THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
to the door-posts of houses. The special power over demons attributed to Solomon may also be mentioned; formulas of exorcism were referred to him, and the possessed were supposed to be healed, on the invocation of his name, by the methods prescribed by him.
The demonological conceptions of Judaism and the magic of the East had a very strong influence on the Greco-Roman world. Christi- In the anity, however, at first rejected these Early superstitious observances, and pro- Church, tested against every accusation of the use of magic arts. There came a change with the entrance of the pagan multitudes, with their material ideas of religion and their need for an external realization of the supernatural. The ideas about demons, found in the exorcisms of the second century (Origen, Contra Celsum, vi. 39, 40) were generalized, paganized, and Judaized. As the ecclesiastical writers abundantly testify (see passages quoted in Bingham, Origines, vii. 250), magical formulas began to be used again; mysterious objects, inscribed with characters often unintelligible, were placed upon the bodies of newborn infants and the sick; and Chrysostom (on I Cor. vii. 3) warns his hearers against love-philters. The teachers of the Church branded all this as actual apostasy from the faith; and the Christian civil government punished severely the use of amulets in sickness. To meet this tendency an attempt was made to give these methods a Christian coloring, or to employ elements susceptible to a Christian interpretation. The demons, who had been supposed to have special care of races or of individuals, now became angels, and protection was afforded by their names inscribed on amulets. In like manner the name of God was used. Even some of the clergy provided such amulets, though the Church forbade them to do so, and excommunicated those who wore them (Synod of Laodicea; Synod of Agde, 544). The cross (see Cross and its Use as a Symbol, § 3) took a specially prominent place among these protecting objects. Women and children commonly wore verses from the Gospels for this purpose. Chrysostom told the people of Antioch that they ought rather to have the Gospels in their hearts. That of John was thought to be particularly efficacious; it was laid on the head to drive out fever, and Augustine commends the practise (Tractalus vi in cap. i. Johannis evangelii, MPL, xxv. 1443), "not because it is done for this purpose," but because it means the abandonment of the pagan ligatures. The whole range of sacred things was brought into service. Satyrus, the brother of Ambrose, in a shipwreck, hung the eucharistic bread, wrapped in an orarium, about his neck "that he might get help from his faith " (Ambrose, De obitu fratris, xliii.). Similar use was made of oil and wax from holy places and of water and salt that had been blessed. Relics of the saints, enclosed in costly cases, were worn. Since the Church was unable entirely and all at once to drive out every vestige of heathen superstition, it did the next best thing when it took into consideration the needs of popular, unspiritual devotion, and gradually, by
the conversion of the old means, forced into the background or effaced their non-Christian elements.
Lack of space forbids the discussion in detail of the diversified forms even of Christian development of the idea, as they are found in the numerous relics of antiquity, from those of the catacombs down, or to give any account of the multiplicity
of objects which are commonly used Survi- among the devout Roman Catholics vals. at the present day, with at least some
remnant of the idea of the ancient amulets underlying them — scapulars, crosses, the agnus dei, rosaries, and an endless variety of medals with pictures of the Virgin and the saints. These objects may serve different purposes; they may be tokens of sharing in a wide-spread and approved devotion, or signs of membership in some pious confraternity, or souvenirs of a visit to some holy place; but in most instances the priestly blessing which they have received is distinctly understood to give them a positive power (on condition of the proper faith and other dispositions on the part of the wearer or possessor) against the assaults of evil spirits and other ills.
(Johannes Ficker.)
Bibliography: W. King, Talisman and Amulets, in Archaeological Journal, xxvi. (1869) 25-34, 149-157, 225-235; J. A. Martigny, Dictionnaire des antiquites chretiennes, article Amulette, Paris, 1877; W. R. Smith, in Journal of Philology, xiv. (1881) 122-123; E. C. A. Riehm, Handworterbuch des biblischen Altertums, Bielefeld, 1884; J.Wellhausen, Skizzen, iii. 144, Berlin, 1887; M. Friedlander, Jewish Religion, pp. 331-338, London, 1891; J. L. Andre\ Talismans, in The Reliquary, vii. (1893) 162-167, 195-202, viii. (1894) 13-18; DB, i. 88-90, iii. 869-874.
AMYOT. See Amiot.
AMYRAUT, am"i-ro', MOISE (Lat. Moses Amyraldus): Calvinist theologian and preacher; b. at Bourgueil (27 m. w.s.w. of Tours), Touraine, 1596; d. at Saumur Jan. 8, 1664. He came of an influential family in Orleans, began the study of law at Poitiers, and received the degree of licentiate in 1616; but the reading of Calvin's Institutio turned his mind to theology. This he studied eagerly at Saumur, under Cameron, to whom he was much attached. After serving as pastor for a short time at Saint-Aignan, he was called in 1626 to succeed Jean Daille at Saumur, and soon became prominent. The national synod held at Charenton in 1631 chose him to lay its requests before Louis XIII., on which occasion his tactful bearing attracted the attention and won the respect of Richelieu. In 1633 he was appointed professor of theology at Saumur with De la Place and Cappel, and the three raised the institution into a flourishing condition, students being attracted to it from foreign countries, especially from Switzerland. Theological novelties in their teaching, however, soon stirred up opposition, which came to little in France; but in Switzerland, where the professors were less known, it reached such a pitch that students were withdrawn, and in 1675 the Helvetic Consensus was drawn up against the Saumur innovations. Amyraut was specially attacked because his teaching on grace and predestination seemed to depart from that of the Synod of Dort, by adding