161	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Harmoa
		Harmony of the Gospels
(Erlangen, 1834); Theologische Eneyklop4die and
Methodologie vom Standpunkte der protestantischen
		Kirche (Nuremberg, 1837); and Christ
	Writings. lithe Ethik (Stuttgart, 1842); Eng.
		tranal., Edinburgh, 1868). The com
mentary and the work on ethics marked an epoch in
their respective spheres. The encyclopedia is less im
portant for its methodological arrangement than for
Harless' clear and energetic views of the Church,
the main points being the close relation of theology
to the Church; the unity of theory and practise
in a common living faith; the living continuity of
the Church from her very foundation as an ideal
factor of history; the emphasis of a common faith
as the basis of Protestant theology; the entire
transformation of this theology by the principle of
justification; the necessity of preserving the prin
ciples of the Reformation in their purity; the
obscurity caused by the later Protestant scholas
ticism, which considered the dogmas laid down in
the confessional writings of the Church as the final
conclusion of all dogmatic knowledge; and the
sound reaction against this tendency by the Pietistic
movement.	The Christliche Ethik (Eng. tranal.,
System of Christian Ethics, Edinburgh, 1865), is
without doubt Harless' most important work. Its
chief excellences are its scientific structure, the
emphasis and consistent application of the Chris
tian ethical principle, and the interrelation and
connection of the Biblical factor with the historical
factor in the more general sense of the word.
			(R. STXHEmN.)
BiBLiOGBAPR7: Stghelin, in Zeitedritt far kirehliehe Wiesen
	aehaft and Leben, 1880, pp. 88 .qq., 145 eqq.; idem, LOW,
	Thomaaius, Harlaes. Drei Lebow‑ and Geschichtsbilder,
	Leipsic, 1887; C. Mirbt, in Better far bayerisehe Kirchen
	geschichte, 1898; Langsdorff, A. won Harlese, Leipsie, 1888.
	HARMER, JOHN REGINALD: Church of Eng
land bishop of Rochester; b. at Maisemore (2 m.
n.w. of Gloucester), Gloucestershire, Aug. 11, 1857.
He was educated at King's College, Cambridge
(B.A., 1881; M.A., 1883), where he was fellow from
1883 to 1889, while from 1890 to 1899 he was fellow
of Corpus Christi College in the same university,
being also dean from 1892 to 1895. He was ordered
deacon in 1881, and ordained priest two years later,
and was domestic chaplain to Bishop Lightfoot of
Durham in 1884‑89, and examining chaplain to
Bishop Westcott of the same diocese in 1889‑95.
He was vice‑principal of the Cambridge Clergy
Training School from 1889 to 1893. In 1895 he
was consecrated bishop of Adelaide, South Austra
lia, and ten years later was translated to the see
of Rochester. He edited (London, 1890‑93) eight
volumes of the posthumous writings of Bishop
Lightfoot, namely, five volumes of sermons, the
abridged edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Biblical
Essays, and Notes from Unpublished Commentaries.
	HARMER, THOMAS: English Independent; b.
in Norwich, probably in Oct., 1114; d. at Wattis
field (21 m. n.n.w. of Ipswich), Suffolk, Nov. 27,
1788. He was prepared for the ministry by Thomas
Ridgley and John Eames, at the Fund Academy,
Moorfields, and was elected to the pastorate of the
Independent church at Wattisfield in July, 1734.
He led an industrious but unambitious life, preached
every Sunday during fifty‑four years, and exerted
much influence in the dissenting churches of the
eastern counties of England. His principal works
are: Observations on Divers Passages of Scrip
ture. . . Compiled from . . . Books of Voyages and
Travels into the East (4 vols., London, 1764‑87; 4th
ed. by Adam Clarke, 4 vola., 1808); Outlines o f a
New Commentary on the Book of Solomon's Song
(1768); and Some Account of the Jewish Doctrine of
the Resurrection (1771). His Miscellaneous Works
were edited, with a Memoir, by W. Youngman
(1823), while his manuscript accounts of the dissent
ing churches of Norfolk and Suffolk were utilized
by John Browne (q.v.) in his History of Congrega
tionalism, and Memorials of the Churches in Norfolk
and Suffolk (1877).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the Memoir by Youngman, ut sup., and Browne, Hilt. of Cowegationadiam, pp. 199, 471472, ut sup., consult DNB, mv. 414.
HARMONISTS. See CoMMmNism, II., 6; RAPP, GEoRG.

	HARMONIIUS: Syrian hymn‑writer of the first
half of the third century. He was a son of the
Gnostic Bardeaanes (q.v.), whose heretical views
he shared. According to‑ Sozomen, he received a
Greek education (Hilt. eccl., iii. 16; cf.. Theodoret,
Hist. eccl., iv. 29, and Hwr., i. 22). He originated
the Syrian hymnology, and his hymns were long
popular. In the fourth century Ephraem Syrus
sought to crowd them out by writing orthodox
hymns in the same meters and to the same airs.
Ephraem (" Sermons against Heretics," liii., Opera
Syr., ii. 554 B) regarded Bardesanes as the composer
of the objectionable hymns; but the hymnal attrib
uted by him to Bardesanes was probably com
posed by Harmoniua. 	G. KROGER.
BiBLIOGRAPH7: Consult, besides the literature under BAR‑
DESANEs, DOB, ii. 845‑848; Ceillier Auteurs saeris, i. 455, 488; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 174, 184, 187. ‑
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.
I. Harmonies as Interwoven Gospels.
No Harmonies before Tatian ($ 1).
Tatian's Diatessaron and its History (§ 2).
The Diatessaron Originally Greek (1 3).
Reconstruction of the Diatemsron through the Versions (¢ 4).
	Modern Works of the Kind (§ 5).
II. Harmonies in Parallel Arrangement.
Axamonius and Augustine (§ 1).
Clericus and the Griesbaoh School (4 2).
Rushbrooke and Later Harmonists (1 3).
[Under the name of "harmony of the Gospels" as commonly applied in English are embraced two classes of works: (1) those which combine into a continuous narrative more or less completely the accounts of the four Evangelists or of the Synoptists, the different accounts being interwoven (to these is sometimes given the name " Diatessaron "); (2) those in which the text of the Gospels is arranged in parallel columns, the sections which deal with the same episodes being placed together. In the usage of German and some other scholars a distinction is made between " harmony " and " synopsis," the former name being used for the interwoven narrative, the latter for the parallel arrangement. A few works unite the two forms. See GosPEL "D Tao GOBPErA.]

Sarmony of the Gospels	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	162
I. Harmonies as Interwoven Gospels: From the early Church the only work of this character known
is the celebrated Diatessaron of Tatian. r. No Har‑ The chance remark of Jerome that monies Theophilus of Antioch had collected before the words of.the four Gospels in one Tatim work refers to a commentary by
Theophilus which embraced all four without sharp distinctions between them. The remark of Ambrose, which may be derived from Origen, to the effect that many heretical teachers collected out of the four Gospels that which suited their form of teaching, hardly proves the existence of a number of old harmonies, but rather refers to the Apocryphal Gospels, which got some of their material from the canonical Gospels, such as the Gospel of Marcion, based on Luke and containing excerpts from Matthew and John. And to this class of composition the work of Ammonius, known only from the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus, does not belong, in which he is said to have taken Matthew as a basis and added the parallels from the other Gospels. While the descriptions do not permit dogmatizing upon the character of this work, it can hardly have been anything other than a handbook for exegetes and especially for harmonists, and it belongs to the class of books called by the Germans synopses.
The oldest trustworthy report of the Diatessaron of Tatian is contained in Eusebius (Hilt eccl., IV., xxix. 6), bpt the character of the description implies that its use was limited to certain circles and that it was not studied by Eusebius. This limitation in circulation is confirmed by Epiphanius, and still more definitely by Jerome when he says that out of all the productions of Tatian, only the Contra gentes remained, and omits mention of the Diatesearon. In Palestine during the fourth century even to the most learned authors the Diatessaron was but the title of an unknown book. If Hegesippus can
be held to have referred to the Diates2. Tatian's Baron under the term " the Syriac Diatessaron (Gospel)," according to Eusebius (Hiat. and Its eccl., IV., xxii. 7) this is the earliest
History. testimony to the existence of that
work, and .it involves the conclusion that the language was Syriac; but that Hegesippus, writing in Greek, should have cited the Syriac translation of a Gospel harmony which must have followed its Greek original is highly improbable. But the testimonies in the Syrian region to the existence of the Diatessaron are abundant, and from direct knowledge, as when Theodoret, bishop of Kyros (or Kyrrhos), removed about 200 copies of the work from the orthodox churches and substituted the canonical Gospels. Completer knowledge has been recently gained through the discovery of the Armenian translation of the commentary of Ephraem Syrus, made accessible to larger circles by the Latin translation of J. Aucher (ed. G. M6singer, Venice, 1876; cf. J. H. Hill, Dissertation arc the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephraem, Edinburgh, 1896). The legends of the Christianizing of Edeasa, older than Eusebius, mention the Diatessaron as the chief sacred book alongside the Old Testament. Aphraates calls it
" the Gospel of our Savior." In the Syriac translation of the Hist. eccl. of Eusebius, known to have existed as early as Ephraem Syrus' time, the " Diateasaron " of IV., xxix. 6 is translated by " the mingled (Gospel)," showing that in its home that was the name by which it was known, while in distinction from this the other Gospels were known as " the separated (Gospels)," as a canon of Rabbula of Edeasa (412‑435) makes clear. In the fifth century there was a definite rejection of the Diateasaron and exclusion of it from use in service, and that without distinction of party affiliations of the bishops who directed the movement. But from near Mosul to the bishopric of Kyros the Diatessaron must have been for the churches long the service‑book in the Gospels, while the translations of the separate Gospels were used in the studies of the theologians, a condition which prevailed at least till about 370 A.D., when Ephraem Syrus lectured ,upon the Diatessaron with only occasional references to the canonical Gospels. Similar evidence comes from other writers. Mar Abba, a disciple of Ephraem, had an " Exposition of the Gospel " the fragments of which appear to show that it was based on Tatian'a work. From the fifth century the relations of the two forms of the Gospels were reversed; the separated Gospels were in use in the churches, the Diatessaron, was referred to only by the learned.
Apart from the two translations already mentioned, the history of the Diatessaron seems to have run its course entirely in the region of Syria. And it is to be noted that in its original form it was Greek, and was translated into the Syriac. The lack of any testimony for its existence among the Greek churches and the way in which Greek writers refer to it confirm the conclusion already reached. That Tatian, the writer of an apology in Greek, if he was in any event the author of the Diatessaron. could have written it only in Greek is
3. The an opinion founded upon ignorance of Diatessaron historical facts. Tatian, " born in the
Originally land of the Assyrians," had the Syriac
	Greek.	as his mother tongue. After long years
		of travel in the West he returned to the
East and settled down and gave his countrymen
the Gospel, not in the form of four books, but, as
he himself called his volume, in the form " The
Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God through four."
That the Greek apologete Tatian gave the Diatea
saron in Syriac is an improbable supposition, and
against it is the discrimination he makes between
Matt. x. 10 and Luke ix. 3 on the one hand and
Mark vi. 8 on the other, " a rod and not a staff."
But the Diatessaron became a household book in
the Syrian Church. Whether it was the ,oldest
Gospel, which was later displaced by a translation
of the four Gospels, is a question for further exam
ination.
A reconstruction of the Diatessaron from the translations in other languages can not be dispensed with, for no sure traces exist of the Greek. From a sermon wrongly attributed to Gregory of Nyasa and to Severus, but really by a certain Hesychius, probably the presbyter of Jerusalem (c. 438), a man interested in the matter of harmony of the Gospels,

163	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Harmony of the Gospels
it appears that he knew nothing of a Greek harmony.
In the sixteenth century O. Nachtigall found some
Greek fragments which he thought belonged to
the harmony of Ammonius (Evangelicae historice
ex 1111 Evangelistis continuata narratio, ex Am
monii Alexandrini fragmentis, Basel, 1550); but
these may have depended upon the Syriac and
may have been by a Greek writer, just as the
Instituta regularia of Junilius in Constantinople
depended upon the lec;,ures of the Syrian
Paul of Nisibis. The Arabic Diatessaron is not
		a simple translation from the Syr
	4. Recon‑ iac, but depends in part upon the
	struction Gospel text of the Peshito. The
	of the translator, or perhaps better the editor,
Diatessaron has permitted himself to make impor
Through the tant alterations; and in view of the
	Versions. fact that it was often difficult to find in
		the original the passages from which
the elements of the Diatessaron were taken, the
consequence is that, instead of the artistic Diates
saron, there is a rough Arabic work. Little use
could be made of the Arabic translation were there
not a Latin translation also, which latter is as closely
related to the Syriac as is the Arabic, and which
exists in the Codex Fuldensis, made under the direc
tion of Victor of Capua, c. 546 A.D. About the
lineage of this " One Gospel from Four " nothing
was known by Victor; it fell into his hands by
chance. But Victor clearly did not think that it
originated in the Latin Church; he knew only that
Eusebius had mentioned two works of the kind in
the Greek, and he thought he had a translation of
one or the other of these. That it was not an exact
and independent translation of a work in a foreign
tongue was evident from its agreement with the
text of the Vulgate. If it was based on a foreign
harmony, it had been worked over to accord with
the text of Jerome. As a result, this corresponded
exactly with the work done in the Arabic translation
of the Syriac, and the individual features of the
Diatessaron were lost. It has been shown that
while, as a whole, the Latin depends upon Tatian's
Diatessaron, the original form of the Latin has not
come down unchanged. It can not have depended
upon a Greek harmony, since in the Greek Church
up to the time of Victor neither Tatian's nor any
other harmony was known. The presence of the
original of the Latin translation is accounted for
by the many Syrian Christians in the West in the
fifth century. Victor's manuscript came to Fulda,
probably into the hands of Boniface, and became
the exemplar of all codices which contain this text.
From it was made the, German Tatian belonging to
820‑830 A.D., now found in Codex 56 of St. Gall.
In the Middle Ages the Latin Tatian was much used,
and there are extant commentaries on it by Zacha
rias of Chrysopolis and Peter Cantor. Other har
monies were circulated in the latter half of the
Middle Ages, the relation of which to the Victor
manuscript needs investigation. One in particular
(Codex Monac. Lat. 10,025, of the thirteenth cen
tury) has interesting relationship both to the Syriac
and the Arabic, and it also seems to be independent
of the text of Victor. The original of the Victor text
has not been found; but that it had considerable
circulation is proved by the existence of texts independent of the Victor type in Dutch. It is from manuscripts of this type that the text published by O. Nachtigall (ut. sup.) was derived.
The Monotessaron of John Gerson (Opera, iv. 83‑202, Antwerp, 1706) must be discriminated from this type as altogether modern. Since Augustine's unfinished De consensu evangeliorum this was the first attempt of the kind. The text is divided into 150 (151) rubrics, and in that in which the Sermon on the Mount fell the author engages in a critical discussion, and remarks on the concordantia dissonantia of the Gospels, considering them aids to faith. From harmonizing in the strictest sense Gerson is free. A work of independence, pains, and learning, and having important results upon further efforts, was that of Andreas Osiander of Nuremberg, Harmonise evangelicce libri quattuor, . . . Basel, 1537. In the dedication Osiander
named as his three predecessors Euse‑
	5. Modern	bius, Augustine, and Gerson, and, be
	Works of	sides these, two Evangelia dia tessaron
	the Kind.	in manuscript in the monastery at
		Heilbronn, and the work of Zacharias
of Chrysopolis, which last is a commentary on the
Latin Tatian. While in this place Osiander appears
to have passed by Ammonius, he mentions him in
the preface alongside the others. What he regretted
in all these works was a lack of reverence for the
text of the Gospels in that this was changed in order
and in letter, even arbitrarily. It was his desire to
express in his work the full purport of the original
text and to have shine through it all the original
inspiration. If Christ himself (Matt. v. 18) had
said that not one jot of the law of Moses was to fall,
much more was every word and letter of the Gospels
to be taken into account. From no consequence of
this principle did Osiander shrink. He regarded as
accounts of different events the cleansing of the
Temple as given in the Synoptics and in John, and
even distinguished between two events as narrated
in Matt. xxi. 12; Luke xix. 45; and Mark xi. 15.
And so throughout, slight differences in statement
seemed to justify him in regarding the narratives
as dealing with different events. Similarly his rule
that each of the Gospel texts must stand in its own
order involved him in difficulties solved in the same
manner. And in this way he thought he had accom
plished new results in a real Harmonia evangelica.
This name was kept by those who, with as great
regard for Scripture, were not carried to an excess
of unnaturalness. This was the case with Calvin,
in whose commentary on the separate Gospels and
in his Commentarii in harmonium ex Matthaeo, Marco
et Luca (1555) the material is divided into 222 sec
tions. In this the genealogies of Matthew and Luke
are referred to Joseph, the Sermon on the Mount
of Matthew and Luke are worked together, and a
similar plan rules throughout. In the work an
unfavorable opinion is pronounced upon the work
of Osiander. With a milder expression of opinion
of Osiander's work was the Harmonia quatuor
evangelistarum, by M. Chemnitz, published after his
death by P. Leyser and continued by J. Gerhard
(Frankfort, 1593‑1611, improved and issued Frank
fort and Hamburg, 1652). The Greek text is accom‑

Harmony of the Gospels
Harms	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	164
panied by a translation in Latin and a learned com
mentary. Parallels follow each other. Regard for
the text involves often a doubling of the text and
comment. There is evident all the way along a
wide separation in idea from that of the Tatian
Diatessaron. It is no longer a history of Jesus that
is sought, in the words of the Gospel, but a learned
investigation of the different reports of the Evangel
ists in order to secure a well‑grounded history of
Jesus. John Lightfoot undertook a harmony ar
ranged in four columns (part 1, London, 1644).
The design was carried out, however, by J. Clericus,
in his Harmonia evangelica, Amsterdam, 1699, in
which the text was in four columns, and at the foot
an account interwoven from the four of the life of
Christ. 	(T. ZAHN.)

	The principle of the Diatesearon or interwoven Gospel
has been employed somewhat extensively. How constantly
and variously this has been the case is illustrated by the
following list of works, which is merely representative, not
at, all exhaustive: Johan Hind, The Storie of Stories; or,
the Life of Christ according to as fours holy Evangelists, with
a Harmonie of them London 1652; [John Locke,] Hiat. Of
our Saviour Jesus Christ, Related in the Words of Scripture,
ib. 1705; R. Willan, The Hilt. of as Ministry of Jesus
Christ, Combined from the Narrationa of as Four Evangel
ists i. 1782, and often; J. White, Diateesaron; sive inlegra
hiatoria . . Jesu Christi Grace, ex iv. evanpeliia . . . con
feeta. Subjunpitur evangeliorum harmonia braroia, Oxford,
1799, and often O. G. Kilchler, Vita Jesu Christi Grace,
Leipsic, 1835; 6. T. Bloomfield, Epitome evangelica; being a
Selection from the Greek Testament, forming a connected Nar
rative of . . the Life and Ministry of Christ, London, 1846;
P. Lachhae, Concorde des gvangilea, Paris, 1854. In particu
lar, the demand that the life of Christ be studied from the
sources apart from the deliverances of the councils and from
church dogma has resulted in the last quarter of a century
in a large number of lives of Christ told in the form of the
combined narratives of the Gospels. Representative works
of this character in English are: W. S. White, The Hint. Of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Being the four Gospels
combined in one continuous Form, Lincoln, 1884; J. Mostyn,
The Four Gospels in One, London, 1889; A. T. Pierson, The
One Gospel;	the four Evangelists in one complete Record,
New York 1889; J. G. Butler, The Fourfold Gospel, ib.
1890; C. C. James, The Gospel Hitt. of Jesus Christ in a
Connected Narrative, London 1890; Earthly Footprints of
our Risen Lord. . Introduction by J. Hall, New York, j
1891; R. W. Rawson, Gospel Narrative, or Life of Jesus
Christ . . . and Epitome and Harmony of the Goepela, Lon
don, 1892; J. Strong, Our Lord's Life; a continuous Narra
tive in the Words of the Four Gospels, New York, 1892; W.
Pittenger, Interwoven Gospels and Gospel Harmony, ib. 1893;
A. E. Hillard, A Continuous Narrative of the Life of Christ
in the Words Of as Four Gospels, London, 1894; W. H.
Withrow, A Harmony of as Gospels; being as Life.of.Jesus
in the Wrds of the Four Evangelists, New York, 1894; The
Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, a Continuous Narrative
Collated from the Gospels, ib. 1898‑ Anna M. Perry, The
Life of our Lord in the Words of the Four Evangelists,
ib. 1901; W. E. Barton T. G. $oares, and H. Strong,
His Life; a complete Story in as Words of as four Gospels,
1906. Consult also E. A. Abbott, Indices to Diateasarica, New York, 1908.

II. Harmonies in Parallel Arrangement: The
oldest precursor of modern harmonies in the form of
		three‑ or fourfold arrangement is the
	r. Ammo‑ work of Ammonius of Alexandria (q.v.),
	nius and who published an edition of the Gospel
	Augustine‑ of Matthew, on the margin of which he
		noted the relation of the other Gospels
to Matthew. According to his own statement, this
work induced Eusebius to write a similar one, but
on a different method. He divided the four Gospels
into sections (perikopai or kephalaia), assigning to
Matthew 355 sections, to Mark 233, to Luke 342, and to John 232. Beside each number Eusebius added in red ink a second number that referred to the canons or tables in front of the work, of which he had made ten for the purpose of finding the parallel or related passages. The first canon contained the numbers of those sections for which Eusebius found parallels in all four Gospels; the second the parallels in Matthew, Mark, Luke; the third those in Matthew, Luke, John; the fourth those in Matthew, Mark, John; the fifth those in Matthew, Luke; the sixth those in Matthew, Mark; the seventh those in Matthew, John; the eighth those in Luke, Mark; the ninth those in Luke, John; the tenth the pericopes in each Gospel without parallels in the others. If one looked in this canon for the respective number of the section, he found parallel to it the number of the related section from the other Gospels. Augustine's De conaensu evangelistarum ltbri quattuor had chiefly an apologetical and harmonistic purpose, but it was used as a text of the Gospels, revised by Jerome, and was provided with the sections and canons of Eusebius. From Augustine until J. Clericus' (Le Clerc) Harmonia evangelicd (Amsterdam, 1699), the material of the Gospels was treated preponderatingly from the view‑point of the interwoven narrative.
Clericus was the first in whom the interest in the fourfold or comparative arrangement became
distinctly prominent. Another work
s. Clericus representing the transition from the
and the interwoven Gospels to the fourfold
Griesbach arrangement was by Nicolas Toinard,
School. Evangeliorum Harmortia Grteco‑Latino
(Paris, 1707), which, although compiled for chronological and historiographical purposes, gives so much attention to the comparative presentation of the texts that one is reminded of Rushbrooke (see below). The first real parallel arrangement is that of J. J. Griesbaeh‑Synopsis evangeliorum (Halls, 1776, and often), which grew out of the need for a proper basis for exegetical lectures on the Gospels. Griesbach felt that if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were interpreted in their order, many repetitions would be necessary; while, on the other hand, many peculiarities of Mark and Luke would be unconsidered if, after the interpretation of Matthew, there were treated only that material from the second and third Gospels which is not contained in Matthew; and, further, that it was not sufficient to interpret only one of the three Gospels. Therefore he printed the text of the first three Evangelists in such a way that the common subjects stood side by side and the parallels could be at once considered. He did not include the fourth Gospel in this arrangement. The work of Griesbach became the norm for the following time. Anger in his Synopsis evangeliorum Matthcei, Marci, Lucw (Leipsie, 1852) made a valuable addition by including parallels from the Apocryphal Gospels. Other synoptical works are: G. M. L. de Wette and F. Likcke, Synopsis ewngeliorum (Berlin, 1818, 2d ed., 1842; on the basis of Griesbach); J. Gehringer, Synoptische Zusammenstellung lea grwchischen Textea der vwr Evangelien (Tabingen, 1842); J. H. Friedlieb, Qttatuor evangelia sacra in harmonium redacts

155	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Harmony of the Gospels
		Harms
(Wratidaw, 1847); Tischendorf, Synopsis evtcn
gelica (Leipsic, 1851, 7th ed., 1898).
	A step in advance was made by W. G. Rushbrooke
in Synoptieon. An Exposition of the Common
			Matter o f the Synoptic Gospels (London,
	3. Rush‑ 1880‑82). In order to facilitate the
		brooks	criticism and analysis of the Synoptic
	and Later Gospels, he presents the common
Httrmonists. material of the three Synoptists in
			three columns and distinguishes by
types and colored print (1) the material common
to all three Evangelists; (2) the parts which each
of them has in common with another; (3) the text
peculiar to each one. Where John or Paul offer real
parallels to the synoptical tradition, their material
is also given. The text of Mark is used as the basis
without deviation from its order. Since in this way
the material common only to Matthew and Luke
and the singular tradition of the first and third
Synoptists are left out of consideration, there are
added three appendixes: (1) the double tradition
of Matthew and Luke; (2) the single tradition of
Matthew; (3) the single tradition of Luke. This
arrangement brings out (1) Mark as the source of
historical tradition; (2) the fact of a second body of
tradition, the collection of sayings. Moreover,
material peculiar to Matthew and Luke becomes
more prominent, and the points of agreement and
discrepancy of the traditional synoptic text is well
presented to the eye by differences in print. A
second English work by A. Wright, A Synopsis of
the Gospels in Greek (London, 1896, enlarged ed.,
1903), combines with the representation of the
material discussions of the sources. Rushbrooke's
method was followed by R. Heineke, Synopse der
drei eraten kanonischen Evangelim (3 parts, Giessen,
1898). Other works of the same kind are A. Huck,
Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien (Freiburg, 1892,
3d ed., Tiibingen, 1906), and K. Veit, Die synop
tisehen Parallelen (Gilteraloh, 1897). A harmony,
to satisfy modern scientific needs, should present
the entire material of the Synoptics in an arrange
ment like that of Rushbrooke or Heineke, and
should include full critical apparatus.
				(P. FEINE.)
	Besides the works mentioned in the text, a number of
others modeled on the same general principles have by their
usefulness merited mention here. Such are: J. Macknight,
A Harmony of the Four Gospels . . . with a Paraphrase and
Notes, 2 vols., London, 1756, and often; W. Newcome, An
Harmony of the Gospels, 2 parts, Dublin, 1778 (in Greek,
includes many of Wetstein's variant readings); M. R6diger,
Synopsis evangeliorum Matthod. Marci et Lucas cum Joannis
pericopis parallelis, Halle, 1829; E. Greswell, Harmonia
evangelica, sive quatuor evangelic Gram, Oxford, 1830, and
often; E. Robinson, Harmony of the Gospels in Greek .
with the Various Readings of Knapp, Andover, 1834, on the
basis of Hahn's text, Boston, 1845, and often (after Clericus
and Newoome); idem, Harmony of the Gospels in English,
new ed., ib. 1889; 1. Da Costa, The Four Witnesses, Being
a Harmony of the Gospels on a New Principle, London, 1851;
J. Strong, New Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels .
a Parallel and Combined Arrangement, according to the Au
thorized Translation, New York, 1852; idem, Harmony of
the Gospels, in Greek, of the Received Text, ib. 1854; W.
Stroud, A New Greek Harmony of the Four Gospels, Compri
sing a Synopsis and a Diatessaron, together with an Introduc
tory True, Tables and Indexes and Diagrams, London,
1853; F. Gardiner, Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek
according to the Text of Tiachendorf, Andover, 1871, 1876;
idem, Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, idem, 1871;
G. Clark, New Harhwhy of the Four Gospels in English, New York, 1870, new ed., Philadelphia, 1892; J. A. Broadue, Harmony of the Gospels in The Revised Version, New York, 1893; w. A. Stevens and E. D. Burton, Harmony of the Gospels . . . in the Version of 1881, Boston, 1894, new ed. 1904.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Greswell. Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of an Harmony of the Gospels, 4 vols., Oxford, 1837; T. Zahn, Forechungen our Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vols. i.‑iv., Erlangen, 1881‑91; idem, Geschiehte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols., Leipsie, 189092; J. w. Burson, Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark, pp. 126‑131, 295‑312, London, 1871; G. Phillips, Doctrine of Addai, London, 1876; F. Baethgen, Evangelienfrapmente, pp. 62 eqq., Berlin, 1886; E. Sievers, Tatian, Paderborn, 1892; J. H. Hill, Dissertation on the Commentary of Ephraem the Syrian, Edinburgh, 1896; C. Holzhey, Neuentdeckte Syrus Sinaiticus, pp. 42 sqq., Munich, 1896; J. A. Schmeller, Am»wnii . . . harmonic Evangeliorum, Vienna, 1841; G. J. Meijer, Het Leven van Jesus, Groningen, 1838 (cf. A. Robinson, in Academy, Mar. 24, 1894); J. Gildemeieter, De evangeliis in Arabicum de aimplici Syriaw dranslatis, p. 35, Bonn, 1865; Magister de Hussinets (John Huss), Historic gestorum Christi, ed. Lsndstroem, Upsala, 1898; C. A. Briggs,. New Light on the Life of Jesus, New York, 1904 (discusses the principles of a harmony). A full bibliography on the Diatesssron of Tatian will be found under TATIAx. The separate works on the subject usually discuss the principles upon which a harmony is to be constructed, and the same is often done in works on the life of Christ.
HARMONY SOCIETY. See ComnsuNlsm, II., 6.
	HARMS,	CLAUS: German Lutheran; b. at
Fahrstedt, near Marne (50 m. n.w. of Hamburg),
South Ditmarsh (Sleswick‑Holstein), May 25, 1778;
d. at Kiel Feb. 1, 1855. He received merely the
rudiments of an education in tile village school
		and from the village pastor, and
	Student	worked in his father's mill till he was
	Life.	nineteen. Then, coming into posses
		sion of a little property by his
father's death, he entered the gymnasium of
Meldorf, and by extraordinary industry finished
the course in two years. In 1799 he went to
the University of Kiel to study theology. This
university was dominated at that time by ration
alism, but Harms, studying the writings of Kant
and reading Schleiermacher, suddenly felt that all
rationalism and human science could not help him,
that his salvation must be sought elsewhere; the
study of Holy Scripture brought about his complete
conversion. In 1802 he finished his theological
studies and became private tutor in Probateier
hagen in Holstein.
In 1806 the congregation of Lunden, in the district of North Ditmarsh, chose him deacon. He devoted himself with great energy to Pastor and the art of preaching, and extended his Preacher. care for his parishioners to all their spiritual and secular affairs. His sermons became very popular, even outside of his parish; and he was at times so fearless in denunciations of existing shortcomings of the government that he was called to account. In 1816 he was appointed archdeacon of St. Nicolai in Kiel, where he was equally popular. Since, however, he became more and more convinced that his time had declined from the faith of the Reformation, and thus from the source of salvation„ he considered the year 1817, the three hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, as an opportune time to speak his

Harms	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG‑	168
Harnack
mind. Accordingly he published (Kiel, 1,817) the
ninety‑five theses of Luther with ninety‑five theses
			of his own, needed in his opinion by
	Harms's the nineteenth century, and directed
	Ninety‑five against various supposed abuses in the
	Theses.	Lutheran Church; especially against ra
			tionalism; he declared his willingness
to defend and vindicate his theses and to avow his
errors if any should be proved. His first thesis was
aimed at the prevailing Pelagianism, while others
were: " We make reason the pope of our time in
regard to faith, conscience in regard to action, and
upon the latter has been placed a triple crown
lawmaking, praise, and punishment " (ix.); " con
science can not forgive, since forgiveness belongs to
God " (xi.); " if conscience ceases to read and begins
to write, the result will be as different as the hand
writings of men " (xvii.); " forgiveness of sins at least
cost money in the sixteenth century, but in the
nineteenth century it costs nothing, since, people
help themselves " (xxi.); " according to the old
faith, God created man; according to the new faith,
man creates God" (xxvii.); "the'religionof reason'
is bare either of reason or of religion, or of both "
(xxxii.). The following theses asserted for religion
its independent sphere: " That anybody should
misconstrue the fixed word of the Bible is prevented
by our symbolical books " (1.); " the words of our
revealed religion we regard as sacred in their original
language, and do not consider them a dress which
may be taken off from religion, but as its body in
union with which it has its life. But a translation
into a living language must be revised every
hundred years in order to remain alive " (li., Iii.).
Harms then attacked the rationalistic Bible of Al
tona (see BIBLE VERSIONS, VIL, § 4) and the laxity
of the church government. The last twenty theses
were directed against the Union.
	Harms's theses naturally created a sensation and
called forth about two hundred pamphlets. The
rationalists were offended, but others recognized
the theses as a wholesome ferment and a bitter
medicine for the weak faith of the time. Court
preacher C. F. von Ammon (q.v.) in Dresden ap
proved them and Schleiermacher also took the part
of Harms.
	The position of Harms became more and more
important. His merits were more widely recognized,
			and the number of his hearers in
		His	creased. In the University of Kiel the
	Influence. spirit of rationalism began to disap
			pear. In 1819 he declined a call to
St. Petersburg as Evangelical bishop, and in 1834
one to Trinity Church in Berlin as the successor of
Schleiermacher. After Fock's death in 1835 he was
promoted chief preacher at St. Nicolai and provost
of Kiel. In 1849 blindness compelled him to lay
down his offices.
	Harms was before everything a powerful preacher.
Great crowds came to hear him; it was the content
of his sermons which attracted, in spite of their lack
of ornament and embellishment. Controversy deep
ened his convictions, which he expressed decidedly
and sharolv in his writings. Among these must be
mentioned first his sermons, of which he published
sixteen collections between 1808 and 1858. He
wrote a number of catechisms and other books for
religious instruction (Das Chrfatentum in einem
kleinen Katechismu8, 1810; Die Religion der Christen
in einem Katechismm au/8 neue gelehrt, 1814; etc.).
His Pastoraltheologie (1830), the fruit of his informal
talks on practical theology,	ap!leared in a third
edition as late as 1878. He	also wrote hymns, a
few of which have passed into	German hymn‑books.
	(H. C. CARsTENst.)
Biswomnrar: Harms's autobiography (Lebenabeachreib‑
ung) appeared Kiel, 1852; some of his letters are in

P. Petri, L. A. Petri Leben, Hanover, 1888. Consult: Dor, ner, B7.Uter der Erinnerung an das Jubil4um van C. Harms,
Kiel, 1842; K. Schneider C. Harms, der esangeliache Pre
diger, Prieater and Pastor Bielefeld, 1861 idem Schleier
macher and Harms, Berlin, 1865; J. Kaftan, C. Harms,
Basel, 187e, C. Liidemann, Erinnerung an Claus Harms
and seine Zeit, Kiel 1878; F. Volbehr, C. Harms an seirum
hundert§ehrigen Gieburtetag, ib. 1878. Further literature
is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, vii. 433.

	HARMS, GEORG LUDWIG DETLEV THEODOR
(commonly known as Ludwig Harms): German
		Lutheran and founder of the Her‑
	Early Life.	mannsburg mission; b. at Walsrode
		(45 m. s.w. of Luneburg), Hanover,
May 5,1808; d. at Hermannsburg (50 m. s. of Ham
burg), Hanover, Nov. 5, 1865. He studied theology
at GSttingen from 1827 to 1830; but while at first
influenced by the prevailing rationalism, his trial
sermon of 1833 emphasized justification by faith.
Harms became private tutor at Lauenburg, in the
house of Chamberlain von Linstow, where he met
a small circle of Pietists. He shared at this time
their views of a living faith and of the gratuitous
justification of the sinner by faith, but also their
indifference toward confessional distinctions, their
other‑worldliness, and their lack of appreciation of
the Church and its ordinances. He soon became
the leading personality in this circle, and developed
especial interest in missions. In 1834 he founded a
missionary society in Lauenburg, which in 1836
became a branch of the newly organized North
German Missionary Society. In 1839 Harms re
turned to the home of his parents and assisted his
father during the winter. In 1840 he again became
private tutor at Luneburg, where an active Christian
life had developed under the influence of the Liine
burg preacher Deichmann. Harms now became
the leading spirit of this circle. He preached often,
and was also active in the practical duties of the
ministerial office; but at the same time he did not
lose sight of the cause of missions, to which he at
tributed the greatest importance for the develop
ment of the Church in modern times.
In spite of his successful activity at Liirieburg, however, he longed for a position as preacher, but owing to the superabundance of candi‑
	Pastor in	dates, it was impossible for him to
	Ltineburg.	realize his desire. He declined a call
		as teacher at the missionary institution
at Hamburg and another as pastor in New York.
He wished to preach among his own Liineburg
people, and his longing was fulfilled in 1844 when
the consistory made him his father's assistant. His
great activity now began, and with it an awakening
such as has seldom been seen in North Germany.
His father had prepared the way, but Harms himself

187	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	ga
worked unremittingly, not only by sermons and services which took up the whole Sunday, but also by his personal association with his congregation. A feature of his work was the meetings held in his house every Sunday afternoon. Harms always used the Low‑German dialect, the common speech of the peasants, and his gift of popular story‑telling aided him greatly in these social gatherings.
But after all his main power lay in his sermons. Harms understood, as few have done since Luther, how to preach to the people, especially
His to the peasants. Popularity formed Preaching. the fundamental trait of his manner of preaching, which was based upon simplicityand clearness. His sermons were not artistic from the homiletic point of view, the themes being in most cases mere headings, the different parts only loosely connected, and the structure simple, nor were his sermons above the average from the exegetical standpoint. The range of thought was narrow, the same ideas occurring again and again, often, even in the same words. The main theme was the necessity of a thorough conversion, justification by faith, and the proof of faith in Christian conduct. In bodily gifts Harms was sadly lacking. His voice was hollow and at times shrill, his manner in the pulpit somewhat stiff. But the result of his devoted labor soon showed itself in a real change of life in his congregation. Regular attendance at church, regular devotions at home, and strict observance of Sunday became a fixed rule in his congregation. The charitable work of the congregation assumed large dimensions. People from other parishes poured into his, church, and Harms became their spiritual father, and even in their absence remained their faithful adviser by an .extensive oorrespondence.
In this way Harms laid the basis for his missionary congregation; for that was his idea from the beginning: a parochial mission, a mis‑
The sion of the State Church. In his earlier Hermanns‑ years he had been asked to found a burg missionary institution, but he declined Mission. until he became the official pastor of Hermannsburg in 1849, after his father's death. In his report to the consistory he stated his reasons for founding his own missionary establishment instead of joining one of the existing institutions. He cherished the idea of colonial missions, holding that missionaries should not be scattered, but form a Christian colony in heathen countries. In this way, he thought, it would be easier to gather a strong congregation. After its development a second colony should be founded in the vicinity of the first, and after the second a third, and so on, so that a connecting chain of congregations would come into existence. Harms thought that by virtue of the close connection of these colonies with the mother congregation, the solidarity of Lutheran confessionalism would be guarded against the disintegrating influences of other denominations. But the consistory did not agree with him; and he was compelled to follow substantially the plan of other missionary societies. He lived long enough to see the growth of his missionary enterprise, but he might have lived longer
if he had not undermined his health by excessive
work, without even temporary recreations. His
publications were sermons and devotional writings,
which achieved an extraordinary popularity in
Germany. 	(G. UHLaoRNt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Harms, Lebenabeschrsibung des Pastors Louis Harms, Hermanmsburg, 1874 (by his brother); H. Kpaut, Louis Harms, Gottingen, 1899.

EARNACg, (KARL GUSTAV) ADOLF: German Lutheran; b. at Dorpat, Livonia, May 7, 1851. He was educated at Dorpat (1869‑72), and two years later became privat‑docent at Leipsic, where he was appointed associate professor in 1876. In 1879 he accepted a call to Giessen as full professor of church history, and remained there until 1886, when he went to Marburg in a similar capacity. In 1889 he was called to Berlin. In addition to his professorship of church history, he has since 1905 held the post of director of the Royal Library there. He is recognized as one of the leaders of the critical school of theology and an authority on the history of the antenicene period. Since 1881 he has been one of the editors of the Theologische Literaturzeitung, and since 1882 of the well‑known Tezte and Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, to which series he has contributed many monographs. He has written:
Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnostisismus (Leipsic, 1873); De Appellia gnosi monarchica (1874); Die Zeit des Ignatius and die Chronologie der antioehenischen Bischefe Us Tyrannus (1878); Evangeliorum codex purpureus Rosanienaia (in collaboration with the late Oscar von Gebhardt, Leipsic, 1880); Das Mt6nehehum, seine Ideals and Geschichle (Giessen, 1881, 6th ed. 1903, Eng. travel. by O. R. Gillett, Monasticism: its Ideals and its history, New York 1895); Augustin's Confessionen (Giessen, 1888, 3d ed., 1903; Eng. trawl. by E. E. Kellett and F. H. Marseille, together with their trawl. of the lecture on Monasticism, London, 1901); Martin Luther in seiner Bedeutung far die Geschichte der Wissenschaft and der Bildung (Giessen, 1883); Die Ayostellehre and die y4dischen beiden Wege (Leipsie, 1886); Die Quellen der sogenanaten apostolischen %irchenordnung (1886, Eng. trawl. by L. A. Wheatley, Sources of the Apostolic Canons; wroth a Treatise on the Origin of the Readership and Other Lower Orders, London, 1895); Lehrbuch der DopmengeacKichte (3 vols., Freiburg, 1886‑90, 3d ed., 1894; Eng. trawl. by Neil Buchanan, History of Dogma, 7 vols., London, 18951900); Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte (1889, 4th ed., 1905; Eng. trans]. by Edward K. Mitchell, Outlines of the History of Dogma, New York, 1893); Geschichte der allchrisitichen Literatur his Eusebius (3 vols., Leipsic, 1893‑1904, in collaboration with Edwin Preuschen in the first volume); Thoughts on the Present Position of Protestantism (Eng. trawl. by Thomas Bailey Saunders, London, 1899); Gsschichte der kdniglichen preussischen Akademie der Wiesenschaften zu Berlin (3 vols., Berlin, 1900); Das Wesen des Chrietentums (Leipsic, 1900, 52d thousand, 1905; Eng. trawl. by T. B. Saunders, What is Christianity? London 1901, 3d ed. (1904); Das Chriatentum and die Geschiehte (Leipsic, 1897, 5th ed., 1904; Eng. trawl. by T. B. Saunders, Christianity and History, London, 1900); Apostles' Creed (Eng. travel. by Stewart Means from 3d ed. Herzog's Realeneyklopadie, London, 1901); Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultaten and die allgemeine Religionegeschichte (Giessen, 1901); Die Mission and Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipsie, 1902, 2d ed., 1906; Eng. trawl. by James Moffatt, The Expansion of Christianity in the First, Three Centuries, 2 vole., London, 1904‑0.5, new ed.19Q8); Reden and Aufsotw (2 vols.. Giessen, 1904, 2d ed. 1906); Militia Christi. Die chriMliche Religion and der Soldatenstand in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (T7bingen, 1905); Beitidge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3 parts, Leipsie, 1906‑08; Eng. trawl. of part 1:, Luke the Physician, the Author of the Third Gospel and the Ads of the Apostles, London, 1907), Zwei Warts Jesu (Berlin, 1907); Essays on the Social Gospel (London, 1907;

Harnack	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	188
Harris
in collaboration with W. Herrmann), and The Ads of the Apostles (1908). He first made his mark by his work on the text of the Apostolic Fathers, in collaboration with Oscar von Gebhardt and T. Zahn (3 vols., Leipeic, 1875‑77, minor ed., 1877, 5th ed., 1908).
HARNACK, THEODOSIUS: German theologian; b. at St. Petersburg Jan. 3, 1817; d. at Dorpat Sept. 23, 1889. In 1834 he entered the University of Dorpat and pursued the study of theology under the prevailing conservative influences. In 1837 he left Dorpat and, after living for some time as tutor in the family of a Livonian nobleman, finished his studies at Berlin, Bonn, and Erlangen. Returning to Dorpat, he became extraordinary professor of practical theology in 1847 and ordinary professor in the following year. His adherence to the confessional standpoint appeared in his Grundbekenntniase der evaragelisch‑lutherischen Kirche (Dorpat, 1845), a work which reveals depth of insight, skill in the elaboration of a thesis, and a style of exposition which was always attractive and often fascinating. Besides the professorship in systematic theology for which he exchanged his earlier chair, he held, after 1847, the post of university preacher. He presided over a committee of the synod of Livonia entrusted with the task of gathering material for the elaboration and improvement of the liturgy of the province, and his Lriturgische Formulare fur die evangelische Kirche in Rusaland (2 vols., Dorpat, 18774) was made the basis of subsequent revisions in 1885 and in 1898. He took an active part in the conflict between the orthodox clergy and the Moravians, publishing against them Die lutherische Kirche Livlandsand die herrnhutiache Brudergemeinde (Erlangen, 1860). In 1853 Harnack was called to Erlangen, where he published in 1862 the first volume of his Lathers Theologiemit besonderer Beziehung auf seine Veraohnungs‑ and Erloaurcgslehre. In 1866 he returned to Dorpat, but retired from active duty in 1875. In the quiet of his last years he produced the greatest of his works, Praktische Theologie (Erlangen, 1877), supplemented by the Katechetik‑ and Katechismua‑Erkldrung (Erlangen, 1882). He contributed articles on liturgical subjects and pastoral theology to ZSckler's Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschoften, and entered into the discussion of modern problems with Ueber den Kanon and die Inspiration der heiligen Schrift (Dorpat, 1885). He published a second volume on Luther's doctrine (Leipsic, 1886), which was his last production; in this he took occasion to express his dissent from the latest theological developments. In addition to the books mentioned he published Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischenand altkatholischen Zeitalxer (Dorpat, 1854); Die Union and ihre neuester Vertreter (Erlangen, 1855); Der kleineKatechismusM. Lathers (Stuttgart, 1856);and Die Kirche, ihr Amt and Regiment (Nilremberg, 1862). He was the father of Adolf Harnack (q.v.). (F. HoExacarLtaArrNt.)

HARDER, ROBERT FRANCIS: Baptist layman; b. at New Concord, O., Oct. 18, 1864. He was educated at Muskingum College, New Concord, O ., at the University of Chicago (B. A., 1883), and at the universities of Berlin and Leipsic (Ph.D., 1886).
He was instructor in Semitic languages at Yale
from 1886 to 1891, as well as Assyriologist (and
delegate of Yale) to the expedition of the Oriental
Exploration Fund (under the auspices of the Uni
versity of Pennsylvania) in 1888‑89. He has been
at the University of Chicago in the capacities of
associate professor of Semitic languages (1892
1900), and professor (since 1900), and is at present
(1908) the acting head professor of the Semitic
department. He is editor of The American Journal
o f Semitic Languages and Literatures and associate
editor of The Biblical World and The American
Journal o f Theology. In theology he adheres to
the views of the liberal school. He has written The
Esarhaddon Inscriptions (New Haven, Conn., 1888);
Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the
Kouyunjik Collections o f the British Museum (8 parts,
London and Chicago, 1892‑1902); Assyrian and
Babylonian Literature (New York, 1901); and The
Code o f Hammurabi, King o f Babylon (about 2250
B.C.) (Chicago, 1904).
	HARDER, WILLIAM RAINEY: Baptist layman;
b. at New Concord, O., July 26, 1856; d. at Chicago
Jan. 10, 1906. He was educated at Muskingum
College, New Concord (B.A.,1870), and Yale (Ph.D.,
1875). After being principal of Masonic College,
Macon, Tenn. (1875‑76), he was tutor (1876‑79)
and principal (1879‑80) of the preparatory depart
ment of benison University, Granville, O., and
professor of Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis
in Baptist Union Theological Seminary, Chicago
(1880‑86). He then went to Yale as professor of
Hebrew, where he remained until 1891, when he
became president and head professor of Semitic
languages and literatures in the newly established
University of Chicago. He was also principal of the
Chautauqua College of Liberal Arts in 1885‑91,
Woolsey professor of Biblical literature in Yale
University, and instructor in Semitics in Yale
Divinity School in 1889‑91, a member of the Chicago
Board of Education in 1896‑98, and director of
the Haskell Oriental Museum in the University of
Chicago. In 1881 he commenced to teach Hebrew
by correspondence, thus inaugurating a movement
which culminated in the organization of the Amer
ican Institute of Sacred Literature, and three years
later (1884) he founded the American Institute of
Hebrew. His remarkable ability as 'an organizer
was strikingly exemplified by his development of
the University of Chicago into one of the leading
American institutions of learning. Harper was
likewise an editor of The Biblical World, The Amer
ican Journal o f Theology, and The American Journal
o f Semitic Languages and Literatures, all published
under the auspices of the University of Chicago.
Among his numerous publications, special mention
may be made of his Elements o f Hebrew (New York,
1881); Elements of Hebrew Syntax by art Inductive
Method (1883); Introductory New Testament Greek
Method (in collaboration with R. F. Weidner; 1888);
Constructive Studies in the Priestly Element in the
Old Testament (Chicago, 1902); Religion and the
Higher Life (1904); The Structure of the Text of the
Book of Amos (1904); The Prophetic Element in
the Old Testament (1905); The Structure of the Text
of the Book of Hoses. (1905); The Trend in Higher

159	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Education (1905); and A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos arid Hosea (New York, 1905).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A sketch of his life is given in Old Testament and Semitic Studies. In Memory of William Rainey Harper, ad. Robert Francis Harper, Francis Brown, and George Foot Moore, 2 vols., Chicago, 1907.
HARRACH, har'rm, COUNT KARL PHILIPP VON: German philanthropist; b. at Prague Nov. 16, 1795; d. at Breslau Nov. 25, 1878. Destined for a military career by his father, a Roman Catholic, after completing his education at the academy of engineering in Vienna, he entered the Austrian army in 1813. He took part in the campaigns of 1813 and 1814, but, finding no satisfaction in the service, he resigned in the early twenties and bought the estate of Rosnochau, near Oberglogau, in Prussian Silesia. There he devoted himself to agriculture until this later years of his life. He gradually became a convert to the Evangelical Church, which he formally joined in 1852, determining, in his zeal, to spend a considerable portion of his wealth for religious purposes. In this he was encouraged by Johann Heinrich Wichern (q.v.), the father of home missions in Germany. During a temporary residence at Berlin, Harrach spent large sums for the advancement of home missions, and he was equally generous at Breslau. He was a member of the board of directors of the Silesian provincial society for home missions, which came into existence in the beginning of the sixties, and bequeathed to it a capital of 60,000 marks, in addition to 30,000 marks for the purpose of educating young men as teachers of Evangelical schools in the province of Silesia.
Harrach also conceived the plan of aiding theological students by giving them an opportunity for a strictly scientific education on the basis of the Gospel. This idea took more definite shape under the guidance of Tholuck, who had long been animated by the same desire. In accordance with their plan, a Konvikt for nine theological students from Silesia and three from other provinces was founded at Halle in 1865, Tholuck being its first president. All the expenses of the students are paid, and those from Silesia are required to devote their services to the Evangelical Church in their native province. Harrach also manifested his interest in the advancement of Christian life by supplying funds for the continuance of the parochial visitations in Silesia, which had been instituted by Frederick William IV., but which had ceased in the early sixties for financial reasons.
(DAVID ERDMANNt.)
HARRIS, GEORGE: Congregationalist; b. at East Machias, Me., Apr. 1, 1844. He was educated at Amherst (B.A., 1866) and Andover Theological Seminary (1869). He was then pastor of High Street Congregational Church, Auburn, Me. (18691872), and of Central Congregational Church, Providence, R. I. (1872‑83). He was professor of Christian theology in Andover Theological Seminary (1883‑99), being also president of the faculty (1869‑99). In 1884 he began, with four colleagues, to edit The Andover Review, which he conducted until 1893, and, in consequence of certain articles
published in it, was tried, together with the other editors, for heresy in 1886, being acquitted, however, in 1892. Since 1899 he has been president of Amherst College. Besides editing Hymns o f the Faith in collaboration with W. J. Tucker and E. K. Glezen (Boston, 1888), he has written Moral Evolution (Boston, 1896) and Inequality and Progress (1897).
HARRIS, HOWEL: Welsh revivalist, one of the founders of Methodism in Wales; b. at Trevecca, in the parish of Talgarth, Breconshire, Jan. 31,1714; d. there July 21, 1773. He entered St. Mary Hall, Oxford, on Nov. 25, 1735, but returned to South Wales at the close of his first term and began his evangelistic labors, traveling through the country and preaching as often as five times a day. He was the first lay preacher in the great Methodist movement, and was even a year or more ahead of Whitefield and Wesley. By 1739 he had founded thirty societies in South Wales, and in 1741 the number had grown to 300. In 1751, as a result of a disagreement with Daniel Rowlands (q.v.), his great coadjutor in the establishment of Methodism in Wales, he retired to his home at Trevecca, and founded there, in 1752, a sort of Protestant monastery. This institution, which has long been extinct, had 120 inmates in 1755, not counting a number of families from North Wales, which had settled in the neighborhood. In 1759, when a French invasion was imminent, Harris accepted an ensigncy in the Breconshire militia, and during his three years' service preached in his regimental dress in various parts of England. He had the hearty support of Whitefield and the Wesleys. Toward the close of his life he preached in Whitefield's tabernacle in London, and also before aristocratic assemblies in private houses there. He was repeatedly assaulted by mobs, continually persecuted by the magistrates and the clergy, and denied ordination on account of the irregularity of his methods.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Brief Account of the Life of Howl Harris . from Papers Written by Himself, ed. B. T., Trevecca, 1791; T. Jackson, The Life of Howsl Harris, vol. si. of A Library of Christian Biography, London, 1837 sqq.; H. J. Hughes, Life of Howel Harris, ib. 1892.

HARRIS, JAMES RENDEL: English Friend; b. at Plymouth, Devonshire, Jan. 27, 1852. He was educated at Clare College, Cambridge (B.A., 1874, graduated third wrangler), where he was fellow in 1875‑78,1892, 1898, and 1902‑04. He was professor of New Testament Greek at Johns Hopkins University (1882‑85), and at Haverford College, Haverford, Pa. (1886‑92). He was then university lecturer in paleography at Cambridge, and, after being professor of theology at the University of Leyden in 1903‑04, was appointed to his present position of director of studies at the Friends' Settlement for Social and Religious Study at Woodbrooke, near Birmingham. He has written or edited:
The Teaching of the Apostles and the Sibylline Books (Cambridge, 1885); Frapmanta of Philo Judeew (1888); The Origin of the Leicester Codex (1887); The Teaching of the Apostles (Baltimore, Md., 1887); The Rest of the Words of Baruch (Haverford, Pa., 1889); Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai, (Cambridge, 1890); The Diatessaron (1890); The Acts of Perpetua (1890); A Study of Codex Beza (1890);

Harris	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	180
Hartmann
The Apology of Aristidw (1891); Codex Sanpallenaia
(1891); Some Interesting Syrian and Palestinian Inscrip
tions (1891); Memoranda Sacra (London, 1892); Pope
tar Account of the Newly Recovered Gospel o/ St. Peter
(1892); Origin of As Perrar Group (Cambridge, 1893);
Stichomatry (1893); Lectures on the Western Text of the New
Testament (1894); Prapmente of the Commentary of Ephrem
Syrus upon the Diatessaron (1$95); Union with God (Lon
don, 1895); Herman in Arcadia and Other Essays (Cambridge,
1896); Letters from Armenia (in collaboration with his wife,
Helen B. Harris; London, 1897); The Homeric Centones
and the Acts of Pirate (Cambridge, 1898); Life of Prancis
William Crossley (London, 1899); The Gospel of the Twelve
Apostles (Cambridge, 1900); Purther Researches into the
History of the Perrar Group (Cambridge, 1900); Annotators
of the Code Basin (1901); The Dioscuroi in Christian Legend
(1908); The Guiding Hand of God (London, 1905); and
Cult q/ the Heavenly Twins (Cambridge, 1906). He like
wise collaborated with R. L. Benely and F. C. Burkitt
in editing The Pour Gospels in Syriac Transcribed from the
Sinaitie Palimpsest (Cambridge, 1894), and with F. C. Cony
beare and Agree Smith Lewis in editing The Story of A,hilsar
from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek, and
Slavonic Versions (London, 1898).
	HARRIS, JOHN: English Congregationalist; b.
at Ugborough (12 m. e. of Plymouth), Devonshire,
Mar. 8, 1802; d. at St. John's Wood, London,
Dec. 21, 1856. AB a boy he began preaching in
the villages around Bristol, whither his parents had
moved about 1815, and quickly won local fame as
" the boy preacher." He entered the independent
college at Hoxton in 1823, and in 1825 became
pastor of the Congregational Church at Epsom,
where he established his reputation as a preacher.
In 1837 he was appointed to the chair of theology
at Cheshunt College. When the independent col
leges of Highbury, Homerton, and Coward were
amalgamated into New College (London) in 1850,
he became principal of this institution, and in 1851
professor of theology. In 1852 he was chosen chair
man of the Congregational Union of England and
Wales. He was also one of the editors of the
Biblical Review, a regular contributor to Congrega
tional and Evangelical periodicals, and the author
of a number of meritorious works that have had
a large circulation, particularly in America. The
more important are: The Great Teacher (London;
1835), which is considered his best book; Mammon
(1836), a prize essay of which more than 100,000
copies were sold; The Great Commission.(1842), a
prize essay on Christian missions; The Pre‑Adamite
Earth (1846); and Man Primeval (1849). His
Posthumous Works, composed of sermons only, were
edited by P. Smith (2 vols., 1857).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Eclectic Review, 4th ser., iv. 303‑319, xxi.
	137‑154, xxvi. 612‑625; DNB, xxv. 15‑16.
	HARRIS, SAMUEL: Name of two American cler
gymen.
	1. Baptist, called the "Apostle of Virginia"; b. in
Hanover County, Va., Jan. 12, 1724; d. there prob
ably in 1'794. In his early and middle life he held
many public offices, including those of ‑sheriff,
burgess for the county, and colonel of militia. In
1758 he was converted under the preaching of two
itinerant Baptist preachers, and became a dis
tinguished exhorter among the poor white settlers.
He was ordained in 1769, and in 1774 was invested
by the General Association of Separate Baptists
with the office of " apostle." He devoted his for
tune to religious and charitable work, lived with
extreme frugality, and suffered much persecution from the Established Church.
	2. Congregationalist; b. at East Machias, Me.,
June 14, 1814; d. at Litchfield, Conn., June 25, 1899.
He was graduated at Bowdoin College (1833), and
after being principal of Limerick Academy„„ Me.
(1833‑34), and of Washington Academy, East
Machias, Me. (1834‑35), entered Andover Theolog
ical Seminary, frbm which he was graduated in
1838. He then returned for three years to his
principalship at East Machias, after which he held
successive pastorates at Conway, Mass. (1841‑51),
and Pittsfield, Mass, '(1851‑55). From 1855 to 1867
he was professor of systematic theology in Bangor
Theological Seminary, holding this position jointly
with George Shephard, acting pastor of the Central
Church, Bangor, from 1855 to 1863. In 1867 he
was chosen president of Bowdoin College, but
resigned in 1871 to accept the Dwight professorship
of systematic theology in the Yale Divinity School.
In 1896 he retired as professor emeritus. In addi
tion to numerous sermons, pamphlets, and contri
butions to periodicals, he wrote: Zaccheus : or, The
Scriptural Plan of Beneficence (Boston, 1844);
Christ's Prayer for the Death of His Redeemed (1863);
The Kingdom of Christ on Earth (Andover, 1874);
The Philosophical Basis of Theism (New York,
1883); The Self‑Revelation of God (1887); and God
the Creator and Lord of All (2 vols., 1896).
	HARRISON, FREDERIC: English Positivist; b.
at London Oct. 18, 1831. He was educated at
Wadham College, Oxford (B.A., 1853; M.A., 1858),
where he was fellow and tutor in 1854‑56, and be
came, honorary fellow in 1899. He was admitted
to practise at Lincoln's Inn, London, as a barrister
at law in 1858. He was a member of the Royal
Commission on Trades‑Unions in 1867‑69 and secre
tary to the Royal Commission for Digesting the Law
in 1869‑70. He was also professor of jurisprudence
in the Inns of Court from 1877 to 1889, and was
examiner in the same subject in the Inns of Court
in 1875, in London University in 1873‑76, and in
Oxford University in 1877 and 1881. He was an
alderman of the London County Council from 1889
to 1893. Originally a member of the Church of
England, and with a thorough theological training
at Wadham College, he followed, while at the bar,
the sermons of F. D. Maurice, Stopford Brooke, and
Benjamin Jowett. He gradually came, however,
under the influence of Auguste Comte, and finally
adopted Positivism, the " Religion of Humanity,"
in 1870. Since that time he has come to be the
leading exponent of Positivist doctrines in England,
and from 1879 to 1904 was president of the English
Positivist Committee, as well as a member of the
Occidental Positivist Committee of Paris. In addi
tion to numerous contributions to various period
icals his works include Meaning o f History (London,
1862); Order and Progress (1875); The Choice o f
Books (1886); Studies in Early Victorian Literature
(2 vols., 1895‑97); Byzantine History in the Early
Middle Ages (1900); George Washington and Other.
American Addresses (1901); Theophano (1904); Her
bert Spencer (Oxford 1905); Memoirs tired Thoughts
(London, 1906); Philosophy of Common ,Sense

181	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	$~m
(1907); The Creed of a Layman: Apologia pro fide mea (1907); My Alpine Jubilee (1908); and National and Social Problems (1908). He prepared also the second volume of the English translation of the works of Comte (London, 1875), and delivered numerous addresses before the Positivist Society, in addition to being Gibbon Centenary Lecturer at London in 1895, Rede Lecturer at Cambridge in 1900, George Washington Lecturer at Chicago in 1901, Alfred Millenary Lecturer at Winchester in the same year, and Herbert Spencer Lecturer at Oxford in 1905.

HARRISON, ROBERT (or RICHARD; the True and Short Declaration always calls him " Robert," other early authorities name him " Richard "): English separatist; d. at Middelburg, Zealand, about 1585. He studied at St. John's and Corpus Christi Colleges, Cambridge (B.A., 1567; M.A., 1572); was removed from the mastership of the grammar‑school at Aylaham, Norfolk, in Jan., 1574, for Puritanical objections to the baptismal service; later became master of a hospital at Norwich. He was an early friend of Robert Browne (q.v.) and his chief helper and disciple. Browne lived in Harrison's house at Norwich, and together they organized the church there in 1580; Harrison went with the congregation to Middelburg the next year, and, after Browne's departure, became its head. He published
A Little Treatise upon the First Verse of the 122nd
Psalm, Stirring up unto Careful Desiring and Dutiful
Labouring for the True Church Government (1583;
reprinted by William Brewster at Leyden, 1618);
and Three Forms of Catechisms, Containing the Most
Principal Forma of Religion (1583). Harrison pub
lished also: 0 f Ghosts and Spirits Walking by Night,
and o f Strange Noises, Cracks, and Sundry Fore
warnings, which commonly happen before the Death
of Men, Great Slaughters, and Alterations of King
doms : one Book : written by Lewis Lavaterus o f
Tigurine, and translated into English by R. H.
(London, 1572 and 1596); A Book o f the Form o f
Common Prayers, Administration o f the Sacraments,
etc., Agreeable to God's Word and the Use of the
Reformed Churches (1586).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are the writings of Robert Browne, particularly A True and Short Declaration. Consult: H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, New York, 1880; W. Walker, Hiat. of the Congregational Churches in the U. S., pp. 3b‑40, New York, 1894; C. Burrage, The True Story of Robert Browne, pp. 9‑28, Oxford, 1908.

HART, SAMUEL: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Saybrook, Conn., June 4, 1845. He was educated at Trinity College (B.A., 1866) and the Berkeley Divinity School, and was ordered deacon in 1869 and ordained priest in the following year. He was tutor (1868‑70), assistant professor (18701873), and full professor of mathematics (1873‑83), and professor of Latin in Trinity College (18831899). Since 1899 he has been vice‑dean and professor of doctrinal theology in Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn., having declined the proffered bishopric of Vermont in 1893. He has been registrar of the diocese of Connecticut since 1874, custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer since 1886, secretary of the House of Bishops V.‑11
since 1892, and historiographer of the Church since
1898. In 1892 he prepared the report on the
Standard Book of Common Prayer for the General
Convention of 1892, and is likewise the author of
several historical addresses. He has written or
edited: Satires o f Juvenal (Boston, 1873); Bishop
Seabury's Communion Ote, with Notes (New York,
1874); Satires of Persius (Boston, 1875); G. F.
Maclear's Instruction for Confirmation and Holy
Communion (New York, 1895); History o f the Amer
ican Prayer Book in W. H. Frere's edition of F.
Procter's New History o f the Book o f Common Prayer
(1901); and Short Daily Prayers for Families (1902).

HARTMANN, JOHANNES: German Roman Catholic; b. at Herbigahagen (a village near Duder atadt, 15 m. s.e. of G6ttingen) Oct. 3, 1829. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1854, and, after being a chaplain in Heiligenstadt from that year until 1857, was a teacher in Belgium till 1868. He then studied law at the University of Bonn for three years, and in the following year (1872) was appointed director of the theological seminary and professor of canon law at Paderborn. Two years later he was called to his present position of professor of canon law at the Academy of Munster.
HARTMANN, KARL ROBERT EDUARD VON: German philosopher; b. at Berlin Feb. 23, 1842; d. at the same place June 5, 1906. He was educated at the school of artillery in Berlin (185J1862); and held a commission (1860‑65), when he was compelled to retire on account of serious knee trouble. He took his degree at Rostock in 1867, returned to Berlin, and retired to Lichterfelde (5 m. s.w. of Berlin) in 1885, doing most of his work in bed while suffering great pain. After developing the thought for twenty‑two years, he began in 1864 to prepare his main philosophical work, Philosophie des Unbewussten (Berlin, 1869; 11th ed., 3 vols., 1904; French transl., M. D. Nolen, 2 vols., Paris, 1876; Eng. transl., by W. C. Coupland, Philosophy of the Unconscious, 3 vols., London, 1884). Next in rank was his Dos sittliehe Bewusstaein, appearing first as Ph4nomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseina (Berlin, 1879); and next to that was the Religionsphilosophie (2 vols., Das religiose Bewusstsein der Menachheit and Die Religion des Geistes, 1882).
The object of his philosophy was to unite the " idea " of Hegel with the " will " of Schopenhauer in his doctrine of the Absolute Spirit, or, as he preferred to characterize it, spiritual monism. He held that " a will which does not will something is not." The world was produced by will and idea, but not as conscious; for consciousness, instead of being essential, is accidental to will and idea‑the two poles of " the Unconscious." Matter is both idea and will. In organic existences, in instinct, in the human mind, on the field of history, the unconscious will acts as though it possessed consciousness, i.e., were aware of the ends and of the infallible means for their realization. Consciousness arises from the temporary diremption of the idea from the active will and the will's opposition to this condition. Because of the wisdom displayed in the action of the Unconscious, this is the best possible world; only this does not prove that the

H'Ttrauft	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	182
Hase
world is good, or that the world would not be better,
the latter of which is true. Human life labors under
three illusions: (1) that happiness is possible in this
life, which came to an end with the Roman Empire;
(2) that life will be crowned with happiness in an
other world, which science is rapidly dissipating;
(3) that happy social well‑being, although postponed,
can at last be realized on earth, a dream which will
also ultimately be dissolved. Man's only hope lies
in " final redemption from the misery of volition
and existence into the painlessness of non‑being
and non‑willing." No mortal may quit the task of
life, but each must do his part to hasten the time
when in the major portion of the human race the
activity of the Unconscious shall be ruled by in
telligence, and this stage reached, in the simul
taneous action of many persons volition will resolve
upon its own non‑continuance, and thus idea and
will will be once more reunited in the Absolute.
		C. A. BECgwITH.
	HARTRANFT, CHESTER DAVID: Congrega
tionalist; b. at Frederick, Pa., Oct. 15, 1839. He
was educated at the University of Pennsylvania
(B.A., 1861) and at the New Brunswick Theolog
ical Seminary (1864), after having served in the
Civil war as captain of the Eighteenth Pennsylvania
Volunteers. He held pastorates at the Dutch
Reformed Church, South Bushwick, N. Y. (186"6),
and at the Second Dutch Reformed Church, New
Brunswick, N. J. (1866‑78), giving much attention
during the latter charge to oratorio. and choral
singing. From 1879 to 1888 he was Waldo pro
fessor of ecclesiastical history in Hartford Theolog
ical Seminary, of which he was president from 1888
to 1903, and has been honorary president there since
1903. He was also professor of Biblical theology in
the same institution from 1892 to 1897, and of
ecclesiastical dogmatics from 1897 to 1903. He has
revised the Anti‑Donatist writings of St. Augustine
and the " Ecclesiastical History " of Sozomen for
the American edition of The Nicene and Post‑Nicene
Fathers (New York, 1887, 1890). Of late years he
has resided in Germany, engaged in researches into
the early history of the Schwenckfelders, the re
sult of which is his editorship, assisted by 0. B.
Schlutter and E. E. Schultz, Johnson of Corpus
Schwenckfeldianorum (vol. i. Leipsic, 1907).
	HARTZELL, JOSEPH CRANE: Methodist Epis
copal bishop; b. at Moline, Ill., June 1, 1842. He
was educated at Illinois Wesleyan University
(B.A.,1868) and Garrett Biblical Institute, Chicago
(1868), and was pastor at Pekin, Ill. (1868‑69), and
New Orleans, La. (1870‑72).	From 1872 until
1882 he was presiding elder of the New Orleans
district and founder and editor of the South‑Western
Christian Advocate. He was assistant correspond
ing secretary of the Southern Education Society of
his denomination from 1882 to 1887, and chief
secretary from 1888 to 1896. In 1897 he was
elected bishop for Africa. He was a member of the
Methodist Ecumenical conferences held at Washing
ton in 1878 and at London in 1898. He is the author
of several sermons and of numerous addresses and
contributions to periodicals on educational and
racial topics connected with America and Africa.
HARTZHEIM, JOSEPH VON: Jesuit; b. at Cologne Jan. 11, 1694; d. there Jan. 14, 1762. At the age of eighteen he became a novice of the Society of Jesus, and at the conclusion of his novitiate studied at the College of Luxemburg, and then taught Hebrew at the College of Cologne for a year, after which he traveled in Italy. Returning to his native city, he was first a teacher and then rector (1726‑48) at the Gymnasium Tricoronatum. He remained cathedral preacher until his death. His chief work was his continuation and partial editing of the collection of the acts of the German councils begun by the Fulda scholar J. F. Schannat (b.1685; d. 1739), of which he published the first four volumes under the title Concilia Germanise quce . . . Jo. Frid. Schannat magna ex parts collegit, dein P. Jos. Hartzheim, S. J., plurimum auxit, continuavit, notia, digressioni6us criticis, etc., illustravit (Cologne, 1759‑63). The fifth volume, extending to 1500, appeared in the year of Hartzheim's death. Hartzheim wrote also: De inztio metropoleos ecclesiastiue Colonies, Claudice Augustm Aggripinensium (3 parts, Cologne, 1731‑32); Dissertationes decem historico~icce in Sanctam Scripturam (1736‑46); Bibliotheca scriptorum Coloniensium (1747); Historia rei nummarim Coloniensis (1754); and Prodromus historice Universitatis Coloniensis (1759). A number of his writings, such as preliminary studies for a Historic litteraria Germanise, as well as his Vita diplamatica Sancti Annonis and Historia gymnasii tricoronati, exist only in manuscript.
(0. Z6CKLERt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Elopium was prefixed to vol. v. of the Concidia. Consult: L. Ennen, Zeiibilder aus der neuem Geschickte der Stadt K87n, Cologne, 1859; A. and A. de Backer, BiblioWqus des 6crivains de la compagnie de J6aua, ii. 44‑57 7 vols., Lidge, 1853‑61; dDB, x.77,1‑722; KL, v. 1523‑26.

