were excepted. Another papal reservation related to the cathedral churches and exempt prel­acies. The right to approve their suffragan bishops was gradually, from the beginning of the thirteenth century, taken away from the metropolitans by the popes, and constructed into a formal reservation by Clement V., John XXII., and their successors. After the removal of the popes to Avignon the res­ervations increased in scope and were exercised in such ways as to arouse bitter complaints. The Council of Basel (q.v.) ordered a general limitation of reservations, which was in the main accepted in France, but again modified in favor of the pope by the Concordat of 1516.between Leo X. and Francis I. (see CONCORDATS AND DELIMITING BULIa, III., 2). In Germany the older regulations were resumed in the Vienna Concordat of 1448, between Nicholas V. and Friedrich III. (see CONCORDATS, etc., III., 1, § 2). Papal reservations were henceforth to be: (1) benefices becoming vacant in curia, in the orig­inal sense; (2) places in cathedral churches and im­mediate cloisters and foundations in which canon­ical election prevailed, in case the pope could not approve an election or accept a postulation; (3) like­wise in case of deposition, withdrawal, transference, or renunciation, in which the pope took part; (4) a place left vacant by the holder because of the ac­ceptance of another offered by the pope; (5) the benefices of cardinals, papal emissaries, and vari­ous Roman palace officials; and (6) benefices va­cated in the odd months (see MEN8Es PAPALES). Fresh extensions and interpretations of these reser­vations led to renewed complaints, which found ex­pression at the Diet of Nuremberg in 1522 in the proposed abolition of the Gravamina (q.v.). The Council of Trent effected some reforms in favor of chapters and bishops relating to incompatibles as well as to the " mental reservations " introduced by Alexander VI., according to which a canonical election is anticipated by reserving in mind another aspirant as an intendant for the benefice (expect­ancy). The attempts of the popes from Pius V. to claim anew various reservations were dismissed, in Germany at least, by reference to the Concordat of 1448. Especially was the privilege denied, in the case of a resignation, where there existed a right of patronage. The above mentioned reservations, however, remained in force generally, until the dis­solution of the Holy Roman Empire. Since the restoration of ecclesiastical institutions in modern times and as a result of specific conventions between the German governments and the papal see, the papal reservations have been greatly modified, re­serving to the pope mainly the highest appointments, and here and there vaguely admitting the reserva­tions in curia and of incompatibles. Outside of Germany, also, there continues here and there a

Reservation of the Sacrament THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG

Resurrection of the Dead

restricted papal reservation, while in France and the

Netherlands it has ceased. (E. FRIEDBERG.)

494

RESERVATION OF THE SACRAMENT: The keeping back from the public service of the Holy Communion of portions of the consecrated bread and wine for subsequent use. The earliest mention of this practise is in Justin Martyr

In the (1 APoI., lav., lxvii.; ANF, i. 185­

Early 186). .Describing the Sunday worship

Church. of Christians, he says that distribu­

tion i$ made to each of his share of the

elements which have been blessed, and to those

who are not present it is sent by the ministry of the

deacons. Tertullian (200 A.D.) speaks of the Lord's

body being reserved and carried home from the

public service for later private consumption (De

orations, tea.; Eng. transl., ANF, iii. 687; Ad

uxorem, IL, v., Eng. transl., ANF, iv. 467). Euse­

bius (Hist. eccl., VI., xliv. Eng. tranal., NPNF,

2 ser., i. 290) quotes an account by Dionysius of

Alexandria of an aged man who, under persecu­

tion, had joined in an act of idolatry, but in his

last sickness earnestly desired reconciliation with

the Church, to whom a small portion of the

eucharist was tent by a messenger. Basil (350 A.D.)

writes of the custom among the religious solitaries:

"All those who live in solitudes as monks or her­

mits, where there is no priest, keeping the commu­

nion in their houses, take it with their own hands.

