cUred aJI who refused obedience to be aacnlegi (C. 1, C. XVI, q. 7). Succeeding popes and Hvnods repeated this order, declaring that Church tithes lo he itiru divini (C. 14, X, de decim., Ill, 30); that, as the in- aUenable source of income of the parish church, they couid not be transferred to another church or monas- tery (C, 30, X,dedecim.,III, 30); that they could not be acquired by a laymaa through prescription or in- heritance, or otherwise aUenated.
But it waa quite impossible for the Church to recover the tithes possessed for cen' uries by lasTnen, to whom in fact they had been in many cases trwisferred by the Church itself. Laymen gave them in preference to the monastery instead o! the parish church, but this be- came thenceforth subject to the approval of the bishop (C. 3, X, de privil., Ill, 33).^ The decision of the Lateron Council (1179), forbidding the alienation of the church tithes possessed by the laity, and de- manding their return to the Church (C. 19, X, de decim., Ill, 30), waa interpreted to mean that those ecclesiastical tithes, which up to the time of this coun- cil wero in possession of Isymed, might be retained by them, but no further transference should take place (C. 2.VX, de decim.. Ill, 30, c. 2, 3 in VI'", h. t^III, 13). But even this could not be carried out. There thua existed side by side with church tithes a quantity of lay tithes; the latter were dealt with by secular courts as being purelv secular rights, while ecclesias- tical law waa applied to ecclesiastical tithes. How- ever, certain of the obligations imposed by the (once) ecclesiastical tithes continued to bind the proprietor, even tbourfi he were a layman. Thus, in the case of church buSdinxB, the Council of Trent declared that patrons and all" (|ui fructus aliquos ex dictis ecclesiia provenientes percipiunt" were bound secondarily t« defray the cost of repair (Sess. XXI, De ref., c, vii; see Fabrica Ecclesle). When there is a doubt as to whether the tithes in question are ecclesiastical or lay^, the reasonable presumption is that they are ecclesi-
Fehk^is, Bibl. anonica (Rorao. 1885-99), s, v. Dedma; Pebels, thet.Vci;. Z(Anlm im tanjlinD. firicA (Berlin, 19M): "■ ■ ■ - icopafH.UBrrlm. 1908), 114
,jo<CWeininr, 1908). a Baptist SAuut'LLER.
Laiarista. See MiaeiON, Congreoatioh op thb.
Luanu (Gk. Aifapot, a contraction of EXtdfj^wt— see II Mach., vi, IS — meaning in Hebrew "God hath helped"), the name of two persons in the N. T.; a character in one of Christ's parables, and the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania.
Laiahus or THE Parable. — (l) The Story. — The dramatic storyof the rich man and the beggar (only in Luke, ivi, 19-31) is set fortli by Christ in two striking
- (a) Their Condition Here.— The rich
indTay there all
ihc crumbs that
fel! from the rich man's table, but received none, and
was loft (o the dogs, (b) Their Condition Hereafter.
— The earthly banquet is over; the heavenly banquet
is begun, Lazarus partakes of the banquet in a place
of honour (cf. John, xiii, 23). He reclines his head on
Abraham's bosom. The rich man is now the outcast.
He yearns for a drop of water. I jiaarus is not allowed
to leave the heavenly banquet and t«nd to the outcast,
(2) The Meaning. — Catholic excgetes now com-
monly accept the story as a parable. It is also legen-
dary that the sorea of Laiarus were leprous. 'The
purpose of the parable is to teach ua the evil result of
the unwise neglect of one's opportunities. Laianis
was rewarded, not because he was poor, but for his
virtuous acceptance of poverty; the rich man was
punished, not because he was rich, but for vicious
neglect of the opportunities given him by bis wealth.
II. Lazarus oftre HntACt,B, — This personaKe was
the brother of Martha and Mary of Bethania; all three
were beloved friends of Jesus (John, xi, 5). At the
request of the two sisters Jesus raised Lazarus from
the dead (John, xi, 41-14). Soon thereafter, the
Saturday before Palm Sunday, Lasarue took part in
the banquet which Simon the Leper gave to Jesus in
Bethania (Matt., xKvi, 6-16; Mark, xiv, 5-11; John,
xii, l-ll). Many of the Jews believed in Jesus bo-
cause of Laiarus, whom the chief priests now sought
to put to death. The Gospels tell us no more dl
Lazarus (see Lazarus of Bethany, Saint).
Walter Dhuh.
Luania, Saikt, Order of, op Jerusalem. — The military order of St. Lasarus of Jerusalem originated in a leper hospital founded in the twelfth century by. the crusaders of the Ijitin Kingdom. Without doubt there had been before this date leper hospitals in the East, of which the Knights of St. I,.azarus claimed to be the continuation, in order to have the appearance of remote antiquity and to pass as the oldest of all orders. But this pretension is apocryphal. These Eastern leper hospitals followed the Rule of St. Basil, while that of Jerusalem adopted the hospital Rule of St. Augustine in use in the West. The Order of St. Lazarus was indeed purely an order of hospitAllers from the beginning, as was that of St. Jolm, but with- out encroaching on the field of the latter. Because of its B[>eciBl aim, it had quite a different organJEation. The inmates of St. John were merely visitors, and changed constantly; the lepers of St. I.,azarus on the contrary were condemnea to perpetual seclusion. In return they were regarded as brothers or sisters <A
rule which imited them ii
reli^^ous
Ages even inL _ _ „ . .
lepers. It is not proved, though it has been asserted, that this was the case at Jerusalem.
The Middle Ages surrounded with a touching pity these the greatest of all unfortunates, these miselu, aa they were called. From the time of the crusades, with the spread of leprosy, leper hospitals became very numerous throughout Europe, so that at the death m St. Louis there were eight hundred in France alone.