HARVARD, JOHN: Congregationalist minister of the Massachusetts colony, after whom Harvard College was named; b. in Southwark, London, Nov., 1607; d. at Charlestown, Mass., Sept. 14, 1638. He was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge (B.A., 1631; M.A., 1635), and probably was ordained as a dissenting minister shortly after leaving the university, though there is no record of this fact. He removed to New England in 1637, settled at Charlestown in August of that year, and became a freeman of Massachusetts on Nov. 2 following. For some time he filled the pulpit of the First Church at Charlestown as assistant to the Rev. Z. Symmes. Compared with his fellow colonists, he was a man of wealth; and that he was held in high esteem is shown by the fact that on Apr. 26, 1638, he was placed upon a committee to formulate a body of laws. He died of consumption after a residence of little more than a year in the colony, leaving his library of 320 volumes and about £400, half of his fortune, to the proposed college at New Towne, later Cambridge, for which the General Court had made an appropriation of £400 in Sept., 1636. With the aid of this legacy the building was begun; and in Mar., 1639, in commemoration of the young philanthropist, it was ordered that the new institution should be called Harvard College. Harvard was justly styled by Edward Everett the " ever‑

183	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hartranft
		Ha,se
memorable benefactor of learning and religion in
America."
B:BLmoaArar: Important documents are reprinted in the
	New England Historical and Genealogical Register, July,
	1885, cf. October, 1886. Consult: H. C. Shelley, John
	Harvard and His Times, Boston, 1908; W. I. Budington,
	History of the First Church of Charlestown, Boston, 1845;
	J. Winthrop, Hist. of New England, ii. 105‑419, ib. 1853;
	Life and Letters of John Winthrop, 2 vole., ib. 1864‑67;
	F. 0. Vaille and H. A. Clark, Harvard Book, 2 vols., ib.
	1875; J. F. Hunnewell, Records of the First Church, ib.
	1880; G. G. Bush, Harvard: the first American Univer
	sity, ib. 1886; W. R,. Thayer, Harvard University, ib.
	1893; C. E. Norton, Four American Universities, New
	York, 1895; J. L. Chamberlain, Universities and ,heir
	Sons; Harvard University, vol. i., Boston, n.d.; A. Davis,
	John Harvard's Life in America; or social and political
	Life in New England, 1887‑1888, Cambridge, Mass., 1908;
	DNB, xxv. 77‑78.
	HASE, hiil'ze, gARLALFRED VON: German Prot
estant; b. at Jena July 12,1842. He was educated
at the university of his native city (Ph.D., 1865),
and also studied at Rome and Geneva. After being
court deacon at Weimar from 1865 to 1870, he was
divisional chaplain in the Franco‑Prussian War,
and was then divisional pastor at Hanover for five
years (1871‑76). From 1876 to 1889 he was chief
military chaplain and consistorial councilor at
K6nigsberg, and from 1889 to 1893 was garrison
chaplain and court ‑preacher at ‑Potsdam. Since
1893 he has been consistorial councilor at Breslau,
and also honorary professor of practical theology at
the university of the same city since 1896. In 1904
he was created a supreme consistorial councilor.
He has published: Lutherbriefe (Leipsic, 1867);
Wormser Lutherbuch (Mainz, 1868); Sebastian
Franck von Word, der Schwarmgeist (Leipsie, 1869);
Die Bedeutung des Geschichtlichen in der Religion
(1874); Herzog Albrecht van Preussen and sein
Hofprediger (1879); Die Hausandaeht (Gotha,i891);
Christi Armut unser Reichtum (a volume of sermons;
Berlin, 1893); Unsre Hauschronik: Geschichte der
Familie Hase in vier Jahrhunderten (Leipsie, 1898);
and Neutestamentliche Parallelen zu buddhistischen
Quellen (Gross‑Liehterfelde, 1905).
	HASE, KARL AUGUST VON: German Lutheran
theologian; b. at Niedersteinbach, near Penig (11
m. n.w. of Chemnitz), Aug. 25, 1800; d. in Jena
Jan. 3, 1890. The son of a country pastor, he
attended the gymnasium at Altenburg, which he
left to enter the University at Leipsic (1818). He
matriculated at first, however, as law student, yet
turned his attention from the start chiefly to phi
losophy and theology, preaching at the close of his
first semester. In 1821 he entered Erlangen, where
he was deeply influenced by Schelling and G. H.
von Schubert (qq.v.). He was obliged to leave the
university the next year, as he was suspected of
complicity in the political plots of the student asso
ciations. In 1823 he qualified as lecturer on theology
and philosophy at Tiibingen. Soon afterward he
was a political prisoner at Hohenasperg for eleven
months (1824‑25). In Oct., 1826, he went to
Leipsic, where he became a lecturer in the philo
sophical faculty, but in a few years was called to Jena
as extraordinary professor. Before his removal
thither (July, 1830) he traveled in Italy with his
friend, Hermann Hartel, whose sister, Pauline, he
married on his return. The rest of his life he spent
in Jena, declining many honorable calls to other universities. He became full professor in 1836, and soon ranked as one of the most highly esteemed teachers and became famous as an author. He served five times as vice‑rector (1838, 1847, 1855, 1863, and 1871). His interests were turned chiefly, but not exclusively, toward church history. He relieved his labors by frequent journeys, especially to Rome, which he visited seventeen times, the last time in 1882. There he acquired the intimate acquaintance with the Roman Catholic religion shown in so many of his works. High honors were given to him at his golden jubilee; he was created doctor of law, presented with the freedom of the city, granted cross of the Saxon Household Order, together with the hereditary nobility, and appointed privy councilor. He delivered his last lecture on July 23, 1883; but retained his mental alertness till his last years, and prepared his lectures on church history for the press.
The most striking thing about Hase's work is the great diversity of the subjects and his ability in using the sources to produce an artistic treatment of a theme. His style was original and alluring; but in his later years was marked by so great an effort for conciseness as even to violate the laws of language. His writings require not only an attentive reader, but one who can read between the lines. He has a breadth of outline, an acuteness of observation, and an art of delineation that give life to the figures of history. In theology he was no pioneer like Schleiermacher, though he shared Schleiermacher'3 vital conception of religion, .nor like Baur, whom, however, he could fully appreciate. He never tried to cultivate unbroken ground, though not shrinking from the drudgery of scientific investigation; therefore he seldom contributed to periodicals, and wrote but few reviews. He belonged to no party nor school, but felt himself to be a theologian, who dared to examine freely, bound by no sacredness of the letter, standing for " the scientific investigation of the Gospel, an enlightened Christianity recognizing itself as truth in the eternal laws of the spirit, as opposed to the popular faith supported by external authority."
Among his writings may be mentioned: Des alten.Pfarrers Testament (Tiibingen, 1824), a treatise on the Johannean love, in the form of a romantic story; Lehrbuch der evangelischen Dogmatik (Stuttgart, 1826); Die Proselyten (Tiibingen, 1827); Gnosis oder protestantisch‑evangelischen Glaubenslehre (3 vols., Leipsie, 1827‑29); Hutterus redivivus (1829), a compendium of Lutheran dogma; Leben Jesu (1829); $irchengesehichte (1834; 12th edition, 1900 ; Eng. transl. from 7th Germ. ed., Hist. of the Christian Church, New York, 1855); Anti‑Roehr (1837), a polemic against rationalism; Die beiden Embisch6fe (1839); Neue Propheten (1851); Franz von Assisi (1856); Das geistliche Schauspiel (1858; Eng. transl., Miracle Plays and Sacred Dramas, London, 1880); Handbuch der protestantischen Polemik gegen die rbmisch‑katholische Kirche (1862; 7th edition, 1900; Eng. transl., Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, 2 vols., London, 1906); Caierina von Siena (1864); Ideale and Irrtiimer (1871); Geschichte Jesu (1875; Eng. transl. from 3u and 4th

8asenkamp	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	1134:
Hasmoneans
Germ. eds., Life of Jesus, Boston, 1860); Vaterldndische Reden and Denkschriften (1891); Erinnerungen aus Italien in Briefen an die zukiinftigen Geliebte (1891); Annalen meines Lebens (1891); and Theologische Aehrenlese (1892). A collected edition of his Werke in 12 volumes appeared Leipsic, 1890‑93.
G. KRt)GER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Nippold, Karl van Have, Geddchtn11rede,
Berlin, 1890; R. A. Lipsius, Zur Brinnerung an . . . K. A. von Hase, ib. 1890; K. A. Base, Unare Hamchronik: Geschichte der Familie Hose, Leipsie, 1898; R. Bfrkner, Karl von Hass, ib. 1900; and the autobiographic details in vol. xi. of the collected Werke, fit sup.
HASENBAMP: The name of three brothers who energetically opposed the rationalism prevailing in Germany during the latter half of the eighteenth century.
1. Johann Gerhard Hasenkamp was born at Wechte‑bei‑Lengerich (19 m. n.n.e. of M(lnster), Westphalia, July 12, 1736; d. at Duisburg June 27, 1777. In 1753 he entered the academy of Lingen to study theology. His headlong zeal for the honor of God led him to severe conflicts with the authorities of the Church. Among other things he rejected the vicarious suffering of Christ and the impossibility of a complete sanctification upon earth. Proceedings were begun against him, but in 1763 he was allowed to resume his preaching, and in 1766 he was appointed rector of the gymnasium in Duisburg. He brought new life into the institution and influenced deeply the religious life of his pupils, and of the people in general; by the sermons which he delivered from 1767 to 1771. He published: Vll Quostionm de liberorum educatione (1767‑70); XClll Theses contra Arianos, Fanaticos, Soeinianos aliosque hujus indolis nostra Mate (Duisburg, 1770); Predigten nach item Gesehmack der drei ersten Jahrhunderte der Chriatenheit (Frankfort, 1772); Ueber Hinwegrdumung der Hindernisse der christlichen Gottseligkeit (Schaffhausen, 1772); Der deutsche reformierte Theologe (1775); Unterredung fiber Schriftwahrheiten (1776); and Ein christliches Gymnasium (1776).
	2. Friedrich Arnold Hasenkamp was born Jan. 11,
1747; d. 1795. He forsook the trade of a weaver
to take up academic studies, and eventually suc
ceeded his brother as rector at Duisburg. He wrote
Ueber die verdunkelnde Au f kldrung (Nuremberg,
1789); Die Israeliten die aufgeklarteste Nation enter
den iltesten V olkerri in der Erkenntnis der Heiligkeit
and Gerechtigkeit Gottes (1790); Briefe fiber Pro_
pheten unit Weissagungen (2parts, 1791‑92); Briefs
itber wichtige Wahrheiten der Religion (2 vols., Duis
burg, 1794).
3. Johann Heinrich Hasenkamp was born Sept. 19, 1750; d. June 17, 1814. He went through the same course of education as his brother Friedrich Arnold, and in 1776 became rector of the Latin school at Emmerich. From 1779 until his death he was pastor at Dahle, near Altona. His nephew, C. H. G. Hasenkamp, edited his Christliche Schraften (2 vols., Munster, 1816‑19). (F. ARNOLD.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. C. H. G. Hasenkamp, in Die Wahrheit zur Gouselipkeit, ii. 5‑6, Bremen, 1832‑34; J. H. Jung8tilling, Sdmmtliche Schriften, vi. 119 aqq., 282 sqq., Idii. 427‑437 14 vols., Stuttgart, 1835‑38; Brie/weeheel suoischen Lavater and Hasenkamp, ed. K. Ehmann, Basel, 1870; A. Ritechl, Geschkhta des Pietiamus, L 504 sqq..
570‑581, iii. 147 sqq., Bonn, 1880‑86; ADB, vol. a.,
and the literature under COLLENBBBCH, BAxvEL.
HASMONEANS.
Mattathias and Judas (¢ 1).
Jonathan and Simon (1 2).
John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I. (1 3).
Alexander Jannmus, Hyrcanus IL, Aristobulus II. (§ 4). The Downfall of the Family (§ 5).
Hasmoneans (Hebr. .Uashmonim; Aram. Zlashmonay) is the name of a family of distinguished Jewish patriots who headed a revolt in the reign of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175‑164 B.c.), and, after strenuous exertions and the shedding of much blood, secured a last brief period of freedom and glory for Israel. Mattathias, the head of the family, according to Josephus (Ant. XII., vi. 1), was the son of John, the son of Simeon, the son of Asamonaios; according to I Mace. ii. 1, the son of John, the son of Simeon. Hashmon was therefore either greatgrandfather of Mattathias, or, in case Simeon is merely a form of Hashmon, the grandfather of Mattathias.
The steady purpose of the Macedonian states in the Orient was to Hellenize the populations. Epiphanes also had this aim, but pursued it
r. Matta‑ with so much obstinacy that he weakthias ened rather than strengthened his
and Judas. cause, and he found the stanchest opponents in the Jews. But even among them influences in his favor existed, and the high priest Jesus, who took the Greek name Jason, favored the Greek party. The progress of Greek ideas stirred up the zeal of those true to the faith of Israel, who formed a party and named themselves the " afflicted," the " poor " (ebhyonim), or the " pious " (.Hasidim, or Chasidim, from which last came the name Hasideans, the designation of a party which arose about this time, and became the later Pharisees). Embittered by the opposition, Antiochus at last began a religious persecution, a result of which was the bold slaughter by Mattathias of an apostate who was going to sacrifice to idols, and of a royal officer, and the revolt of his supporters. Upheld by the Chasidim, a little war was begun, in which the unfaithful in Israel and the Greeks themselves were assailed. Mattathias died 166, when his third son, Judas, was made leader, and for six years carried on the struggle against overwhelming odds and with varying fortunes. On account of his sudden attacks upon the enemy and the frequent blows which he struck he was called Maccabee, " the hammerer " or " the hammer," a name which came to glorify the entire family. The strife at this stage was rather religious than national in intent, since Judas had many enemies among the Jews themselves, particularly at the court at Antioch. It is to the leader's glory that under these circumstances he recovered the temple, which fact is celebrated by the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple. A contributory cause to the success of the Jews was the disharmony in Syrian affairs and the strife for the Syrian throne, of which skilful advantage was taken by the Jews. Demetrius 1. Soter, nephew of the usurper Epiphanes and the rightful heir, seized the kingdom from the son of Epiphanes, still a minor. Judas sought to obtain outside help for the furthering of his plans, which

1e5	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hasmoneans
Hssenkamp
were not yet carried out, and opened communications with the senate of Rome, a power which had its eyes on the Orient and advanced its purposes by intervening in domestic troubles. The army of Demetrius overran the land and held even the capital, while Judas retired to a place the location of which is unknown, named Alasa or Eaasa,161 B.C., where he fell.
The leadership was assumed by Jonathan, the youngest of the five brothers, who from beyond the Jordan carried terror among the Syrians and Arabs. With Jerusalem and the entire land in the hands of the enemy, only hope and courage seemed left. The situation was suddenly changed by the entrance of Alexander Balas, an alleged son of Antiochus IV., who sought the kingdom and assailed Demetrius. Both the contestants sought the favor of Jonathan as that of a weighty leader. Demetrius restored the Jewish hostages and withdrew many of the Syrian garrisons, so that Jonathan regained possession of the temple. Alexander made him high priest, and sent him princely robes and rich insignia of office. Thus Jonathan was at once in
possession of priestly and temporal 2. Jonathan power. He was master of Judea and and Simon. an officer in the Syrian army. When
Demetrius 11. (147 B.C.) overthrew Alexander, he chose Jonathan as his friend in spite of the hostility of the latter at the beginning of the struggle of Demetrius with Alexander. A young son of Alexander, Antiochus VI., instigated by Trypho, a general of Alexander, arose against Demetrius, and after varying fortunes was slain by Trypho, who also slew Jonathan (143 B.C.). This left as the only survivor of the sons of Mattathias Simon, already celebrated for wisdom, energy, and statesmanship. He assumed the leadership, and at once declared the independence of his people, taking the titles of high priest, general, and prince (I Mace. xiv. 47). The union of these offices marked a change in the policy of Jewish affairs, in which hitherto the chief interest had been in the priesthood and a pure theocracy. Simon's rule was short, but fortunate, since his own people appreciated his worth. In a popular assembly his honors and position were secured to him as hereditary rights, and the fact made public in tablets of brass affixed to the sanctuary (I Mace. xiv. 27‑17). The independence of the country was signified by the issue of a series of coins and by the reckoning of a new era dating from Simon's accession. It seemed as if Simon's end was to be peaceful when his own stepson, Ptolemy, who sought Simon's place, treacherously murdered him, while Antiochus VIL, brother of Demetrius and then on the Syrian throne, attempted to regain possession of Judea.
Simon's son, John Hyrcanus (note the Greek names assumed by the successive members of the
family; it is a sign of the times), who 3. John succeeded his father, was at first comHyrcanus, pelled to become a vassal of Syria,
Aristo‑ surrender Jerusalem, and give hostages.
bulus L When Antiochus fell (128 B.C.), John
took full advantage of the circumstance, began a series of conquests, destroyed the temple on Gerizim, united Samaria with his own
territory, subdued the Idumeans, and Judaized the country. Josephus accredits him with three honors, high‑priesthood, rulership, and prophecy (Ant. XIII., x. 7). But a question was raised about the legitimacy of his possession of the high‑priesthood. At the death of John Hyrcanus (105 B.C.) the family fell upon evil days. What external power was retained for his successor, Aristobulus I., was due to the weakness of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, who became involved in the strife of the Jewish parties on internal matters. Hyrcanus had become alienated from the Pharisees, for the Pharisee Eleazar had advised him to lay aside his highpriesthood and be content with the temporal power. On his death he left the rule to his widow, while Aristobulus was to be high priest. Aristobulus starved his mother to death, threw three of his brothers into prison, and killed the fourth, whom he had made coregent. But he died the next year (104 B.C.). The event of his reign most noteworthy was the conquest of Galilee and the beginning of its Judaizing.
His widow, Alexandra, the most celebrated of that name in this family, released his brothers and made one of them, the third son of her
4. Alex‑ husband, king, with the title of Alexander ander I. Jannaeus. His rule was as
Jannaens, unfortunate as it was long (104‑78
Hyrcanus B.C.). His desire was to shine as a con‑
II., Aristo‑ queror as his father had done, but bolus II. without the same means, since he had to rely upon an army of mercenaries. The Pharisees withdrew more and more from the support of a rule which continually drew its sources of strength from the outside and estranged its own subjects, while the king was made to seem a betrayer of his father's religion. He was grossly insulted at a festival, and took bloody revenge. Civil war arose, which lasted for six years, during which 50,000 Jews were slain. At his death in 78 he left the succession in the hands of his widow, Alexandra, with the injunction to make friends of the Pharisees. She followed his counsel, banished the Sadducees from Jerusalem, put the Scribes into the seats of the Sanhedrin, and ruled with cleverness until her death in 69. During her life her oldest son, Hyrcanus II., had been high priest, while at her death Aristobulus Il. desired the kingdom and assailed his brother. Shortly after this the Syrian kingdom fell into the power of the Romans. Hyrcanus fled, on the advice of Antipater, the father of Herod, to the Arabian prince Aretas, at Petra, by whose help Aristobulus was besieged in Jerusalem and slain. Meanwhile Pompey's general, Scaurus, and then Pompey himself were besought both by Aristobulus and by his opponents, and by the people against both. Pompey captured Jerusalem, ended the kingdom, and made Hyrcanus high priest and ethnarch (63 B.C.), taking Aristobulus and his children to Rome in triumph.
The remaining history of the Hasmoneans is a series of tragedies. Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, escaped from imprisonment and assailed the Roman power in Syria. Meanwhile the Roman civil war had broken out, and Caesar released Aristobulus in order to give trouble to his opponents,

Hasmoneans Hatch
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
but the retainers of Pompey killed Aristobulus be
fore he could leave Rome, and soon after the same
		fate met Alexander. He left behind
	5. The two children, the offspring of Alexan
	Downfall dra, the daughter of Hyrcanus, of
	of the great beauty but not very intellectual,
	Family. and a brother, Antigonus. When Caesar
		gained the mastery in the East, the
control of Palestine inclined in fact, though not in
name to the Idumean Antipater ; but since he was
regarded as a foreigner, and therefore hated by the
Jews, on the break‑up caused by Caesar's death
they rallied to the support of Antigonus. Mean
while Antipater's son, Herod, whose desire was to
have both the form and the fact of the former power
of Hyrcanus, became engaged to Mariamne, the
beautiful daughter. of the pretender Alexander and
the granddaughter through her mother of Hyrcanus.
This was a move inspired as much by politics as by
power of the house, Antigonus, whose Hebrew name, Mattathias, recalled that of his ancestor. The book which reflects the period of the family is the Psalms of Solomon; the New Testament is silent, with the single exception of the reference in Heb. xi. 35‑36, which mentions no names.
(J. HAu88LErTER.)
In the following genealogical table of the Hasmonean family, the numbers in parentheses preceding the name indicate the order of dynastic succession, the numbers in parentheses following the name indicate the years during which office was held, a number preceded by d. indicates date of death; m. signifies married.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are I Mace., II Mam:, and Jose
	phus, Ant., books xii.‑xiv.; Dan. xi. 21‑45; cf. also the
	commentaries upon the Books of Maccabees and on
	Daniel. Consult on the history of the period: Schiirer,
	Geschichte, i. 165‑387, Eng• tranal. I., i. 186‑432 (con
	tains full notes and reference to the sources and subsidiary
Hashmon. rfimeon (=Haehmon?). John (JOhanan).
MMat I
at I t 'as d. 166 B. c.
John d. 161. (3) Si I on (142‑d• 135). (1) Judas (165‑d. 161).
Judlas d. 135. (4) John I3yrcanus (135‑d. 105). Mattalthias. d. 135
(5) ArieSulus I. (105‑d. 104).Anti gonue d• 105.
Eleazar d. 162.(2) Jonathan (161‑f. 143).
(6) Alexander Janneeus (104• 78).(7) m. Alexandra (78‑d. 89).
(9) Hyrus II. (63‑d, 30),
l
Alexandra d. 28.
Ariat Ibulua d. 35•
(8) Ariet Ibulus II.
(89‑83) d. 49,
Alexander d. 49.	(10) Mattathi Is Antigonua
		(40‑d. 37),
Alexal der d• 7.
inclination. In the year 40 B.c., after a victorious campaign by the Parthians in hither Asia, Antigonus as king of Jerusalem was drawn into the conflict, and had Hyrcanus mutilated and sent to Babylon, for which he himself suffered at the hand of the lictors a sad end three years later. In the year 37 Herod was made king of Jerusalem, and was placed in possession after the capture of Jerusalem in that year. He became virtually the executioner of the Hasmonean family. Hyrcanus; eighty years of age, was enticed from Babylon, entangled in a fictitious conspiracy, and put to death. Alexander's son, Aristobulus, the brother‑in‑law of Herod, came naturally into the high‑priesthood, but fell a victim to Herod's suspicion. A little later Marianne was executed by Herod's order. Thus a historical review of the course of the Hasmoneans reveals a wide abyss between the glorious achievements of the founder of the house, Mattathias, and the inglorious end of the last representative of the kingly
	Maria		I ne d. 29
m• Herod the Great.
Ariatobulus d. 7.
literature); J. Dereabourg, Eeaa% our Z'hiatoire et la g&_ graphic de la Palestine, Paris, 1857; L. F. J. Caignart de Saulcy, Hint. des Machab&a ou princes de la dynaetie aamoneerane Chateauroux 1880; W. Fairweather, From the Exile to the Advent, London, 1895; A. W. Streane, The Age of the Maccabees, ib. 1898; A. BfiChler, Die Tobiaden and die Oniaden im 11. Makkablierbuche Vienna, 1899; S. Mathewa, Hiat. of N. T. Times in Palestine, New York, 1899 (a handbook, clear and popular); J. S. Riggs, Hint. of Jewish People, Maccabean and Roman Periods, New York, 1899 (valuable as a first book); B. Niese, Kritik der biden Makkab&erbtscher, nebat Beitrligen zur Geachichte der makkabBiarhen Erhebung, Berlin, 1900; H, F. Henderson, The Age of the Maccabees, London, 1907; W. SehmidtOberlSSOnitz, D%e Makkabher, Leipaic, 1907; DB, iii: 181187; EB iii. 2850 eqq.; the appropriate sections in the various histories of Israel and the Jews, e.g., by Ewald, Hitzig, Grata, Renan, and Wellhauaen.
On special topics consult: J. Wellhausen Pharjeae,. and Sadduc&er, Greifewald, 1874• F. W. Madden, Coins of the Jews, London, 1881• C. R. Condet, Judas Maccabeua and flee Jewish War London, 1894• I3. Weiss , Judas Makkab4.ue Freiburg, 1897• I• euteeh Die Regierunpa‑
ze%t der jud&iachen Kdnxgin Salome Alexandra Magdeburg,
1901; G. F• Handel, Judas Maccabeus, London, 1901.

167	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hasmoneans
		Hatch
	HASSE, FRIEDRICH RUDOLF: Germantheolo
gian; b. atDresden June 29,1808; d. at BonnOct.14,
1862. He was educated at Leipsic and Berlin, and in
1834 was appointed lecturer in church history at the
university of the latter city. In 1836 he was called
to Greifswald as assistant professor of church his
tory, and in 1841 he was appointed to a similar
office at the University of Bonn. There he com
pleted the first volume of his Anselm van Canter
bury (2 vols., Leipsic, 1843‑52; Eng. transl. of vol.
i. The Life of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury,
London, 1850), containing the biography of the
great English primate; the second part reproduced
Anselm's theological system. (W. $~rf.)
BIHwoa8APHP: W. Krsfft, F. R. Haew, tine Lebensskizze,
	Bonn, 1865.
	HASTINGS, JAMES: United Free Church; b. at
Huntly (33 m. n. w. of Aberdeen), Scotland, about
1860; educated at Aberdeen, became pastor of
St. Cyrus, Montrose, Kincardineshire, 1901. He
edited the Dictionary of the Bible, 5 voLs., Edin
burgh and New York, 1898‑1904; Dictionary of
Christ and the Gospels, 2 vols., 1906‑07; Dictionary
of the Bible, 1 vol., 1908; and Dictionary of Re
ligion and Ethics, 1908 aqq. He is the editor of
The Expository Times.
	HASTINGS, THOMAS: Composer of sacred music;
b. in Washington, Conn., Oct. 15, 1784; d. in New
York City May 15, 1872. In early youth he taught
himself music, and began his career as a teacher in
singing‑schools in 1806, and as an editor in 1816:
With Prof. Seth Norton, of Hamilton College, he
published two pamphlets (1816), afterward en
larged, and united with the Springfield Collection
in a volume entitled Musica Sacra. From 1823 to
1832 he was the editor of The Western Recorder, a
religious paper published at Utica. In 1832, at the
call of twelve churches, he removed to the city of
New York. Before leaving Utica he had begun to
write hymns, impelled by the lack of variety, espe
cially in meter, in those then current, and by the
need of adapting suitable words to the music he
arranged. In the Spiritual Songs (1832) there are
more than thirty of his hymns published anony
mously. Among these are some of the best that he
wrote; such as, How calm and beautiful the morn l ;
Gently, Lord, oh gently lead us; Child of sin and
sorrow. The popularity of these first attempts led
him to continue and cultivate the habit thus early
begun. About two hundred of his hymns are in
current use, and he left in manuscript about four
hundred more. His music, with that of Lowell
Mason, did important service in the Church, and
marks in America the transition period between the
crude and the more cultured periods of psalmody.
His cardinal principle was that in church music the
artistic must be strictly subordinated to the devo
tional. In 1858 the University of the City of New
York conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of
Music.
	The following is a list of his publications: Musiea
Sacra (Utica, 1816‑22); The Musical Reader (1819);
A Dissertation on Musical Taste (Albany, 1822; re
vised and republished, New York, 1853); Spiritual
Songs (Lowell Mason coeditor, Utica, 1832‑36);
Prayer (1831); The Christian Psalmist (William Patton coeditor, New York, 1836); Anthems, Motets, and Sentences (1836); Musical Magazine (24 numbers, 1837‑38); The Manhattan Collection (1837); Elements of Vocal Music (1839); Nursery Songs, The Mother's Hymn‑book, The Sacred Lyre (1840); Juvenile Songs (1842); The Crystal Fount (1847); The Sunday‑school Lyre (1848). With William B. Bradbury as joint editor from 1844 to 1851: The Psalmodist (1844); The Choralist (1847); The Mendelssohn Collection (1849); The Psalmists (1851); Devotional Hymns and Poems (1850); The History of Forty Choirs (1854); Sacred Praise, The Selah (1856); Church Melodies (1858); Hastings' Church Music (1860); Introits, or Short Anthems (1865). He also edited, for the American Tract Society, Sacred Songs (1855) and Songs of Zion (1856), and for the Presbyterian Church, The Presbyterian Paalmodist (1852) and The Juvenile Psalmodist.
THOMAS S. HasTiNGs.
HASTINGS, THOMAS SAMUEL: Presbyterian; b. at Utica, N. Y., Aug. 28, 1827. He was educated at Hamilton College (B.A., 1848) and Union Theological Seminary (1851). He then held pastorates at Mendham, N. J. (1852‑56), and West Presbyterian Church, New York City (1856‑81). From 1881 to 1904 he was professor of sacred rhetoric in Union Theological Seminary, of which he had already been a trustee since 1864, and president from 1888 to 1897. In 1904 he became emeritus professor, but continued to lecture on pastoral theology. He collaborated with his father, Thomas Hastings, in the preparation of Church Melodies
Psalms and Hymns, with Music for Congregations (New York, 1858).
HATCH, ABRAM: Mormon bishop; b. at Lincoln, Vt., Jan. 3, 1830. He was educated in the public schools of Lincoln and Bristol, but while still a boy went to Nauvoo, Ill., where the entire family embraced Mormonism. He studied Mormon theology at Utah with Brigham Young, and from 1864 to 1867 was in Great Britain, working in the interests of Mormonism. Shortly after his return to the United States he was appointed bishop, with his residence at Heber City, Utah, and held this office until his resignation in 1900. He was for four years a probate judge, and for twenty‑three years a member of the Utah Legislature. Since 1900 he has been engaged in farming and in business.

HATCH, EDWIN: English theologian; b. at Derby Sept. 4, 1835; d. at Oxford Nov. 10, 1889. He was graduated at Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1857, was classical professor in Trinity College, Toronto, Canada, rector of a high school at Quebec, and fellow of McGill University, Montreal, during the years 1859‑66. From 1881 to 1885 he was vice‑principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, and in 1883 became rector of Purleigh, Essex, though he continued to reside at Oxford. In 1884 he was appointed secretary of the boards of the faculties; for some years before his death he was the editor of the University Gazette; and in 1881 he published the official Students' Handbook to the University and Colleges o f Oxford. In 1880 the university appointed him Greenfield lecturer on the Septuagint,

Hatch	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	188
Hauck
in which capacity he delivered one lecture each term
for about four years. In 1883 the delegates of the
Common University Fund founded for him a lec
tureship in church history, which he held up to the
time of his death. He delivered the Bampton lec
tures in 1880, and the Hibbert lectures in 1888.
	His first book was published in London in 1881, as
the outcome of the Bampton lectures of 1880, on The
Organization o f the Early Christian Churches (Germ.
transl. by A. Harnack, Giessen, 1883). Hatch
pursued the same topic in The Growth of Church
Institutions (London, 1887; Germ. transl. by A.
Harnack, Giessen, 1888). The year 1889 brought
his Essays in Biblical Greek, published at Oxford,
which dealt especially with the Septuagint. The
Hibbert lectures above referred to were published
by A. M. Fairbairn after Hatch's death under the
title The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon
the Christian Church (London, 1890; Germ. tranal.
by A. Harnack, Freiburg, 1892). His widow and
his brother published also a volume of poems,
Towards Fields of Light. Sacred Poems (London,
1889); a volume of sermons, The God of Hope (1890);
and Memorials of Edwin Hatch (1890). He did a
great deal of work on the Hatch‑Redpath Concord
ance to the Septuagint (Oxford, 1891‑97).
	Hatch was a man of encyclopedic knowledge and
of unbounded mental activity. He had plans enough
to fill a dozen lives. Many a young man at Oxford
felt this as a fetter. Plan after plan for work
offered by others was set aside because Hatch said
that he had made collections or done preparatory
work and the thing would soon be ready to pub
lish though many of these things never reached the
light. As a Churchman Hatch was rather broad,
and his publications touching the early church
were not at all to the mind of High‑churchmen.
It was, indeed, his liberal views that prevented
him from advancing more rapidly in. the univer
sity.	CASPAR RENIk GREGORY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Edwin Hatch, Memorials, edited by his
	Brother (S. C. Hatch), London, 1900; Biographical No
	tices, also edited by his brother, are prefixed to the volume
	of Sermons, Overcoming the World, New York, 1891;
	DNB, xxv. 149‑150.
	HATE: An emotion in which selfishness manifests
its dislike and abhorrence of some person or some
object, which, if left to itself, it is disposed to
destroy. Hatred of evil, indeed, is the good man's
duty.
	The Bible has much to say of hate, enmity. and
hostility. In the national and social relationships
of Israel hate naturally played a large part. No
less remarkable, however, is the moral loftiness
toward which the great prophets sought to elevate
God's people. If even in the language the concep
tions of stranger and enemy run interchangeably
together, it is still emphasized that the stranger
should not be an object of hatred (cf. the Book of
Ruth, and I Kings viii. 41‑13). Moderation is ob
ligatory in relation to one's particular foe (Deut.
xx. 10 sqq.). As the Jewish people became op
pressed and embittered, it is true, this moral lofti
ness no longer asserted itself; the national hatred,
inculcated as a virtue, degenerated at last into
fanaticism, and rendered the Jews hateful to all
mankind. Chronicles, Esther, and particularly Judith betray this ethical retrogression.
The " vindictive " or " imprecatory " Psalms (such as xli., lxix., cix.) undoubtedly invoke malediction upon the wicked; though by the wicked morally evil and wilfully impenitent men are meant. In such instances the individual cause is frequently identified with the cause of Yahweh.
According to the New Testament, God's love in Christ has overcome the natural enmity of man to deity, although this enmity is still in existence (James iv. 4; Rom. v.10). Passages like Matt. xxii. 44 indicate judicial punishment of this enmity. But grace precedes judgment. Consequently love is the permeating principle of Christian ethics for the conquest of all manner of enmity. Jesus openly declared this in Matt. v. 43 aqq., it is illustrated in Luke x. 26 aqq., and practically applied in Luke ix. 54 sqq. It is an error to suppose Christian ethics in an absolute opposition to heathen ethics in this respect; but the new feature of Christian ethics is the universal requirement of loving one's enemies.
Christian ethics enlarges upon the Scriptural foundation. The spirit of Christ is to operate among human families in the nature of leaven. But much remains to be overcome; certain peoples have not yet entirely renounced blood‑vengeance; nor must contemporary national Chauvinism, race hatred, and class antipathies be forgotten. The ancient world produced virtuosi of hate, such as Nero or Caligula; and the modern world knows a hatred of Christ which leads to the persecution of his followers (Matt. v. 10‑12). ARNOLD Rt?EGG.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Cremer, Biblico‑theological Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. 'eXepos, Edinburgh, 1888; DB, ii.
308‑309; DCG, i. 704‑708 (contains good list of refer‑
ences); and, in general, works on ethics.
	HATFIELD, EDWIN FRANCIS: American Pres
byterian; b. at Elizabethtown, N. J., Jan. 9, 1807;
d. at Summit, N. J., Sept. 22, 1883. He studied at
Middlebury College, Vt. (B.A., 1829), and at An
dover Theological Seminary (1829‑31). He was pas
tor of the Second Presbyterian Church, St. Louis,
(1832‑35), of the Seventh Presbyterian Church,
New York (1835‑56), and of the North Presbyterian
Church, New York (1856‑63). He was stated clerk
of the New School Assembly (1846‑70), and of the
united body (1870‑83), and was elected moderator
in 1883. In 1866 he was a member of the Reunion
Committee of the New School Assembly. He was
special agent for the Union Theological Seminary
1864‑66, and again 1870‑73, and bequeathed his
library of 6,000 volumes to that institution. His
more important works are: Memoir o f Elihu yY.
Baldwin (New York, 1843); St. Helena and the
Cape o f Good Hope (1852); The History o f Elizabeth
N. J. (1868); and The Church Hymn‑Book, with
Tunes (1872).
HATTEM, POlYTIAAN VAN, HATTE3dISTS: A Dutch sect and their founder. The latter was born at Bergen‑op‑Zoom (15 m. n. of Antwerp) Jan. 16, 1641; d. there Sept., 1706. He studied theology in Leyden, and in 1667 was licensed to preach in the Reformed Church He spent some time abroad,
and in Nov., 1670, was in Oxford. In 1672 be

189	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hatch
		Hauck
became preacher of St. Philipsland in Zealand. He
esteemed a pious and holy life more highly than
purity of doctrine, and in 1680 reports of his het
erodoxy were circulated. He was tried for heresy,
and in 1683 was deposed from his office, charged
with deviating from the orthodox doctrine in his
views of the essence and punishment of sin, of
redemption and justification, faith, conversion,
gratitude, and prayer. Banished from St. Philips
land, he settled in Bergen‑op‑Zoom, and worked
there quietly under the protection of the civil
authorities. He held conventiclea, and the circle
of his followers gradually expanded and included
some of the respected citizens of the town. He
preached his new gospel even in Amsterdam and
The Hague, and influenced larger circles by an ex
tended correspondence. Among his adherents, how
ever, there soon arose divergent views and devia
tions from the doctrines of Hattem, and by 1760
the Hattemists had disappeared.
	Hattem has been frequently considered a disciple
of Spinoza, but unjustly. He was no philosopher,
but intent primarily upon the advancement of prac
tical piety. He preached a passive Christianity.
Man must not seek his salvation, because in that case
he seeks himself; he must acknowledge ,with a
grateful heart that Christ has sought and found him.
But he can not believe this unless God grants him
faith, and it shows the greatest ingratitude not to
recognize the love of God by which he has given
himself to man. Only the regenerated has been
purified of this ingratitude and is able to love God
and his fellow man. With regeneration there orig
inates a clear perception of divine truth. The re
generate, in virtue of his faith, is assured of his
salvation and therefore need not deplore any longer
his sinful condition, for he is one with God and his
Son, so that by faith he sees himself " in the Son of
God." He is not more inclined toward evil, but
fulfils the will of God spontaneously. This is not
the result of struggle and effort, but an outcome of
the work of the Holy Spirit within the heart. Thus
God becomes everything and man nothing.
		(S. D. vAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The most important of Hattem's works,
	ed. J. Roggeveen, appeared vol. i., The Hague, 1718,
	vols. ii.‑iii., Amsterdam, 1719, vol. iv., n.p., 1727. On
	Hattem consult: W. C. van Manen, in De Gida, iii (1885),
	357‑429, iv (1886), 85‑115; idem, in Archief voor Neder
	landache Kerkgeaehiedenie, i. 273‑348. On the Hattem
	ists consult: T. Hasieus, De nupere Schoriatarum in Belgio
	secta eiuaque auctoribua relatio, in Museum hiat.‑phil. theolog.
	Bremenee, ii. 144‑172; J. Borsius, in Nederlandach
	Archief voor kerkeliyke Geachiedenia, i (1841), 287‑362;
	J. van Leeuwen, in the same, viii (1848), 57‑169; A. W.
	W ybrands, in Archief voor Nederlandache Kerkgeachiedenia,
	i. 51‑128; KL, v. 1527; J. L. von Mosheim, Institutes
	of Ecclesiastical History, ed. W. Stubbs, iii. 390, London,
	1863.
	HATTO OF MAINZ: Archbishop of Mainz; b.,
probably in Swabia, about the middle of the ninth
century; d. May 15, 913, although the place of his
death is unknown. He was educated either at
Ellwangen or Fulda, and in 889 was elected abbot
of Reichenau. In the following year he became
abbot of Ellwangen, and two years later, while still
retaining these and other benefices, he was conse
crated archbishop of Mainz at the desire of King
Amulf, to whom he had rendered important serv‑
ices. He twice accompanied Arnulf to Italy (894, 896), and on the latter occasion received from Pope Formosua the pallium, and relics of St. George for his monastery of Reichenau. When Arnulf died and his young son, Louis the Child, ascended the throne in 900, Hatto's power became still greater. Together with Adelbero, bishop of Augsburg, he acted as regent throughout the brief reign of Louis (900911), devoting his chief energies to the welfare of the kingdom and the preservation of peace; and his influence suffered little diminution at the hands of Conrad I., whom he himself had proposed as the successor of Louis.
	About the name of so prominent a statesman and
ecclesiastic a mass of legend soon grew up, and
many tales were current of dark deeds and plans in
which he was said to have been involved. He was
said to have been the chief character in the treach
erous murder of Count Adalbert of Badenberg, a
rebel against the king, whom the archbishop induced
to surrender under promise of protection. While
Hatto was accompanying Conrad to the Rhine in
912, his Thuringian and Saxon estates were attacked
by Duke Henry of Saxony, thus giving rise to the
tradition that Hatto, unable to gain revenge openly,
strangled Henry with a chain of gold. On the other
hand, he is represented in many sources as irre
proachable in affairs of both Church and State. He
convened the important Synod of Tribur (895),
built the church of St. George at Reichenau, and
beautified the cathedral at Mainz. Concerning
his death there were many traditions. According to
Ekkehard of St. Gall, he died of " Italian fever ";
according to Thietmar, his death was sudden; and
according to Widukind, he expired of chagrin at the
failure of his plans against Henry of Saxony. Later
traditions relate that he was killed by lightning, or
snatched up by the devil and hurled into the cra
ter of Etna. The most popular legend, however,
represents him as eaten by mice in his tower at
Bingen on the Rhine because of his cruelty to the
poor. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A letter of his to Pope John IX. is in MPL, exxxi.; J. F. B6hmer, Repeats archiepiecoporum Moguntinenaium, i., pp. xxvii. Sqq., 84 eqq., Innsbruck, 1877. Consult: F. L. Dammert, Hatto L, Programm, Freiburg, 1864‑65. On the legends: S. Baring‑Gould, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages, pp. 447‑470. London, 1872; C. J. C. Will, in Monatsechrift fur rhein‑westpheliache Geschichtaforachung, i (1875), 205 eqq.; Hauck, KD, iii. 7, 10‑11, et passim.
HATTO OF REICHENAU AND BASEL. See HArrO.
HATTO OF VERCELLI. See ATro.
HAUCK, ALBERT: German Lutheran; b. at Wassertrudingen (19 m. s. of Ansbach) Dec. 9, 1845. He was educated at the universities of Erlangen and Berlin from 1864 to 1868, and after being pastor at Frankenheim from 1875 to 1878 was appointed associate professor of theology at Erlangen, where he became full professor four years later. Since 1889 he has been professor of church history at Leipsic, where he was rector in 1898‑99 and dean in 1904‑05. In theology he is an Evangelical of the scientific school. He has written: TertuWans Leben and Schriften (Erlangen, 1877); Die Bisehofswahlen unter den Merowingern (1883); Die Entstehung des

Haug	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	170
Havelberg
	Christustypus in der abendldndischen Kunst (Heidel
	berg, 1880); and Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands
	(4 vols., Leipsic, 1886‑1905), in addition to a
number of briefer contributions. In 1880 he suc
	ceeded G. T. Plitt as joint editor of the second edi
	tion of the Herzog‑Plitt Realeneykloplidie, and on
	the death of J. J. Herzog in 1882 became sole editor
	of the encyclopedia, which he carried to a conclu
	sion in 1888. He was sole editor of the third edi
	tion, 1896‑1909, the basis of the present work.
		HAUG, JOHANN HEINRICH: German mystic;
	d. at Berleburg (28 m. sx.e. of Arnsberg), West
	phalia, 1753. He first appears at Strasburg, where
	he received his master's degree, and was expelled
	from the city by the church authorities for holding
a conventicle of Philadelphians (see LEAD, JANE)
	and other mystic Separatists. Later he found refuge
	in the castle of Count Casimir at Berleburg, where
	he remained till his death, directing a Philadelphian
	organization that extended throughout western
	Germany. In 1730 Count Zinzendorf visited Berle
	burg and sought to unify the diverse elements that
	Haug had brought together; but after a few years
	the new organization fell to pieces and Haug and
	other Separatists reverted to their former customs.
	Haug believed that ultimately all things would be
	restored, and that Christ would reign on earth for
a thousand years. In the interest of mysticism he
	made the revision of the Bible known as the Berle
	burg Bible (see BIBLES, ANNOTATED, I., § 3). He is
	said to have been a man of great piety and charming
	personality, and was regarded by Count Casimir as
	a prophet of God.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. G6bel, Geschichte des chriatlichan Lebens,
		iii, 103 eqq., Coblentz, 1860; ADB, s. v.
		HAUGE, he'ge, HANS NIELSEN: Norwegian lay
	preacher and revivalist; b. on his father's farm,
	parish of Tune, south of Smaalenene (the s.e. corner
	of Norway, Apr. 3,1771; d. on his estate, Bredtvedt,
	near Aker (50 m. n. of Christiania), Mar. 29, 1824.
	His childhood and youth were spent on his father's
	farm, and his education included no more than the
	scanty learning of a Norwegian peasant's son of
	the time. In 1796 he was converted, and at once
	resolved to preach for the conversion of others.
	At the outset, he stayed at home, and spoke of
	conversion and the way of salvation to individuals;
	but after 1797 he appeared in public as a preacher
	of righteousness and an exhorter. From 1798 to
	1804 he traveled through Norway, chiefly on foot,
	preaching twice and sometimes four times a day,
	also writing hundreds of letters and composing
	books. His speech was incisive and emotional,
	and made a powerful impression on those who
	heard him. His writings, though somewhat defect
	ive in form, gained wide circulation among the
	people. He roused a popular religious movement
	in Norway, many of his friends likewise traveling
	about as lay preachers; and the general result was
	profitable to the State Church, although here and
	there instances of spiritual extravagance and fanati
	cism occurred.
		Hauge's was a highly practical nature; he took
	great interest in trade and industry, and promoted
	progress in these fields also. His religious activity
encountered strong opposition from the clergy, who in a rationalistic age looked coldly on the feelings which inspired the peasant lay preacher. To meet the charge of vagrancy brought against himself and his friends, he stationed his friends at many different places in the country, finding for them good properties at low rates, or instructing them to carry on various industrial pursuits, that they might entertain the traveling lay preachers, and that the process of edification might be carried on under a " house father's " supervision. The result was a sort of chain of small brotherhoods, closely interlinked.
	In 1804 Hauge was arrested in Christiania, and
remained in prison till 1811, with the exception of
seven months in 1809, when he was released to
promote, with his practical insight, the manufacture
of salt. In Dec., 1814, he was condemned to two
years of hard labor on the charge of violating the
conventicle act. He appealed to the supreme court,
which commuted the sentence to a heavy fine and
the payment of costs. After his release from prison
he lived quietly at Bredtvedt. In his " testament
to his friends " he advised them to affiliate with the
church pastors and the existing ecclesiastical order.
The voluntary activity of laymen which Hauge
initiated has wrought much for the church life in
Norway. Norwegian immigrants to the United
States sympathizing with his views have organ
ized " Hauge's Synod " in the Northwest (see Lu
THERANS). 	T. G. B. ODLAND.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief work is A. C. Bang, Hans Nielsen
Hauge og hans i3amtid, Christiania, 1875, substantially reproduced in Zeitachrift frr Diakonie, 1880. A complete bibliography of Hauge literature is by J. B. Halvorsen, Norsk Porfatterlezikon, ii. 571 sqq., cf. i. 163, iii. 213, iv. 330, 1814‑80.

	HAUPT, ERICH: German Protestant; b. at
Stralsund (149 m. n.n.e. of Berlin) July 8, 1841.
He was educated at the University of Berlin (1858
1861), and after teaching in a gymnasium at Kolberg
in 1864‑66, and Treptow in 1866‑78, was appointed
professor of theology at Kiel. Five years later he
was called to Greifswald in the same capacity, and
since 1888 has been professor of New Testament
exegesis at Halle. In 1884 he became councilor
of the consistory at Stettin, and at,Magdeburg in
1902. He has written: Der erste Brief des Johannea
(Kolberg, 1869); Die alttestamentlichen Zitate in den
vier Evangelien (1871); Johannes derTdufer (Giiters
loh, 1874); Der Sonntag and die B7bel (Hamburg,
1877); Die Kirche and die akademische Lehrfreiheit
(Kiel, 1881); Die Bedeutung der heiligen Schri ft far
die evangelischen Christen (Bielefeld, 1891); Die es
chatologischen Reden Jesu (Berlin, 1895); Zum Ver
atdndnis des Apostolats im Neuen Testament (Halle,
1896); and Die Gefangenschdftsbriefe des Paulus
(Gottingen, 1897). He has likewise been a mem
ber of the editorial staff of the Deutsch: evange
lische Blotter since 1901, and of the Theologische
Studien and Kritiken since 1902.
HAUPT, PAUL: American Orientalist, layman; b. at Gorlitz (62 m. e. of Dresden), Germany, Nov. 25, 1858. He was educated at the universities of Leipsic (Ph.D., 1878) and Berlin. He became privat‑docent is the University of Gottingen in 1880

1'71	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	ga%lberg
and three years later was appointed associate pro
fessor. He retained this position until 1889, al
though he left Germany in 1883 to accept the pro
fessorship of Semitic languages at Johns Hopkins
University, continuing to lecture at Gbttingen in
the summer. He is director of the Oriental semi
nary in Johns Hopkins. In theology he is an ad
herent of the advanced critical school. One of
his latest propositions (1908) is to the effect that
Jesus Christ was an Aryan, not a Semite. He is
the editor of The Polychrome Bible (two series, one
of the Hebrew text, and the other of the English
translation; Baltimore, Md., 1893 aqq.); and is
one of the editors of the Johns Hopkins Contribu
tions to Assyriology and Comparative Semitic Gram
mar (1889 aqq.), as well as of the Beitrdge zurAssyri
ologie and semitischen Sprachwissenscha ft (Leipsic,
1889 aqq.), and of the Assyriologische Bibliothek
(1881 sqq.). He has written: Die sumerischen
Familiengesetze in Keilschrift, Transcription and
Uebersetzung (Leipsic, 1879); Akkadische and su
merische Keilschrifttexte (2 parts, 1881‑82); Die
akkadische Sprache (Berlin, 1883); Das babylonische
Nimrodepos (2 parts, Leipsic, 1884‑91); The Book
o f Canticles (Chicago, 1902); Koheleth (Leipsic,
1905); The Book of Ecclesiastes (Baltimore, 1905);
The Book of Nahum (1907); and Das sogenannte
Hohelied Salomos (Leipsic, 1907).

HAUREAU, o"513"o', JEAN BARTHiLEMY French Roman Catholic; b. in Paris Nov. 9, 1812; d. there Apr. 29, 1896. He was educated at the Coll6ge Louis le Grand and the Collbge Bourbon, and after being a journalist for several years, became in 1838 editor of the Courrier de la Sarthe at Le Mans, where he was also municipal librarian. In 1845 he returned to Paris, where he was keeper in the Bibliothbque Nationale until the coup d'6tat of 1852. He then resigned his office, but in 1862 was appointed librarian of the Imprimerie Nationale, of which he was director from 1870 to 1882, when he retired from active life. Among his numerous writings, which made his reputation as the great authority on medixval history, special mention may be made of his Critique des hypothbses mEtaPhysiques de Mantis, de Pblage et de l' id6alisme transcendental de Saint Augustin (Le Mans, 1840); Manuel du clergE, ou examen de l'ouvrage de M. Bouvier, i;vbque du Mans: Dissertalio in sextum decalogi prteceptum (1844); De la philosophie scholastique (2 vols., Paris, 1850); Frangois Premier et sa cour (1853); Charlemagne et sa cour (1854); Hugues de Saint‑Victor (1859); Bernard Dblicieuz et l' inquisition albigeoise (1877); Les MElanges pobtiques d'Hildebert de Lavardin (1882); Des Pobmes latins attribues h Saint Bernard (1890); Le Pobme adressd par Ab6lard 2c son fall Astralabe (1893); and Le " Mathematicus " de Bernard Silvestris et la " Passio Sanctae Agnetis " de Pierre Riga (1895). He likewise prepared the greater portions of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth volumes of the Gallia chrastiana in provincial ecclesiastical distributa (Paris, 1856‑65), and edited Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits Wins de la Bibliothbque Nationals (6 vols., 1890‑93).
HAUSMANN, NICOLAUS (NICLAS) : German Reformer; b. at Freiberg (20 m. a. w. of Dresden) c. 1479; d. there Nov. 3, 1538. After serving for a time as preacher at Schneeberg, he was appointed pastor at the church of St. Mary and chief clergyman at Zwickau, and was there involved with the mystics who adhered to Thomas Miinzer (q.v.). Eleven years later he was appointed pastor at Dessau at the recommendation of Luther. In the latter part of 1538 he was called to Freiberg as superintendent, but was stricken with apoplexy at his very first sermon. Hausmann was one of the oldest and dearest friends of Luther, and may be termed the Reformer of Zwickau and Anhalt.
(G. Faarrgt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 0. G. Schmidt, Nicolaus Hausmann, der Freund Lathers, Leipsic, 1860; especially, J. g6etlin, Martin Luther, passim, Berlin, 1903 (quite full).
HAUSRATH, ADOLF: German Reformed; b. at Carlaruhe Jan. 13, 1837. He was educated at the universities of Jena, G6ttingen, Berlin, and Heidelberg (1856‑60), and after being vicar at Heidelberg from 1860 to 1864, was assessor to the supreme consistory of Baden for three years. In 1867 he was appointed associate professor of church history at Heidelberg, where he has been full professor of the same subject since 1871. His theological position is liberal. He has written: Konrad von Marburg (Heidelberg, 1862); Der Apostel Paulus (1865); Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (4 vols., 1868‑74; Eng. tranal., Hist. of the N. T. Times, 4 vols., London, 1895); Der Vierkapitelbrief deg Paulus an die Korinther (1869); David Friedrich Strauss and die Theologie seiner Zeit (2 vols., Munich, 187577); Kleine Schriften religionsgeschichtlichen Inhalts (Leipsic, 1883); Arnold von Brescia (1892); Peter Abdlard (1893); Martin Luther's Romfahrt (Berlin, 1894); Die Arnoldisten (Leipsic, 1895); Aleander and Luther auf dem Reichatage zu Worms (Berlin, 1897); Luthers Leben (2 vols., 1904‑05); and Richard Rothe and seine Freunde (2 vols., 1904‑06).

HAUSSLEITER, JOHANNES:' German Lutheran; b. at Lopsingen (a village near Nordlingen, 50 m. s.w. of Nuremberg), Bavaria, June 23, 1851. He was educated at the universities of Erlangen, Tiibingen, and Leipsic (Ph.D., 1884), and since 1891 has been professor of New Testament exegesis at the University of Greifawald. ‑Besides contributing extensively to theological periodicals and encyclopedias and editing August Friedrich Christian Vilmar's Ueber den evangelischen Unterricht in deutschen Gymnasien (Marburg, 1888), he has written Aua der Schule Melanchthons, theologische Disputationen and Promotionen zu Wittenberg in den Jahren 16.461560 (Greifswald, 1897), and Melanchthon‑Kompendium (1902), as well as many briefer works.

HAVELBERG, BISHOPRIC OF: A bishopric founded by Otto I. about 948 for the propagation of Christianity among the Wends (q.v.), taking its name from the town of Havelberg (in Prussia, on the Havel, about 60 m. n.w. of Berlin). The territory of the bishopric extended from the middle Elbe to the Baltic Sea and included the island of Usedom. Originally under the authority of the archbishop of Mainz, it was transferred in 968 to the newly erected

Havelock	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	172
Hawaiian Islands
archbishopric of Magdeburg. Its existence, however, practically terminated with the great Wendish uprising of 983, when the town of Havelberg was taken by storm. Bishops of Havelberg continued to be named, but they remained far from their diocese, where the old heathenism prevailed. In 1140 the northern part of the see was annexed to the diocese newly formed for Pomerania (see KAMMIN, BI8HOPRIC OF). In 1129 St. Norbert, founder of the Premonatratensians, undertook the restoration of the diocese. He obtained the appointment of his pupil, Anselm, who established a cathedral chapter in 1144, and, when a large part of the pagan inhabitants were exterminated by the crusade against the Wends in 1147, colonized the depopulated districts from the Netherlands. Most of the bishops of the later time were Premonstratensians, frequently elected, from the thirteenth century on, under the influence of the margraves of Brandenburg. The last bishop, Busso II. (d. 1548), labored unsuccessfully to withstand the inroads of the Reformation, and at his death the elector assigned the territory to his sons as administrators and completed its secularization.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. F. Riedel, Codex diplomatieua Brandenburgeneia, I., ii. 382 sqq., 6 vols., Berlin, 1838‑58; L. Giesebrecht, Wendische Geschichten, Berlin, 1843; Hauck, %D, iii. 102 eqq., et passim.

	HAVELOCK, SIR HENRY: English general; b.
at Bishop Wearmouth (12 m. n. e. of Durham)
Apr. 5, 1795; d. at Lucknow, India, Nov. 24, 1857.
He was educated at the Charterhouse, London, and
entered the Middle Temple in 1813 as the pupil of
Joseph Chitty. In 1815 he entered the army as
second lieutenant, and after eight years of service
in Great Britain went to India in 1823. During the
voyage he experienced strong religious conviction,
and determined to lead a Christian life. Through
out his long and distinguished military career in
India it was his custom to call his men together for
frequent devotional services. He took an active
interest in missions, and joined the Baptist Church.
He served in the war against Burma 1824‑26, in
the first Afghan war, 1838‑12, in the first Sikh war,
1845‑46, commanded a division of the army that
invaded Persia in 1856, and particularly distin
guished himself during the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
By a series of brilliant victories he made himself the
" hero of Lucknow "; but five days after the relief
of the city he died of dysentery, brought on by
overexertion. Before the news of his death had
been received in England he was created major
general and baronet, and by Parliament granted a
pension of a thousand pounds. He published Mem
oir o f Three Campaigns (Serampore, 1828); and
Narrative o f the War in Afghanistan (2 vols., London,
1840).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. P. Grant, The Christian Soldier. Memorials of Major‑General Sir H. Havelock, London, 1858; W. Brook, Biographical Sketch of Sir Henry Havelock, ib. 1864; J. C. Marshman, Memoirs of Major‑General Sir Henry Havelock, ib. 1887; A. Forbes, Havelock, ib. 1890; DNB, xxv. 174‑179; and books dealing with the history of Inia, especially with the Mutiny.
HAVEN, ERASTUS OTIS: Methodist Episcopalian; b. in Boston, Mass., Nov. 1, 1820; d. at Salem, Ore., Aug. 2, 1881. He studied at the Wesleyan
University, Middletown, Conn. (B.A., 1842), taught for a number of years, then joined the New York Conference in 1848. He was successively pastor of the Twenty‑fourth (now Thirtieth) Street Church (1848‑49), of the Red Hook Mission (1850‑51), and of the Mulberry Street (now St. Paul's) Church (1852). In 1853 he was elected to the chair of Latin in the University of Michigan, and the following year he was transferred to the chair of English language, literature, and history. From 1856 to 1863 he was editor of Zion's Herald, Boston. He was a member of the Massachusetts State Board of Education 1858‑63, a member of the State Senate 1862‑63, and for a time one of .the overseers of Harvard. In 1863 he was elected president of the University of Michigan, and in 1869 became president of Northwestern University. He resigned this post in 1872, after having been elected by the General Conference of that year corresponding secretary of the Board of Education of the Methodist Episcopal Church. From 1874 to 1880 he was chancellor of Syracuse University. In 1879 he was sent to Great Britain as a delegate of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the parent Wesleyan body. In 1880 he was elected bishop. He contributed largely to the periodical press, and published several books, of which the best known are: The Young Man Advised (New York, 1855); The Pillars of Truth (1866); and a work on Rhetoric (1869).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Autobiography appeared New York, 1883.
HAVEN, GILBERT: Methodist Episcopalian; b. at Malden, Mass., Sept. 19, 1821; d. there Jan. 3, 1880. After his graduation at Wesleyan University in 1846 he taught for several years at the Amenia Seminary, Dutchess county, N. Y. In 1851 he joined the New England Conference, and thereupon preached for two years each at Northampton, Wilbraham, Westfield, Roxbury, and Cambridge. In 1861 he was commissioned chaplain of the Eighth Massachusetts Regiment, but resigned after three months on account of ill health. After spending a year in Europe he resumed his ministerial work as pastor of the North Russell Street Church, Boston. In 1867 he became editor of Zion's Herald, Boston, a post that he filled for the next five years. On May 24, 1872, he was elected bishop. He made Atlanta his official residence, but traveled extensively throughout the country. In the interest of missions he visited Mexico in 1873 and Liberia in 1876. He was active in the educational work of the denomination, particularly among the freedmen of the South, and by his wise counsels and liberal gifts contributed largely to the success of Clark University, at Atlanta. His more important works are: The Pilgrim's Wallet (Boston, 1865), sketches of travels in Europe; National Sermons (1869); Life o f Father Taylor (New York, 1871); and Our Next‑Door Neighbor (1875), sketches of Mexico.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Prentiss, Life of Gilbert Haven, New York, 1883; E. Wentworth,,Gilbert Haven, ib. 1880.
HAVERGAL, FRANCES RIDLEY: English hymnwriter; b. at Astley (9 m. n.w. of Worcester),
Worcestershire, Dec. 14, 1836; d. near Swansea,
South Wales, June 3, 1879. She was a daughter of the Rev. W. H. Havergal, for many years rector of

178	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Havelock
Hawaiian Islands
St. Nicholas, Worcester. She attended a private school at Worcester, and afterward spent a year in the Luisenschule, Diisseldorf, Germany, attaining proficiency in several modern languages, and also in Greek and Hebrew, which she learned in order to be able to read the Bible in the original. She began writing verse at the age of seven, and soon her poems found their way into Good Words and other religious periodicals. Her hymns, for which she also furnished the tunes, are now included in all collections, the most familiar being the deeply suggestive consecration hymn, " Take my life and let it be." Her own life was spent in doing aggressive religious and philanthropic work, and in singing the love of God and the way of salvation. She published several collections of poems and hymns, including: The Ministry of Song (London, 1870); Under the Surface (1874); Loyal Responses (1878); and Under His Shadow (1879). Her prose writings include: Morning Bells and Little Pillows (1875); My King (1877); Kept for the Master's Use (1879); and Swiss Letters (1881). Her Poetical Works were edited by her sister, M. V. G. Havergal (2 vols., 1884).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Her Letters were edited by her sister, M. V. G. Havergal, London, 1885. Consult: M. V. G. Havergal, Memorials of Prances Ridley Haverpal, ib. 1880; E. Davies, Prances Ridley Havergal; Sketch of her Life, Reading, Mass., 1884; S. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 189 et passim, New York, 1886; Miss L. B. Earle, Miss Haverpal'a Story, Boston, 1887; M. V. G. Havergal, Autobiography, with Journals and Letters, London, 1887; G. F. Bushnell, Miss Havergal'a Secret, New York, 1894; C. Bullock, The Sisters . . . Prances Ridley Havergal, Maria y. G. Havergal, London, 1896; N. Smith, Hymns historically Famous,, chap. xxvii., Chicago, 1901; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 496‑498.
HAVILAH. See OPHIR.
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
Area, Population, Extent First Missionary Work
(§ 1).	(§ 3).
History (§ 2). 	Missions. 1827‑62 (§ 4).
Missions since 1862 (§ 5).
	The Hawaiian Islands are a group of five large
and three small volcanic islands in the north Pacific
		Ocean, latitude 18050'‑2305' north, and
	I. Area, longitude 154040'‑160050' west, ex
Population, tending from northwest to southeast
	Extent. for 350 miles, and having a total land
		area of 5,900 square miles, and a popu
lation (1900) of 154,001. Hawaii, the largest and
most southern of the islands, is 70 by 90 miles in
extent; area, 4,015 square miles; population (1900),
46,843; elevation, 13,835 feet. . Maui, midway
between Hawaii and Oahu, is 48 miles long, and
from 8 to 25 miles wide; area, 620 square miles;
population (1900), 24,797; elevation, 10,000 feet.
Lanai (area, 135 square miles) and Kahulawe (area,
69 square miles) are two small islands near Maui.
Molokai, 8 miles northwest, is 40 by 7 miles
in extent; area, 190 square miles; population
(1900), 2,504. Oahu, 23 miles north of. Molokai, is
46 by 25 miles in extent; area, 530 square miles;
population (1900), 58,504. Honolulu, the capital
and largest city of the group, is located on the south
east coast. Seventy‑eight miles northwest is Kauai,
25 by 22 miles in extent; area, 544 square miles;
population (1900), 20,562. At the extreme north
of the group and west of Kauai is the small island
of Niihau; area, 97 square miles; population (1900), 172. Distances from various world‑ports are: San Francisco, 2,100 miles; Panama, 4,720 miles; Fiji, 2,700; Samoa, 2,290; Auckland, 3,810; Hongkong, 4,920; Yokohama, 3,400; Guam, 3,300; Manila via n.e. cape, 4,890.
The islands were discovered in 1542 by Juan Gaetano, a Spanish navigator, and rediscovered by Captain James Cook on Jan. 18, 1778.
	2. History.	He estimated the population to be
		about 350,000. The Hawaiian people
were probably of Aryan stock, migrating from
central Asia through India, Sumatra, and Java, and
scattering through the various island‑groups of the
South Pacific. The first known arrival was in the
sixth century, when a chief named Nanaula came
with a party from Tahiti and Samoa, followed by
others, bringing with them their priests and gods,
with all their attendant evils of polygamy, infanti
cide, the offering of human sacrifices, and a most
oppressive taboo system. During the tenth and
eleventh centuries communication with the south
was frequent, but near the close of the twelfth cen
tury it ceased. Then came Gaetano in 1542, fol
lowed by other white men at infrequent intervals,
till with the visit of Captain Cook, in 1778, and
his revisit, Jan. 17, 1779, which ended in his tragic
death at Kaawaloa, Feb. 14, 1779, the Hawaiian
Islands began their part in the history of the
world. At this time they were a number of in
dependent principalities, under feudal authority;
during the next few years rival chiefs were con
tinually fighting for supremacy. These wars
culminated in a victory for Kamehameha, a chief
of Hawaii, in 1795, and he became ruler of the
united islands under the title of Kamehameha I.
He thoroughly organized the government, encour
aging agriculture and all known industries, while
vigorously suppressing robbery and murder, and
forbidding the offering of human sacrifices. He
nevertheless maintained the most rigid ceremonial
etiquette, and enforced the taboo. On his death, in
1819, his son, Liholiho, succeeded him as Kame
hameha II., and he carried to a greater extent the
reforms begun by his father. With the strong
influence of the dowager queen and the high priest
back of him, he decreed the destruction of temples
and idols, and abolished the taboo. Thus were the
people in the peculiar position of being without a
religion. At this time the population numbered
not more than 150,000, and the numerous aban
doned villages gave the impression that fully two
thirds of the people had disappeared. The prev
alence of new and virulent diseases, the wars of
Kamehameha I., and the practise of human sacrifice
and infanticide, all contributed to this result.
Interest in these islands had been awakened in 1810. by the arrival in New England of several Hawaiian boys who had escaped from
3. First the tribal wars of Kamehameha I.
Missionary Among them was Henry Obookaiah,
	Work.	who, becoming a Christian, earnestly
		desired an education that he might go
back and teach his people. He made an attempt
to reduce the Hawaiian language to writing, begin
ning a spelling‑book, dictionary, and grammar, and

Hawaiian Islands	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	174
Hawker
also translated the Book of Genesis. His death in 1817, with this desire unfulfilled, led Hiram Bingham (q. v.) and Asa Thurston to offer their services to the American Board for work in these islands. They were joined by fifteen others, and on Oct. 15, 1819, the Mission Church of Hawaii was formed in Boston, with seventeen members, three of whom were Hawaiian boys, and on Oct. 23 they sailed on the brig Thaddeus, arriving at the islands March 30, 1820, to find the taboo abolished, temples and idols destroyed, and the priesthood shorn of its diabolical power. In spite of all his sweeping reforms, Kamehameha did not want the missionaries, or rather the white foreigners told him he did not; and it was with reluctance that he finally granted them permission to remain one year, as an experiment. They settled on Hawaii, Oahu, and Maui. Thus the first Christian Church in the Hawaiian Islands was transplanted from New Lngland. Eight months previously, however, a Roman Catholic priest on the French discovery ship Uranie had baptized the prime minister, Kalanimoku, and Boki, his younger brother. The former heartily welcomed the newcomers, and used his influence in their favor. The king was friendly and was one of the first to learn to read. On his death, in England, in 1824, the government passed into the hands of Kaahumanu, as queen regent, and the prime minister, Kalanimoku, both of whom were friendly, as were the majority of the high chiefs. This year several notable events occurred, all favorable to the mission. The chiefs agreed to observe the Sabbath, the ten cmmandments were taken as the basis of government, and the Princess Kapiolani made her memorable visit to the crater of Kilauea, defying the power of the firegoddess Pele. Kaahumanu, the queen dowager, traveled to all parts of her kingdom, commanding the people to assist the "Kumus" and accept their teaching. Though the missionaries had large congregations and schools at all their stations, yet in 1825 there were but ten members in the native church.
In 1827 the first Roman Catholic missionaries arrived, but they were refused residence. They remained till 1831, when the govern4. Missions, ment provided a vessel in which they
	x827‑62.	were taken to California. The work
		of the American mission was vigorously
prosecuted; reenforcements were sent out, more
schools opened, the printing‑press busily employed,
and a strong Evangelistic work carried on. For a
quarter of a century the American Mission was the
dominating influence in a rapidly increasing foreign
population; nevertheless such was the care exer
cised that in 1836 there were but twenty churches,
with a membership of but 1,168. Then came the
revivals of 1836‑39; during these three years, out of
a population of 125,000, nearly 20,000 members
were received into the church, the greater number
under the ministry of Titus Coan (q.v.). During
these years Messrs. Richards, Thurston, Bing
ham, and Bishop had been translating the Bible,
and it was given to the people in 1839. This year
the French government intervened in behalf of the
Roman Catholics, and a mission was established by
them; in 1843 more priests were sent, and the
cathedral in Honolulu was dedicated. In 1850
Mormon missionaries arrived. The Hawaiian churches of the pioneer mission increased in strength and character; in 1852 they united with the American Board in sending missionaries to Micronesia and the Marquesas; and as a result the general meeting of the missionary fathers became the Hawaiian Evangelical Association in 1854. In response to repeated requests of churchmen resident in the group, in 1862 a mission was established by the Church of England.
At this time there were 59 native churches, having a membership of 53,583; representatives of these churches were admitted to the Hawaig. Missions ian Evangelical Association, having since x862: equal status with the missionaries, and the Hawaiian board was formed as its executive agency. The mission had become a colony, and it was becoming increasingly evident that the work could no longer be continued along the old lines. Accordingly, in 1863, the American Board decided to send no more missionaries, to grant autonomy to the churches, and to place them in the care of Hawaiian pastors. Coincident with this process of development in the native church, the Hawaiian nation had been passing through a remarkable period of evolution. Bill of rights was succeeded by constitution, the granting of property rights, the enactment of just laws, and all the outward evidences of a Christian civilization. The year 1863 marked the climax of prosperity for the Hawaiian Church. The Kamehameha dynasty passed; missionary leaders died, and their places remained unfilled. During the reigns of Kalakaua and Liliokulani new vices were born, and a fresh and vigorous alien paganism asserted itself; the clash came, and the nation lost its sovereignty, and the Church declined. But all was not lost; if the missionaries had died, they left behind them a goodly band of descendants who loyally helped their Hawaiian brethren. Churches for the white races were formed, to become the nucleus for a second great advance; the battle was pushed in new directions; missions for Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese were instituted and carried on with vigor; and at the jubilee of the mission in 1870, Hawaii was declared to be no longer missionary ground, but an Evangelized nation. Missionary and philanthropic work progressed henceforth along denominational lines; and after 1870 came the Methodist Episcopal, Christian, Lutheran, and Adventist churches, the Reorganized Mormon Church, the Salvation Army, Theosophists, and Buddhists. When the islands were annexed by the United States in 1898 a new era of home missions began, characterized by the dominance of the English language in all missionary activities, and for the first time in forty‑five years the membership in the Hawaiian Church has notably increased in spite of the decline in population. At the census of 1900 there were 27,000 Protestant communicants, 30,000 Roman Catholics, 6,000 Mormons, 55,000 Buddhists, 25,000 Confucianists, and 11,000 unclassified. THEODORA CROSBY BLI$B.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Bingham, Residence of _*i Years in the
	Sandwich Islands, Hartford, 1847; 1'. N. Staley , Five
	Years' Church Work in Hawaii, London, 1868; R. An
	derson. The Hawaiian Islands Boston, 1865; idem, Sand
	wich Islands Mission, ib. 1870; J. C. Bartlett, Historical

175	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hawaiian Islands
		Hawker
Skefrh of the Missions of A. B. C. F. M. in the Sandwich
islands, ib. 1876; P. Tournaford, Havai; hist. de Vbtab
li8sement du Catholicism, Paris, 1877; L. F. Judd, Hono
lulu; Sketches of Life, social, political and rdipioua, New
York, 1881; T. Coan, Life in Hawaii, ib. 1882; W. D.
Alexander, Brief Hist. of the Hawaiian People, ib. 1892;
T. Achelis, Ueber Mythologie and Cultue von Hawaii,
Brunswick, 1895; B. M. Brain, Transformation of Hawaii,
New York, 1899; C. Whitney, Hawaiian America, ib.
	1899; 1.. Young, The Real Hawaii, ib. 1899; A. S. Twom
	bly, Hawaii and its People, London, 1900; Encyclopedia
	of Missions, pp. 289‑291, New York, 1904; W. F. Black
	man, The Making of Hawaii, ib. 1906; C. W. Baldwin,
	Geography of the Hawaiian Islands, ib., 1908.
	HAWAWEENY, RAPHAEL: Syrian Greek Or
thodox; b. at Damascus, Syria, Nov. 8, 1860. He
was educated at the Syrian Greek Orthodox College
of his native city, and the theological seminaries
of Hand Halki (near Constantinople) and Kiev,
Russia. After being teacher of Arabic, Greek, and
Turkish at the college in Damascus (1877‑79), he
was deacon preacher of the patriarchate of Antioch
(1886‑88), archimandrite abbot of the Antioch
Monastery, Moscow (1889‑92), lecturer in Arabic
at the theological seminary at Kazan, Russia (1893
1895), and archimandrite of the Syrian Greek Or
thodox mission in North America (189:‑1904). In
1904 he was consecrated bishop of Brooklyn for all
the Syrian Greek Orthodox Christians in North
America. He has translated from Russian into
Arabic " The Errors of the Papistical Church "
(Kazan, 1893), and written: " The History of the
Antioch Monastery at Moscow " (Russian, Moscow,
1891); "History of the Greek Brotherhood of the
Holy Sepulcher in Palestine " (Arabic, Cairo, 1893);
" History of the Christian Church " (Arabic, Kazan,
1894); " Refutation of the Encyclical of Pope Leo
XIII." (Arabic, 1895); and " Prayer‑Book of the
Greek Orthodox Church " (Arabic, New York, 1898).
HAWEIS, h8'is, HUGH REGINALD: Church of England; b. at Egham (3 m. s.e. of Windsor), Surrey, Apr. 3, 1838; d. at London Jan. 29, 1901. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1861), and was curate of St. Peter's, Stepney, from 1861 to 1863, and of St. James the Less, Westminster, from 1863 to 1866, while from 1866 until his death he was perpetual curate of St. James, Marylebone, where he was the successor of F. D. Maurice (q.v.). He was one of the leaders of the Broad‑church party in the Church of England, and in 1860 took part in the Italian campaigns of Garibaldi against the pope. Like his predecessor, he was deeply interested in the welfare of the lower classes, instituting special Sunday evening services for them. Among his numerous publications, special mention may be made of his Music and Morals (London, 1871); Thoughts for the Times (1872); Unsectarian Family Prayers (1874); Speech in Season (1874); Ashes to Ashes (an argument for cremation; 1874); Current Coin (1876); Arrows in the Air (1878); Poets in the Pulpit (1880); Key of Doctrine and Practice (1884); Winged Words: or, Truths Retold (1885); Christ and Christianity (5 vols., 1886‑87); The Dead Pulpit (1896); Ideals for Girls (1897); and The Child's Life of Jesus (1901).
HAWKER, ROBERT: Church of England; b. at Exeter Apr. 13, 1753; d. at Plymouth Apr. 6, 1827. Following his father, he adopted surgery as his pro‑
fession, and spent three years as assistant surgeon in the Royal Marines. In May, 1778, he entered Magdalen Hall, Oxford, took holy orders, and became curate of Charles, near Plymouth, in Dec., 1778, succeeding to the vicarage of Charles in 1784. In 1797 he became deputy‑chaplain of the garrison at Plymouth. In 1802 he founded the Great Western Society for Dispensing Religious Tracts among the Poor in the Western District, and in 1813 he established the Corpus Christi Society in his parish. He became one of the most popular extemporaneous preachers in England, and on the occasion of his annual visits to London preached to crowded congregations in the leading churches. In theology he was a high Calvinist. The list of his works, some of which passed through many editions, occupies six columns in the British Museum catalogue. The best known are: Sermons on the Divinity of Christ (London, 1792); The Poor Man's Morning Portion (London, 1809); The Poor Man's Commentary on the New Testament (4 vols.,1816); The PoorMan's Evening Portion (1819); and The Poor Man's Commentary on the Old Testament (6 vols., 1822). His Works, exclusive of the two commentaries, were edited, with a Memoir, by John Williams (10 vols., 1831).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the Memoir by Williams, ut sup., consult: G. C. Boase and W. P. Courtney, Bibliotheca Cornubieneis, passim, 3 vole., London, 1874‑82; DNB, xxv. 201.
HAWKER, ROBERT STEPHEN: English clergyman, poet, and antiquary, grandson of Robert Hawker (q.v.); b. at Stoke Damerel (2 m. n. of Plymouth) Dec. 3, 1803; d. at Plymouth Aug. 15, 1875. He was educated at the Cheltenham grammarschool, and at Pembroke College and Magdalen Hall, Oxford (B.A., 1828; M.A., 1836). In 1827 he won the Newdigate prize by a poem on Pompeii, which subsequently secured him preferment through Bishop Phillpotts. In Dec., 1834, he was instituted to the vicarage of Morwenstow, on the northwest coast of Cornwall, and in 1851 he was instituted to the adjoining vicarage of Wellcombe. During a ministry of forty years in this wild region he did much good, particularly for seafaring then. In theology he held essentially the views of the Tractarians; and shortly before his death he was received into the Roman Catholie Church. As a poet he is likely to have a place in English literature. His ballads are simple and direct, and have the true flavor of antiquity. His most famous composition is the ballad Trelawny, which, published anonymously as an ancient ballad, deceived even such experts as Scott and Dickens. The most important collections of his poems are: Eccksia (Oxford, 1840); Reeds Shaken with the Wind (London, 1843); Echoes from Old Cornwall (1846); The Quest o f the Sangraal (Exeter, 1864); and Cornish Ballads (London,1869). His Poetical Works have been edited by J. G. Godwin (1879; also ed. A. Wallis, 1899), as also his Prose Works (1893).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. G. Lee, Memorials of . . . Rev. R. S. Hawker, London, 1876; S. Baring‑Gould, Vicar of MorwenaG):o; .Memoir of R. S. Hawker, ib. 1875 (this ed. was severely criticized in the Athenaam, Mar. 26, 1876, and was withdrawn from the market and new editions issued, 1876); G. C. Boase and W. P. Courtney, Bibliotheca Cornubienais, i. 220‑222, iii. 1222‑23, 3 vole., ib. 1874‑82; DNB, xxv. 202‑203.

Hawks
Heart, 8iblioalQsage	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	178
HAWKS, FRANCIS LISTER: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Newbern, N. C., June 10, 1798; d. in New York Sept. 26, 1866. He attended the University of North Carolina (B.A., 1815), studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1819. He was appointed reporter of the supreme court of the State, and elected to the State legislature in 1823. After studying theology under William Mercer Green he entered the ministry in 1827. In Apr., 1829, he became assistant to Dr. Harry Croswell at Trinity Church, New Haven, Conn., but went to Philadelphia a few months later as assistant minister at St. James's. He was elected professor of divinity at Washington (now Trinity) College, Hartford, Conn., in 1830, and rector of St. Stephen's, New York, in Mar., 1831. The following December he became rector of St. Thomas', New York, and soon came to be regarded as the most eloquent pulpit orator of his denomination. He resigned in 1843, as a result of financial difficulties incident to the failure of St. Thomas' Hall, a school for boys established by Hawks at Flushing, L. I., in 1836. He was subsequently rector of Christ Church, New Orleans (1844‑49), and of Calvary Church, New York (1849‑62). On account of his sympathy for the South, he resigned his charge in 1862 and went to Baltimore as rector of Christ Church; but returned to New York in 1865 as rector of the newly established parish of the Holy Savior. He was appointed historiographer of his denomination in 1835, and three times declined an election to the episcopate. Aside from his law reports, his principal works are: Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History o f the United States (2 vols., New York, 1836‑39), dealing with the early church in Virginia and Maryland; Commentary on the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church (1841) ; Auricular Confession (1849) ; and, in collaboration with W. S. Perry, Documentary History of the Protestant Episcopal Church (2 vols., 1862‑63). He also contributed largely to The New York Review and Quarterly Church Journal (10 vols., 1837‑42), of which he was one of the founders.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: w. S. Perry, Hist. of the American Episcopal Church, consult Index, 2 vols., Boston, 1885; C. C. Tiffany, in American Church History Series, pp. 448, 477, New York, 1895; National Cycloytedia of American Biography, vii. 90, ib. 1897; Appleton's Cyclopoodia of American Biography, iii. 121‑122, ib. 1898.

HAWLEY, GIDEON: American Congregationalist, missionary to the Indians; b. at Bridgeport, Conn., Nov. 11, 1727; d. at Marahpee, Mass., Oct. 3, 1807. He was graduated at Yale in 1749, entered the ministry, and, under the direction of Jonathan Edwards, began missionary work among the Indians at Stockbridge, Mass., in 1752. In 1753 he was sent by the commissioners of Indian affairs to establish a mission among the Iroquois on the Susquehanna, but was obliged by the French and Indian war to abandon this work in May, 1756. He then went to Boston and enlisted as chaplain in Colonel Richard Gridley's regiment. On Apr. 10, 1758, he was installed pastor over the Indians at Marshpee, Mass., and spent the rest of his life, nearly half a century, in work among the tribes there.
HAZAEL : A king of Damascus reigning about 850 B.c. The name (Assyr. Hazdilu; Septuagint, Azael) means °° God has seen." He was sent by Benhadad, his predecessor on the throne of Damascus, to consult Elisha concerning Benhadad's sickness, and received from the prophet the announcement of Benhadad's death and of his own elevation to the throne (II Kings viii. 7‑15). According to I Kings xix. 15 Elijah had already received a commission from Yahweh to anoint Hazael king of Syria; but there is no record that the commission was executed. The day after Hazael's return, Benhadad died a violent death. Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah leagued themselves against Hazael to recapture Ramoth‑gilead which was occupied by the Syrians, but were defeated (II Kings viii. 28, ix. 15). From Jehu, Joram's murderer and successor, Hazael took all Israel's trams‑Jordanic provinces (lI Kings x. 32 aqq.) and treated the inhabitants with great cruelty (Amos i. 3 aqq.). He assailed Judah, but was diverted from marching against Jerusalem by the tribute sent him by King Jehoahaz (II Kings xii. 18). Hazael, who ruled at least forty‑five years, was followed by his son Benhadad, out of whose hand Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again the cities which had been taken from Jehoahaz (II Kings xiii. 24 sqq.). In the cuneiform inscriptions it is stated that Hazael was twice (in 842 and 839 B.c.) attacked by Shalmaneser II. In these wars Jehu, king of Israel, Hazael's opponent, sided with the Assyrians (E. Schrader, Keilinsehriften and Geschichtsforschung, pp. 372 aqq., Giessen, 1878, 372 sqq., 358; see JEHU). Josephus reports that to Azaelos and his predecessor Ader (Benhadad) divine honors were paid in Damascus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, vol. i., §¢ 236, 241 sqq., New York, 1894; Schrader, KAT, pp. 265‑266 et passim; idem, CLOT, i. 191‑201; H. Winekler, Alttmtamentliche Unterauchungen, pp. 64‑06, Leipsic, 1892; DB, ii. 312‑313; EB, ii. 1975; JE, vi. 279‑280; and the appropriate sections in the works on the history of Israel named under ARAB.
HE AND SHE BIBLES. See BIBLE VERsloNs, B, IV., § 9.
HEADLAM, ARTHUR CAYLEY: Church of England; b. at Whorlton (32 m. n.w. of York), Durham, Aug. 2, 1862. He was educated at New College, Oxford (B.A., 1885), and was ordained priest in 1889. He was fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford (18851897), and chaplain (1888‑96), and theological lecturer in Oriel and Queen's Colleges (1888‑93) and Trinity College (1895‑96). He was rector of Welwyn, Hertfordshire, (1896‑1903), and in 1903 was chosen principal of King's College, London. He was examining chaplain to the bishop of Southwell (1891‑1904), and elect preacher to the University of Oxford (1899‑1901). He has written Ecclesiastical Sites in Isauria (London, 1893); Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (in collaboration with W. Sanday; 1895); Teaching of the Russian Church (1897); The Dates of the New Testament Books (1902); and Sources and Authority of Dogmatic Theology (1903).
HEALY, JOHN: Roman Catholic archbishop of Tuam, Ireland; b. at Ballinafad (16 m. s.e. of Sligo),

177
County Sligo, Ireland, Nov. 14, 1841. He was educated at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth (18601867), and at the College of the Immaculate Conception, Summerhill, Athlone (1867‑69). He was ordained to the priesthood in 1867, and after being classical professor in the College of the Immaculate Conception (1867‑69), he was curate at Ballygar, County Galway (1869‑71), and at Grange, County Sligo (1871‑78). He was then professor in the grammar‑school at Elphin (1878‑79), and in 1879 became professor of dogmatic theology at Maynooth College. He was appointed prefect of the Dunboyne Establishment, Maynooth, in 1883, and in the following year was consecrated bishop coadjutor of Clonfert. He succeeded to the see in 1896, and in 1903 was elevated to the archdiocese of Tuam. He was a member of the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland which sat in 1901. He was editor of The Irish Ecclesiastical Record in 1883‑84, and has written: Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); History of Mdynooth (1895); Record of Maynooth Centenary (1896); and Life and Writings of St. Patrick (1905).

HEARD, JOHN BICKFORD: Church of England; b. at Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 26, 1828. He was educated at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (B.A., 1852), and was ordained priest in 1852. He was vicar of Bilton, Yorkshire (1864‑68), curate of St. Andrew's, Westminster (1878‑80), rector of W oldingham, Surrey (1880‑91), and vicar of Queen Charlton (1894‑1904). He was also editor of the Religious Tract Society from 1866 to 1873, and Hulsean Lecturer in Cambridge in 1892. His theological standpoint is that of the German mediating school, and in his writings he has sought to develop a Christian psychology in support of theology and to lay stress on Pauline rather than on Augustinian concepts. He has written The History of the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1852); The Pastor and Parish (London, 1865); The Tripartite Nature of Man (Edinburgh, 1866); National Christianity; or, Cceaarism and Clericalism (London, 1877); and Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted (Hulsean Lectures; Edinburgh, 1893).
HEART, BIBLICAL USAGE: The Hebrew lebh or lebhabh and the Greek kardia (" heart ") are never used in the Bible of animals except in the passages Job xli. 24 and Dan. iv. 16, where the reference is psychological, not physiological. Deut. iv. 11 speaks of the heart of heaven, II Sam. xviii. 14 of the heart of an oak, Ex. xv. 8 and other passages of the heart of the sea, and Matt. xii. 40 of the heart of the earth, all designating the interior parts of the objects. In nearly all passages where the word occurs, however, it is used of man's heart, and generally in the psychological sense as the organ by which he feels, thinks, and wills. The terms lebh, lebhabh, kardia, which never mean " self," as does nepheah, are employed to express the ethical qualities which the Greeks ascribed to the soul.
As an organ of the body the heart is the seat of life, and is concerned in the receipt of impressions and the issuance of expressions of personal life. Strengthening and revival which come from the V.‑12
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hawks
Heart, Biblical Qssge
partaking of food bring strength and comfort to the heart (Gen. xviii. 5; Judges xix. 5, 8), and excess affects the heart unfavorably (Luke xxi. 34). Indeed, the heart is the center of personal life in all its relations (Prov. iv. 23); consequently, up to a certain limit, kardio, psyche, and pneuma, " spirit," may be used as synonyms, and the reception of joy, sorrow, emotion, alarm is ascribed to the heart (e.g., Prov. xii. 25) or to the soul (Gen. x11. 8). The unstable man is called dipsychos, "double‑minded," and to him is given a double heart (Ecclus. i. 28). The heart is to be purified (James iv. 8), so is the soul (I Pet. i. 22), just as depression is ascribed to the soul in Pa. xlii. 5, and to the heart in Pa. lxii. 8. But each of these terms has its peculiarities of usage. Man is said to lose his soul, never his heart. Where the two are bound together in some action, especially if that be religious, as in the case of lovingGod, it is not a mere heaping together of synonyms, but the expression of action involving the entire personality. Nabal's heart is said to have died (I Sam. xxv. 37), though his actual death did not occur till ten days afterward (verse 38). So one may speak of the heart of the soul, but never of the soul of the heart, since the psyche is the subject of life while the kardia is only an organ.
The relations and distinctions between heart and spirit recall those between spirit and soul. The soul is what it is through the spirit which exists in it as the life‑principle, so that within certain bounds each may stand for the other (see SOUL AND SPIRIT). Since the personal life is limited by the spirit and is mediated through the heart, the activities of the spirit are sought in the heart, and to it then may be ascribed the properties of the spirit, and spirit and heart may be paralleled (Ps. xxxiv. 18). While Acts Nix. 21 ascribes purpose to the soul, II Cor. ix. 7 ascribes it to the heart. On the other hand, serving God in the spirit (Rom. i. 9) is not quite the same as serving him with the heart. Exchange between spirit and heart is excluded when the heart appears as the place of that activity of the spirit the result of which is conscience (I Sam. xxiv. 5). Heart and flesh are differentiated so that sin is ascribed to the heart, though both are united in Ezek. xliv. 7. Delitzach finds in Ps. xvi. 9 an Old Testament trichotomy, but really in the first clause heart and soul are united to express as strongly as possible the inner exultation. Heart is in distinction from soul the place where the whole personal life is concentrated, where is concealed the personal individual essence, and whei_ce proceed the evidences of personal character in good or evil (Matt. xv. 8). With the heart man approaches God and Christ rests in him, possesses him, so that he lives and dwells in man (Eph. iii. 17; Gal. ii. 20). Similarly, estrangement from God is of the heart (Eph. iv. 18; Isa. i. 5). In like manner the individual character is expressed in terms of the heart in respect to purity, humility, uncircumcision, unrighteousness, and the like. God himself is called mighty in heart (Job xxxvi. 5), and he who seeks God and in faith relies upon him is called strong in heart (Ps. lxxviii. 8).
The heart is the treasury of good and evil (Matt. xii. 34‑35); it is the organ for the reception of

Heart, Biblical usage
Heathenism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	178
God's word and of the gift of the Holy Spirit
(Matt. xiii. 19). But if it is the seat of God's activ
ity and of that of his word and spirit, so is it of
Satan's activity (John xiii. 2), and it resists God
and becomes hardened (Acts xxviii. 27). Similarly,
out of it proceeds love for God and man. It is the
organ of faith or unfaith (Roe. x. 9), of decision
(Acts v. 4), and of thought (Isa. x. 7). In this
sense Johannean and Pauline usage equates nous and
dianoia; since the nous as the organ of the spirit
is also a function of the heart, it is conceivable that
the apostle opposes nous to sarx, °` flesh " (Roe.
vii. 25), because for his purpose the opposition
between sarx and kardia seemed too inclusive. In
the heart of man through his conscience is written
the work of the law (Roe. ii. 15), and God has placed
eternity in the heart (Eccles. iii. 11). But the
imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth
(Gem. viii. 21), and whatever makes man impure
proceeds from his heart (Mark vii. 21). Here
resides that double personality (Rom. vii.) by which
man is either senseless (Roe. i. 21) or impenitent
(Roe. ii. 5) or uncircumcised in heart (Acts vii.
51), or, on the other side, is honest and good (Luke
viii. 15). 	(H. CREMERt.)

BIBLIOORAPBT: F. Delitasoh, System der bibliachen Psychologie, Leipsic, 1881, Eng tranal., Edinburgh, 1887; C. H. Zeller Kurze Seelenlehre, Calw, 1850; J. G. Krumm, De notionibua psychologies Paulinia, chap. iii., Giessen, 1858; J. T. Beck, Umrias der bibliachen Seelenlehre, Stuttgart, 1871; idem Outlines of Biblical Psychology, pp 78‑148, Edinburgh, 1877; G. F. Oehler, Theology of O. T., i. 221 eqq.. ii. 449, ib. 1874‑75; B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of N. T., ib. 1882‑83; E. WSmer, Biblische Anthropologic, II., xi. 3, Stuttgart, 1887; K. Fischer, BiUitcha Paychologie, Biologic and PUdapogik, pp 20 sqq.. Goths, 1889; H. Schultz, O. T. Theology, ii. 248 sqq., London, 1892; W. Beyschlag N. T. Theology, consult Index, Edinburgh, 1896; C. A. Briggs, in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, pp 94‑105, London, 1897; T. Simon, Die Peychologie des Apostela Paulus, pp 24 sqq, GSttingen, 1897; G. Waller, Biblical View of the Soul, London, 1904; DB. ii. 317‑318; EB, ii. 1981‑82• JE, vi. 295‑296; DCO i. 709‑711; and the lexicons under the words cited in the text.
HEART OF JESUS, SOCIETY OF. See SACRED HEART OF JE6us, DEVOTION TO.