And in Alexandria and in Egypt each, even of the

lay people, for the moat part has the communion in

his own house, and when he wills communicates

himself. For when once the priest has consecrated

the sacrifice and has delivered it, he who has once

received it as a whole, and partakes of it day by day,

ought to believe that he partakes and receives from

the hand of him who has given it" (Epiat., xciii.,

cf. NP NF, 2 ner., viii. 179). This custom was natur­

ally resorted to in times of persecution. An allusion

of Jerome (Epist., cxxv., NPNF, 2 aer. vi. 251)

implies that in some cases and places the sacra­

ment was thus taken home: " None is richer than

(a bishop of Toulouse), for his wicker basket con­

tains the body of the Lord, and his plain glass

cup the precious blood." From Chrysostom's ac­

count of the attack on the bishop's church on

Easter eve it appears that the sacrament was re­

served in both kinds in a sacristy of the church

"where the sacred vessels were stored " (Epist. to

Innocent L, iii.). Irenseua (180 A.D.) gives the

earliest known instance of the sending of the eucha­

rist to a distance as a pledge of communion (Frag­

ment iii. of his Episl. to Victor of Rome). This

practise was later forbidden by the Synod of Lao­

dices (365) and the uae.of eulogia (a blessed, but

not consecrated bread) was substituted. A similar

custom obtained in the sending of portions of the

elements (called the Jermentum) consecrated at the

bishop's Eucharist to other churches under his care,

where they were mingled with the elements conse­

crated by the local priest. This was more especially

a custom of the church at Rome.

By degrees other uses besides that of communion were made of the consecrated elements. Bread ass carried as a charm for protection when traveling,

or in undergoing trial by ordeal; it was buried with the dead, or in an altar; documents were signed with a pen dipped in the wine. The

Medieval Synod of Carthage (397) and that of

and Auxerre (578) forbade administering

Eastern the euchariet to the dead. As the

Usage. theory of our Lord's presence in the

sacrament was developed, the elements

came to be used more distinctly for worship " a$ a

center of prayer." The events of Holy Week (q.v.)

were dramatized, the host (or consecrated wafer)

being carried in procession on Palm Sunday, placed

in a sepulcher on Good Friday, and carried in the

procession on Easter Day (see PROCESaroN$). The

festival of Corpus Christi (q.v.) was instituted in

the thirteenth century in honor of the doctrine of

Transubstantiation (q.v.) and it was probably in

the next century that the sacrament was first pub­

licly exposed on Corpus Christi Day for the venera­

tion of the faithful. In the sixteenth century it be­

came common to expose the sacrament at other

times. The devotion of the forty hours' worship

of the exposed sacrament was due to a Capuchin

of Milan, who died in 1556. In 1592 Pope Clement

VIII. provided for the perpetual public adoration

of the sacrament on the altars of the different

churches in Rome, the forty hours in one church

succeeding to the forty hours in another. Of the

custom of benediction with the sacrament, J. B.

Thiera (Traitk de l'ezpoaition du saint sacrament de

l'autel, Paris, 1673) declares that he found no men­

tion in any ritual or ceremonial older than about a

hundred years. In the Eastern Church, at the

present day, as in primitive times, the sacrament

is reserved for the purpose of communion only. For

this use, some of the consecrated bread is steeped

in the chalice, and is preserved in a box usually be­

hind the altar. In the Latin Church since the Coun­

cil of Constance (1414) only the actual celebrant

of the mass partakes of the cup; so that the wafer

alone is reserved, and that in a receptacle called

a pyx (see VE$$ELa, SACRED), which was in earlier

times placed on or above the altar but is now (ex­

cept when in use for exposition or benediction) itself

contained in a locked tabernacle above the altar.

At the Reformation the different Protestant

confessions vigorously denounced these uses of the

sacrament; e.g., Melanchthon's " Salon Confes­

sion " declared, " It is a manifest profanation to

carry about and worship a part of the

In the Lord's Supper (art. xv.); cf. J. W. Evangelical Richard, Philip Melanchthore, pp. 353 

Churches. 354, New York, 1898), and so the West­

minster Confession (XXIX., iv.; cf.

