THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
the old covenant (Matt. xi. 11). But at the same time he did not fail to define his limitations in that the trend of his teaching was Pharisaical, concerned with the covenant of the law and with a legal justice that could not dispense with fasting (Mark ii. 18 sqq.) and therefore did not lead further than to the baptism of water. Yet a large number of passages in the Gospels make clear John's importance in relation to the Messianic kingdom, the immediate coming of which he was able to announce.
(A. Ruegg.) Bibliography: The subject is discussed with fulness in many of the works on the life of Christ — this literature is often especially rich — and in the works on the Apostolic age of Christianity. Special treatment is to be found in: R. Holmes, On the Prophecies and Testimony of John the Baptist, London, 1783; W. C. Duncan, The Life, Character, and Acts of John the Baptist, New York, 1853; E. Haupt, Johannes der Taufer, Giitersloh, 1874; E. Breesh, Johannes der Taufer, Leipsic, 1881 ; A. M. Rymington, Vox clamantis; Life and Ministry of John the Baptist, London, 1882; H. Kohler, Johannes der Taufer, Halle, 1884; A. McCullagh, The Peerless Prophet; or, The Life and Times of John the Baptist, New York, 1888; R. C. Houghton, John the Baptist, . his Life and Work, ib. 1889; R. H. Reynolds, John the Baptist, London, 1890; E. Barde, Jean-Baptiste, Paris, 1892; A. C. McGiffert, Hist, of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, passim, New York, 1897; P. A. E. Sillevis Smith, Johannes de Dooper, de Wegbereider des Heeren, Amsterdam, 1908; T. Innitzer, Johannes der Taufer, Vienna, 1908; Schiirer, Geschichte, i. 436 sqq., Eng. transl., I., ii. 23-29; DB, ii. 677-680; EB, ii. 2498-2504; JE, vii. 218- 219.
JOHN OF BASEL. See Hiltalinger, Johann.
JOHN OF CAPISTRANO. See Capistrano, Giovanni di.
JOHN OF CHUR (COIRE), surnamed RUET- BERG. See Friends op God.
JOHN OF THE CROSS. See Carmelites, § 3.
JOHN OF DAMASCUS (called Chrysorrhoas, "streaming with gold," i.e., the golden speaker): The last of the Greek Fathers and the most authoritative theologian for the whole Eastern Church; b. presumably in Damascus and before 700; d., in all probability at the monastery of Mar Saba (8 m. s.e. of Jerusalem), shortly before 754 (cf. acts vi. and vii. of the Second Council of Nicsea, 787, in Mansi, Concilia, xiii. 356, 400). His family, Life. though Christian, held a high hereditary public office under the Moslem rulers of Damascus, apparently that of head of the tax department for Syria. John's father filled this position, as did John himself for a time. The Arabs gave to the family the surname Mansur, which was also borne by John. Shortly after 730 he became a monk and went to Mar Saba, whither his brother by adoption, the poet Cosmas, and his teacher had preceded him. The latter was an Italian monk who had been brought to Damascus a prisoner of war and was freed by John's father. To him John owed his introduction into theology and philosophy and his comprehensive knowledge of secular science. He was ordained priest by Patriarch John V. of Jerusalem shortly after entering the monastery, but declined further advancement in hierarchical rank. When called to Jerusalem as priest of the Church there he soon returned to Mar Saba. There he j
wrote his chief works. Toward the end of his life he gave his writings a careful revision. His grave was shown at Mar Saba in the twelfth century, but in the fourteenth his body is said to have been transferred to Constantinople. He is honored as a saint by the Greek Church on Dec. 4, by the Latin on May 6.
Probably the earliest of John's writings, at any rate those which made his reputation, are the three " Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images " (Eng. transl. by Mary H. Allies, St. John Damascene on Holy Images, Followed by Three Sermons on the Assumption, London, 1899), called forth by the vigorous measures of the Writings Emperor Leo III. (see Images and in Defense Image- worship, II.). The first (MPG, of Images, xciv. 1232 sqq.), written while John was still in public life in Damascus, is complete, learned, and skilful, and straightway put a good literary defense in the hands of the friends of images. Since John was out of his power, Leo attempted to bring him under suspicion of treason to the caliph (cf. " Life," ut inf., chaps, xv.-xvi.). Addressing himself to the people and patriarch of Constantinople, John professes to write reluctantly, from a sense of duty, wishing only " to reach a helping hand to truth when attacked." His manner is definite and incisive, yet restrained and dignified, that of a man of good breeding, inflexible energy, and knowledge of ecclesiastical matters. Images are justified on the ground that God, who is " not to be attained unto, without body, invisible, not circumscribed in space, and without form," yet has become visible in the Logos, which was made flesh. Therefore an image of " the flesh of God which has been seen " can be made, and in making it there is nothing forbidden or unchristian. The Mosaic prohibition was directed against something quite different. "Worship" (proskunesis) is a symbol of dependence and reverence; it has many forms, the highest being latreia, which is due to God alone; elsewhere for Christians it is merely an expression of reverence (sebeia), and is properly accorded to everything connected with salvation — the cross, the Gospels, the altar, etc. " I worship not the material [hyle]," he declares, " but I worship the fabricator [demiourgon] of the material, the one who through the material has wrought
my salvation." The image becomes for him one of the means of salvation, and it and the God-man approach so close together that there is little practical difference between them. Refined speculations, like the attempt to measure the extent of the consonance, belong to a later stage of the controversy. Furthermore, John does not attempt to brand the Christology of the iconoclasts as heretical. Images of the " mother of God " are to be tolerated beside those of Christ, and also of the saints. Finally, he cites passages from the Fathers with comments to show that the entire doing away with images would be a sad departure from tradition. The second and third treatises (MPG, xciv. 1284 sqq.) contain nothing essential which is not also in the first. The second is the most popular and vehement, the third the most formal and theological. The second presupposes the situation of 730