HEART OF MARY. See IMMAcuf.AATE HEART of MARY.
HEATHENISM.
Terms Employed (¢ 1). Classification of Religions (1 2). The Deities of Polytheism (1 3). Development of Polytheism (1 4). Mythology and StanWorship (1 5). Animism Distinguished from Polytheism (1 6). Shamanism and Fetishism (1 7).
	The Old	Testament employs the word goyim
(" peoples," " nations "; E. V. "Gentiles," " hea
then," " nations ") as a designation of all peoples
		other than the chosen one, and uses it
I. Terms in a religious sense. Other nations of Employed. antiquity had similar designations for peoples of other faiths, but these had only ethnic or national significance, such as the barbaroa of the Greeks, or the airya or arya by which Indians and Iranians distinguished themselves from others. A name for other peoples founded upon religious differences alone is peculiar to the Jews. The usage of the Old Testament passed over into
the New Testament and into the Latin and Gothic versions, where elhnis, gentea, thiedos were employed to designate the followers of false religions. In later Latin usage the word paganus (" pagan ") came to be applied to those who retained the old faith as distinct from the Christian majority, though the original sense of the word may have been simply " civilian " as opposed to '° military;" and it had later the meaning " rustic " or " countryman " (cf. Gothic haithne). In Germany since the time of Luther the term Heide (" heathen ") has been much used to name all religions except Judaism and Christianity. These two religions are historically connected, and are regarded as the true religions or religions of revelation. As a rule, Islam is now also admitted to the category of religions of revelation, but is still regarded as false.
In the classification of religions another mark has been used to distinguish the three religions named from all others, namely monotheism. Yet it has to be noted that monotheism was developed in the Hebrew faith, and is a tendency in all polytheistic religions. In all polytheistic faiths there are elements which make for monotheism, and the same is true even of animistic religions. Indeed, in most religions there have been efforts made to discover unity in the midst of diversity and plurality, though these attempts have failed to gain the mastery, and where even small success has attended them it has been confined to narrow circles. Moreover, these attempts toward unity have developed
_. Classi‑ not monotheism so much as pantheism.
fication of But religions may be classified as mono‑
	Religions.	theistic or non‑monotheistic, and the
		term heathen is applied to the latter.
The question has been raised whether, among the
heathen religions, Buddhism is to be singled out
as furnishing another category‑atheistic religions,
to which a negative answer is returned on the
ground that neither in origin nor in development is
Buddhism atheistic, though the true disciple is
wholly independent of gods and need not worship
them. Heathen religions are further distinguished
by the character of their objects of worship into
polytheistic and animistic. Polytheistic religions
are those of the advanced peoples of culture, such
as the. Semitic and Indo‑Germanic races and other
groups of the Old and the New World. Animistic
religions are to be distinguished as they reveal fetish‑
, ism, in which the spirits worshiped are closely connected with material objects; or shamanism, in which the spirits are elemental. In both religions there is worship of souls, and especially of the dead, whose souls are thought to have power for good and evil over the living. The boundary between soul and spirit can not be sharply drawn. Animistic religions lay stress upon magic, i.e., the power of making the spirits serve the will of man.
Most modern investigators of religions, excepting Roman Catholic scholars, connect animism and polytheism as two stages of a development; worship of souls and spirits precedes that of gods. The lofty abstract idea of "god " is not a product of the lower culture either in cult or language. First comes faith in spirits, then polydemonism, then polytheism, and then, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,

179	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Heart.H	BiblicalenismUsage
			ath
monotheism. Yet the conception and the expres
sion " god " is earlier than the polytheistic systems
		historically known. The culture of
	3. The the Indo‑Germanic peoples before
	Deities their separation was certainly higher
	of than that of many tribes of the present,
Polytheism. and they already had the word (and
		therefore the conception). Indeed, be
sides the word deva in its various forms, Persians
and Slavs had the form baga or bogu, " lord," while
Indians and Iranians had asura, ahura, " the living."
Semitic peoples had several names for " god," the
most common of which was el or it (see ELomm),
the etymology of which is uncertain, while " lord "
or " king " was used both for " god " and " God."
Similarly the civilization of Central America had an
expression for " god." But in these cases it can
not be determined what the original conception was,
though the probability is that it expressed not so
much the being of deity as the relation of that deity
to man; it was not abstract, but concrete, denoting
a personal power upon which man felt himself
dependent, yet possessing the ability to approach.
Sometimes this appears as the relation of lord and
subject; again the expression implies participation
in the forms of nature, as in the case of deva, " light,"
which brings out the contrast employed in Indo
Germanic and other religions between light and
darkness. Yet the material for adequate knowledge
is lacking, as Indo‑Germanic language has furnished
few words which can be accepted as original names
of deities; indeed the Sanskrit Dyaus pitar, Gk.
Zeus patter, Lat. Juppiter or Diespiler are almost
alone, and express the idea of the heaven‑god. In
other religions also the god of the heaven appears
to be the earliest, and in later times the chief deity.
The original Indo‑Germanic deities must have been
few, though comparison of Iranian and Indian con
ceptions shows a larger number common to both,
but with many changes introduced. Dyaus is in
India replaced by Varuna, in Persia by Ahura
Mazda, " the living " or " wise lord," and alongside
this highest god in both countries are six other
deities closely connected with him. In historic
times all the Indo‑Germanic peoples developed rich
pantheons which included not only nature deities,
but personifications of ethical and religious ideas.
Even in the Vedas the original nature sources of
some of the deities are partly forgotten in an ethical
or religious relationship, and this is true of the other
branches of the family in historic times. Even in the
case of original nature deities it may not be held that
that was the only idea present and that no ethical re
lations were conceived; indeed the ethical was often a
result of the phase of natural relationship to the world
represented by a particular deity, as in the case of a
god of light who battled with the powers of darkness.
	Polytheism seems to have come about through
gaining in nature a conception of deity followed by a
		differentiation of natural phenomena
;. Develop‑ and specialization of functions of the
	ment of powers conceived as producing them.
Polytheism. This is confirmed by the fact that, often
		several gods are found connected with
the same phenomena, as when in India, Surya,
Pushan, Vishnu, Tvashtar, Savitar, and Vivasvant
are all connected with the sun. Further development comes in the unfolding of purely ethical conceptions into deities which had no relationship to natural phenomena. It has been objected to this that such a development would lead to the worship of all the gods of a circle in any given place or time, whereas historically, as among the Greeks, only certain of the gods were honored in any one city. Then polytheism is the result of a syncretism of varied cults brought about through extraneous political or other circumstances, which later involved a partition of the realms of nature among the several deities. But comparison shows that the condition in historic times among Greeks, Slavs, Egyptians, Babylonians, and others was due to differentiation in an original system of deities. The first tendency of polytheism then is not toward monotheism, but away from it. Purely ethical ideas of the being of the gods are not a consequence of polytheism, but rather exist in spite of it. Religious feeling demanded of its gods omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, righteousness, and holiness, attributes which the cults show were originally given to them, for the possibility of a cult is dependent upon the omnipresence of the deity, through which men can have access to him. And so with the other attributes of deity. The religious mode of viewing things appears in the fact that to the highest god absolute deity is attributed, while many times the other deities are creations. Polytheism seems to reveal not a development to higher views, but a coarsening of conceptions. Most polytheistic religions set apart special places for the worship of deities through sacred symbols or images. Originally these were but external expressions of the presence of deity, but for the majority they became deity itself, and were so worshiped, examples of which are given in the image‑worship of Roman Catholic peoples, among Greeks and Romans of the first century of our era, and in modern Brahmanism. Sacrifice, originally an expression of dependence, became a means of magic, and the entire cult is hardly distinguishable from fetishism and shamanism.
A further matter of importance is the development of myth in the polytheistic religions. Myth is the
setting forth of occurrences and operas. Mythol‑ tions of nature in the guise of the ogy and events and happenings of divine or Star‑ semidivine persons, so far as these
Worship. have religious meanings, or at least are
brought into connection with religious conceptions and usages (see CoMPA$ATIvE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, §§ 7‑8). Myth is not to be confused with the saga, which often means what has developed out of the myth, and has to do with heroes rather than with deities. The myth is generally an article of faith, which the saga is not, at least in the religious sense. The characteristic of the myth is its anthropomorphism carried over to the domain of nature, so that operations in that sphere appear as the acts of persons with the feeling and niethods of men, as when the storm is pictured as the battle of a deity with the cloud‑demons. Myth stands in close relationship with polytheism, and has undergone the same development; as the gods

Heathenism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	180
Heaven
	lost their old nature‑connection, so with the myths.
	Hence they speak of the acts and lot of a deity in
	which, as a rule, the deity does not act from a relig
	ious motive, and are so far subversive of religious
	ideas. Original myths often bear the unmistakable
	marks of their origin in the ‑operations of nature,
	later they are put forth often as historical doings.
	A distinction is to be made between those in which
	deities are the actors and those in which elemental
	spirits appear. Modern theory regards these as
	stages, but probably both stood side by side in the
	beginning.	Star‑worship (see STARS), which is
	almost a specialty of Semites, is not an original form
	of polytheism, but came in late through the iden
	tification of certain stars with individual deities.
	Traces of these are found in the Avesta.
		The two forms of animism (see COMPARATIVE RE
	LIGION, VI., 1, a, §§ 1‑4), Fetishism and shamanism
	(qq.v.), have in common that they deaLaet with gods,
				but with spirits, as objects of worship.
	6. Animism Spirits are distinguished from gods
			Dis‑	chiefly by their number. Developed
tinguished polytheism has only a limited number
			from	of deities, while the spirits of animism
	Polytheism. are innumerable. These last are for
				the most part without names, only
	those credited with being most powerful having this
	distinction. In general these spirits have nothing
	to do with creation, though there may be a great
	spirit to whom this function is ascribed. They are
	also not ethical in influence, since prohibition is the
	essence of the law they give. A second distinction
	between polytheism and animism is that gods are
	thought of as beneficent; maleficent deities are not
	original, but the result of a secondary development.
	The spirits of animism are, on the contrary, by
	nature maleficent. Consequently the purpose of
	the cult is different. The purpose in polytheism is
	to bespeak the good‑will of deity, or to regain his
	favor when that has been forfeited through a fault.
	In animism the cult has the aim of averting un
	toward action of spirits or of bending that action
	through magic to the will of man. Generally in
	polytheism the worshiper does not need the inter
	cession of the priest; in animism this help is neces
	sary, since the priest alone knows the means of
	using the magic. The hypothesis that the origin
	of religion was fear of unknown powers would be
	justified if animism were shown to be the original
	form of religion. But historical proof of this is
	lacking, since nowhere is it apparent that poly
	theism has developed from animism. Indeed, the
	shamanism of the Finns implies an early polytheism,
	which is probably of equally ancient standing. Fre
	quently among polytheistic peoples there is in use
	a magic which is decidedly animistic together with
	reminiscences of fetishism. This is often explained
	as the evidence of an earlier animism and fetishism
	out of which polytheism has developed, but without
	sufficient grounds. The charms of India and Baby
	lon are polytheistic, and can be no older than the
	belief in gods.
		Shamanism, the worship of elemental spirits or of
	the souls of the dead, is best known among the
	Turanian peoples of Asia, America, and Australia.
	Special manifestations of this are the Totemism
(see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, b, §§ 2‑6) of North American Indians and the Taboo (see
COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, c, §§y. Shaman‑ 1‑3) of South Sea Islanders. By a
ism and totem is meant an animal or a Fetishism. ‑plant from which a stock or a family
is said to have sprung, which also acts as protector of the stock, while in turn the individuals of the totem family are worshiped. Taboo is found chiefly among Polynesians, and denotes prohibition of certain things or localities for common use because belonging to spirits. It has an important influence upon social relations. Fetishism, which is confined to Africa, is religious veneration of an object regarded as the home of spirits. The two chief forms of animism can not be entirely separated the one from the other; outside of the worship of spirits, both have the use of magic, soothsaying, and the worship of departed spirits. Shamanism has many fetishistic elements. Upon ethical conceptions these religions have no influence.
	The designation of heathen religions as poly
theistic, shamanistic, and fetishistic is based upon
the expression of these in terms of cult; it does not
imply that the entire religious thought and feeling
of the peoples who employ them is expressed. Poly
theism, it has been shown, often contains elements
of lower form; animism has also indications of
higher forms; but in each case these do not change
the total character of the religion in question.
Numerous remains are found in Christianity of the
older heathenism, and they are classed under the
name of superstitions. For a different view of the
subject see COMPARATIVE RELIGION; see also
articles on the different forms of heathen religions
(FETISHISM; POLYTHEISM; SHAMANISM, etc.), ar
ticles on particular religions (BRAHMANISM; BUD
DHISM; etc.), and articles on heathen lands (CHINA;
INDIA; etc.). 	(B. LINDNER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Wuttke, Geaahichte des Heidenthume, Breslau, 1852‑53; T. Waits, Anthropologie der Naturn61ker, Leipsie, 1858‑72; %. Werner, Die Relipionen and Bulte des roorchriatlichen Heidenthums, Sebaffhauseu, 1871; A. Pesch, Der Goueebegriff in den heidniacAen Retigionen des Altertuma, Freiburg, 1885; idem, Der Gouesbegri# in den heidniaden Religionen der Neuzeit, ib. 1888; J. Vi, son, Lea Religions actuelles, Paris, 1887; A. C. Kruyt, Animieme in den Indiachen Arehiped, The Hague, 1908; A. Bros, La Religion des peuplea non cicilisfa, Paris, 1907; and particularly the literature given under COMPARATIVa RELttnON, where the subject is fully treated.
HEAVE‑OFFERING. See SACRIFICE. HEAVEN.
Use of " Heaven " in the Bible (1 1). Heaven the Abode of God (¢ 2). Heaven the Symbol and source of Salvation (¢ 3). Use of the Plural, " Heavens " (§ 4).
	The Old Testament has no comprehensive term
for the universe, which is designated as heaven and
		earth; although in the wisdom of
	I. Use of Solomon and II Maccabees it is called
"Heaven" " world " (WM. of Sol. i. 14,. and
in the Bible. often; II Mace. vii. 9, 23, and often).
		This term is employed in the New Tes
tament with the same connotation (John xvii. 5,
xxi. 25; Acts xvii. 24; Rom. i. 20; of. ". the founda
tion of the world," Matt, xiii. 35, xxv. 34; Luke xi.

181	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Heathenism
		Heaven
50; John xvii. 24; Eph. i. 4; Heb. iv. 3, ix. 26;
I Pet. i. 20; Rev. xiii. 8). In other passages, how
ever, " world " implies the dwelling‑place of man
kind as defiled with sin and death, and with Satan
for its lord instead of God. The phrase " heaven
and earth " is accordingly retained to denote the
universe (Matt. v. 18; Mark xiii. 27; Luke xii. 56;
Acts iv. 24; James v. 18; cf. Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 16,
	20; II Pet. iii. 7, 13; Rev. xxi. 1). In a physical
sense heaven denotes the place of the stars and
	constellations (Gen. i. 14; Jer. xxxiii. 22; Matt.
	xxiv. 29; Heb. xi. 12; Rev. vi: 13, etc.) and of the
	clouds (Gen. i. 9; Dent. xxviii. 23; Pa. cxlvii. 8;
	Matt. xxiv. 30; etc.), and its power and phenomena
	influence the earth (Job xxxviii. 33; Matt. xvi. 2‑3;
	James v. 18). Beneath the heaven lies the earth
	(Job ii. 2; Prov. viii. 28), which'it encloses so as to
	form a unity (Eccl. i. 13; Luke xvii. 24; Acts ii. 5;
	Col. i. 23): The heaven is a " firmament " (Gen. i.
	6, 8; Pa. xix. 1), which is supported by the, moun
	tains as pillars (Job xxii. 14). With the heaven is
	conjoined the earth, thus forming the cosmos which
	will pass away to make place for a new heaven and
a new earth, where righteousness shall dwell (Ps.
	cii. 26; Ise. xiii. 13; Joel ii. 30‑31; Luke xxi. 33;
II Pet. iii. 7, 10; Rev. vi. 12‑14).
	Heaven is, moreover, the throne of God (Pa.
	ii. 4; Isa. Ixvi. 1; Ezek. i. 1; Matt. v. 34; Acts vii.
	49; Heb. viii. 1), and in heaven is the
	2. Heaven divine temple (Isa. vi.; Rev. xi. 19),
	the Abode which is the prototype of the earthly
of God.	sanctuary (Ex. xxv. 40; Acts vii. 44;
	Heb. viii. 5). It is the dwelling‑place
	of God (II Chron. xx. 6; Pa. cxv. 3; Eccles. v. 2),
	who looks from heaven upon the earth (Pa. xiv. 2;
	Isa. Ixiii. 15; Lam. iii. 50), and speaks from thence
	(Deut. iv. 36; Neh. ix. 13); so that words spoken
	from heaven are eternal in their validity (Heb. xii.
	25), since what comes from heaven comes from God
	and is binding unconditionally on the earth and on
	man (Matt. xxi. 25‑26; Mark i. 11; Luke iii. 22;
	John iii. 13). All deeds done on earth, and espe
	cially the forgiveness of sins by Christ, bear a dis
	tinct relation to heaven or to God (Matt. ix. 6 as
	compared with xvi. 19), who hears prayer while he
	is in heaven (I Kings viii. 30 sqq.; II Chron. vi. 25
	eqq.; Neh. ix. 27‑28; Ps. xxxiii. 13; Luke xi. 13;
	etc.). When the exaltation and absolute sovereignty
	of God are to be emphasized, he is termed " the God
	of heaven " (Gen. xxiv. 7; Neh. i. 4‑5; Pa. xcvi. 5),
	who reveals from heaven his wrath against iniquity
	(Rom. i. 18; I Thess. iv. 16; II Thess. i. 7‑8).
	Sins which require the vengeance of God cry to
	heaven (Gen. iv. 10; I Sam. v.12; Luke xv. 18, 21),
	and, in like manner, he who prays turns toward
	heaven (Mark vi. 41; John xvii. 1; etc.), since God
	is exalted above all the earth (Ps. lxviii. 15; Dan.
	iv. 23) and his will is manifested from heaven (Deut.
	iv. 36), his holy mandate being absolute (Deut.
	xxxiii.,26; Pa. lvii. 3; lxxxix. 2). The designation
	of God as " my father," " your father which is in
	heaven," and the like in Matthew and Mark (Matt.
	v. 16, 45, 48; Mark xi. 25; etc.) is intended to
	inspire confidence in his goodness, especially as he
	is represented as saying: " For as the heavens are
	higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts " (Isa. Iv. 9). Hence God is besought to rend the heavens (Isa. Ixiv. 1), and a sign from heaven is desired to prove .the Messiahship of,Jesus (Matt. xvi. 1, cf. xxiv. 30; Luke ix. 54). The ascension of Christ to heaven symbolizes his exaltation to divine honor and glory (Luke xxiv. 51; Acts i. 9‑11; cf. John iii. 13; Heb. iv. 14; I Pet. iii. 22), and necessitates unconditional obedience and recognition on the part of man (cf. Acts ii. 34‑31f with Eph. i. 2022; Phil. ii. 9‑11).
Yet God is by no means restricted to heaven, and I Kings viii. 27 expressly declares: " The heaven and heaven of heavens can not contain thee." In Christ, therefore, there is access to God through faith (Rom. v. 2; Eph. ii. 18). God is present throughout the world (Pa. cxxxix; Jer. xxiii.!23‑24 ), but his earthly congregation is in a special sense his " habitation " (Eph. ii. 22) and his temple (I Cor. iii. 6).
As contrasted with the earth, heaven represents a higher and eternal order (Matt. vi. 20; Mark x. 21;
Luke xii. 33; II Cor. v.1; Phil. iii. 20;
3. Heaven Col. i. 5; Heb. x. 34; I Pet. i. 4). It the is, therefore, the place of the prototype
Symbol of the earthly symbolic ordinances of and salvation (Ex. xxv. 40; Acts vii. 44;
Source of Heb. viii. 5), and from it come the
Salvation. actual means of salvation (John vi. 51;
I Cor. xv. 47 sqq.). It is the abode of
the true and eternal means of salvation (Matt. v.12; Col. i. 5; 1 Pet. i. 4), as well as of the righteous who have been perfected (Heb. xii. 23; comp. Luke x. 20) and of the angels and " ministering spirits " who are to appear on the earth at its renewal (Mark xii. 25; Luke ii. 15; Rev. xxi. 1 sqq.). It thus becomes evident that the " kingdom of God " is regarded as situated in heaven (Dan. ii. 44; cf. Pa. ciii. 19), so that Matthew terms it the " kingdom of heaven " (Matt. iii. 2). It is present on earth wherever its boons, which are righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. xiv. 17), are possessed by man, but it will not be revealed in all its glory until the power of evil is annihilated (Matt. vi. 10, 13). Thus it was heaven to which Christ was exalted together with those who were raised with him (Eph. ii. 6; Col. iii. 1‑4), and it is there that they have their citizenship (Phil. iii. 20).
The Hebrew plural " heavens " is represented in the great majority of instances by the singular in the
Septuagint, this number being found
4. Use of also in the Apocrypha, except in the
the Plural, Wisdom of Solomon ix. 10, 16, xviii. "Heavens." 15. In Matthew, Paul, Hebrews, and
II Peter the plural is more frequent than the singular; but in Mark the plural is found 'only in i. 10‑11; xi. 25‑26; xiii. 25; in Luke only in Acts ii. 34, vii. 56, and probably Luke x. 20, xxi. 26; John avoids the plural altogether in the Gospel and the Epistles, and uses it in the Apocalypse only in xii. 12. There is no distinction in meaning between the singular and plural, except in II Cor. xii. 2, where a "third heaven" is mentioned, this being glossed in xii. 4 as " paradise." This statement evidently rests upon a threefold division of heaven, into the sky, heaven in the reiig‑

Heaven
Hebrew Language	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	1813
ious sense, and the dwelling‑place of God. The
distinction between the physical heaven and the
abode of the blessed is self‑evident, and Heb. ix. 11
(R.V.) expressly states that the latter is " not of
this creation." It is necessary, moreover, to dis
tinguish between this heaven, where the majesty
and goodness of God are manifested, and the abso
lute divine supremacy, " ° dwelling in the light which
no man can approach unto; whom no man hath
seen, nor can see " (I Tim. vi. 16). In the Epistle
to the Hebrews, in like manner, no stress can be laid
on the variation between the singular and plural
(ix. 24, xi. 12, xii. 26 as contrasted with i. 10,
iv. 14, vii. 26, viii. 1, ix. 23, xii. 23, 25), nor does
the author distinguish between the " heavens " and
" heaven itself " (ix. 24), except in so far as the
latter corresponds to the Holy of Holies in the
Tabernacle (comp. x. 19‑23). Jesus is accordingly
described as " higher than the heavens " (vii. 26)
and as having " passed through the heavens " (iv.
14, RX.), and thus as being exalted above all who
are in heaven or who await admission there (xii. 23),
therefore implying a distinction between God and
heaven, but not between the " heavens." The
parousia will shake heaven and earth, and crate
a new cosmos, which will be " a kingdom which
can not be moved " (xii. 27‑28).
The fact that Satan and evil spirits appear in the presence of God in heaven according to I Kings xxii. 19‑22; Job i. 6 sqq.; Zech. iii. 1 sqq.; and Rev. xii. 7‑8 merely implies that they work only with the permission of God. The statement that the heavens are unclean in the sight of God (Job xv. 15), moreover, must be regarded as a hyperbole of Eliphaz the Temanite to bring Job to a realization of his sinfulness. This can not be paralleled with such passages as Heb. ix. 23, especially as the heavenly world is represented as " true " (Luke xvi. 11; Heb. viii. 2, ix. 24). It may also be noted that the view that " heaven " occasionally connotes " God," as in Luke xv. 18, 21, is clearly untenable from Matt. v. 34, vi. 10. (H. CREMERt.)
BInLIoaHAPHY: H. Schultz, Afttestamentliche Theolopie, 2 vols., Gottingen. 1888, Eng. tranel., Old Testament Theology. Edinburgh, 1892; W. Beyschlag, Neutestamenlliiche Theoogie, 2 vole Halle 1895; Eng transl., New Testament Theology, Edinburgh,1896; the lmdoons of Cremer and Thayer, s.v. bvpav6vy C Craddock, The Heaven of as Bible, hiladelphia, 1897; R. Winterbotham, The Kingdom of Heaven here and hereafter, New York, 1898; and of. the sections in the works on systematic theology.
HEBER, REGINALD: Anglican bishop of Calcutta; b. at Malpas (14 m. s.s.e. of Chester) Apr. 21, 1183; d. at Trichinopoly (30 m. w. of Tanjore) Apr. 3, 1826. He was educated at Brasenose College, Oxford, and in 1805 was elected fellow of All Souls. He then traveled for two years, and on his return was ordained priest and succeeded his father as rector of HodnetfShrepshire. After an active service there as parish priest, he was made a prebendary of St. Asaph in 1812, and three years later was appointed Bampton lecturer at Oxford, and in 1822 preacher at Lincoln's Inn. He had already become conspicuous for his interest in missions, especially in India, and on the death of T. F. Middleton, the first bishop of Calcutta, the administration of the diocese, which then comprised
the whole of India, was offered to Heber. After much hesitation, he accepted, and was consecrated on June 1, 1823, by the archbishop of Canterbury. Four months later he reached Calcutta, and at once took up his episcopal duties, his task being rendered the more severe by the lapse of more than a year since Middleton's death. Between June, 1824, and Oct., 1825, he visited Bombay and Ceylon, and on Jan. 30, 1826, began his second diocesan tour. At the same time he made a study of the problem of caste, which he was willing to retain so far as it was political rather than religious. His attention was also occupied by a controversy which had broken out among the Christians of St. Thomas on account of the Syrian priests mentioned above.
The chief works of Heber were as follows: Palestine (Oxford, 1807), one of the few prize poems of permanent value, and often reprinted and translated; Poems and Translations (London, 1812); The Personality and Ofce of the Christian Comforter (Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1816); and an edition of the complete works of Jeremy Taylor (15 vols., London, 1822); while his widow edited the following: Hymns, Written. and Adapted to the Weekly Church Service of the Year (1827); Journey through India from Calcutta to Bombay, with Notes upon Ceylon, and a Journey to Madras and the Southern Provinces (2 vols., 1828); Sermons Preached in England (1829); Sermons Preached in India (1830); and his journal of his European tour in her biography of her husband (1830). The first complete edition of his poems appeared at London in 1841. Heber was also the author of nearly sixty hymns, some of which are conspicuous for their beauty, and have attained wide popularity. Among them special mention may be made of the following: " Brightest and best of the sons of the morning;" " The Son of God goes forth to war;" "Bread of the world, in mercy broken;" " Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty;" and the missionary hymn " From Greenland's icy mountains."
BIHLIooBAPHY: Life, by his widow, 2 vole., London, 1830; T. Robinson, The Last Days of Bishop Heber, London, 1830; T. A. Smyth, The Character and Religious Doctrines of Bishop Heber, London, 1831; G. Bonner, Memoir of the Life of Reginald Heber, Cheltenbam 1833; T. Taylor, Life and Writings of . Reginald Heber London, 1836; Jas. Chambers, Bishop Heberand Indian Missions, ondon, 1846; J. N. Norton, Life of Bishop Heber, New York, 1870; A. J. C. Hare Memorials of a Quiet Life, 2 vols., London, 1873; DNB, ncv (1891), 355‑357.
HEBICH, h6'biH, SAMUEL: Missionary; b. at Nellingen, Wiirttemberg, Apr. 29, 1803; d. at Stuttgart May 21, 1868. In Dec., 1831, he entered the Basel missionary institute, and in 1834 was sent to India. In 1859 he returned to his native country, and by his sensational revivalistic methods aroused considerable opposition. In 1862 he was pensioned. His chief importance lies in the fact that while in India by his sermons on repentance and his pastoral care and devotion he converted many English officers and soldiers. J. HESsE.
B‑Hr: $. Hebfch, sin Beitrap sur Geschichte der
indischen Mission, Basel, 1872; E. F. Lsnghans, Pidir mus and Christentum im gpiegel der fsseren Mission, pR 3 eqq., Leipsic, 1864.
HEBREWS, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO Tim. See APOCRYPHA, B, 1. (19).

183	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Heaven
Hebrew Language
HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.
I. The Hebrew Language.
The Name and Literature (§ 1).
The Semitic Languages (§ 2).
Characteristics of Semitic Languages (¢ 3).
Characteristics and History of the Hebrew Language (¢ 4).
Development of the Hebrew Language (§ b).
Early Study of Hebrew (¢ 8).
Modern Works on Hebrew (§ 7).
II. Hebrew Literature in General.	(§ 8).
I. The Hebrew Language: Hebrew is the usual name of the language spoken by the Israelites up to
a few centuries before the birth of r. The Christ. The tongue which was spoken flame and or written by the learned later than Literature. this, a somewhat artificial continua‑
tion of the earlier language, is called in distinction the New Hebrew. The term Hebrew language is not in the Old Testament; it is found first in the prologue to Ecclesiaaticus, then in Josephus, and afterward in the New Testament, where, however, it denotes the Aramaic speech of the Jews. Isa. xix.18 bas the phrase" the language of Canaan," II Kings xviii. 26 and Neh. xiii. 24 have " the Jews' language " to express the tongue used by the Hebrews of those times. In later times the Jews called the Hebrew " the holy language." The phrase " Hebrew language," therefore, goes back not to the Old Testament, but to the common designation " Hebrews " as the name of the people, and is the equivalent of " the Israelitic tongue." The Hebrew word `Ibri (Gen. x., id.), to which " Hebrew " goes back, comprises a number of Arabic and Aramaic stocks to which, among others, Terah and Abraham belonged. Recent scholars see in the term an appellative denoting " the people from the other side " (of the river Euphrates‑‑so Stade‑or of the Jordan). The Old Testament is the main source of knowledge of this tongue, in which all of it is written except Ears iv. 8‑vi. 18, vii. 12‑26, Dan. ii. 4‑vii. 28, Jer. x. il. Besides this are the Siloam inscription, some inscribed‑ stones from. Assyria, and Babylon, the coins of the Maccabeans, and the fragments of the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticua (see APOCRYPHA, A, IV., 12). The Moabitic Stone may be reckoned here, since its language is practically identical with the Hebrew.
This language belongs to a large family of languages to which, since the time of Eichhorn, the
name Semitic has been given, i.e., the The tongues of the descendants of Shem.
Semitic According to Old Testament usage,
Languages. this name is inexact, since some of the
people who used a language belonging to this group were descendants of Ham. But no thoroughly adequate name bas yet been found. The relationship of the original Semitic speech to others, e.g., the Egyptian language, is yet an open question. The nearest relatives of the Hebrew were the Moabitic, practically identical with it, and the Phenician. Doubtless the other peoples immediately east and west‑of the Jordan spoke dialects of the same tongue, so that this group may be called the Cflnaanitic. A comparison of Phenician inacrip‑
The Old Testament a National Literature (§ 1).
Variety of Literary Form and Contents ($ 2).
The Bond of Union ($ 3).
Methods of Composition ($ 4).
Use of "Strands " of Narrative ($ b).
Methods in Prophetical and Wisdom Literature (§ 8).
Authorship ($ 7).
Latee of Old Testament literature
III. Hebrew Poetry.
Recognition of the Nature of Hobrew Poetry (§ 1).
Employment of Poetry by Hebrews (¢ 2) .
Religious Use of Poetry (¢ 3).
The Epic and the Drama Lacking

Forma Mentioned in the Old Testament (§ b).
Characteristics of Hebrew Poetry 0 6).
tions with the Hebrew shows divergent dialectic peculiarities, while Neh. xiii. 23‑24 makes clear that by the time of Nehemiah the dialects had become so changed as not to be mutually intelligible to those speaking them. Nearest to the Canaanitic group came the Aramaic, the early history of which is obscure, but which developed a rich literature, divided into the East and the West Aramaic. The latter was used by the later inhabitants of Palestine ‑Jews, Samaritans, and Christians‑and by Nabataeana and Palinyrenes. The East Aramaic was used by Babylonian Jews, Manda'ane (q.v.), and the people of Edema, the last developing a considerable Christian literature. The Aramaic tongues were superseded by the Arabic. A third branch is the South Semitic languages, including the Arabic, Sabean, Mineean, Ethiopic, and Amharic. The East Semitic group comprises the Aesprian‑Babylonian of the cuneiform inscriptions.
These related branches point backward to an original Semitic tongue, the characteristics of which
remain more or less plainly evident in
3. Charac‑ the later forms, to which original
teristics of speech the Arabic seems the moat
Semitic nearly related. The chief characterie‑
Languages. tic of Semitic languages is the tri‑
	consonantal form of the roots; possibly
	originally the roots consisted of two consonants sub
	sequently built up by the addition of another conso
	nant. The language was then formed by vocalic
	changes inside the word or by additions or prefixes.
	Another characteristic of these languages is that only
	the consonants were written, the reader supplying
	the vocalization in accordance with the native ut
	terance. Word‑building wascomplex,secondaryfor
	mationa being very numerous. The verbs are lacking
	in tenses, only two main forma being used. The per
	sonal pronouns in the genitive and accusative be
	come mere enclitics, there are but two genders, and a
	dual is sparingly employed. The syntax is simple,
	though the use of the numerals is rather complicated.
	The Hebrew language holds a position midway
	between the Arabic and the Aramaic. It has fewer
	original vocals than the Arabic, more
	4. Charac‑ than the Aramaic, while it retains case.
teristice	ending and passive forma which the
and	Aramaic has lost, though both have
History	in use a juseive, the Hebrew using it
of the	more frequently than the Aramaic.
Hebrew	Some of the original consonants are lost
	Language. to the Hebrew, though it had a double
	pronunciation for the Ayin. Six other
	letters had a double pronunciation, a hard and an
aspirated. 	The Hebrew did not develop in its

nebrew Language	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	184
syntax a complicated period, while the usual connective is the simple " and," which implies various relationships. Historical narrative usually opens with the phrase " and it came to pass," while delineations of the future begin with " and it shall come to pass." The particles are few, little developed, and therefore ambiguous. Before the Hebrews entered either the East‑Jordanic or West‑Jordanic territory, the Canaanitic tongue, closely related to the Hebrew, was spoken there, as is shown both by the place‑names and by interesting glosses to the Amarna Tablets. Whether the Hebrews got their language from the Canaanites when they settled in Canaan, or already possessed it, is a difficult problem; but at any rate it remained their usual speech till the exile, and during the exile and after it was still cultivated. But in postexilic times it was dislodged by the Aramaic.
The cause of this is to be sought in the diffusion of the Aramaic as the official and commercial tongue of the Persian empire. The first witness to this is in the sources of the Book of Ezra followed by the Aramaic portions of the Book of Daniel. In the time of Christ Aramaic was the common speech, and such it continued till the Arabic conquest; though meanwhile Hebrew had been cultivated as a written language, as is proved by the Hebrew portion of Daniel and by the recovered parts of the original of Ecclesiasticus, as well as by indications in I Maccabees, the Psalms of Solomon, and various pseudepigrapha. It is clear that the supersession of Hebrew was preceded by a period when the land was bilingual, a large part of the people still using Hebrew. But this condition came to an end, and the reading of Hebrew in the synagogue had to be accompanied by translation into the vernacular Aramaic. It was in this way that Hebrew became gradually the speech of the learned only; but it is to be remarked that the Hebrew of the later sort has no more interest for the history of Hebrew than the Latin of the schoolmen for the history of Latin.
Since the Canaanitic existed in different dialects spoken bypeoples living under different conditions,
it might be expected that differences 5. Develop‑ would appear in the Old Testament.
ment of Moreover, since a period of 1,000 years
	the	is covered by Hebrew literature, a dif
Hebrew ference would be looked for between the
Language. earliest and the latest writings. While
this can be shown in only a limited degree, the reason is partly that only consonantal representation of these writings exists, and partly that later recension obliterated differences. The vocalized text represents only the late tradition of a pronunciation which had lost many of the peculiarities of the early speech, as is proved by the Canaanitic glosses to the Amarna Tablets, above referred to. Differences of dialect are proven by such passages as Judges xii. 6, xviii. 3, in the latter of which passages " voice " possibly means method of speech, dialect. When differences caused by time are considered, it is evident that the differences between the language of the Song of Deborah and Daniel are less than those between the " English " of the ninth and of the nineteenth century; yet it
is seen that there was a history of the Hebrew language. This is well illustrated by the language of Ecclesiastes. Further development was checked by the imitation by later writers of the early models. even to the reintroduction of archaic and disused forms. But even between the earlier and the later prophets there appear indications of a development toward a more flexible form of expression. The introduction of Aramaisms, preferences for one or another form of the personal pronouns, and other peculiarities mark periods in the language.
The history of the study of the Hebrew language began really at the time when it ceased to be a vernacular, and naturally with the Jews
6. Early of the dispersion, by whom Hebrew had
Study of been forgotten. The Septuagint gives
	Hebrew.	insight into the knowledge of Hebrew
		and the understanding of the text of
those who made it, and the translation differs
greatly in the different parts. Even in the case of
Ecclesiasticus the grandson misunderstood the writ
ing of the grandfather, a fact due in part to an un
pointed text. Further testimony of this character is
derived from the explanations of personal and place
names as exhibited in the various Onomastica sacra.
Meanwhile in Palestine also Hebrew had become a
language which had to be learned, as is shown by
the Aramaic paraphrases of Scripture in the syna
gogues, the development of which the Targums
were, and these show in general an excellent under
standing of the Hebrew. Similar testimony is
borne by the Syriac version, by the versions of
Aquila and Symmachus, and by the knowledge of
Hebrew of Jerome, who was taught by a Jew. For
close grammatical study, however, the Masoretic
works were the cradle, since they collected and
remarked upon word‑forms and grammatical con
structions. This sprang, not from interest in lin
guistic study, but from desire for preservation of the
true text, and one result of this work was a system
atic vocalization of the text. Real grammatical
study began with the contact of Jews with Arabic
grammarians (eighth century), and issued in Aaron
ben Moses ben Asher's Dikduke harte'amim of the
tenth century, which contains much grammatical
material. The first grammarian was Saadia Gaon
(d. 942), of whose works on linguistics only a small
part is extant. He was under the influence of
Arabic linguistics, and laid stress upon comparison
of Arabic and Hebrew. Even more strongly was
this emphasized by Judah ben Kuraish in North
Africa, who used both Arabic and Aramaic in lexical
and grammatical comparisons. About the middle of
the tenth century the Spanish Jew Menahem ben
Saruk compiled a Hebrew lexicon with grammatical
introduction, in which he sought to free Hebrew
lexicography from its Arabic bonds. His great
scholar, Judah Hayyuj ben David, about the year
1000, made special contributions to knowledge of
the weak verbs. Beside the Spanish Abraham ibn
Ezra (d. 1167) must be named the great David
Kimhi (d. 1235), whose grammatical‑lexicographic
Miklol is still of value. Kimhi's father, Joseph,
and his brother Moses were noted grammarians.
Worthy of mention also are Profiat Duran (Isaac
ben Moses Duran), at the end of the fourteenth

185	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hebrew Language
century, and Elias Levita (d. 1549). At this time the humanists began to busy themselves with Hebrew. The way was broken by the preachermonk Peter Nigri (1477), the priest Johannes B6hm (1490), Konrad Pellican (1501‑04), and Reuchlin (1506). The lexical and grammatical works of the elder Buxtorf (d. 1629) closed this period, in which the Christian world sought to reproduce Jewish learning.
A new advance was begun through the stimulus of the Polyglot Bibles, in which the study of Arabic was revived. Eminent in this period were De Dieu (d. 1642), Castell (d. 1685), Albert Schultens (d. 1750), N. W. Schroder (d. 1798), Alting (d. 1679),
		and Danz (d. 1727), the last two of
	7. Modem whom employed comparison of other
	Works on Semitic languages. Besides these, the
Hebrew. works of J. D. Michaelis in lexicography
		are especially to be noted, upon the
basis of which nineteenth century labors have been
largely based. Hebrew owes a great debt to W.
Gesenius (d. 1842), who, while using the other
Semitic tongues, sought to obtain as much light
upon forms as the Hebrew itself afforded. H. Ewald
sought in his very full grammar to attain deeper
insight into the development of the language.
B6ttcher (d. 1863) and Olshausen sought to carry
out more completely the empirical methods of
Gesenius. Stade carries the reduction of developed
forms to their ground‑form in synthetic fashion.
Lexicography is developed in the works of Siegfried
and Stade and in the works of Brown, Driver,
and Briggs (1906). The treatises of Lagarde and
Barth are of special value, especially that of Barth,
in which he parallels the nouns partly with verbal
preterites and partly with imperfects, and so
brings out a useful principle. 	(F. BUHL.)
II. Hebrew Literature in General: Ethnically speaking, the term Hebrew literature not only con‑
notes the books of the Old Testament, x. The Old but includes the Apocrypha (q.v.), the Testament laterpseudepigraphicbooks(seePsEuDa National EPI(iRAPHA), the writings of Josephus Literature. and Philo (qq.v.), the Talmud and the Targums (qq.v.; also see BIBLE VERsioNs,A. V.). .This discussion is necessarily limited to the Hebrew literature of the Old Testament. Thus limited, the term Hebrew literature covers what may be called the classic books of a nation. This, in turn, involves other implicates, one of the most important and suggestive of which is that this body of writings is an evolution, the product of different ages, the work of many individuals, even of whole schools or tendencies, therefore expressing changing ideals under differences of environment and condition, and employing a wide range of literary form. It would be expected that, as in the case of other national literature, Hebrew writings would not remain wholly unaffected by the peoples which conditioned the national life of the Israelites, this influence coming out even in those portions which most closely expressed its ideals‑‑a fact which recent study has confirmed. But one has not to go far in the investigation of this literature before discovering that the body of writings included within the Old Testament is not all of Hebrew writings
existent and available in the period which the Old Testament covers. To phrase it differently, the Old Testament is a selected literature‑not selected, however, in the sense that it was deliberately chosen to represent Hebrew thought and feeling, but rather selected by its own fitness, persisting by its own right to live becaxse of its appeal to the heart and conscience of the people to whom it came and because of its complete expression of their varying hopes, fears, and convictions. And this exclusive position was won not without a struggle. For nearly three centuries other books strove for admission to this circle of writings, were for a time admitted and used by the Jewish diaspora, but were finally rejected by what, outside of the Roman and Greek branches of the Christian Church, is regarded as the best judgment of the Hebrew race with its Palestinian traditions behind it. It is a remarkable fact that the one book of Hebrew production which bears any trace of the author's hope that it would be included among the canonical books did not succeed in forcing its entrance (cf. Ecclus., Prologue). And that other literature was once available becomes evident when one notes references to such writings as the book of Jasher (Josh. x. 13), the book of the wars of Yahweh (Num. xxi. 14), the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (II Kings x. 34 and often), and numerous other works quoted as sources in various parts of the extant literature (cf. C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament, ii. 10 sqq.; New York, 1905).
As comprising a national literature, therefore, the Old Testament possesses the characteristics and
varieties which inhere in the literature 2. Variety of a nation. It is in prose and in of Literary poetry; it contains myth, legend, hisForm and tory, legislation, oratory, epistolary Contents. literature, drama, parable, proverb, fable, idyl, philosophy, praise and prayer, patriotic national pieces, and portions universal in their application. Its writings betray at one time individualistic peculiarities of style and vocabulary and preferences for certain methods of expression; at another, they display the general tendencies of a school existing through generations. It includes the perfervid outpourings of the impassioned worshiper and the deliberate musings of a reflective philosopher. There are utterances hot from the furnace of passion, and polished, even labored and artificial, poems of the study. God, man, and Satan appear as speakers within its pages. Representing the externalization of a nation's history, it contains recollections of the pastoral life, mirrors the fresh, buoyant, and heroic period when a home was in the winning, registers the age of the adoption and formation of institutions, records the pride of achievement of eminence among the peoples, shows the depression of decadence and the rise of religious skepticism, and echoes the groan of extinction of national life. Indeed, this literature runs the entire gamut of national and of individual emotion as well as of literary form. Among the sacred books of the world's faiths none is nearly so rich in its variety & form, content, and expression as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.

Hebrew Langaare	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	188
But while this book is thus the epitome of a whole millennium out of a nation's best inner life and
external history, and therefore a col‑
a. The lection of writings, it is not a loose
Bond of aggregation with no inner bond. The
Union. purpose of each part, is one with that
of all the rest, the exaltation of righteousness in man as the necessary complement of the holiness of a righteous God. From the Song of Deborah (Judges v.), believed to be the earliest lengthy single composition in the Old Testament to Daniel (perhaps the latest composition), the religion of Yahweh is the motif inspiring the writers. This involved two complementary conceptions: (1) Yahweh as the national God, whom alone Israel might worship; (2) Israel as Yahweh's chosen people, therefore the most highly favored and sovereign of all peoples, the mediator of Yahweh's blessings upon the nations. This was not indeed always conceived in the same manner‑a fact implied in what precedes‑but religion, a particular faith, developing in clearness, intensity, comprehensiveness, and sublimity, binds the whole into a unity so close that to eliminate a book or a part of a book is as impossible as undesirable. To excise any part would be to limit the book's variety and mar its perfection as the mirror of a nation's thought add feeling. This, of course, does not preclude the book's being the object of the profoundest study from the textual, linguistic, literary, and historical sides, as well as from a religious standpoint. And it is unfortunate that it is neceegary to say that the results of textual, linguistic, literary, and r:storical investigations are no more destructive of the Bible or its components than are the pronouncements of an architectural expert upon the structure of a cathedral which in different periods has been restored and extended. The archeologist labels the parts Roman, Byzantine, Norman, Gothic, etc., and his statement neither destroys the cathedral, takes away any of its parts, nor affects the sincerity of the worship performed in the edifice. Similarly the Biblical expert names the period or style of a component of Scripture, but his dictum does not (or should not) affect the religious value, still less does it remove anything from the book. (On the religious bond which connects the books of the Old Testament there is no more illuminating volume than Matthew Arnold's Literature aged Dogma, London, 1873, and often.)
From some of the books, notably Proverbs and Psalms, where the works of different persons and
periods are brought together, it is at
4. Methods once clear that certain modes of compiof Com‑ lation from sources available to the
position. author were in use among the Hebrews.
In other books there is discernible the editing of earlier material. with a view to the emphasis of certain phases of life, as when the Chronicler employs often the exact words found in Kings, though at other times he changes the expression to suit his purpose (cf< II Chron. xxxiv. 8‑12 with 11 Kings xxii. 3‑7). A fine example of this process of editing is found in the Book of Judges, where the stories concerning the saviorsbf the people are used to teach a religious truth, vie., the result of defection
from fidelity to Yahweh. The utilization of mate‑
rial already existing begins in Genesis, which takes in
the primitive sword song of Lamech (Gen. iv. 23‑24),
the myth concerning the origin of giants (vi. 1‑4),
and much other matter derived from various
sources, and continues through Ezra‑Nehemiah,
which quotes the decrees of the Persian monarchs.
This process is evident even in the prophetical books
(cf. Isa. ii. 2 sqq. with Mic. iv. 1 sqq.). The mate
rial thus employed may be that afforded by oral
tradition, as in the ease of the rude fqlk‑songs taken
up into the Hesateuch (cf. the song of the well,
Num. xxi. 17‑18); or a cycle of stories nucleated
about some noted personages, such as the prophetic
cycle of Elijah and Elisha (I Kings svii.‑II Kings
ii.). Duplicate narratives were sometimes woven to
gether, as in the case of the early life of David
(see SAMUEL). Even more numerous sources were
sometimes intertwined, producing an account more
complete and variegated than any one alone pro
vided. If critical conclusions are to be trusted,
even material derived from non‑Hebraic sources
was employed, though in the using it was passed
through the alembic of the national conscience and
purified from its polytheistic taint (e.g., Gen. i.‑iii.).
	The tracing of these sources is claimed as one of
the achievements of modern Biblical Criticism (q.v.),
			especially as applied to the Hexa
	g. Use of teuch (q.v.). Here it is believed that
	"Strands" four main strands have been detected,
		of	and some of them traced into the later
	Narrative. historical books of Judges, Samuel, and
			Kings (qq.v.), the strands being com
bined byan editor (or editors) or "redactor." These
constituents are known by the symbols J, E, D, P, R,
and it is now considered that such symbols repre
sent not so much single authors as the completed
produot of a series or school of writers. Thus the J
(Jehovistic, Yahwistic, or Judean) narrative is be
lieved to have been completed in the ninth century
B.C. in the southern kingdom, and it is prophetic
in genius, anthropomorphic (or primitive) in theol
ogy, concrete in ethics, picturesque and vivid in
style, flowing in rhetoric, historic in aim, fond of
introducing folk‑songs into the history, and delight
ing in plays on words. The E (Elohistic, Ephraim
itic) narrative, assigned to the eighth century B.C.,
and composed in the northern kingdom, is advanced
in theology, avoiding anthropomorphism (the deity
appears in dreams, not _n person), didactic in genius,
theocratic rather than historical in aim, concise in
rhetoric, in ethics relying upon explicit commands
of the deity rather than upon custom. Some time in
the seventh century B.C. these two narratives were
fused in the JE narrative, since in the combined
representations the historical basis of the nar
rative text in chronological order is found. This
is D (Deuteronomist), a writer or (better) school
whose labors extend far beyond the work from
which the name is taken, the present form of the
books Judges‑Kings being a result of this activity.
This school Heed the early narratives available as a
medium by which to convey the pragmatic teach
ings concerning the theocracy which distinguished
the school. Thus the framework into which are
set in the Book of Judges the lives and exploits of

187	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Hebrew LanaoMe
the heroes of the story is the work of D. The latest of the four narratives is that of P (Priestly writer), believed to be of the fifth to the fourth century, and composed in Babylonia. The principal interests of this school are ritual, genealogy, chronology, the sacerdotal office, and origins of institutions and laws. The portions contributed by P partake therefore of the tabular or " schedule " style, being " formal, exact, repetitious " (C. F. Kent, ut sup., i. 45). The vocabulary is limited, statistics are frequently furnished, numbers are multiplied, dates and genealogies are given. In theology the transcendence of deity is emphasized; in ethics, the patriarchs and early leaders are so idealized that their transgressions are passed with the minimum of notice. To this school is assigned the union of all the sources of the Hexateuch, leaving it nearly in its present form, some time in the fifth (or early in the fourth) century B.C. While the separate narratives have the more salient characteristics thus outlined, marking off each from the other, no less noticeable are the linguistic peculiarities, each narrative having its own vocabulary, its own idiosyncrasies of construction, and its choice of phrases not duplicated by the others (cf. C. F. Kent, ut sup., i. 357 sqq.; Driver, lictrodudion, chap. i., 17). The structure of the first part of the Old Testament, then, presents as a whole the appearance of formation by a rope‑like intertwining of strands of different periods, possessing variant characteristics and coloring.
In the prophetical books a different method of composition was the order. Not until Ezekiel was it usual to communicate the prophetic
6. Methods teaching to its recipients by writing.
in Pro‑ Jeremiah indeed dictated to Baruch
phetical " all the words " which up to that time and Yahweh had spoken to him (which, it
Wisdom is clearly implied, he had spoken as
Literature. they came to him) " against Israel and against Judah " from Josiah's time onward. This doubtless represents the custom of the writing prophets until Ezekiel‑delivery by the living voice, record in writing comes afterwards. This is confirmed by the unmistakable sense of an audience which appears in most of the prophetic deliverances, by the disconnection which is so often evident between the components of a prophetical book, and by the fragmentary nature of much of the material. The last feature is explained further by the fact that some oracles in the form in which they have been transmitted are evidently the mere outlines of fuller discourses. On the other hand, not seldom there are present a polish and literary finish which involve painstaking elaboration. These phenomena, with others, such as difference in viewpoint, variation in vocabulary and in literary style, have evoked much study on the part of exegetes and students; and the very perplexity thus evinced is in itself a justification of the critical conclusions involving variety of authorship in several of the prophetic books, notably those of Isaiah and Zechariah, which have so lightened the burden of the problems of Old Testament study. If it be true that prophetic deliveranaes were primarily oral, that later the prophet committed them to writing, that these records were kept sometimes on fugitive
rolls or leaves, then it is not remarkable that, in the general process of editing, deliverances by an unknown prophet came to be attached to those of one who was known. In this the purpose was not to deceive; the object was doubtless a laudable desire to save fugitive pieces which were in danger of being lost. By this process of editing are explained such phenomena as the attachment of chaps. xl: hzvi., relating to the exile, to chaps. .i.‑xxxix. of Isaiah (mainly preexilic), and the union of separate prophecies under the name of Zechariah. In the " wisdom literature " (so‑called from the Hebr. hokhmah, " wisdom "), consisting of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, perhaps Canticles, and certainly some of the Psalms, all didactic in aim, both the methods of compilation and that of straightforward composition are employed. Thus Proverbs (q.v.) is a colleotion of collections, including a treatise as introduction (cf. i. 1, x. 1, xxv. 1, xxxi. 1), and bearing the marks of successive editings. The dialogue of Job (q.v.) is a single composition, unless the speeches of Elihu are an insert subsequently included. Ecclesiastes (q.v.) is a unit, except for the additions in xii. 9 sqq.
In Jer. xviii. 18 is read: "For the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise,
nor the word from the prophet."
q. Author‑ Jeremiah here brings together the three ship. classes from whom practically all of
Hebrew literature was derived. From " the prophet " (or the prophetical school), as has been indicated, proceeded not only what appears in the English Bible as the prophetical books (IsaiahMalachi), but also three of the four strands of the Pentateuch (J, E, D) and the historical books from Joshua to Kings (which last, be it remembered, were known to rabbinic Judaism as "the former prophets," with the exception of Ruth; see CANON o1P SCRIPTURE, I., 4, § 2). From "the priest" (or those whose interests were priestly) proceeded the fourth strand of the Pentateuch (P), Chronicles, Ezra‑Nehemiah, and most of the Psalms. The contribution of "the wise" was, of course, the wisdom literature. Some students would add to these a fourth class, the writers of apocalyptic literature, such as Daniel and a part of Zechariah; but this is a species of writing which is better classed as a late phase of prophecy. On this ground the inclusion by the versions of Daniel among the prophetical books has its justification, though the arrangement contravenes that of the Hebrew Bible (see CANON OF SCRIPTURE, I., 4, § 2). According to the modern critical school, closer definition of authorship for most of the Old Testament books is impossible. Thus the foregoing statement of the composition of the Pentateuch (see § 4 above) precludes authorship by Moses. The books Joshua‑Chronicles inclusive are named from their contents, not from the author. Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah purports to be written by the worthy whose name it bears, and the same is true of Esther and Job. Psalms is a collection from various sources, some of which are named. Most modern scholars affirm that neither Ecclesiastes nor Canticles can be Solomonic, and therefore the title in each (if indeed Ecclesiastes claims

Hebrew Language	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	188
to be by that king; cf. i. 1, where " son of David, king in Jerusalem " does not necessarily mean Solomon) is pseudonymous. Only the prophetical books remain to which definite authorship can be assigned, and even here only‑ in part. In other words, the most of Old Testament literature is anonymous.
The story of the development of Hebrew literature as given by the critical school is as follows: From the pre‑Mosaic period came the folk‑
8. Dates songs embodied in the Pentateuch,
of Old such as the sword song of Lamech, and Testament the oral traditions respecting origins of
Literature. the world, of nations, and of tribes such as were common to the Semitic world. From the Mosaic period were transmitted the body of Mosaic precepts and decisions which were later formulated in the earliest'written codes, but were at first handled down orally from the period of wandering, and also such songs as Ex. xv. and Num. xxi. 17‑18. From the immediate post‑Mosaic age (beginning about 1100 B.C.) came the Song. of Deborah and oral traditions respecting the conquest and the period of the Judges which followed hard after. It is regarded as probable that written records began soon after the establishment of the kingdom in the shape of official annals, and, later, temple records. About 1000 B.C. is the date of David's law of booty (I Sam. xxx. 24‑25), his elegy on Saul and Jonathan (II Sam. i. 17 sqq.), and that on Abner (II Sam. iii. 33‑34), and, soon after, Nathan's parable (II Sam. xii. 1‑4), while the date assigned to the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xhx.), Solomon's prayer (I Kings viii. 12 sqq.), to the compiling of the book on the wars of Yahweh (cf. Num. xxi. 14) and of the book of Jasher (cf. Josh. x. 12‑13); and to the Balsam discourses (Num. xxiii.‑xxiv.) is c. 970. The primitive codes (Ex. xiii., xa. 23‑xxiii. 19, etc.) were probably first collected in the same period (950‑900 B.C.). The beginnings of formulated history in the J narrative, and the collection of the life of Saul are placed in the middle of the ninth pre‑Christian century. Deut. xxxiii. is dated about 800, while to about 750 are assigned the E narrative and the cycle of Elijah and Elisha stories in their earliest form. Between 750 and 760 fall the prophecies of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, while the latter date is believed to be that of Judges xvii‑xviii., and the Book of Samuel took nearly its present form about the same time. It is probable that early in the seventh century the nucleus of the Psalter was gathered, about 650 came the blending of the J and E narratives, and the Deuteronomic Code (Dent. v. or xii.‑xxx.) was written and adopted soon after (621 B.C.). Meanwhile Nahum and Zephaniah (650‑830) had taken form, Jeremiah had begun his work (625), while Habakkuk delivered his oracles about 605. The first edition of the Books of Kings is believed to have been issued about 600, and soon after Ezekiel began his work of instruction (in 592). The fall of Jerusalem was followed after no long interval by the writing of Lamentations and probably by Baruch's edition of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and the Book of Obadiah is also to be located in the same period. The exile was a time fruitful in literary
production, including the Deuteronomic redaction of Judges‑Kings except Ruth, the union of the J, E, and Deuteronomic narratives, the issue of Isa. xl.‑Iv. (or lxii.), possibly the Holiness Code (Lev. xvii~xxvi.), and other beginnings of the Priest Code. Haggai and Zechariah belong to the period following the return, or 520‑518. The early part of the fifth century doubtless saw the practical completion of the Priest Code and its blending with the Holiness Code, and the completion of the second part of Isaiah (chaps. lvi. [or lxii.]‑lxvi.). Between 460 and 400 the Book of Ruth, the prophecies of Malachi, the documents used in Ezra‑Nehemiah, and chapters inserted in the first part of Isaiah (such as chap. xxxiv.) were written. The next century (400‑300 B.C.) witnessed the completion of the Pentateuch by the interweaving of all the documents, the completion of the books from Genesis to Kings, the issue of the prophecies of Joel, the compilation of Proverbs, the writing of Isa. xxiv.‑xxvii., and of Job, while the nucleus of the Psalter, consisting of Ps. iii.‑xli., was expanded by the addition of books ii.‑iii. (Ps. xlii.‑Ixxxix.), and it may be that Zech. ix.‑xiv. is to be put in this period. To the latter half of the century Canticles is sometimes assigned. The work of the Chronicler (I‑II Chronicles, Ezra‑Nehemiah) is with great confidence placed about 300 B.C. Ecclesiastes is put late in the next century, Esther is not regarded as earlier than 200‑150, while Daniel, considered the latest book in the canon (unless Esther postdates it), is dated 168‑165, while the completion of the Psalter is put about 140. Although for the later books the dates given are regarded as indicated by facts which are reasonably certain, and on which there is a growing consensus, for the postponement of the beginning of literary work as exemplified in the Pentateuch the critics rely not merely on data supplied by the documents themselves, but on the general principle that advancement in culture and a certain fixity of institutions and life are required before writing may take form. This seems to be the law of literary development. See BIBLICAL IrrmRODUCmION, I., and the articles on the separate books, in which the positions taken above as to the dates will be found to be traversed. It was not thought desirable to have a separate article upon these differences.
GEO. W. GILMORE.
	III. Hebrew Poetry: Antiquity throws little light
upon the nature of Hebrew poetry. Josephus and
		some of the fathers incidentally spoke
:. Recogni‑ of metrical form; and medieval rabbis
	tion of adduced the " parallelism of mem
	the Nature bers " as characteristic, but viewed the
	of Hebrew subject from a rhetorical or exegetical
	Poetry. point of view (Ibn Ezra on Ps. ii.
		3; Isa. xiv. 11,); for others, however,
Biblical poetry had so little attraction that they,
like Judah‑ha‑Levi, considered that Old Testament
poetry excelled all other just because it lacked
artistic form. During and after the Reformation
exegetes were concerned only with the religious
content of the Old Testament, and it was not until
after the reaction against orthodoxy set in that
literary characteristics received attention. In 1753
appeared Bishop Lowth's still authoritative De

189	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hebrew Languase
sacra poesi Hebrceorum (Eng. transl., Lectures on the Sacred ,Poetry of the Hebrews, 2 vols., London, 1787), in which he treated (1) the meter, (2) "the parabolic style," (3) the different kinds of poetry. Of great importance is the nineteenth lecture on the parallelism of members, which parallelism he divides into synonymous (Pa. cxiv. 1 sqq.) antithetic (Prov. xxvii: 6‑7), and synthetic (Pa. xix. 8‑11). To this work Herder furnished an excellent supplement in Vom Geist der ebrtiischen Poesie (2 vols., Dessau, 1782‑83, Engt transl., The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, Burlington, Vt., 1833). With few exceptions, mainly purely metrical questions, the topics included in this branch of Old Testament study have been avoided by modern exegetes.
With full justification Kuenen has denied Keil's contention that Hebrew poetry is the fruit of religion, and that therefore the Hebrews never had any secular poetry. Keil overlooked, on the one hand, that it was in the interest of religion that the compilers of the Old Testament selected as its contents what seemed most important to them and no doubt also to humanity; and, on the other hand, that the
Old Testament still contains many
z. Employ‑ traces of non‑religious poetry. That
meat of song and poem had an important place
Poetry in the life of old Israel is seen from by He‑ the facts that historians referred to old
	brews.	songs, and that prophets adopted their
		form. It is provable that in all con
ditions of life the song or the chant was heard‑at
the wedding (Jer. vii. 34, xxv. 10; I Mace. ix. 39),
even that of a king (Pa. xlv.); lovers broke into song
(Isa. v. 1‑2; Ezek. xxxiii. 32). The people sang in
the harvest‑field (Pa. 'lxv. 13), at the wine‑press
(Isa. xvi. 10; Jer. xxv. 30), at the discovery of
water (Num. xxi.17 sq.), and at the feast (Isa. v.12;
Ps. lxig. 12). Occasionally at the feast a host im
provised the song (Amos vi. 5) or‑the riddle (Judges
xiv. 12), but usually singer and songstress were
engaged to entertain the guests (II Sam. xix. 35;
I Kings x. 12; Eccles. ii. 8; compare also David's
position at Saul's court). Everywhere vocal music
is the expression of joy; so closely are they related
that the bard seems to be out of place in the atmos
phere of gloom (Amos viii. 10; Job xxi. 12; Prov.
xxv. 20). Nevertheless, death, too, called forth its
own peculiar form of poetry; the " Lament," sung
by trained mourning women (Jer. ix. 17 sqq.; cf.
Amos v. 16) no doubt in a stereotyped form. If the
deceased was a king or a hero, real poets composed
new laments (II Sam. i. 19 sqq., iii. 33 sq.; II
Chron. xxxv. 25). The sacrifice of the virgin
daughter of Jephthah was annually commemorated
in elegies (Judges id. 40); the warriors called to
one another in rhythmic shouts (I . Sam. xviii. 7,
xxi. 11, xxix. 5; Judges v. 29); on his return the
conqueror either himself sang his exploits (Gen. iv.
23; Judges xv. 16), or employed a poet, whose
songs, like that of Deborah, became the sources for
the historian (cf. Num. xxi. 14, t; Josh. x. 12‑13
Judges v. 11). Satire, too, was clothed in poetry
(Judges v. 15‑17; Hab. ii. 6 sqq.; Jer. vii. 29;
Ezek. xix. 1, xxvi. 17); proverbs and parables were
given in poetic measure (Judges ix. 7 sqq.; II Kings
xiv. 9 sqq.; II Sam. xii. 1 sqq., xiv. 6 sqq.), which was adopted by the prophets (Iaa. v. 1, sqq., xxviii. 23 sqq.; Ezek. xvii. 2 sqq.) and the teacher (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), and in the practise of it Solomon was considered chief (I Kings v. 12). How valuable the Israelites themselves considered their poetry is evinced by the many collections which were made; thus, one containing dirges is mentioned II Chron. xxxv. 25; there are also the older " Book of the wars of Yahweh " (Num. xxi. 14‑15) and the " Book of Jasher " (perhaps " The Book of the Upright," Joshua x. 12‑13.).
The Old Testament teaches, however, that poetry found its highest development in the sphere of religion; song, music, and the dance
3. Religious were always the indispensable form of Use of the cult (Ex. xxxii.18; Judges xxi. 21;
	Poetry.	II Sam. vi. 5, 14); a very old song,
		with which the ark was greeted, is
preserved in Num. x. 35‑36; at the Ephraimitic
sanctuaries hymns were sung to harp accompani
ment (Amos v. 23), and in Judah to that of the pipe
and flute (Isa. xxx. 29. After the return there were
temple‑singers (Ezra ii. 41) who sang such lyrics as
are preserved in the Psalter, a book which contains
also purely individualistic hymns (xii. 1 sqq., xvii.
12 sqg., xviii. 18 sqq., xx. 7 sqq.). From Jer. xlv.
3, which sounds like a citation, and from Lamenta
tions, especially chap. iii., the conclusion may be
drawn that the religious lyric was well developed
long before the Exile. But religious poetry found
a yet wider field, for the style of the prophets is so
decidedly rhythmical that rhetoric immediately
glides over into poetry. No doubt this was an
inheritance from ancient prophecy, which was
accompanied by music (I Sam. x. 5; II Kings iii.
15; of. Ps. xhx. 4). The teachers of wisdom could
not dispense with poetry, hence the proverb is
expressed in gnomic form with its parables and
rhythm; even Ecclesiastes, though ordinarily col
orless and devoid of music, now and then glides
into rhythm (Eccles. iii.. 1‑8, xii. 1‑1), and the
author of the Book of Job has handled a religio
philosophical problem in such a way that he would
have been one of humanity's greatest poets had not
the theologian in him dominated the poet.
Thus it appears that any presentation of Hebrew poetry is limited to the religious literature of the Old Testament, and the results would have to be modified were secular poetry as plentifully preserved as is the religious. Consequently a definite answer can not be given to the question
4. The Epic whether or not the Hebrews had a
and the drama; only this may be said, that
Drama	none has been preserved, for the Song
	Lacking.	of Solomon, if rightly understood, is
		not a drama, and Job is a collection of
monologues and dialogues held together by nar
rative. Still, from all this the inference is not,
necessary that the Israelites in their secular poetry
had no drama, but the salient characteristic of
Semitic poetry makes the knowledge of the dramatic
art among the Hebrews extremely doubtful. The
same is true of the epic, which is hardly conceivable
in a prophetic atmosphere that as a rule excludes
every mythological element. But since at least one

Hebrew iangwwe	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	190
Semitic people, the Babylonians, had the epic, it seems likely that Israel, too, had once epic poetry, and reminiscences or suggestions of such a form are still found, though they are used merely for decorative purpose (Job iii. 8, ix. 13; Pa. lxxiv. 13‑14). But if one understand by epic only hero‑stories in poetic form, then the Hebrews had much of such poetry. If, now, with this reservation, one would get a survey of the whole field of Hebrew poetry, he would find a good aid in the Old Testament division of this variety of literature into lyric song and proverb. The lyric ~3ong in the secular field embraces love‑songs, war‑songs, and dirges, all of
which are found in the religious area, g. Forms as given in Pa.; Ex. xv.; Deut. xxxii.;
Mentioned I Sam. ii.; Nahum i.; Hab. iii., and
in the Old Lamentations. As special kinds of
Testament. poetry the Old Testament mentions the
prayer‑hymn (Pa. lxxi.1; Hab. iii. 1, cf. Pa. lxxii. 20) and the song of praise (Ps. cxlv.1). The " proverb " has a far wider range. This is directed rather to the intellect than to the feeling, is complex, combines apparently heterogeneous elements, and gives in condensed, often enigmatical, form an experience or a moral truth (cf. I Sam. xxiv. 14; Ezek. xii. 22‑23, xviii. 2; Prov. i. 1, x. 1, xxv. 1); it is used by the philosopher (Job xxvii. 1, xxix. 1), the seer (Nun. xxiii. 7, 18), the allegorizer (Ezek. xvii. 2, xxiv. 3), and the mocker (Isa. xiv. 4; Mic. ii. 4; Hab. ii. 6). The following is the range of the use of the proverb: (1) in sentences like those just given, riddles, and dark sayings (Prov. i. 6); (2) it means the riddle proper (Judges xiv. 12 sqq.; I Kings x. 1); (3) it stands for fables (Judges ix. 7‑8; Il Kings xiv. 9‑10); (4) for parables (II Sam. xii. 1 sqq., xiv. 6 sqq.; Isa. v. 1 sqq., xxviii. 23 sqq.); (5) for allegories (Ezek. xvii. 2, xxiv. 3); (6) for satires and mockeries (Hab. ii. 6); (7) for expressions of wisdom (Pa. xlix.; Prov. i~ix.; Eccles.; Job); (8) for didactic presentation of history (Pa. xcv., lxxviii.); (9) and for prophetic literature (Nun. xii. 8, xxiii. 7, 18; Dan. v. 12). But the line between the lyric and the proverb is not sharply drawn, and the two overlap and interchange.
Absolute certainties about the artistic form of Hebrew poetry are very few; still it may be said that criticism has established the following facts:
(1) Poetry is not satisfied with ordi6. Charac‑ nary diction, but searches for sonorous,
teristics of rare, ancient expressions; it often uses Hebrew a different relative, longer pronominal Poetry. suffixes, different nominal endings, and
has a preference for alliteration, assonances and word pictures; of a conscious use of rime for metrical purposes there is no trace. (2) Owing to its kinship to music and the dance, poetry demands a form controlled by rhythm. But here is the least known area, for, whereas the Arabs had a developed meter long before they knew how to write, the Old Testament poetry takes such form that many have given up all hope of finding a meter at all, in the place of which they discover merely the " thought‑rhythm," the so‑called " parallelism of members." The simplest form of this is the synonymous parallelism, in which the second part of the line or verse repeats in different form the
sense of the first (Pa. ii. 4; Job vi. 8; Isa. v. 7; Song of Sol. viii. 6); at times only a part of the first line is repeated (Job iii. 8), or the picture is followed by the fact (Prov. ii. 22; Job vii. 9); at times the two members bear the same relation to each other as the obverse and the reverse of a coin (Song of Sol. vii. 10). A second form is known as the antithetical, in which the sense of the two members is opposed (Pa. xviii. 27; Prov. xi. 1). Besides these two varieties, Lowth names a third, the synthetic, in which the members merely hang together without being parallel or antithetic (cf. Pa. iii. 2, xi. 3, xxix. 1; Job xiii. 16, xxxiii. 29; Prov. ii. 31; Ex. xv. 16). Ordinarily the parallelism has two members, at times three (Song of Sol. iv. 10; Ps. ii. 2, vi. 6, liv. 3), four (Ps. cxiv. 1‑2; Deut. xxxii. 11; Judges v. 4, 14), and even as many as six (Lam. i.1). (3) Altogether different is the problem, however, if the search is for the resolution of Hebrew poetry into a true rhythm and if parallelism is regarded merely as a frequent accompaniment. Merx, for example, sees in parallelism merely a rhetorical law which may accompany, but does not constitute, the poetic form, and Grimme goes so far as to deduce parallelism directly from the rhythm. Here appears the question often affirmatively answered, and as frequently answered in the negative, whether or not a meter can be pointed out in Hebrew poetry. The assertion that the Israelites had a verse measure is old. Josephus says that Moses wrote two poems in hexameter (Ex. xv.; Deut. xxxii.), and David some in trimeters, and others in pentameter. Similar claims are found in Eusebius and Jerome; and the latter discovers in Job the hexameter, in Lam. i., ii., iv., the Sapphic measure, and in Lam. iii. the trimeter. It must be remembered, however, that, on the one hand, these authors were endeavoring to remove the prejudice of their readers against the Hebrew, and, on the other, that only by comparing the Hebrew with the Greek could they make Hebrew poetry intelligible; nevertheless their testimony, especially that of Jerome, is of importance. It goes without saying that the discovery of a meter would be a great help to the textual critic and the exegete, consequently a number of scholars have set themselves the task of searching for the key to this mystery. They fall into two groups, the one of which (represented by Merx, Bickell, Gietmami) tries to find the same meter as is found in Syriac poetry, Servian hero‑tales, and new Romance poetry where the rhythm is produced by a definite number of syllables. Bickell, the ablest champion of this theory, claims that in the verse every other syllable is accented, and that in the foot the accent always falls on the penultimate; consequently, that in verses of even number of syllables the measure would be trochaic, in those of uneven number, iambic; and he has formulated a complete system of rules, in accordance with which different syllables may at times be dropped, the half‑vowels counted or omitted, the suffixes changed, and so on. The other group (Ley, Neteler, Briggs, Grimme, Duhm, Bertholet, Gunkel) counts only the tone‑beat, regarding the unaccented and slightly accented syllables between the tone‑beats as unessential to the meter. Ley has found hexameters, octameters,

191	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Hebrew language
decameters, and elegiac pentameters, which may be divided into smaller parts and interchange with one another: Grimme, however, has his strophes consist of from two to four verses with from two to five tone‑beats, but thinks that the verses must have the same measure; consequently verses of four beats and three beats, or of four and five beats, are not interchangeable, while those of four may interchange with verses of two beats, and verses with five beats (2+3) interchange with verses of two and three beats. In general agreement with this scheme are the conclusions of the exhaustive investigation of Sievers, who found, however, a definite rhythm, fitted both for song and recitation, the so‑called pseudo‑anapest meter. But too much caution can not be exercised in judgment of these systems, for in all there are admitted difficulties. Every system of metrics rests not only upon laws, but upon incalculable quantities, which no acuteness can discover where every tradition is wanting. But difficulty attends search for the laws of expression, inasmuch as the original pronunciation is no longer certainly known. Moreover, the text is by no means certain; in places it is demonstrably corrupt. Another difficulty is found in the uncertain boundaries of Hebrew poetry. The Masoretes have furnished only Psalms, Proverbs, and Job with poetical accentuation; but this is decidedly erroneous, since other books contain poetry. In different compositions different forms may be expected, as, for instance, in the recited speech and the chanted song; and while it is undoubtedly true that most prophecy contains true poetry, it is hardly conceivable that the authors felt themselves bound to any particular meter. Bickell is able to remove all of these objections by citing Syriac analogies, but proof is entirely lacking that the Hebrews had the same method of making poetry as the Syrians. Moreover, Bickell is forced to ignore the Masoretic notations, and his system is absolutely irreconcilable with Josephus's and Jerome's statements. More probable is the other system, though Ley and Grimme with their rules go far beyond recognized knowledge. In favor of this system there are strong reasons: in the first place, the Masoretic accentuations can be utilized; in the second place, good results are obtainable in spite of a doubtful text; and it is hardly to be denied that double verses of three plus three tone‑beats occur so frequently that they may be conceived as governing the normal meter of the Israelites; and besides, the system harmonizes with the statements of Josephus and Jerome. To this it must be added that there are remarkable analogies in Babylonian literature Another form of Hebrew poetry, the so‑called Vinah or dirge‑meter, has been richly illuminated through the investigations of Budde. This is a common line followed by a shorter broken one, usually three tone‑beats followed by two, in which Ley and Grimme see lines of five tone‑beats (Amos v. 2; Ezek. xix. 2; Isa. i. 21 sqq., xiv. 4 sqq.; Lam. i.‑iv.); this measure seems most fit to represent the mood of the mourning‑women. When this meter is found in such poems as Ps. xix. 7, sqq. Ixv. 5‑8, lxxxiv. 1 sq., ci.; Isa. xxxii. 9‑14, it is to be regarded as merely a poetic device. (5) Finally the Old Testament has
alphabetical (acrostic) poems, Ps. ix.‑x., xxv., xxxiv.,
xxxvii., oxi., cxii.,cxix.,cxlv.; Lam. i. iv.; Prov. xxxi.
10 sqq., and no doubt Nahum i. 2‑ii. 3 (according
to Bickell also Ecclus. li.13‑20). Among these are
many. variations, from such Psalms as cad. and cxii.,
in which a new letter begins every half‑verse, to
Ps. cxix., where every letter is eight times repeated
as an initial. In some the alphabetical order is
barely visible (Ps. ix. sq.; Nahum i), a fact which
can be due only to faulty transmission; indeed, it
seems that Gunkel and Bickell have been able prac
tically to reconstruct the Nahum passage. These
alphabetical songs tell further that the poets devel
oped the stanza in its unity, and in complexity
carried it at least as far as to the length of sixteen
lines, as in Pa. cxix.; a further development was the
refrain used in Ps. x&i. 5, 11, xiiii. 5, 11, lit. 9, 17,
lxB%. 3, 7, 19; also in the Prophets, Amos i. 3, 6.
A variation of this is found in the repetition of the
opening verse (Isa. v. 8, 11, 18, 22; Hab. ii. 9, 12,
15). Considering such facts as these, many students
have followed Kc6ster in supposing that all Old
Testament poetry must be composed of stanzas;
but a difference of opinion has arisen upon the ques
tion whether single lines (so Sommer, Delitzsch)
or the distich or tristich (so Hupfeld) should be
considered the unit of the stanza. This question
has found an elaborate treatment in D. H. Miiller's
Die Propheten in ihrer ursprunglichen Form (Vienna,
1896), but his results appear to be as doubtful as
Bertholet's division of Ezek. xv. and Bickell's and
Duhm's of Job iii. 	(F. BUHL.)