Schaff, Creeds, iii. 665). Art. XXVIII. of the Thirty­

nine Articles i$ much more moderate in its wording,

simply declaring that " the sacrament of the Lord's

Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved,

carried about, lifted up, or worshiped." The first

English Prayer Book (1549) made provision for the

reservation of the sacrament for the communion

of sick persona under certain restrictions, which pro­

vision was withdrawn from the second Prayer Book

(1552), and provision was made only for the pri­

vate celebration in the sick man's house of the

ordinary service in a shortened form, including the

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA ge, ~tio 0o h Din'®at

495

consecration. The question of the lawfulness in

the Church of England of reserving the sacrament

for the sick was considered at a formal hearing be­

fore the archbishops of Canterbury and York (Drs.

Temple and Maclagan) in 1899, and their opinion

was adverse. In the Scottish Episcopal Church

there has been a continuous tradition sanctioning

the practise; and recognized Anglican divines, such

as Herbert Thorndike (d. 1672), have advocated

it. ARTHUR C. A. HALL.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Palmer, Originea liturpicte, fi. 232, London, 1832 (collects examples of early usage); W. Maskell, Monuments ritualia eeclesim Anplicance, i. p. ocxxiii., ib. 1846; W. H. Hutton, The English Church

(1826 1714), pp. 329 330, ib. 1903; F. Procter and W. H. Frere, New Hiet. of the Book of Common Prayer, pp. 77, 82, 121, 502, ib. 1905; J. H. Blunt, Annotated Book of Common Prayer, pp. 399, 472 473, New York, 1908.

RESERVED CASES. See CAsus RESERvATI.

RESIDENCE: The obligation on all holding ecclesiastical benefices of any kind to remain dur­ing definite periods in the districts assigned for their administration. It is a natural consequence of the requirement that every official must normally dis­charge his duties in person, an obligation particu­larly needful in the case of the clergy. So often, however, did the clergy leave the benefices to which they had been assigned, that synods passed strin­gent prohibitions of such abuses as early as the fourth century. Secular legislation here came to the aid of the Church, while residence was likewise stressed in the Frankish kingdom. Later the clergy were forbidden to travel without permission, nor was a plurality of benefices permitted to interfere with residence. Subsequently, however, the laws of residence were relaxed, not only as a result of pluralities, but also because canons, after the de­cline of chapter life, were frequently represented by vicars, while the prelates were often obliged to be absent on affairs of state. The Council of Trent accordingly renewed the requirements of residence, enacting that if any priest or prelate should be ab­sent for six months in succession without good and sufficient reason, he should be mulcted of a fourth of his income for the year. An absence of six months more was to involve a loss of another quarter of the yearly income; still longer absence should be re­ported to the pope within three months, and the offending clergy should be replaced by more worthy incumbents. The council likewise stressed the re­quirement of personal residence for all, except in cases of evident necessity, the provincial synod be­ing directed to guard against all abuses. Absence was, however, permitted for two, or at most three, months each year, provided it involved no detri­ment to the cure of souls. The permanent privi­leges hitherto given for non residence and income were now abolished, but temporary dispensations were still allowed, although the bishop was required to appoint proper vicars to obviate any neglect of pastoral care. Canons might not be absent more than three months. Those who violated this rule should be mulcted of their incomes, and permanent disobedience rendered the offender liable to trial in the ecclesiastical courts.

Besides the " dignitary  and " double " (in­volving the cure of souls) benefices to which the

laws of residence just cited apply, there are also " simple " benefices in which residence is not ob­ligatory. A distinction is accordingly drawn be­tween residentia prwcisa, in which residence is re­quired under penalty of forfeiture of the benefice, and residentia causitiva, where non residence in­volves only loss of the income of the benefice in question. If, however, an incumbent is absent from his benefice legally, he is regarded, by legal fiction, as resident, except in cases where actual personal attendance is necessary, as for receiving presence fees (see PRESENCE AND PRESENCE FEES).

In the Lutheran Church in Germany actual resi­dence is always presupposed, the ecclesiastical au­thorities providing the proper substitutes if the in­cumbent is prevented from fulfilling his duties. Generally speaking, leave of absence must be ob­tained from the president of the consistory.

(E. FRIEDBERG.)
RESPIGHI, res pf'gi, PIETRO: Cardinal; b. at Bologna, Italy, Sept. 22, 1843. He was educated at the seminary of his native city and the Roman Seminary, and was then rector of a parish in Budrio until 1891, when he was consecrated bishop of Guastalla. Five years later he was enthroned archbishop of Ferram and in 1899 was created car­dinal priest of Santi Quattro Coronati. Shortly afterward he was called to Rome to fill his present positi6n of cardinal vicar, and in this capacity is president of the Congregation of the Apostolic Visitation and prefect of the Congregation of the Residence of Bishops.

RESPONSES. See ANTIPHON.

RESTARICg, HENRY BOND: Protestant Epis­copal bishop of Honolulu; b. at Holcomb, Somer­setahire, England, Dec. 26, 1854. He was educated at King James' Grammar School, Bridgewater, Somersetahire, and Griswold College, Davenport, Ia. (A.B., 1882), and was ordered deacon in 1881 and advanced to the priesthood in the following year; was curate of Trinity Church, Muscatina, Ia. (1881 82); rector of St. Paul's, San Diego, Cal. (1882 1902), when he was consecrated first Protes­tant Episcopal bishop of Honolulu. In theology he is a positive Churchman, and has written Lay Read­ers: Their History, Organization, and Work (New York, 1894), and The Love of God: Addresses on the Last Seven Words (1897).
RESTITUTION, EDICT OF. See WEsTPHALIA, PEACE OF.
RESTORATION. See AFoCATAsTAsIs.
RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD: The Chris­tian hope of a renewal of life after death was to a certain extent anticipated by the expectation of redemption current among the Jews Basis of the before the time of Christ; but its real

Doctrine. basis is found in the teaching of Christ

and in his own resurrection, though it

is true that the Christian exposition of the doctrine

presupposes the Jewish. While a thorough inves­

tigation of the history of the latter is rendered dif­

ficult by the uncertainty which prevails in regard

to the age of the sources, a tolerably clear idea of

Resurrection of the Dead

Rettig THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 498

the nature of the hope may be gained by a com­parative study of the passages which relate to the subject.

The first trace of an expectation that some dead men (not the dead in general) will rise is found in Isa. xxvi. 19 (Hoe. vi. 2, xiii. 14; Ezek. xxxvii. 1 14, refer to the restoration of the national and

spiritual life of Israel). In this passage Bebrew and the hope of a resurrection appears in Jewish Rep  connection with that of a glorious future resentation. for Israel. The prophet anticipates

a time when the righteous Israelites shall awake from death to a share in the blessings of the period of redemption. A fuller conception is found in Dan. xii. 2, where for the first time is contemplated a resurrection of both just and un­just, though still only of Israelites. Upon this fol­lows a judgment, which will assign to the just eter­nal life in the Messianic kingdom, and to the wicked exclusion frorp that kingdom, " shame and ever­lasting contempt." Here again the close connec­tion between the Messianic hope and that of a res­urrection is to be noted. Frequent attempts have been made to adduce passages from the Psalms (such as xlviii. 14, lxviii. 20, xvi. 10 11, xvii. 15, xlix. 15); but a careful examination will show that they can not be pressed. In the deutero canonical and extra canonical Jewish writings of the pre­Christian era the doctrine is not strongly expressed. To conclude that it was not extensively held among the Jews of that age would be rash, but it probably had no uniform and well defined shape. The Psalms of Solomon speak of a resurrection of the just to endless life in the Messianic kingdom, and predict everlasting death for the ungodly. Josephus (War, II., viii. 14) ascribes the same view to the Pharisees. On the other hand, II Mace. xii. 43 45, vi. 28, ex­press the belief that both just and unjust Israelites shall rise and be judged. The authors of Enoch (Ii. 1), II Esdras (vii. 32), and the Apocalypse of Baruch (xxx. 1 5, 1. 1 sqq.) expect a universal res­urrection, either before or at the end of the Mes­siah's reign.