BrswoaaArey: 1. From the comparative standpoint 0onsuit: W. Gesenius, Geachichte der hebraiachen Sprade and Schrdft, Leipsic, 1815; E. Renan, Hist. p&t&rala des lanpun ainitiques, Paris, 1863; B. 8tade, Ernauta prafunp des swriachen dam ph6nisiachen and hebrdiw5an Verwan& schaftaprades, Leipsic, 1875; F. Hommel, Die senitieden V6iker and Sprachen, Leipsic, 1883; P. de Lagarde, Ueberadt t1ber die im Aramduck Arabiaoh and Hebrdiech 4bliche Bildunp der Nomina, GSttingen, 1889; W. Wright, Lacturroa on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, Cambridge, 1890; J. Barth, Die Nominolbildunp in den aemitisehen Sprachan, Leipsic, 1894 ; O. E. Lindberg. Verpleichende GrammaSk der aemitiachen Sprachen, Gothenberg, 1898; H. Zimmern, Verpuichende Gram‑
der umi&ehen SPrarhan, Berlin, 1898; T. N51deke, Die semitisohen Bprachen, Leipsio, 1899.
On the history of the study of the Hebrew language: H. Ewald and L. Dukes, Beitrape our OewAidue der dlfssten Auelepunp and Spraduerkldrunp des A. T., Stuttgart, 1844; H. Hupfeld, De rei gramnwtiea aped judasos inigis antiquissimisqw eaipOribua, Halle. 1846; L. Geiger, Das Studium der hebrdiachen Sprache in Deutsrhland, Breslau, 1870; A. Berliner, Beitrdge sur hebr*iac7wa Gramemetik in Talmud and Midreach, Berlin, 1879; 13. Baer and H. L. Struck, Dikduke ha‑teamim des Ben Ascher, Leipsie, 1879; W. Basher, Die hebritiache Sprachwiasenaehaft room 10. bi, sum IB. Jahrhundert, Leipsic, 1892; idem, Die An/d»pe der hebrdiachon Grammatik ib. 1895; E. Nestle, Marpinalien undMateriakn, TObingen, 1893 Grammars and lexicons are by: W. Gesenius, Hebrdie&e Grammatik, Leipsic, 1813, 26th ed. by E. Kautaacb,1902, Eng. trenel., Edinburgh, 1880; idem, Ausfflhrlidtes prammatiach‑kritisrhea Lehr9eb4ude der h0brdisehen Spraauis, ib. 1817; idem, Thesaurus philologiew mitieus lingua hebraxa . .
V. T.,ib. 1835‑58; J. Oleheueen, Lebrbueh der hebrdisehen SpraAe, Brunswick, 1861; F. B5tteher, Auef ahrliehea Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprarhe, 2 vols., Leipsie, 1866‑e8; H. Ewald Lelwburd der habraieclwn Smache, Gottingen, 1870, Eng. trand., Edinburgh, 1879; B. 13tade, Lehrbuch der hebrdiaehen Grammatik Leipsie, 1879; E. Kbnig, Lehrpebdude der hebrdiaden Sprache, ib. 1881‑97; A. Mailer, Outlines of Hebrew Synhx, Edinburgh, 1888; $. R. Driver, Use of fns Tenon in Hebrew, London, 1892; F. Brown,

Hebrew Language	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	192
Hebrews, Epistle to the
S.	R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the O. T., Oxford, 1892‑1906; C. Siegfried
and B. Stade, Hebroiechea W6rterbuch zum A. T., Leipsie,
1893; A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, Edinburgh, 1896;
J.	R. Kennedy, Hebrew Synonyms, London, 1898; J. D.
Wijnkoop, Hebrew Syntax, ib. 1898. Consult also the
literature under MARORAH.
	II. The subject is, of course, to be studied with the
help of the works mentioned in and under BIBLICAL INTRO
DBMON, especially such as Driver, Introduction. A very
helpful book is the Beilage of E. Kautzseh to his Heilipe
Sehrift des A. T., Freiburg, 1896, Eng. transl., Outline of
the Hitt. of the O. T., London, 1898. The best book in
English, which covers all phases of the subject, is C. A.
Briggs, The Study of Holy Scripture. New York, 1899.
The subject of the study of the Old Testament as litera
ture has during the past decade awakened wide interest.
The following are some of the works evoked by this new
movement: The Bible as Literature, by various hands,
New York, 1896; S. Leathes, The Claims of the Old Testa
ment, ib. 1897; I. Abrahams Chapters on Jewish Litera
ture. ib. 1899; R. Moulton, Literary Study of the Bible,
Boston, 1899; idem, Short Introduction to the Literature
of	the Bible, ib. 1903; L. Abbott, Life and Literature of
the Hebrews, ib. 1901; J. P. Peters, Early Hebrew Story,
New York, 1904; M. Dods, The Bible, its Origin and
Nature,.ib. 1905; C. F. Kent, The Origin and Permanent
Value of the O. T., ib. 1906; idem, The Student's O. T.,
vols. i., ii., iv. (the introductions and appendices are
of special value); N. Mann, The Evolution of a Great
Literature, Boston, 1905; J. H. Gardiner. The Bible
as English Literature, New York, 1906; W. F. Adeney,
How to Read the Bible, New York, 1907. A book not
antiquated is J. Forst, Geachichte der bibliachen Lib
eratur, Leipsic, 1867‑70. For a survey of the conserva
tive literature the reader is' referred to the literature
under BIBLICAL CRrricTsec, where the works of Beattie,
Munhall, Green, and Orr are mentioned and do justice
to the case for the traditional theory of the origin of the
O. T.
	III. In addition to the works of Herder and L owth
mentioned in the text, the dissertation of the latter in his
commentary on Isaiah is to be noted. The subject is
usually discussed in the introduction to the commen
taries on the books which contain poetry, and especially
those on the poetical and prophetical books. For the
English student the beat summary is in C. A. Briggs,
Study of Holy Scripture, chaps. xiv.‑xvii., New York,
1899. Consult further on the subject of Hebrew poetry:
Koster, in TSK, iv. (1831), 40 sqq.; F. Delitzsch, Zur
Geschichte der fvdiachen Poeaie, Leipsie, 1836; J. G. Wen
rieh, De7~poeseos Hebraicw . . . indole, ib. 1843; E. Meier
Die ForX der hebrdischen Poesie, Tobingen, 1853; idem,
Geachichte der poetiachen National‑Literatur, Berlin, 1856;
I. Taylor, Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, London, 1861; H.
Ewald, Dichter des Alten Bundea, Gottingen, 1868, Eng,
transl., Poetical Books of the O. T., London, 1880; H.
Steiner, Ueber hebrriische Poesie, Basel, 1873; Budde, in
TSK, 1874, pp. 747 eqq.; ZATW, ii (1882), 1 aqq., 49
sqq., iii (1883), 299 aqq., xi (1891), 234 eqq., xii (1892),
31 sqq., 261 aqq.; A. Werfer, Die Poeaie der Bibel,
Tiibingen, 1875; G. Bickell, Metrices Biblicce regula•
exemplie dllustrato, Innsbruck, 1879; idem, Carmina
V. T. metrics, ib. 1882; idem, in ZDMG, 1880, pp.
557 aqq.; H. Gietmann, De re metrics Hebroorum, Frei
burg, 1879; B. Neteler, Grundzupe der hebrdischen Met
rik der Psalmen, Monster, 1879; W. Wickes, The
Accentuation of the Three So‑called Poetical Books of
the O. T., Oxford, 1882; M. Heilprin, The Historical
Poetry of the Ancient Hebrews, 2 vols.. New York, 1879
1880; G. H. Gilbert, The Poetry of Job, Chicago, 1889;
H. Hartmann, Die hebrriische Verakunst, Berlin, 1894; H.
Grimme, in ZDMG, 1 (1896), 529 sqq.; P. Vetter, Die
Metrik des Buches Hiobs, Freiburg, 1897; P. Ruben, in
JQR, xi (1899), 431 eqq.; E. Sievers, Metriache Studien,
2 vols., Leipsie, 1901‑05; O. Hauser, Die Urform der
Pealmen. Das erste Bach des Psalters in metriecher Um
schrift and Ueberaetzunp, Groesenhain, 1907; B. Marr,
Altyvdische SPrache, Metrik and Lunartheozophie, part i.,
Dux, 1907; E. K&nig, Die Poesie des A. T., Leipsic, 1907;
DB, iv. 2‑13; EB, iii. 3793‑3804; JE, x. 93‑100;
while the files of the JBL and PSBA contain very
much that is pertinent, especially in treatment of in
dividual books,
HEBREW POETRY. See HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, III.
HEBREWS. See ISRAEL, H1aToRy OF, I. HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE.
Title and Destination (§ 1). Contents (§ 2). The Readers (§ 3). Date (§ 4).
Authorship. Definite Data (§ b).
Tradition of Pauline Authorship (§ 6).
Ascription to Barnabas and Apolloe (§ 7).
	Although the epistle to the Hebrews is one of the
most important doctrinal works comprised in the
New Testament, its author can not be determined
with certainty either from ecclesiastical tradition
or by modern critical research; nor is there any
notable tradition from which to identify those to
whom it was addressed, beyond the vague " to
Hebrews " written at the beginning and the end.
	Although the title is, of course, not of the author's
writing, it goes back to the beginning of the circula
		tion of the epistle, which was uni
	>. Title formly called " the Epistle to the
	and Hebrews" by the year 200, among
Destination. writers and churches that differ widely
		as to its authorship and relation to the
canon, in Clement of Alexandria and his teacher
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI. xiv. 2‑4) equally with
Tertullian (De pudicitia, xx.). It cannot be shown
that the epistle was ever read without this title
or with another. Unsuccessful attempts have been
made to identify it with the epistle to the Laod
iceans mentioned in Col. iv. 16, and now extant
in a Latin version; and still more groundless at
tempts to show that it is the pseudo‑Pauline
epistle " To the Alexandrians," of which there is
no certain knowledge. The ancient title, differing
from those of the Pauline epistles in that the recip
ients are not designated by their place of residence,
shows that the author of the title wished to mark
them out as born Jews. If the title is supposed to
give the original destination of the epistle from
tradition, one can not see why it should have been
addressed to the Hebrew‑speaking part of Jewish
Christianity, or to a particular Jewish‑Christian
Church like that of Jerusalem, to the exclusion of
the Hellenistic part. If it is based on the contents
of the letter, it is equally difficult to imagine why
a work written in such good Greek should be sup
posed to have been originally addressed to Hebrew
apeaking Christians. This theory did not create the
title, but from the title Clement evolved the theory
that the epistle was first written in Hebrew and
then translated by Luke; later writers repeated this
view, some substituting Clement of Rome for Luke.
The weakness of this hypothesis is now generally
recognized. Even if it be established that the
recipients are designated as Hebrews with reference
to their nationality and not to their language, the
conclusion does not follow that the Hebrews of
Jerusalem or Palestine are alone meant, as Clement
of Alexandria and his teacher (probably Pantaenus),
Euthalius, and Ephraem thought. The supposition
that all Jewish Christians throughout the world are
meant is excluded by xiii. 18‑25. The addressing
of the recipients by their nationality instead of by
their residence (supposing the latter to have been
known) can be explained only by the fact that the

198	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hebrew Language the
giver of the title knew or believed the epistle to have been addressed to the Jewish‑born part of a definite local or provincial church. This, then, is the sense of the title, if it rests on a tradition going back to the date of the epistle's composition. It is also possible that the title merely reproduces the impression made from the beginning to the present time on most readers of the epistle. The next impression received from the epistle itself as to the character of the recipients is that they formed a homogeneous body. Complete similarity between their conditions appears in the references to the origin of their belief and the men to whom they owe it (ii. 3, 4, vi. 1, xiii. 7), to the duration of their adherence to the faith (v.12); to their showing of its results by works of mercy (vi. 10), and their sufferings for it (x. 32‑34); to their dispositions and the dangers threatening them. That they as well as the author are Jews by descent is evident from numerous passages (i. 1, iii. 9, ii. 16, xiii. 13; cf. vi. 12‑18 with I Cor. x. 1; Gal. iii. 7‑29, iv. 21‑31; Rom. iv. 11‑18). The writer considers himself and his readers the direct continuation of the preChristian people of Israel, without asking how they became members of God's household. Although he insists on the universal significance of the death of Christ (ii. 9, 15, v. 9, ix. 26‑28), he regards it so entirely from the standpoint of the Jewish com‑. munity that it almost seems as if he knew only of its atoning operation on the sins not atoned for under the old covenant (ix. 15, xiii. 12; cf. Matt. i. 21), and considered the new covenant as one which, like the old, was only for the people to which the old was given and the new promised (viii. 6‑13, x. 16, 17).
For the understanding of the epistle it is necessary to bear in mind that it is really a letter, and one with a practical religious purpose, to
Con‑ which all theoretical expositions are tents. only means. Immediately after the fine exposition in chapter i. the practical purpose comes out in the earnest warning based upon it (ii. 1‑4). After the second theoretical exposition (ii. 5‑18) comes the exhortation in chapter iii. only broken by short argumentative bits. The exhortation in iv. 14‑16 is justified‑by the exposition of the Jewish high‑priesthood and the royal priesthood of Christ. And the passage which is most like a doctrinal dissertation (vi. 13‑x. 18) is anticipated and followed by much strong practical admonition (v. 11‑vi. 12, x. 19‑39), and again chapter xi. is plainly subordinate to the warnings which precede and follow it. If in some places (iii. 12, iv. 1, 11, xii. 15, 16) the danger of individual lapse is mentioned, the whole body is none the less warned not to fall by neglecting the message of salvation (ii. 1‑3, xii. 25), not to tread under foot the Son of God and crucify him afresh (vi. 4‑8, x. 26‑29). In spite of their long continuance in the Christian faith, they are 'still in the position of new converts who need to be taught the first principles (v. 11‑vi. 3). A general relaxation shows itself (xii. 12); their patience fails (x. 36, xii. 1‑11). Like the Israelites in the wilderness, they make comparisons between what they have given up and what they have gained in exchange. But the V.‑13
claims which they make are such as only those who were brought up in the faith of the old covenant and its promises could make. Not only in order to show the greater responsibility imposed by the knowledge of Christ's revelation (ii. 1=4), but to remind them of its incomparable excellence, the writer shows the superiority of their mediator to all mediators of the old covenant, even to the angels (i.). What they find unsatisfying is that this mediator has died the common death of men and since that has been invisible; so he shows them how, precisely in order to. be their redeemer, Jesus had to partake fully of the common lot (ii. 5‑18), and that only through his death and consequent exaltation could he be the high priest who was to do perfectly what the old high priests had done only in type and figure and to fulfil the promise of a royal priesthood (iv. 14‑x. 18). Jewish Christians have thus incomparably more than they had before their conversion; but only on condition of holding fast to their faith. It follows that the danger to the recipients of the epistle was not the being led by false, teachers into a wrong conception of the Christian faith; the " divers and strange doctrines " mentioned in xiii. 9 are only of subordinate importance. Nor, again, is it that of falling away to a Judaizing Christianity by a belief of their own in the Mosaic law as permanently binding. The view to which the Hebrews are inclined, that faith in the crucified Jesus does not compensate for the trials of the Christian life, is not really a religious doctripe at all. Against a genuine Judaism it would be useless to adduce the fact, on which it insisted itself, that the promises made to God's people were not yet all fulfilled, but were certain of fulfilment. But there was a kind of Judaism which was such in name only ‑the Judai= of the high priest who brought about the crucifixion, and of Josephus, who betrayed the hope of the nation to the Roman emperor for the " mess of pottage " of court favor (Wars, III., viii. 9; VI., v. 4). Against a Judaism like this, without faith or hope, Paul stood with the Pharisees (Acts xxiii. 6‑9; Rom. x. 2); and it was to such a Judaism that the recipients of this letter, to judge by the expressions of its author, were in danger of falling away.
The opinion represented by Roth (Epistolam vulgo " ad Hebraeos " imcnptam . . . Leipsie, 1836) and Von Soden (dPT, 1884,
3. The pp. 435 sqq., 627 sqq.) that the Readers. epistle. was addressed to Christians of predominantly pagan origin scarcely deserved the attention it received; and not much more tenable is that which prevailed among a number of the older commentators (Bleek, Riehm), that the recipients were still taking part in .the Jewish temple worship and sacrifices, and held this to be necessary to the atonement for sin, so that the purpose of the epistle was to reason them out of this and its practical consequences. Nor is there any support in the epistle for the as‑
sumption that the recipients were residents of Jerusalem or of Palestine and the same may be said of the other theory that they lived in Alexandria and adhered to the worship of the temple at Leontopolis. The view brought up again by

Hebrews, Epistle to the	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	194
Hofmann, that they were Jewish Christians of Antioch and its neighborhood has at least this in its favor, that the appropriateness of what is said in ii. 3, v. 12, vi. 10 may be historically demonstrated (see Acts xi. 19 sqq., xii. 25, xiii. 1). But there is no strong probability for any hypothesis except the one first put forth by Wetatein (in his ed. of the New Testament, u. 386, Amsterdam, 1752), that the recipients are to be looked for in Italy, and especially in Rome. Theodoret argued from xiii. 24 that the epistle was written in Italy; and while one can not positively assert the contrary from the designation of those who send salutations as " they of Italy," it seems the most natural construction. Instead of sending greetings from all the Christians near him (I Cor. xvi. 20) or from the church of the place where he is (I Pet. v.13), the writer sends them here only from the Christians born in Italy, because they would have a special interest in the dwellers in that country. Moreover, in xiii. 9 we find mention of an ascetic tendency related to that discussed in Rom. xiv. The dispositions of the Jewish‑Christian majority in Rome which are combated in Rom. ix. 1, xi. 12, might have developed into a bitterness which is reproved in Hebrews. The first traces of the influence of the epistle are found in the earliest writings that issued from the Roman Church, admittedly in the epistle of Clement, and probably in the Shepherd of Hermas. The fact that until the middle of the fourth century the epistle did not belong to the New Testament as received in Rome would be explained by its not being addressed to the Church as a whole, but to a section of Roman Christians, a group within the larger body. Those who have the rule over them in their narrower circle (xiii. 17) are not identical with " all them that have the rule over you " in xiii. 24, whom they are to salute, and similarly " a71 the saints " in that verse are not identical with those to whom the letter is addressed. According to x. 32, they have at some fairly remote period suffered severe trials. The statement that these occurred after they were illuminated would be quite superfluous if the writer had not in mind a contrast with other such trials which they had endured before their conversion. Under Claudius, probably about 52, the Jews were banished from Rome, not without loss of property and other sufferings; under Nero, in 64, the Christians of Rome, for the most part of Jewish birth, suffered much more severely. Like Aquila and Priscilla (Rom. xvi. 3), many more of those who left Rome as Jews ‑under Claudius may have returned as Christians under Nero, or have been converted after their return. In another context they are reminded of the deceased preachers and teachers who have sealed their testimony with their blood‑thus especially Peter and Paul (xiii. 7; cf. Clement, I Cor. v.).
From the foregoing it follows that the epistle was not written immediately after 64‑67, but probably in 75 at the earliest. On the other
	4. Date.	hand, the mention of Timothy, and the
		indisputable use made of the epistle by
Clement of Rome prevent us from placing the date
of its composition as late as the closing years of the
first century. About 80 is the most probable date.
The grounds adduced for a date earlier than 70 are mainly the game as are used to prove a continuance of the temple worship at that time, and fall with them. From the allegorical employment of Ps. xcv. in iii. 7 sqq. it may be assumed that forty years had elapsed since the earthly ministry of Jesus, and that the threatened judgment had fallen on the impenitent part of the Jewish race,.
Even less agreement seems to have been reached as to the identity of the author than as to the
recipients of the letter. It may be
5. Author‑ hoped that the notion of Schwegler (in
	ship.	Das nachdpostolische Zeitalter, ii. 304
Definite 305, Tubingen, 1846), already amply
	Data.	disproved by Kbstlin (in Theolooche
		JahrUicher, 1853, pp. 410‑428, 1854,
pp. 366‑446, 463‑483), that the writer wished to
be taken for Paul without being Paul, will not
again be brought forward. This is deprived of all
plausibility by the lack of any initial salutation or
self‑designation, by the lack of emphasis on the
allusions to the writer's personality, and by the
evidently earnest purpose of guarding a circle of
readers whose internal and external circumstances
are clearly marked from the danger of apostasy.
Equally untenable is Overbeck's theory that the
epistle received its present form in Alexandria about
160‑170, the initial salutation with the real writer's
name having been dropped and the last four verses
added, for the purpose of passing it off as an epistle
of Paul, and thus getting it included in the canon
(Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp. 1‑70, Chemnitz,
1880). The bold forger whom this theory supposes
would certainly not have stopped short of adding a
salutation containing Paul's name, which alone could
have made success certain; and it would be im
possible to explain on this hypothesis the fact that
those parts of the Church (entirely independent of
Alexandria) in which the epistle was not thought
canonical should also have lost the original saluta
tion, and should have either considered the author
ship an unsolved problem or contented themselves
with the decision that it was not Pauline. If the
epistle originally stood in its present form it seems
to follow that the author was a Christian of Hebrew
birth, like the recipients; that he owed his conver
sion to the immediate disciples of Jesus (ii. 3); that
he was in relation with Timothy (xiii. 23); that he
was not a member of the community addressed,
but had spent some time among them (xiii. 14), and
could speak to them with the authority of a re
spected teacher.
The Alexandrian Church considered the epistle to be Pauline. On this supposition, and without a hint
of any contrary opinion, the prede‑
6. Tradi‑ cessor of Clement tried to explain why
tion of Paul here, contrary to his custom, did
Pauline not address his readers as an apostle;
Author‑ and Clement himself in like manner,
	ship.	quoting it as unquestionably Pauline,
		attempted to explain the absence of the
name of Paul. When he speaks of Luke as the
translator and points to a similarity of style between
it and the Acts, he shows that considerations of
literary style had aroused doubts among the Alex
andrian scholars as to the Pauline authorship. Yet

195	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hebrews, Epistle to the
their Church adhered to its tradition. The commentary of Origen, more apologetic than critical, presupposes Pauline authorship‑though he knows that it is received as Pauline only in certain churches while others reject it as not Pauline. His relations with other parts of the Church, including Rome, prevented him from adhering blindly to his home tradition; his critical sense was awakened and he was forced to admit that the style of Hebrews is thoroughly different from that of Paul. So he came to a compromise‑that the ideas were originally Paul's, that they were given from memory, and that their literary form was imparted by another. The Alexandrian tradition spread first in the East, though probably not before the time of Origen. Both Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus seem to have denied it, and this was the attitude of the Roman Church, and of the West in general, until the fourth century. The author of the Muratorian fragment knows of only seven communities to whom Paul wrote, and does not even mention Hebrews among the pseudo‑Pauline writings. Caius of Rome gives only thirteen Pauline epistles; and in the days of Eusebius the opponents of the canonicity of the epistle argued from the fact that it was not received in Rome as Paul's. Ambrosiaster (q.v.) does not treat it in his commentaries on the Pauline epistles. The Africans, from Cyprian to Optatus, seem not to have known it at all; it is not in their canon of 359. Only when the influence of the East upon the West increased so largely after the middle of the fourth century did the acknowledgment of the epistle's canonicity and the Alexandrian tradition as to its authorship become prevalent. The attitude of the Western Church is all the more significant because an epistle which was read in Rome at the end of the first century, quoted by Tertullian, mentioned by Irena;us and Hippolytus, and translated into Latin before Jerome, can never have been wholly overlooked or lost sight of by Western theologians. Their opinion must have been mainly negative, for Eusebius and Photius would not have failed to mention the fact, if Irenlleus, Caius, or Hippolytus had named another author; nor would these men have contented themselves with merely denying the Pauline theory, if they had any other credible tradition to oppose to it. Such a tradition (not, as Jerome seems to think, a private opinion) Tertullian gives (De pudicgia, xx.) when he speaks of it as the epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews. But the African Church did not go with him. From the way he himself employs it, and from the total silence of the later African writers, it follows that the epistle here, as in Rome, stood in no connection with the New Testament, and was not widely known. When, then, Tertullian speaks of churches in which it is more considered than the Shepherd of Herman, and known as Barnabas's, since Rome, Alexandria, Lyons, and Carthage are excluded, his words must apply to the churches of Asia Minor, with which as a Montanist he was in relation. But this view spread no further.
If choice was limited to the claims of Paul and of Barnabas it would be easy to decide in favor of the latter. Neither in style nor in substance does the epistle sound like Paul. Had it been his, its ex‑
elusion from the list of his works and from the New Testament in Rome, where he was early known and read with reverence, and y. Ascrip‑ in the West generally, would have
tion to been inexplicable; and so would the Barnabas disappearance of the right tradition
		and	in so wide regions, and the rise of the
	Apollos.	Barnabas theory. On the 'other
			hand, it is easy to account for the
origin of the Pauline theory in Alexandria, where,
if	the epistle came as a supplement to the
Pauline epistles and was read in church imme
diately after them (its position from the first),
it	would have been very natural to add " Epis
tle of Paul" to the existing title " to [the]
Hebrews," on the analogy of all the preceding
epistles from " to [the] Romans " to " to Philemon,"
especially as the reference to Timothy (xiii. 23)
would bring Paul to mind. It would be difficult,
because of paucity of knowledge concerning Bar
nabas, to bring a convincing disproof of his author
ship upon the contents of the epistle; and the
" word of exhortation " (Heb. )iii. 22) might have
been written by the " son of consolation " [R.V.
" son of exhortation,,] (Acts iv. 36). But the
history of the tradition is against this theory also.
If the decay of the right tradition in Alexandria
may be explained by the ease with which Paul's
name could be appended to a work which bore that
of no author, and if the unwritten Barnabas tradi
tion would drop out there the more easily because
the Alexandrian Church knew another epistle of
Barnabas which was sometimes included in the
canon, both of these explanations fall to the ground
for the region represented by Irenseus, Hippolytus,
and the ancient Church of Rome. In the abstract,
where two mutually exclusive positive traditions
are opposed by a third which is purely negative,
the balance of probability is in favor of the third.
As the early writers guessed now at Paul, now at
Barnabas, and later at Clement and Luke, who were
first mentioned only as translators, the hypothesis
of Luther, who held Apollos to be the author, re
mains the most plausible. This Jewish convert,
" born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty
in the Scriptures " (Acts xviii. 24‑28) may well be
singled amt among, the prominent teachers of the
Apostolic Age as the author of this remarkable
work. 		(T. ZAM.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The questions of date, authorship, genu
	inenesa, etc., are discussed in the works on introduction,
	e.g., S. Davidson, i. 177‑239, London, 1882; E. Reum
	(HidorY of t1 We Sacred Scriptures of the N. T.), i. 148
	153, Boston, 1884; F. Bleek, ed. W. Mangold, 189‑201,
	Berlin, 1886; H. J. Holtamann, PP. 292‑308, Freiburg,
	1892; A. Jilficher, pp. 97‑111, Freiburg, 1894, Eng.
	tranel., pp. 148‑174, New York, 1904; B. Weise, pp. 307
	319, Berlin, 1897; G. Salmon, pp. 414‑432 London, 1899;
	T. Zahn, ii 111‑158, LeiPBIC, 1900; DB, ii. 32738;
	EB, ii. 1990‑2001. The principal commentaries are:
	Calvin (in his works); F. Bleek 3 vols., Berlin, 1828
	1840; H. Glee Mains, 1833 A. Tholuck, Hamburg, 1836,
	Eag. tranel., Edinburgh, 1842• C. Wieseler, Mel, 1861
	C. Schwegh8user, Paris, 1862 (a paraphrase); . De
	litasch~ 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1868‑70• J. H. Kurt; Mitau,
	1869; J. B. McCaul London, 1871 (a paraphrase); J. C.
	C. Hofmann NSrdlingen, 1873; M. Stuart, Andover,
	1876; M. Kghler Halle, 1880; F. w. Farrar, Cambridge,
	1883; O. Holtaheuer, erlin, 1883; S. T. owrie, New
	York, 1884: C. F. KW, LeiPsic, 1885; F. Randall, Lpn.

8geebrroewe, Gospel According to THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
don, 1888; F. B. Westoott, London, 1899 (of high value); C. J. Vaughan, ib. 1890; T. C. Edwards, ib. 1890; A. Schi<fer, Munster, 1893; D. Shepardson, New York, 1902; F. Bless, Halle, 1903; W. P. Du Bose, New York, 1908.
Treatises on special phases are: E. Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebrderbriet, Basel, 1859; G. Steward, The Argument to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh, 1872; E. Menegos, La Thiologie de 1'44p£tre aux Hgbreux, Paris, 1894; H. H. B. Ayles, Destination, Date and Authorahi; of the Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1899; G. S. Hood, Foundation of Christian Faith as Shown in the Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1906; W. Wrede, Doe literarische RBtael des Hebrrierbriefs, GSttingen, 1908.
HEBREWS, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE. See APOCRYPHA, B, 1. (19).
HEBRON. See JUDEA, 1I., 1, § 4.
HECKER, ISAAC THOMAS: Roman Catholic; b. in New York City Dec. 18, 1819; d. there Dec. 22, 1888. He was of German parentage, and was brought up in the Methodist Episcopal Church. He became an advocate of the principles of the Workingmen's party and was led into sympathy with the Transcendentalist movement. In 1843 he entered the community at Brook Farm, but failed to find himself in harmony with the community, and within the year went to the similar community at Fruitlands, where he felt still less at home. In August he returned to New York and entered business with his brothers in the manufacture of flour, but only for a year. He had long been drawn toward the Roman Catholic Church, and, after many inward struggles and a searching investigation of the claims of the Protestant sects, he became a convert. In 1844 he went to Concord, Mass., to study, but returned to New York, and on Aug. 1 received " conditional baptism " in the Roman Catholic Church, although he had already been baptized in infancy by a Lutheran minister. Determining to enter the Redemptionist Order, he went in the same year to St. Tron, Belgium, and in 1846 took his vows. He then studied at Wittem, Holland (1846‑48), and Clapham, England (1848‑49), and in 1849 was ordained to the priesthood by Cardinal Wiseman. After a year in mission work, Hecker returned to the United States early in 1851. Until 1857 he was engaged in mission work, particularly in the Eastern United States, but in the latter year was expelled from his order on account of a technical violation of his vows. The result was the formation of the Congregation of St. Paul the Apostle (usually called the Paulist Fathers), the expulsion being ignored by the pope. In 1859 the foundations of the Church of St. Paul the Apostle, which still remains the center of the activity of the Paulis: Fathers, was laid in New York City. The greater part of the remainder of his life was to be devoted to the upbuilding of his congregation and the furtherance of its aims. From 1871 until his death Hecker was an invalid. The object of the order was the conversion of Protestants, and it was very successfully carried out, and he was the soul of the enterprise. Yet it was charged against him that he presented those doctrines which were common to both branches of the Christian Church or which were likely to win the acceptance of Protestants more emphatically than strictly Roman Catholic teaching. This course was condemned by Leo
XIII., when it was called to his attention by means of the Italian translation of Father Hecker's life and led to his writing to the United States prelates a severe letter condemning this method of presenting the church doctrine which he styled " Americanism." See MODERNISM.
In 1865 Hecker founded The Catholic World, which he edited until his death, and wrote also: Questions of the Soul (New York, 1855); Aspirations of Nature (1857); Catholicity in the United States (1879); Catholics aced Protestants agreeing on the School Question (1881); and The Church and the Age: Exposition of the Catholic Church (1888).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Miott, The Life of Father Hecker, New York, 1894; H. D. Sedgwick, Father Hecker, Boston, 1901.
HECKEWELDER, hek‑e‑vel'der, JOHN GOTTLIEB ERNESTUS: Moravian missionary among the North American Indians; b. at Bedford, England, Mar. 12, 1743; d. at Bethlehem, Pa., Jan. 31, 1823. He came to Pennsylvania with his parents in 1754, and began his missionary labors in 1762 by an unsuccessful attempt to establish a mission in the Tuscarora Valley, O. Then he was employed in the Moravian missions of Friedenahiitten and Sheshequin, Pa., till 1771, when he was appointed assistant to David Zeisberger (q.v.). He remained in this service fifteen years. From 1788 till 1810 he labored chiefly in Ohio, as agent of the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen. In 1792, and again in 1793, he was commissioned by the United States Government to assist in effecting a treaty with the Indians. For a time he was in the civil service in Ohio, holding the offices of postmaster, justice of the peace, tend associate justice of the court of common pleas. In 1810 he removed to Bethlehem, Pa., and engaged in literary pursuits till his death. His two most valuable works are: An Account of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations who once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States (Philadelphia, 1818), which was soon translated into German and French; and A Narrative of the Mission of the United Brethren among the Delaware and Mohegan Indians (1820).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. R,andthaler, Life of Johann O. E. Hecke‑
welder, ed. B. H. Coates, Philadelphia, 1847.
HEDBERG, FREDERIK GABRIEL. See BORNHoLmERB; FINLAND, § 5.
HEDGE, FREDERIC HENRY: Unitarian; b. at Cambridge, Mass., Dec. 12, 1805; d. there Aug. 21, 1890. He was educated in schools in Germany (1818‑23), Harvard (B.A., 1825), and the Harvard Divinity School (1828). He was then pastor of the Unitarian Church at West Cambridge, now Arlington, Mass. (1829‑35), of the Independent Congregational Society in Bangor, Me. (183:‑50), of the Westminster Congregational Society in Providence, R. 1. (1850‑56), of the First Unitarian Church at Brookline, Mass. (1856‑72), and was also non‑resident professor of ecclesiastical historyin Harvard Divinity School (1857‑77), as well as professor of German in Harvard College (1872‑82). In 1882 he retired from active life. In theology he described himself as " connected with the Unitarian communion into which he was born, attached to it rather by the absence in that body of any compulsory

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA HedioHebrews, Gospel According to
creed than by sympathy with its distinctive doctrine." He was editor of The Christian Examiner from 1857 to 1861, and wrote Prose Writers of Germany (Philadelphia, 1848); Christian Liturgy for the Use of the Church (Boston, 1.853); Reason in Religion (1865); The Primeval World of Hebrew Tradition (1870); The Ways of the Spirit, and other Essays (1877); Atheism in Philosophy, and other Essays (1884); Hours with German Classics (1886); Martin Luther, and other Essays (1888); and Metrical Translations and Poems (in collaboration with Mrs. A. L. Wister; 1888).
HEDINGER, h@'din‑ger, JOHANN REDTHARD
Court preacher of Wiirttemberg; b. at Stuttgart Sept. 7, 1664; d. there Dec. 28, 1704. As a child he was distinguished for earnestness and piety, and as student he went through the ordinary course of study of Wiirttemberg theologians. After the completion of his studies he, as preacher and secretary, accompanied two princes of W iirttemberg to France and England, and later traveled through North Germany, Holland, Denmark, and Sweden. In 1692 he became field‑chaplain in the French war, and in 1694 professor of law at the University of Giessen. In 1698 Duke Eberhard Ludwig called him back to his native country as court preacher and confessor. Here he attacked fearlessly the gaiety and frivolity of the court. He wrote certain devotional books and a commentary on Luther's catechism, but his principal work is a translation of the New Testament, " with detailed summaries, accurate concordances, necessary expositions of the most difficult passages from the glossaries of Luther, and notes of other approved teachers, liberally provided with practical applications" (Stuttgart, 1701). It was frequently republished, and is noteworthy especially for occasional discrepancies from Luther's version. Hedinger also published an edition of the whole Bible " with practical summaries," etc., which shows the same noble independence of mind. Both works were esteemed for the vigorous and pointed applications with which the author rebukes the sins of the world, especially the faults of the clergy, and are still worth reading. Hedinger is also noteworthy as a writer of hymns.
(H. MOBAPP.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The funeral sermon, by J. F. Hochetetter, appeared Stuttgart,1705, and a sketch of his life by the snipe is in Hedinger's And4chtiper Herzeruklanp, ib. 1713. Consult: A. Knapp, in Chriatoterpe, 1838, pp. 269‑330; idem, AUwftrUefnberyiache Charakfere, pp. 4‑51, Stut6gart, 1870; ADB, xi. 222‑223.
HEDIO, h6'di‑o, gASPAR: Protestant Reformer; b. at Ettlingen (41 m. s. of Carlsruhe) 1494; d. at Strasburg Oct. 17, 1552. He was educated at the Latin school of Pforzheim and the universities of Freiburg and Basel, and held successive chaplaincies at the churches of St. Theodore and St. Martin in the latter city. A sermon preached by Zwingli at Maria‑Einsiedeln made a deep impression upon him, and he eagerly sought the friendship of the Swiss Reformer, while Luther roused in him an equal enthusiasm. Toward the end of 1520 Hedio succeeded Capito as court preacher and spiritual councilor of Elector Albert of Mainz, but since he did not conceal his reformatory sentiments, he incurred the enmity of the clergy. In 1523 he be‑
came a preacher at the Strasburg cathedral, where
he ranked among the foremost of those who ad
vanced the Gospel cause by word and pen. In the
following year he married, without protest from the
cathedral chapter, thus signalizing his complete
break with the Roman Catholic Church. He took
part in all conflicts with monasticism as well as in all
efforts for the advancement of the cause of the
Reformation. He joined with Butzer and Capito
in a successful petition to the magistracy for the
erection of schools. He was, moreover, active as
an academic teacher, and after the gymnasium,
which had been founded in 1538, had developed
into a higher school, he became professor of theol
ogy, his lectures comprising the New Testament,
the Church Fathers, and history. Hedio devoted
especial care to the financial support of teachers and
pupils, and in 1544 he founded the Collegium
Pauperum, a boarding‑school, which is still in exist
ence. He also organised charitable work, and
introduced a stricter management of church dis
cipline, but he kept aloof from the doctrinal disputes
of the theologians. His activity extended over the
margravate of Baden, Ortenau, the valley of Kin
zig, the electorate of the Palatinate, the county
of Hanau Lichtenberg, and the district of W frttem
berg in Upper Alsace. Throughout this territory
he assisted in the regulation of churches and schools,
and in the appointment of preachers and teachers.
Elector Hermann of Wied called him and Butzer to
Bonn to introduce the Reformation in his arch
bishopric. Hedio took part in the religious con
ference at Marburg (1529), and in the negotiations
for union at Worms (1540) and at Regensburg
(1541), as well as in the meeting of tile theologians
of Wurttemberg and Strasburg held at Dornstetten
(1551) for a revision of the Augsburg Confession to
be presented at the Council of Trent. He was so
zealous an opponent of the Interim, however, that
he was obliged to rerign his position as preacher
of the cathedral church, delivering his sermons
henceforth in the monastery of the Dominicans.
His writings include translations of several trea
tises of Augustine, Ambrose, and Chrysostom,
the historical works of Eusebius, Hegesippus, and
Sabellicus, Cuspinian's history of the Roman em
perors, Platina's history of the popes, and a number
of universal chronicles with his own notes, continu
ing them to his own time to justify the Reformation
from a historical point of view. With some jus
tice Hedio has been called the first Protestant
church historian. His principal works are: Ablehn
ung auf Cunrata Tregers Bthlin (Strasburg, 1524);
Von dem Zehnden (1524); Radtpredig (1534); Epi
tome in evangelia et epistolas (1537); Chronika der
allm christliehen Kirche Gus Rusebio, Rufino, Sozo
meno, etc. (1530); and Eine auserlssene Chronika
von An f alng der Welt bis au t das Jahr 1543 (1543).
(A. EmcasoNt.)
BIBLIoaBAPHI: C. Spindler, Midi^ aaai biopraphiqw et liUJraire. Strasburg, 1864; E. Himmelheber Caapar Radio, 1881. Consult also: J. Voigt, BridOedast der berOhmtmka GaWrtea . . . der Reformation, pp. 297‑335, K3sigeberg, 1841; J. W. Daum, Capito and Buhw, EIberfeld, 1860; J. Kdetlin, Lrartin Luther, ii. 125. 132‑134, Berlin, 1903; S. M. Jackson, Huldreieh Zwinpti, passim, New ork. 1908; Sohaff, Chr"aw Church, vol. Vi..

g~ 	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	198
HEDWIG, h6d'vig, SAINT: Duchess and patron saint of Silesia; b. at the castle of Andechs (22 m. s.w. of Munich) c. 1174; d. at Trebnitz (15 m. n.n.e. of Breslau), Silesia, Oct. 13 (15 ?), 1243. She was the daughter of Berthold, count of Andechs and duke of Meran (Dalmatia). Of her sisters, Gertrude became. the wife of Andrew, king of Hungary, and the mother of St. Elizabeth (q.v.), while Agnes was given in marriage to Philip Augustus of France, a marriage subsequently annulled by Pope Innocent III. At the age of twelve Hedwig was married to Henry I. of Silesia, who followed his father on the ducal throne in 1202. Henry, a mighty warrior, made his duchy independent and extended his boundaries by conquests in Upper Silesia, Poland, and the modern Galicia. Under the influence largely of his German wife he opened his territories to the Teutonic culture and fostered especially the spread of religious institutions. In 1203 nuns from Bamberg were transplanted to Trebnitz, in 1210 the Augustinian canons were established at Kamentz, and in 1222 a Cistercian foundation was begun at Heinrichau; the Franciscans were summoned by Hedwig to Goldberg and Krossen, and the Dominicans established themselves in Breslau and other places. Hedwig bore her husband six children, of whom the eldest son, Henry, succeeded his father in the duchy in 1238, and perished at Wahlstatt in battle against the Mongols in 1241. In 1209 Hedwig retired to the convent at Trebnitz, where she passed more than thirty years in rigorous asceticism and the practise of charity, departing only in 1227 to tend her husband in grievous illness, and again in 1229 when she secured the release of her husband from the hands of Conrad of Masovia. Hedwig was buried in the convent church at Trebnitz, which speedily became a popular place of devotion owing to the wide fame and love which her benefactions had brought her. She was canonized by Clement IV. in Mar., 1267, and the fifteenth of October was made her festival day. In 1268 her bones were translated to a chapel expressly erected near the convent church of Trebnitz, where her skull was shown for a long time as a venerated relic to Silesian and Polish pilgrims. The monastic chronicles of the life of St. Hedwig, while revealing the usual workings of the monkish imagination, nevertheless outline a life of extreme devotion and wide‑spread charity. [To be distinguished from St. Hedwig is Hedwig (d. at Cracow, 1399), daughter of Louis, king of Hungary and Poland, who succeeded her father on the throne of Poland in 1384. In 1386 she married Jagello, grand duke of Lithuania, and had a prominent part in the conversion of that land.]
(G. KAwERAB.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early anonymous life, written at the end of the thirteenth century, with commentary, is in ASH, Oct., viii. 198‑270. Consult: A. Knoblich, .Lebenagesclsi" der Landespa&onin Schtesiena, der hziligen Redwig, Breslau, 1860; F. .X. Gbrlieh, Das Leben der heUigen Hedwig, ib. 1854; C. Grundhagen, Bedtrdge zur Geeckichte der Hedwigslegenden, ib. 1863; further literature in Potthast, Wegweiaer, pp. 1362‑83.

HEERBRAND, hAr'brdnt, JACOB: German Protestant theologian; b. at Giengen (26 m. e.s.e. of Stuttgart), Swabia, Aug. 12, 1521; d. at Tubingen
May 22, 1600. He was educated at the school at Ulm, and at the universities of Wittenberg (M.A., 1543) and Tiibingen (D.Theol., 1550). He considered it the greatest fortune of his life to have been for five years (1538‑13) the pupil of Luther and Melanehthon (Oratio funebris in obitum P. Melanthonis, iv.). The Wittenberg student wit styled the diligent scholar the Swabian night‑owl. In 1543 he entered the service of the Wurttemberg Church and accepted a diaconate at Tiibingen, in order to continue his studies. For refusing to accept the Interim he was removed from his office, along with Erhard Schnepf (q.v.), on Nov. 11, 1548, but remained in Tiibingen to study Hebrew under Oswald Schreckenfuchs, in company with Jakob Andreg. On Feb. 11, 1551, he became pastor at Herrenberg, near Ehingen, where Johann Brenz was then sojourning. In June, 1551, Heerbrand, with the most eminent theologians of the country, subscribed to the Confessio Wirtembergica, and in Mar., 1552, with Brenz and Jakob Beurlin (qq.v.), he was sent to defend it at the Council of Trent. Heerbrand eagerly cooperated with the Swabians in their efforts to allay the Osiandrian controversies (1552‑53), and in May, 1554, he was sent to a conference of theologians at Naumburg. On the invitation of the margrave of Baden‑Pforzheim he went to Pforzheim in Sept., 1556, as pastor and director of the State Church, which had just been reformed on the basis of the W urttemberg agenda. In Sept., 1557, he returned to Tiibingen as professor of theology, a position which he retained for forty years, being the last pupil of the Wittenberg Reformers to occupy this chair. He was at the same time superintendent of the stipendium, and eight times rector of the university. In 1590 he succeeded Andre& as chancellor of the university and provost of the cathedral church. He was a frequent festival orator at great academic ceremonies‑e.g., at the memorial service in honor of Melanchthon in 1560, and at the university jubilee in 1578. On Jan. 5, 1599, he resigned his offices because of infirmity.
Heerbrand's sermons are distinguished by conformity to Scripture, lucid arrangement, and powerful, often vernacular, expression. As a dogmatician he exerted a wide influence through his disputations and through his extensively circulated Compendium theologize methodi quutesstionibus tractatum (Tubingen, 1573, and often), which recommended itself by its luminous exposition, scholarly treatment, and moderation. During the negotiations of the Tubingen theologians with the Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, it was translated by Martin Crusius into Greek, and sent to Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece, and Asia. Heerbrand evinced remarkable literary activity in the contest with the Roman Catholic theologians; with the Dominician Peter a Soto, in vindication of the Confessio Wirtembergica in 1561, with Melchior Zanger, of EhingenRottenburg, with E. Gotthard of Passau, with J. B. Fickler of Salzburg, with Wilhelm Lindanus, bishop of Ruremond, with the Polish Stanislas Socolocius, with the Freiburg professors F. Lorichius and Michael Hager, and especially with the Jesuits Heinrich Blissemius of Prague and GrAtZ, Gregory of Valencia at Ingolstadt, Sigmund Ernhofer of

199	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	gef~
Vienna, and Georg Scherer of Gr$tz. Heerbrand
showed conclusively that the ultimate aim of the
Jesuit party's literary activity was calumny of Prot
estantism, adulation of Roman Catholic princes,
and subversion of religious peace (Refutatio crassis
simorum errorum, ii. 17; Apologia explicationis,
p. 55). 	G. BOssERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: There is no extended biography. Consult: Melchior Adam, Vitro Germanorum eheoloporum pp‑ W sqq., Heidelberg, 1620 K. WeiaeAckei, Lehrer 'und Unterrrocht an der evangelisden theologischen PakulM der Uni• roereitat Tibingen, pp. 19 eqq., Tabingen, 1877; J. Loserth. Die Reformation and Gegeweformation in den innerti8tereichischen Ldndern, Stuttgart, 1898. On the Compendium consult: G. C. Storr, De compendiie theologici dogmatic, Tubingen, 1795; W. Gass, Gaschiehte der protsetantischen Dotmaatik, i. 77, Berlin, 1854; H. L. J. Heppe, Dogmattk des deutschsn Protsstantismw, i. 123 eqq., Marburg, 1856; G. Frank, Gesrhichte der protestantUchen Theolopis, i. 244, Leipsic, 1882.
HEERMANN, JOHANN: German Evangelical preacher, poet, and author of religious tracts; b. at Raudten (43 m. n.w. of Breslau), Lower Silesia, Oct. 11, 1585; d. at Lissa (42 m. s.s.W. Of Posen), Poland, Feb. 27, 1647. He studied in his native town as well as at Fraustadt, Breslau, and Brieg, where he supported himself by coaching young noblemen. In 1609 he entered the University of Strasburg, but in 1610 he returned to his home, and in the following year was appointed pastor at Ksben. His ill health, combined with domestic trouble and the turmoil of the Thirty Years' War, forced him to resign his pastorate in 1638, whereupon he took up his residence in Lissa, and devoted himself to literary pursuits. As early as his student days at Brieg he had essayed German and Latin poetry with considerable success; and in 1624 he published &volume of Latin poems entitled Epigrammatum lZelli novem, a book which is still of value as containing data for the history of his life. Some of these Latin verses were translated into German by Tobias Petermann, and published under the title Geistliche Buhlscha ft (1651). As a German poet Heermann belonged to the school of Martin Opitz, and he was one of the first to apply the latter's system of versification. He marks the transition from the objective hymns of the Reformation to the subjectivity of the Pietists, and is the best religious poet between Luther and Paul Gerhardt. His most important hymn‑collections are: Das Schluss‑Glocklein (1616); Exercitium pietatis (1630); and Devota musica cordis (1630), which appeared in several editions. His fame as a writer of religious tracts is based on his publications Of passion sermons, such as the Crux Christi (1618) and the Heptalogus Christi (1619); and of funeral sermons, such as Christiante ewavaaias status (1620), and Schola mortis (1628). He also wrote Predigten fiber die Sonn‑ and Festtags‑Evangelien (1624), and was the author of Presceptorum moralium et sentendiartem libri tres (1644), and of the posthumous Erquickstunden (1656).
(FERDINAND CGHR8.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Waekernagel, J Heermanns geisaiche Lieder, Stuttgart, 1856; K. F. Ledderhose, Dag Leben J. Heermanns, Heidelberg, 1876; K. Goedeke, Grundriss zur Geschichte der deutsden DichtuW, iii. 166 sqq.. Dresden, 1886.
HEFELE, h6'fe‑le, KARL JOSEPH: German Roman Catholic prelate and ecclesiastical historian;
b. at Unterkochen (45 m. e. of Stuttgart), Wiirttemherg, Mar. 15, 1809; d. at Rottenburg (25 m. s.w. of Stuttgart), Wiirttemberg, Early Life June 5, 1893. From 1827 to 1832 and Liter‑ he studied at Tiibingen, and then for ary Work. a year, at the clerical seminary of Rottenburg, being ordained priest Aug.10, 1833. After holding certain minor posts, he was called, when M6hler went to Munich, to teach church history at Tilbingen (as privat‑docent 1836, adjunct professor 1837, and professor 1840). His theological education fell in the period of the renaissance of Roman Catholic learning in Germany, when the influence of the eighteenth century philosophy was passing away and being replaced by a generous rivalry between Catholics and Protestants to make the most of their respective doctrines, and, on the Catholic side, to look more deeply into the permanently valuable treasures of the past. Drey and Hirscher were among his teachers; but he owed most to MOhler, who gave him his impulse toward historical work. His first literary work consisted of reviews in the Theologische Quartalschrift from 1834 on, which show his conception of the unity of church history as the development of God's great plan for the world. His first substantive work was a history of the introduction of Christianity into southwestern Germany (Tilbingen, 1837). His edition of the Apostolic Fathers with introduction and notes (1839; revised and improved eds. 1842, 1847, 1855) was a meritorious work. That of the Epistle of Barnabas (1840) led the way to a more correct appreciation of this ancient document, which Hefele ascribed, not to the apostle, but to the first decades of the second century. The new school of Roman Catholic historians founded by M6hler had set out to vindicate the claims of their Church against both philosophers and Protestants; and Hefele labored zealously at this task in his occasional articles, as well as in his monograph on Cardinal Ximenes (1844). Following Ranks and Leo, he emphasized the secular character of the Spanish Inquisition, without sufficient regard to its fatal influence on the political and spiritual development of Spain, displaying a good deal of partizan zeal. He took a brief part in political action as a member of the Wiirttemberg House of Deputies from 1842 to 1845‑years of conflict, in which a church party made its first efforts to vindicate ecclesiastical liberty against a government which disregarded it. But another way of defending the Church was more in harmony with his nature. He brought up generations of students in his view of the Church, its unity, its past, and its connection between head and members. He was an admirable teacher, attracting students to him by clearness, freshness, and definiteness, as well as by a kindly willingness to be helpful, and he was highly esteemed by his colleagues. Meantime his literary activity was uninterrupted. To the Theologische Qtuartalschrift, of which he was one of the editors from 1839, and to the Neue Si,,, he contributed a variety of articles, some of which he worked Over for his Beitruge zur Kirchengeschichte, ArchaolOgie and Liturgik (2 vols., 1864).
But all his other work yields precedence to

Hefeie	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	goo
Hegeeippns
his magnum opus, the Concaiengeschichte, the fruit
of years of study (7 vole., Freiburg, 185:‑74,
2d ed., vole. i.‑vi., viii.‑ix., 1873‑90; Eng. transl.
of vols. i., ii., and part of iii.‑to the Second
Council of Nicma, 787‑by W. R. Clark, 5 vols.,
Edinburgh, 1883‑96). The contents of the work
are as follows: Vol. i. goes to the Synod of Gan
gra; ii., from 381 to the year 553; iii., to the year
813; iv., to 1073; v., to the year 1250; vi., to the
year 1409; viii., from 1434 to 1520; ix., to
the year 1536. It is universally admired for
the breadth of its survey of the field, and for
the relatively complete use of its material and
unprejudiced historical attitude. The work, of
			course, is not everywhere based on
		The	the same thorough critical examma^
	Concilien‑ tion, and has in places already be
geschichte. come antiquated. But it marks a
			new stage in the study of conciliar
action, which in Hefele's hands broadened out into
a history of the Church and of the development of
dogma.
	The book placed him in the first rank of Roman
Catholic scholars, and in 1868 won him a place as
consultor on the commission to arrange for the ap
proaching Vatican Council. He spent a part of
			1869 in Rome on this business, and
		The	returned thither the next year to take
	Vatican	part in the council as bishop of Rotten
	Council.	burg. On his arrival in Rome, he at
			once took ,a prominent place as a leader
of the antiinfallibilist minority. His solid learning
and his courage did much to hold them together,
and he took part in all their important moves, sup
porting them also by a small book on the question
of Honorius published in Naples. It discussed the
questions whether Honorius (q.v.) had declared as
de fide a heretical proposition ex cathedra, and
whether a general council, claiming the right to
judge him, had condemned him as a heretic. It
attracted great attention, and greatly displeased
the majority, calling forth several counterblasts.
In the debate of May 17 Hefele delivered an im
pressive speech, voted non placet in the decisive
session of July 13, and supported Haynald's pro
posal at a meeting of the minority on the 17th to
repeat this vote in the public session of the following
day; when this fell through, he signed the solemn
protest of the minority to the pope, and left Rome
before the final vote was taken. The neat few
months were full of doubt and difficulty for him.
He had at first decided not to proclaim the new
dogma in his diocese; but at last, after giving up
hope of concerted action on the part of the bishops
in the minority, and under pressure from the nuncio
at Munich and the Ultramontane party in his
diocese, he published it on Apr. 10, 1871. He
explained his position clearly, saying that he did
not regret the stand he had taken at the Council,
and expressing a hope that future conciliar treat
ment of the parts of the program left unfinished
might remove the misgivings which had forced him
to take it. On the ground that an authoritative
exposition of the definition was still lacking, he
gave one of his own which softened it as much as
possible. His submission was received with bitter
reproaches by the Old Catholics and by others, and unworthy motives were freely imputed. But there is no doubt that it was only the logical outcome of a life devoted to maintaining the unity of the Church, to which he felt bound to bring even this costly sacrifice. His remaining years were spent in untiring work in his diocese, to which he had restored peace by his decision. This left him little time for writing, though he succeeded in completing the revision of the first four volumes for the new edition of his great work, which was completed by the addition of two more volumes by Cardinal Hergenr6ther. He left behind him in WOrttemberg the memory of an unselfish, lovable personality, revered far beyond the bounds of his own Church.
(A. HEGLERt.) K. BOLL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: No complete biography has yet appeared.
Consult A. Werfer, in Deutachlande Episkopat in Lebenebildern, iv. 2, W9rzburg, 1875; Funk, in TQS, laavi. 1 aqq. ; Deutachea Volkeblatt, 1893, nos. 127‑129 ; and Gran Gott, vol. a., nos. 4‑6. Other phases of Hefele's activities are discussed in: J. Friedrich, tieachichte des vatikaniechen %onzile, vol. i‑iii., part 2, Bonn, 1877‑97; H. Roth, Dr. K. J. von He/ele, 1894.
HEGEL, h6'ge1, GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH: German philosopher; b. at Stuttgart Aug. 27, 1770;
d. in Berlin Nov. 14, 1831. He studied Life. philosophy and theology at Ttbingen 1788‑93, and lived as a private tutor, first at Bern 1793‑96, then at Frankfort 1797‑1801. In 1801 he settled at Jena as lecturer on philosophy in the university, and Schelling's coeditor of the Kritisches Journal der Philosophie. He was at that time fully agreed with Schelling (q.v.); and their journal, of which he wrote the larger part, was the organ of the system of identity‑a philosophy which attempted to represent matter and mind, nature and spirit, world and God, as identical. However, this alliance did not last long, and after Schelling's departure for W iirzburg in 1803 it turned into philosophical antagonism. After the battle of Jena (1806), Hegel removed to Bamberg, where for some time he edited the Bamberger Zeitung. From 1808 to 1816 he was rector of the Aegidien gymnasium at Nuremberg. In the latter year he was appointed professor of philosophy at Heidelberg; and in 1818 he was called to Fichte's chair at the University of Berlin. It was here that he made himself the dominant figure in the philosophical world, and established the school of philosophy known as Hegelianism. By his defense of eating political institutions he attained to great political influence in Prussia.
The impression which Hegel made in Germany was at one time almost overpowering. His philoso‑
phy swept away all other philosophies, Philosophy. and before he died it began to make
itself felt as an actual power both in State and Church. However, four years after his death a controversy was raised among his followers by Strauss's Leben Jesu (Tabingen, 1835), and further embittered by Strauss's Christliche Glattbenslehre (1840), with the result that the Hegelian school was divided into three groups, called the right, the left, and the center. The adherents of the right (G. A. Gabler, H. T. W. Hinrichs, K. T. Goschel) represented supernaturalism; those of the left (Strauss,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer) naturalism; while those of the center (J. K. Rosenkranz, J. E. Erdman, W. Vatke) represented a mediating tendency. The basis of the division was the ambiguity in Hegel's philosophy, and the apparent contradiction between his personal religious belief and his system of pantheism (see PANTHEISM, § 7; and IDEALISM, II., § 16). Hegel's pantheism (he avoided the word) was idealistic; and he called his philosophy .the system of the Absolute Idea. Since existence is rational, logic becomes metaphysics; and his philosophy is, therefore, a system of logic interpreted ontologically. He employs the dialectic method, and proceeds from thesis through antithesis to synthesis, from the positive through the negative to the absolute. The intuitional knowledge of the absolute spirit is at the same time the highest form of truth and the highest form of existence.
Religion Hegel defines as truth, but in the lowest form in which truth can be held by the human mind.
In Christianity this form of truth has Religious found its highest, its absolute expres‑
	Views.	sion, having passed through the stages
		of one‑sided objectivity and one‑sided
subjectivity in the ante‑Christian religions. On the
first stage God is considered an object, a part of
nature, a natural being (Lamaism, Buddhism, Brah
manism); on the second he is considered as subject,
wholly distinguished from nature (Judaism, Greek
and Roman polytheism); but only in Christianity
does he become true spirit. The Hegelian idea, how
ever, of God as spirit, is somewhat ambiguous (for
instance, with respect to the question of person
ality); and the specially Christian question, whether
the appearance of Christ in the history of mankind
is a natural event to be explained like any other
event, or whether it is a miracle, the divine incarna
tion by which creation is saved, is left unanswered.
Both views have been developed from Hegelian
premises; and the great boast of Hegel's earliest
pupils, that in his philosophy faith and science had
become fully reconciled, proved empty as soon as the
actual application began. It is a very characteristic
circumstance that his Philosophy of Religion was
edited by Marheineke as evidence of the author's
conservative orthodoxy, and then by Bruno Bauer
as proof of his revolutionary radicalism.
In Germany, where Hegel's influence has long since waned, there are now few thinkers who could
be called Hegelians. Perhaps the best Works late representatives of Hegelianism in and Germany are Kuno Fischer and Adolf
Influence. Lasson. It may be said that Hegel
was first introduced to English readers by Hutchison Stirling, in Ids Secret of Hegel (London, 1865; 3d ed., 1898). Since then the number of English and American thinkers who follow Hegel more or less closely has grown, until now the so‑called neo‑Hegelian school is practically dominant.
Hegel's principal works are: Die Pltdnnornenologie des Geistes (Bamberg, 1807; Eng. transl. by W. T. Harris, in Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. ii., 1868); Die Wissensehaft der Logik (2 vols. in 3, Nuremberg, 1812‑16; Eng. tranal. The Subjective Logic of Hegel, London, 1855; Eneyclopddie der
Refele
8esesippne
philosophischen Wissenschaften (Heidelberg, 1817),
which is the systematic presentation of Hegel's sys
tem; Grundlinien der Philosophic des Reehts (Berlin,
1821; Eng. tranal., Philosophy of Right, London,
1896); and his lectures included in his Werke (18
vols., Berlin, 1832‑1840), from which have been
translated Lectures on the Philosophy o f History,
(3 vols., London, 1895), Lectures on the History
of Philosophy (3 vols., 1892‑1896), and Lectures
on the Philosophy o f Religion (3 vols., 1895). From
Hegel's Encyclopddie W. Wallace has translated
Logic (Oxford, 1874; enlarged ed., 2 vols., 1892
1894) and Philosophy o f Mind (1894). His literary
remains are to be published by the Soci6tk des
amis de 1'Universitk de Paris; vol. i., the Vie de
Jesus, ed. P. Roques, appeared Jena, 1906, and
his Theologische Jugendachriften, ed. H. Nohl, Til
bingen, 1907.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. Rosenkranz, G. W. F. Hegela Leben, Berlin, 1844; R. R. Ham Hegel and seine Zeit, Berlin, 1857; E. Caird, Hegel, Edinburgh, 1901. On Hegel's philosophy consult: K. P. Fischer, Speculative Characteristik and Kritik des hepeiachen Systems, Erlangen, 1845; C. von Orelli, Spinoza's Leben and Lehre, nebat einem Abrias der . . . hegelachen Philosophic, Aarau, 1850; T. C. Sandars, Hegel's Philosophy of Right, London, 1855; A. Vdra, L'HEuglianiane et la philosophic, Paris, 1861; idem, Introduction d la philosophic de HEpel, ib. 1865; K. Rosenkranz, Hegel ala deutscher Nat onalphilosoph, Leipsic, 1870; W. Graham, Idealism, London, 1872 (relates Berkeley and Hegel); C. Herrmann, Hegel and die logische Frape der Philoaophie in der Gepenwart, Leipsic, 1878; A. Beth, The Development from Kant to Hegel, London, 1882; idem, Hepelianiem and Personality, Edinburgh, 1893; J. s. Kedney, Hegel's ffsthetice, Chicago, 1885; G. s. Morris, Hegel's Philosophy of the State and of History, ib. 1887; P. Barth, Die Geschichtsphilosophie Hepela and der Hepelianer bie auf Marx and Hartmann, Leiprie, 1890; W. T. Harris, Hegel's Logic, Chicago, 1890; idem, Hepel's Doctrine of Reftection, New York, 1891; B. C. Burt, Hegel's Theory of Right, Duties and Religion, Ann Harbor, 1893; D. G. Ritchie, Darwin and Hegel, London, 1894; W. Wallace, Prolegomena to the Study of Hegel's Philosophy, Oxford, 1894; F. L. Luqueer, Hegel as Educator. New York, 1896; R. Eucken, in The Monist, vii (1897), 321‑339; J. B. Baillie, Hegel's Logic, London, 1901; Kuno Fischer, Hepele Leben, Werke and Lahre, 2 vole., Heidelberg, 1901; J. E. MeTaggart, Studies in Hegelian Cosmology, Cambridge, 1901; J. G. Hibben, Hegel's Logic, New York, 1902; R. Mackintosh, Hegel and Hepelianiam, Edinburgh, 1903; and the works on the history of modern philosophy. An excellent bibliography may be found in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp. 243‑249. HEGESIPPUS, hej"e‑sip'pvs: An. ecclesiastical writer of the second century. As to his life little is known except what Eusebius tells. This includes nothing as to his birth or place of residence, though Eusebius concludes from his writings that he was of Jewish origin; and an Oriental residence is indicated by his coming to Rome by sea and stopping at Corinth on the way. He is mentioned under Hadrian as, with Justin, a prominent champion of the faith against the rising Gnosticism. Giving the list of bishops of Rome under Antoninus Pius, Eusebius remarks that Hegesippus according to his own account was in Rome under Anicetus and remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus (Hilt. eccl., IV., xi. 7); but this is ar• error, for in chap. xxii. he quotes the passage of Hegesippus, which proves only that he lived to the time of Eleutherus, not that he stayed in Rome that long. Under Marcus Aurelius he is named once more at the head of the contemporary ortho‑

Hegedppne
Heidegger	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	202
dox writers; and the Chronicon Pasehale asserts that he died under Commodus.
Eusebius quotes him frequently as a witness of the true faith, and always from one work, known as Upomnematd, and composed of five books, written at different times and fused into unity in the course of their development. A careful examination of what Eusebius tells of it and what he quotes from it leads to the conclusion that it was not a history in any strict sense of the word, but rather a historical apology, purporting to contain a true account of the traditions received from the apostles. It is evident that no regular historical order was observed from the fact that the story of the life and death of James was in the fifth book of the work, which contained plenty of material from the second century, and even past the middle of it. It is a free setting down of the writer's own reminiscences, following no definite order, though penetrated throughout by the same design and the same beliefs. The result, then, according to Eusebius, is a series of narratives and pictures from church history, reaching from the apostle James to the pontificate of Eleutherus in Rome. They include the death of James; the choice of his successor Symeon; accounts of the insurgent leader Thebuthis and of the sons of David and kinsmen of Jesus in Galilee, with their fate under Domitian; the martyrdom of Symeon under Trajan; and information about the Church of the period when Hegesippus wrote, especially in Corinth and Rome ‑the tradition of doctrine and the episcopate, refutation of heresies, and something about Jewish sects and Jewish‑Christian literature. What he tells of his own time has historical authority in the strict sense; his relation of .earlier events has conditional value as a sometimes obscure tradition, but substantive importance as reflecting the ideas entertained about that period in the middle of the second century. The purpose of his writing is clear enough. It is simply to demonstrate the unity of faith in the churches of the leading cities and their bishops, both past and present. The particular cause of his writing the work is the existence of heresy, which he reprobates not only for its contradiction of the true doctrine, but for its external and ‑despicable origin. Its appearance on the scene seems to him so dangerous that conflict with it is not merely the purpose of his book, but the task of his life.
When it is remembered that the heresies of the time professed to be legitimate deductions from primitive Christianity, the full significance of the inquiries of Hegesippus into the state of the Church and its traditions in the different great cities is discerned. The public, secure, historical tradition of the faith in the line of episcopal succession must serve to put out of court the claims of obscure, cryptic sects; and the imposing unity of the Church's faith as handed down from generation to generation will form a striking contrast to the varied line of heretics who follow each other through the years, alike only in being different. Among the early Jewish heretics are Thebuthis, Simon and his party, Cleobius, Dositheus, Gortbmus, and Masbotheus. These form the first generation; in the
second appear the followers of Menandrianus, Marcion, Carpocrates, Valentinian, Basilides, 'and Saturnilus. In opposition to these stand out the person and the work of Hegesippus, important historically as a type, with the emphasis he lays upon the catholic unity of the churches, held fast by their tradition and their mutual relations, and of the episcopate, as all these things were in the middle of the second century.
(C. WEIZSAC%ERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A full list of literature is given by E. C.
Richardson, in ANB, Bibliographical Synopsis, pp. 111112. The fragments are collected in M. J. Routh, in Reliquia sacra, i. 203‑284, Oxford, 1846; Eng. tranel. may be found in ANF viii. 762‑765; ef. also D. Boor, in T U, v. 2, 1889. Consult: Jerome, De vir. ill., xxii.; FabriciusHarlee, Bibliotheca Grdca vii. 158‑160, Hamburg, 1801; J. Donaldson, History of Christian Literature, iii. 182‑213, London, 1866; A. Hilgenfeld, in ZHT, xix (1876), 177229; W. Sanday,. The Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 138‑145, London, 1876; H. Dannreuther, Du Temoignage d'Hggtsippe Bur l'gglise chrctienne, Nantes, 1878; F. Overbeek Ueber die Anfdnge der Kirchengeechichtechreibung, pp. 6‑13‑17‑22, Basel, 1892; Ceilfier, Auteure sacra, i. 330, 473‑475 iii. 200; KrUger, History, pp. 145‑146; Harnack LiUeratur, i. 144, 483 eqq., 845, II. i. 311 eqq.; Schaff, Christian Church, 742=744; DCB, ii. 875‑878; KL, v. 1584‑85; and in general the church histories on the period.
HEHN, h6hn, JOHANN FERDINAND: German Roman Catholic; b. at Burghausen (57 m. e. of Munich) Jan. 4, 1873. He was educated at the universities of Wiirzburg (D.D., 1899) and Berlin (Ph.D., 1902), and in 1903 became privat‑docent at Wurzburg, where in the same year he was appointed associate professor of Old Testament exegesis and Biblical Oriental languages, becoming full professor in 1907. He has written: Die Einsetzung des heiligen Abendmahles als Beweis fur die Gottheit Christi (Wiirzburg, 1899) and Siinde urul Erlosung each biblischer and babylonischer Anschattung (Leipsic, 1903).

HEIDANUS, hai'ds‑nus, ABRAHAM: Reformed theologian; b. at Frankenthal (15 m. n. by w. of Speyer) in the Palatinate Aug. 10, 1597; d. at Leyden Oct. 15, 1678. In 1608 his father, a clergyman, was called to Amsterdam, where Abraham studied in the school of Mattheeus Sladus. Later he was sent to Leyden to be trained as preacher of the Walloon Church. After a two years' journey in Germany, Switzerland, France, and England, he became preacher of the Netherlandish Reformed congregation in Naarden in 1623. In 1627 he was called to Leyden, and in 1648 he became professor at the University of Leyden. At that time the study of Aristotle ruled in the Dutch universities and was closely bound up with the orthodoxy of Dort. Heidanus, however, and Johannes Cocceius (q.v.) showed a predilection for the teachings of Descartes. Both had to encounter vehement opposition from the camp of the orthodox, headed by Vo6tius. The doctrine of Cocceius spread, in spite of the efforts of the curators of the University of Leyden to suppress it. At their instigation Friedrich Spanheim and Antonius Hulsius compiled the theses of the new doctrine which gave the most offense, and Jan. 7,1675, it was forbidden to treat " in any manner, directly or indirectly " at the university twenty‑three propositions. Heidanus.

seeing herein an attack on the liberty of teaching, opposed it in his Consideration over eenige saecken onlanghs voorgevallen in de Universiteiyt binnen Leyden (Leyden, 1676). The work caused such a sensation that within ten days a second edition was necessary, and a third appeared in the same year. Heidanus maintained that his teachings did not contradict the confessional writings, but only presented their truths in a different light. However, on May 4, 1676, he was deposed from his office. The course of the curators was disapproved by many in the Netherlands as well as in foreign countries.
Heidanus represented the view that theology and philosophy should remain each in its own sphere. According to him, there is no such intimate connection between the theology of Cocceius and the philosophy of Descartes that a follower of the former must necessarily agree with the Cartesians. He himself as a theologian was in sympathy with Cocceius, as a philosopher a disciple of Descartes, but his Cartesianism hardly influenced his theology. His writings include:, Proeve en wederlegginghe des Remorestrantschen Calechismi (Leyden, 1641); De causa Dei, dat is de sake Godts yerdedight tegen den mensche (1645); Disputationes de Sabbsto et die dominics (Amsterdam, 1658); Consideration over de heyliging van den Sabbat ends den. dagh des Heeren tot vrede der Kerchen (Leyden, 1659).
(S. D. VAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The funeral oration by C. Wittich was pub‑
lished Leyden, 1679. Consult P. Bayle, Dictionary, Historical and Critical, iii. 360‑364, London, 1736 (quite full, quotes sources); J. A. Cramer, Abraham Heidanus en zi§n Cartesianimme, Utrecht, 1889.

HEIDEGGER, hai'deg"er, JOHANN HEINRICH
Swiss Protestant, author of the ~ Helvetic Formula. consensus (see HELVETIC CCN6ENsU6); b. at Barentschweil (15 m. s.e. of Zurich) July 1, 1633; d. at Zurich Jan. 18, 1698. He studied at Zurich, Marburg (1654), and Heidelberg; in the last‑named place he became a close friend of Ludwig Fabricius, taught Hebrew and philosophy, and lectured on Latin classics. In 1659 he accepted the theological chair for Loci communes and church history at Steinfurt, where he remained until 1665. Then he traveled to Holland, where he became acquainted with Cocceius. The disturbances of war made an end of the Steinfurt academy, and Heidegger returned to Zurich, where he was appointed professor of Christian ethics. In 1667 he succeeded Hottinger as professor of theology, and he remained faithful to his native city in spite of calls to Leyden (to succeed Cocceius) and to Groningen.
Heidegger lived in harmony with his colleagues until the appearance of Johann Miiller in 1672, just
at the time when the Formula conThe sensus was in preparation. Heidegger
Helvetic agreed with the orthodox theologians Consensus. of Basel, Theodor Zwinger, Lucas Gernler, and others, that Turretin in Geneva ought to be assisted in his opposition to the new hypothesis of Amyraut and the other theologians of Saumur (see AMYRAUT, MOIBE), but thought that the measures adopted against the Saumur theology should be moderate. There were two parties in
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Heg		eeippus
Heidegger
Switzerland, one of which, headed by Johann Midler, adhered to the orthodox teachings of Maresius, while men like Heidegger leaned toward the doctrines of Cocceius. The party headed by Willer was interested in eradicating not only the heresies of 'Saumur, but also the Cocceian theology and Cartesian philosophy. \Heidegger with his adherents gained the victory. The special formula for the defense against the innovations of Saumur was drawn up by him, and was approved by all theologians, although the opposition was allowed to make extensive changes. In 1675 the formula was ratified by the council and citizens of Zurich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen. On the insistence of Muller the formula was modified in certain articles before it was sent to the other cantons. Since the formula was directed specifically against Saumur, the Maresians planned new measures against the Dutch tendencies. Heidegger, J. H. Schweizer, and others could hardly print anything without the interference of Willer, who instigated the council against them. Biilod, Fiissli, and Gessner incited the people by denouncing the adherents of Heidegger as Arians and Arminians.
From 1664 to 1680 Heidegger developed an extensive polemical activity against the Roman
Catholic Church. During the persecuControversy tion of the Protestants in France in with 1682, and their unsatisfactory condi‑
Roman tion in England under Charles II., he
Catholics. employed his pen in their defense by
writing his Historia papatus (Amsterdam, 1684), but the situation did not change. In 1685 a Roman Catholic line assumed the. rule in the Palatinate, in England the new king, James II., openly avowed Romanism, and Louis XIV. revoked the Edict of Nantes. A multitude of fugitives poured into Switzerland, and Heidegger had an opportunity to prove his hospitality. His polemical attitude against his Roman neighbors was renewed when Sfondrati, abbot of St. Gall, tried to extend his rule over Reformed territory by ordering private baptism by midwives, without excepting the Evangelical families. Heidegger wrote by order of the magistrate on the necessity of baptism and against its profanation by midwives. His relations with the Lutheran Church were always of a conciliatory nature. Instigated by the suppression of the Reformed Church in France, he urged a union of all Evangelicals, which found a response in Spener, but the canons of the Synod of Dort made an agreement impossible in Spener's opinion.
Heidegger's literary activity was extensive and chiefly polemical‑against the Roman Catholics, Baronius, the superstitious pilgrimages to Einsiedeln, etc. To defend the rights of the Reformed in the German empire he wrote Demonstratio de Augustanee contessionis cum fide reformats consensu (1664), and, aiming to unite all Evangelicals, he wrote Manducatio in viam concordita Proteslantium ecclesiasticw (1686). His doctrinal writings exerted much influence, especially his Corpus theologize Christiance (ed. J. H. Schweizer, 2 vols., Zurich, 1700) and Ethicee ChrisGants elements (ed. J. GSIricke, Frankfort, 1711); of the former work he made two shorter compilations, Medulla theologies

Heidelberg Catechism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	204
Christiansa (1696) for advanced students, and Medulla mednllse theologise Christiance (1697).
(A. SCHwEIZERt.)
BIBLIOORAPBY: His autobiography, Histmia vita J. H. Heideggeri, appeared Zurich, 1698. Consult: L. Meister,
Beruhmte Z(ircher, 2 vols., Basel, 1782.
HEIDELBERG CATECHISM.
The Work of Several Col‑	Adverse Criticism (§ 4).
	laborators (§ 1).	Acceptance of the Cate•
Ursinus, Olevianus, Fred‑		chism (§ 5).
	erick III. (§ 2).	Doctrinal Character (§ 6).
Editions (§ 3).	Arrangement (§ 7).
The Reformation did not enter the Palatinate until 1546, and it was only under Frederick III. that it was actually carried through
r. The (see FREDERICK III. THE PIOUS). Of‑
Work of fended by the anathematizing tend‑
Several	encies of Lutheran zealots, this sover‑
Collabo‑	eign inclined toward the Reformed
	rators.	doctrines. In this spirit he com
		missioned Caspar Olevianus, professor
and preacher in Heidelberg, to draw up a new
church order, and conceived the idea of the com
pilation of a catechism. Owing to the loss of the
Palatine archives, the history of the origin of this
catechism lacks important documentary evidences.
It has been customary to give Olevianus and Zachsr
*. rias Ursinus the credit of having compiled the book
‑ on the initiative of the elector in 1562. But it has been proved that the catechism and the Refoinnation in the Palatinate were not the work of one or. two men, but the result of common efforts. This is evident from Ursinus's preface to the apology of the Heidelberg Catechism; from a letter of Olevianus to_Calvin; from the testimony of Quirinus Reuter, a pupil of Ursinus, in the preface to the works of his teacher; and from the introductions to the first three editions of the catechism, written by the elector himself, in which he states that it originated " with the counsel and assistance of our whole theologlcal,_faculty, also all superintendents and the principal church councilors." The theological faculty of Heidelberg consisted in 1562 of three men, Boquinus (Pierre Bouquin, q.v.), a Frenchman, who was one of the first advocates of Calvinism in Heidelberg; Emmanuel Tremellius, an Italian, who followed Calvin and Butzer; ad...Ursinus, a pupil of Melanchthon. The foremost among the superintendents was Olevianus, an admirer of Calvin and friend of Bullinger. Among the church councilors may be mentioned Michael Diller, court preacher, and Thomas Erastus, a physician who represented the German‑Swiss 'tendency. Besides these men and others, the elector himself shared in the work
j of the. catechism.
The older, tradition, however, is correct in so far as the principal share of the work is due to Ursinus and Olevianus. Ursinus had already
2. Ursmus, prepared two catechisms, the (larger)
Olevianus, Summa theologise and the Cateehesis
Frederick minor, which formed the basis of the
	III.	new work. The larger catechism he
		had compiled in 1561 for his academic
lectures; it contains his own ,dogmatip ‑4tip.yk but
reveals at the same time the authorities from which
he learned,	Melanchthon without his synergism,
Leo Jud, B, and Calvin, also the influence
of some Netherlandish catechisms such as the Klsym _Catechismus of Martin Micron (1552), Korte onders9ekinghe des.gheloofs (1553), and Catechisn:,s ofte Kinderlehre tho niitte der Joget in 0stfriesslandt (1554), edited by the preachers of Emden. The smaller catechism of Ursinus approaches. teidel berg Catechism the more closely; it was probably compiled after discussions with the elector and churchmen of the Palatinate. As the__eleor had pledged himself to the Augustana by,the Frankfort Recess and his action at the Naumburg Convention (qq.v.), he was anxious to preserve peace with the Lutherans as far as possible by dropping some of the Zurich and Calvinistic peculiarities of doctrine, especially as regarded the lord'&. Supper. It was probably Olevianus who was chiefly rop9mhle for the change of the text of the Catechesis minor into the German wording of the Heidelberg, ‑Catechism and for its final redaction. A comparison of the final text of the catechism with the new church order drawn up by him and with his devotional writings reveals a harmony in language, style, and theological bent which can hardly be accidental. The mediating. ‑influence of the elector may be recognized in the changes concerning the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and in the suppression of the discussion concerning,election.
At the annual synod held in Jan., 1563, the new
catechism was accepted by all superintendents,
church councilors, and theologians. The
	3. Edi‑	first edition appealed at 4eidelberg,in
	tions.	Feb., 1563,_under the title, Cqtechisymus
		Osier Chrlstlicher Underriclt, tvie der
in Kirchen and Schulen der Churfiiratlichen P/altz
gel_rieben~wirdt. A few weeks later a second edition
was published, which, beside many minor changes,
contained an entirely new question_,Oxxx.) con
cerning the difference between the Lord's Supper
and the papal mass: In the third edition, which
immediately followed, the condemnatory_,wqrds in
regard,to the adoration of the host were added.
The real author of this eightieth .question was
Oleld4nus,. The church order published Nov. 15,
1563, contains the four _h_edition of the geidel_berg
Catechism, which is to be regarded as the textus
receptus. It is essentially identical with the‑third
edition, texts oLS cripture for different classes and a
.short summary of the catechism having been added.
On the margin, the 129 questions together with the
Bible texts have been divided into ten lessons to be
read before the main service; the questions alone
have been divided into fifty‑two Sundays for ‑the
purpose of the catechetical. afteruoon,_sermons. It
is only in later editions that the questions are
uumd and the verses stated in Biblical quo
tations.
Immediately after its appearance the Heidelberg Catechism encountered violent attacks. Maximilian
II. remonstrated, against it_ .(Apr. 25,
4.. Adverse im3) as an infringement of the Peace Criticism. of Augsburg. On May 4 followed a
joint address from theCount Palatine, Wolfgang of Zweibriicken, Duke. Christopher of W iirttemberg, and Margrave Charles II. of Baden, accompanied with a sharp criticism inscribed Yerzeichnis der Manger,, probably composed by

205	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Heidelberg Cateohiam
Brenz. Many theologians protested against the new catechism. In‑064 Flacius published Widerlegung
eines Heinen deutsehen calvinisohen Catechismi, and
Hesshus published his Trpwe Wamung. There
appeared also a new and enlarged edition of the
Vemeichnis der Mangel, which criticized especially
the marginal $ible texts. In defense of the cate
chism, Ursinup‑published, in 1564, in Heidelberg,
three treatises:‑ Grandtlicher bericht vom heiligen
Abendmahl; Verantwortung wider die ungegr4ndten
aufflagen unad verkerungen, mit welchen der Cate
chismus . . . unbidlicher weise beschweret ist ; Ant
wortt au ff etlicher Theologen Censur uber die am rand
dess Heydelberger Catechisms auss Wager Schri f f t
angezogene Zeugnusse. Concerning the further
events from the Colloquy of Maulbronn to the Diet
of Augsburg, see FREDERICK III. THE PIOUS.
Having gone through this ordeal, the suceesf of the book began. An assembly of emigrants from the Netherlands in Wesel in 1568
	g. Accept‑	recommended it by the side of the
	ance of the	catechism of Calvin. The Synod at
	Catechism.	Emden. in 1571. adopted it for the
		German‑speaking Netherlandish con
gregations in East Frisia and on the Lower Rhine.
It entered also the ranks of the Reformed in J(ilich,
Cleves, and Berg. Other German regions and indi
vidual congregations (in Nassau‑Siegen, Wittgen
stein, Solms and Wied, Bremen, Lippe, Anhalt, Hesse
Cassel, Brandenburg, Prusda, etc.) followed in the
course of time. The Reformed churches of Hun‑,
gar‑, _TraAMlvania, and Poland adopted it; and in
1619 the..Synod_ of . Dolt officially declared it one
of the general‑ symbolical books of the Reformed
Church. From Holland, and afterward also from
Germany, ft was brought to Amedca, where it has
always been the honored symbol of the Dutch and
German Reformed churches.' The first reunited
General‑Aasemfaly of. the Presbyterian Church, at
Philadelphia in .1870, , authorized its use. It has
been traUdated3nta‑a.Elunpean languages, also
into Hebrew,,Arabic,.Malalt,_Singalese, and others,
and numerous paraphrases, summaries, and exposi
tions have appeared.
From the dogmatic point of view, the history of the origin of the Heidelberg Catechism frustrates every attempt to identify it with the 6. Doctrinal doctrine of any individual theologian Character. of the Reformation time. Its specifically Reformed character shows itself, apart, from the doctrine of the sacraments, by its continual goingback from all perishable authorities to the Bible; by its ethical rather than metaphysical mode of 'viewing Christ _as being gnointed by the Holy_Ghost for the execution of his work; by its peculiar manner of closely connecting the moral life of the Christian with faith as its subjective proof; finally, by its conception of the intimate social connection in the congregation and by its designation of the church or congregation as the real source of discipline. In an anonymous pasquil of 1566 the Heidelberg Catechism is said to have been compiled " by Bullinger and his associates," Quantitatively it contains more of Calvin's catechism than of Bullinger's. Bullinger's influence, however, may be recognized, perhaps, if‑ it be con‑
sidered in its total impression; for it is true that the
catechism does not shale the philosophical and
intellectual traits‑ of Calvin, b11t~takes_ta._root_in
the Christian experience, of‑salvation which it repre
sents practically and devotionally. The doctrine of
elestiQu _?s..rete...9z'e._Cautiously than
by„h11JAger. The doctrinQ_Qf..tha_Lord's Supper is
distinguished less by clearness than by an effort to.
bridge over existing .differences. In bringing the
Lord's Supper into relation to the suffering of the
Lord, the influence of Zurich may be recognized;
the emphasis of a myAtical,.union_.of the believers.
with the heavenly body. of Christ_.re_veals ,Calv_in's
influence; and in order to reconcile the distrusting
Lutheran adversaries, the confessional and oblig
atory character of the celebration was given up.
Considered as a catechetical text‑book, the Heidelberg Catechism is distinguished from Luther's smaller catechism by its systematic
7. Arrange‑ arrangement. The ,.five .traditional
	meat.	articles of faith have been retained,
		but have been inserted into an organic
min accordance with subjective, psychological
reasons, under the head of three main‑ conceptions.
After the two introductory questions there follow:
(1) the miser.‑ of man as it may be recognized from
the con<Tensdion d the law in 11btt.di. (questions
iii.‑xi.); (2)..th rede'a‑Af u	. man, the Gospell
to be accepted in faith developed according to_the
three articles_of the, Apostles' Creed, which is fol
lowed by the doctrine of justificatign, the sacra
ments, and the power of the ‑ ,keys (questions
xii.‑lxxxv.); (3) thankfulness, i.e., thg_new,life ac
cording to its basis in conversion, its norm in the
decalogue, and its most beautifulexpression in prayer
(questions lxxXVi.‑°.xxix.). The catechism is not
entirely adapted to a ‑Qlqapacity; but its noble
language, captivating by its clearness as well as by
its fervent joy of faith, may justify its befog offered
to school children for memorizing.
(M. LAUTERBURG.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The official German editions were published in 1583, 1585, 1595, 1684, 1724; the American in 1863. Only one copy of the first edition is known now in the university library at Utrecht. The most valuable work is the Tercentenary Monument. In Commemoration of the Three Hundredth Anniversary of the H"lberg Catechism, Published by the Germ. Ref. Ch. of the U. 8. A. in Eno. and Germ. The German ad. by Dr. Schaff, with an historical Introduction, Chambereburg, 1863 (contains a number of essays by authorities on the history and theology of the symbol). With the foregoing may be conveniently compared Schaff, Creeds, i. 529‑554 (history, specimens, and estimates), iii. 307‑‑?55 (text, Germ. and Eng.); idem, Christian Church, vi. 555‑557, 681, vii. 669, 811. The best work in Eng. on the catechism is by J. W. Kevin, History and Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism, Chambereburg, 1847 (of. his introduction in the Tercentenary Monument ut sup, pp. 11‑127). Valuable also for the early history is J. I. 'Doedes, De Heidelbxrgache Catechiamus in dyne eerste Levenajaren 1688‑67, Utrecht, 1867; also TBH for 1863 and 867. Other works which may be consulted are: H. S. *n Alpen, Geachichte and Literatur flea Heidelb4per Katechismua, Frankfort, 17961797; J. C. W. Augusti, Versuch einer hietorisach‑kritischen Einleitung in die beiden HauphKatechiemen der evange. liaehen %ircla, pp. 96 eqq., Elberfeld, 1824; K. Sudhoff, C. Olevianue and Z. Ursinua, ib. 1857; G. W. Bethune, Expository Lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism, New York, 1864; H. Calaminue, Die Geschichte des HeideY berger %atechiamua in Deutschland, Elberfeld, 1885; M. A. Goossen, De Heidalbarpache CatecAiamus en het boekye

8e drin8	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	208
van de breking des broods in het yaar 1603=Bk beebeden en
verdedigt, Leyden, 1892; J. 1: Good, History of the ~eformed Church in the United States, 1726‑1898, passim, Reading, 1899; Der Heidelberger Katechiamue and vier verwandte Katechiamen, mit . . . Einleitung, ed. A. Lim& Leipeic,1907.
HEIL, WILLIAM FRANKLIN: Bishop of the United Evangelical Church; b. at Berlinsville, Pa., May 1, 1857. He was educated in Pennsylvania schools, and fitted himself for the ministry while teaching 1874‑80. He served as pastor 1880‑90 and 1895‑1903, was presiding elder 1890‑95, and has been bishop since 1902.
HEIMBUCHER, haim'bi3‑Her, VAX: German Roman Catholic; b. at Miesbach (16 m. s.s.w. of Munich) June 10, 1859. He was educated at the Lyceum of Freising and the University of Munich, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1883. After holding various clerical positions until 1889, he became privatrdocent at the University of Munich, and two years later (1891) was appointed to his present position of professor of dogmatics, encyclopedics, and patristics at the Lyceum of Bamberg. He has written: Die Wirkungen der heiligen Kommunion (Regensburg, 1884); Die Bibliothek des Priesters (1885); Kurze Gesehichte Freisihgs and seiner Bisch6fe (Freising, 1885); Die heilige Oelung (Regensburg, 1888); Die heilige Firmung (Augsburg, 1889 ); Die Papstwahlen enter den Karolingern (1889); Die Orden and Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (2 vols., Paderborn, 1896‑97; 2d ed. 3 vols., 1907‑08); and Die praktisch‑socials Thatigkeit des Priesters (1902).

HEINECCIUS, hai‑nee'tsi‑us, JOHANN MICHAEL: German theologian; b. at Eisenberg (35 m. s. of Halle) 1674; d. at Halle Sept. 11, 1722. He studied at Jena, Giessen, and Helmstedt, and traveled in Germany and the Netherlands. In 1699 he was ordained deacon at Goaslar, became pastor at Halle in 1708, and assistant superintendent of Halle and neighborhood. About 1709 he qualified for the doctorate in theology at Helmstedt and was appointed councilor of the royal Prussian consistory and superintendent for the duchy of Magdeburg, and rector of St. Mary's Church at Halle.
The reputation sustained by Heineccius was that of a great scholar, both in theology and in other branches of knowledge. His library consisted of 4,000 volumes‑a. very considerable number for those times. He was, moreover, a writer of ability, and most of his works are preserved in the university library at Halle. He seems to have been the first scientific student of seals, and a result of this pursuit was his De veteribua Germanorum aliarumque nationum sigillis eorumque use (Frankfort, 1709). In the same year he published a large volume on the history of Gosslar and its neighborhood. His best work in history is his E%gentliche and wahrha/tVe Abbildung der alten and neuen griechischen Kirche nach ihrer Historic, Glaubens‑Lehren and Kirchen‑Gebrduchen (3 vols., Leipsic, 1711). The full bibliography concerning the Greek Church found there is still useful. Heineccius received high commendation for his sermon preached at the bicentennial of the Reformation in 1717. Of espe‑
cial interest is his Priifung der sogenannten neuen Propheten and ihres ausserordentlichen Zustandes (Halls, 1715). Heineceius is credited also with the authorship of two hymns.
Heineecius was a man of wide learning, of a balanced and hospitable temperament, and an adherent of moderate Lutheran orthodoxy.
(F. KATrENBUBCH.)
BmmooRAPHY: J. C. Wetzel, Hymnopceographia, iv. 221‑
222, Nuremberg, 1728; ADB, xi. 361.
	HEINRICI, hair‑A'kf, KARL FRIEDRICH
GEORG: German Protestant; b. at Karkeln (44
m. n.e. of KGnigsberg) Mar. 14, 1844. He was
educated at the universities of Halle (Ph.D., 1866)
and Berlin (lie. theol., 1868 ), and was assistant
preacher at the cathedral in 1869‑70 and inspector
of the foundation for canonical candidates at Berlin
in 1870‑71. In 1871 he became privat‑docent at the
University of Berlin, but two years later went as
associate professor to Marburg, where he was pro
moted to the rank of full professor in the next year.
Since 1892 he has been professor of New Testament
exegesis at Leipaic. He has written: Die valenti
nianische Gnosis and die heiligeSchri ft (Berlin, 1871);
Erklarung der Korintherbriefe (2 vols., 1880‑87);
Wesen and Aufgabe der evangelisch‑theologischen
Fakukdten (Marburg, 1885); D. A. Twesten, naeh
Tagebiiehern and Briefen (1889); Theologische En
eyklopddie (Freiburg, 1893); Beitrdge zur Geschichte
and Erkldrung des Neuen Testaments (4 vols., Leip
sic, 1894‑1903); Das Urchristentum (Gottingen,
1902); 1St die Lebenslehre Jesu zeitgemass f (Leip
sie, 1904); and Der litterariscJie Charakter der
neuleatamentlichen Schri/ten (1908). He also edited
H. A. W. Meyer's Exegetisches Handbueh zu den
Korintherbriefen from the fifth to the eighth
edition (2 vols., G6ttingen, 1881‑1900).
HEITMUELLER, hait'mill‑ler, WILHELM: German Protestant; b. at DGleberg (Hanover) Aug. 3, 1869. He was educated at the universities of Greifswald, Marburg, Leipsic, and GGttingen (18881892), and since 1892 has been privat‑docent for New Testament exegesis at GSttingen. He has been associate editor of the Theologische Rundschau since 1900, and has written: Im Namen Jesu, eine spraeh‑ and religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, speziell zur altchristliehen Taufe (G6ttingen, 1903) and Taufe and Abendmahl bei Paulus (1903).
HEJIRA: The term, meaning "departure," applied by Mohammedans to the migration of Mohammed and his supporters from Mecca to Medina in the year 622 A.D. This event was made the starting‑point in the Mohammedan reckoning of time. See MOHAMMED, MOHAMMEDANISM.
BELDING, MICHAEL (called Sidonius): German Catholic theologian; b. at Langenenslingen (35 m. s.w. of Ulm), Wiirttemberg, in 1506; d. at Vienna Sept. 30, 1561. He was of humble parentage, studied at Tiibingen from 1525 to 1528, and three years later became rector of the cathedral school at Mainz. Taking holy orders, he was made preacher at the cathedral in 1533, and the fame which he earned by his talent as a preacher led, in 1538, to his nomination as titular bishop of Sidon. In 1545 he was present at the opening of the Council of Trent as the

207	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	HeBring
representative of the archbishop Albert, and on the death of that prelate in the same year he acted as incumbent of the see till the election of a successor. The emperor, who considered him useful for the execution of his ecclesiastical policy in Germany, in the summer of 1547 summoned him to Ulm. Herding appeared at the Augsburg diet, where he was honored with the commission of preaching in the cathedral during the sessions of the diet. In 1548 he published at Ingolstadt his fifteen sermons on the mass which have been counted as among the most notable contributions of the sixteenth century to the subject. They gave rise to a lively controversy in which Helding found himself assailed by Flacius, who demolished his arguments for the early character of the sacrament. Helding made no attempt to defend the untenable position he had assumed. In 1548 he returned to Mainz and devoted himself to the task of introducing the Interim in the Nassau region, and to his duties in connection with the higher administration of the Church. From him emanated the great catechism of Main, the Institutio ad pietatem Christianam (1549), also a compendium intended for the use of the pages at the court of Mainz. The books were assailed by Wigand and by Flacius, and Helding may have been right in discerning that one of the causes of the virulence to which he was subjected was his nomination by the emperor to the chapter at Merseburg as a candidate for the vacant see. The chapter was in difficulty between the imperial candidate and the candidate proposed by Maurice of Saxony, Julius Pflug. In spite of Maurice's utmost endeavor, Helding, in May, 1549, was chosen bishop by a reluctant chapter. The papal confirmation was not obtained till April of the following year; meanwhile the affairs of the see were conducted by Prince George of Anbalt; on surrendering the office to Helding in December the prince exacted the promise that he would attempt no change in the established doctrine, enter on no reforms without the consent of the entire chapter, and follow a policy of conciliation toward the married priests. Prince George remained in Merseburg to watch over the fortunes of the church under its new bishop, and when the latter, after the first period of caution was over, seemed about to enter on a process looking to the reestablishment of the old authority, Maurice intervened and compelled him to abstain from all open attack on the Reformed faith. Helding attempted by friendly means to win over the clergy; he installed Catholic priests in his cathedral, introduced Catholic ceremonial, and from the cathedral pulpit preached indirectly against the Protestant " sect." The break between Maurice and the emperor and the sudden change in public affairs that followed convinced him of the hopelessness of attempting to restore the Catholic faith in his town. He could not prevent his clergy from applying for ordination to the consistory of Leipsic, and one of them assumed virtual control of the diocese. He nevertheless managed to confer many benefits upon the see by his wise administration and charitable labors. In 1555 he was present at the Diet of Augsburg, and two years later he played a most important part at the Conference of Worms, where, with Pflug and
Canisius, he headed the Catholic deputation. He
brought confusion into the ranks of the Protestants
by demanding from them a statement of their posi
tion as to the doctrine of Calvin and Zwingli regard
ing the Lord's Supper, that of Osiander concerning
justification, and that of Flacius regarding the free
dom of the will and good works. The last point
gave rise to the violent controversy between the
Jena theologians and the Philippists, and led to the
secession of the party of Flacius and the failure of
the conference, a result which delighted the Cath
olics. In 1558 Helding was made president of the
Imperial Chamber at Speyer, and three years later
he became head of the Aulic Council at Vienna. In
the same year he addressed with Pflug a memorial
to the emperor, recommending the concession of
communion in both kinds and the marriage of
priests. Helding occupies a leading place among
Roman Catholic pulpit orators of the sixteenth
century. While holding fast to the Catholic position,
he was exceedingly adept in expressing his opinions
in words that often proved acceptable to the
Protestants. In his sermons at Merseburg he shows
respect for the authority of the Scriptures and a
general conception of the nature of the priestly
office and of the relations between priest and lay
man that reveal the acute and experienced apologist
speaking to an audience whose sympathies were
Evangelical. 	(G. KAwERAu.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: There is a biography by M. Winter in Mib theilunpen Bee Vereine /fir Geschirhts and Alterthumekunde in Hohenwllern, av (1881‑82), 1‑15; of. N. Paulus, in Hatholik, 11 (1894). 410 eqq., 481 eqq.

HELDRING, OTTO GERHARDT: Founder of the Inner Mission in the Netherlands; b. at Zevenaar (8. m. s.e. of Arnhem), Gelderland, May 17, 1804; d. at Marienbad (38 m. n.w. of Pilsen), Bohemia, July 11, 1876. In his university studies he displayed a decided preference for history and political economy over theology, but accepted, nevertheless, in 1826, a call to the pastorate of Hemmen, a little village of 150 inhabitants. There his bent for practical sociology was not slow in manifesting itself. The life of the peasantry attracted him; the causes and problems of poverty, with its effect on the physical and moral being of the community, were made the subjects of careful investigations, the results of which he published with the object of arousing a general interest that might lead to the initiation of remedies. The first of his works, " Nature and Man," appeared in 1833, and was followed by a succession of writings published independently or in the form of contributions to periodicals, revealing a charming union of religion, poetry, history, economics, and homely wisdom, expressed in a simple style suitable for the wide audience to which he appealed. With the year 1841 begins the essential activity of his beneficent career. A journey undertaken in that year brought him by chance to the little village of Hoenderloo, whose inhabitants lived in a state of material and spiritual privation that aroused his pity. Through his exertions Hoenderloo was supplied with a well and a school; a church was established soon after, and within a few years Heldring had the satisfaction of witnessing the regeneration of a community. He devoted him‑

Helena	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	2013
Heliodorus
self next to the cause of temperance, to the relief
of the stricken in the famine years of 1845‑46, to
remedial schemes of colonization. At a time when
orthodoxy and public beneficence had no intimate
connection, he succeeded in uniting the propagation
of the Gospel with the distribution of material aid.
In this field he was assisted by the " Assembly of
Christian Friends " of Amsterdam, which included
such men as Capadose, Da Costa, Beets, and Groen
van Prinaterer. But, while no branch of philan
thropy failed to receive his attention, Heldring
devoted his particular efforts to rescue work among
the fallen. For the reclamation of unfortunate
women he established an asylum at Steenbeck in
1847, and to gain support for this Institution trav
eled throughout the country preaching the Gospel
of charity toward the weak. The asylum was fol
lowed by other institutions for the protection of
young women and girls, and by a seminary for the
training of teachers for work in that field.
		(THEODOR SCHAFER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His autobiography was published by his
	son, L. Heldring, at Leyden, 1881, Germ. transl., GOters
	loh, 1882; N. Beets, Zum Geddchtnias an O. O. Heldring,
	Hamburg, 1876.
	HELENA, helle‑na, SAINT: 1. The most famous
of the saints of the church bearing the name of
Helena was the mother of Constantine the Great
(q.v.). Little is known of her life, although it is
certain that her importance in the career of her son
was less than is generally supposed. There is no
doubt that she was of humble birth, and the legend
which makes her a British princess is late. Her only
child, Constantine, seems to have been born at
Naissus in Upper Moesia in 274, while she herself
probably came from Drepanum, later called Hele
nopolis, on the Gulf of Nicomedia. According to
Ambrose, she was a female tavern‑keeper, and it is
not certain whether her marriage with Conatantius
was at first legal. Her husband divorced her in 292
to marry Theodora, the stepdaughter of Maximus
Herculius, for reasons of state, and Helena then
retired to obscurity, although her son, after his
accession, recalled her to court and heaped honors
upon her. Late in life, after the defeat of Licinius
in 324, she visited Palestine, founded churches in
various cities, and dispensed much charity, but the
date of her conversion to Christianity is unknown.
She was still living when Crispus was murdered in
326, and overwhelmed her son with reproaches for
the assassination of her grandson. Nevertheless,
Constantine had coins struck in her honor. The
place and date of her death are uncertain, but she
must have died between 326 and 328 or 329. Her
body was brought to Constantinople by her son,
although the church of Aracceli in Rome, the city
of Venice, and the monastery of Hautvilliers near
Reims have all claimed to be her final resting‑place.
The best‑known legend connected with her is the
invention of the Holy Cross (see CROSS, INvENT1oN
of THE), a tradition told neither by Eusebius nor
by Cyril of Jerusalem, but first by Rufinus, on
whom Socrates, Sozomen, and others based their
accounts. The foundation of the legend is Josephus'
story of the Jewish convert Helena, queen of Adia
bene (Ant. XX., ii., iv. 3), and this tradition was
first transferred to the mother of Constantine in the latter part of the fourth century. Her day is Aug. 14. See CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND His SONS, I., § 2.
2. A second St. Helena is the Russian Grandprincess Olga, the widow of Igor, who was baptized at Constantinople 955, when she assumed the name of Helena. Her day in the Julian calendar is July 11.
	3. A third saint of this name is Helena of Sklifde,
in Sweden, where she was murdered by her noble
kinsmen of West Gothland about 1160, after her
return to Sweden from a pilgrimage. She was
canonized by Alexander III. in 1164, and her
remains are interred on the island of Seeland. Her
cult is restricted to the Scandinavian countries, and
her day is July 31. 	(ADOLF HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Sources are: Eusebius, Life of Con8tantine, iii. 41‑47; Socrates, Hist. eccl., i. 17‑18; Sozomen, Hist. ecd., ii. 1‑2; Rufinus, Hisl. eccl., x. 7‑8; Theodoret, Hist. eccl., i. 18. The Vita by the cenobite Altmannus (d. 882), with comment, is in ASB, Aug., iii. 548‑599. Consult: DeMas Letrie, Hist. de L'ile de Chypre, Paris, 1852‑61 (for traditions as to place of her death); Abb6 Lueot, $. Hellne, . . . sa vie, eon culte en Champagne, son suaire d Chdlona, son corps d Paris, Paris, 1877; S. Beissel, in Geschichte der Trierer Kirchen, i. 82‑90, 123, 124‑131, Trier, 1887; H. V. Sauerland, Trierer Geschichtsquellen, pp. 61‑79, 140 sqq., 144‑172, ib. 1889; Ceillier, Auteurs aacr6s, iii. 118‑119, 143, 579‑580, vii. 482‑483, viii. 71‑72, 114‑115, 516, x. 44, xii. 697, xiii. 524‑525; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, i. 397 sqy., ii. 211, 290, 455; Neander, Christian Church, ii. 7, 31, 377; DCB, ii. 881885; KL, v. 1735‑39.
2. E. Castremont, Hist. de l'introduction du chriatianisme our Is continent russe et la vie de S. Olga, Paris, 1879; KL, v. 1741.
S. ASB, July, vii. 329‑333; KL, v. 1739‑41.
HELIANDD, THE, AND THE OLD‑SAXON GEN‑
ESIS: Until recent times the only Old‑Saxon Biblical poem known was the harmony of the Gospels called the Heliand, which is found in approximately complete form in two manuscripts, one at Munich (originally in Bamberg) and the other in London. These two manuscripts give a poem of 5,983 verses; Smaller fragments are also found in manuscripts at Prague and in the Vatican, the latter being originally from Mainz, whence it was taken successively to Heidelberg and Rome. As early as 1875 E. Sievers advanced the theory that an interpolation (lines 235‑851) in the Anglo‑Saxon version of Genesis attributed to Cwdmon (q.v.) was taken from an Old‑Saxon original, and this hypothesis was confirmed when, in 1894, B. Zangemeister discovered in the Vatican manuscript already noted not only the original of the Anglo‑Saxon passage, but also two other portions of an Old‑Saxon version of Genesis, giving 617 verses treating of the fall of the evil angels and the fall of man (corresponding to the passage in the Anglo‑Saxon Genesis), 134 verses of the history of Cain and Abel, and 177 of the fall of Sodom.
The Heliand and Genesis are closely related, both in vocabulary and in formulas; phrases of considerable length occasionally recurring, almost without alteration, in both texts. This is confirmed by the only external authority regarding the text, the Prtv fw do in librum antiquum. lingua Saxonica conscriptum, copied by Flacius Illyricus in 1562 in his Catalogue testium veritatis from a source now lost. Although

909	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8elens
		HeIfodoras
the value of this document is somewhat diminished
by the fact that the original text has received
legendary interpolations drawn in great measure
from the account of Ceedmon in Bede (Hint. eccl.,
iv. 24; see CASnMON), its statement is at least
authentic that Louis the Pious, who is represented
as still living, " commissioned a certain Saxon, who
was regarded as no ignoble bard by his countrymen,
to translate the Old and New Testaments into the
Germanic torigue." Although this passage evidently
refers .to the Old‑Saxon Heliand and Genesis, close
investigation shows that the two poems are not by
the same author, as the writer of the Prcefatio sup
posed. The poet of Genesis is far inferior to the
author of the Heliand not only in talent, but also in
diction, style, and meter. The Old‑Saxon Genesis
must be regarded, therefore, as the work of a direct
imitator, who prepared himself for his task by
careful study of the Heliand, without being able to
equal his predecessor.
	According to the Prce f atio, the German people had
" recently " gained direct knowledge of the Scrip
tures through these two poems. The Heliand and
Genesis must, therefore, have been written before
840, while a terminus a quo is given by the fact that
the former poem uses the commentary on Matthew
written by Rabanus Maurus in 820 or 821. The
date of both poems may accordingly be assigned
roughly to the decade 825‑835, but the place of their
composition is as yet unknown, and there is no
external testimony to decide whether the poet, es
pecially of the Heliand, was a priest or a layman.
	The Biblical material of the Heliand is not taken
immediately from the Gospels, but is selected from
Tatian's harmony, with supplementary and ex
planatory additions from patristic literature. This
latter material, with a few exceptions, is derived
in all probability from the four commentaries on
the Gospels most immediately preceding the com
position of the Heliand, Bede's exposition of Mark
and Luke, Alcuin's of John, and Rabanus Mourns'
of Matthew. It is evident, both from the nature of
the sources and from the combination and selection
of Biblical passages and the exegesis upon them, that
the author of the poem can scarcely have been
other than a priest or monk. Nor does the treat
ment of the material oppose this assumption. The
author sought to compose a poem, and not a com
pendium of dogmatic theology; he wished to bring
before his countrymen the life and deeds of Christ,
and his redeeming death and resurrection, whence
the character of his work is preponderatingly epic.
Only in the account of the Sermon on the Mount is
the treatment essentially didactic; elsewhere the
poet chose such passages as were either complete
in themselves or would arouse in his audience a
purely human or poetic interest, omitting such in
cidents as might be offensive to his hearers.
	In his presentation the author of the Heliand
employs the Germanic alliterative verse, and the
entire coloring is equally Teutonic. The personages
of the poem are essentially Germanic in character,
as are the descriptions of ceremonies, feasts, natural
phenomena, and the like, while the literary style
is exceptionally admirable.
	In criticizing the Old‑Saxon Genesis, the Anglo
		V.‑14
Saxon version must be taken into consideration, since the discovery of the Vatican fragment has shown that the latter is an exact translation of the former. On the other hand, the criticism of the poem is rendered more difficult by the fact that its sources are still uncertain. It is clear that the Biblical book of Genesis is not the only source, as when the poet treats of the medieval doctrines of angels and devils, or of Antichrist or Enoch, and one portion seems to contain reminiscences of Avitus's De initio mundi and De originali peccato. The work is far inferior to the Heliand, particularly in its prolixity and in its lack of rigid structure. Words and phrases are constantly borrowed from the Heliand, while the style is halting and heavy, and the versification has neither swing nor strength. (E. S1avmas.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Critical editions of the Heliand are: J. A. 8chmeller, Munich, 1830, and E. Sievers, Halle, 1878. Other editions usable as handbooks are: H. Rffekert, Leipsic, 1878; K. 6imrock, Berlin, 1882; M. Heyne, Paderborn, 1&17; P. Piper, Stuttgart, 1897. Consult: H. Middendorf, Usber die Zeit der Abfassung dee Heliand, Mffnster, 1882; A. F. C. Vilmar, Deutsche ALterthamer im Heliand, Marburg, 1862; W. O. E. Windisch, Der Heliand and seine Quelden, Leipsio, 1888; C. W. M. Grein, Die Quellen des Heliande, Cassel, 1889; F. Hammerieh, Die dtkak chraatliche Epik der Anpelsacheen, Giitersloh, 1874; E. Sievers, Der Heliand and die augelsdchaische Genesis, Halle, 1875; G. Keintsel, Der Retiand im Verhdltniss zu semen Quellen, Hermannetadt, 1882; E. Behringer, Zur WQrdipunp des Heland, Aschaffenburg, 1891; A. Hedler, GesehicAle der Heliandforechunfl, Leipsie, 1891.
A special edition of the included parts of the Genesis by E. Sievers appeared in his Der Heliand and die anpelsdchaiache Genesis, Halle, 1875. Consult F. Vetter, Die neuentdeckte deutsche BibeldicAtuag, Heidelberg, 1894; P. Psohsly, Die Variation im Heliand and der altmchsiecAen Genesis, Berlin, 1899. A more extended list of literature is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, vii. 817.

HELIODORBS: The name of several men recorded in the history of the Eastern Church: (1) A minister of the Syrian King Seleucus IV. Philopator (187•‑175 B.c.), sent by him to Jerusalem to demand the surrender of the Temple treasures, and, according to the account in II Mace. iii, 7‑40 (also IV Mace. iv.), struck down by a horseman appearing from heaven, but healed by the intercession of the high priest Onias. Josephus says nothing of the occurrence; but Fritzsehe (Schenkel's Bibellexikon, iii. 7) thinks there is a historic basis for the narrative, and the courtier Heliodorus mentioned by Appian (Hilt. Syriaca, xlv.), who poisoned the king in order to seize the throne for himself, has been identified with the Heliodorus of Maccabees. (2) A bishop of Laodicea mentioned by Dionysius of Alexandria in his letter to Stephen of Rome (254‑257). (3) A bishop of Trieca in Thessaly mentioned by Socrates (Hilt. eccE., v. 22) as the author of the rule enforced there that bishops should abstain from commerce with their wives, and identified by him with the author of an erotic romance still extant, but probably written later. (4) Some have also identified the Thessalonian bishop with the friend of Jerome, a native of Dalmatia mentioned with reverence in several of Jerome's oldest letters (iii.‑vii.), and in another, twenty years later, to Nepotian, the nephew of Heliodorus, who had in the mean time been ordained at Aquileis and had become bishop of Altino, though still keeping up his monastic manner of life.

N.U.nNt.'"k	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	210
Once more, probably in 396, Jerome writes to him on Nepotfan's death (Epiat. Ix.); and he dedicates to him his version. of the Proverbs. (b) A presbyter mentioned by Rufinus (Appl., xxx.) as one of (;he Greek‑speaking collaborators of Hilary on his commentaries. (6) A Christian who, is 289, wrote some iambic verses to Theodosius I. (7) A priest who, according to Gennadius (vi.), lived about the middle of the fourth century, and wrote against the Manicheans ' a work (now lost), De naturis rerum ex4rdialium, in which he defended the doctrine that God is the only world‑principle. (8) Another priest mentioned by Gennadins (xxix.) as living in Antioch about the middle of the fifth century and the author of a lost treatise, De virginitate.
(ADOLF HAmA08.)
BiBLIoGRAPHl: 1. G. A. Deisemann, BibdetudieN pp. 171175, Marburg, 1895, Eng. travel., Edinburgh, 1901; DD, ii. 348; BB, 12005; JE, vi. 335; and the commentaries on II Mace.
HELIOGABALUS. See ELAf3ABALLVS.
HELIOPOLIS. See ON.
BELL. See HADBs; GzHmNA; and FuTaamm PUNISHMENT.
HELL, CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO. See Dr, ecrrlT or CsarsT nrro HrrL.
HELL, PUNISHMENTS OF. See PVN18mmNT.
	HELLENISM: Properly, the spirit and culture of
the Greeks, spread among Eastern peoples as a con
		sequence of the short but brilliant
	Difuusion carer of Alexander the .Great. The
	of Greek independent states which arose out of
	Language the ruins of his empire were bound
	and together by Greek speech and culture,
	Learning. for all who received the Greek language
		came into possession of a specially rich
literature. This does not mean that the Greek
language superseded the local dialects over this area,
but that, especially in the large cities, the people
used the Greek along with their own tongues. To
those who had literary inclinations the wide diffu
sion of Greek had large results, since it enabled them
to express themselves in the lingua franca of the
world and to attain a world‑wide celebrity denied
them under the old conditions of writing in their
mother tongue only. The fostering centers of this
influence were the courts of the different princes,
where writers, artiste, and high officers collected,
and where temples, theaters, gymnasia, and baths
in the Greek style were erected and had their in
fluence upon the culture of the land. Nevertheless,
the resulting culture was different from the Greek
original. The golden age of Greek literature had
passed. The new peoples had to learn Greek, a fact
which gave to the result a somewhat pedantic
character. Moreover, along with this went a mixing
of the vernacular and the acquired speech (see
HELLENISTIC GREEK). This was in part uncon
scious, in part the result of an effort by the Oriental#
to emphasize their national characteristics, to prove
their higher antiquity, and demonstrate its meaning
for the development of culture, to tell their myths
and stories after the ruling methods. The Jews,
both of Palestine and of the Diaspora, were among
the peoples drawn into this movement, which is of importance for theology, and also had other important bearings. The Jews were conscious of possessing a heritage at least equal to anything Greek, for the protection of which they must strive with all their powers.. Their faith in one Holy God, his promises to them, and above all their law, they regarded as superior to.all earthly wisdom, and for this they strove to win a larger domain by uniting in its service Greek philosophy and Greek literature, thus assuming the attitude of teachers of the world (see PRosrLYTF.6). Greek influence, however, had not the same results in Palestine as among the Jews of the Diaspora, and this fact must be distinguished in the discussion.
Exact details are lacking of the way in which Alexander came into possession of Palestine, but it
is clear that his treatment of its inhabGreek itants was gentle and that they were Influence undisturbed by the developments
	on	which immediately followed. 7 he es
Palestinian tablishment of Greek cities all about
Judaism. them afforded to the Jews opportunity
to become acquainted with Greek forms of culture, of which Jewish commerce took advantage. Greek culture found in Palestine congenial soil in the temple aristocracy, and Jesus Sirach speaks appreciatively of Greek medical science and of Greek music. Indeed, the Jewish aristocraoy appeared ready to give up all Jewish customs and to depart from its prohibitions. A high priest sent gifts to Greek games, Jews took Greek names, in Jerusalem a place was prepared for Greek celebraLions, the mark of circumcision was disguised or obliterated, and Judaism seemed destined to disappear entirely in Greek culture. The violence of the Seleucidm aroused the Maccabees, and for a time checked the movement. But the later Maccabees espoused the Greek cause, Aristobolus was named " the friend of the Greeks," while John Hyrcanus was named with honor in Athens because of his friendliness to Greeks in Palestine. This tendency developed still further under Herod the Great, who raised Greek temples in the non‑Jewish parts of his realm, built the Temple in Jerusalem in a style partly Greek, and erected in the same city or near it a theater, amphitheater, and a hippodrome, while the language received large accessions of Greek words. And yet it is to be noted that there was an inner circle of Judaism which remained unaffected by this tendency, and in the discussions over the law there was an exclusiveness which held at a distance all foreign modes of thought and expression.
An essentially different condition existed among the Jews of the Dispersion. The fact that they had
unlearned their old tongue made a Greek fundamental distinction, though neverInfluence thele,‑j they held fast to their Judaism.
on the They had gained the ability to live Judaism amid foreign surroundings after the
of the manner of their own faith. But Diaspora. they could not but be impressed with
the brilliancy of Greek literature, and be urged to the attempt to combine the forces of their own faith with it. Out of this grew, especially

911	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	$euosab8elleni.UT& eek
in Alexandria, but also in other centers of Jewish life abroad, the very rich Jewish‑Greek literature, of which sufficient remains have been preserved to enable a very fair estimate of it to be made. A farther stimulus to the production of this literature were the correspondences and coincidences found by Jews in Greek writings with their own ideas, and an essential relationship felt to exist was embodied in Jewish allegorical exegesis. Greek was seized as a vehicle by which to convey to others the Judaic sense of the superiority of their own law and to glorify Judaism even by interpolation of existing writings.
The basis of Hellenistic literature was the translation of the Old Testament into Greek (see BIBLE
		VER81oNs, A, I. 1, § 1; HELLENISTIC
	Results	GREEK), which, upon its comple
	in	tion, became the Bible of the Jews
Literature. of the Dispersion as well as that of
the early Christians. Similarly, extmcanonical Palestinian writings, like that of Sirach and the Psalms of Solomon, were made accessible to Greek‑speaking Jews through translations. Through these translations a certain freedom in handling the Scriptures was attained. The literature which arose upon the basis of the Septuagint embraced three departments: history, philosophy, and poetry. The task of the Jewish historians was to show the significance of Moses for the entire world as the originator of all sciences and arts. The retelling of the Old Testament story by Philo was in the interest of an ethical‑philosophical tendency. And other writers had the purpose of setting forth the newer developments of history in the Jewish world, as did Jason of Cyrene the period of the Maccabees, and Josephus the story of the fall of Jerusalem. Jewish apologetics also received assistance from Josephus, who attempted to prove the high antiquity of the. Jewish nation, and hence its equality at least with other peoples. Similarly, the narrative of Aristeas had the object of showing the regard with which a heathen people honored the Jewish law. Naturally the philosophy which sprang up in this region was eclectic. On the border‑land between the Palestinian wisdom literature and Greek philosophy stood the Wisdom of Solomon, influenced by Plato and the Stoics. The newer treatment set forth a moral theory of the rule of reason under the influence of Stoicism, as in IV Maccabees. And the results of the philosophic eclecticism have gained a not unworthy place in the history of philosophy. A third class of JewishGreek writers took the Greek poets as models and entered the domain of the drama and epic poetry. Thus there are fragments of a poem on the history of Jerusalem and of a drama on the Exodus. But the most noteworthy efforts in this direction were those which interpolated the Sibylline Oracles and other Greek productions, using them as a propaganda for the Jewish religion.
After the fall of the Jewish State the exclusive tendency of the strict Palestinian school began to work, and is well exemplified in the new translation of the Old Testament by Aquila in order to suppress the Septuagint and to support the pure Palestinian text and canon. The tendency against the union of Jewish and Gentile learning grew ever stronger,
until finally the Hellenistic literature was forgotten. The consequence would have been the entire loss of this body of literature had it not been rescued and preserved by the Christians whose linguistic affinities were with the Greek. (F. BUHL.)
BIBLIOGRAPH7: achUrer, Geschtchte, ii. 21‑175, ill. 1‑135, 304‑bB2, Eng. tranel., II. i.‑iii.; J. Freudenthal, Die Flaviua Jossphus beigeleota Schrift: Usbsr die Herrachaft der Vernunft, Breslau, 1889; idem, Alexander Polyhistor, ib. 1875; M. Heinse, Geschichairhe Darstellunp der yiadi8chaleznndrinischen Relipionsphilosophie, Leipsic, 1872; C. Siegfried, Philo von Alezandrien, Jens, 1875; idem, in ZWT, xviii (1875), 485 sqq.; idem, in JPT, i (1888), 228 sqq.; J. G. Droysen, Oeschichts des Heilenismus, Gotha, 1877‑78; G. Kwpeles, Oeschiehte der iadisden Literatur, i. 135 sqq., Berlin, 1888; H. Bois, Les Oripines de la philosophic judgo‑alexandrine, Paris, 1890; E. Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas on the Christian Church, London, 1890; F. Susemihl, Oeachichte der priedhischsn Literatur in der Alexandrinerseit, Leipsic, 1891; J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought from the Ape of Alexander, London, 1891‑92; M. Friedliinder, Das Judardhum in der vorchrisaichen prischieden Welt, GSttingen, 1897; idem, Der vorchristliche ffidircheGnoeticiamus, Vienna, 1898; L. Rahn, Romanismus and Hellenisrnua bis auf die Zest Justinians, Leipsic, 1907; P. Krilger, Hellenismus and Judentum im neuteatamendichen Zeitalter, ib., 1908; DB, ii. 280‑283; EB, ii. 2008‑13; JR, vi. 335‑340.
HELLENISTIC GREEIL
Hellenistic Greek Defined (§ 1).
Constituents of Hellenistic Greek (5 2).
Vernacular Basis of Hellenistic Greek (§ 3). Unity of Hellenistic Greek (g 4).
Pronunciation and Inflection (§ 5). Lexicography (4 8).
Syntax (¢ 7).
The Greek Bible not Literary Greek (¢ 8).
The definition given in a former edition of this work of Hellenistic Greek as " the prevailing designation of that mode. of speech in :. Hellen‑ use among those Jews who lived among istic Greek the Greeks, or that peculiar form of the Defined. Greek language which it took in the though'V and mouth of the Semitic Orient when the two spheres of life began to act upon each other," is not only " narrow and historically insufficient " but no longer historically possible. Knowledge of this idiom is no longer gained chiefly from Jewish works, there being now accessible a rich fund of sources in inscriptions and papyri from many lands, and it is of such a character that it bespeaks the interest not only of the philologist, but of him who is engaged in the study of culture and of religious history. Hellenistic Greek can no longer be isolated as a "sacred tongue,, or as " Biblical Greek," conceptions mediated on the one side by religious dogmatics, and on the other side by a dogmatic philology, the latter of which played with the catchwords " classical Greek " and " vulgar " or " common Greek," and so prevented the perception of the historical fact of the spread of a language to wider usage and of its consequent development. For an impartial method of viewing the subject from a historical‑linguistic point of view Hellenistic Greek must be defined as the worldspeech of the times of the Diadochoi and the emperors. If all Greek is divided into " ancient," " middle and late," and " new " Greek, Hellenistic Greek is in general identical with " middle and late " Greek, used between 300 B.c. and 800 A.D.; i.e., it begins with Alexander's conquests and closes with the establishment of a national Greek State, the

Hellenistio Greek	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	212
Byzantine empire. Various designations have been used for the language thus defined: Hellenistic Greek, Greek world‑speech, middle or late Greek, and koing (" common "). The most used is the last, koing, employed alone as a noun, though with no general agreement as to its exact meaning. Some understood by it postclassic literature with the exception of Atticizing works (so WinerSchmiedel). Hatzidakis meant by it the whole development of common Greek, oral and written, between the limits assigned above, 300 B.c.‑600 A.D. With this Schweizer practically agrees, excluding only the Atticizing works. The varying usage to which the term koinis has been subjected makes it advisable to retain the term Hellenistic Greek for the language as defined above.
In historical investigations of the language two tendencies are observable. One emphasizes the Attic as the real basis of Hellenistic Greek, the other minimizes its influence. This is due to the fact that investigators have laid stress upon only one of two sets of sources; they have looked exclusively either upon books, such as the works of Polybius, or have directed their attention to inscriptions and papyri alone and have forgotten or not recognized that these were two sides of a common possession. It is to be observed with Schweizer and with Kretschmer (Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie, xvi., 1899, cots. 2 aqq.) that a difference exists in any language between the spoken and the written language, between literature and conversation.
s. Constitu‑ The former is bound by law, is polished
eats of and regulated; the latter is a thing of
Hellenistic wild and untrammeled growth, yield‑
	Greek.	ing to the call of the moment's emer
		gency. But neither is to be separated
from the other as if they were separate entities. If
literature alone is observed, a greater or less degree
of Attic influence might be seen, more or less in
fluence of the vernacular also detected. Many of
these works bear almost no trace of Attic flavor,
but are marked by expressions, turns of thought,
and a vocabulary strange to classical Attic. Such
results produced a reaction and a conscious attempt
to approach the classic standard, the first example
of which is Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the contem
porary of Augustus. As a consequence, even in the
literature which most closely approaches this stand
ard, much is at once discernible as imitation or mere
ornament. Discerning inquiry will strip this off
as a mask and leave open to the sight the kernel,
the origins and the peculiarities of the new world
speech as it appears in the inscriptions and ostrasa
and papyri of the times, which stream in numbers
from Greece, Egypt, and Nubia, and axe so rich
as to promise a renaissance of Greek philology.
Auxiliary to this mass of new material is the litera
ture of the Greek of the Old and the New Testa
ment, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha, the
legends and books of martyrs, correspondence of
various sorts, and particularly the material in the
works of the grammarians and lexicographers,
including matter which the schoolmasters would
have ruled out from the language, but which existed
in the vernacular. This contains Attic elements
with much that is so un‑Attic that it can not be
called either Attic or perverted Attic. Of such a character is the reduction in pronunciation of diphthongs to single vowels, which continues to this day, and is registered also in the inscriptions of the Egyptian Greek, going back to a Beotian dialect. Other changes register Ionic or Eolian influence upon the vowels of the whole language. The consonants also underwent change. By sibilation tt became ss, aspiration was dropped and added (kuthra for chutra), while Doric influences were also felt. Thus a new speech. was made out of diverse elements, just as the New High German has come into being from Upper, Middle, and Low German elements. As elements of the varied Greek‑speaking peoples gathered in Egypt and the Orient, they welded the varieties of their mother tongue into a common vernacular, based indeed on Attic, but embracing the other constituents.
Along with these changes it is obvious that with the spread of the language into new parts of the world a mass of words would come
g. Vernac‑ in from the Egyptian, Persian, and ular Semitic tongues‑names for animals,
Basis of plants, and the commodities of public
Hellenistic and private life. Political conditions
	Greek.	brought about a blending of local pecul
		iarities of dialect in the common lingua
franca, since neither Attic nor Doric nor Ionic were
the norms of language in the new domain. Desire
for learning this new speech which was on its way
to become the bond of a new world‑citizenship
promoted its growth. And doubtless much that
comes out as new in literature was really far older,
having happened to come to light for the first time
in the new documents. The old hypothesis that in
the new tongue the Macedonian and Alexandrian
dialect were predominant can no longer be held,
if by " Macedonian " be meant the language of
Macedonia.. That the vocabulary of Alexandria was
influential in the Hellenistic world by reason of the
centrality of Alexandria is of course correct. Byt
the character of this new tongue is due to the weld
ing in common intercourse of elements, especially
but not exclusively Attic and Ionic, into a new
and living vernacular, which in turn became a
vehicle of literature. Hellenistic vernacular is not
the vulgarizing of a literary language; the literary
language is the ennobling of the vernacular.
It seemed quite natural to differentiate Hellenistic Greek according to local peculiarities, as when K. Dieterich divided it into that of Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece. The old notion of an Alexandrian "dialect " as a separate philological quantity had a long‑lived popularity and a certain specious basis, since most of the writers of note of the period were of Egypt. Naturally the peculiarities they showed were called " Egyptian " Greek. Warning must, however, be uttered against the conception that the local differences in the lingua franca hardened into " dialects." While there were local differences, they were not significant; the common speech was one, and Schmid rightly speaks of the " wonderful completeness " of this common tongue, and of the unity which pervaded its phonetic and morpholog ical changes. So that the phrases" Jewish Greek," " Christian Greek," and the like are 11 fanciful 11

218	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hellenietio Greek
(Jahcher, in GGA, 1899, p. 258), dear though they are to the grammarians, lexicographers, and exegetes of the Greek Bible. Historical ground for thus isolating this literature philologically
4. Unity of is not in existence. There are indeed
Hellenistic linguistic peculiarities which were iso‑
	Greek.	lated or viewed apart, religious tend
		encies also, which were and remain
authoritative for the doctrine of " Biblical " Greek.
As long as the Septuagint and the New Testament
were the only specimens known of Hellenistic
Greek, no special linguistic sense was needed to dif
ferentiate them from classical Greek. Comparison of
these with Polybius revealed a different world, re
plete as they were with Hebraisms and Semitisms.
" Hellenistic " Greek became a catchword to express
a certain blending of two wholly different languages,
exactly as Yiddish is used in modern times. The
fixing of this term or of the term " Biblical " Greek
was helped by another fact, the dogma of inspira
tion. In consequence of this the unregenerate were
not permitted to pass judgment upon the linguistic
character of the Bible (Quenstedt, in Luthardt,
Kompendium der Dogmatik, Leipsie, 1886, p. 312),
and the inspiration assumed for the Old Testament
and the New was tacitly carried over to the Septua
gint. Thus not only the text, but the quality of the
language as language was isolated, and a distinction
grew up between a " profane " and a " sacred "
Greek. One of the most influential promoters in
modern times of this theory was Hermann Cremer,
who, in the preface of his lexicon, expressly ap
proves the position of Richard Rothe (in Zur
Dogmatik, Gotha, 1863, p. 238), who says that one
may with good right speak of a language of the
Holy Ghost since it lies open in the Bible that the
Divine Spirit, operating in the sphere of revelation,
has built for itself a language of religious content
out of the speech of the people of the regions
where it operated, and formed this new language
after a shape suited to the particular purpose. The
proof of this position Cremer seeks to introduce in
many parts of his lexicon. Until recent times,
therefore, the linguistic and the theological modes
of thought have agreed in setting Biblical Greek
apart as something sui generic. The disproof of this
theory, which has been a fetter upon linguistics,
exegesis, and Christian faith, was attempted in the
Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien of the under
signed (Eng. transl., Bible Studies, 2d ed., Edin
burgh; 1903), to which reference must be made for
the general character of the Greek Bible as a monu
ment of Hellenistic Greek. Further light is thrown
by the same author's New Light on the New Testa
ment (Edinburgh, 1907); The Philology of the Greek
Bible (London, 1908); and Licht. vom Osten, Daa
Neue Testament and die neuentdeckten Texte der hel
lenisch‑romischen Welt (Tiibingen, 1908).
The most significant marks of the living Hellenistic Greek were its treatment of sounds and inflections, and upon these the conception of a special Biblical Greek is wrecked. Every one of the minute peculiarities distinguishing the text of the Bible from that of Plato and Xenophon is found in the contemporary Greek of the lingua franca as evidenced in the inscriptions, ostraca, and par‑
ticularly the papyri now in hand. That this quality inheres especially in the papyri is not a matter of accident, since they more
g. Pronun‑ nearly concern private and common ciation life. The inscriptions, which are puband lic, are often, particularly when offi‑
	Inflection.	cial, consciously made to approach
		the norms of literary style; while
the papyri are often unpolished and express
the many needs and varying situations of the
daily life of the mass of the population. And
this general situation is borne out by the formulas
and usage of legal procedure. Schmiedel's edition
of Winer's grammar of New Testament Greek, ap
pearing though it did before the mass of newly
found material was accessible, pointed the way to
the newer conception of the language, and was
fortified by K. Dieterich's Untersuckungen zur Ge
schichte der griechischen Sprache . • . his zum
zehnten Jahrhundert (Leipsie, 1898): The works
of Schmiedel, Blass, and Moulton on New Testa
ment Greek, and the Neue Bxbelstudien of the
undersigned make it unnecessary to recount here
the peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek. It is suf
ficient to say that the documents so often re
ferred to, coming from the times of the Diadochoi
and the emperors and often dated most precisely
to the very day, afford rich material to illustrate
Biblical Greek (cf. on this material U. Wileken,
Griechische Papyri., Berlin, 1897, and TLZ, xxi.,
1896, pp. 609 sqq., xxiii., 1898, pp. 628 sqq.).
The vocabulary of the Greek Bible shows the characteristic additions of Hellenistic Greek. While the same evidence is not forthcoming 6. Lexicog‑ as for changes in sound and inflection, raphy. it is not needed. It is self‑evident that the vocabulary of this world‑speech, which enriched itself from all the lands subjected to the Greeks, can not be fully known. From the newly discovered sources words are continually emerging which are vainly sought in the lexicons; it is not surprising therefore that many words in the teats already known occur only once. That these were newly coined by the authors on the spur of the moment no intelligent person will maintain; they are simply hapax heuremend (" words found only once "), not hapax eiremena (" words used only once "). These words " found " only once are numerous in the Greek Bible, and have been employed to strengthen the theory of a " Biblical " Greek‑indeed Cremer designates such words as " Biblical " or as " belonging to the New Testament," in the latter case as due to the constructive strength of Christianity, in which he is followed by Grimm, who conveys the impression that they were unknown elsewhere, though Thayer's edition is, in this matter, more prudent. Of a great number of these hapax heuramena one may at once assert on internal grounds that their rare occurrence is mere accident. In other cases there turn up in hitherto unknown authors, in the inscriptions, ostraca, and papyri, words and combinations which have hitherto been assumed to be exclusively " Biblical " or of the New Testament. And the same fact is true of " Biblical " meanings of common words, which meanings have been regarded as peculiar to Biblical

Hellenistic Greek	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	914
Helpers in Need
Greek. In commentaries on the New Testament these meanings have received much emphasis, the dogmatic utility of which would be undermined were a careful examination of the facts undertaken. Unfortunately the situation in this regard has been confused by not keeping distinct the linguistichistorical and the religious‑historical points of view. It is true that both Greek Judaism and Christianity have created new words and new meanings for words; but these are facts in the history of religion, not of linguistics, since the words or meanings originate out of Jewish or Christian faith and not out of Jewish or Christian Graeitas. It would be as correct to speak of Gnostic Greek or the Greek of the Stoa or the Greek of Neoplatonism as of
Jewish " or " Christian " Greek on the ground that they have created new words or given new meanings to words. So that from the lexicological point of view the Greek Bible is a document of the Hellenistic world‑speech.
At first sight the syntax of the Greek Bible may seem to warrant the designation of Biblical Greek.
In the Psalms and in the Synoptic
7. Syntax. Gospels there are constructions, col‑
locations of words, and methods of sentence‑building which can not be duplicated even in the papyri which proceed from the peasantry of Egypt. Here is a Greek which is full of Semitisms. Yet other parts of the Scripture do not contain these elements; IV Maccabees, the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews differ in this respect from the books named above, and belong to the common Hellenistic speech. Syntactically these are to be disconnected from the works with so pronounced a Jewish flavor, and the reason is seen to be that they are original compositions while the others mentioned are translation.. from the Hebrew or Aramaic; thus for the latter a new measure is secured for their syntactical peculiarities, and we should speak not of Jewish Greek, but of translation‑Greek. But a question arises whether this translation is in the every‑day Greek of the translator or is simply a Greek fashioned upon the Semitic model. In the former case it would then be a part of the lingua franca; in the latter case it would be a Jewish Greek existing only on paper in which the original was not translated into Greek, but simply transferred word by word into Greek equivalents. Or, to put the matter in another form, are the " Semitisms " of the Bible normal or exceptional? Following out this distinction as made in H. Paul, Prinxipien der Sprachgeschichte (Halls, 1898), pp. 87 sqq., 145 sqq., translation‑Greek is a variety which is seen to be artificial and existent only on paper; its numerous syntactic Semitisms are therefore exceptional. If there was a Jewish idiomatic Greek, how was it that the Greek Jew, Paul who wrote not books, but only letters, did not employ, it 7 and why did Philo and the author of the Aristeas letter write Greek that was so unJewish ? Two Biblical authors make further argument unnecessary, Sirach and Luke. Both have prologues of which it can not be said that they are " Jewish‑Greek " or that they " Hebraize." Yet both authors have made use of Semitisms, though not with the same frequency. For those who argue
for a " Jewish Greek " the occurrence of these two kinds of Greek from the same pen is embarrassing. The explanation is, however, exceedingly simple. In the prologues these authors wrote as they spoke; in the body of the work they were more or less dependent, directly or indirectly, upon a Semitic basis. The Jewish Greek was, therefore, not a living speech, but an inferior method of translation. The Septuagint is more Jewish than the Synoptic Gospels because the former had a documentary basis; the latter came probably from the oral tradition of a bilingual people (cf. Merx, in Deutsche Literaturzeit‑ung, xix. [1898] 989). That there are, so to speak, normal Semitisms along with the exceptional is to be recognized; they exist as a coloring of certain books, just as sermons and religious papers of the present are colored with Biblical terminology. An investigation, therefore, of the Semitisms of, say, the old Christian texts is an urgent need. A comparative view of the writers of the Hellenistic common speech would doubtless show that many of the so‑called Semitisms are rather parts of the every‑day language. Such cases are the use of anastrephesthai ("to walk") and anastrophe ("walk") in an ethical sense, onoma (" name ") in the sense of person, the numeral used distributively by doubling it, and so on. The number of real Semitisms would be greatly reduced and would appear due to the religious terminology. How much came into the common speech in pre‑Christian times can hardly be estimated, but that technical words were introduced is certain, though only a single "Egypticism " is known, onos hypo oinou. So that from the point of view of syntax the Greek Bible belongs to the common Hellenistic speech. Its Semitisms are curiosities, but are not of linguistic importance any more than are the Latiniems or other linguistic booty which Greek took over in its conquest of the world of the Mediterranean lands.
When the question is raised whether the Greek Bible is a monument of the vernacular or of the
literary language, it must be borne in 8. The mind that the boundaries between the
Greek	two are fluctuating. Moreover, dis‑
Bible not tinction has to be made among the
Literary	various books in this Bible. Blass says
Greek.	of the Epistle to the Hebrews that it is
the only book in the New Testament which in structure and style shows the care and finish of an artistic writer. The Pauline letters, on the contrary, are monuments of the vernacular; his vocabulary is of the sort that an Atticizing grammarian would have continually corrected in order to get rid of thd words forbidden to literature. His sublime combination in I Cor. xvi. 13 of gregareite Wkete (`° watch ye, stand fast ") is one that no writer who regarded form would have permitted himself to use; both verbs are, as Blass calls them, " plebeian." But to expect literary Greek of the apostle would be wrong‑he was no litterateur, but a writer of letters, who spoke as the common people of Ephesus~and Corinth spoke; he was just Paul who knew the world‑,speech of Asia, Europe, and Egypt, Paul with a native eloquence and a prophetic pathos which came from his soul of fire; and as he spoke so he wrote. Similarly the Gospels are monu‑

1115	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	$eu°° Greek
		8elners in Need
ments of the vernacular, and the same is true of
most of the books of the Septuagint; they swarm
with words which were the abomination of the
Attieiets. Investigations into the individual books
with reference to their inner character would be
both timely and profitable.	It is a significant fact
for the religious‑historical judgment of the earliest
Christianity that the men of this, its classical time,
were anything but bookish. In the more popular
teats of the later Christian centuries, the legends,
romances, letters, accounts of martyrs, and the like
are to be seen monuments of the living speech on
its way to become the New Greek (cf. H. Rheinhold,
De gracitnte patrum apoatolicorum librorumque
apocryphorum, Halle, 1898, pp. 1‑113; B. W. Fritz,
Die Briefs des Bisehofs Synesim von Kyrene, Leip
sic, 1898). 	(ADolxr D1flI88MANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Of first importance are the works of G. A.
Deisam‑n, Bibelatudien and News Bibelatudien, 2 vols.,
Marburg, 1898‑97, Eng trawl., 2d ed., Edinburgh, 1903;
idem, SmnehpeechiehtlirheBeitrape . . zur Erkddrunp des
N. T., ib. 1897; idem, New Light on the O. T. from
Grauo‑Roman Records, Edinburgh, 1907; and other works
named supra, § 4; and J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of
N. T. Greek, Vol. i., Prolepwnena, 2d ed., Edinburgh,
1908 (essential for the student of the New Testament).
Consult: U. von Wflamowits‑Moeliendorf, Ueber die Ent
etehunp der priechischen Sehrifteyrache, Leipsie, 1879;
K. Foy, Lautayetem der priachuchen Vulpareprache, Leip
sio, 1879; K. Krumbaeher, in Zeitechrift far roerpleichende
Sprachtorechunp, vii (1885), 481‑545; E. Hatch, Essays
in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889; W. H. simoox, The Lan
guage of the New Testament, New York, 1889; Apostofides,
Du Grec alexandrin, Alexandria, 1892; idem, Essai sur
1'halUnisme 6pyptien, vol. i., part i., Paris, 1898; G. N.
Hatzidakie Einlaitung in die neupriechischa Grammatik,
Leipsie, 1892; E. D. Burton, Syntax of Moods and Tenses
o/ N. T. Greek, Chicago, 1893; J Viteau, nude sur is
pree du N. T., Paris, 1893; 0. Glass=, De rations qua, in
teradit inter sermonem Polybdi et cum qui tieulis saculi
iii.‑‑L apparel, Giessen, 1894; P. Kreteehmer, Die attiachen
Vaseninschriffen, Gfitersloh, 1894; W. Schmidt, De Plavii
Josephi elocut%one obseruationes criticm, Leipde, 1894;
G. B. Winer, Grammatik des neutestamsntlichen Sprach
idioms, ed. P. W. 8ahmiede1, GSttingen, 1894 sqq.; H.
A. A. Kennedy, Sources o/ N. T. Greek, Edinburgh, 1895;
A. Thumb, Handburh der neupriwhischen Vodksepraeke,
Strasburg, 1895; idem, Die prieebisrhe Syrache in Zeit
altar des Helleniwnus, Strasburg, 1901; G. Meyer, Grie
chi8che Grammatik, Leipsie, 1896; A. Theimer, Beitr4ge
Sur` Kmntnis des Sprachpebrauchs im N. T., Horn, 1898;
A. N. Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, London, 1897;
T. Vogel, Zur Charakterietik des Lukas nark Sprache
and Stil, Leipsic, 1897; f3. Witkowski, Prodromus pram
matica, Papyrorum Gr‑um, Cracow, 1897; B. Dieter
ich, Untersuchungen sur Geschickte der priechischen
Spracha, Leipsic, 1898; G. Heine, Synonymik des new
testamentlichen Griechiech, Leipsie, 1898; E. Mayeer, Grammatik der yriechischen Papyri, Leipeic, 1908: E. Schweizer, Grammaeik der parpamenischen Inachri/ten, Berlin, 1898; K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der attiechen 1nseltriften, Berlin, 1900; F. Blaas, Grammatik des neuWtamenUioken Grieehiech, Gottingen, 1902, Eng. tram., London, 1905; R. Helbing, Grammatik•derSeytuapinta Laut‑and Wor"re. GSttingen, 1907; R Meister, Prolegomena su einer Grammatik der L%% Vienna, 1907; J. Psichari, Eeaai ear is prec de to Septante, in Revue des gtudw fuiroea, April, 1908.
Lexicons are: Wilke‑Grimm, Lexicon Grmeo‑Labinum
in iibroe N. T., Leipsic, 1888; J. H. Thayer, A GreekEnplish Lexicon of the N. T., New York, 1898; H. Oremer, Bibliedrtkmlopieches Wdrterbuch der neutestamenaiehen Gr&itet, Gotha, 1895, Eng. travel. of earlier ed., BiblicoTheolopical Lexicon of Now Testament Greek Edinburgh, 1878; E. A. 8ophocles, Greek Lexicon o) the Roman and Bysanine Periods. New York. 1898. The Handw6rtarbull su den SchWten des N. T. of E. Preuschen (Giessen, 1908 eqq.) seems to be insufficient; of. Deutsche Literaturssitunp, 1908, no. 80.
HELMICHIUS, WERNER: Dutch theologian; b. at Utrecht 1551; d. at Amsterdam Aug. 29, 1808. In 1578 he was pastor at Utrecht, and as an adherent of the oonsistorial party came into conflict with the advocates of more liberal tendencies, led by Hubert Duifhuis, displaying, however, a spirit of mildness and moderation that gained him the esteem of his opponents. In 1581 he delivered the first Protestant sermon in the Utrecht cathedral, and organized the Walloon community in that city. With the fall of the consistorial party Hehinichius was removed from his post; he went as pastor to Delft, and, after repeatedly declining a call to the University of Leyden, became preacher to the Amsterdam community in 1602. Upon the death of Philips van Marnia (q.v.) in 1598, the work of completing the translation of the Bible which the latter left uncompleted was entrusted to Helmichius, who, however, also left the work unfinished. Of his works, which were published posthumously, the most important is Psalmorum Davidis et aliorum prophetarum analysis (Amsterdam, 1621).
(G. KAw7aev.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wernerus Helmichius, Utrecht, 1895.
	HELMOLD : Preacher of Bosow, a village on the
Plan Lake in Holstein; b. in Holstein; d. after 1177.
He was a younger friend of Vicelin (q.v.), and at the
instigation of Gerhard, the first bishop of Lubeck,
wrote a chronicle of the Wends, with the intention
of showing " how Christianity and the German rule
(through colonists from Westphalia and Holland)
had gained a firm footing among the Wends, espe
cially in Wagria." The chronicle treats chiefly of
Henry the Lion and the new bishopric of Oldenburg
Ldbeck, and is written in comparatively good Latin,
but is quite unreliable. It extends to 1171, but
was not concluded until after 1172. The last trace
of Helmold is found in the list of witnesses to the
deed of foundation of the monastery of St. John in
Lilbeck, 1177. 	(W11mELm ALTMANN.)
BIHwoaaAF8y: Helmold's Chronica Slawrum, ed. J. M. Lsppenberg, in in MOB, Script., xu (1869); 1‑99, and by W. Wattenbaeh in Geschichtsechreibsr der deutschen vorwit, 12th year, vol. vii., 1888. Consult: P. Regel, HeLmold and seine Quedlen. Jens, 1883; 0. Volkel, Die Slavenchronik Helmolde, Wattenbach, DGQ, ii (1894), 338 sqq.; Potthast, Wepweiser, i. G76‑577.
HELPERS IN REED, THE FOURTEEN: A group of twice seven saints especially honored in Roman Catholic Germany since the middle of the fifteenth century. They belong to various peoples and periods, and bear the names Achatius, Egidius (or Giles, q.v.), Barbara, Blasius (Blaise), Catherine (the Martyr), Christopher, Cyriacus, Dionysius ((Areopagita 7), Erasmus, Eustachius, George, Margaret, Pantaleon, and Vitus. Sporadically the number is increased to fifteen by the insertion of a St. Magnus (Bishop Magnus of Oderzo, near Treviso, in Italian tradition; Abbot Magnus of Fassen‑amLech in South German legend). Those not treated in special articles are the following: (1) Achatius (more correctly Acacius), is said to have been a bishop of Melitene in Lesser Armenia, who fearlessly professed his faith in the Decian persecution and thus gained mercy from his judge. (2) Blasius, or Blaise, bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, martyred, according to tradition, about 316, is said to have possessed

Helpers in Need	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	818
Helvetic consensus
marvelous gifts of healing. (3) Erasmus (Ital.
Elmo), whose death is dated by tradition in 303,
is said, after being unharmed by burning pitch and
brimstone in Lebanon, to have come to Formise
in Campania, where he converted many heathen
and worked miracles by his prayers. (4). Mar
garet, a Christian virgin, beheaded after incredi
ble tortures at Antioch in Pisidia during the
Diocletian persecution, is said to have prayed in
prison especially for women in childbirth and for
the amelioration of their pangs. (5) Pantaleon is
said to have been Diocletian's physician in Nico
media, and, after marvelous deeds of self‑sacrificing
devotion during the first two years of this monarch's
persecution, is supposed to have been tortured and
beheaded. (6) Vitus (Ital. Guido) is said, at the
age of seven or twelve, to have converted' his nurse,
St. Crescentia, and her husband, Modestus, and to
have performed miracles, healing the emperor's son
of demoniac possession. He refused to sacrifice to
idols, and after terrible tortures was drowned in
the Lucanian river Silarus. Each of these saints
is invoked in special forms of danger, as Margaret
in difficult delivery, Vitus in peon by demons
and cramps, &gidius in pestilence, and Barbara in
fever.
	The formation of this group of fourteen saints
may date back to 610, when Boniface IV. converted
the Pantheon at Rome into the Christian Church
of the Virgin and the Martyrs, replacing the fourteen
idols in it with an equal number of altars with relics
of martyrs. At all events, the origin of the cult of
this group is far prior to the vision, in 1446, in which
the Upper Franconian shepherd Hermann Leicht
beheld the Christ‑child surrounded by the helpers
in need, thus leading to the foundation of the famous
pilgrim shrine of the Vierzehnheiligen‑Kirche near
Staffelstein.	(O. Z6Cxr.Ext.)
BIHLIOCinAPHr: Uhrig, in TQ, lax (1888), 72‑128; G. Ott,
	Die 1,¢ NoAelfer, Steyl, 1882; H. Weber, Die Venhrunp
	der 14 Aeilipen NoAelfer, Kempten, 1886; F. P6sl, Lo
	pende von den' 1,¢ heiligen Nothelfern, Regeneborg, 1891;
	J. Kieffer, Die heilspen 1.¢ Nothelfer, Dulmen, 1900; KL,
	ix. 515‑522.
		HELVETIC CONFESSIONS.
	I. The First Helvetic Con‑	Its Acceptance by the
fession, 1536.		Swiss (¢ 3).
	Origin of the Confession 	II. The Second Helvetic Con‑
		U 1)•		fession, 1566.
	Its Content ($ 2).	Origin and History (1 1).
			Content (¢ 2).
	L The First Helvetic Confession, 1536 (Confessio
Helvetica prior, also called Second Confes§ion of
		Basel, Confemio Basiliensis posterior,
	r. Origin in distinction from the Basel Confes
	of the sion of 1534; see BA$EL, CONFE88ION
	Confes‑ oF‑): The reformatory movement of
	lion. Switzerland was for a long time with
		out a uniform formula of confession,
each city having its own confession. It was only
in 1536 that the necessity for uniformity was felt,
when Pope Paul III. (q.v.) convened a general
council, to meet in Mantua in the following year.
The desirability of a union between the Reformed
and the Lutherans was recognized, and Capito of
Augsburg and Butzer of Strasburg especially tried
to influence the Swiss Reformed in the direction of
union. Luther expressed a longing for peace in several letters to tipper German cities. The chief task of the mediators was to have a Swiss formula of the Lord's Supper prepared which would meet the approval of Luther. At the end of 1534 Butter held a convention of Swabian cities on the question of the Lord's Supper at Constants, to which the Zurich Reformers sent a Confesfio super eucharistia with the approval of Basel, Schaffhausen, and St. Gall. It acknowledged that the true body and the true blood of Christ are really present in the Lord's Supper, and are offered to the believers who eat the true body by faith. All ideas of substance were guarded against, but the people of Bern refused their signature. Even a more moderate formula, drawn up by theologians of Zurich and Basel in 1535 at Aarau, did not satisfy the people of Bern. They desired a general meeting, and this was convened by the magistrates of Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhaueen, St. Gall, Miihlhausen, and Biel, on Jan. 30, 1536, at Basel. A general confession was here drawn up by Bullinger of Zurich, Myconius and Grynaeus of Basel, and others. They were joined later by Leo Jud of Zurich and Megander of Bern, and still later by Butter and Capito.
The confession declared emphatically that the Lord's Supper is not merely a human act of con‑
fession, but that the bread and wine a. Its are food and nourishment of spiritual Content. and eternal life. Nevertheless, the
	confession did not go beyond the state
ment of the spiritual partaking of the person of the
crucified Christ. Speaking generally, it removed
the peculiarities of Zwinglian theology most offen
sive to the Lutherans in the spirit of the Zwinglian
Reformation. This spirit finds expression in the
arrangement of the whole‑the Scripture, its inter
pretation and "purpose" forms the basis (arts. i.‑v.),
upon which the doctrines of salvation (vi.‑iii.)
and then, with characteristic minuteness of detail,
the doctrines of the Church, the Word, the sacra
ments, and church ordinances (xiv.‑xxvii.) are dis
cussed. In particular points the Reformed spirit
is recognizable from the still intact union of the
new life with the faith of salvation (art. xiii.); also
from the doctrine of the Church, which places the
invisible congregation of the exalted Christ in the
foreground, and emphasizes as the sign of the visible
congregation " ° common, public, and orderly dis
cipline " (art. w.).
	The confession was written in Latin, and trans
lated into German by Leo Judge. After the com
		pletion of the theological work, the
	3. Its Ac‑ secular and spiritual delegates ac
ceptance by sembled on Feb. 4 for a final session.
	the Swiss. The Strasburg party once more em
		phasized the necessity of Christian
harmony with the German estates, but the delegates
claimed to possess no authority in that matter.
On Mar. 27 the delegates of the town councils
assembled again at Basel, without theologians, and
unanimously accepted the confession. Then the
delegates of Strasburg and Constant were called
before the assembly, but they refused their eigns
ture; the Strasburg delegate especially, who was
accompanied by Capito‑the only theologian

217	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Helpers fn Need
Helvetio Coneenens
present‑was intent upon putting obstructions in the way of the new confession and inducing the Swiss to accept the Tetrapolitan Confession (q.v.). In this way Strasburg undoubtedly thought a union of Lutherans and Reformed could more easily be effected, but the result was only that the Swiss promised to examine the Tetrapolitan Confession and not to publish their own. Thus the First Helvetic Confession did not bring about the desired union, in spite of the fact that it contained Lutheranizing formulas; but it cemented the union of the Evangelical cantons of Switzerland, and the new confession formed the basis upon which their later doctrinal discussions rested.
II. The Second Helvetic Confession, 3[566 (Confeasio Helvdica Posterior): This was the work of Heinrich Bullinger (q.v.), who made
i. Origin the first draft of it in 1562. During and the plague in 1564 he revised and
	History.	elaborated this sketch, and laid it
		beside his will, to be presented, in case
of his death, to the magistrates of Zurich, as a tes
timony of his faith. An incident brought it before
the public. The Emperor Maximilian II. called a
diet to Augsburg, Jan. 14, 1566. As the Elector
palatine Frederick III., who had seceded from the
Lutheran and joined the Reformed Church, was
afraid that, for this reason, he would be put under
the ban of the realm, he addressed himself to
Bullinger, and asked him to draw up a confession
showing that the Reformed Church in no point
differed from the true apostolic doctrine. Bullinger
sent him the above‑mentioned memoir, and it
pleased him so much that he asked permission to
have it translated into German and published.
Bullinger's work appeared in Mar., 1566, at Zurich,
under the title Con/essio et mpositio simplex ortho
dox<e falei et dogmatum catholicorum syncerm religir
onis christianx. At the same time there appeared
a German edition, a little later a French translation
at Geneva, and the confession was translated also
into Dutch, English, Hungarian, Polish, Italian,
Rumanian, even into Arabic and Turkish. As the
origin of the confession excluded the influence of
parties and cliques, it soon found approval without
compromises, not only in the Swiss Churches, but
in all Reformed Churches. The union of Zwfnglian
ism and Calvinism which appears in it was not
artificially produced, but was a natural growth.
By suppressing many a harsh formula which would
have separated the different pardles, Bullinger not
merely harmonized the Zurich and Genevan theol
ogy, but expressed to the satisfaction of all the
peculiarly Reformed conception of Christianity.
His work was not a compromise in the sense of
Lutheran Melanchthonianism; in spite of all its
elasticity it retained a sufficiently defined type of
Reformed thought.
The order of articles (iii., Scripture; iii.‑v., God and worship; vi.‑vii., providence and creation; viii.=x3[., the fall and preparation of sal‑
a. Content. vation; xii.‑xvi., appropriation of salvation andnewlife; xvii.‑xxi., Church,ser mon, and sacraments; xxii.‑axe., church ordinances, etc‑) and the thorough treatment of the ecclesiastical organization show the same Reformed peculiarities
as the first Helvetic confession. The doctrine of predestination avoids with the utmost care every speculative offense. The confession is entirely silent upon the question of reprobation; it shows Bullinger's practical caution which, by cutting off all speculative consequences, clings to the consoling part of the dogma. Election finds unmitigated expression without any synergism. The doctrine of the sacraments is an expansion of the First Helvetic Confession. The rejection of old and new heresies serves an apologetic tendency, by showing that the Reformed could not be classed as heretics (3[.e., AntiTrinitarians), in the sense of the imperial law of Theodosius, while minor deviations of doctrines and forms ought to be tolerated by Evangelical brethren. (E. F. KARL MtTLLER.)
Btnlaoanwrar: The text is given in H. A. Niemeyer, Colleetio eonfesaionum, Leipsic, 1840; Schaff, Creeds, iii. 211306, 829‑909 (of First, in Lat. and Germ.; of Second, in Lat. and Eng.); K. Miller, Die Bakenntnisschriften der rejormierte» Kirden, Leipsic, 1903. For the history consult: Schaff, Creeds, i. 388‑420; idem, Christian Church, vii. 219‑222; J. J. Hottinger, Helvetische Kirchengesehichle, vol. iii., Zurich, 1708; C. Pestalossi,
Heimich Bullinger, Elberfeld, 1858; K. Miller, Sym‑
bolik, Leipsic, 1896; E. Bldsch, Geechichte der achueizerisdvreformirten Kirchen, Bern, 1898‑99. On the First Confession, besides the above, consult: Sammlunp der ltlteren eidpen6saischen AbecAiede, iv., i., pp. 598, 616 eqq., 669 eqq., 682 .qq., 784 sqq., Lucerne, 1878; M. Kirchhofer, Oswald Myconiue, Zurich, 1813. On the Second, consult: H. A. Niemeyer, ut sup., prolegomena, pp. lx(ii. lxviii.; L. Thomas, La &onfession helvaiqw, Geneva. 1853.

	HELVETIC CONSENSUS (Formula consensus
ecclesiarum Helveticarum): The name of a Swiss
		Reformed symbol drawn up in 1675
	Origin. to guard against doctrines taught at
		the French academy of Saumur. The
strict and uncompromising definition of the doc
trines of election and reprobation by the Synod of
Dort (1618‑19) occasioned a reaction in France,
where the Protestants lived surrounded by Roman
Catholics. Moles Amyraut (q.v.), professor at
Saumur, taught a hypothetical or conditioned
universalism. His colleague, Louis Cappel, denied
the verbal inspiration of the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament; La Place rejected the immediate
imputation of Adam's sin as arbitrary and unjust.
The famous and flourishing school of Saumur came
to be looked upon with increasing mistrust as the
seat of heterodoxy, especially by the Swiss, who
were in the habit of sending students there. The
first impulse to attack the new doctrine came from
Geneva. In 1635 Friedrich Spanheim (q.v.) wrote
against Amyraut, whom the clergy of Paris tried
to defend. In course of time the heresy of Amyraut
gained ground in Geneva. In 1649, Alexander
Morus, the successor of Spanheim, but suspected
of belonging to the liberal party, was compelled by
the magistrates of Geneva to subscribe to a series
of articles in the form of theses and antitheses, the
first germ of the Formula consensus. His place was
taken by Philippe Mestrezat, and later by Louis
Trouchin, both inclined toward the liberal tendency
of France, while Frangois Turretin zealously de
fended the orthodox system. Mestrezat induced
the Council of Geneva to take a moderate stand
point in the article on election, but the other cantons

8emetfo Consensus
Semerli	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	2 18
of Switzerland objected to this new tendency and threatened to stop sending their pupils to Geneva. The Council of Geneva submitted and peremptorily demanded from all candidates subscription to the older articles. But the conservative elements were not satisfied, and the idea occurred to them to stop the further spread of such novelties by establishing a formula obligatory upon all teachers and preachers. After considerable discussion between Gernler of Basel, Hummel of Bern, Ott of Schaffhausen, Heidegger of Zurich, and others, the last mentioned was charged with drawing up the formula. In the beginning of 1675, Heidegger's Latin draft was communicated to the ministers of Zurich; and in the course of the year it received very general adoption, and almost everywhere was added as an appendix and exposition to the Helvetic Confession.
The Consensus consists of a preface and twentysix canons, and states clearly the difference between
strict Calvinism and the school of Content. Saumur. Canons i.‑iii. treat of divine
	inspiration, and the preservation of the
Scriptures. Canons iv.‑vi. relate to election and
predestination. In canons vii.‑ix. it is shown that
man was originally created holy, and that obedience
to law would have led him to eternal life. Canons
x: xii. reject La Place's doctrine of a mediate im
putation of the sin of Adam. Canons xiii.‑xvi.
treat of the particular destination of Christ‑as he
from eternity was elected head, master, and heir
of those that are saved through him, so in time he
became mediator for those who are granted to him
as his own by eternal election. According to canons
xvii.‑xx., the call to election has referred at different
times to smaller and larger circles. Canons xxi.
xxiii. define the incapacity of man to believe in
the Gospel by his own powers as natural, not only
moral, so that he could believe if he only tried.
According to canons xxui~xxv., there are only two
ways of justification before God and consequently
a twofold covenant of God, namely the covenant
of the works for man in the state of innocence, and
the covenant through the obedience of Christ for
fallen man. The final canon admonishes to cling
firmly to the pure and simple doctrine and avoid
vain talk.
Although the Helvetic Consensus was introduced everywhere in the Reformed Church of
Switzerland, it could not long hold Later its position, as it was a product of the History. reigning scholasticism. At first, cir‑
cumspection and tolerance were shown it the enforcement of its signature, but as soon. as many French preachers sought positions in Vaud after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, it was ordered that all who intended to preach must sign the Consensus without reservation. An address of the great elector of Brandenburg to the Reformed cantons, in which, in consideration of the dangerous position of Protestantism and the need of a union of all Evangelicals, he asked for a nullification of the separating formula, brought it about that the signature was not demanded in Basel after 1686, and it was also dropped in Schaffhausen and later (1706) in Geneva, while Zurich and Bern retained it. Meanwhile the whole tendency of the time had changed.
Secular science stepped into the foreground. The
practical, ethical side of Christianity began to gain
a dominating influence. Rationalism and Pietism
undermined the foundations of the old orthodoxy.
An agreement between the liberal and conservative
parties was temporarily attained in so far that it
was decided that the Consensus was not to be re
garded as a rule of faith, but only as a norm of
teaching. In 1722 Prussia and England applied
to the respective magistracies of the Swiss cantons
for the abolition of the formula for the sake of the
unity and peace of the Protestant Churches. The
reply was somewhat evasive; but, though the for
mula was never formally abolished, it gradually fell
entirely into disuse. 	(EMIT. EGLI.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The official copy, in Latin and German, is in the archives of Zurich. It was printed in 1714 as a supplement to the Second Helvetic Confession, then in 1718, 1722, and often, and may be found in H. A. Niemeyer, Codlectio Confeaeionum, pp. 729‑739, Leipsic, 1840 (Latin), and in E. G. A. B5oke1, Die Bekenntniaachrdften der evanpelisch‑reformirten Kirda, pp. 348‑360, ib. 1847 (German). Consult: J. J. Hottinger, Succincta . . . Fmmalm Consensus . . . historia, Zurich, 1723; idem, HelvetiseAe Kirchengeschiohte, iii. 1086 .qq., iv. 258, 268 sqq., ib. 1708‑29; C. M. Pfaff, Diassrtatio . . . de Pormula Consensus Helvetica, TObingen, 1723; A. Schweizer, Dis proteatantiaden CentraYdopmen in ihrer Entwickelunp, pp. 439‑563, ib.1856; E. B15seh, Geachichte der schuxizeriach‑reformirten Kirden, i. 485‑496, ii. 77‑97, Bern, 18981899; Behalf, Crews, i. 477‑489.

HELVETIUS, el"v6"si"tis', CLAUDE ADRIEft: French philosopher; b. in Paris Jan., 1715; d. there Dec. 26, 1771. He studied at the ColliAge Louis‑leGrand, and in 1738 received the lucrative post of farmer‑general, which, however, he soon exchanged for the position of chamberlain to the queen. Tiring of the idle and dissipated life of the court, he married in 1751, and retired to a small estate at Vor6, in Perche, where he devoted himself chiefly to philosophical studies. He visited England in 1764, and the following year he went to Germany, where he was received with distinction by Frederick II. He was one of the Encyclopedists (q.v.), and held the skeptical and materialistic views common to that school of philosophy. His principal works are: De l'esprit (Paris, 1758; Eng. transl., De l'Esprit: or, Essays on the Mind, London, 1759), which, condemned by the Sorbonne and publicly burned at Paris, was translated into most European languages, and read more than any other book of the time; and the posthumous De l'homme, de ses facukks intellectuellm et de son Education (2 vols., London, 1772; Eng. tranal., A Treatise on Man; his lnteuectual Faculties and his Education, 2 vols., 1777).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: (F. J. de Chastellux), 2lope de M. Hdvniua, Paris, 1774; Saint‑Lambert, Essai ear is vie et lea ouvrapes de Helvdtius, ib. 1792; J. P. Damiron, in vol. ix. of Comyterendu de L'acad6mie des sciences moral" st potifquea; A. Keim, Helv6liue, so vie et son auvre, Paris, 1907.

HELVICUS, hel'vf‑cus (HELWICH), CHRISTOPHORUS: German theologian and educator; b. at Spreudlingen (23 m. s.w. of Mainz), Hesse, Dec. 26, 1581; d. at Giessen Sept. 10,1617. He was educated at the University of Marburg (M.A.,1599), and was called to teach in the academic gymnasium at Giessen in 1605. In 1610, three years after the school had been reorganised as a university, he

219	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Helvetio conusasns
Hemerli
was appointed professor of theology and Hebrew
there. He composed grammars of the Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew languages, wrote on poetics and history,
and took part in the dogmatic controversies of his
time. He won renown chiefly by his knowledge
of Hebrew. On account of his efforts for educa
tional reform, particularly in connection with Wolf
gang Rattich (Ratke), he occupies also a worthy
position in the history of pedagogy in the seven
teenth century. 	CARL MIRBT.
Bmntoaewrar: The early source is J. Winkelmann, Oratio /unebria in obitum C. Heivici. Consult: F. W. Strieder, Grundlapen au nner heaaiaehen Gekhrten‑ and Schriftatellerpaechirhte, v. 520630, Cassel, 1785; ADB, xi. 718‑718.

HELVIDIUS: A layman living in Rome at the time of Damasus I. (366‑384). Concerning his personality nothing is known, except that he was an imitator of the pagan rhetorician and statesman Symmachus, and a pupil of the Arian Auxentius, bishop of Milan. During the second sojourn of Jerome at Rome, 382‑385, Helvidius wrote a tract in which he combated the perpetual virginity of the mother of Jesus. This tract is known only through Jerome's counter‑tract, composed prior to. 384. From this it appears that Helvidius also opposed the practical deductions made in the monastic circles of Rome from the perpetual virginity of Mary, and sharply antagonized the claims of monasticism to represent a higher ideal of Christian life. Helvidius proceeded upon the assumption that Mary, subsequent to the virgin‑birth of Jesus, bore several children in wedlock with Joseph, citing Matt. i. 18, i. 25; Luke ii. 7. Jerome undertook to refute him and at the same time make propaganda for monasticism. Jerome's objections are purely sophistical. He argues that from the expression " before they came together " (Matt. i. 18) it can not be inferred that there was afterward an actual estate of conjugal cohabitation between them, that the expression " firstborn son " (Luke ii. 7), according to Old Testament phraseology, only indicated what ",openeth the womb," and by no means referred to younger brothers or sisters of Jesus, and that the brethren of the Lord were not literal brothers, but only cousins. Jerome also advocates the perpetual virginity of Joseph, because the virgin's son was to issue from a virginal marriage. Augustine enumerates the Helvidiani, or followers of Helvidius, in his catalogue of heretics. The views of Helvidius were shared by Bonosus (see BONosua AND THE
BONOsIANB). 	G. GRt)TZMACHER.
BIBLIOanwPBP: The contemporary source of information is Jerome's tract De perpetua virpinitate beater Marion adversus Helvidium, in MPL xxxiii., Eng. tranel. in NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 334 sqq. Other early sources are Augustine, Har., chap. lxxxiv., in MPL, xlii.; Gennadiue, De vir. ill., chaP. xx‑fi., in MPL, (viii. Consult C. W. F. Walch, Hiatorie der %taereien, iii. 577‑598, Leipsie, 1785; 0. Z6okler, Hieronymus, pp. 94 eqq„ Goths, 1885; W. Haller, Tovinianue, in TU xvii (1897), 152 eqq.; DCB, ii. 892; cf. Ceillier, Auteura aacr&, vii. 595, 884, viii. 46, 47.