The doctrine proclaimed by Christ and the New­Testament writers, while having points of contact with the foregoing, develops along its own lines.

In the discussion with the Sadducees The New  (Matt. xxii. 23 32) Jesus offers a spe­Testament cial proof of the resurrection of the

Doctrine. righteous (who alone are considered

here); but in other sayings of his the resurrection of the ungodly is taken for granted (Matt. xi. 24). Apparently he treats both as simul­taneous (cf. also John v. 28, 29); only in Luke (xiv. 14, xx. 35) is there an apparent separation, and this may be the effect of Paul's influence on Luke. Paul himself distinguishes two resurrections, or rather three that of Christ, that of those who have died believing in him, which takes place at his sec­and coming, and that of the other dead (I Cor. xv. 21 24). He does not define the interval between the two latter; the Apocalypse places a thousand years between them (Rev. xx. 4). Of more im­portance than the question of time are the proofs which Christ and Paul offer of the fact. The former, in the passage of Matthew cited above, demon 

strates the resurrection of the righteous by the fact that God calls bimself the God of the patriarchs, which can mean only that they will return to life, and that life, to be complete, must be a bodily life. What is true of them, is true also, as Luke puts it with a slight change of thought'(xx. 38), of all the righteous. In John (xi. 25) Jesus bases his state­ment about the resurrection of the just on the fact that he himself is the bringer of life; the life that he now communicates to them is the pledge of their future resurrection. The argument for resurrec­tion, and now of all the dead, is carried to its height by Paul, who finds his warrant for this in the ac­complished fact of Christ's resurrection (I Cor. xv. 21 22; I Thess. iv. 14). In and by it, men are ob­jectively freed from the guilt of sin (I Cor. xv. 17­18); and this carries with it the annulment of the penalty of sin, which is death. The New Testa­ment writers accordingly have no doubt of the cer­tainty of a future resurrection; the Epistle to the Hebrews enumerates it (vi. 1) among the first " principles of the doctrine of Christ."

The agent in this resurrection in all the Pauline passages is God the Father (Rom. iv. 17, viii. 11; I Cor. vi. 14; II Cor. i. 9); in John v. The Agent. 21, the Son is named as cooperating with the Fathei, and in John vi. 39, 40, 44, is the sole agent. These two conceptions are reconciled in that of the relations of God and Christ. All the dead in rising again experience the power of God (I Cor. vi. 14; Heb. xi. 19); but in the case of the ungodly this is a purely external operation, while in the righteous it is the result of the working of the spirit of life within them. This working must not, however, be limited to the maturing of a seed of life already within; the New Testament concep­tion is rather that to the spiritual life already begun a corresponding bodily life is added (cf. Rom. viii. 11), and so life in the full and complete sense is re­established.

As to the nature of the resurrection body, both Christ and Paul tell something. Both, however, speak exclusively of that of the righteous (Matt. xxii. 30; I Cor. xv. 35 sqq.; II Con The Resur  v. 1 sqq.; Phil. iii. 21). Christ says

rection that a higher bodily existence than

Body. before shall be bestowed, referring it,

in order to make it credible, to the

power of God (Matt. xxii. 29), and asserting that

the methods of reproduction employed here shall

no longer prevail .there  though he does not assert

that difference of sex shall disappear. Paul gives

fuller indications. The origin of the resurrection

body is from heaven (II Cor. v. 1 sqq.); it is a spir­

itual body (I Cor. xv. 44), " fashioned like unto

Christ's glorious body " (Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. xv.

49). The designation of the body as pneumatic

does not imply that spirit forms its substance, for

this would not harmonize with the parallel " spir­

itual body " of I Cor. xv. 44, but that it is a body

entirely adapted to express the spiritual life pos­

sessed by the risen saints. It is no longer an ob­

stacle to the knowledge of God face to face (I John

iii. 2; Matt. v. 8; Rev. xxii. 4); it makes possible

unrestricted intercourse with the other saints, and

the exercise of authority over the world (I Cor. iv.

497 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Resurrection of the Dead