HELYOT, 6"V8', PIERRE (or HIPPOLYTE; the latter his monastic name): French Franciscan; b. at Paris 1660; d. there Jan. 5, 1716. At the age of twenty‑three he entered the Third Order of St. Francis (Congregation of Picpus), whose most noteworthy author he became. His fame was gained
not so much through his edifying writings, such as
his Le ChrOffien mourant (Paris, 1695), as through his
Hiatoire des ordres monastiquea, religieux et militairea
et des congr6gatzona a&‑uli&es de Pun et de 1'autre
aexe, qui ont M dtablies jusqu'au prEsent (8 vole.,
Paris, 1714‑19); to this he devoted a quarter of
a century, and it was completed after his death by
Maximilien Ballot, a member of the same order.
It went through repeated editions in France (1721,
1792,1838), and formed the basis of M. L. Badiche'a
Dietiannaire des ordres religiettx, published as part
of Migne's E»ayclap6die th6ologique (4 vole., Paris,
1858). It was translated into Italian by Fontana
(Laces, 1737), and into German anonymously (8
vole., Leipsic, 1753‑56), and likewise formed the
basis of several imitations and abbreviations. Such
modern handbooks as J. Fehr's German revision of
M. R. A. Henrion's Histoire des ordres religieuz
(Brussels, 1838) under the title of Geachichle der
M6nchsorden (2 voLs., Tiibingen, 1845) or M. Heim
bueher's Orders and Kongregationen der lcatholischen
%irche (2 vole., Paderborn, 1896‑97) are more or
less dependent on Helyot's work, which, despite
its occasional lack of critical insight, is a product of
laudable diligence. 	(O. Zrscr<LERt.)
BrsLxOaewPar: H. Hurter, Nomencldtot literarius recentimia theolopia catJwiica, ii. 838‑837, Innsbruck, 1881; Helmbucher, Order and %nprepationen, i. 22, 370; RL, vi. 17590.
		HEMANS, FELI~IA DOROTHEA: English poet
	ess; b. at Liverpool Sept. 25, 1793; d. at Dublin
	May 16, 1835. She was the daughter of George
	Browns, a merchant of Liverpool, who removed
	to North Wales in 1800. She received her educa
	tion under her mother's care, and early began
	'writing verse, publishing her first volume in 1808.
	In 1812 she married Captain Alfred Hemans, an
	Irish gentleman who had served in Spain; but she
	separated from him in 1818, after the birth of her
	fifth son, and never saw him again. In 1828 she
	removed from North Wales to Liverpool, and in
	1831 she went to Dublin to live. While lacking in
	depth, her poetry is marked by a certain pleasing
	sweetness and naturalness, which is particularly
	noticeable in some of her best lyrics, e.g., The Graves
	of a Household, The Treasures of the Deep, and The
	Homes of England. As a hymn‑writer she occupies
	a subordinate position. Perhaps her best known
	hymn is Calm on the bosom of thy God. She pub
	lished some twenty volumes of verse, the most im
	portant being The Forest Sanctuary (London, 1825);
	Records o f Women (1828); Songs o f the Affections
	(Edinburgh, 1830); Hymns for Childhood (Dublin,
	1834); National Lyrics and Songs for Music (1834);
	and Scenes and Hymns of Life (Edinburgh, 1834).
	Her works were edited, with a Memoir by her sister
	Mrs. Hughes (7 vole., London, 1839), also her
	Poetical Works, with a Memoir, by W. M. Roaetti
	(ib. 1873).
Baraooawrax: Besides the Memoirs in the collections, ut sup., consult: H. F. Chorley, Memorials of Mrs. Hemana, 2 vole., London 1838; idem The Authors of England, ib. 1838; Mrs. R. Lawrence, The Last Autumn at a Favorite Residence, Liverpool, 1838; DNB, aav. 352‑383; Julian, Hymnology. PP. b09‑510.
HEMERLI (not HEMMERLIIP), FELIX: Swiss canonist, an advocate of reform in the Church; b.

Hemerli	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	220
Henderson
at Zurich probably Sept. 11, 1388; d. at Lucerne
before 1464. He descended from an old and well
to‑do family, and in 1406 was matriculated at the
University of Erfurt. Soon afterward, in 1408 or
earlier, he appeared in Bologna, where he seems to
have remained until 1412. In the beginning of that
year he was chosen canon of the chapter of St.
Felix and Regula in Zurich. In 1413 he was
matriculated a second time in Erfurt, remaining
there until he obtained the degree of bachelor from
the faculty of canon law, probably in 1418. He was
present at the Council of Constance. Probably at
the end of 1421 he became provost of St. Ursus at
Soleure and began his activity there with necessary
reforms. In 1423 he reentered the University of
Bologna to complete his studies, and associated with
Johannes Andreas de Calderinis, and famous canon
ists like Petrus Aristotiles, Salicetus, Antonius de
Albergatis; and Lamola. In 1424 he was made
doctor of canon law. He was in Zurich from 1427
till 1454, and in 1428 became cantor of the cathedral.
In 1429 he appears also as canon of St. Maurice in
Zofingen. He quarreled with his chapter, and many
censures, both just and unjust, were hurled at him.
Even his life was in danger. After the citizens of
Zurich had concluded peace with the confederates,
they invited the latter to a great festival in the
middle of Feb., 1454. On this occasion, probably
at the instigation of Gundolfinger, vicar of the
cathedral church in Constance, whom Hemerli had
provoked, the confederates captured the canon and
delivered him over to Gundolfinger, who im
prisoned him in the castle of Gottlieben, and
later in Meraburg. Then he was handed over to
the people of Lucerne, who imprisoned him in a
tower, and afterward in the Franciscan monastery
where he died.
	Hemerli fought with much courage against the
ignorance, stupidity, and immorality of the clergy,
not halting before the highest authorities of the
Church. He attacked the abuses of the Church,
and wrote against the Lollards and mendicant
friars, establishing his literary fame by a treatise,
Contra validos mendicdntes (1438), which was edited
later in German by Nicholas of Wyle under the title
Von den ver»a6genden Bettlem (possibly in Transla
tion oder Tutschungen etlicher Bilcher, Esslingen,
1478 ?, Augsburg, 1536). In De libertate ecclesi
astics he approved the efforts of the Council of
Basel to abolish the celibacy of the clergy. Of his
legal works may be mentioned Tractatus de matri.
monio, De emptione et venditione unius pro viginti,
and Processes judiciaries. His principal work is his
great political Dialogus de nobilitate, in which he
vehemently attacked the enemies of his native city,
the people of the canton of Schwyz. In 1452 he
wrote the story of his sufferings in his Passionale.
During his captivity he wrote Registrum qeerele,
a solemn assertion of his innocence and a vehement
accusation against Gundolfinger, and a Dialogea
de consolations inique suppressorum. Most of his
writings were first edited by Sebastian Brant in 1497
(Basel). They were nearly all merely occasional
tracts, lack breadth of view, profundity, and con
sistency, and aim at sensational effect, with a
predilection for scandalous stories. Therefore
Hemerli's admonitions had little influence toward promoting a real reformation. (A. SCnNEIDER.)
BIBwoaRAPHy: B. Reber, Felix Hemmerlin von Zfamich, Zurich, 1846; F. Fials, Dr. Felix Hemmerlin ale Probet doe 3. Uraendiftes au Solothurn, Soleure, 1857; J. J. V6geli, Zum Veratdndnia van . . . Hrimmerlis Schritten, Zurich, 1873; O. Lorenz, DGQ, i. 78, 119‑121, ii. 405, Berlin, 1886; A. Schneider, Der Zttrcher %anonikua and Kantor Magiater Felix Hemmerlin, Zurich, 1888.

HEMMINGGSEN, NIELS (Nicolaus Heinmingii): Danish theologian; b. at Erindlev, island of Lolland, Denmark, June 4, 1513; d. at Roskilde, Zealand, May 23, 1600. He studied under the humanist Niels Black at Roskilde, and at the age of twentyfour went to Wittenberg, where he was graduated B.D., and became a devoted follower of Melanchthon. In 1542 he returned to Denmark, and was appointed privat‑docent at the University of Copenhagen; in 1543 he became instructor in Greek, and in 1545 lecturer in Hebrew and professor of dialectics; in 1553 he was appointed professor of theology.
In 1555 he published his De methodis, the second volume of which treats of hermeneutics and rhetoric. His Enchirldion theologicum appeared in 1557, and became popular in Denmark and abroad as a handbook of dogmatics and ethics. He was a pronounced adherent of Melanchthon, and he considers his own work merely an aid to the deeper understanding of Melauchthon's opus sacrosanetum. His Enchiridion consists of four parts, the first treating of the covenant of grace and the kingdom of Christ; the second, of man's duties toward God, dwelling especially on the ten commandments; the third, of the three articles of faith, the Lord's Prayer, and the importance of traditional teachings; and the fourth, of the public and private duties of a Christian. Of still greater importance from an ethical point of view is his De loge naturm apodictica methodes (Wittenberg, 1562).
When the waves of Crypto‑Calvinism reached Denmark Hemmingsen was called upon to defend the Lutheran conception of the Lord's Supper, which he did in his Tavle om Herrens Nadvere (" Table of the Lord's Supper "); in consequence of this he came to be regarded as the foremost theologian in Denmark. In 1569 he was entrusted with the task of drafting the twenty‑five articles of religion to which every foreigner who settled in Denmark had to conform; and in the following year he published his Livsens Vej (" The Path of Life "), a compendium of the teachings he himself followed during his long nareer.
When at the very summit of his greatness Hemmingsen published (1572 and 1574) certain writings which displayed a leaning toward Crypto‑Calvinism, and King Frederick II. forbade him to engage in any disputations concerning the Lord's Supper. Repeated accusations on the part of the duke and duchess of Saxony, who were related to the king, compelled Frederick II. further to demand that he renounce his Crypto‑Calvinistic tendencies altogether; and he had to retract his utterances publicly. The accusations continued;' and the king finally deposed Hemmingsen. On July 29, 1579, he was dismissed from his professorship, and ordered to leave Copenhagen. He went to Roskilde, where for

222	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	$emeru
		Henderson
twenty years he occupied himself with studies,
officiating also as protector of the cathedral there.
Upon the death of Frederick II. he again ventured
to publish his writings, and his commentary on the
Gospel of St. John, accompanied by a Tractatus
de gratis universali (Copenhagen, 1591), showed
that he was no adherent of Calvin as far as the
latter's teachings of predestination were concerned.
In 1599, however, he wrote some Spbrgsmaal
og Svar om Alterens Sakramente (" Questions and
Answers concerning the Lord's Supper "), which
proved that his conceptions of the Lord's Supper
were more Calvinistic than Lutheran.
	(F. NIEIBEN).
BIHwOGBAPnr7: E. Pontokopidan AnnaUs eodesim
Danie~. vol. iii., Copenhagen, 1747; H. Roerdam, %i~= Unioeraiteta Historie 165'7‑1621, ii. 425 sqq., ib. 1869 sqq.; J. H. Paulli, Niels Hemmingsem Pastoradtheolopie, ib. 1851.
	HEMPHILL, CHARLES ROBERT: Presbyterian;
b. at Chester, S. C., April 18, 1852. He was edu
cated at the University of South Carolina, the Uni
versity of Virginia (B.A., 1871), and the Presby
terian Theological Seminary at Columbia, S. C.
(1874). He was tutor in Hebrew there (1874‑78),
fellow in Greek at Johns Hopkins University (1878
1879), professor of Greek and Latin at South
western Presbyterian University, Clarksville, Tenn.
(1879‑82), and professor of Biblical literature in
Columbia Seminary (1882f‑85). He was pastor of
the Second Presbyterian Church at Louisville, Ky.
(1885‑99), and from 1893 to the present time he has
held a professorship in the Louisville Presbyterian
(now Kentucky Presbyterian) Theological Semi
nary. He contributed to Moses and His Recent
Critics (New York, 1889) the essay entitled Validity
and Bearing o f the Testimony o f Christ and His
Apostles to the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch.

HEMPHILL, SAMUEL: Church of Ireland; b. at Clonmel (45 m. n.e. of Cork), County Tipperary, July 5, 1859. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A.,1882), and was curate of Holy Trinity, Rathmines, Dublin (1883‑88), rector of Westport, County Mayo (1888‑92), and rector of Birr, King's County, since 1892. He was also professor of Biblical Greek in Trinity College, Dublin (1888‑98), and select preacher to the same university in 1891‑92 and 1899, and has been canon of Killaloe since 1897, in addition to being examining chaplain to the bishop of Killaloe since 1894. He has edited The Diatessaron of Tatian (London, 1888); and has written My Neighbour (London, 1897) and Immortality in Christ (1904), in addition to a translation of the " Satires " of Perseus (London, 1901).

	HENDERSON, ALEXANDER: Scotch Presby
terian; b. in the parish of Creich (12 m. w. of
		St. Andrews), Fifeshire, 1583; d. in
	Ministry in Edinburgh Aug. 19, 1646. He studied
	Leuchars. at St. Salvator's College, St. Andrews
		(matriculated Dec., 1599; M.A.,1603),
and taught philosophy in the university for several
years. In Sept., 1611, he is known to have been
an " expectant " or probationer, and soon thereafter
he was presented to the church of Leuchars (a
parish adjoining St. Andrews on the north and
west). So unpopular was his settlement there that
the people fastened the church doors on the day of his ordination, and he had literally to enter by a window. A year or two afterward he went, perhaps out of curiosity, to hear Robert Bruce preach at a communion in the adjoining parish of Forgan. In order to be hid, he sat in a dark corner of the church; and there the sharp arrows of the king pierced his heart as Bruce read for his text, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other. way, the same is a thief and a robber."
Henderson's views on church government and, worship appear to have undergone a radical change at this time, and in 1618 he opposed the " Five Articles " in the Perth Assembly (see PERTH, FlvE AP.TICllrs oF). In 1619 he was charged with not having given the communion according to the prescribed order, and explained that his disobedience was due not to contempt, but to doubts of its lawfulness. For the next eighteen years he seems to have been allowed to live in Leuchars in comparative peace, storing his mind with knowledge, doing good work among his people, and educating young men boarding with him. He bought a house and lands which, with a thousand pounds Scots, he gave as an educational endowment to the parish. To the school of his native parish he bequeathed two thousand merks.
In 1636 Charles I., instigated by Archbishop Laud, tried to force upon the Church of Scotland a book of canons, a book of ordination,
Resistance and a book of common prayer. The
	to	arbitrarymannerinwhichitwassought
Episcopacy. to impose these on the ScottishChuroh
		was perhaps more offensive than their
matter. To please the king, the Scottish privy
council issued a proclamation in Dec., 1636, com
manding all the people to conform in public worship,
and that two copies at least of the prayer‑book
should be procured for each parish before Easter,
1637. In June the council issued an order charging
those ministers who had not already provided them
selves with copies of the book to do so Within fifteen
days, under penalty of being considered in rebellion.
An attempt to use the book in St. Giles's, Edinburgh,
in July, 1637, led to the " Jenny Geddes riot " (see
GEDDEB, JENNY). The next month Henderson and
two other ministers appeared before the privy coun
cil and presented formal reasons for suspension of
the letters of outlawry under which they had been
charged to procure the book. Petitions, many of
which are still preserved, poured in upon the coun
cil. Soon the body of the nation was embarked in
the cause; and four committees were appointed to
represent the noblemen, gentlemen, burgesses, and
ministers. These committees, each of which con
tained four members, were called'( the tables," and
met in the parliament house. On their meetings
being prohibited by royal proclamation, they re
solved to renew the old covenants, and on Feb. 28,
1638, the " National Covenant," in the drafting
of which Henderson had a part (see CovENArrr,las,
§ 3), was sworn and subscribed by thousands in the
Greyfriars' Church and Churchyard, Edinburgh.
Copies were circulated through the country; and
almost everywhere it was sworn with zeal and alac‑

Henderson Hengel
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
rity by all ranks and classes. The shires subscribed by their commissioners, and so did the towns, save Aberdeen, St. Andrews, and Crail. Henderson preached at St. Andrews, and won it over, not a burgess refusing to sign. Henderson, Dickson, and Cant were sent to the north, and preached to great crowds at Aberdeen, securing several hundreds of subscriptions; but with the doctors of divinity they had only a fruitless controversy. The king had to call a general assembly and parliament to consider the national grievances. Henderson was unanimously chosen moderator of the former, which met on Nov. 21, 1638, in the High Church or Cathedral of Glasgow. Though the royal commissioner dissolved it in the king's name, it continued its sittings, condemned the six spurious assemblies from 1606 to 1618, as well as the service‑book, the book of canons, the book of ordination, and the court of high commission. It also excommunicated eight of the bishops, deposed the other six, and prohibited episcopacy and the articles of Perth. Though anxious to remain in Leuchars, Henderson was translated by this assembly to Edinburgh, and was inducted into the Greyfriars' Church on Jan. 10, 1639.
A Remonstrance o f the Nobility, etc., which
Henderson drafted (1639), strongly impressed the
English with the justice of the coveftegotia‑ nanted cause. He accompanied the tions with Scotch army to Dunes Law, and took the Eng‑ part in arranging the articles of peace lish. The at the Birks, near Berwick‑on‑Tweed,
	West‑	in June, 1639. Next year he was
	minster	appointed rector of Edinburgh Univer
Assembly. sity. He gave it an immense stimulus,
and is now regarded as the ablest educator and the man of clearest insight who had had to do with the university since its foundation. On the king refusing to carry out the stipulations of the pacification, denouncing the Covenanters as rebels, and preparing again to invade the country, the Scotch army entered England in Aug., 1640, and the king was fain to treat a second time. For this treaty Henderson, who had accompanied the army, was appointed a commissioner. While in London he wrote several pamphlets, held service according to the Scottish form, preached in St. Antholine's Church to crowded audiences, and heartily concurred with William Castell's petition to the English Parliament for propagating the Gospel in America as " most pious, Christian, and charitable." Toward the end of July, 1641, he returned to Edinburgh, and was chosen moderator of the assembly then sitting. The king having come to Scotland to preside in Parliament, Henderson was appointed royal chaplain and dean of the chapel royal, and Parliament unanimously declared that, in the matter of the recent treaty, he had proved a loyal subject to the king and a true patriot to his country. By his exertions the revenues of the bishopric at Edinburgh were secured for the university of that city, and probably he helped to secure for the University of St. Andrews the grant of the rents of the archbishopric and priory of St. Andrews, under certain reservations. In 1641, and again in 1644, Parliament appointed him as one of
222
the commissioners to visit St. Andrews University; and he manifested his practical interest in that ancient seat of learning by giving a thousand pounds Scots for perfecting the building for its library. In Jan., 1642, he was translated to the East Kirk. As he was anxious to reconcile the king and the English Parliament, he was sent with the Scotch commissioners to Oxford. There he perceived that there was no hope of accommodation consistent with the liberties of England. On his return he had a conference with Montrose, and, seeing that he was determined to support the king, cautioned his friends against him. He was moderator of the general assembly in 1643, when commissioners were present from the English Parliament; and he drafted the Solemn League and Covenant (see CovE.rrANTzRs, § 4), which was cordially adopted by the Assembly and Convention of Estates. The assembly renewed the commission's appointment of members to assist at the Westminster Assembly. Henderson accordingly sailed from Leith for London on Aug 30. He addressed the English House of Commons and the Westminster Assembly, when met in St. Margaret's Church to swear the Solemn League and Covenant on Sept. 25. He was of great service in the Westminster Assembly, and often took a leading part in its debates. Early in 1645 he was appointed to assist the commissioners of both parliaments in their treaty with the king at Uxbridge. On this treaty being broken off without success, he returned to his duties at Westminster, though his health was now failing.
In the spring of 1646 the king threw himself into the Scottish army, who retired with him to Newcastle. The Independents were now
Discussion supreme in the English army, which with had crushed the royal forces; and the
	Charles I.	king's only hope lay in speedily coming
		to terms with the Presbyterians. He
sent for Henderson as the fittest man to remove the
difficulties of his mind. Though unfit for the jour
ney, he complied, and reached Newcastle in May.
But he soon found that there was little hope of
Charles agreeing to abolish prelacy in England. It
was arranged that the conscientious scruples of
Charles should be discussed in a series of papers
between him and Henderson. Of these there are
eight, five being by the king. Henderson prepared
four; but, perhaps to let the king have the last
word, only three were published. The object of
Charles seems to have been to gain time; and, as
the discussion lasted fully six weeks, he was not
altogether unsuccessful. As Henderson's health had
grown much worse, he returned to Scotland, arriving
in Edinburgh on Aug. 11, sick and exhausted. Eight
days after his arrival he entered into his rest. He
was undoubtedly, after Knox, the greatest of
Scottish ecclesiastics, and has been held in universal
honor for his tact, statesmanship, and patriotism,
as well as for his attachment to the faith and polity
of the Reformed Church.
Most of the principal public papers of the Presbyterians from 1637 to 1646 were drafted or polished by Henderson. In 1641 he published The Order and Government of the Church of Scotland. The Platform of the Presbyterian Government, published by

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hendersmn 8enae1
authority in 1644, is substantially the same without the preface. He seems to have published a pamphlet against episcopacy, and another against
	Writings.	Independency. Several of his sermons
		have been printed separately; and
a volume of Sermons, Prayers, and Pulpit Addresses,
from the notes of a hearer, was issued at Edinburgh
in 1867. His speech.before the Solemn League and
Covenant was sworn at Westminster is in the
Appendix to James Reid, Memoirs of . . those
Eminent Divines who Convened in the Famous
Assembly at Westminster (2 vole., Paisley, 1811‑15).
The papers which passed between him and the
king are in Aiton's Appendix (see Bibliography),
and are printed with Charles's Works.
D. HAY FLEMaNG.
BIHwOGBAPBY: The beet biography is by J. Aiton, Life and
Times of A. Henderson, Edinburgh, 1838 (embodies Original research into sources and contains documents). Consult further: Wodrow Society publications, Wodrow'e Correspondence, ed. T. MaaCrie, Edinburgh, 1842‑43, and Wodrow'e Select Biographies, ed. W. K. Tweedie, ib. 184b‑47; T. MacCrie, Life o) A. Henderson, ad. T. Thomeon, Edinburgh, 1848; D. Neel, Hist. of the Puritans, ed. J. Toulmin, iii. 218‑217, Bath, 1822; W. M. Hetherington, Hist. of the Church of Scotland, pp. 148‑150, et paemm, New York, 1881; DNB, xxv. 390‑395 (where may be found a list of references).
HENDERSON, EBENEZER: Scotch linguist and missionary; b. in the parish of Dunfermline, Fifeehire, Nov. 17, 1784; d. at Mortlake (8 m. w.s.w. of London), Surrey, May 16, 1858. His parents were of humble station, and he enjoyed few educational advantages; nevertheless, in the midst of the duties of an active professional life, he acquired a knowledge of many languages, including not only Greek, Latin, French, German, Danish, and Swedish, but also‑‑so it is said‑Hebrew, Syriac, Ethiopic, Russian, Arabic, Tatar, Persian, Turkish, Armenian, Manchu, Mongolian, and Coptic. In 1803 he entered Robert Haldane's seminary in Edinburgh to study for the ministry. In 1805 he left Scotland in company with the Rev. John Patterson, with whom he continued to be associated in missionary labor and friendship for a great part of his life. His original destination was the East Indies; but difficulties connected with the existing policy of the East India Company led Henderson, who bad gone to Denmark with the view of a passage to India in a Danish ship, to alter his plans, and devote his future labors mainly to the northern countries of Europe.
In Jan., 1806, he undertook a ministerial charge at Elsinore, Denmark, whence, in Sept., 1807, he removed to Gothenburg, in Sweden. In the following year he itinerated in Sweden, Lapland, and Finland, forming Bible societies in connection with the British and Foreign Bible Society. In 1811 through his influence, the first Swedish Congregational Church was formed. In 1812‑13 his headquarters were at Copenhagen, where a Danish Bible Society was established and where his chief work was the superintendence of a translation of the New Testament into Icelandic. In 1814 he visited Iceland, distributed the newly printed Testaments, and preached in many parts of the island. In 1816 he went to St. Petersburg, and, under the auspices of the Czar, procured the printing of the Bible in
ten dialects. In 1825, however, through the influence of the Greek Church, the work of the Bible Society was interdicted in Russia.
	Henderson returned to England in 1825, and
for the next twenty‑five years devoted himself to
the work of training others for the labors which bad
occupied him for the twenty years preceding. For
five years he wds theological tutor at Hoxton. In
1830 he was appointed to the theological lectureship
at Highbury, where he also gave instruction in.
Oriental languages. In 1850 he retired on a pen
sion, but continued to preach, particularly in the
Independent Chapel at Mortlake, 1852‑53. In addi
tion to a number of popular reprints which appeared
under his editorship, Henderson's literary works
include: Translation of Roos on the Prophecies of
Daniel (Edinburgh, 1811); Two Dissertations on
Hans Mikkelsen'a (Danish) Translation of the New
Testament (Copenhagen, 1813); Iceland, or the
Journal of a Residence in that Isle in 181.¢, 1816
(Edinburgh, 1818); Biblical Researches arid Travels
in Russia (London, 1826); The Great Mystery of
Godliness (1830); An Appeal to the Members of the
British arid Foreign Bible Society (1824); The Turk
ish New Testament Incapable of Defence (1825);
Divine Inspiration (1836); Translation of Isaiah,
with Commentary (1840); Translation of Ezekiel
(1855); Translation of Jeremiah and Lamentations
(1851); and Tranalationa of the Minor Prophets
(1845). 	Hwcxy COWAN.
$:aLsoasersn: Th"a S. Henderson (his daughter), Mem‑
oir of Rbeneser Henderson, London, 1859; Bible of Every
Land, p. 218, ib. 1881; DNB, xxv. 398.

	HENDRIX, EUGENE RUSSELL: Methodist Epis
copal (South) bishop; b. at Fayette, Mo., May 17,
1847. He was graduated from Wesleyan Univer
sity, Middletown, Conn. (B.A., 1867), and Union
Theological Seminary (1869). He was then pastor
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at
Leavenworth, Kan. (1869‑70), Macon, Mo. (1870
1872), Francis Street, St. Joseph, Mo. (1872‑76),
and at Glasgow, Mo. (1877‑78), and was president
of Central College, Fayette, Mo. (1878‑86). Since
1888 he has been a bishop of his denomination. He
has been one of the managers of the Board of Mis
sions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
since 1878, of the Board of Church Extension since
1886, and of the Board of Education since 1894.
He was Cole Lecturer at Vanderbilt University in
1903, and Quillian Lecturer at Emory College in
the same year. In theology he is a Wesleyan
Arminian, and has written Around the World (Nash
ville, Tenn., 1877); Skilled Labor for the Master
(1900); Religion o f the Incarnation (1903); Person
ality of the Holy Spirit (1903); and Religion of as
Incarnation; (1907).

HENGEL, WESSEL ALBERT VAN: One of the foremost Dutch exegetes of the school of Van Vooret; b. at Leyden Nov. 12, 1779; d. there Feb. 6, 1871. He received his education in his native city, and held pastorates at Halslagen (1803‑1805), Driehuizen (180rr10) , and Grootebroek (1810‑1815). In 1815 he was appointed professor of theology at the academy of Franeker, whence he was called, three years later, to a similar position in Amsterdam. In

Henirstenbere	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	294
Henke
	1827 he became professor of theology at Leyden,
	.vhere he resided until his death, although he was
made professor emeritus in 1849. This period of
	retirement was the time of his ripest literary activ
	ity. He was a prolific writer both in Latin and in
	Dutch. His principal works are as follows: Anna
	tatio in loan nonnulla Novi Testamenti (Amsterdam,
	1824); Institutio oratoris sacri (Leyden, 1829), a
	handbook of homiletics; Geschiedenis der zedeliyke
en godsdiewtige beschaving van het hedendaagsche
	Europa (3	vols., Amsterdam, 1831‑44; 2d ed.,
	Leyden, 1862‑66); Commentarius perpetuus in
	Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses (Leyden, 1838);
	Keizer Hendrik de Derde (1844);	Interpretatio
	Epistolas Pauli ad Romanos (2 vols., Bois‑le‑Duc,
	1855‑59);	De Testamenten der Twaal/ Patriar
	chen op nwaw ter sprake gebragl (Amsterdam,
	1860); and De gave der talen (Leyden, 1864).
				‑	(C. SEPPt.)
		HEIYGSTENBERG, ERNST WILHELM: German
	Protestant exegete; b. at Frondenberg (a village of
	Westphalia, near Hamm, 22 m. n.n.w. of Arnsberg)
	Oct. 20, 1802; d. at Berlin May 28, 1869. He was
	a descendant of an old Westphalian patrician fam
	ily of Dortmund, one in which the tradition of
	service in the ministry was very persistent. His
	health did not permit attendance at a public
	school, but he received so excellent a training from
	his father, who was a Lutheran clergyman of
	supranaturalistic views, that in 1819 he found
	himself qualified to enter the newly founded
	University of Bonn. Destined from early child
	hood for a	theological career, he prepared him
	self by a thorough grounding in philology and
	philosophy.	He studied Old Testament exegesis
	and church	history under Freytag and Gieseler,
	passed through a complete course in classical phi
	lology, gave particular attention to the Aristotelian
	philosophy, but above all devoted himself to the
	study of Arabic. The results of his philosophical
	studies were embodied in a German translation of
	the metaphysics of Aristotle (Bonn, 1824), and of
	his Arabic studies in an edition of the moallaxah o f
	Amru'l'Kais (Bonn, 1823), with the latter of which
	he obtained his doctorate. He was unable to enter
	on a course in theology on account of lack of means
	so, through	the recommendation of Freytag, he
	became assistant to Sthhelin at Basel, taking part
	there in the latter's Oriental investigations. The
	leisure there enjoyed gave him opportunity for
	serious study of the Scriptures.
		Finding his theological views to be in accord
	with the Augsburg Confession, he decided to enter
			the Lutheran communion. In 1824 he
		His Work	went to Berlin as privat‑docent, and
		in Berlin.	in the following year took his bacca
			laureate in theology. His thesis em
	bodied a defense of the truth of Protestantism and
	an earnest	criticism of the rationalistic position,
	especially on Old Testament problems. As head
	of the seminar of Old Testament studies his activity
	and his reputation continued to increase, while as
	guide and counselor of the students who gathered
	around him he exercised a profound and beneficent
	influence that was inferior only to that of Tholuck,
	his lifelong friend. Other of his friends were August
Neander, Friedrich Strauss, Theremin, and many of the younger clergymen of Berlin. His connection with these men and the growing vigor of his orthodoxy brought upon Hengstenberg the dislike of the authorities. In order to remove him from the sphere of his influence, the minister Von Altenstein repeatedly attempted to transfer him to another university under the guise of promotion, which attempts were frustrated by Hengstenberg's refusal to accept the offers made. In July, 1827, he became editor of the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, a medium through which he, was to exercise a far wider and deeper influence on the religious life of his age than through his strictly academic labors.
Once convinced that his proper field lay in the career then opened for him, Hengstenberg entered with vigor on a task that he was to His carry on under great discouragement
Contest for forty‑two years. No man of our
against time has been exposed to more oppo‑
Rational‑ sition and enmity, ridicule and slander, ism. open and secret denunciation than the editor , of the Bvangelische Kirchenwitung. " The opinion of the world during the last forty years has associated with Hengstenberg's name all that it finds condemnatory in the revival of a former faith‑Pietism, a dead orthodoxy, obscurantism, fanaticism, Jesuitism, sympathy with every influence for retrogression " (Kahnis). Moreover, charges which were mutually contradictory were filed against him. To the impartial student these accusations will appear no more justified than to blame the policy of the Kirchenzeatu»g in Changing its views and its attitude on many important ecclesiastical questions. That publication would never have accomplished its purpose as organ of the Evangelical Church if it had not accommodated its policy to the progress of religious development. However vacillating its position may have been on particular issues, Hengstenberg's organ remained steadfast in the pursuit of its great mission‑the combating of the rationalistic spirit. It was not content to assail rationalism as an abstract system, but attacked its tendencies in whatever individual form it manifested itself, in concrete localities, personalities, and publications. Its quarrel was with all who assailed or denied the divinity of the Savior, exalted matter and the flesh, or paid undue worship to the human reason. Against error in its. manifold forms it upheld the standard that the Church of all ages has upheld against error and recusancy‑the word of God and the creed of the Church.
Of Hengstenberg's writings the Christologie des Allen Testaments (Berlin, 1829‑35; Eng. trawl., The Christology of the Odd Testament,
	Writings.	4 vols., Edinburgh, 1854‑58) contains
		his first contribution to the develop
ment of the theology of the older law. His avowed
purpose was to create a line of defense against
those who denied prophecy and miracle and to
restore the Old Testament to its ancient and well
founded rights. The Kommentar fiber die Psalmen
(4 vols., Berlin, 1842‑47; Eng. trawl., 3 vols.,
Edinburgh, 1845‑48) adopts the methods of in
terpretation employed in the ancient Church and

996	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g
during the period of the Reformation. Minor exegetical works are Geschichte Bileams and seine Weiasagungen (Berlin, 1842), Hohelied Salbmonis (Berlin, 1853), Prediger Salomo (Berlin, 1858; Eng. transl., Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, to which are appended Treatises on the Song of Solomon, the Book of Job, the Prophet Isaiah, the Saerir fices of Holy Scripture, the Jews and the Christian Church, Edinburgh, 1860), and Weisabgungen des Propheten Ezechiels (Berlin, 1867‑68; Eng. tranal., The Prophecies of Ezekiel, Edinburgh, 1869)., Allied with his studies in the Hebrew prophets axe the Offenbarung des heiligen Johannes (2 vols., Berlin, 1849‑51; Eng. transl., The Revelation. of St. John, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1851‑52), and Evangelium des healigen Johannes (Berlin, 1861‑64; Eng. tranal., Commentary on . . . John, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1865). His Beitrage zur Einkitung ins Alts Testament (Berlin, 1831; Eng. tranal., Genuineness of the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1847; Genuineness of Daniel and Integrity of Zechariah, ib. 1848) examine critically the prophecies of Zechariah and Daniel and maintain the authenticity of the Pentateuch. Other writings are Geschichte des Reichm Gotten unter dem Aken Bunde (2 vols., Berlin, 1869‑71; Eng. tranal., History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Testament, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1871 72), Ueber den Tag des Herrn (Berlin, 1852; Eng. transl., The Lord's Day, Edinburgh, 1853), and Die Opfer der heiligen Schrift (Berlin, 1859). His Egypt and the Books of Moses appeared in Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1843.
(J. BAcaMAxNt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Bachmann, Hengstenbov, win Leben and Wirken, 2 vole., GVtersloh, 1876‑79. An impartial estimate is given by J. E. J6rg, Gewhiohte des Protestantiamus, i. 22, Freiburg, 1858. Adverse judgments are given in D. 8ehuls, Die Wesen and Treiben der Berliner Rvanpdisehen Kirehenaeitunp, Breslau, 1839; A. Maller, ,Henystenberg and die Evanpeliade Kirchenasitunp, Berlin, 1857; F. Nippold, Neueete Kirehengsschiehte, v. 391 eqq., Leipsic, 1906; F. C. Baur, Kirrhengeschichte des 19. JahrL hunderta, pp. 228 eqq., TQbingen, 1862. Appreciative are: F. Delitaseh, Die biblisch‑prophetiache Tloeolopie and ihre . . . Entwickelung seit der Christolapis Henp8tenUrge, pp. 164 sqq Leipsic, 1845; P. Schaff, many, its Universities, Theology and Religion, pp. 3oo‑32o, Phiiadelphis, 1857; K. F. A. Kahnie, Zeupnis roan den Grund_ wahrheiten des Proteetantienaus pagan Dr. Henpatenberp, Leipsic, 1862.
	HENHOEFER, hhn"h0f'er, ALOY3 : German theo
logian; b. at Vblkersbach (near Carlsruhe) July 11,
1789; d. at Sp6ck (near Carlsruhe) Dec. 5, 1862.
He was born of Roman Catholic parents, and in 1811
entered the University of Freiburg, later attending
the seminary at Mee‑burg, where he was ordained
priest. After acting for three years as a private
tutor, he was appointed to the parish of MtW
hausen in 1818. His sermons soon began to show
a marked Evangelical tendency, deepened by his
reading of Boos's pamphlet Christus fur uns and
in uns. Henh6fer made many enemies, however,
and the episcopal vicar at Bruchsal requested him
to vindicate himself. In reply he published his
Christliches Glaubenabekenntnia des Pfarrers Hen
h6fer van Miihlhausen (Heidelberg, 1823), which
caused his excommunication from the Roman
Catholic Church. Together with many members
of his former congregation, he joined the Evangel
		V.‑15
ical Church, and was installed as pastor of Graben (near Carlaruhe) in 1823. Four years later he was appointed to the pastorate of Spock, where he officiated for thirty‑five years. Together with several young theologians, whom he had converted, he published a signed protest against anew catechism which had been introduced by the church authorities, which was characteristic of their lukewarm spirit. This pamphlet, published in 1830, and entitled Der neue Landeskotechismus der evangelischen Kirche des Grosaherzogtums Baden, gepriift nach der heiligen Schrift und. den symbolischen Bih chern, became immenselyy popular, and gave rise to a lively controversy, in which even a Catholic clergyman took part, only to be refuted by Henh6fer in his Biblische Lehre room Heilewege and van der Kirche (Speyer, 1832), while only the Christliche Mittedungen, of which he was one of the founders, aided his Evangelical propaganda.
The French Revolution of 1830, and the inner disturbances which agitated Germany in 1848 and 1849, caused a religious upheaval in Baden in favor of liberalism, and Henhofer, was compelled to flee to Stuttgart. During the latter years of his life he published Baden and seine Revolution. Ursache and He‑dung (anonymously); Die wahre katholisehe Kirche and.ihr Oberhaupt (Heidelberg, 1845); Das Abendmahl des Hewn oder die Mesas, Christentum and Papattum, Diamant oder Was (Stuttgart, 1852); Die Chriatliche Kirche and die Concordat (Carlsruhe, 1860); and Der Kampf des Unglaubens mit Aberglauben and Glauben, sin Zeichen unaerer Zebt (Heidelberg, 1861). (K. F. LEDDMMaosat.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Frommel, Aus dam Leben du Dr. Aloye Henh6ter, Carlsruhe, 1865; F. van Weeeh, Badude Bio‑
yraphien, 2 vole., Darmstadt, 1875.
HENKE, ERNST LUDWIG THEODOR: Professor of theology at Marburg; b. at Helmstedt Feb. 22, 1804; d. at Marburg Dec. 1,1872. He was the youngest son of Heinrich Philipp Konrad Henke (q.v.), studied in Helmstedt, at the Collegium Carolinum in Brunswick, at G6ttingen (1822‑24), and at Jena. In 1826 he became privat‑docent in Jena, lecturing on church history and the New Testament. In 1828 he was appointed professor at the Collegium Carolinum in Brunswick, where he lectured on theological encyclopedia, church history, isagogics, logic, and history of philosophy. In 1833 , he became professor of exegesis and church history at Jena. In 1836 he removed to Wolfenbiittel as councilor of the consistory and director of the theological seminary; as a partial fulfilment of his duties here he lectured on Biblical theology and the epistles of Paul, and directed the practical exercises of the candidates for the ministerial office. In 1839 he followed a call to Marburg; he lectured on homiletics, liturgics, church history, history of dogma, Biblical theology, and propsedeutics, assumed the leadership of the Homiletical Society, and in 1843 was entrusted with the superintendency of the Seminarium Thilippinum; in 1848 he became also first librarian of the university library.
Henke's theology was the result of his comprehensive studies in church history and philosophy. He considered the dualism of faith and science an essential factor of the human mind; a higher unity

8eearke y of Sslkar
may be postulated, but it can not be realized. His broad theological views made it impossible for him to look with favor upon confessional particularism and Pietistic narrowness. He advocated the right of the Evangelical Union in the fullest and broadest sense. In religion, he maintained, love and gratitude toward Christ must find expression in different formulas according to the different states of religious knowledge. Owing to his consistent separation of religion and theology, he considered it the right and duty of science to test and change the transmitted systems of 1eligion.
Henke's literary productions were numerou9. The most important in the sphere of church history was Georg Calixtus Land seine Zeit (2 vols., Halle, 18531860). He issued several addresses and memorials of deceased teachers and colleagues. The Evangelical Union was treated by him in Das Verhaltnis Luthers and Melanchthons zu einander (Marburg, 1860). He also wrote Das Unionakolloquium zu Kassel im JvA 1661 (1861); Spener's pia desideria and Are ErfWung (1862); Sehleiermacher and die Union (1869). With his pupil Lindenthal he issued the first edition of Abelard's Sic et Non (1851), and he was a diligent contributor to the Halliache Encyk1opadie, Konversationslexicon der Gegentuart and the first edition of the Herzog Realencyklopddie.
(W. J. MANGOLDt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. J. Mangold, B. L. T. Henke, sin Gedenk‑
blatt, Marburg, 1879; J. Gtnther, Lebenaskiuen der Pro‑
feaeoren der Univereitlit Jena, pp. 37 eqq., Jena, 1558.
HENKE, hAn'ke, HEINRICH PHILIPP gONRAD: Professor of theology at Helmstedt; b. at Hehlen (on the Weser, near Hameln), in Brunswick, July 3, 1752; d. at Helmstedt May 2, 1809. He attended school in Brunswick, and in 1712 entered the University of Helmstedt. In 1777 he became professor of philosophy, and lectured on the classics, history of literature and philosophy, logic and esthetics, devoting, however, some time also to instruction in theological branches. In 1780 he became professor of theology, in 1795 abbot of the monastery of Michaelstein, which had been transformed into an Evangelical seminary, in 1800 general superintendent, in 1803 abbot of KBnigalutter, and in 1804 vice‑president of the consistory and superintendent of the Collegium Carolinum, without, however, interrupting his work as professor at Helmstedt.
Henke found hiss way to theology by his humanistic, philological, and philosophical studies. His aversion to orthodoxy, however, did not exclude the most faithful and vital reverence for Christ; he could not help acknowledging in the greatness and beauty of ancient philosophy and poetry traces and gifts of God. In the human history of Christ he saw his divinity and the deeds of him who had sent him. Thus he was inclined to trace the unevangelical disfigurement of original simplicity not only to the fourth and fifth centuries, but to much earlier phases of theological development. He wrote a church history (6 vols., Brunswick, 1799‑1808). His dogmatics, Lineaments inatitutionum fidei Christiana historisb‑sriticarum (Helmstedt, 1793), was written from the point of view of opposing the unpolluted Christianity of the earliest times
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
lags
to the whole later development of doctrine as a perversion of primitive faith. (E. HENxEt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A life was written by two of his pupils, G.
	B. Bollmann and W. Wolff, Helmstedt, 1818, and a notice
	by his youngest eon in Erech and Gruber, IL, v. 308‑314.
HENOTICON, THE: The " decree of union " or " instrument of union," probably drawn up by Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, and issued by the Emperor Zeno (482) for thepurpose of reconciling the Monophysite and orthodox divisions of the Church. It satisfied neither party. In the East it was made obligatory on all bishops and teachers. In the West it was anathematized by Felix II., and a schism of forty years followed, until the death of Anastasius (518); his successor, Justin, belonged to the orthodox side and suffered the Henoticon to fall into disuse without formally repealing it. See MoNopaysrrEs, § 6.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: KL, v. 1770‑74 (where the substance and part of the text is given in Latin); Neander, Christian Church, ii. 588‑590, 592.
HENRICIANS: A name given to the followers of Henry of Lausanne (q.v.).
HENRIQUEZ, do"r^1"k6s', HENRICUS: 1. Portuguese Jesuit; b. at Oporto 1536; d. at Tivoli (19 m. em.e. of Rome), Italy, Jan. 28,1608. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of sixteen, and taught with distinction at several Jesuit colleges, attaining the zenith of his fame at Salamanca. There he published, in 1590, his De elavlbus ecelesio;, which was condemned by the papal nuncio at Madrid for its anticurial tendencies. A still greater sensation was caused by his Summa theologise moralis (3 vols., Salamanca, ‑1591‑93), a commentary on those portions of the Summa of Thomas Aquinas which treat of moral theology. In an excursus, De fine hominum, appended to the section on the Sacraments, Henriquez sharply attacked the doctrine of grace propounded by his fellow Jesuit Molina (q.v.). The violence of his polemic caused Aquaviva, then general of the Jesuits, to forbid him to write. Thereupon, he appealed to a general council, yet refused to obey its summons until, in 1594, he was carried forcibly to Rome. He was sentenced to leave the Jesuit order, but was allowed to become a Dominican. Nevertheless, after making his novitiate in the latter order, he returned to the Jesuits, among whom he spent the remainder of his life: In 1603 those sections of his Summa which discussed the Sacraments were plated upon the Index donee corrigatur. As a casuistic moralist, Henriquez contributed much to the probabilistic tradition of the Jesuits (see PBOBABILISM), although he was free from any suspicion of laxity.
	2. A second Jesuit Henricus Henriquez, older than
the one just discussed, worked as a missionary in
Portuguese India for thirty‑four years, and died in
1600 after publishing a Malabar grammar and sev
eral religious works. 	(O. ZbcszEERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: N. Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana vetue, i. 583, Rome, 1672; H. Hurter, Nomenclator literariua reeentioria theologise catholiece, i. 413, ii. 988, Innsbruck, 1881; F. Reueeh, Index der verbotenen Bucher, ii. 309 eqq., Bonn, 1885; G. H. Putnam, Ceneorehip of the Church, Vol. ii., chap. ii., New York, 1906; KL, v. 1774‑79.
HENRY IV.: King of France. See HvauENois, §9.

227	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	seen k° or sa.r
HENRY OF CLAIRVAU%: Abbot of Clairvaux, cardinal bishop of Albano; b. at Marcy, near Cluny; d. at Arras Jan. 1, 1189. He joined the Cistercians at Clairvaux in 1156, and was made abbot of the monastery in 1176. He had already taken part in an undertaking against the Cathari (see Nrw MANIcsEANs, II.). In compliance with his request, he was called to attend the council of 1179, and against his expectation was made a cardinal there. He took part in 1181 in the campaign against the Cathari, in which the fortress Lavour was taken. Finally he was active in bringing about the third crusade. Through his efforts a reconciliation took place between the Emperor Frederick I. and Archbishop Philip of Cologne, as well as between the kings of England and France. At the "Tag Gottes," at Mainz in 1188, he finally induced the Emperor Frederick to take the cross. He did not live to see the beginning of the crusade. His importance in church history rests on the fact that he favored ardently the use of force and all worldly power to extirpate heresy, and helped to make them an essential factor in church policy.
S. M. DEu'raca.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His letters and fragments of a work are
given in MPL, ociv. 215‑402; other notices are found in the Chronioon Claraevallense, MPL, elaaxv. 1247‑52. Consult: Hiatoire litt6raire de la Prance, xiv. 451‑462; H. Reuter, Geschichte Aleaanders 111., vol. iii., Leipaie, 1864; W. von Giesebreeht, Geechirhte der deutecAtenKaiserwit, vols. v., vi., Brunswick, 1874; KL, v. 1701‑03.
HENRY OF CLUNY. See HENRY of LAUSANNE. HENRY OF GHENT, (called in Latin, Henricus a Gandavo, Henricus Gandavensis, Henricus Mudanus; and sometimes Hendrik Goethals): Archdeacon of Tournai; b. at Mude (a village near Ghent) about 1217; d. either at Paris or at Tournai (35 m. s.w. of Ghent) 1293. In 1276 he was a famous teacher in Paris, where he held a disputation on do quolibet, and in 1277‑78 he was archdeacon of Tournai. These are the only certain data concerning him, although medieval historians and Servite authors add many unauthentic details. It is not probable that he was a member of a mendicant order, since he sided with the secular clergy in the controversy concerning the right of these orders to hear confession. As shown by his works, the QuodlZeta and the Summa theologise, he was a realist and a Platonist, if such a atatemen tmay be made of one who scarcely knew Plato in the original and thought that the tenets of Plato and Aristotle were essentially the same. Though ranked among the great scholastics and much read, he never founded a school.
(R.. SC13mm.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Huet, Recherehes hiatoriques sur la vie . de Henri de Gand . . . , Ghent, 1838; K. Werner,
Hsanrich von Gent, sin Reprdmntant des chriatlichen Pla
tonismus, Vienna, 1878; F. Ehrle, in Archiv fear Litteratur
and Kirehenpeachuhte des Mittelalters, vol. i., 1885; H.
Delehaye, Nouvelles recherches sur Henri de Gand, Ghent,
1886; A. Wauters. Sur les documents apop Vphea qui con
csrnaient Henri de Gand, Brussels, 1888.
HENRY OF HUNTINGDON: English historian; b. c. 1084; d. 1155. He was brought up in the household of Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, and was made archdeacon of Huntingdon in 1109 or 1110. In 1139 he visited Rome with Archbishop Theobald. On his way he stopped at the monastery
of Bee, making the acquaintance there of Robert de Monte (de Torigny), the Norman historian, who drew his attention to the Historic Britonum of Geoffrey of Monmouth. This circumstance, added to a request from Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, led him to write his well‑known Historic Anglorum, covering the period from 55 B.c. to 1154 A.D. The work was first printed in H. Savile's Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedam (London, 1596), reprinted at Frankfort in 1601, also in MPL, cxcv. 799‑978, and edited by T. Arnold in the Rolls Series (London, 1879). An English translation by T. Forester will be found in Bohn's Antiquarian Library, vol. xxi. (London, 1853). A letter by Henry, De eontemptu mundi, is reprinted in E. L. d'AchSry's Spicidegium, vol. iii. (Paris, 1723), pp. 503‑507; in MPL, cxcv. 979‑990, and in Arnold's edition of the history.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. D. Hardy, in the Introduction to the Monuments historica Britannica (which contains his chronicles), London, 1848; T. Wright, Biographic Britannim literaria, ii. 167‑173, ib. 1846; F. Liebermann, in PorsAungen sur deutschen Gewhiehte, xviii (1878), 267‑295; DNB, xxvi. 118‑119.
HENRY OF KALKAR (HEINRICH AEGER or EGER): Carthusian; b. at Kalkar (55 m. n.w. of Diisseldorf) 1328; d. at Cologne Dec. 20, 1408. He studied theology and philosophy in Paris, and afterward received a canonical prebend on the St. George's foundation at Cologne and Kaiserswerth. In 1365 he resigned this position and entered the Carthusian Order at Cologne. On account of his erudition and earnest piety he was selected to direct sundry houses of the order, being prior at Munickhuizen, near Arnheim, 1367‑72, at Roermund 1372‑77, at Cologne 1377‑84, and at Strasburg 1384‑96. Because of bodily infirmity he then returned to the cloister in Cologne. For twenty years he was visitator of the order's Rhenish province, and five times he was definitor in its general chapter.
Henry was renowned as a fervent adorer of Mary, whom he extolled in poems, and whose rosary devotions he introduced far and wide. He had an exceptional influence upon the spiritual awakening and the conversion of Geert Groote (q.v.), the founder of Brothers of the Common Life, who spent considerable time with him. This accounts for the similarity in thought between Henry and Groote and his followers, and also for the fact that he has been thought the author of the Imitatio of Thomas A Kempis.
Henry's writings, often copied with those of the Brothers, particularly Thomas, have not yet been collected. They are: (1) De ortu ac propream (or decursu) ordinis Carthu. siani (1398); Hartaheim saw the original in the Cologne library (no. 117); a copy is also in the Darmstadt library (no. 819) and at Milnater (no. 171); the chronicle no. 517 in Vienna is also doubtless the same work. (2) Loquapium de rhetorica for the Carthusiane at Utrecht, where an ex. tract is still preserved (rose. 251 nod. avi ecclea.). (3) Cantuapium de musim. (4) Ds cont%nenhis et distinctions scion. tiarum. (5) Epiatolee varim ad diversos. (6) Sermonea capitulares breves: Epiatolm of sermonee in a manuscript of 1483, in the library at Miinater (171). (7) Scala spiritualis exercitii psr modum orationis. (8) De holoaauato quotidiano apiritualis exercitii (found by De Vooys in Mains). (9) Liber exhortationis ad Petrum quondam Carthusia Con¢uentice relipiosum. (10) Modus faeiendi collationes more Carthusiano. In print there are only: (1) Psaledrium seu rosarium

Henry, of Lsngenstein Henry
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
age
B. Virpinis, 160 dicbionea in ejuadam laudem (Cologne, 1809; of. also the little known poem printed by Aoquoy). (2) A treatise found by T. A. Liebner in 1842 in a Quedlinburg manuscript and attributed by him to Thomas I< Kempis, whose authorship was denied by Ullmann (TSK, 1843); other manuscripts are known, one of which (Brussels, no. 11889) bears the inept title Speculum peccatorum, added by a later hand; the beet text on the basis of all manuscripts is given by Hireche (pp. 482‑504; cf. pp. 470 sqq.).
L. Scaumm
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Thomas A Kempis, Vita Gerhardi, chap. iv., Eng. trend. by J. P. Arthur in Founders of the New Devotion, pp. 9‑11, London, 1905; Trithemius, De vir. ill., in J. A. Fabrieius, Bibliotheca Latina medii et infima wtatis, iii. 885, Hamburg, 1748; V. Andrew, Bibliotheca Bslpica, p. 358, Louvain, 1843; G. H. M. Delprat, Verhandelinp over de Broderahap van G. Groote, p. 10, Utrecht, 1822; W. Moll, Korkpewhiedenie van Nederland, ii. 2, pp. 119 eqq., Utrecht, 1871; J. G. R. Acquoy, Hot Klooster to Windesheim, p. 23, Utrecht, 1875; K. Hireohe, Prolegomena su liner newn Auapabe der fmitatio Christi, i. 514 sqq., Berlin, 1883; L. Schulze, in ZKG, vol. ix., 1888; KL, v. 1700‑01.
	HENRY OF LANGENSTEIN	(Henricus de
Hassia) : Roman Catholic; b. near Langenatein,
upper Hesse, c. 1340; d. at Vienna Feb. 11, 1397.
He received his early education at Kirchhain,
probably among the Carmelites, then entered the
University of Paris, where, on completing his
studies, he became professor of philosophy in 1363.
He soon acquired fame as an astronomer and as an
opponent of astrology. After 1375 he devoted
himself entirely to theology, lecturing and writing
on dogmatics, Biblical exegesis, and canon law.
Early in 1383 he was compelled to leave Paris, be
cause he, together with the best forces of the Uni
versity, had declared himself in favor of Urban VI.
against the French Pope Clement VII. He en
tered the Cistercian monastery at Eberbach‑on‑the
Rhine, but later in the same year accepted a call
to the University of Vienna, becoming rector of the
university in 1394. He has been celebrated as a
prophet of the Reformation, but he has no claim
to that distinction. His chief work is the Epistola
concilii paeis (in H. von der Hardt's Magnum mcu
menicum Constantiense, ii. 1, 3‑80, 6 vols., Leipsie,
1697‑1700), written in 1381 with reference to the
papal schism and emphasizing the necessity of a
general council. 	(B. Bxes.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Epistola de oathadra Petri. and Inroec
tiva contra moiudrum Babylonis are in A. Kneer, Die Ent"unp der konxiliaren Theorie, pp. 127‑129, 134‑145, cf. 103 sqq., 130‑134, Rome, 1893; his Epistala de oblatu epiacopatu Osiliensi was published at Helmetfidt, 1715; his Eputola pact's was also reprinted at the same place, 1779; and his Liter adversw Telesphors . . roatieinia is in B. Pes, Thesaurus aneodotomm, i. 2, pp. 507‑588, Augsburg, 1721. The one book to consult is 0. Hartwig, Leben and Sc7ustten Heinrirhe von Lanpsnatein, Marburg, 1858. Consult further: Kneer, ut sup.; ductmium c1sartul8rii Uniroersitatis Pariaiensie, ed. H. Denifle and A. Chatelain, vol. i., Paris, 1894; Chartularium Universitatis Parisionsis, same editors, vol. iii., ib. 1894; P. Fdret, La Facuiti de dEolopia de Paris, iii. 283 ‑qq., ib. 1898; Pastor, Popes: i., passim, consult indexamder Langenetein.
HENRY OF LAUSANNE: An itinerant preacher of France of the first half of the twelfth century; d. after 1145. From contemporary accounts preserved by his enemies it appears that he was not a native of France. He was a man of deep learning and extraordinary oratorical powers; the tradition that he had been a member of the congregation of Cluny (whence he has been called Henry of Cluny)
has not been substantiated. According to his
opponents, he left the cloister because of gross
irregularities in conduct, but there is as little
foundation for this report as for the Protestant state
ment that he was moved to the step by the corrup
tion of monastic life. As a matter of fact, his life
was that of an ascetic outside of the cloister, and he
remained true to the tenets of medieval faith. In
1101 he made his appearance in Le Mans and from
Bishop Hildebert obtained permission to preach.
The influence he exerted on his auditors was tremen
dous. The charge that he attacked the faith of the
Church is justified only to the extent that he found
the only basis for the sanctity of the priesthood and
the validity of the sacraments in purity of action
and sincerity of repentance and belief. At the
order of Hildebert he left Le Mans and passed by
way of Poitiers and Bordeaux into Provence, where
he seems to have preached in conjunction with
Peter of Bruys (q.v.). In 1135 he was arrested by
the archbishop of Arles and brought before the
Synod of Pisa, which probably refused to condemn
him as a heretic, but attempted to put an end to
his public work by ordering him to enter a cloister.
Despatched with a letter to Bernard at Clairvaux,
he must have remained there for a brief time only,
if at all, and returned to his mission work in the
south of France. D611inger's supposition that
Henry was imbued with Manichean doctrines is
based on an unjustifiable interpretation of the
account of Peter the Venerable. For ten years
Henry pursued his work without molestation, but
in 1145, at the instance of the papal legate Alberic,
Bernard of Clairvaux was sent to the south to com
bat his teachings. Henry was arrested, and died
probably soon after. 	(A. HAucs.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are Bernard of Clairvaux, Epist., 241‑242, in his Opera, ed. J. Mabillon, i. 199 sqq., Paris, 1887; Gaufrid of Clairvaux, Epist., 5, in MPL, clxxxv. 412; Vita Bernhardi, iii. 18‑19; idem, 312 ‑qq.; the Bxordiwe rnopnum, xvii., idem, pp. 427‑428; Ada spiacoporum Cenomanensium, in J. Mabillon, Vetera anolata, Paris, 1723. Consult: A. Neander, Der Wig@ Bernhard and #sin Zeitalter, with additions by Deutsch, Goths, 1889; C. N. Hahn, OeschicAte der Ketzer im Afittelaltar, Stuttgart, 1845; J. J. I. von D51linger, Beitrape sur Sektmrgesch06s, i. 75 eqq., Munich, 1889; E. Vacandard, Vie de B. Bernard, ii. 217 sqq„ Paris, 1895; and the literature under BERNARD OF CLAIRYAUx.

HENRY OF NOERDLINGEN, n0rt'ling‑en: German mystic of the fourteenth century. His comprehensive correspondence with Margareta Ebner (q.v.), a nun in the Dominican convent of Maria Medingen, near Dillingen, and his confessant, extending from 1332 to 1350, throws valuable light upon the mystical life of the time and is the principal source for Henry's life. About 1332 he is found in NSrdlingen (in Bavaria, 50 m. s.w. of Nuremberg), his native town, as secular priest and spiritual adviser and leader of mystical souls, surrounded by pious women, mostly of the nobility, to whom his mother belonged. It was his desire to lead as many women as possible to the " Common Life " and associate them in a large mystical union. On account of the strained relations between the pope and Emperor Louis, Henry, as a faithful son of the Church, had to leave his native country. He wandered aimlessly about until he finally settled

at Bawl, in 1339, where Tauler took care of him. Here he preached daily, often twice a day, with extraordinary success. In 1346 and 1347 he was in Cologne, Aix‑la‑Chapelle, and Bamberg, collecting relics, and in 1348 or 1349 he went to Sulz, in Alsace, to live in solitude. In 1349 he is found again wandering from place to place and preaching. In 1350 he returned to his native country. After the death of Margarets Ebner (1351), whom he had frequently visited, he resumed his wandering life. The time and place of his death are not known. His correspondence with Margareta Ebner is the oldest collection of letters in the German language that has been preserved, and is a valuable storehouse of information for the history of culture. In 1344 Henry translated the Low German " Revelations " of Matilda of Magdeburg (q.v.) into High German. From his intercourse with mystics he appropriated a mystical method of preaching, which found applause because mysticism was fashionable at the time, especially among women, and it was chiefly to them that his pious, childlike heart and his amiable character appealed.
(PMLJPP STRAUCH.)
BmmoGRAPHY: P. 6traueh, Marpareta Ebner and Heinrich von Ntirdlinpen, Freiburg, 1882; W. Preger, Gesehichta der deutedhen Mystik, ii. 277 aqq., 289 aqq., Leipsie, 1881; R. A. Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, i. 216‑217, 8th ed., London, n.d.
HENRY OF ZUETPHEN. See MOLLP;R, HEiNRICH.
HENRY, JOHN EDGAR: Irish Presbyterian; b. at Ballyward (10 m. s.e, of Banbridge), County Down, Feb. 18, 1841. He was educated at Queen's College, Belfast (B.A., Queen's University, 1862; M.A.,1864), and was minister of his denomination at Ardstraw, in the presbytery of Strabane (18651879), Canterbury (1880‑82), and the Second Presbyterian Church, Derry (1883‑90). Since 1890 he has been professor of church history at Magee College, Londonderry. He was Smyth lecturer in the same institution in 1892 and Cavey lecturer there in 1896. In doctrine he is a sublapsarian Calvinist, in church government a Presbyterian, and in worship Puritanical, but moderately liberal, while in regard to the results of the newer critical school he is conservative. Besides his commentaries on Amos and Jonah in The Pulpit Commentary (2 vols., London, 1893), he has written The Plan of the House, a catechism of church government and worship (Belfast, 1874).

HENRY, PAUL EMIL: German clergyman of the French Reformed Church; b. at Potsdam Mar. 22, 1792; d. in Berlin Nov. 24, 1853. He was of French descent, and studied at the French College in Berlin. He was for many years pastor of the French Church in Berlin, and director of the French Seminary there. He published Das Lcben Johann Calvin's (3 vols., Hamburg, 1835‑44; Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1849); and also a German translation of the Confession of Faith of the French Reformed Church (Berlin, 1845).

HENRY, MATTHEW: Non‑conformist minister and commentator; b. at Broad Oak, near BangorIscoed, Flintshire, Wales, Oct. 18, 1662; d. at Nantwich (17 m. s.e. of Chester), Cheshire, June 22,
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Henry of Lanitenstein Henry
1714. He was educated privately at the home of his father, the Rev. Philip Henry (q.v.), and at the academy of Thomas Doolittle, Islington, which he attended 1680‑82. In May, 1685, he began the study of law at Gray's Inn; but he already desired to enter the ministry, and devoted much time to theological studies. In June, 1686, he began to preach in the neighborhood of Broad Oak, and in the following January he preached privately in Chester. He was asked to settle there, and consented conditionally, but returned to Gray's Inn. After the declaration of liberty of conscience by James II. in 1687, he was privately ordained in London, and on June 2, 1687, he began his regular ministry as pastor of a Presbyterian congregation at Chester. He remained in this charge for twentyfive years. After having several times declined overtures from London congregations, he finally accepted a call to Hackney, London, and entered upon his ministry there May 18, 1712. He visited Chester for the last time in May, 1714. On his return journey he was seized with apoplexy, and died at Nantwich.
Henry's reputation rests upon his celebrated commentary, An Exposition of the Old arid New Testaments (5 vols., London, 1708‑10; afterward enlarged and often reprinted; new ed., 5 vols., New York, 1896). He lived to complete it only as far as to the end of the Acts; but after his death certain non‑conformists prepared the Epistles and Revelation from Henry's manuscripts. This work was long celebrated as the best of English commentaries for devotional purposes. The author betrays a remarkable fertility of practical suggestion; and, although the work is diffuse, it contains rich stores of truths, which hold the attention by their quaint freshness and aptness, and feed the spiritual life by their Scriptural unction. It has no critical value; and Henry in the preface expressly says that, in this department, he leaves the reader to Poole's Synopsis. Robert Hall, Whitefield, and Spurgeon used the work, and commended it heartily. Whitefield read it through four times, the last time on his knees; and Spurgeon says (Commenting and Commentaries, p. 3): " Every minister ought to read it entirely and carefully through once at least."
Other works by Henry are Memoirs o f . . . Philip
Henry (1696); A Scripture Catechism (1702); A Plain Catechism (1702); The Communicant's Companion (1704); A Method for Prayer (1710); and numerous sermons, which are included in his Miscellansous Works (1809; ed. Sir J. B. Williams, 1830; also 2 vols., New York, 1855, containing funeral sermons by Daniel Williams, John Reynolds, and William Tong).
BIBLIoaaAPHY: W. Tong, An Account of the Life and Death of Matthew Henry, London, 1716; J. B. Williams, Memoirs of Matthew Henry, ib. 1850 (uses Henry's diaries); C. Chapman, Matthm Henry, his Life and Times, ib. 1859; A. B. Grosart, $epreseatattroe Nonconformists, ib. 1879; DNB, uvi. 123‑124.
HENRY, PHILIP: English non‑conformist; b. at Whitehall, London, Aug. 24, 1631; d. at Broad Oak, near Bangor‑Iscoed, Wales, June 24, 1696. He studied at Westminster School, and at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1649; M.A., 1652): In 1653 he went to Flintshire, North Wales, as tutor to the sons

Hensohen	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	230
Herbelot
of John Puleston at Emral and preacher at Worth
enbury Chapel, in the parish of Bangor‑Iscoed. He
was ordained in 1657 and presented with the
donative of Worthenbury in 1658. For refusing to
subscribe to the Act of Uniformity (see UNI
FoRmITy, AcTs op) he was ejected from his liv
ing in 1662; and in 1665 he was driven from his
home by the Five Mile Act (q.v.) and forced to
seek safety in concealment. He did not resume
his regular ministry till the indulgence of 1672.
For keeping conventicles he was fined in 1681; and
during the Monmouth rebellion he was imprisoned
in Chester Castle for three weeks. After the pro
clamation of liberty of conscience by James II. in
1687, he preached daily at Broad Oak, Flintshire,
the country estate of his wife, and at various places
in the neighborhood. Nothing was published by
Henry himself, but from his manuscripts several
volumes have been edited which throw light on
the inner life of early non‑conformity. These are:
Eighteen Sermons (London, 1816); Skeletons of Ser
mons (1834); Exposition . . upon . . . Genesis
(1839); Remains (1848); and Diaries and Letters,
ed. M. H. Lee (1882). He was the father of Mat
thew Henry (q.v.), the commentator.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The beet source apart from the Diaries
	and Letters, ut sup., is the Memoirs, by his eon Matthew
	Henry, London, 1696, corrected and enlarged by J. B.
	Williams, ib. 1825; DNB, uvi. 124‑126.
	HENSCHEft, GOTTFRIED: The first pupil and
collaborator of Bolland in the great work of his
Acta Sanctorum (see BOLLAND, JAN, BOLLANDIBTB);
b. at Venray (22 m. n. of Roermond), Holland,
Jan. 21, 1600; d. at Antwerp Sept. 11, 1681. He
entered the Jesuit order at Mechlin in 1619, taught
Latin and Greek in various Flemish schools, and
was preparing to go as a missionary to the North
when, in 1635, Bolland asked for help in his task.
Henschen was chosen as the most suitable man,
and so far justified the choice that he may almost
be called the creator of the Acta Sanctorum Bollan
distarum in its present shape; Bolland's plan con
templated little more than an expansion of the
collection of Surius, but Henschen's scholarly in
fluence induced him to add the learned critical
dissertations which constitute the special value of
the work.
B:Br.IOaserar: See the literature under AQrA MAaTramr,
	AcrA SANcrosux, and consult RL, v. 1780‑‑81.
	HENSON, HERBERT HENSLEY: Church of
England; b. at London Nov. 8, 1863. He studied
at Oxford (B.A., 1884; fellow of All Souls, 1884‑91;
reelected in 1896). He was ordained priest in 1888,
and was head of the Oxford House, Bethnal Green
(1887,88), vicar of Barking, Essex (1888‑95), and
incumbent of St. Mary's Hospital, Ilford (1895
1900). Since 1900 he has been canon of West
minster and rector of St. Margaret's. He was also
select preacher at Oxford in 1896‑96 and Cam
bridge in 1901, as well as chaplain to the bishop of
St. Albans from 1897 to 1900. Since 1903 he has
been proctor in convocation and almoner of Christ's
Hospital. In addition to editing Church Problems
(London, 1900), he has written Light and Leaven
(London, 1897); Apostolic Christianity (1898); Dis
cipline, law (1898); Cui Bono? An Open Letter to
Lord Halifax (1899); Ad Rem: Thoughts on the Crisis in the Church (1900); Godly Unity and Concord (1902); Cross Bench Views of Current Church Questions (1902); Preaching to the Times (1903); English Religion in the Seventeenth Century (1903); The Value of the Bible and Other Sermons (1904); Thoughts on Popular Rationalism (1904); Moral Discipline in the Christian Church (1905); Religion in Schools (1906); Christian Marriage (1907); and The National Church: Essays on its Hist. and Constitution (1908).
HENSON, POINDEXTER SMITH: Baptist; b. at Fork Union, Va., Dec. 7, 1831. He was graduated from Richmond College, Richmond, Va., in 1849, and from the University of Virginia two years later. He was principal of the Classical Institute at Milton, N. C. (1851‑53), and professor of natural science at Chowan Female College, Murfreesborough, N. C. (1853‑55). After being pastor of the Baptist Church at Fluvanna, Va. (1855‑60), he was pastor of Broad Street Baptist Church, Philadelphia (1860‑67), of Memorial Church in the same city (1867‑82), of the First Baptist Church, Chicago (1882‑1901), of the Hanson Place Baptist Church, Brooklyn (1901‑03), and of Tremont Temple, Boston, since 1903. Since 1870 he has been editor of The Baptist Teacher.
HEPBURN, JAMES CURTIS: Presbyterian; b. at Milton, Pa., Mar. 13, 1815. He was educated at Princeton (B.A., 1832) and the University of Pennsylvania (M.D., 1836), and in 1840 went to China as a medical missionary, being at Singapore from 1841 to 1843, and at Amoy from 1843 to 1846. He then resided in New York until 1859, when he went to Japan, residing at Yokohama until 1892. In 1893 he returned to the United States, and retired from active life. He became a member of the American Geographical Society in 1859, and of the American Bible Society in 1881, and in 1905 received the decoration of the Order of the Rising Sun, third class, from the Emperor of Japan. He has written Japanese and English Dictionary (Shanghai, 1867; abridged ed., 1873), and a Bible dictionary in Japanese (Yokohama, 1889), besides preparing Japanese translations of the Westminster Confession, the Shorter Catechism, the Decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. He also contributed to the translation of the Bible into Japanese, having taken up the study of Hebrew in order to qualify himself for the work.
HEPPE, HEINRICH LUDWIG JULIUS: German Reformed; b. in Cassel Mar. 30, 1820; d. at Marburg July 25, 1879. He studied at Marburg 18391843, became privat‑docent there 1844, extraordinary professor of theology 1850, and ordinary professor 1864. He is known chiefly as a church historian, and his productive activity in this field began with studies in local history. While serving as pastor at Cassel (1845‑48), he was moved by the wealth of electoral Hesse's private and public archives to work over the ecclesiastical past of his more immediate neighborhood, and published Die Geschichte der hessischen Generalsynoden von 1668‑1682 (2 vols., Cassel, 1847). In 1849 appeared Die Einfahrung der Verbesserungspunkte in Hessen won 180¢1610.

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Heaswhen
	Herbelot
As characteristic of the German Reformed Church, he notes (1) the absolute authority of the divine word of Scripture over every ecclesiastical institution; and (2) the Melanchthonian‑Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord is thus decidedly rejected.
Heppe treated the same theme in a series of greater and lesser writings, particularly in his Geschichte des deutschen Protestandsmus in den Jahren 1666‑1681 (4 vole., Marburg, 1853‑59), and his Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismua im 16. Jahrhundert (3 vols., Gotha, 1857). In this connection occurred, in the years after 1850, the vehement controversy between Heppe and A. F. C. Vilmar (q.v.), consistorial councilor at Cassel, over the confessional character of the Church of Electoral Hesse. Vilmar asserted that the Church of Hesse was originally Lutheran, and was so still, even though it regarded itself as Reformed, and was thus regarded. The two disputants came to an open feud when Vilmar sought to introduce his theory into the practical life of the Church. Some twenty tracts in rapid succession bear witness to the bitterness of the dispute.
	Heppe also published an important Geschichte des
deutsehen Volkssehulwesens (5 vole., Gotha, 1857‑59).
Church history, however, was the proper field of his
scholastic labor. His Kirchengeschichte beider Hessen
(2 vols., Marburg, 1876‑78) was the most favorably
received of his works, and is not only an excellent
historical study, but also a work of piety toward his
much loved Hessian country. Lastly, he gave at
tention to two peculiar manifestations of devotion
‑‑Quietistic mysticism in the Roman Church, and
Pietism in the Reformed Church, especially of the
Netherlands. The central figure of his Geschichte
der quietistisehen Mystik in der katholischen Kirche
(Berlin, 1875) is Madame Guyon, whom he had orig
inally intended to treat in a monograph. By this
work Heppe brought to light a domain of church
history which till then had lain wholly in the dark.
At the close he speaks of similar manifestations in
the Evangelical Church, of Labadism and Pietism
in the Netherlandish Church, and thus prepares the
way for his Gesehichte des Pietism= and der mystik
in der reformierten Kirche, namentlich der N4eder
lande (Leyden, 1879). Heppe's literary activity is
the more praiseworthy in that, as university in
structor, he occupied the field of systematic theol
ogy and delivered carefully elaborated lectures. His
lectures on ethics were issued by the writer of this
article after Heppe's death (Elberfeld, 1882), and
were also translated into Dutch. Heppe likewise
took an active part in the practical tasks of the
Church, and promoted the founding of a Hessian
deaconesses' house, which now exists in Cassel in
great prosperity. 	A. KuaNa$T.
BxBwoaaAPBY: Wolff and Ranks, Zur &rinnerunp an H.
Heppe, Marburg, 1879; Supplement to Augsburg. ARge‑
rnedne Zeitung no. 226 1879; Annalen der Uniroeraita
Marburg, Marburg, 1879.

HERACLAS: Bishop of Alexandria from 231 or 232 to 247 or 248. There is no reason to suppose that he was an author, but his successor, Dionysius, cites a canon of " our blessed father Heraclas." The Copto‑Arabic Synaxarium (ed. F. W astenfeld,
ii., Gotha, 1879, p. 160) says that he was the son of pagan parents, who had him taught the ancient philosophy, and after their conversion, the Christian also; that he was ordained priest by the holy Demetrius, whose successor he became; that he converted many pagans, and chose Dionysius to assist him in administration, keeping the teaching office to himself. Origen (in Eusebius, Hist eccl., VI., xix. 13) justifies his own interest in profane learning by the example of Pantvnus and Heraclaa, "who is now a member of the presbyterium at Alexandria. I found him with the teacher of philosophical learning [Ammoniusl with whom he had already continued five years before I began to hear lectures on those subjects "‑‑so that Heraclas must have been born not long after 170. Origen himself made such an impression upon Heraclas that he and his brother were among the first auditors of the youthful teacher. At this time he became a Christian, and soon distinguished himself as a theologian. Origen entrusted to him the direction of the preparatory department of the catechetioal shool. He refused to support Origen in his contest with Demetrius, and after he went to Cmsarea succeeded him as head of the school, and about a year later became bishop of Alexandria. When Origen returned to Egypt, Heraclas excommunicated him once more, and deposed Bishop Ammonius of Themuis because he allowed him to preach in his church. Probably until the beginning of the third century the bishop of Alexandria was the only bishop in Egypt. Eutychius of Alexandria (q.v.) says (i. 332) that Deme'trius consecrated three others and Heraclas twenty, and that he was the first to be called patriarch.
(ADOLF HAENAC%.)
Brswomsprry: ASB, July, iii. 846‑847; M. Le Quien, Oriene Christianus ii. 392, Paris, 1740; Harnack, Gsachichte, i. 332, ii. 2, pp. 24‑25 et passim; Neander, Christian Church, i. 698, 700, 712; DNB, ii. 897.
HERACLEON. See VALENTEdUB Aim His ScaooL.
HERACLITUS, her"a‑clai'tvs: According to Eusebius (Hilt eccd., v. 27), the author of a lost work " On the Apostle " (probably a commentary on Paul's epistles), and a contemporary of Commodus. BuHLaoa8APHT: Harnaak, Littervtur,,i. 758‑759, ii. 1, p. 701; Kruger, History. P. 224.

HERBELOT, Ar"bldl, DE MOLAINVILLE, BARTHLLEMY DI: French Orientalist; b. in Paris Dec. 4, 1625; d. there Dec. 8, 1695. He studied at the University of Paris, where he devoted himself particularly to Oriental languages. Subsequently he spent a year and a half in Italy, going there to establish relations with people from the Orient. On his return to France he received the patronage of Fouquet and a pension of 1,500 livres. Of this last, however, he was deprived on the fall of his patron in 1661, but was then appointed secretary and interpreter of Oriental languages to the king. On a second visit to Italy in 1666, Ferdinand II. of Tuscany presented him with many valuable Eastern manuscripts, and sought to retain him at his court. Recalled to Paris by Colbert, he was granted a pension by Louis XIV.; and in 1692 he was appointed the successor of J. d'Auvergne in the chair

g~ 	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	$gB
of Syriac at the College Royal. His life was spent chiefly in the preparation of his well‑known BZliolUque orientale, ou dictionnaire univerael contenant g6n&alement tout ce qui regards la connoiasance des peuplea de d'Orimt (ed. A. Galland, Paris, 1697; reprinted, Maastricht, 1776 [supplement, 1780] ; Germ. transl., 4 vols., Halls, 1785‑90; best ed., 4 vols., The Hague, 1777‑79). The work is mainly an abridged translation of the immense Arabic encyclopedia of Hajji Khalfa, but it also contains the substance of other compilations and manuscripts. Despite occasional inaccuracies and inconsistencies, it has proved an invaluable storehouse of Oriental learning, and remains till to‑day the only work of the kind in this field. The Hague edition contains a supplement by A. Galland and C. de Visdelou, together with additional notes by H. A. Schultens and J. J. Reiske. A less desirable edition is the abridgment of M. Desessarts (6 vols., Paris, 17811783).
BIHwOGSAPHr: C. Perrault, Lee Hoimnss iUur*ww, vol. ii ., P0. 1700; C. Aneillon, Wnwirm eoncarnant Iea vs*se . . de . . . modernea cabbree, p. 134, Amsterdam, 1709;
Niobron, Manoirea, vol. iv.; Lichtenberger, EBR, vi. 186‑
187.

HERBEN, STEPHEN JOSEPH: Methodist Episcopalian; b. at London May 11, 1861. He emigrated to the United States in childhood, and was graduated at Northwesterb University, Evanston, Ill., in 1889, and Garrett Biblical Institute, Chicago, in 1891. In the latter year he was ordained to the Methodist Episcopal ministry, and was assistant editor of the Epworth Herald from 1890 to 1895, and of the Christian Advocate from 1895 to 1904. Since the latter year he has been editor of the Eptoorth Herald.

HERBERGEN ZUR RE13UT: The name given in Germany to certain inns or lodging‑houses (Herbergen) intended primarily for wandering artisans, and combining the comforts of the ordinary hostelry with the advantages of a refined and religious atmosphere. The founder of the system was Clemens Theodor Perthes (1809‑67), professor of jurisprudence at the University of Bonn, and son of F. C. Perthes, the celebrated publisher of Hamburg and Gotha. The need of amelioration in the condition of the wandering youth among the German working classes had long been recognized, and as early as the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century some attempts in that direction were made, chiefly through the publication of new guide‑books for the use of traveling journeymen. Johann Heinrich Wichern (q.v.) had discerned in the class of itinerant workingmen a dangerous means for the dissemination of communistic ideas. There existed in 1854, when Perthes first began his work, so‑called " Pilgrims' Houses " in a few of the larger cities, but these failed to reach the great mass of young men. The first Herberge zur Heimat was opened at Bonn in May, 1854, and such wise foresight did Perthes display in formulating his scheme that at the present day, when the number of workingmen's inns has risen to about 500, the same principles control that he advanced in his classic work on the subject
(Das Herbergatt der HandwerksgeseWn, Gotha, 1856; 2d ed., 1883).
The Herbergen are primarily public inns in that they are supplied with all the comforts to be found in such institutions, and are quite free from the suggestion of charity; expenses must be met by income, and only the funds necessary for the establishment of new houses are derived from free gifts. The Herbergen are conducted in a spirit of. strict Christian decency; the use of intoxicating liquors, gaming, and excess of all kinds are prohibited. Each house is under the management of a Hmuavater, who receives a fixed salary, and thus is free from temptation to advance his personal welfare at the expense of his guests. Morning and evening prayers are held by the Hau8vater, at which the guests are invited to be present, but attendance is voluntary. A broader spirit than that which prevailed during the first period of the system animated the management of the Herbergen during the last twenty years of the nineteenth century, the inevitable result of the great process of transformation from agriculture and home production to highly developed industry and commercialism that began in Germany after the war with France. With the influx of hordes of workingmen into the cities the old familiar relationship between Hausvater and guests became impossible; yet the old spiritual influence has not been abandoned. For the harmonious coordination of effort, provincial Herbergen associations as well as a national society have been organized.
(THEODOR SCHxlra‑R.)
BIDLIOGRAPHY: Besides the work of Perthee named in the text, consult: G. Augener, Die Herbergen zur Heimat and die VereinaMuser in ihrw aociaien Bedeutung ftw die Ge,Bielefeld, 1889, H. Rathmann Die Herberge, nacbiahoipen KtwoFkatunp, Hamburg,
1876; H. Hope, Die Herberge our Heiwat, in Kleine BibUothek fur innere Mission, parts ix.‑x., Leipsic, 1879; H. Cuno. Die Herbarge zur HeimA Bau and Einrirhtung, Leipsic, 1883; Die Harbergen zur Heimat, Dankschrift den Canbnl‑Auaac)waaee fttr innere Mission, Berlin, 1888. Much material on the subject may be found in the periodical Die Arbeiterkolonie, 1884‑‑98, succeeded by Der Wanderer, 1897 eqq.
HERBERGER, VALERIUS: Lutheran preacher; b. at Fraustadt (50 m.. s.s.w. of Posen) Apr. 21, 1562; d. there May 18, 1627. He studied for three years at Freistadt in Silesia, and then entered the University of Frankfort‑on‑the‑Oder, and in 1582 that of Leipsic. In 1584 he became a teacher in his native city, in 1590 deacon, and in 1599 pastor, in which office he was very successful under great difficulties. When Sigismund III., a pupil of the Jesuits, ordered his congregation to cede their house of worship to the Roman Catholics, Herberger soquired two private residences, which he gradually transformed into a church. In 1613 a pestilence broke out at Fraustadt. Herberger performed his pastoral duties with undaunted faithfulness, and in these anxious days composed his only song, which has found a place in all Evangelical hymn‑books, " Valet will ich air geben, du arge falsche Welt " (" O world, so vain, I leave thee "). He was a fertile writer. His most comprehensive work is Magnalia Dei de Jesu 8eripturte nucleo et medulla (12 parts, 1601‑18), meditations on the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, intended to emphasize the revela‑

983	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g
tion of Christ in the Old Testament. Herberger also
wrote commentaries on Rev. xsi.‑xxii. and pub
lished them as Himmlisches Jerusalem (1609). Of
his collections of sermons may be mentioned Pas
sionszeiger (1611), Trauerbinden or funeral ser
mons (7 vols., 1611‑21), Evangelische Hempostille
(1613). After his death appeared Epistolische Herz
postille, 97 Predigten uber Jesus Sirach, and Stop
pelpostitle (sermons on various texts). Several of
his works were reprinted in the nineteenth cen
tury. 	(FERDINAND COHRS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. F. Lauterbach, Vita, fama et /ate Valerii Herberperii, Leipsic, 1708 (the basis of numerous popular accounts); A. Henschel, Val. Herberper, Halle, 1889; ADA vol. xii. The volume of selected sermons, ed. Orphal, Leipsi0. 1892, contains a biographical introduction.
HERBERT, EDWARD (Lord Herbert of Cherbury). See DEIsM, I., 1 1.

HERBERT, GEORGE: English poet; b. at Montgomery, Wales, Apr. 3, 1593; d. at Bemerton (2 m. w. of Salisbury), Wiltshire, Feb., 1633 (buried Mar. 3). He was a brother of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. At the age of twelve he was sent to Westminster School, and subsequently to Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1613; M.A., 1616). Here his accomplishments secured him a fellowship in 1616, and the public or4torship of the university in 1619, a position which he resigned in 1627. As university orator he came into close contact with the king, and spent much time at court, hoping to obtain preferment in the service of the State. Among his friends were Francis Bacon, Sir Henry Wotton, Izaak Walton, John Donne, and Bishop Andrewes. On the death of James I. in 1625, he withdrew from court life and retired to the home of a friend in Kent to study theology. The following year he was ordained deacon and presented to the prebend of Layton Ecclesia, Huntingdonshire, to which was attached an estate, with a dilapidated church, at Leighton, two miles from Little Gidding, the home of Nicholas Ferrar (q.v.). Under Ferrar's guidance Herbert restored the church; and, indeed, it was largely through Ferrar's influence that he ultimately gave himself completely to a religious life. In Apr., 1630, he was presented by Charles I. to the rectory of Fugglestone with Bemerton, Wiltshire. His short ministry of three years at Bemerton was characterized by such a saint‑like devotion to his duties that he was called °' Holy George Herbert." Next to Christianity he loved the Established Church. His fame now rests upon the posthumous volume, The Temple: Sacred Poems and Private Ejaculations (ed. N. Ferrar, Cambridge, 1633, and often; facsimile reprint, with preface by J. H. Shorthouse, London, 1882). Though his poems are often marred by verbal conceits, their genuine piety and devotional fervor have made them religious classics, and given Herbert a position, shared only by John Keble, as the poet of Anglican theology. Herbert's prose‑work, A Priest to the Temple: or, the Country Parson (ed. H. C. Beeching, Oxford, 1898), first published in his Remains (London, 1652), is an excellent treatise on pastoral theology. Of the many editions of Herbert, the best is that by A. B. Grosart, The Complete Works
in Prose and Verse o j George Herbert, with valuable
introduction (3 vols., London, 1874).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A biographical notice by B. Oley was prefixed to the Country Parson, ed. of 1652 and often in late editions of his poems; the Memoir by Izaak Walton first appeared in 1670, then in the collected lives of Donne, Hooker, ed. d 1674, and often in editions of Herbert's poems. Consult: Life of George Herbert of Bemerton, London, 1893; A. G. Hyde, George Herbert and his Times, ib. 1906.
HERDER, hflr'der, JOHANN GOTTFRIED: Superintendent at Weimar, contemporary of Goethe, and influential both in German
	Life.	church affairs and German literature; b. at
		Mohrungen (62 m. ss.w. of Konigsberg),
East Prussia, Aug. 26, 1744; d. at Weimar Dec.
18, 1803. He studied theology, philosophy, and
ancient science at KSnigsberg, 1762‑64, and had
Kant as his teacher and fatherly friend. While
still a young clergyman and teacher at the Riga
cathedral school, he established his literary reputa
tion by the Fragments fiber die neueste deutsche
Letteratur (Riga, 1767) and the Kritischen Bilder
(1769). From 1771 to 1776 he had the position of
court preacher and councilor of the consistory at
Bilckeburg; then he was called to Weimar as super
intendent to undertake the management of ecclesi
astical and school affairs. Here he spent the rest
of his life, and here a bronze statue tells of his glory.
Herder, the theologian among the classics and the classic author among the German theologians, is equally great in poetry, criticism, in
His Great‑ the history of civilization, literature ness and and art, in philosophy and pedagogics, Ability. in religion, religious inquiry, and theology. Everywhere he sought new paths, found new openings, and inspired minds. The best thinkers of the nation, Leasing, Wieland, Goethe, Lavater, Jacobi, valued him highly. The extent of his knowledge is remarkably wide. He had an open eye for all that is true, good, and beautiful, wh:ch always and everywhere has proved the godly instinct of humanity. He united critical sharpness with intuitive geniality, deep learning with inexhaustible productivity. With most ardent diligence he collected the products of human civilization and godly revelation from the Bible, in the mythologies, popular traditions and songs, in the founders of religions and the lawgivers, poets, and thinkers of all nations, and all that he found here and in the philosophers from Zoroaster to Spinoza, Leibnitz, Rousseau, and Shaftesbury, he worked into his philosophy of mankind.
The dry veins of theology, too, were filled with fresh blood by Herder. His sense of truth and love of freedom, his refined taste and wide‑
His Service minded toleration, have had a very to Theology favorable influence upon religious life
and and ideas. Liturgics, homiletics, hymnReligion. ology owe him as much as the Christian catechism, the study of theology, and the practical training of the clergy. He revived church history, he freed dogmatics from the bonds of scholasticism; he was a great promoter of the esthetic and practical religious estimation of the Bible as well as of its historical and critical value; he discovered the law of a progressing reformation and

Rerder	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	234
wonderfully prepared the renovation of the Christian faith, the deliverance of the spirit of religion from the law of a dead form. Herder fought against the insipid and weak neology as well as against rigid orthodoxy. The Bible was all and everything to him. In the different epochs of his development he always was its defender, the cultivator of truly Protestant principles, an honest judge of the disputing parties, a prophet of the regeneration of Christianity, a speaker for Christian humanity. He does not dispute, like a scholastic theologian, for words, forms, theological formulas, but for the eternal truth of the gospel of love. He is not afraid to acknowledge the mythical, traditional, poetical elements in Bible history, but he always tries to set forth the highest ideas of God in their glory. He is neither a dry materialist nor a bombastic metaphysician. He wants to be a Bible‑theologian in the Spirit of Luther, and has become the " John the Baptist of modern theology."
Of his theological works the following may be mentioned here: Die dlteste Urkunde des Men8chen‑
geschlechts (2 vole., Riga, 1774‑76), inTheological quiries into the first two chapters of Works. Genesis; two contributions to New
	Testament theology entitled ErlButer
ungen sue einer neugeo fneten morgenlandischen
Quelle (the Zend‑Avesta; 1775) and Brie fe von zwei
Bradern Jesu in unserem Kanon (the Epistles of
James and Jude; 1775); also Provinzialbldtter an
Prediger (1774), an apology against the theology of
the Aufkldrung. These works Herder published
while at Bfckeburg. At Weimar he published
Lieder der Liebe (the Song of Solomon, " the purest
and sweetest love‑poetry of old times "; 1778);
Maran Atha oder das Bueh von der Zukunft des
Hewn (the Apocalypse; 1779); Briefe aberdas Sttc
dium der Theologie (178(1‑81), a kind of theolog
ical encyclopedia, including a whole series of essays
and inquiries of exegetic and dogmatic contents
about the " Redeemer according to the First Three
Gospels "; the " Son of God according to St. John
the Evangelist, the Facts of Whitsuntide, and of the
Resurrection"; about the "Spiritof Christianity" ;
"Religion in Comparison with Dogmatic Opinions
and Customs " ; " Christianity and anti‑Christian
ity"; Vom Geist der ebrdischen Poesie (2 vols., 1782
1783; Eng. transl., Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, 2 vols.,
Burlington, 1833), a book that broke a path for
the study of Hebrew Poetry (see HEBREw LAN
GUAGE AND LITERATURE, III.). Much that is of
value has also been preserved in Herder's occa
sional addresses and sermons. His deepest views
are revealed in his philosophical works concerning
God, " Perception and Feeling," and in the Ideen
zur Geschichte der Philasophie der Menschheit (4
vole., 1784‑91).
Herder's final and ripest ideal was the regeneration of Christianity through the Bible, the extension of the Reformation to church dogmas corrupted by Oriental and Alexandrian ideas, the restoration of the religion of Christ in contrast to the religion addressed to Christ, the revival of the ecclesiastical theory according to the Gospel of Christ, the renovation of religious language. He never tires of repeating that religion has its place in the mind and feeling,
and that the way of thinking, confidence, kindness,
charity, and truth are its quintessence and deepest
meaning. 	A. WERNER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A very rich literature is indicated in the British Museum Catalogue and Supplement. A complete edition of the Werke, ed. W. Suphan, appeared in 33 vols., Berlin, 1877‑99; his Brinnerungen in 2 vols. appeared Stuttgart, 1820; a Lebensbild in 3 vols., Erlangen. 18461848; Ungedruckte Briefs, 3 vols., Frankfort, 1856‑57; Brute von and an Herder, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1861‑62; Briefs an Hamann, Berlin, 1889. Consult: A. Werner, Herder ale Theolope, Berlin, 1871; R. Haym, Herder naeh aeinem Leban and Wirken, 2 vole., ib. 1877‑85; E. Kiihnemann, Herder, Leipsic, 1904; H. Dechent, Herder and die dethetieche Betrachtunp der heiligen $chrift, Lessen, 1904; K. Muthesius, Herder's Familienleben, Berlin, 1904; O. Baumgarten, Herder's Lebenmerk and die religi6se Frage der Gepenuiart, Tiibingen, 1905; R. Weilandt, Herders Theorie von der Religion, Berlin, 1905; R. Stephan, Herder in Backeburp, Tabingen, 1905.
HERDING. See PASTORAL LIFE, HEBREW.
HERESY: A view or opinion not in accord with the prevalent standards. The Greek word hairesis, meaning originally a choice, then a self‑chosen belief, is applied by the Fathers as early as the third century to a deviation from the fundamental Christian faith, which was punished by exclusion from the Church. From the end of the fourth century the emperors accepted the view that they were bound to use their temporal power against heretics for the maintenance of purity of doctrine; Theodosius the Great attempted to exterminate heretics by a system of penalties, which was extended by his successors and maintained by Justinian. Any deviation from the orthodox belief might be punished by infamy, incapacity to hold office or give testimony, banishment, and confiscation of property; the death penalty was only prescribed for certain sects, such as the Manichean. The severer punishments were imposed on the leaders of heretical sects, or for the conferring and receiving of orders within them and for public gatherings. This legislation was not accepted in the Merovingian kingdom, which left it to the Church to combat heresy with spiritual weapons; the Visigothic law, on the other hand, took the same standpoint as the Roman. The Carolingian period provided penalties for the practise of paganism; but in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the rise and spread of heretical sects, especially the Cathari, led to active ecclesiastical legislation against heresy. As early as the eleventh century, the secular authorities in France and Germany had punished individual heretics with death, and the councils of the twelfth declared them bound to use their power in this way. While Frederick 1. and II., and Louis VIII., IX., and X. of France were enacting laws of this kind, the ecclesiastical view that heresy came by right before the Church's tribunal led to the erection of special church courts with a procedure of their own (see INQLTISrrioN; JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL). In the present Roman Catholic practise, heresy is the wilful holding by a baptized person of doctrines which contradict any article of faith defined by the catholic Church, or which have been condemned by a pope or a general council as heretical, provided that the holder knows the right faith and makes open profession of his departure from it. The penalty is excommunieatio major kt® wntentiw, which

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Herder
Heretio $apUsm
by the constitution Apostolic® cures of 1869 is specially reserved to the pope; forfeiture of Christian burial; for clerics, deposition and degradation; for impenitent heretics, delivery to the secular arm for a variety of secular penalties. Theoretically, the Roman . Catholic Church still holds to the old severe legislation, and as late as 1878 Leo XIII. confirmed a ruling of the cardinal vicar based on these principles in relation to those who attended Protestant services in Rome. But the altered position of the Church in modern times permits only the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties. A number of decisions of the Congregation of the Holy Office and of local councils, it is true, still forbid absolutely any communicatio in ditrinis with heretics, such as attendance at Protestant services (for the purpose of worship), and extend as far as possible even to the avoidance of sending children to Protestant schools.
In the Evangelical Churches not a few relics of the older attitude have continued, although Luther at first was unwilling to recognize heresy as an offense; to say nothing of the burning of Servetus (q.v.), a number of the older Protestant constitutions regard heresy as a crime, with special reference to the Anabaptists, whose punishment by the severe measures of the secular government was applauded by the Reformers. But logically the Evangelical Church, which declines to force the consciences of its members, and appeals solely to Scripture for the confirmation of its doctrines, can only rebuke erroneous doctrines as erroneous, and commend to pastoral exhortation those who hold them. This does not prevent the disciplinary dismissal of a minister who in his teaching transgresses the bounds of Evangelical freedom; and on the part of a layman, a public attitude of hostility toward the Evangelical faith would properly subject him also to discipline, extending, in case of obstinate persistence, to formal exclusion from church fellowship, although in modern practise this is seldom employed. See ORTHODOxP. (P. HINseHlust)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: From the legal standpoint: B. Hobhouse, Treatise on Heresy as Cognizable by the Spiritual Courts, London, 1792, answered by F. Randolph, Scriptural Revision of Scriptural Arguments, ib. 1793; N. Mtinchen, Das kanonisehe Gerichtever/ahren and Strafrecht, ii. 315, Cologne, 1865; E. LSning, Geschichte deer deutachen Kirchunrachta, i. 95 eqq., 6trasburg, 1878; J. Havet, L'Htrteie et is bras e1culier au moyen dge, Paris, 1881; P. Farinacmus, Law of the Church of Rome in Cases o/ Heresy, London, 1885; B. Guidonis, Practica inquisitionis heretics pramtatia, Paris, 1886; A. L. Richter, Lehrbuch des . . %irchenrechts, ed. W. Ball, p. 229, Leipsic, 1886; P. Hinschius, %irchenrecht . . . in Deutschland, iv. 790, 844, 847, v. 157, 378, 679, vi. 186, 189, Berlin, 1886‑97.
On the historical side consult: G. Arnold. Unparteiische %irchen‑ and %etserhiatorie, Schaffhausen, 1740; C. W. F. Waleh, Entwurf einer oollatandigen Historie der %etzereien, 11 vole., Leipsic, 1762‑85; N. Imtdner, Hut. o/ the Heretics of the Pirat Two Centuries, London, 1780; E. Burton, The Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Oxford. 1829; C. U. Hahn, %etzer in Mittelalter, 3 vole., Stuttgart, 1846‑50; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecdeaiastiml Parties arid Schools of Religious Thought, Philadelphia, 1874; M. Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de loa heterodozos Espafiolss, 3 vols., Madrid, 1881; H. H. Wyatt, Principal Heresies Relating to our Lord's Inearnalion, London, 1881; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchriztenthums, Leipsie, 1884; F. Toeeo, L'Bresia net media evo, Florence, 1884; 6. E. Herrick, Same Herelies of Yesterday, Boston, 1885; P. Pierini, La Genesi del
Liberalismo, Prato, 1889; U. Robert, Lea Signs* d1infamie au moyen dge. Hlrdiquea, Paris, 1889; J. J. I. van D&llinger, Beitrdge zur Sektengeschidlte des Mittelalters, 2 vole., Munich, 1890; C. Heuner, Beitr4ge zur Organisation der pdpetlichen %etzergerichte, Leipsie, 1890; A D. White, 'ist. of the Warfare of Science with Theology, New York, 1896; H. C. Hiller, Heresies, 5 vols., London, 1899‑1902. A history of the attitude of the English law is given in J. H. Blunt, Dictionary a/ Doctrinal and Historical Theology, pp. 306‑311, Philadelphia, 1870. Consult also the literature under ARIANISM, ‑DONATIaM, EUTYCHIANIBM, GNoaTIC18M, INQuwrrION, MONTANIBM, PELAGIANISM, etc., and consult also the works on the history of the Christian Church; DCB, ii. 907‑911; DCA, i. 766‑769.

HERETIC BAPTISM.
Its	Validity Denied. Controversy between Cyprian
	and Stephen (§ 1).
The Donatist Controversy. Augustine (§ 2).
Attitude of the Eastern Church (§ 3).
The Roman Catholic Position (§ 4).
The Protestant Position (§ 5).
The initiation into the Church was accomplished from the beginning by Baptism (q.v.), and the ques‑
tion naturally arose, how is the rite to :. Its Valid‑ be regarded if the adminietrant did not ity Denied. belong to the true communion? If the Controversy working of the Spirit was effective exbetween elusively in the Church, a new baptism Cyprian and of those baptized into a heretical body Stephen. seemed inevitable. Even Clement of
Alexandria regarded the baptism of heretics as not genuine (Strom., i. 19). Tertullian declares with great vigor against heretic baptism (De baptismo, xv.), and in a Greek work now lost treated especially of the subject. A Carthaginian synod held under Agrippinus, between 200 and 220, declared baptism performed outside of the Church invalid (Cyprian, EPiat., lxx. Dxxi.] 4). In Asia Minor, at the synods of Iconium and Synnada, the baptism of the Montaniats was not recognized (Eusebius, Hist eccl., VIL, vii. 5; Firmilian, in Epist. Cypriani, lxxiv. [lxxv.] 5). As for Rome, Hippolytus charges Calixtus (pope 217‑222) with having first (hardly " especially ") introduced the repetition of baptism (Philmophoumena, ix. 12). Nevertheless, Stephen (253‑257) could assert as Roman tradition the reception of heretics and schismatics by mere imposition of hands. Stephen's position is not altogether clear. According to Cyprian (Epist., lxxiv. [lxgv.]) and Eusebius (Hilt. eccl., vii. 2), Stephen regarded the imposition of hands at the reception of all heretics as sufficient, but, some Christian form of baptism is evidently presupposed (Gyprian, Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.] 9, 18; lxxii. [lxxiii.] 18; lxxiii. (lxxiv.] 5). Also the beginning of the controversy with Cyprian is not clear. But Cyprian's letters lxvi. and lxvii. [lxviii. and lxvii.] show that the relation between Cyprian and Stephen, who held communion with bishops who had lapsed, was not at all friendly. According to the extant sources, Cyprian opened the controversy, probably provoked by Stephen. At first Gyprian carried on the contest with the help of African councils. The synod at Carthage, in 255, declared that " no one could be baptized out of the Church " (Cyprian, Epist., lxix. [lxx.] 1), without mentioning Stephen. At the synod of 256, seventyone bishops decided in like manner (Cyprian, Epist., Ixxii. [lxxiii.]), and so did the eighty‑seven bishops assembled on Sept. 1 of the same year; but their
Vol

Heretic Baptism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	238
Herkenne
decision was not to be binding upon bishops who
represented another tradition. Nevertheless, the
rupture with Rome could not be avoided (Cyprian,
EPist., lxxiii. [1xxiv.]), and this because Stephen
refused all concessions. Cyprian now tried to place
against the authority of Rome the " unanimity "
of the other bishops. Firmilian of Cwsarea in
Cappadocia joined him (Cyprian, Episst., lxxiv.
Dxxv.]), whereas Dionysius of Alexandria tried to
mediate. Death probably prevented Stephen from
excommunicating the churches of Cappadocia and
Cilicia. His successor, Sixtus IL, seems to have
been on friendly terms with Cyprian. See CYPRIAN,
§ 3; STEPHEN I., POPE.
	The question of heretic baptism came up again in
the Donatistic controversy, since the characteristic
of Donatism (q.v.) was the rebaptism of heretics
		and achismatics. At the Synod of Arles
	2. The	in 314 it was decided (canon viii.) that
	Donatist schismatics are to be received by mere
	Contra‑	imposition of hands. Caecilian gave
	versy.	up the previously existing African
Augustine. practise; but the Donatists in rejecting
		their opponents rejected also their
baptism, though they do not seem at first to have
consistently carried out their principle (cf. T. Hahn,
Tyconiusstudien, Leipsic, 1900, pp. 102 sqq.; Au
gustine, Epist., xciii. 43‑44). The persecution of
the Donatists by Macarius intensified their opposi
tion, but still they did not always rebaptize (Augus
tine, De baptismo, i. 2, 7, ii. 16‑17, v. 6, Contra
epist. Parmeniani, iii. 21, ii. 34). The Donatist
Tyconius opposed a rebaptism from principle. He
held that the sacraments of the Church catholic
were real; but in Africa, where the Church was
opposing Donatism, they were not the media of
salvation.	Tyconius's ideas were taken up by
Augustine and carried further. According to his
notion of the Church as the externs communio acusra
mentorum, i.e., a " communion of saints," he dis
tinguishes between the having baptism and the
having salvation through baptism. Though not
correctly, yet actually, baptism is administered
outside of the Church catholic (De baptismo, i. 2,
22‑23). The sacredness of the baptism can not be
destroyed by the unholy administrant, because it
has in itself the divine power for salvation or evil
(De baptismo, ii. 15). Even among heretics there
can be " a real Christian baptism " (De baptismo,
v. 2, 5). The baptismal formula according to the
Gospel guarantees the sacrament, hence the achis
matics also have a " legitimate " sacrament, though
not " legitimately " (De baptismo, v. 8). Inde
pendent of administrant and recipient a character
dominicus belongs to baptism (De baptismo, vi. l;
cf. Contra epist. Parmeniani, ii. 29); for not the ad
ministrant, as Petilian says, but Christ, is the
" origin and root and head of the baptized " (Contra
epist. Petiliani, iii. 64). But of course only in the
Church catholic is baptism received for salvation
(De baptismo, vi. 78, vii. 75, Contra Cresconium,
i. 27‑28); for the forgiveness of sins is entirely con
nected with the Church (De baptistno, iii. 22, v. 29).
An unbeliever who has been baptized does not
receive forgiveness or loses it at once, yet if he be
converted he needs no rebaptism (De baptismo,
i . 18‑19, iii. 18; and elsewhere). But what prevents the schismatic from receiving salvation is his lack of love. True, the Holy Spirit dwells even in a schismatic communion, but not as the spirit of love. Hence a schismatic, be he ever so praiseworthy, has not the irue love, but only he who has become a " partaker in the holy unity " (Contra Cresconium, ii. 16 sqq.). Without love all sacraments avail nothing, and love is wanting in the schismatic (De baptismo, i. 12, 22, ii. 22, iii. 20 aqq., iv. 24 aqq_). __
In the East, the attitude toward heretic baptism was uncertain and depended on the estimate of the
various sects. The eighth canon of the 3. Attitude Council of Nicsea recognizes the bap‑
of the tism of the Novatians; canon xix.
Eastern rejects that of the adherents of Paul
Church. of Samosata. The Synod of Laodicea
(c. 360) also makes distinctions (canons vii. and viii.). The Apostolic Constitutions refuse to acknowledge baptism by heretics, but forbid a repetition of the rite (vi. 15). The Second Trullan Council (692) distinguishes again between heretics.
In the West, Augustine laid a lasting foundation for the estimate of heretic baptism. Followinghim,
Peter Lombard ("Sentences," IV., 4. The dist. 6 A) says that persons baptized
Roman by heretics with the Christian baptis‑
Catholic mat formula are to be received by
Position. imposition of hands. Bonaventura (on
Peter Lombard, ut sup.) sees a reason for not repeating baptism in the " impression of a character." Thomas Aquinas (Summa, iii., qucest. 66, art. 9) emphasizes the indelible character which baptism impresses, but holds that the res sacramenti, the blessed efficacy, is lacking to heretics. The decree of the Council of Florence for the Armenians (§ 10; cf. H. Denzinger, Encheiridion, W iirzburg, 1888, p. 161) declared that even a heathen and heretic can baptize "provided he keeps to the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does," but the decree for the Jacobites (Denzinger, ut sup., p. 170) says that only in the Church are the sacraments sufficient for salvation. The Council of Trent acknowledged as valid baptism performed by heretics in the name of the Trinity " with the intention of doing what the Church does " (Session vii., de baptismo, canon iv.), and in view of this demanded the obedience of all baptized (canon viii.; cf. the letter of Pius IX. to the emperor of Germany in 1873, in Mirbt, Quellen, p. 386). At the Synod of Evreux in 1576 it was decided (and often repeated afterward) that the Protestants were not to be denied the general intention. In practise the disposition prevails to rebaptize Protestant converts, but with exceptions.
Protestantism has from the beginning preserved its ecumenical character in the estimate of baptism.
Hence in the Lutheran Church, in case 5. The of necessity, the administration of
Protestant baptism even by a Roman Catholic
Position. priest has been conceded. Calvin, in
1565, allowed the non‑Lutherans at Frankfort to have their children baptized by Lutheran ministers. Only against the validity of baptisms by anti‑Trinitarian communions are

987	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Heretic Baatiem
		Herkenne
doubts entertained by Protestants, some maintain
ing that a communion which does not baptize in
the name of Christ has no Christian baptism at all.
But where baptism receives into the congregation
of believers in Christ, it can not be repeated, because
it is the inviolable gift of adoption through Christ.
		N. BONwETscCH.
BIBLIOoRAPar: The sources are: Cyprian, Eyistola, lxix.
	lxxv., ed. G. Hartel, ii. 547 sqq., 3 vols., Vienna, 1868‑71,
	and the anonymous De rebaptismate, ib., iii. 69 eqq. (Eng.
	tranel. of these is to be found in ANF, v. 375‑402 and
	6671 sqq.); Eueebius, Hist. ecd., VIL, ii.‑ix.; and the
	anti‑Donatistic writings of Augustine. Consult: J. W.
	F. HSfling, Do# Sakrament der Taufe, i. 62 sqq., Er
	langen,1846; W. Elwin, Hilt. of Church Opinion . . . with
	Reference to Heretical, Schiamatical and Lay Admini8tra
	tion, London, 1889; T. Hahn, Tyconiusstudien, Leipsic,
	1900; J. Ernst, Die Ketzertaufangelepenheit in der all
	chrietlichen Kirche, Mainz, 1901; Hefele, Concilienpe
	echichte, i. 117 sqq., 201 eqq., 407 eqq., 427 sqq., Eng.
	transl., i. 98 sqq., 180 sqq., 409 sqq., 430 eqq.; Neander,
	Christian Church, i. 317‑323, ii. 219; Schaff, Christian
	Church, ii. 262‑265. Further matter is found in the lit
	erature under CTPRIAN and AvausrlNa.
	HERGENROETHER, her'gen‑r0"ter, JOSEPH:
Roman Catholic scholar; b. at Wiirzburg Sept. 15,
1824; d. in the Cistercian monastery of Mehrerau
(1J m. w. of Bregenz) Oct. 3,	1890. He studied
at Wurzburg and in Rome, and was ordained priest
there in 1848; became professor extraordinary
(1852), and ordinary professor of ecclesiastical law
and history (1855) at Wiirzburg. In 1868‑69 he
was one of the committee to prepare for the Vatican
Council, and took a consistent stand in favor of
the infallibility dogma. Pius IX. made him one of
his domestic prelates; and Leo XIII., on May 12,
1879, cardinal deacon and the first prefect of the
apostolic archives. His publications are numerous;
of especial interest are DerKirchenstaat seit der iran
z6sischen Revolution, Freiburg‑im‑Breiagau, 1860;
Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, 3 vols., Re
gensburg,1867‑69 (one of the great monographs of
modern times; in vol. 3 is Monumenta Grceca ad
Photium ejusque historiam 8peetantia, also separately
issued, 1869); Anti‑Janus, Freiburg, 1870 (English
transl., Dublin, 1870; a reply to D611inger'a Janus);
Katholische Kirche and christlicher Staat in ihrer
geschiehtlichen Entwicklung and in Beziehung auf die
Fragen der Gegenwart,1872, abridged ed.,1873 (Eng.
transl., Catholic Church and Christian State, 2 vols.,
London, 1876, with a supplementary volume of
documents and appendixes, 1876); Handbuch der
allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte,	3 vols., Freiburg,
1876‑80. He also continued	Hefele's Cortcilien
geschichte by publishing vole. viii. and ix. (1887
1890), published the RegestaLeonis X., sections 1‑8,
1884‑91, and was the editor of the great Kirchen
lezikon of Wetzer and Welte, 2d ed., 1880‑1901.
BIBLIooaArar: J. B. Stamminger, Zum Ged&Atniase Car
	dinal Hergenrbthers, Freiburg, 1892; J. Nirechl, Ged"h
	nisrede out Cardinal J. Herpenr6dw, Bregena, 1897.
	HERIGER, har"i"ZhA': Abbot of Lobbes (Lau
bach, in Belgium, 10 m. a.w. of Charleroi on the
Sambre); d. at Lobbea Oct. 31, 1007. As a monk
he taught with much success at Lobbes, the seat of
a famous school, between 970 and 980. In all
ecclesiastical and political affairs he was the right
hand of the great Bishop Notker of Lidge (q.v.)
and accompanied him on his journey to Rome in
989. In 990 he became abbot of the monastery. Next to Gerbert of Aurillac (see SYLVESTER II., POPE) Heriger was perhaps the most important and versatile writer of his time. The following of his works have been preserved: (1) Gesta episcoporum Tungrenaium et Leodicensium, written before 980; it extends only to the death of Bishop Remaclus (667 or 671) and is of little value. (2) S. Landvaldi et sociorum translatio, written after June, 980, at the order of Notker for the monks of St. Bavo in Gheflt; the saint and his associates are not known and seem to be fictitious. (3) Vita S. Uramari, a fragment in hexameter. (4) Epiatola ad quendam Hugonem monachum, concerning the calculation of the Easter term, the extent of the time of Advent, and some chronological problems. (5) Regulte nummorum super abacum Gerberti, a mathematical work. (6) Libellus de eof pore et sanguine Domini.
(H. B6HnfHR.)
BIBLIooRAPHr: Parts of his works are in MGH, Script., vii (1846), 134 sqq., and xv (1888), 599 eqq., and in MPL, cxxmix. For his life consult: Sigebertue Gemblacends, De saiptoribue eccieaiaeticie, chap. a:axvii., in MPL, alx.; Hiataire litt&aire de la France, vii. 194 eqq., 472 eqq.; Wattenbach, DGt2, f. 382‑383, 385; Hauck, KD, iii. 319, 326, 485, 486; K. Werner, Gerbert von Aurillac, Vienna, 1881.
HERIMANN CONTRACTUS. See HERMAN CorrTRACTU9.
HERING, HERMANN JULIUS: German Lutheran; b. at Dallmin (a village of Brandenburg) Feb. 26, 1838. He was educated at the University of Halle (1858‑62), and was then deacon at Weissensee, Thuringia (1863‑69), archdeacon at Weissenfels‑on‑the‑Saale (1869‑74), chief pastor at Ltltzen (1874‑75), and superintendent there (1875‑78). From 1878 until his retirement in 1908 he was professor of practical theology at Halle, being also consistorial councilor after 1894 and university preacher after 1902. He has likewise been president of the society for the care of released convicts in the Prussian province of Saxony and the duchy of Anbalt since 1893, and in theology adheres to the orthodox school. He has written: Die Myatik Luthers im Zusammenhang seiner Theologie and in ihrem Verhdltnis zur tiheren Mystik (Leipaie, 1879); Doctor Pomeranua, Johannes Bugenhagen (Halls, 1888); Hilfsbuch zur Einfuhrung in daa liturgische Studium (Wittenberg, 1888); Heinrich Hofmann, sein Leben, sein Wirken and seine Predigt (in collaboration with M. KShler, Halle, 1900); and Der akademische Gottesdienst in Halle von seiner Grandung bis zu seiner Erneuerung urea der Kampf um die Schulkirche (Halls, 1908). He has also edited selected sermons of Berthold of Regensburg and A. Tholuek for Die Predigt der Kirche (xxi., xxviii., Leipaic, 1893‑95), and since 1894 has been the editor of the Sammlung von Lehrbiichern der praktiachen Theologie, to which he himself contributed Lehre von der Predigt (2 vols., Berlin, 1905).
HERKENNNE, HEINRICH: German Roman Catholic; b. at Cologne July 5, 1871. He studied at Bonn and Miinater 1890‑95, and since 1898 has been lecturer at the Collegium Albertinum, Bonn, also privat‑docent for Old Testament exegesis at the university in the same city since 1903. He has

He maaa o! Wied	THE NEW .SCHAF'F‑HERZOG	1;88
written De vvterfa Latince Ecclesiastics capitxbus i.‑xliii., una cum nods ex eiusdem libri translationibus Xthiopiea, Armeniaca, Copticis, Latina alters, Syro‑Hexaplari depromptis (Leipsic, 1897); and Die Briefs zu Beginn des zweiten Maccabderbuches (Freiburg, 1903).
HERKLESS, JOHN: Scotch Presbyterian; b. at Glasgow Aug. 9, 1855. He was educated at the udiversities of Glasgow (187281) and Jena (1880); was tutor in English literature in Queen Margaret
College, Glasgow (1880‑83); assistant, minister in St. Matthew's Parish Church, Glasgow (1881‑‑83), and minister of the parish of Tannadice (1883‑94). Since 1894 he has been regius professor of ecclesiastical history in St. Andrew's University. He has written Cardinal Beaton, Priest and Politician (Edinburgh, 1891); Richard Cameron (1896); The Church o f Scotland (London, 1897); Francis and Dominic (Edinburgh, 1901); The Early Christian Martyrs (London, 1904); The College of St. Leonard (Edinburgh, 1905); and The Archbishops of St. Andrews, i. (1907), in addition to editing Hebrews in The Temple Bible (London, 1902).
	HERLE, CHARLES: English Puritan; b. at
Prideaux Herle, Cornwall, 1598; d. at Winwick,
Lancashire, Sept., 1659. He entered Exeter College,
Oxford, in 1612, and took his master's degree in
1618. He settled as a minister, at first in Devon
shire, but soon after became rector of Winwick in
Lancashire, where he remained until his death.
He was appointed one of the Westminster Assembly
of Divines in 1643, and, after the death of Dr.
Twisse, as prolocutor of the same; in which position
he continued to the close. He was a generous
minded Puritan and Presbyterian, with an irenic
spirit, and took an active part in the organization
of the Provincial Assembly of Lancashire, in pro
viding a learned and faithful ministry for the
churches, and in excluding the scandalous and igno
rant, for which he received much ill‑deserved re
proach. His principal works are of a practical
character: Contemplations and Devotions (pp. 546,
London, 1631); Independency on Scriptures of the
Independency of the Churches (4to, pp. 44, London,
1643), irenic toward the Independents; and Wis
dom's Tripos (London, 1655), in which he shows the
excellency of Christian wisdom above that of
worldly policy and moral prudence. He also deliv
ered several sermons before Parliament, of which
may be mentioned A Pair of Compasses for Church
and State (Nov., 1642) and David's Song (June,
1643). For further information see Wood, Athence
Oxonimses, iii. 477; and Reid, Memoirs o f West
minster Divines (Paisley, 1811). C. A. BRiGGs.
HERMAN (HERIMAN) CONTRACTUS ("the Lame "): One of the most learned men of the eleventh century and one of the best German chroniclers; b. July 18, 1013; d. in the monastery of Reichenau (on an island of the Untersee of the Lake of Constance, 4 m. n.w. of Constance) Sept. 21, 1054. When Herman was only seven years old he entered the monastery of Reichenau which, under Abbot Berno (q.v.), was renowned for its scientific achievements. In his thirtieth year he took the vows. Though early lamed by gout, he
was very gifted, and distinguished himself especially
in mathematics, astronomy, and music. His schol
arship attracted numerous pupils. He composed
poems, but his principal work is a chronicle from
the birth of Christ, and is the first world‑chronicle
of the Middle Ages. Its chief merit lies in its strict
chronological arrangement. From 1040 to 1054, the
year of Herman's death, he relates from his own
recollections and the reports of contemporaries, and
his chronicle is a valuable source for the time of
Henry III. 	(WILHELM ALTmANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Herman's Chronicon, ed. G. H. Pert, is in MGH Script, v (1844), 67‑133, cf. J. May, in NA, xii (1887), 226‑231; a German tranel. by K. Nobbe, ad. W. Wattenbach, was published Leipsic, 1883. An early Vita is in MPL, cxliii. 24‑30. Consult ASB, July, iv. 580; H. Hansjaoob, Herimann der Lahme, Mainz, 1875; H. Bresslau, in NA, ii (1877), 566‑576; W. Wattenbach, DGQ, ii (1894), 41 eqq.; W. Gundlach Heldenlieder der deutachen Kaiaerzeit, ii. 122 sqq., Innsbruck, 1896; J. R. Dieterich, Die Geaehicladaquellen lee Kloaters $eidumu Giessen, 1897, cf. NA, xxiii (1898), 268; further literature is in Potthast, Wegweiaer, pp. 587‑588.

HERMAN OF FRITZLAR: The putative author or collector of a life of the saints which, according to its own statement, was written in the years 1343‑49. It consists of a preface followed by a number of sermons on the lives of the saints, written in the dialect of central Germany and valuable for the descriptions they contain of contemporary life in Germany and the Romance countries. Mingled with the legendary material are speculations of a mystic character bearing the imprint of the later Eckhartian thought. The author must have traveled extensively in southern Europe, but it is now known that it is incorrect to attribute to Herman an important part in the compilation, which was largely the work of the writer of the manuscript. The collection goes back to an earlier aggregation of sermons collected by the Dominican Gisiler of Slatheim (Schlotheim, n.w. of Erfurt), in which, with still earlier sermons, the compiler included some of his own delivered at Erfurt before 1337. Probably Gisiler was the composer of both oollmtions, the latter being made at the suggestion of Herman, some of whose experiences were added to the contents of the first work.
(A. HEGLERt) K. HoLL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Pfeiffer, Deutsche Myatiker des roiarzehnten Jahrhunderta, i., pp. xiu.‑xxii., 1‑258, 408‑472, 570574, Leipsio, 1845; W. Preger, Geechirhu der deutaden Myatik im Mittelalter, ii. 91 eqq., 160 sqq., 426 sqq., 447 sqq., Leipsic, 1881; ADB, viii. 118‑119.
HERMAN OF LEHNIN. See LEA PROPHECY.
HERMAN OF RYSWICg: Heretic; burned at the stake in The Hague Dec. 14, 1512. His name and the place of his condemnation indicate that he was a Netherlander. In 1502 he was condemned to life imprisonment on charges of heresy by the inquisitor Johannes van Ommaten, and perhaps would have come to the stake at that time, had he not expressed repentance for his views. It is not known how long or where he was imprisoned. But he escaped, and began again to teach his heresies and promulgate them in writing. In 1512 he was tried, and after his admission that he had written the numerous heretical books laid before him, he was

$89	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Herklees
		Herman of Wied
condemned and burned. It is said that his books
were burned with him.
	Among the heresies of Herman were the asser
tions that the world exists from eternity; there are
neither good nor bad angels; there is no hell and
no personal continuance after this life; Aristotle
and his commentator, Averroes, approached truth
most closely; Jesus was a fool and miserable
dreamer, a seducer of simple men; he spoiled the
whole world and saved nobody, and it is lamentable
that so many have been murdered for his sake and
for the sake of his foolish Gospel; everything he did
is in contradiction with human nature and pure
reason; he is not the son of almighty God.
		(S. D. VAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bernhard of Lutzenburg, Catalogue hereti
	corum, book if., Cologne, 1529; P. Fredericq, Corpus docu
	mentarum inquisitionis . . . Neeriandica•, i. 494, 501‑503,
	Ghent, 1889; W. Moll, Kerkgeschiedenis van Nederland,
	ii. 3, pp. 104‑108, 375, 378, Arnheim, 1864‑71.
	HERMAN OF SCHEDA: Jewish proselyte; b. at
Cologne 1108; d. about 1198. He came of a well
to‑do Jewish family and received the name Judah.
In 1127 he lent Bishop Ekbert of Monster a con
siderable sum of money,' and shortly afterward,
incited by his father, went to Munster to collect
the same. During a stay of twenty weeks there he
heard sermons, and became well disposed toward
Christians. On his return to Cologne in 1128 he
married, and owing to the opposition of his people
to his association with Christians, determined to
change his religion and fled to Mainz and Worms.
He found refuge in the cloister of Rabengresburg and
received Christian baptism at Cologne near the end
of 1128. Herman then entered the Premonatra
tensian cloister of Kappenberg, and shortly before
1150 became abbot of the neighboring cloister of
Scheda. He gave an account of his conversion in
an autobiography written about 1136. It was first
edited by J. B. Carpzov as an appendix to his edition
of R. Martini's Pugio fulei (Leipsic, 1687; reprinted
in MPL, clxx. 803 aqq.). This text was edited by
J. D. von Steinen, on the basis of another manu
script, in Kurze Beschrexbung der hochadeligen
Gotteshduser Kappenberg and Seheda (Dortmund,
1741).		(R. SEEBERG.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. 6eeberg, Hermann von Scheda, tin iiadi
	acher Proadyt des 18. Jahrhunderta, Leipsic, 1891; J. M.
	8chrtiekh, Christliche Kirdengeachichte, xxv. 384 sqq., 35
	parts, Leipsic, 1772‑1827; H. F. Reuter, Geachichte der
	religi6sen Autkldrung im Mittelalter, i. 158 sqq., Bonder
	hausen,1875.
	HERMAN OF SCHILDESCHE (also called
Herman of Westphalia): Augustinian; b. at Schil
desche, near Bielefeld, Westphalia, toward the
close of the thirteenth century; d. at W(irz
burg July 8, 1357. He entered the order of
the Augustinian Eremites and visited the Uni
versity of Paris about 1320. In 1337 he was
provincial of the Augustinian province of Thuringia
and Saxony. In 1338, by appointment of the Ger
man episcopate, he negotiated with Pope Benedict
XII. in the cause of the reconciliation of the curia
with Louis the Bavarian. From 1342 he made his
residence at Wtirzburg, where he officiated tempo
rarily as vicar‑general and first penitentiary of the
resident bishop. Of his numerous writings, only
the Speculum manuale sacerdotum, a brief introduc
tion to the conduct of the spiritual office, is extant
in print. Among his theological writings may be
mentioned the polemical tract Contra heretwos
negantes immunitatem et jurisdictionem etxlesim,
which was inspired by John XXII., about 1330,
against the doctrines of Marsilius of Padua; and his
controversial tracts Contra jlagellatores, and Contra
hereticos (Leonistas live Pauperes de Lugduno) di
centes miesm comparationem ease speciem symonim.
Besides philosophical writings, Herman also wrote
an Introductorium pro studio sacrorum canonum,
which became the basis of a series of similar popular
canonical works of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. 	HERMAN HAUPT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The latest and authoritative description of Herman's life and writings is in E. Seckel, Beitrdge Sur Geschichte beider Rechte im AfitteWter, i. 129 eqq., Tilbingen, 1898. Consult: H. Fineke, in Zeitachrilt for vaterundiache (westfAlieehe) Geechichte, xlv. 1 (1889), 124, xlvi. 1 (1888), 201 sqq., xlvii. 1 (1889), 220 eqq., and in Hiatoriachea Jahrbuch, x (1889), 568 sqq.

HERMAN OF WESTPHALIA. See HERMAN oh SCHILDESCHE.
HERMAN OF WIED: Archbishop (Herman V.) of Cologne; b. Jan. 14, 1477, fourth son of Count Frederick of Wied (32 m. s.e. of Cologne); d. at
Vied Aug.15, 1552. At the age of six he was given a benefice in the cathedral chapter of Cologne. In 1493 he was immatriculated under the‑ law faculty in Cologne. In 1515 he was elected archbishop of Cologne. His intellectual attainments were not high, and, upon his own admission, he was more interested in his position as prince than as bishop. Originally he opposed Luther, but through the influence of Erasmus, Butzer, and Melanchthon, he became favorable to the Reformation and undertook certain ecclesiastical reforms in his archdiocese, thereby coming into conflict with the Curia and Popes Clement VII. and Paul III. After the recess of the Diet of Regensburg he called Butzer to his court and had him prepare a scheme for a reformation. This was accepted by the civil authorities, and by a part of the clergy; and the following Easter the communion was administered according to an Evangelical rite. Subsequently Herman summoned to his aid other Protestant theologians, including even Melanchthon. However, on the petition of the majority of the clergy, Charles V. interfered. The archbishop was cited to appear in Brussels and Rome, and a suit was brought against his adherents in the cathedral chapter. Herman turned to the Schmalkald League for support, but in vain. In April, 1546, he was excommunicated by the pope; and in Jan., 1547, the secular estates of Cologne were compelled by imperial commissioners to pay homage to Count Adolf of Schaumburg, hitherto the coadjutor, as their new master. By his unwillingness to agree to the Interim, Herman came into many a difficult position; but all threats and dangers were unable to shake his faith.
K. VARRENTRAPP.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources and older literature are indicated in C. Varrentram, Hermann von Wied und rein se. formationavdsuch in KSln, Leipeic, 1878, and in ZKG xx (1899), 37 sqq.; A. Hasenclever, Die Politik der schmmY kaldener vor Ausbruch des sdtmalkoidiwhen Kriaga, vaL

Hermann	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Hermeneutics		1340
xaiv. of E. Ebering's Hietoriede Studien, Berlin, 1901; idem, id Zeitechrdft des Berg. Geeekickteoereine, vol. xxv.; G. Wolf, Aue Kurkoln im 16. Jahrhundert, pp. 28 eqq., Berlin, 1906.

HERMANN, NIgOLAUS: German Evangelical hymn‑writer and bomposer; b. at Altdorf (13 m. e.s.e. of Nuremberg) near the end of the fifteenth century; d. at Joachimathal (14 m. n.n.e. of EIbogen inBohemia)May 3,1561. Shortly after 1516 he became a teacher in the Latin school of the mining town of Joachimsthal. Upon his inquiring whether he should leave his place on account of religious differences, Luther encouraged him to stay. He soon found a strong supporter and friend in the rector of the school, later pastor of the town, Johann Mathesius. Troubled with gout, he was compelled to resign his office, and enjoyed his freedom, which he spent in composing hymns. These, his main work, are found in two probably incomplete collections: Sonntags‑Evangelien (Wittenberg, 1560) and Historien won der Sind fludt, etc. (1562). For the matter of his hymns he is dependent on Mathesius, but surpasses him in the form. Judged not by a general standard but with due regard to his uncultivated sense‑ of beauty and the imperfect poetical development of the period, Hermann deserves a place of honor among religious singers. Many of his hymns seem dry rimed prose, as mere mechanical counting of syllables, unpleasantly rude. But his thorough devotion to God, in the spirit of the Bible and the Reformers, his touching simplicity and fervor, his simple sweetness, his deep feeling, his rustic naturalness, not without a touch of humor‑all these things compensate in large measure for his defects. He closes the first period of Evangelical religious poetry, whose characteristic expression is the hymn of faith and confession; he paves the way for the didactic and personal, in which he found many followers inferior to himself. His Christmas hymn, " Lobt Gott, ihr Christen, alle gleich" (" Let all together praise our God "), strikes so happily the true note that it remains the purest and heartiest expression of the Christmas joy. Very popular is also his funeral hymn " Wenn mein Stundlein vorhanden ist" (" When my last hour is close at hand "). The bridal song, "Hiefiir, hiefiir, vor eines frommen Breutgams Thar". ("Come forth, come forth, unto a happy bridegroom's door "), is not yet forgotten in the Erzgebirge. He is most happy in his rimes for children. Intimately connected with his duty of precentor is his Latin metrical work for liturgical use. In the Joachimsthal, Latin had been retained as the language of public worship, together with the accentus ecckaiaatici, the musical arrangement for the recital of the lessons. The most remarkable thing in the Joachimsthal liturgy, though not unprecedented, is the retention of the very ancient form of the " prose " in harmony with the contents of the liturgical gospels. These " proses " alone afford an opportunity to know Hermann as Latin rimer, and give evidence also of his skill in. calligraphy. Like many people in those days, Hermann was at once a poet and composer. He also gave a new importance to the chorale, based on the Gregorian
plain‑chant sung in unison, and composed in .this
line himself. It is true that he had no training in
technique‑he tries nothing more than unpretend
ing two‑part songs‑and was only a simple leader
of popular melody. But his tunes have a childlike,
joyous, lovely, always elegant expression, and are
easily intelligible. Some may be reckoned among
the best of their class, and are still in use, such as
" Erschienen ist der herrliche Tag " (" The day hath
dawned‑the day of days "). Five of his other
hymns have been translated and sung in English;
and the melody known as " St. George's, old " is
by him. 	GEORG LoEBCHE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. C. Wetsel, HymnopoWraphia, i. 413,
	Nuremberg, 1719; J. Mfltsell,.Geiatliche Lieder der eoangeli
	eehen Kirche, pp. 401‑449 Berlin, 1855; P. Wackernagel,
	Bibliopraphie our Geschwhte des deutacken Kirchenliedea,
	pp. 303‑308, 322‑324 Frankfort, 1855; G. Loesche, Zur
	Agenda won Joachimatha4 pp. 183‑170, "Sion&," 1892;
	idem. Nikolaua Hermann. Rini Mandat, O Jeeu Christi,
	1908; ADB, xii. 188; Julian, Hymnology, 513‑514.
HERMANN VON DER HARDY. See HARDY, HERMANN VON DER.
HERIL43NSBURG MISSION. See HARMS, GEORG, LUDWiG DETLEV THEODOR.

HERMAS: The name assigned by tradition to the author of a book highly regarded in the early Church and frequently included in the New
" The Testament, commonly known as " The Shepherd." Shepherd," no doubt from the appear‑
Manu‑ ance and title assumed by the angel scripts and who communicates a part of the rev‑
	Versions.	elations contained in it. According to
		the received division, the work includes
five " Visions,'' twelve " Mandates," and ten " Simil=
itudes." The complete work is not now extant
in the original Greek, but the manuscript material
has been notably increased in recent years. There
are three defective manuscripts of the Greek: the
" Shepherd " stood originally at the end of the
Codex Sinaitieus (see BmLE TExT, Il., 1, § 2),
where all beyond Mand. IV., iii. 6 has been
lost; of the Codex Athova‑Lipsiensis a Greek,
Constantine Simonides, stole three leaves (5, 6,
9) from Mount Athos and sold them in Leipsic
with a forged copy of the rest in 1855, and leaves
1‑4, 7, 9 were afterward found at Athos extending
only to Sim. ix. 30; a papyrus from the Fay
y1am, now in Berlin, contains two small and
much mutilated sections, Sim. ii. 7‑9 and iv.
2‑5. Of translations, the Latin Vulgata exists in
numerous manuscripts (first published by Faber
Stapulensis, Paris, 1513). Another, Latin one,
the Palatina, is found in one manuscript. There
is also an Ethiopic version discovered by D'Abbadie
and published in 1860, based on a text akin to the
Sinaiticua. The older editions, relying wholly on
the Vulgata, are worthless. Hilgenfeld was the first
to publish a really critical edition.
The book is a series of visions, with their interpretation, all intended to call Hermas, and through him the Church, to repentance. The time for this is limited, and will end with the completion of the building of " the Tower " (the Church). God has caused the work to cease for a time, that men may come to repentance; but the pause will not last

RELIGIOUS
long‑new severe persecutions and the end of the world are near. Logically the book falls into two
parts, the first including Vis. i.‑iv., Contents of two visions calling to repentance and the Book. two giving reasons for its necessity.
Via. v. is an introduction to the second part, which contains the twelve " Mandates " or commandments revealed to Hermas. They cover (1) faith in the one God; (2) simplicity and love of one's neighbor; (3) truth; (4) chastity; (5) patience and mercy; (6) good and evil angels; (7) the fear of God; (8) self‑restraint; (9) trust in God; (10) sadness and joy; (11) false prophets; (12) combat with evil desires. The first eight " Similitudes " are also visions, proclaiming the approaching completion of the Church and the call to repentance. Sim. ix. is a sort of recapitulation, with some modifications, and Sim. x. is an epilogue to the whole work.
There is no agreement as to the identity of the author or the date of composition. On the one
hand, the Muratorian fragment asserts Author explicitly that the work was written and Date. in the time of Pius I. (i.e., about 140)
by his brother; on the other, the book contains indications of an earlier date, such as the mention of Clement in Via., II., iv. 3, which would throw it back into the first century. There are difficulties in the acceptance of either of these theories. There is much in the book which does not fit the end of the first century. The Church has already lost its first fervor; traitors, hypocrites, and seekers of pleasure have crept in; and the beginnings of Gnosticism are already visible.
If, however, the view of the majority (Ewald, Ritschl, Dorner, Heyne, Hilgenfeld, Harnack, etc.) be adopted and a date near the middle of the second century be assigned, other difficulties arise. The author knows nothing of a monarchical episcopate in Rome; the heads of the Gnostic party do not come in; there is no trace even of Marcion, who came to Rome in 138 or 139. The mention of Clement has not been satisfactorily explained away. And it is difficult to see how the book could have attained such universal prominence in the Church if it was so late a product. Irenaeus cites it as Scripture, and so does the Pseudo‑Cyprian (Adv. aleatares). ‑Clement of Alexandria makes considerable use of it, and Origen holds it to be inspired.
Under these circumstances increasing regard has naturally been paid to the theory that it was not all composed at one time. The first attempts to divide the authorship‑those of Thierech (1858), De Champagny, (1863) and Gueranger (1874)‑were not very successful. A more adequate hypothesis was offered by Hilgenfeld in 1881, assuming three authors, the Hermes postoralis who produced the
nucleus (Via. v.‑,Sim. vii.); the HerWs Theories dpocalypticus who wrote Via. i.‑iv.;
of and the Hermes $ecuus, who reComposite cast the whole into its present form. Authorship. This view did not find many followers.
Link (1888) and Baumg&rtner (1889) firmly opposed any division of authorship, and may be considered to have proved their point. The latest view of Harnack assigns the whole work V.‑16
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hermsnn
Hermenentios
to the same author, but regards it as having been a gradual growth, through successive revisions and additions, from a small beginning not later than 110 to about 140. External evidence is wholly lacking for such a purpose; but it solves some of the most difficult internal troubles.
	The doctrinal standpoint of the book is not
Judeo‑Christian; to the author, Christianity is the
		one absolute and universal religion.
	Doctrinal	Nor is he Pauline in his views. He
Standpoint. is much more representative of the popular Roman Christianity of his epoch, still lacking sharp dogmatic precision. The conception of pardoning grace as a thing which dominates the whole life has retired into the background; sin is forgiven at baptism, but the baptized are bound to sin no more, and, if they do sin, forgiveness is to be hoped for only under exceptional circumstances. It is hard to define the christology of the book; Harnack considers it adoptioniat, but his view that it identifies the Son with the Holy Ghost (hardly possible in view of the baptismal formula) is probably based on a misinterpretation of the phrase " Spirit of God " applied to Christ, in the sense of a holy spiritual being. The whole teaching on this point is vague, but not really different from that of the New Testament. It is noticeable that the religious element is already secondary to the ethical; and that the doctrine of works of supererogation makes its appearance.
(G. UHLHoRNt.)

BIBLIOOHAPHY: Rich Gate of literature are to be found in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 30‑33; in O. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, Patrum apostolicorum opera, iii., pp. al. sqq.; and in Kriiger, History, pp. 38‑40. Modern editions of the Greek text are: R. Anger and G. Dindorf, Leipsic, 1856; A.Y. C. Tischendorf, ib. 1856; A. R. M. Dread, ib. 1857, 1863; Gebhardt and Harnaak, ib. 1877; A. Hilgenfeld, ib. 1881, 1887; F. %. Funk, Tfibingen, 1887. Of the Latin text: A. Hilgenfeld, Leipeic, 1873 Gebhardt and Hamack, ut cup. Of the Ethiopic: A. d'Abbadie, in Abhandlungen der deutwhen morpenIkndiechen Geaellachaft, ii. 1, Leipeie, 1860. Eng. tranels. are: W. Hone, in his Apocryphal New Testament, London, 1820; C. K. J. Bunsen, in his Hippolytus, i. 185‑208 ib. 1854; C. H. Hoole, ib. 1870; in ANF, ii. 1‑58; and C. Taylor, ib. 1901; K. Lake, Facsimiles of the Adoa Frapmente of the Shepherd, New York, 1907.
Prolegomens and discussions of high value are to be found generally in the editions given above. Consult: J. Donaldson, Hint. of Christian Literature, i. 254‑311, London, 1864; idem, Aywstolical Fathers, pp. 318‑392; E. Gaab, Der Hirt den Herman, Basel, 1866; T. Zahn, Der Hirt den Hermaa untersucht, Gotha, 1868• G. Heyne, Quo temPore Herman Pastor acriptus. ;sit, K&nfgsberg, 1872; H. M. T. Behnr, Ueber den Ver/asser der Schrift melcAe den Titel ^ Hirt ' fiArt, Rostock, 1876; J. Nirechl Der Hirt den He‑, Passau, 1879; M. du Colombier, Le Pasteur d'Herraas, aris, 1880; A. Brfill Der Hirt den Herman, Freiburg, 1882; J Haussleiter, De vereionibus pastoris Herma; Latinie Erlangen, 1884; S. P. Lambros, A Collation of the Athoa Codes of the Shepherd of Herman, transl. and ed. by J. A. Robinson. London, 1888; A. Link, Die BinW den Pastor Hermm, Marburg, 1888; P. Baumghrtner, Dis Einheit den Hernias‑Buchea Freiburg, 1889 E. Hfieketfidt Der Lehrbeprif den Hirtm, Erlangen, 1889; Spitta, Zur Geachichte and Litteratur den Urchristentums, ii. 241437, G6ttrngen, 1896; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 678692; Harnack Geschichte, i. 49‑58 et passim, ii. 1, pp. 257 sqq., 437‑438, ii. 2 passim; DCB, ii. 912‑921; KL. Y. 1839 14.
HERMENEUTICS. See ExEGEsls oR HER11<ENEUTICB.

Hermes	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	242
Hermogenes
HERMES, her'mes, GEORG: German Roman
Catholic theologian; b. at Dreierwalde, near Teck
			lenburg (20 m. n.n.e. of Munster),
		Life.	Westphalia, Apr. 22, 1775; d. at Bonn
			May 26, 1831. He graduated in phi
losophy and theology at Miinater, was appointed
teacher in the gymnasium there in 1798, and ad
vanced to the priesthood the following year, al
though he continued teaching. In 1807 he began
lecturing on theology at the academy of Munster,
particularly on the introduction to theology, which
he considered of great importance, because its
object was to show the reasonableness and necessity
of Christianity. In 1819 he was called to the
University of Bonn as professor of dogmatic theol
ogy. His activity and success reached their climax
here, and he formed a school of his own. Toward
1830 his influence was dominant in the theological
faculty at Bonn, in the seminaries at Culm, Treves,
and Ermeland, and extended even to Breslau and
Braunsberg. He had followers in the other faculties,
too, e.g., P. J. Eivenich (1796‑1886), in philosophy,
who became professor in Breslau in 1829, and be
came an Old Catholic in 1870. Some of his fol
lowers among theologians were J. W. J. Braun
(q.v.); Johann Heinrich Achterfeld (1788‑1877),
who became professor of theology at Braunsberg
in 1818 and professor at Bonn in 1826; and
Johann Baptista Baltzer (1803‑71), who became
professor of theology at Breslau in 1830. When
Count Spiegel was made archbishop of Cologne the
influence of Hermes became more powerful, since
the archbishop appointed him honorary canon and
examining chaplain. The latter position furnished
him the opportunity to raise the educational level
among the clergy, and to keep out of influential po
sitions men who did not share his views. D6l
linger's appointment as professor of church history
is said to have been prevented by him. The bishops
of the Rhine provinces favored his pupils, since
they made studious, earnest, and diligent priests.
	Hermes developed his theological views in his
Untemuchungen ilber die innere Wahrheit des Chris
			tentums (MUnster,1805), Philosophische
		His	Einleitung in die chrmtkatholisehe Theo
	Theology. logie (1819; 2d ed., 2 vols., 1831
			1834), and Christkatholische Dog
matik (ed. Achterfeld, 3 vols., 1834‑36). He ac
cepts, without any question, every doctrine of the
Roman Catholic Church. " A man can believe,
however, only that which he has recognized as true
from evidence furnished by his reason." This evi
dence compels us to acknowledge the existence of
God, and of his attributes. From God man receives
the supernatural truths which make up the content
of Christianity; they are‑ contained in the Bible
and in tradition; the Church, as teacher, explains
both correctly and infallibly.
This system seems to imply a full acknowledg
ment of revelation and of tradition. But reason
plays, nevertheless, an important part, not by be
coming the judge of the truths of revelation, but by
proving that they are true per se and historically;
as soon as this evidence is furnished, reason must,
of course, submit to their authority in matters per
taining to salvation. Suppose, however, that reason
doubts the truths of revelation and does not feel compelled to consider them as a higher authority. In that case the avenue to revelation is blocked, and the organ by which it is understood is lost. The system of Hermes is, thus, prejudicial to the principle of authority in the Catholic Church. It is, moreover, objectionable from another point of view. If a clearly thinking man must necessarily arrive at Christian faith, he can prove its truth to any one who is able to think logically. The process of reasoning would, consequently, suffice to make a Christian.
	After his	death the teaching of Hermes was
attacked by a number of men, and stanchly de
		fended by his pupils, who were known
ism Con‑ as Hermesians. In 1835 a papal brief
	demned.	appeared condemning as unorthodox
		the teaching of Hermes concerning the
nature of faith, the Bible, tradition, revelation, the
proofs for the existence of God, the necessity of
grace, and original sin. His followers did not deny
that the sentences, mentioned by the brief, if taken
singly, were to be condemned, as indeed the scien
tific attitude as a whole. Their contention was,
however, that Hermes, if alive, would disown them
completely. They maintained in an article pub
lished in the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (1835)
that the teaching of their master had been ‑mis
represented at Rome, and that its condemnation
would be prejudicial to the best interests of the
Roman Catholic Church. In Apr., 1837, Braun and
Elvenich went to Rome to convince the pope that
the papal brief did not present the doctrines of
Hermes; but the attempt failed, since most of the
German theologians were now against Hermes'
teaching. They remained in Rome till Apr., 1838,
and wrote in defense of their position Meletemata
theologica (Hanover, 1838), which the pope refused
to permit them to publish at Rome. All attempts
to show that the doctrine of Hermes differed from
those condemned in the papal brief failed. The
system of Hermes stood condemned, and his follow
ers were debarred from ecclesiastical offices; Braun
and Elvenich were retired from their professorships,
although honorably and with full stipends. The
Prussian government, too, yielded in a number of
ways for the sake of peace; for instance, in the
matter of granting the bishops the right to take the
initiative in removing a theological professor with
the consent of the government. The archbishop
of Breslau, Forster, was the first to use this right
against Boltzer in 1860.
The explanation of the favorable reception of Hermes' works and their condemnation afterward lies in the change of attitude toward philosophyfrom the Wolff‑Kantian rationalism to Schelling's romanticism. Windischmann, the first man to attack Hermes, had made this change, and his following was increasing constantly in the Roman Catholic Church. Closely connected with this change in philosophy is the reactionary tendency which set in about that time against the liberal ecclesiastical policy of the bishops along the Rhine, particularly of the archbishop of Cologne, Spiegel, who had endeavored to give his clergy a better education. His successor, Droste‑Vischering (q.v.),

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
243
had disliked Hermes already while bishop at Munster, and had forbidden his theological students to pursue their studies anywhere but at Milnater. The Prussian government tried in vain to have him rescind this order, and had to suspend the seminary in 1820. The papal brief gave Droste‑Vischering an opportunity to combat the system of Hermes and liberalism at the same time; and the defeat which both suffered is an indication of the fact that reactionary tendencies had set in.
(PAUL TacHAcsERT.)

BIBLIOGRAPRY: W. Ewer, Denkechrift auf Georg Hermes, Cologne, 1832; A. von Sieger, Urphiloaophie and daa Nothwendigkeitasydem von G. Hermes, Daseeldorf, 1831; J. Host, Haupinomente der hermesischan Philosophie, Maneter, 1832; P. J. Elvenich, Acta Hermesiana, Gbttingen, 1838; idem, Pius IX., die Henneaianer and der Erzbi8chof von Geissel, Breslau, 1848; J. M. Meeker, Die hermeaiachen Lehren in Bezug auf die papatliche Verur theilung, Mainz, 1837; J. Braun and G. J. Elvenich, Meletemata theolopia, Leipsic, 1838; C. G. Niedner, Philoeophio: Hermesio: . . . explicatio et exietimatio, ib. 1838; Acts antihernuaiana, Regensburg, 1839; P. G. Perrone, Zur Geachiehte des Hermeeianismus, ib.1839; D. Bernhardi, Laokoon oder Hermes and Perrone, Cologne, 1842; F. X. Werner, Der Hermesianismus vorzugmeise von seiner dogmatischen Seite, Regeneburg, 1845; K. Werner, Geschichte der katholiachen Theologie, Munich, 1889.
	HERNIAS, her'mi‑as: The unknown author of a
Christian tract of the second or third century. In
thirteen partly worthless manuscripts there is pre
served the apologetic and polemic treatise called
" A Satire on the heathen philosophers by the phi
losopher Hermias," the real author and the date of
which is disputed. According to most authorities,
the tract belongs to the age of the great apologists
(180‑250); although Diels, Harnack, and others
believe it to be a forgery, belonging to the fifth or
sixth century. But the former view is sustained
by a detailed comparison with the pseudo‑Justin
Martyr's Cohortatio ad Grams (ANF, i. 273‑289),
which used the "Satire" and perverted it. The
document castigates, not without a certain clever
ness, yet with cheap wit and an absence of deeper
understanding, the conflicting assertions of the
philosophers on the subject of the human soul, of
God and the world; and especially with reference to
the elements of matter. 	G. KRf1GER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Editions are by W. F. Wenzel, Leyden, 1840; J. C. T. Otto, Jena, 1872 (in Corpus apologetarum Christianorum); CC H. Diele Doxopraphi Grad, pp. 259263 849‑658 Berlin, 1879. Consult: Harnaek, Geachichte, i. 782‑783, ii. 2, pp. 198‑197; idem, Dogma, u. 198; W. Gaul, Die Abfaseunpeverhaltniese der pseudojustini8chen Cohortatio ad Gracos, Berlin. 1903; A. F. di Pauli, Die Irrisio dea Hermias, Paderbom, 1907; Neander hristian Church i. 873; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 741‑742; Ceillier, Auteurs sacra, vi. 332‑333; Krilger, History, pp. 137‑138.
HERMINJARD, 13,r"man"zhal', AIMS LOUIS:
Swiss Reformed; b. at VSvey (11 m. ex.e. of Lausanne) Nov. 7, 1817; d. at Lausanne Dec. 11, 1900. He was educated at Lausanne, and, after being a teacher in Russia, France, and Germany for several years, resided first at Geneva and later at Lausanne, dividing his time between teaching and historical and bibliographical researches. After thirty years of labor he began to publish the correspondence of the French Reformers and carried it
down to 1544 under the title Correspondance des `slaps.
Sermes
Hermogenes
r6forntafzura daps lee pays de langvz franVaise recvzillie et publiEe avec d'autrea lettres relatives d la r6forme et des notes historiques et biograPhiques (9 vole., Geneva, 1866‑97). Many of the letters are printed for the first time, and all of them are carefully collated and furnished with copious notes, which render the edition invaluable. It is one of the monumental works of French Protestant scholarship. That it could not have been carried at least down to the death of Calvin is a calamity.
HERMIT (late Lat. eremita, Gk. eremites, " an eremite, one living alone," from eremos, " desolate, solitary "): One who abandons society and lives alone, especially in a desert. In religious usage the word is applied to a Christian who, fleeing from persecution or seeking what was believed to be the more perfect life, retired to a lonely place and there led a life of contemplation and asceticism. Such hermits were especially common in the early time in the desert of Egypt. See MONASTICISM.
HERMIT ORDERS: A name given to religious orders whose members lived more or less isolated from one another, such as the Agonizants (q.v.), the Eremites of St. Augustine or Augustinian Hermits (see AUOUBTINIANa), the Camaldolites, the Carmelites, the Carthusians, the Celeatines, the Hieronymites, the Services (qq.v.), the Order of V&110mbr08& (see GUALBERTO, GIOVANNI), and the Williamites (q.v.).
HERMOGENES, hermej'e‑nfz: A teacher of Gnostic tendency at the end of the second century. Tertullian wrote two treatises against him‑the Adveraacs Hermogenem, which is still extant, and De causa anima;, which is lost. He mentions and quotes from him in several other places (Adv. Yalentinianos, xvi.; De lortescriptione hareticorum, xxx., xxxiii.; De monogamia, xvi.). According to Eusebiua (Hilt. eccl., IV., xxiv. 1), Theophilua of Antioch wrote against a heretical teacher named Hermogenea. He is also mentioned in Hippolytus (PhilosoPhuma, VIII., iv. 17), Theodoret (Har. fabttlarum compendium, i. 19), Philaatrius (titer., xliv.)., and Augustine (titer., xli). Mosheim and Walch have attempted to find in these references
two heretics of the same name; but this is unlikely. It is better to suppose with Tillemont and Harnack that the earlier life of Hermogenes was spent in the East, where Theophilua wrote against him between 181 and 191, and that then he migrated to Carthage,
where Tertullian wrote his treatises in 206 or 207 according to Uhlhorn (Hesaelberg gives 205; Noldechen, 202). He did not teach a thoroughgoing Gnostic system, but, probably in the belief that he was not contradicting the Church's faith, at‑
tempted to complete it by certain propositions taken from philosophy. He is thus not to be reck‑
oned among the Gnostics proper. He asserted the eternity of matter, and denied the creation of the
world out of nothing. The soul was material and thus mortal by nature, and obtained immortality only by the imparting of the divine spirit springing from the substance of God. What the Fathers tell of his christological errors is vague; Augustine
and Philastrius reckon him among the Patripas‑
(G. UaLaoRNt.)

Hermon	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	244
Herod and His Family
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Harnack, GaacA%eltte, i. 152‑155, 200, i. 1,
	pp. 534‑535, ii. 2, pp. 281‑282; C. W. F. Walch, Hia
	torie der Ketzereien, i. 552, Leipeic, 1782; J. L. von Mos
	heim, Commentatio de rebus Christiania, p. 453. Helmetadt,
	1753, Eng. tranel., Commentaries on she Affairs of the
	Christians before the Time of Constantine eke Great. Lon
	don, 1813‑35; C. Heaseiberg, Tertulliana Lehre, Dorpat,
	1848; A. Hauck, Tertulliana Leben and Schri/ten, pp.
	259 aqq., Erlangen, 1877; C. P. Caepari, Kirchenhia
	toriache Anecdota, pp. 225 aqq., Christiania, 1883; Kruger,
	History, passim; DCB, iii. 1‑3; KL, v. 1900‑02.
	HERMON: The Old Testament name for a moun
tain which bounded the Amorite kingdom of Og
on the north (Dent. iii. 8; iv. 48) and also the
territory of East Manasseh (Josh. xii. 1). It must
therefore be sought in the neighborhood of Dan and
the sources of the Jordan. The Targums on Dent.
iii. 9 and Cant. iv. 8 call it ,fur taiga, "Snow moun
tain," corresponding with Jabal al‑Talj, the modern
name of the mountain north of the Jordan sources
and east of the Wadi al‑Taim. According to
Dent. iii. 9 the Phenician name was Siryon and the
Amoritic name Senir, the latter corresponding with
the Assyrian Saniru where Shalmaneser II. defeated
Hazael of Damascus and denoting the Anti‑Lebanon
range, applied therefore to Hermon as connected
on the north with Anti‑Lebanon. The Siyan of
Deut. iv. 48 is suspected to be a mistake for Siryon.
The Hebrew name, Hermon, comes from a root
meaning to be forbidden, implying that the moun
tain in early times was a celebrated sanctuary or
holy place.
	The main body of the mountain runs north and
south, with the highest point very near the middle;
to the south it slopes to the Jordan sources, the
upper portion falling off to the Nahr Banias. It
therefore overlooks on the south the upper Jordan
valley and the table‑land of the Jaulan. On the
north its summit sinks to a highland 3,600‑4,000
feet above sea‑level. The east and southeast sides
are abrupt, the western and northwestern sides
slope more gradually. On the summit is a small
table‑land 435 yards in diameter, from which rise
three peaks, two on the east and one on the west.
The one on the southeast still shows traces of ruins,
which from their character suggest that they are
the remains of a sanctuary, in all probability belong
ing to the sun‑god.
	Genealogical Table.
I. Herod the Great.
	Ancestry and Youth (§ 1).
The Winning of His Kingdom (¢ 2).	II. His Family.
First Period of His Reign, 37‑27 B.C.	Archelaus (§ 1).
	(§ 3).	Herod Antipae (lf 2).
	The Herods were an Idumean family whose prom‑	son of a temple slave of Ascalon. His real ancestry
inence began under Antipas, was enhanced under	is given in the accompanying genealogical table.
his son Antipater, and reached its height under his	His family had note among his own
son Herod, called the Great. This family succeeded	r. Ancestry people, who had been Judaized under
the Hasmoneans in the temporal control of the and Youth. John Hyrcanus	(see HASMONEANe).
Jews, and was in power during the life of Jesus	His ambition and energy were legit
Christ and the period of the founding of the Chris‑	imate heritages from his forbears. His grand
tian Church.	father and his father had gained influence with the
	I. Herod the Great; By his historian, Nicolas of	government of the Jews before they had received
Damascus, Herod was declared to be of pure Jewish	part in that government. Antipater had become
stock, while the story current in Jewish and Jewish‑	the counselor of the weak Hyrcanus II., had aa
Christian circles was to the effect that he was the	sisted Caesar in the latter's campaign against Egypt,
The formation of the mountain is limestone, with outbreaks of basalt both on the east and the west. At Mejdel al‑Shema the lower Syrian Jura rocks come to the surface. The upper part is either entirely bare and decomposed into rubble by atmospheric influences, or in places clothed with low shrubs. At an elevation of about 3,750 feet there is a thick growth of trees, partly firs, partly fruit‑trees, with stretches of tragacantha and shrubs. On the lower slopes vineyards are numerous, at least on the western and southern sides. The winter snow‑line begins at an elevation of 3,250 feet; but the summer sun melts all away except in the deep clefts. The upper portions are hollowed out into underground reservoirs which furnish the sources of the streams of the region, particularly of the Jordan. The region is noted for its refreshing dew (Ps. cxxxiii. 3) and for its wealth of animal life (Cant. iv. 8). The western elopes support great flocks of goats.
	Only the western and southern slopes have his
toric significance. Peoples passed by its northern
aides to live at the south; so the early Amoritea
and Hivitea (Josh. xi. 3), the Itureana in the second
pre‑Christian century, and in the seventeenth cen
tury the Drusea, all of whom have left traces in the
present religions of the region. Baal‑hermon is to
be sought at the eastern or southeastern foot (I
Chron. v. 23), and denotes a sanctuary, perhaps the
Paneion of the Greeks, the modern Banias. Baal
gad, also a holy place, lay in the Lebanon valley
north or northwest of Hermon (Josh. xi. 17). Miz
pah is probably to be sought on the west slope
(Josh. xi. 3, 8). 	(H. GTrraE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Reland, Palaeatina, pp. 323 eqq.; J. L. Porter, Five Years in Damascus, i. 287 eqq., London, 1856; C. R. Conder, Tent Work in Palatine, chap. vin., New York, 1880; W. M. Thomson, The Laud and the Book, vol. ii., New York, 1882; Te Survey o/ Western Palestine, Jerusalem, published by the PEF, London, 1884; J. G. Wetzstein, Dos bafandiache Giebelpebirpe, pp. 9‑13, Leipaie. 1884; F. Noetling, Der Jura am Hermon, Stuttgart. 1887; G. E. Poet, The Flora o/ Syria, Palestine and Sinai, Beirut, 1898; K. Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, New York, 1908. Robinson, Biblscal Researches, iii. 357; DB, ii. 3b2‑353; EB, u. 2021‑23; JE, vi. 3bb‑358; and the literature under BAaHAN.
HEROD AND HIS FAMILY.
Second Period. 27‑14 B.C. ($ 4). Third Period. 14‑4 B.C. (¢ b). Personal Characteristics (¢ 8).
Herod Philip ($ 3). Agrippa I. (¢ 4). Herod of Chslcie, Aristobulue, and Agrippa II. (§ b). Herod Philip. Herodias, Salome. Bernice. DrusiIIs (¢ B).

(5) PhaHon
(1) Antipas.
(2) Antipater
d. 43 B.C.
m. (3) Cypros D.
(4) Joseph
d. 34 B.C.
m. (10) Salome.
GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE HERODIAN FAMILY.

In the table the numbers in	parentheses preceding the names are mere indices to facilitate reference in t15e intermarriages and to differentiate members bearing the same name; numbers
	in parentheses following the names denote the regnal period; m. is for married. The columns represent separate generations.
	(8) Phasael
	d. 40 B.c	.......................	(21) Phasael 	. m. (25) $alampso
)
(44
	((11) Doris . 	(22) Antipater d. 4 D.C.
(23)		)ulB'C.
	m. (8Bernice
(12)	Marianne
	d. 29 D.C.
(7) Herod (37d. 4 B.C.) m.
(14) Dfalthaae .....
(9)	Phrerorae
	d. 5 B.C.
(24) Alexander d. 7 B.c.
m.(39) Glaphyra.
(25) Sal' p so
m. (21) Phasael.
		Cros
	(13) Marianne.	(28) ~~37) Antipater, ( ' ' ' ' ' (54) CYProe m, (55) Alexis 	(ti3) Cyprus.
(27) Herod (Philip7)	(5() Salome
m. (bl) Herodias. ~ . . ' '
. .
	1(b2) Alexander 	„ „ „
(b3) Tigranes.
(28) mada8ghter of Aretea ')
m. (50) Herodias.
(29) Archelaae (4 B.c.‑8 A.D.)
m. (40) Dfariamne. (39) Glaphyra.
(30) Olympian
m. (38) Joseph.
(15) Cleopatra.	(31) Herod.
	(32) Mhilip ((Salome. 5 p	~~• 34 A.D.)
(18) Pallas.	(33) Phasael.
(17) Pha'drs.	(34) Roxana.
t (18) Elpis,	(35) Salome.
	(S) Joseph [ and two ynknown.
	d. 38 B,c	(38) Joseph	......	(57) Mari
	m. (30) Olympian. t "
	(4) Joseph
	(10 SlalAOTD.	d. 34 B.c 	..	..	. (37) Antipater.

[ ~ 10 w.n. m. ~ " (19) Coatobar
		d. 25 B.c			. (38) Bernice.
(20) Alexas.
m. f32) Philip, m. (b8) Aristobulus.
m. (47) Herod of Chaleie6
	(41) Antipater.
	(42) Herod,
	(43) Alexander.
	Alexandra
	m. (45) Timius.
	I (4g) CYPros
	[ m. (50) Agrippa I.
	m. (57) Mariamne.	..	(58) Aristobulus
(47) Herod of Chalcis I	m. (56) 8alome.
(37‑d. 48 A.D.) ~ „ 59) Bernicianus.
m. (69) Bernice.	1((BO) Hyrcauub.

	<48) Ariatobulus	~	„,.„„(81) JotaPe.
	m. (49) Jotape. ~	~ (60) Agrippa I(37‑d, ~	(87) Agrippa II,
	44 w.n.)	. , .
		(6S) Druaus.
	m. (46) Cyprus.	(69) Bernice
(bl)	Herodias		m, (47) Herod.
m. (27) Herod (Philip)		m. (76) Polemon
m. (28) Antipas	(70) 	Mariamne
(64) Herod,
(65 Agrippa.
(6t3; Aristobulus,
m. (77) Archelaus .. ... (g0) Bernice
(71) Drusilla,
m. (78) Demetrius .... (7g) Agrippjnos,
	m. (72) Azizus.
	m. (73) Felix 	...	(74) Agrippa.
(82) Tigranes,ofArmenia. (81) Alexander
m. (75) Jotape,

Herod and His Family	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	248
had been given recognition as a sort of procurator over Judea, and had been awarded Roman citizenship. From his marriage with the Arabian Cypros there were four sons, Phasael, Herod, Joseph, and Phreroras, and a daughter Salome. For Herod an Essene named Menahem prophesied the kingship. When Herod was only twenty‑five years of age his father had him made governor of Galilee, where he showed his energy by capturing a brigand and executing him. During a contest with the sanhedrin over prerogatives, Sextus Caesar appointed him governor of Ccele‑Syria (q.v.), while the kingship was also promised to him.
Herod's standing with the people was very insecure, and after the withdrawal of Cassius a revolt
resulted in which Antigonus Mattaa. The thias, son of Aristobulus, assisted by
Winning Marion of Tyre, attempted to assert of His his rights to the throne. Herod's Kingdom. energy was too great, however, and
Marion was compelled to retreat, while Antigonus was defeated. To improve his status Herod divorced his wife Doris and sent away her son Antipater, betrothing himself to Mariamne, granddaughter of Hyrcanus, thus entering the family of the Hasmoneans. It seemed as if his plans were defeated when the Republicans, with whose party he had been affiliated, were beaten by Antony and Octavian at Philippi. But Antony was favorably inclined toward Herod on account of earlier hospitable relationship with Antipater. A crisis was precipitated through an attack of the Parthians during which Phasael, who had been made king of Jerusalem, committed suicide and another brother of Herod was taken prisoner by the Parthians, while Antigonus was placed on the throne. Herod fled to Rome, gained the help of Antony and Augustus, and was declared by the Senate king of Judea‑a kingdom which had yet to be won. He landed in Ptolemais, speedily collected a considerable army of Jews and foreigners, and gradually gained the mastery. A decisive victory over Antigonus at Isana in Samaria opened the way to Jerusalem. While the preparations for the siege were under way Herod celebrated his marriage with Mariamne; this done, he returned, and with the help of the Romans took the city within three months. After the withdrawal of his allies he began his reign, which falls into three periods.
The first period was one of contest with dangers without and within. He excited mistrust by getting
rid of forty‑five of the adherents of 3. First Antigonus. The aged Hyrcanus caused Period of him anxiety, so he had him brought His Reign, to the court where he could keep him 37‑27 B.C. under observation. Through the in‑
trigues of his mother‑in‑law Alexandra with Antony and Cleopatra, he was compelled to set aside a Babylonian Jew whom he had made high priest in favor of Aristobulus, then seventeen years old, consequently his mistrust of them was strengthened and grew, especially after their unsuccessful attempt at flight. The favor of the people for Aristobulus openly manifested led Herod to have him drowned in a bath (35 B.c.). He was summoned to answer for this before Antony, but escaped with‑
out punishment. During this journey he left Mariamnein care of his uncle Joseph with instructions to kill Mariamne in case the trial went against him. She learned this and her love for him turned to hate. Joseph had married his sister Salome, who charged him before Herod with misconduct with Mariamne, and Joseph was executed. Cleopatra, drawn into these family difficulties, desired to have possession of Palestine; Antony, therefore, compelled Herod to cede to her the rich district around Jericho and pay her tribute for it. She also brought it about that Herod was commanded by Antony to assail a king of the Arabs who had not paid the tribute due to her. This, however, he turned to advantage. His troops, dispirited by an earthquake, he encouraged to the attack and won a notable victory. This campaign kept him from participation in the defeat of Antony and won him the favor of Augustus. After putting Hyrcanus out of the way, he went to pay court to Augustus at Rhodes, and the latter assured to him his kingdom. Services rendered to Augustus during his march to Egypt resulted in the material enlargement of that kingdom. But during his absence at Rhodes he had given Mariamne into the charge of a certain Iturean named Soemus with the same command as he had given to Joseph, with the result that Mariamne learned also of this second offense against her. Again Salome instilled into Herod's mind suspicions against his wife, Soemus was put to death, Mariamne was tried and also condemned to death. During excesses, in which he sought to drown recollection of the wife he had so passionately loved that he could not endure the thought of another's possessing her, reports came of intrigues of Alexandra to supplant him, and he had her put to death as well as Costobar, the second husband of Salome. Thus his dangerous foes were removed, and political as well as domestic difficulties vanished from his path (27 n.c.).
The second period was marked by great building operations and by displays of wealth and magnificence. He erected a theater in Jeru‑
¢. Second salem in which, and in the amphi‑
Period, theater constructed in the valley, a7‑r4 B.C. were celebrated every fourth year the deeds of Caesar. All this so offended the Jews that ten Arameans conspired to kill the king in the amphitheater, but the plot was discovered and the plotters executed. His policy then was to prevent rebellion. His palace overawed the upper city, and the fortress of Antonia menaced the temple and its district. Samaria he named Sebaste, intending to fortify it, and built Caesarea on the site of Straton's Tower. After he had intimidated the people with these and other fortifications, a famine gave him opportunity to attempt to win the people over by liberality and practical measures of relief with the purpose of taking up again his works of display. Before his marriage with a second Mariamne, daughter of a priest, he built a beautiful palace for himself in the upper city and also the castle named after himself the Herodium. He also extended the works at Csesarea. Herod gave assistance to lElius Gallus, proconsul of Egypt, in an Arabian campaign, sent his sons by

247
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Herod and His Family
the first Mariamne to Rome where Caesar received them at court, and shortly after granted to Herod Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis. Herod visited Agrippa in Mytilene and waited upon Augustus on the latter's visit to Syria, receiving such favor that Josephus has left it on record that, after Agrippa, Augustus regarded no one so highly as Herod, and after Augustus Agrippa regarded no one as highly as Herod. Augustus added to Herod's dominions the territory from Ulatha on the sea to Panias at the source of the Jordan, and made his brother Phreroras . tetrarch, in acknowledgment of which Herod built a temple dedicated to the emperor at Panias. A system of espionage was established, meetings were forbidden, meeting for converse in the street became unlawful. Even his final attempt to gain the good‑will of the Jews by the restoration of the temple was new ground for suspicion, only allayed after the progress had been well advanced. These and like deeds embittered the Jews against him, and this hatred he vainly attempted to remove by remission of taxes. Yet his favor with the Romans he used to gain advantages for the nation and when he obtained further remission of taxes he finally won the applause of the people. He then was at the summit of his fame.
The third period of Herod's reign is marked by the decline of his good fortune. His two sons by
the Maccabean Mariamne, Aristobulus
	g. Third	and Alexander, were two descendants
	Period,	of the extirpated family who aroused
	z4‑q, B.C.	anew his earlier distrust and enmity.
		He had attempted to obliterate all
causes of trouble by marrying Aristobulus to his
sister's daughter Berenice, and Alexander to Gla
phyra, daughter of the king of Cappadocia. During
his journey to Agrippa (14 B.c.) the two princes had
treated Salome and Phreroras with haughtiness and
had given utterance to imprudent remarks about
the murder of their mother. To intimidate them
from possible revenge Herod recalled to the court
his son Antipater by his first wife Doris. This son
at once began to intrigue against his half‑brother
with such effect that Herod took them both to Rome
to complain against them to Caesar, who brought
about a reconciliation, which was, however, only
on the surface. Herod then busied himself with
building operations intended to perpetuate the
memory of members of his family, and with great
liberality made contributions to many cities out
side his domains in favor of Greek customs and
celebrations, not excluding largess for the Olympic
games. While this brought him celebrity of a
pleasant sort from the outside world, it excited the
hatred of the Jews. The atmosphere of his own
court was unwholesome, where resided not only
Nicolas of Damascus and his brother Ptolemy, but
the numerous wives of the king and a host of
eunuchs and disreputable persons. Intrigue was
in the air, and the palace inmates became involved.
Herod trusted no one. By the device of Antipater
suspicion was directed against Alexander, whose
adherents were put to torture. Alexander himself
was thrown into prison, from which his father‑in
law was just able to save him. But Salome renewed
her intrigues, aided by Eurycles, a worthless Lacediemonian, and both sons by Mariamne were executed, 7 B.c. Meanwhile an attempt of Herod's against a band of brigands had incensed the emperor, who sent a sharp rebuke to Herod. The latter succeeded in placating the emperor through Nicolas of Damascus, and was given a free hand in dealing with his sons, with the result stated above. Herod named Antipater as his successor, and sent him with the will to Rome. Hardly had this been done when it came out through the death of Phreroras that Antipater had planned to poison Herod. Herod revoked his will; he named AntipaA, son of Malthace, his successor, and caused the execution of Antipater. In the joy of the prospect of speedy release from Herod's tyranny through the fatal disease from which he was then suffering, the people were easily induced to tear down from the temple gate the eagle which crowned it. But Herod was sufficiently well to have the instigators of the deed burned alive. His death occurred soon afterward, in the year 4 B.c. He had given orders that the noblest in the land should be slain at his death in order that sincere mourning should take place when he died. His final will directed that his son Archelaus should be king, Antipas was to have the tetrarchy of Galilee and Peraea, and Philip that of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, and Panias.
Herod was possessed of a powerful physique, uncommon strength of intellect and will, keen powers of observation, quickness in seizing the points of a
situation, presence of mind, cleverness 6. Personal in choosing his means for his purposes,
Character‑ undaunted courage, and unfailing en‑
	istics.	ergy‑a union of qualities which fitted
		him for action in a manner seldom
attained. With Josephus one must also credit him
with good nature and magnanimity, and conse
quently must not attribute all his actions to selfish
ness and ambition. This is evident even in his
interest in Greek culture and his efforts to further
its progress in Palestine. On the other hand, he
was entirely lacking in a sense of duty from the
standpoint of ethics. Thus no regard for the situa
tion of the Jews and for their hopes deterred him
from maintaining a friendship with the power most
hostile to those hopes, and he was only a heartless,
tyrannical, and suspicious savage. So all the accom
plishments of his reign, his extension of his kingdom
so as to equal that of David, his display of wealth
and magnificence, his rebuilding of the temple, his
beneficence to heathen which elevated the Jewish
name outside Palestine=‑all which seemed to realize
Messianic prophecy‑was after all only a caricature
of it. 		(F. SnomT.)
II. His Family: Archelaus (4 B.C.‑8 A.D.), the son of Herod by Malthace, was by the will of his father

	to receive the title and Judea, Samaria,
i. Arche‑ and Idumea. But, inasmuch as that
leas. Will was not valid until confirmed by

	Augustus, he declined to assume the
title of king, though hailed as such by the courtiers.
To the people he promised, from a throne erected
in the temple enclosure, fair and equitable dealing.
The Jews at once made demand for a reduction of
some taxes and abolition of others, release of prix.

Herod and His Family	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	248
oners, deposition of the high priest Josar, and expulsion of the Gentiles. A further demand was punishment of those who had urged the death of the persons who had led in the destruction of the eagle over the gate of the temple. To some of these demands Archelaus could not make definite answer, and by temporizing exhausted the patience of the population, at the time augmented by the Passover pilgrims. Some of his guards were attacked, and a m6lde was precipitated in which some 3,000 people fell in the streets. He went to Rome with Nicolas of Damascus as his advocate, where he, Antipas, Philip, and deputations of Jews who asked for direct Roman rule as against the Herods pleaded their causes before Augustus. The emperor sustained the will, except in some small particulars and in withholding the title of king and substituting that of ethnarch until Archelaus should prove his fitness for it. While Archelaus was away the spirit of discontent spread throughout the land, and a succession of fanatics, brigands, would‑be messiahs, and aspirants for the kingship involved nearly the whole country with the Romans, who plundered the temple treasury. Archelaus inherited from his father a love for beautiful buildings, and the wars had destroyed so much that he had ample scope for restoration. He rebuilt the palace at Jericho and built a new city which he called Archelais (12 m. n. of Jericho), after himself. His conduct was violent, arbitrary, and capricious, especially in his frequent removal of the high priests. He outraged public opinion seriously by marrying Glaphyra, the widow of his half‑brother Alexander, to whom she had borne children, while at her marriage with Archelaus her first husband was still living. After nine years of the rule of Archelaus the Jews exposed the barbarousness and tyranny of his dealings to Augustus, who, in 6 A.D., banished him to Vienne in Gaul, sequestrated his property, and annexed his dominions to the province of Syria.
Herod Antipas (4 s.c.‑39 A.D.), also a son of Herod by Malthace, was given Galilee and Peraea and the title of ethnarch by his
a. Herod father's will. He is improperly called
	Antipas.	king in Mark vi. 14, possibly as a
		reflection of the popular terminology,
and correctly ethnarch in Matt. xiv. 1, Luke iii. 19.
He preserved the peace in his dominions, was toler
ated by Augustus, and was a favorite with Tiberius.
Inheriting with his brothers a fondness for display,
especially in public buildings, he restored Sepporis,
the capital of Galilee, and built Tiberias near the
hot springs of Emmaus and erected there a palace.
As part of the site was on a burial ground it was
unclean for the Jews, w1yo refused to settle there.
It was therefore largely settled by foreigners and
Hellenized. He rebuilt Livias, afterward Julias,
on the site of Beth‑haram, and adorned Machaerus,
east of the Dead Sea. Excessively cunning (cf.
Luke xiii. 32), shrewd and astute, a pagan at heart,
he was superstitious and sensitive. In 27 A.D. he
went to Rome, saw there the beautiful and ambitious
Herodias, his own niece and already the wife of his
half‑brother. Herod Philip, and although he had
a wife living, he proposed marriage to her. By
divorcing his wife, the daughter of Aretas, and marrying Herodias he aroused the anger and caused the denunciation of John the Baptist and inflamed with anger Aretas, by whom some years afterward he was disastrously defeated (36 A.D.). When Jesus was brought before him for judgment, according to Luke xxiii. 7‑15, he avoided pronouncing decision, probably having in mind his own mental suffering after his execution of the Baptist. On the advice of the ambitious Herodias, Antipas went to Rome to sue for the title of king. Agrippa anticipated his arrival there with charges of disloyalty to Caesar in that he had provided equipment for 70,000 men in Galilee. This was really intended for a war of revenge on Aretas; but Caligula would hear no explanation, banished him to Lyons, and gave his territory to Agrippa (39 A.D.).
Herod Philip (4 B.c.‑34 A.D.), son of Herod by Cleopatra, received Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis,
Gaulanitis, Panics, and Iturea, a region
3. Herod large in area but poor in resources and
	Philip.	inhabited by a mixed population of
		Greeks, Arabs, and Syrians, with
Scythopolis as the capital. Philip was, however,
the worthiest of the sons of Herod and the man for a
difficult place. For his people he did the best pos
sible economically and administratively. The result
was an age of peace and prosperity during the
thirty‑seven years of his rule altogether new to his
people. Like all the Herods, he was un‑Jewish in
his tastes, he employed images on his coins, and
built shrines for Greek deities. He made his capital
at Panics, where he built Caesarea Philippi, enlarged
Bethsaida and called it Julian after the daughter of
Augustus. He was only once married, to Salome,
daughter of Herodias. At his death his territories
were included in the province of Syria, and in 37
given to Agrippa.
Herod Agrippa I. (37 A.D.‑44 A.D.), son of Aristobulus by Bernice, Herod's niece and daughter of
Salome, and grandson of Herod the 4, Agrippa I. Great and Mariamne the Maccabee,
lived in Rome till 37 A.D., when Caligula came to the imperial throne. He had married Cypros, who bore to him Agrippa II., Drusus, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, had had a checkered careerf been dissipated, exhausted his means, borrowed recklessly, become an adventurer, but had the good fortune to become the friend of Caligula. The imprudently expressed wish thatTiberius might be succeeded by Caligula was reported to Tiberius, who thereupon threw him into prison. Six months later (37 A.D.) Caligula succeeded Tiberius, and to Agrippa were given the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (cf. J. H. A. Ebrard, Gospel History, Edinburgh, 1869, pp.143‑146). In 40 A.D. by his astuteness and influence he induced the mad Caligula, just then bent on setting his statue in the temple at Jerusalem, by force if necessary, to forego his design, and thus a collision between Jews and Romans was avoided. On the assassination of Caligula in 41 Agrippa was able to render timely and valuable aid to Claudius and was rewarded by the addition of Judea and Samaria to his dominions, when he became the ruler of a domain as large as his grandfather's. His reign lasted but three years

249
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
longer, but was a happy one for his subjects. When at Jerusalem he observed scrupulously the ceremonial law and became beloved even by the Pharisees, though he patronized Greek culture and games outside the distinctively Jewish part of his realm. The persecution of Christians (Acts xii.1‑3) was doubtless a part of his general policy of placating the Jews. At his death the Romans regarded his son Agrippa, then only seventeen years of age, as yet too young to be entrusted with the control of so difficult an aggregation of peoples as then inhabited the kingdom which had been his father's. Accordingly Palestine passed over wholly into Roman control until five years later, when it was given to Agrippa II.
Herod of Chalcis, own brother of Agrippa I., was made king of Chalcis by Claudius on the latter's
accession because of his friendship for 5. Herod Agrippa. His son, Aristobulus, was
of Chalcis, made king of Chalcis in 52, of Armenia
Aristobulus, Minor in 55, and of Armenia Major in
	and	61. His wife was Salome, daughter of
Agrippa II. Herodias. Agrippa II. (50‑100 A.D.),
son of Agrippa I., was appointed by Claudius king of Chalcis after his uncle Herod, and had control of the temple and the appointment of the high priest. He served the Jews by having Ananias the high priest and Ananus, the commander of Jerusalem, acquitted of a charge of rebellion brought by the Roman Cumanus. In 53 A.D. he gave up Chalcis and took the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, and later was given by Nero parts of Perma and Galilee. He was adroit and diplomatic, gained and kept favor with Jewish leader, in spite of arbitrary action as to the highpriesthood, yet in the Jewish war fought on the Roman side.
Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great by the second Mariamne (of Jerusalem), was left out of the
succession owing to his mother's ins. Herod fluence against him, lived a private life Philip, in Rome, was the husband of Herodias
Herodias, before Antipas married her, and father
Salome, by her of Salome who pleased Antipas
Bernice, and asked the head of John the Bap‑
Drusilla. tilt. This is his one claim to distinc‑
	tion. The women of the family who
figured in history were Herodias (see above, II., § 2);
her daughter Salome, who married, first, Herod
Philip the tetrarch, and then Aristobulus, son of
Herod Of Chalcis, to the latter of whom she bore
three children, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus;
Bernice, oldest daughter of Agrippa I., who married
the Herod who became king of Chalcis in 44 A.D.,
and later Polemon, king of Cilicia (she is the Bernice
of Acts xxv.‑xxvi., and was charged with illicit
relations with her brotherAgrippa I. and with Titus ,
the conqueror of Jerusalem); and Drusilla, young
est daughter of Agrippa I. She married Azizus,
king of Emesa, deserted her husband, and married
the Gentile Felix the Procurator, and had a son
by him. Agrippa (cf. Acts xxiv. 24). The other
members of the family are mentioned in the gen
ealogical table. 	GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIHLIOORAPHY: The principal sources are Josephus, Ant.,
XIV.‑XX.. War, i. 10‑30:‑‑and the fragments of Nioolae
Herod and 81s Family
of Damascus, in C. Muller, Frapmenta hiatoricorum Grcorum, iii. 343‑464, iv. 661‑664, Paris, 1849‑51. Of later works there is nothing to compare with Schdrer Geechichte, i. 380‑800, 707‑725 Eng. tranal., I., i.400‑ii. 206, 325‑344 (contains very full lists of literature, especially in the foot‑notes, where sources and later discussions are named). In general the subject is treated in the works on the history of the Jews, particularly those by Ewald, Grits, Hitzig, and Renan. Consult further: T. Lewin, Faati sacri, pp. 62‑167, London 1865; J. Derenbourg, Easai sur l'hiat. . de to Palestine, Paris, 1867; F. de Saulcy, Hid. d'Hirode, Paris, 1867; idea, Ettude ehronolopique de to vie et des monna%es des . Agrippa 1. et 1l., ib. 1869; A. Hauerath, Neuteatamentliche Zeitgewhichte, vol. i., Heidelberg, 1868; Brann, Die t;ohne des Herodes, in Monatasehrift fur Gesch. . des Judenthums, xxi. 1873; idem, Agrippa IL, ib. xix (1870), 433444, 529‑548, xx (1871), 13‑28; C. T. Kema, Geschichte Jeau von Nazara, vol. i., Zurich, 1875, Eng. tranel., London, 1876; F. W. Madden, Calm of the Jews, ib. 1881; J. Destinon Die Quellen des Josephua, vol. i., Kiel, 1882; J. Vickers, The Hist. of Herod, London, 1885 (a vindication); A. Reville, Herodee der Grosse, in Deutsche Revue, 1893; F. W. Farrar, The Heroda, London 1897; DB, ii. 353‑362; ED, ii. 2023‑42; JE, vi. 356‑360.
HERODIANS: A Jewish party in the time of Christ. They are mentioned in the Gospels in connection with the Pharisees as enemies of Jesus (Matt. xxii, 16; Mark iii. 6, xii. 13). Those who hold with some of the Fathers (Tertullian, Philastirus, Epiphanius) that they were a separate Jewish sect are certainly wrong. They were probably a political party, " the adherents of Herod," as Josephus called them (Ant. XIV., xv. 10). They were opposed to Christ, since they misunderstood the nature and purpose of his kingdom.
(F. SIEFFERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. T. Keim, Jaaw of Nazara, iii. 157 sqq., 6 vols., London, 1873‑82; F:. Renan, Life of Jesus, chap xxi., London, n.d.; DB, ii. 362; EB, ii. 2043; JE, vi 360; and, in general, works on the life of Christ.
HERRICK, GEORGE FREDERICK: Congregational missionary; b. at Milton, Vt., Apr. 13, 1834 He was graduated at the University of Vermont (1856) and Andover Theological Seminary (1859
Since that year he has been a missionary of the American Board, and was likewise a professor in the Mission Theological Seminary in 1870‑93, president of Anatolia College in 1890‑93, and joint superintendent of the publications of the Turkish branch of his society in 1893‑1903. He was also a member of the committee for the translation and revision of the Bible in Turkish in 1873‑78 and 1883‑85, and sole responsible editor of the same undertaking in 1898‑1902. Theologically he is a conservative liberal. He has written in English Life of Rev. A. T. Pratt, MD. (Chicago, 1890), and in Turkish and Armenian worb on tt Church History " (Constantinople, 1873; also in ~recoTurkish, 1891); " Natural Theology " (1886); " Belief and Worship " (1886) °~ Introduction to Old Testament History and Prophecy " (1896; both Turkish and Armenian); Sunday‑school notes cov‑

ering the most of the books of the Bible (18951907).

MENNONITES.
HERRMANN, JOHANN GEORG WILHELM: Geh man Protestant; b. at Melkow, near Magdeburg, Dec. 6 1846. He studied at the University of Halle 1866‑70, and four years later, after serving in

8errnhnt
Herzog	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	250
the Franco‑Prussian war, became privet‑docent at Marburg. Since 1879 he has been professor of systematic theology in the same university, and has written Gregorii Nysseni sententite de salute adipiscenda (Halls, 1874); Die Religion im Verhdltnia zum Welterkennen and zur Sittlichkeit (1879); Der Verkehr der Christen mit Gott, im Anschluss an Luther dargestellt (Stuttgart, 1886); Ethik (Tiibingen, 1901); and Die sittliehen Weissagungen Jesu (Gbttingen, 1904).
HER"=, HERRNHUI'ERS. See UNITY of THE BRETHREN; ZI1vZENDORF, NIHOLAUs LuDWIG.

HERSFELD (HEROLVESFELD): A town of Hesse‑Nassau, Germany, about twenty‑three miles north of Fulda, the site of a celebrated abbey founded about 770 by Archbishop Lullus of Mainz. Charles the Great placed the monastery under royal protection and conferred upon the monks freedom of choice in the election of their abbot. He also bestowed upon it extensive territorial possessions. During the lifetime of its founder the monastery included 150 monks, who were active in propagating Christianity among the Saxons. Literary labor began in the ninth century, the most important production being the Hersfeld chronicles, now lost, but drawn upon by the compilers of the chronicles of Hildesheim, Quedlinburg, and Weissenburg.
At Herafeld, in the eleventh century, wrote Lambert (q.v.) and the author of the Liber de unitate ecclesite conservanda, according to some Walram, later bishop of Raumburg. Beginning with the thirteenth century, the town gradually freed itself from the jurisdiction of the abbey, and about 1371 placed itself under the protection of the landgrave of Hesse, which was conceded by the abbot in 1432. The prosperity of the abbey declined; and on the resignation of Abbot Wolpert in 1513 it was placed under the abbot of Fulda for a time. Abbot Krato (1517‑56) was inclined to Lutheran ideas, but the abbey maintained a feeble existence until the death of the last abbot, Joachim 8511, in 1606. The landgrave of Hesse kept the administration in his family until at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the territory of the abbey, as a fief of the empire, was formally incorporated with Hesse.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lampertus, De institutions Heroeldensis eccleaim, in his Opera, Hanover, 1894; idem, Vita Lulli, in MGH, Script., xv. 1 (1887), 132; Miracula Wigberti, in MGH, Script., iv (1841), 224; Rettberg, KD, i. 602; Hauck, KD, ii. 58.
HERTZLER, CHARLES WILLIAM: Methodist Episcopal; b. at Burlington, Ia., Feb. 22, 1867. He studied at German Wallace College, Berea, O. (B.A.,1889) and the University of Berlin (1892‑93), and held pastorates ‑at Peoria, Ill. (1889‑91), and St. Louis, Mo. (1891‑92). After his return from Germany he was pastor at Jordan, Minn., from 1893 to 1895, when he was appointed president of St. Paul's College, St. Paul, Minn., a position which he occupied for five years. Since 1900 he has been professor of practical theology at Nast Theological Seminary, Berea, O.

HERVAUS BRITO (HERV.&US NATALIS; 0Herv6 de N6dellee): Thomist philosopher and theo‑
logian; b. at Nddellec, Brittany; d. at Narbonne Aug., 1323. He studied at Paris, entered the Dominican order, became provincial for France in 1309 and general of his order in 1318.
For many years he taught scholastic theology and philosophy. As a moderate Thomist, he distinguished himself by his opposition to the views of Duns Scotus. In opposition to the univocal. being of the Scotists he maintained that the reality of individual objects depends upon that background of being which is common to them. On the other hand, he seemed to incline toward nominalism in his view that universals, though they have their basis in the nature of things, are subjective. In particular Hervaeus devoted his attention to the famous question of individuation, which the Scotists had explained by the doctrine of haecceity. He showed that liaecceity itself is only a universal concept, which becomes a principle of individuation only when applied to an individual thing, and that such a principle might just as well be applied to matter or form. His own view is that essence is the inner principle of individuation. In theology Hervaeus held that the existence of God can be deduced on rational grounds, but that positive knowledge of God is won only through faith. He treated the doctrines concerning God, the Trinity, and Christ in the traditional scheme of distinctions. His importance lies in the insight which he gives into the sphere of interests of Thomistic philosophy and theology after Scotus. His chief. works are: In quatuor Petri Lombardi sentegit,volumina scripta subtilissima (Venice, 1505); Quodlibeta undecim cum octo profundissimis tractahWus (1513); and De intentionibus secundis (Paris, 1544). ; A list of unpublished writings by Hervaeus will be found in Qudtif and Itchard's Seriptores ordinis prwdiicatorum (vol. i., p. 533, Paris, 1719).
(R. SEEBERG.)
BIBLIoaRAPRY: J. C. F. Hoefer, Nouvelle biopraphie pEn€rale, xxiv. 532‑533, 46 vols., Paris, 1852‑1866; K. Werner, Der heilipe Thomas won Aquino, iii. 104 eqq., Regensburg, 1859; B. Haurdsu, Hist. de la philoeophie scolaatique, ii. 2, pp. 327 eqq.. Paris, 1880; KL, v. 1916‑17.

HERVAUS BURGIDOLENSIS (Hervi de BourgDieu) : Medieval French exegete; b. at Le Mans (130 m. s.w. of Paris) in the latter part of the eleventh century; d. at Ddols (72 m. s.e. of Tours) about 1150. About 1100 he entered the Benedictine monastery at Ddols, where he spent the remainder of his life, devoting himself to the study of the Bible and the Church Fathers. His chief works were his commentaries on Isaiah and the Pauline Epistles (MPL, Icxxxi.). Whether his interpretations of the pericopes of the Gospels may be recovered from the homilies ascribed to Anselm of Canterbury is a moot question, but the commentaries on Matthew and Revelation assigned to him were actually written by Anselm of Laon.
(R. SCHMID.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hiatoire litt6raire de Ia France, vol. xii.; M. Ziegelbauer, Hiatoria rei literari ordinia S. Benedicti, vol. iii., Regensburg, 1739; J. C. F. Hoefer, Nouvelle biographie pbn6rale, xxiv. 532, 46 vols., Paris, 18551866; F. H. R. Frank, Die Theologie der Coneordienformel, ii. 54 eqq., 4 vole., Erlangen. 1868‑8b.

251	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	gems nt
	HERVEY, ARTHUR CHARLES: Church of Eng
land bishop of Bath and Wells; b. at London
Aug. 20, 1808; d. near Basingstoke (45 m. w.s.w.
of London), Hampshire, June 9, 1894. He was of
noble birth, being the fourth son of Frederick Will
iam, first marquis and fifth earl of Bristol, and was
educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A.,1830),
and was ordered deacon and ordained priest in 1832.
He was rector of Ick*orth‑cum‑Chedburgh, Suffolk
(1832‑69), and was also curate of Horringer (1844
1869), as well as archdeacon of Sudbury (1862‑69).
In 1869 he was consecrated bishop of Bath and
Wells. He was one of the Company of Old Testa
ment Revisers. In theology he inclined toward
Evangelicalism. He prepared portions of the
volumes on Ruth and Samuel for The Speaker's
Commentary (London, 1873), and on Judges, Ruth,
Acts, and the Pastoral Epistles for The Pulpit Com
mentary (1881‑87), and wrote: Sermons for the
Sundays and Principal Holy‑Days throughout the
Year (2 vole., London, 1850); The Genealogies o f Our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as Contained in the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Reconciled with Each
Other, and with the Genealogy o f the House o f David,
from Adam to the Close o f the Canon o f the Old Testa
ment, and Shewn to be in Harmony with the true Chro
nology of the Times (Cambridge, 1853); The Jews;
their Past History, their Present Condition, their Fu
ture Prospects (London, 1854); The Inspiration of
Holy Scripture (1856); The Authenticity of the
Gospel of St. Luke (London, 1892); The Book of
Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch and the
" Higher Criticism " (1892); and The Pentateuch
(in collaboration with C. Hole; 1895).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, Supplement, ii. 415.

HERVEY, JAMES: Popular religious writer and
clergyman of the Church of England; b. at Harding
atone (1 m. s. of Northampton) Feb. 26,1714; d. at
Weston Favell (1 m. n. of Northampton) Dec. 25,
1758. He was educated at the free grammar‑school
at Northampton, and at Lincoln College, Oxford
(B.A., 1736). At Oxford he came under the in
fluence of John Wesley, then fellow and tutor at
Lincoln, but finally adopted a strongly Calvinistic
creed and determined to remain in the Established
Church. After holding curacies in Hampshire and
Devonshire, where he was also chaplain to Paul
Orchard of Stoke Abbey, he became curate to his
father at Weston Favell in 1743, and succeeded to
the livings of Weston Favell and Collingtree in 1752.
His death was brought about by overwork, both in
his parish and in his study. He was the author of
several books which, though of no great literary or,
theological value, once enjoyed wide popularity,
occupying a position in the family library side by
side with the Pilgrim's Progress and the Whole Duty
of Man. The more important of them are: Medi
tations and Contemplations (2 vols., London, 1746
1747; 25th ed.,1791), containing among other things
the Meditations among the Tombs; and Theron and
Aspasio, or a Series o f Dialogues and Letters (3 vols.,
1755), which drew replies from John Wesley, Robert
Sandeman (qq.v.), and others; and the posthumous
Eleven Letters . . . to . . John Wesley (1765), an
answer to Wesley's objections. His Works were pub‑
lished .at Edinburgh (6 vols., 1769) and also in London (7 vols., 1797).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Life, by Dr. Birch, was prefixed to the Letters, with a supplement by his curate, A. Maddock; a Life by T. W. was prefixed also to the Meditations; and still other editions of his works have had sketches of his life by different hands. Consult DNB, xxvi. 282‑284; D. A. Hareha, Life of Rev. James Heresy, Albany, 1885.
HERZOG, har'tadg, EDUARD: Old Catholic bishop; b. at Schongau (a village near Hochdorf, 11 m. n. of Lucerne), Switzerland, Aug. 1, 1841. He was educated at Tubingen, Freiburg, and Bonn (1865‑68), and from 1868 to 1872 was teacher of religion in the normal school of the Canton of Lucerne and of exegesis in the Roman Catholic theological seminary in Lucerne. In 1872 he left the Roman Catholic Church for the " Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland," a branch of the Old Catholic movement. He was then pastor of churches of this sect at Orefeld, Prussia (1872‑73), Olten (1873‑76), and Bern (1876‑‑84). In 1876 he was consecrated bishop of the Old Catholic Church, and since 1874 has been professor of New Testament exegesis, catechetics, and homiletics in the Catholic theological faculty of the University of Bern. He has written Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Pastoralbriefe (Lucerne, 1870); Christkatholisches Gebetbuch (Bern, 1879); Gemeinschaft mit der anglo‑amerikcnischen Kirche (1881); Ueber Religions freiheit in der helvetischen Republik (1884); Synodalpredigten and Hirtenbriefe (2 series, 1886‑1901); Gegen Rom, Yortrag zur Aufkldrung iiber den Montanismvs (in collaboration with F. Wrubel and Weibel; Zurich, 1890); Beitrdge zur Vorgeschichte der christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz (Bern, 1896); " Predige das Wort " (sermons, 1897); Die kirchliche Siindenvergebung each der Lehre des heiligen Augustins (1902); and Stiftspropst Josef Burkard Leu and das Dogma von 1864 (1904).
HERZOG JOHANN JAKOB: German Reformed theologian; b. at Basel Sept. 12, 1805; d. at Erlangen Sept. 30, 1882. He was educated at the PEedagogium in Basel and the University of Basel where he studied theology for three years. He then attended the University of Berlin, where he had first Schleiermacher and then NeanAer for teachers. He then returned to Basel, where he passed his first theological examination and became a docent in the university. In 1835 he was called to Lausanne, where in 1838 he became professor of historical theology. At Lausanne he lived on most friendly terms with both colleagues and students, cultivating with them pleasant social relations. At the same time he was very active in a literary way; besides several smaller essays, such as one on the teachings of Zwingli, and his Johann" Calvin, eine biographische Skizze (Basel, 1843), he composed a longer work: Das Leben (Ecolampadius and die Reformation. der Kirehe zu Basel (2vols., Basel, 1843). In 1840 and 1841 he contributed a series of articles to the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung on the conflict between the national church of the Canton of Vaud and the State, which at that time was trying to render it dependent. In Feb., 1846, he resigned his professorship on account of conscientious scruples and after a year of private teaching was called in

HesseHerzog	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	252
the spring of 1847 to the chair of church history and
New Testament exegesis at the University of Halle.
While there he became much interested in the
Waldenses, two of his students being members of
that sect, and he devoted himself to a historical
investigation of their origin, making for that pur
pose journeys to Geneva, Grenoble, Paris, and
Dublin that he might study ancient manuscripts
dealing with that subject. The results of these
researches he embodied both in his De origine et
pristino statu Waldensium (Halle, 1848) and in his
comprehensive Die romanischen Waldenser (1853).
His studies led him to quite different opinions on
the early history of the Waldenses from those usu
ally entertained at the time, but his views are now
universally adopted. He believed the Waldenses
arose not earlier than the twelfth century, and
from the beginning were students of the Bible, but
deserted the paths of Roman Catholic piety only in
the sixteenth century under the influence of Huss
and the German Reformation. In 1854 he was
called to Erlangen as professor of Reformed theology.
Some time before this there had been planned in
Germany a comprehensive encyclopedic work on
theology, and Schneckenburger had been named as
editor, but the revolution of 1848 had caused it to
be abandoned for a time. With the advent of peace
it was again undertaken. Schneckenburger having
died in 1848, Tholuck, who was asked for advice,
suggested the name of Herzog. Herzog was well
fitted for the task by his many‑sided knowledge,
his ripe judgment, his mild and catholic views, his
strong faith in revelation, and especially by his
extended personal relations. He took great in
terest in the undertaking, contributing from his own
pen no less than 529 articles.	For the history
of the Real‑Encyklopddie see the preface to the first
volume of this work, p. ix. Besides the works
mentioned above, Herzog wrote an Abriss der
gesammten Kirchengeschichte (3 vols., Erlangen,
1876‑H2). 	F.SIEFFERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. 6ieffert, in the AUgemeirse Zeitung, 1883,
no. 31, Beilage.
HESS: The name of several ministers and theologians of Zurich, of whom the more noteworthy axe the following:
1. Johann Jakob Hess: B. at Zurich Oct. 21,1741; d. there May 29, 1828. He was the son of a watchmaker, and from 1748 was brought up by his maternal uncle, Heinrich Gossweiler, pastor at Affoltern, near Zurich, a man of great piety and wide culture. From 1755 to 1760 he studied in Zurich. As a youth he showed considerable poetical talent; and, encouraged by Mopstock and Wieland, both of whom he had met in Zurich, he thought seriously of abandoning theology for poetry, but in 1760 he became assistant to his paternal uncle Kaspar Hess, pastor at Neftenbach. In 1767, having inherited considerable property from his father, he was able to retire to private life and devote himself entirely to study. For several years he worked upon his life of Christ. In 1777 he was called to the Liebfrauenkirche, Zurich. Despite the fact that Zurich had at that time several famous preachers, Hess attracted crowded congregations. His sermons, which he soon began to publish, were transcribed and circulated widely
in manuscript, and thus his influence extended beyond his congregation, and his sermons came to serve as models for hundreds of ministers in Switzerland and even in other countries.
In 1795, quite unexpectedly and against his will, Hess was elected superintendent (antistes) of the churches of the Canton of Zurich. It was with a heavy heart that he entered upon the duties of this responsible office, now made doubly difficult by the political conditions of the time. However, Hess proved the right man, and his wisdom and strength of character safely piloted the Church through the tempestuous weather of the succeeding years. His leadership in the conflict with the enemies of the Church was recognized in other cantons, and his methods were adopted there. A thorn in the eye of the civil authorities, he was even threatened with deposition and deportation. In 1815 he wished to retire to private life, but the ministerium declined to consider his resignation. The Reformation‑Jubilee in 1817 brought him honorary doctorates from Tubingen, Jena, and Copenhagen. He was a prominent figure at the secular celebration of the Reformation held in Zurich in Jan., 1819, when he received a large gold Zwingli‑medal from the government, and another large gold medal from the king of Prussia. Shortly after the celebration he was taken ill, and henceforth had to entrust the duties of his office to his official representatives. He made his last public appearance in 1820, at a meeting of the Zurich Bible Society, of which he was the founder and president.
In the history of Protestantism in Zurich Hess occupies a very important position. He avoided fruitless speculation, and made himself the champion of historical and Scriptural Christianity. His favorite idea was that of the" inner union,"or"the inner community of Christ," which with him represented not merely an ideal, but an actuality. All followers of Christ, he held, are year by year being gradually united in spirit into a single great brotherhood. He himself did much toward the realization of such a brotherhood. He was held in universal reverence; and it was largely because of this fact that he was able to make his influence so potent. In the world of theological scholarship Hess has exerted his greatest influence by his studies in the life of Christ. In this field he was a pioneer. His principal works are Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu (6 vols., Zurich, 1768‑73; 8th ed., 3 vols., 1822‑23), which was translated into Dutch and Danish, and also adapted to the use of Roman Catholies; Jugendgeschichte Jesu (Zurich, 1773); Von dem Reich Gottes(2vols., 1774); GeschichteundSchriften der Apostel Jesu (2 vols., 1775); Geschichte der Israeliten vor den Zeiten Jesu (12 vols., Zurich, 1776‑91); Ueber die Lehren, Thaten and Schicksale unseres Hewn (2 vols.,1782; 3d ed., enlarged, 1817); Bibliothek der heiligen Geschichte (2 vols., 1791‑92); Der Christ bei Ge/ahren des Vaterlandes (3 vols., 1799‑1800), a collection of sermons; and Kern der Lehre vom Reich Gottes (1819). Before kis death Hess published a collected edition of his works under the title, Biblische Geschichte (23 vols., 1826).

253	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
2. Felix Hess: B. in Zurich 1742; d. there 1768. He studied in Zurich and entered the Protestant ministry, was an intimate friend of J. K. Lavater and J. J. Hess, and a theologian of great promise. His early death was generally deplored. He wrote Priifung der philosophischen and moralischen Predigten (Berlin, 1767), and made a translation of John Taylor's Scheme o f Scripture‑Divinity, which was edited by J. J. Hess, J. Taylor's Entwurf der Schrifttheologie (Zurich, 1777).
3. Salomo Hess: B. in Zurich 1763; d. there 1837. He was a nephew of Johann Jakob Hess. He became a deacon at St. Peter's in 1792, where J. K. Lavater was pastor, and succeeded Lavater in 1801. His historical works are lacking in exactness, and should be used with caution. The more important are Erasmus von Rotterdam (2 parts, Zurich, 1790); Lebensgeschichte Dr. J. (Ekolampads (1791); Gesehichte der Pfarrkirche St. Peter (1793); Geschichte des Ziircher‑Katechismus (1811); Das Reformations/est (1819); Anna Reinhart, Gattin and Wittwe von Ulrich Zwingli (1819); and Lebensgeschichte M. H. Bullingers (2 vols., 1828‑29).
	4. Hans Caspar Hess: B. 1772; d. 1847. He
received his theological training in Zurich and
entered the Protestant ministry there. As in f orma
tor in Geneva he wrote La Vie d'Ulrich Zwingli
(Paris and Geneva, 1810; Germ. transl., Zurich,
1811; Eng. transl., London, 1813).
(P. D. HEss.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. L. Meister, Berfihmte Ztlrcher, ii.146‑147,
Basel, 1782; G. Gessner, Blicke auf das Leben and Wesen des . . . J. J. Hess, Zurich, 1829; H. Fechet, Johann Jacob Hess . . Skizze seines Lebens, ib. 1837 (reliable); Am dem Briefwechael zwiachen Antiatee Hess and Kaplan Franz Romer (of Pennsylvania), in Theolopi8chs Zeatachrift der Schweiz, 1899; P. D. Hess, Der Zurcher Vernunftprediper Kaspar David Hardmeyer,177.f!183,2, in Zureher Taschenbuch, 1905. Consult further: Ziardaer Taschenbuch, 1850, 1895, 1901, 1907.
HESS (HESSE), JOHANN : German Reformer; b. at Nuremberg Sept. 23(7), 1490; d. at Breslau Jan. 5, 1547. He studied from 1505 to 1510 at Leipsic, and then spent two years at Wittenberg, where he was on terms of friendship with Luther, and especially with Luther's friends Jobs= Lange and Spalatin. In 1513, after a short stay atNuremberg, his humanistic connections and the commendation of Steurl gained him the position of secretary to the bishop of Breslau, Johann V. Turzo, a friend of the Renaissance and admirer of Erasmus. In 1515 he became private tutor of a son of Duke Charles of Munsterberg‑C)ls at Neisse, where he was appointed to a canonry in the same year. In 1517 he visited central Germany, and in 1518, Italy. On his return in 1519 he went to Wittenberg, where he lived two months in intimate association with Luther and Melanchthon. Then he went back to his bishop, who gave him additional canonries at Brieg and Breslau. At this time he was ordained priest. The prospects for an Evangelical reform were favorable, as the bishop showed no suspicion toward Hess and himself maintained relations with Luther and Melanchthon. Moreover, humanistic studies had found a ready welcome at Breslau even before the time of Hess. No* the new religious spirit entered, and some of Luther's smaller reforming writings were reprinted. But Bishop Turzo died
in 1520, and his successor, Jacob von Salza, adhered strictly to the Roman Church. Thus conditions became unbearable for Hess. He sought refuge with his ducal patron, and as court preacher he proclaimed Evangelical doctrines. In 1523 we find him again at Nuremberg. During his absence the Reformation had made headway in Breslau. The Franciscans of the monastery of St. James took part in the movement, and the people had been stirred up by " Lutheran " sermons. Under these circumstances the magistrate of the city called Hess in 1523 as preacher to the Church of St. Mary Magdalene. In a disputation held in 1524 he openly declared for the Reformation. The town council ordered all preachers of the city to follow the example of Hess. The change of liturgy and the restoration of communion in both kinds seems to have been accomplished by Hess without disturbance. Hand in hand with the religious reform went the reform of the schools and charitable work. In 1525 Ambrosius Moiban, a friend of Hess, was called to the St. Elizabeth's Church, and that of the Cistercians was also placed under an Evangelical preacher.
The changes in the service were restricted to narrow limits, Hess showing himself here a man of moderation and caution. One of the chief peculiarities of the Reformation in Breslau was the connection of the new system with the old, at least in form. Hess and Moiban continued to acknowledge the bishops as their superiors, and the bishops themselves were not inclined to interfere with this state of affairs. By having the ordinations of its ministers performed elsewhere, especially at Wittenberg, the, city guarded itself against interference by the king of Bohemia, who was a strict Catholic; though in any case he was inclined to tolerate the Evangelical church of Breslau as a strong defense against the inroads of Schwenckfeldianism and Anabaptism. Hess had no sympathy with these tenets, nor with the teachings of the Swiss Reformers on the Eucharist. Besides Johann Lange, Melanchthon, and Luther, he counted Veit Dietrich, Camerarius, and Brenz among his friends, and corresponded with influential men in the Prussian Church. In 1540 he visited his native city, and again in 1541 on the occasion of his father's death. Thence he went to Regensburg, where he and Veit Dietrich attended the diet which discussed the state of religion. His only publication was a reprint of the chapter De vitanda ebrietate from Pliny's "Natural History" together with some poems (Wittenberg, 1512).
(J. KbBTLINt.)
BmLIOOnAPBY: The best source of information is the Zeit‑
achrift des Vereine ftir Geachichte and Altertum Schleaiens,
vole. v., vi., xviii., xxvi. Consult: C. A. J. Kolde, Johann Hess, der achlesiscAe R4formator, Breslau, 1846; Schaff, Christian Church, vi. 573 aqq.; J. KSetlin, Martin Ink, passim, 2 vols., Berlin, 1903 (quite full).
HESSE.
Rise of Protestantism The Clergy (§ 3).
(§ 1). 	Recent Reforms (§ 4).
Church Organisation Roman Catholics (.§ 5).
(§ 2).
The grand duchy of Hesse is a state of the German empire, comprising two main portions and eleven small exclaves. The northern division, called Upper

Hesse	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	854
Heeehnsen
	Hesse, is surrounded by the Prussian province of
	Hesse‑Nassau; the southern portion, consisting of
the provinces of Rhenish Hesse and Starkenburg,
is bounded by Prussia, Bavaria, and Baden. Heese
	has an area of 2,965 square miles, and a population
	(1905) of 1,210,104. About two‑thirds of the popu
	lation belong to the State Church, which compre
	hends all Evangelical parishes, whether Lutheran,
	Reformed, or of a united confession. The major
	ity of persons outside of the Established Church
are Roman Catholics, who number about 30 per
cent of the population. The Jews number some
30,000.	Mennonites, Baptists, Methodists, and
	Quakers number all together only a few hun
dreds.
		Under the influence of Philip the Magnanimous,
	landgrave of Hesse 15097 (see PHILIF OF HEssE;
				HOMBERG SYNOD AND CHURCH ORDER
:. Rise of OF 1526), and his theological coun
	Protestant‑ selors, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Butzer,
			ism.	and Hyperius, the Evangelical Church
				of Hesse in the sixteenth century rep
resented a mediating tendency, though until 1566
it showed a curious union of Episcopal and Pres
	byterian tendencies. In the interest of uniformity
	throughout the margravate, the Agenda of 1566 was
	promulgated by the church authorities. It was Cal
vinistic in character, represented a mediating tend
ency in its treatment of the sacraments, and pro
vided ordination by laying on of hands for bishops,
elders (preachers and laymen), and deacons. After
	the death of Philip a new Agenda was published in
	1574, showing a stronger bias toward Lutheranism.
This remained substantially in force till into the
nineteenth century. The frequent changes that have
taken place in the boundaries and political organi
zation of Hesse render it impracticable to give here
	the details of its ecclesiastical history. In general,
Lutheranism has gradually gained the ascendancy,
and usually changes in boundaries have broken the
confessional unity of the state only temporarily.
		The present organization of the State Church
rests upon the edict of Jan. 6, 1874. The church
				constitution is of the modern synodal
		a. Church type and resembles most nearly that
	Organiza‑ of Baden. The grand duke, a Protes
			tion.	tant, is the head of the Church; and
				the highest ecclesiastical authority is
vested in the consistory (Oberkonsistorium), which
is responsible directly to the grand duke. This is
	composed of three clerical and three lay members,
the clerical members being at the same time the
heads of the Church in the three provinces of
Rhenish Hesse, Starkenburg, and Upper Hesse.
The State Church includes all Evangelical parishes,
though these are allowed to maintain their confes
sional peculiarities, in that they have a right to
	reject any ecclesiastical legislation affecting re
ligious instruction. The individual parishes are
governed by local parochial boards, consisting of
the ministers and from four to twelve laymen,
who are elected for ten years, and by a popular
body of from twelve to seventy members. The
parishes are united into twenty‑three deaneries
	(Dekdnate), each having its decanal synod, com
	posed of clerical and lay members in equal numbers,
with an executive committee. A general synod meets every five years. This body is composed of two representatives of each of the decanal synods, a clergyman and a layman, three clerical and four lay members named by the grand duke, and the prelate, who, like the Roman Catholic bishop, is a member of the upper chamber. The consistory is represebted in local affairs by the deans, who are elected by the decanal synods, and, as regards finances, by certain district officials. The executive committee of the general synod is an extension of the consistory.
Salaries of clergymen are paid from the general treasury of the Church. After the candidate for the ministry has spent at least seven
3. The semesters at some German university,
	Clergy.	he is examined in the first instance by
		the theological faculty of the Uni
versity of Giessen. He must then spend a year
in the seminary for ministers at Friedberg. He
then undergoes a final examination by a special
committee, composed of the clerical members of
the consistory and of the professors of the semi
nary. The duties of ministers are regulated by
law; and pastorates are filled by the consistory
on petition of the parochial boards. Surplice‑fees
were abolished in 1891. The pastor must give
weekly, three or four hours' religious instruction in
the public elementary schools, basing his instruc
tion on Biblical history and the catechism. In
Lutheran parishes he uses the Lutheran catechism,
in certain Reformed parishes the Heidelberg cate
chism, and in united parishes the catechism of 1894,
which combines the Lutheran and Heidelberg cate
chisms.
There is no uniform liturgy for the whole state, though a movement having as its object the preparation of a liturgy acceptable to all
	4. Recent	parishes is now in progress. Similarly,
	Reforms.	an effort has been made to give
		church‑music a uniform character;
and in many places church‑singing has been re
formed in the interest of a lively popular rhythm.
To be mentioned here is the choral book edited by
J. G. Herzog, and also his book of preludes. In
recent years the interests of the State Church have
been furthered by the division of the larger parishes,
the erection of numerous new churches, by the
ordinance providing for the care of the poor, and
by regulations against such sects as the Irvingites,
Adventists, etc. Sunday‑schools are now common.
The Innere Mission maintains some thirty hospitals
and a large number of other charitable institutions
of an educational nature.
The Roman Catholic inhabitants are under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Mainz. The relation between the Roman curia and the
	g. Roman	Hessian government was established
	Catholics.	by the bulls Provida soleraque (1821)
		and Ad dominici gregis custodian
(1827), and the edicts of 1829 and 1830 (changed
in 1853). An agreement made in 1854 between the
bishop and the Hessian government was repudiated
by the curia in 1866. Since then all ecclesiastical
relations have been arranged by secular legislation.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Evan‑

255	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hesse
		Hesshusen
	gelical Church receive financial aid from the gov
ernment.	(F. FL6RING.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Kirchenordnung was published at Mar
	burg, 1566, and the Agenda, das ist, Kirchenordnung in
	1574 and often, of. Philipps des Grosamiithigen hessische
	Kirchenreformationsordnung, ed. H. A. Credner, Giessen,
	1852. Consult: C. W. Ledderhose, Beytrdpe zur Beschreib
	ung des Kirchenstaates der hessen‑kasseliachen Lands,
	Cassel, 1781; E. Zimmermann, Verfassung der Kirchen
	and Sehule im . . . Hessen, Darmstadt, 1832; C. B. N.
	Falckenheiner, Geschichte hessischer Stddte and Stifter, 2
	vols., Cassel, 1841‑42; A. L. Richter, Die evangelischen
	Kirchenordnunpen des 16. Jahrhunderts, Weimar, 1846;
	C. W. Kbhler, Handbuch der kirchlichen Gesetxpebunp,
	Darmstadt, 1847; W. Miineeher, Versuch einer Geschichte
	der hessischen reformirten Kirche, Cassel, 1850; F. F.
	Ferteeh Handbuch des . . . Kirchenrachts der evanpeli
	schen %irche im . . . Hessen, Friedberg, 1853; L. Baur,
	Hessische Urkunden, 5 vola., Darmstadt, 1860‑73; A. F.
	C. Vilmar, Geschichte des Konfeasionstandes der evangeli
	schen Kirche in Hessen, Marburg, 1860; F. W. Hassen
	eamp, Hessisehe Kirchengeschichte, 2 vols., Frankfort,
	1864; Beleuchtung der Declaration fiber den Bekenntnis
	stand der niederhessischen Kirche, Cassel, 1868; G. W. J.
	Wagner, Die vormaligen Stifte im . . . Hessen, Darm
	atadt, 1873‑78; H. Heppe, Kirchengeschichte der beiden
	Hessen, 2 vols., Marburg, 1876; $ KShler, Kirchenrecht
	der evangelischen Kirche . . . Hessen, Darmstadt, 1884;
	A. B. Schmidt, Kirchenrechtliche Quellen des . . . Hessen,
	Giessen, 1891; J. Friedrich, Luther and die Kirchenver
	fassung der Reformatio ecclesiarum Hessix, Darmstadt,
1894; W. Kohler, Hessische Kirchenverfassung .	. der
	Reformation, Giessen, 1894; W. Diehl, Zur Geschichte des
	Gottesdienstes in Hessen, Giessen, 1899; KL, v. 1931‑58.
	HESSELS (HESSELINUS), JOHANN HEINRICH:
	Roman Catholic theologian; b. either at Arras
	(100 m. n.n.e. of Paris), France, or at Louvain,
Belgium, 1522; d. at Louvain 1566.	He taught
	eight years in the Premonstratensian monastery of
	Parc, near Louvain, and then became professor in
	the theological faculty of that university in 1559.
	He joined the Augustinian antischolastic party
	which went back to the Church Fathers of the third,
	fourth, and fifth centuries, but vigorously opposed
	the Augustinism of the Protestants. With Bajus
	and Cornelius Jansen he went, in 1563, to the
	Council of Trent, where he seems to have taken part
	in the preparatory work of the Catechismus Roma
	nus. The last three years of his life were occupied
	with polemical agitation against Protestantism and
	Cassander. He wrote polemical treatises and com
mentaries on the Bible.	His chief work in the
	sphere of dogmatics is his Catechismus (Louvain,
1571, 2d ed., 1595).	(O. Z&KLERt.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. F. X. de Ram, Mbmoire Sur la part quB
	le clerg6 de Belgique . . . ant prise au concile de Trento,
	Brussels, 1841; F. X. Linsenmann, Bajus and die Grund
	legung des Jansenismus, Tdbingen, 1867; H. Hurter,
	Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologise catholicle, i.
30‑31, Innsbruck, 1867; KL, v. 1930‑31.
	HESSEY, JAMES AUGUSTUS: Church of Eng
	land; b. at London July 17, 1814; d. there Dec. 24,
1892. He was educated at St.. John's College, Ox
ford (B.A., 1836), and was ordained priest in 1838.
He was vicar of Helidon, Nortbants. (1839), and
lecturer in logic in his college (1839‑12). He was
public examiner in the University of Oxford
(1842‑14), and headmaster of Merchant Taylors'
School (1845‑70). He became examining chaplain
to the bishop of London (1870), and from 1875 until
his death was archdeacon of Middlesex. He was
likewise select preacher at Oxford in 1849, and at
Cambridge in 1878‑79, preacher of Gray's Inn,
London, in 1850‑79, Bampton Lecturer at Oxford
in 1860, prebendary of Oxgate in St. Paul's Cathe
dral in 1860‑75, Grinfeld Lecturer on the Septuagint
in Oxford in 1865‑69, and Boyle Lecturer in 1871
1873. He was one of the three permanent chairmen
of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
took an active part in the movement against legal
izing marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and in
theology was a moderate High‑churchman, with
deep sympathy with all that is earnest and true in
every school of his Church. In addition to editing
the Institutio Lingum Sanche of Victorinus Bythner
(2 parts, London, 1853), he wrote Schemata Rheto
rica: or, Tables explanatory o f the Nature o f the
Enthymeme, and the Various Modes of Classification
adopted by Aristotle in his Rhetoric and Prior Ana
lytics (Oxford, 1845); Sunday, its Origin, History,
and Present Obligation (Bamptonlectures; London,
1860); Biographies of the Kings of Judah (1865);
and Moral Difficulties Connected with the Bible
(Boyle lectures; 3 series, 1871‑73).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, Supplement, ii. 415‑416.
HESSHUSEN, TILEMANN: German Lutheran; b. at Nieder‑Wesel (32 m. n.w. of Diisseldorf), in the duchy of Cleves, Nov. 3, 1527; d. at Helmstedt (22 m. e. of Brunswick) Sept. 25, 1588. He studied at Wittenberg, where he became the pupil, friend, and guest of Melanchthon. During the Interim he went abroad, hearing lectures at Oxford and Paris. In 1550, after his return to Wittenberg, he lectured at the university. In 1553, at the recommendation of his teacher, he was appointed superintendent and Pastor primarius in Goslar; but his zeal for the reformation of the collegiate chapters and convents brought upon him the disfavor of the magistrates so that he was compelled to resign in 1556. He went to Magdeburg, where he collaborated on the " Magdeburg Centuries " and took an active part in attempts at mediating between Melanchthon and Flacius. After a few weeks he went to Rostock as professor at the university and pastor of the church of St. James. Here he joined Peter Eggerdes in preaching against the celebration of marriage ceremonies on Sundays and the carousals which usually followed them, against the participation of Evangelical Christians in Roman Catholic funerals and the employment of Roman Catholic sponsors. He excommunicated the two burgomasters who opposed him, but although many citizens and even Duke Ulrich were on his side and that of Eggerdes, they were both expelled on Oct. 9, 1557.
In the following month Elector Otto Heinrich called Hesshusen to Heidelberg as first professor of theology, preacher at the Church of the Holy Spirit, and general superintendent of the Palatinate. Here, too, he gained few friends, and his attacks on the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper made him generally unpopular. Elector Frederick Ill., the successor of Otto Heinrich, demanded adherence to the Augustana variata. As Hesshusen did not submit, he was deposed in 1559. He had a still more vehement encounter on the question of the Lord's Supper with Albert Hardenberg, cathedral preacher in Bremen, who was an adherent of Philippism (see PHILIPPISTB). In 1560 he became

Hesshusen	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	258
Hesychasts
pastor of the Church of St. John in Magde
burg, whence he continued his attacks on Hard
enberg. In 1561 his opponent was deposed as
a	disturber of the common peace and expelled.
At a convention held in Lilneburg in 1561, Hess
husen achieved the victory of strict Lutheran
ism, but the synod of Lower Saxony accepted
its resolutions only under the condition that
preachers be forbidden to condemn one another.
In the mean time Johann Wigand, whom Strigel
had expelled from Jena, had come to Magdeburg.
Hesshusen intended to secure for him a position at
the Church of St. Ulrich, and for this purpose tried
to	expel Sebastian Werner. The magistrates, how
ever, did not submit to this arbitrary procedure.
Riots followed, and Hesshusen declared that he did
not consider the council any longer a Christian
authority and imposed the ban upon its members.
As a consequence, in 1562 he was driven out of
Magdeburg by an armed force. He fled to Wesel,
his native city; but his denunciations. of the pope
as	Antichrist aroused the displeasure of the duke of
Jiilich, and at his instigation the council expelled
him. He pleaded in vain with the authorities of
Strasburg to be received there. In 1565 Count
Palatine Wolfgang of Zweibriicken called him to
Neuburg as court preacher. In May, 1566, he took
part in the discussions of the Diet of Augsburg,
with the permission of his sovereign.
	On the death of the Count Palatine in 1569, Duke
John William called him to the University of Jena,
with the special task to reestablish strict Luther
anism in the country. With his colleagues Wigand
and Coelestin he subjected the clergy of Thuringia
to	a vigorous examination. The fruit of this visita
tion was Hesshusen's Examen theologicum (1570).
In		1570 Jacob Andreik came to Weimar to win the
duke for the Formula of Concord; but all attempts
at	union were bitterly opposed by Hesshusen, and
Andreiiwas dismissed without having achieved his
purpose. In 1571 Hesshusen attacked Flacius,
his former friend, who, according to him, taught
that hereditary sin formed the substance of man.
On the death of Duke John William in 1573, the
administration of the country was entrusted to
Elector Augustus, who speedily expelled Hesahusen
and Wigand and a hundred other clergymen and
theologians. The two leaders turned to Brunswick,
where Chemnitz offered them a place of refuge.
On Sept. 21, 1573, Hesshusen was consecrated
bishop of Samland. In his zealous defense of the
Lutheran doctrine against the Calvinists he went
so	far as to say that not only is Christ omnipotent,
but that the humanity of Christ is omnipotent, on
the basis of the unity of the two natures. Now the
tables were turned upon him. After having trium
phantly represented Flacius as teaching that the
devil was a creator as well as God, he was now
proved to teach that there were two divine beings,
both omnipotent. As Hesshusen did not retreat,
the duke deposed him from his office (1577).. With
the assistance of Chemnitz, he received a position
in the University of Helmstedt. He was finally
persuaded to sign the Formula of Concord, and every
obstacle to its introduction in Brunswick seemed
to be removed; but in comparing the printed copy
with the written text, Hesshusen found a considerable number of deviations, and was not satisfied with the explanations of Chemnitz. The duke of Brunswick also opposed the Formula, so that it was not accepted in his country, and thus lost much of its general authority.
Of his works may be mentioned: Von Amt and Gewalt der Pfarrherren (1561; ed. Friedrich August Schiitz, Leipsic, 1854), in which he developed his rigorous views on church discipline, and De servo arbitrdo (1562). Against the supposed adiaphorism of men like Andreii who tried to harmonize, he wrote Vom Bekenntnis des Namens Jesu (1571). Several treatises are directed against the Wittenberg catechism of 1570 and against the Consensus of Dresden. He wrote against Rome in his exposition of the nineteenth Psalm (1571) and in De 600 errorl7ws pontificis ecclesice (1572). Against Flacius he wrote Analysis argumentorum Flacii (1571), Gegenbericht von der Erbsiinde wider Flacius (1571). Clara et perapicua testimonia Augustini (1571), and Antidotum contra Flacii dogma (1572, 1576). He developed the thoughts of his Examen theologicum further in De vera ecclesia et ejvs auloritate libri ii. (1572). Against the Calvinistic doctrine of ubiquity he wrote Verce et sacrte Confessionis de prrTsentia eorporis Christi pia defensio (1583); Bekenntnis von der pers6nlichen Vereinigung beider Naturen (1586) and other works. Hesshusen also wrote commentaries on the Psalms and on the epistles of Paul, six books De justifccatione (1587), and several collections of sermons. (K. HACKEN8CHMIDT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief source is J. G. Leuckfeld, Historia Heahusiana, Quedlinburg, 1716. Consult further: K. von Helmolt, Tilemann Heashusen and seine eieben exilia, Leipsic, 1859; C. A. Wilkens, Tilemann Hes.hmen, tin Streittheologe der Lutherkirche, ib. 1860; Schaff, Chrietian Church, vii. 671 sqq.; Moeller, Christian Church, iii. 185 et passim.
HESSHUSIUS. See HEssHusEN, T1r.EMANN.
	HESYCHASTS: A community of Greek quiet
istic and mystic monks, especially on Mount Athos
		in the fourteenth century. Since the
	First elevation of the Palaeologi to the im
Appearance. perial throne, the Church had been
	Barlaani. in a state of continuous unrest, the
		policy of the government inclining al
ternately to union with the Roman Catholic Church
and to hostility to the Latin faith; while the first
half of the fourteenth century was a period of civil
war. This was the time at which the Hesychasts
originated, first on Mount Athos, under the leader
ship of Gregorius Palanlas (q.v.), later archbishop of
Thessalonica. They spoke of an eternal, uncreated,
and yet communicable divine light, which had
shone on Mount Tabor, the Mount of Transfigura
tion, and had passed to them. They were soon
assailed, however, by the monk Barlaam, a native
of Calabria, of Greek descent, but educated in the
Roman Catholic Church, and originally a member
of a Roman Catholic Basilian order. He had gone
to Greece at the beginning of the reign of Androni
cus, joined the Greek Church, and won prominence
by polemics against the Roman Church and as an
agent of Andronicus to Benedict XII. at Avignon,
ostensibly to procure the support of western Europe
against the Turks, but really to labor for a union

957	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Heaahnren
		Hesyohasta
between the Greek and Roman churches. After his
return to Greece Barlaam attacked the Hesychaats
and declared their teaching heretical, since such a
light could only be the essence of God. To the
argument of Palamas that the light was not the
absolute essence, but a divine agency and grace in
its communicability, Barlaam replied with a charge
of teaching a twofold divinity, approachable and
unapproachable, thus approximating dualism. The
matter was brought by Barlaam before the Patriarch
Johannes, and a synod was convened at Constan
tinople in 1341 under the presidency of the emperor
and the patriarch. The Calabrian was defeated and
returned to Italy, where he rejoined the Roman
Church, and in 1342 was made bishop of Gemce in
Calabria. He now wrote as violently against the
Greek Church as he had formerly against the Latin.
He died in 1348. A second synod confirmed the
decision of the first, especially as Barlaam was
suspected in Greece of being an adherent of Rome.
Notwithstanding all this, the number of those who
agreed with him increased, and in a third synod
his party were able, through the influence of the
Empress Anna, to depose the patriarch, although
their success was checked by the victory of John
Cantacuzenos over Anna. A fourth synod was held
in 1351, and the final decision was completely in
favor of the monks. The Hesychasts were accord
ingly approved, while Barlaam wasexcommunicated
and his partizan, the archbishop of Ephesus, was
deposed.
	The object of the Hesychasts was a revival of the
mysticism which had prevailed in Greek theology
				from ancient times. Since Clement of
		The	Alexandria, it had been an axiom that
	Hesychast illumination might be gained by purifi
	Doctrine. cation, and the pseudo‑Dionysiua, who
				sought some other means of approach
to God than the ordinary method of knowledge and
meditation, postulated a hidden light into which one
who was deemed worthy to see God might enter.
Similar concepts recur under different terminology
in Maximus, but the chief theologian to raise the
theory of the divine light to a cardinal doctrine in
the Greek system was Symeon Neotheologus (q.v.),
who flourished about the year 1000. He regarded
the vision of God and the consequent union with the
divine as the chief end of the Christian, and for the
attainment of this object required a systematic
education which was to be perfected by baptism, as
ceticism, penance, and the sacraments. This teach
ing formed the basis of the Hesychasts of Mount
Athos, although they devised an artificial mode of
obtaining these visions. The light was regarded as
superterrestrial and divine, but was not identified
with God, and a distinction was accordingly drawn
between essence and activity. The latter was
divided into an indefinite number of individual
energies of wisdom, power, counsel, illumination,
and life. These form the " divinities " which em
anate from God and are inseparably connected with
him. To them belongs the Tabor‑light, which is
superterrestrial, visible, eternal, and uncreated, yet
deifies that through which it passes and raises it
to the region of the uncreated. Against this the
followers of Barlaam, represented especially by
			V.‑17
Nicephoraa Gregoras, argued that the uncreated light must be either a substance or a quality. In the former case, a fourth hypoatasis is assumed, and in the latter a quality, which is impossible without a subject. In either case, two Gods would be presupposed: one superior, and the other inferior and capable of being attained to by physical vision. On the other hand, the most necessary attributes of God are unity and goodness; but the former excludes all combination, and the latter is unthinkable, except in a union of essence and activity.
The problem presented to the synod was twofold: the distinction between essence and activity, and the Hesychaatic interpretation of The their uncreated energies as " divin‑
	Points of	ities, "which became the principle of a
Controversy. mysterious deification. On the basis
		of the latter question the Hesychasta
could scarcely have been sustained, but the synod
gave prominence to the purely speculative problem
without regard to the peculiar point of view from
which it was deduced. The Greek Fathers had
always recognized the acme of the divine tran
scendency as the absolute, to which no name might
be given and which no eye, either of mind or body,
might behold. On the other hand, they admitted
life and activity proceeding from the absolute, and
these qualities could not fail unless the finite was
to be separated from all vital association with God.
For so fluctuating a differentiation, which formed,
moreover, a ready basis for mysticism, it was not
difficult to find proofs both from analogy and from
the earlier theologians; and the synod accorlingly
rendered its decision regardless of the philosophical
error contained in the mystical deductions of the
Hesychasts. The justice of their claims to the dis
covery of the Tabor‑light, the retainable portion of
their Gnosticizing description of the energies, and
the reconciliation of the contradiction of an un
created visibility were unexplained; nor was the
relation of essence and activity clearly defined.
Nevertheless, the Greek Church remained content
with this unsatisfactory result, partly because it
squared with the tendency of its theology. In its
turn, the Roman Catholic Church upheld Barlaam,
and even made the controversy one of the points of
difference between itself and the Greek Church.
The struggle for Hesychasm was in defense of the
essentially Greek dogma that the spirit o: God still
operates creatively in the Church as it did in the
Apostolic Age, and it was likewise a battle against
Occidental scholasticism, which was then rejected
forever by the Greek Church.
From this point of view it becomes clear why the doctrine of the sight of the divine light has been retained in Greek theology, and why it gained new power with the revival in that body in the nineteenth century. The chief representative of the Hesychasts in that period was Nikodemus Hagiorites (q.v.), a monk of Athos, in his " Manual of Symboliatics " (Venice [P],1801), who was followed by such dogmaticians as Eugenios Bulgaria in his "Theology " (ed. Leontopuloa, Venice, 1872) and Athanasioa Parios (q.v.) in his " Epitome " (Leipsic, 1808), while a work on the " spiritual prayer," which leads to the vision of fight, was

Sa~yahiw	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	968
published at Athens in 1854 under the title of " Spiritual Synopsis " by Sophronios, an archimandrate of a monastery on Athos.
(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are in John Cantaeusenos, Hint. Byaantina, in MPG, cliii (gives the case for the Hesychasts); Nicephoras Gregoras, Hist. Byzantina, MPG, eAviii (given the Barlsam side); review of the sources in Krumbacber, Geschichte. For history and discussion consult: lilgen, in ZHT, viii (1838), 48 sqq.; W. Gass, Goschidats der Athoe‑Klb6ter, Gieseen, 1865; J. H. Krause, Die Byaa"ner den Milklaltas, pp. 312 (on Barlsam), 327 (on the Hesychasts), Halle, 1869; Stein, $tudien Uber As Hbaydhaaten des‑ 14. Jahrhunderta, Vienna, 1874; J. Hergenrbther. Handbarh der allpemeinen Kirchen®aechiehte, 1860 sqq., Freiburg, 1885; K. Holl, D' nthuaiaa;nue and Buasgewalt bei den prierhiachen MSnchtum, Leipsic, 1808; A. H. Hore, Biphteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church, pp. 457‑4U, New York, 1899; KL, i. 20122016 (Barlaam), v. 1960‑8 (the Hesychasts).
HESYCHIUS, he‑sik'i‑us •. A name of frequent occurrence in the history of early ecclesiastical literature.
1. An Egyptian bishop of the third century who suffered martyrdom under Maximus about 311 A.D. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., viii. 13). He is known chiefly as a Biblical, critic, A revision of the Septuagint prepared by him once occupied in Alexandria and Egypt a position of importance analogous to that held by the work of Lucian fmn Constantinople to Antioch (see BIBLE VERSIONS, A, I. 1, f 5). He also prepared an edition of the New Testament which found a few enthusiastic admirers, though it was rejected by Jerome (cf. Ad Ruftnum, ii. 26; De vir. ill., lxxvii.;' cf. Gelasius I., Decretum, vi. 14‑15). None of his writings have been preserved, and nothing is now known of the nature of his critical work.
fd. Presbyter of Jerusalem; d. 430. He was the author of a work on church history, of which a portion was read before the Fifth General Council (Second Constantinople, 553; of. Mansi, Concilia, ix. 248‑249). This work has been lost. A large amount of literary material (printed in part in MPG, xciii.), commonly ascribed to Hesychius, has been preserved, but further research is necessary before the authorship can be definitely determined. The Explanationes in Leroiticum (MPG, xeiii. 787790) are manifestly spurious, as they are based upon the Vulgate. W. Cave was of the opiniod that the author of these writings was a presbyter named Hesychius who lived at Jerusalem about 600 A.D.
For others of this name consult Fabricius‑Harles, Bx7bliotheea Gro;ca, vii. 544 (Hamburg, 1801).
(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. O. Bardenhewer, Pabrologia, pp. 163164, Fveiburg, 1894; H. B. Swete, Introduction to the O. T. in Greek, London, 1900; SehOrer, Geechichte, iii. 314 sqq., Eng. tranal., II., iii. 165‑166; Kreger, History, p. 219; DCB, iii. 7‑8.
2. W. Cave, 8cripforum eccl. Kist. literaria, i. 570 sqq., Oxford, 1740; Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliothaa arms, vii. 548‑bbl, Hamburg, 1801; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologia,
p' 351
	p.	‑353, Freiburg, 1894; Krumbaeher, Gesehichte p.
147; DCB, iii. 11‑12; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrla, xi. 654‑M77.
HETERODOXY. See ORTHODOXY.
HETHERINGTON, WILLIAM MAXWELL: Scottish poet and clergyman of the Free Church; b. near Dumfries June 4, 1803; d. at Glasgow May 23, 1865. He studied at the University of Edinburgh,
and became pastor at Torpichen, Linlithgow, in
1836. At the separation of 1843 he joined the Free
Church and received a charge in St. Andrews the
following year. In 1844 he established the Free
Church Magazine, which he edited for four years.
In 1848 he was called to Free St. Paul's, Edinburgh.
From 1857 till his death he was professor of apol
ogetics and systematic theology at New College,
Glasgow. Aside from his poems, his more impor
tant works are: The Minister's Family (Edinburgh,
1838; 12th ed., 1880), a popular Evangelical work;
History of the Church of Scotland (1842; 7th ed.,
2 vols., 1852), a good book, but biased; History o f
the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1843; ed.
R. Williamson, 1878), a useful work of reference;
and the posthumous Apologetics o f the Christian
Faith (1867), a course of lectures edited, with a
biographical sketch, by Alexander Duff.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hew Scott, Fas6i eudesias $coticante, i. 204,
London, 1871; DNB, xxvi. 300‑301.
HETTINGER, FRANZ: German Roman Catholic scholar; b. at Aschaffenburg (23 m. e.s.e. of Frankfort), Bavaria, Jan. 13, 1819; d. at W(irzburg Jan. 26, 1890. He studied at W ilrzburg and in the German College at Rome, where he was ordained priest in 1843. From 1847 nearly the whole of his life was spent at W (irzburg, either in the clerical seminary ‑or in the university, in which he was professor of theological encyclopedia and patrology (1856‑67) and of apologetics and homiletics from 1867, besides being rector in 1862 and 1867. .In 1868 he was summoned to Rome to take part in the preparations for the Vatican Council, and in 1879 was made domestic prelate to Leo XIII. His works include Das Friesterthum der katholischen Kirche (Regensburg, 1851) ; Die Liturgie der Kirche and die ldteinische Sprache (W tirzburg, 1856) ; Das Becht and die Freiheit der Kirche (1860); Apologie des Christenthums (2 vols., Freiburg, 1862‑67; Natural Religion, and Revealed Religion, 2 vols., London, 1895); Die kirchliche Vollgewalt des apostolischen Stuhles (1873; The Supremacy of the Apostolic See in the Church, London, 1889); D. F. Strauss (1875); Lehrbuch der Fundamentaltheologie oder Apologetik (2 vols., 1879); and a number of scholarly works on Dante, of which the most important is Die gottliche Kom6die des Dante nach ihrem wesentlichen Inhalt and Charakter (1880; Dante's Divina Commedia: its Scope and Value, London, 1887).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Gedenhblatt was published at Wtirsburg, 1890. Consult: F. Kaufmann, Frans Hettinger, Frankfort, 1891.
HETZER, LUDWIG. See HAETZER, LuDwIG.
HEUBNER, heib'ner, HEINRICH LEONHARD: German Lutheran; b. at Lauterbach (in the Erzgebirge, 15 m. s.e. of Chemnitz) June 2, 1780; d. at Wittenberg Feb. 12, 1853. After. schooling at Schulpforta and studying at Wittenberg, where, in 1805, he qualified as lecturer, he became superin. tendent and first director of the Wittenberg theological seminary, in 1832; and so served till his death. As theologian Heubner adopted the standpoint of F. V. Reinhard (q.v.) until about 1817; and since he was uninfluenced by newer theological, as well as philosophic, tendencies, his theology

859	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g my°hi°n
bore somewhat of an antiquated stamp. Never
theless his fervent piety elevated him to a sincerity
and warmth that far exceeded the forms of the
routine school system. Accordingly, his power lay
not in his academic activity, nor yet in his sermons,
but in the influence of his Christian personality.
Loyalty to the confession of the Lutheran Church
caused him to refuse acquiescence in the Act of
Union and acceptance of the new liturgy. Respect
for his personality, however, induced the authorities
to leave him undisturbed. His publications are
limited to minor treatises, two collections of ser
mons, and the reissue of Reinhard's Plan Jesu
(Wittenberg, 1830; Eng. trend., including Heub
ner's notes, Plan of the Founder of Christianity,
New York, 1831) and Biicbner's Handkonkordmiz
to the Bible (Halls, 1840). After his death there
appeared a practical exposition of the New Testa
ment (4 vole., Potsdam, 1858), and Christliche
Topik oder Darstellung der christlichen Glmubenalehre
fur den homiletiachen Gebraueh (1863), based on his
lectures. 	GEonG R1xTScaxr..
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Schmieder, Eoarpelisdha Kirdhenceitunp, 1883, pp. 289 eqq.; Zurn Gedachtnise Dr. Heinrich Leonhard Haubne<e, Wittenberg, 1883; G. Bietechel, Heinrieh lvnhard Heubner, ib. 1880; Wangemann, Die kirehlick Cabinets‑Politik des KBriiga FWedrich WiMm 111., pp. 171 eqq., 182 eqq., Berlin, 1884; A. Koch, Dr. HeinrlcA Leonhard Heubner in wiaenberp, ib. 1885.

HEUMARR, hei'miin, CHRISTOPH AUGUST: German Protestant; b. at Alat#dt, Thuringia, Aug. 3, 1681; d. at Gottingen May 1, 1764. He received his education at the gymnasium at Saalfeld and at the University of Jena, where he became privet‑docent in philosophy in 1702. After traveling in Germany, Holland, and France, he became director of the seminary and gymnasium at Eisenach in 1709. Here he remained till 1717, when he accepted a similar position in the gymnasium at Gottingen. Here he had abundant opportunity to display his talents as administrator, teacher, and writer. In 1734 the premises of the gymnasium were required for the erection of the new university. Heumann expected an appointment as full professor of theology, since he had received the doctorate in theology at Helmstedt in 1728, and had declined several calls to universities. But he was appointed professor of the history of literature and associate professor of theology. At last he received a full professorship in theology in 1745. In 1758 he felt obliged to retire, since he disagreed with the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. He devoted the rest of his life to literary work. He was an indefatigable writer; the mere enumeration of his works occupies 134 pages in his biography by Cassius. He wrote on theology, criticism, philology, history of philosophy, biography, etc. Of his theological writings, the principal are his translation of the New Testament (Hanover, 1748), his commentary on the New Testament (12 vols., 1750‑83), and the posthumous Erweias, doss die Lehre der reformierten Kirche vom Abendmahde die rechte sei (3 parts, 1764), which grievously offended the Lutherans and called forth numerous replies.
(PAUL TscaecmmT.)
BnwooHAPHy: G. A. Cassius, Ausjiahrlidle Lebenebsschreib. uno Hsumanne. Cassel. 1788; Zsit and Geechichdebo‑
wAreibunp der Stadl Gsttinpen, iii. 128‑300, GBttingen, 1738; C. G. Heyne, Memoria Heumanni, ib. 1784; ADB, si. 327 eqq.
HEUSDE, PHILIP WILLEM VAIY. See GRoNINGM SCHOOL.
MUSSER, heis'ser, META (SCHWEIZER): The best female hymnist in the German language; b. at Hirzel (13 m. s.s.e. of Zurich) Apr. 6,1797; d. there Jan. 2, 1876. She was the fourth daughter of Pastor Diethelm Schweizer, a relative and friend of Lavater, and spent her quiet life in Hirzel. She married Johann Jakob Heusser, an eminent physician, and became the mother of a large family. She never dreamed that her lays would be given to the world; but her friends, after many vain efforts, obtained her consent to publish anonymously some of them in Albert Knapp's Christoterpe for 1834. They made a deep impression, and passed into many collections and German hymn‑books of Europe and America, especially the Easter hymn, Lamm das gelitten, and Li6eoe der siegreich gerungen, and O Jesus Christ, mein Leben. Later Knapp edited a volume of her poems, under the title Lieder einer Verborgenen (Leipsic, 1858). It was followed by a second series (1867), under her real name. A selection from both volumes was translated into English by Miss Jane Borthwick under the.title Alpine Lyrics (Edinburgh and London, 1875). Mrs. Heusser was a woman of rare genius, piety, and loveliness of character. Her memory was stored with the choicest poetry, secular and religious.
(PaiwP ScaAFFt.) D. S. SCHAPrF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. Koch, Geschichle des Xirchenliede and KircAengesanm vii. 877‑381, 8 vols., Stuttgart, 18881877; P. Schaff, Christ in Song, New York, 1888; ADB, xtii.339‑340; Julian, Hymnolopy, pp. 519‑520.
HEWALD (HERWALD) : The name of two Anglo‑Saxon monks who toward the end of the seventh century undertook a mission to Saxony. According to Bede (Hist. ecci., v.10), they had lived a long time in Ireland, and were distinguished as the " dark " (niger) and the " fair " (albus), from the color of their hair. Their request to be presented to the Saxon chief was not granted, and the barbarians slew them, torturing the dark Hewald cruelly, and throwing his limbs into the Rhine: The king punished the murderers, and the bodies of the martyrs at once began to work miracles. Pepin buried them in Cologne (which fixes their date before 714). The day of their suffering was Oct. 3. In 1074 Anno II., archbishop of Cologne, translated their relics to St. Cunibert's church; the church of St. Victor at Xanten, and the abbey of Gorze, near Metz, also claimed to possess portions of their relics.
BIHLIOaaAPH1: ASH, Oct., ii. 205‑207; Bettberg, KD. ii.
397‑399; Hsu* KD, ii. 388‑389; NA, ii (1877). 293.
HEWIT, NATHANIEL AUGUSTUS (name in religion, Augustine Francis): Roman Catholic; b. at Fairfield, Conn., Nov. 27, 1820; d. in New York City July 3, 1897. He was graduated from Amherst (B.A., 1839) and from the Theological Institute of Connecticut, Windsor (1842). In the same year he was ordained to the Congregational ministry, within the year became a Protestant Episcopalian and wag ordered deacon, but in 1846 he

8ezateuoh	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	goo
became a convert to the Roman Catholic faith. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1847, and for two years was vice‑principal of the Cathedral Collegiate Institute, Charleston, S. C. From 1850, when he entered the Redemptorist Order, until 1858 he was a missioner, and in the latter year was dispensed from his vows to enable him to enter the newly established Congregation of St. Paul the Apostle. In 1865 he was appointed professor of philosophy, theology, and Holy Scripture in the Paulist Seminary, New York City. Besides editing the Catholic World from 1869 to 1874, he wrote Reasons for Submitting to the.Catholic Church (Charleston, S. C.,
Names (§ 1).
Contents (§ 2).
External Testimony to the Authorship (§ 3).
Internal Testimony (§ 4).
Early Theories of Composition (§ 5).
Development of the Documentary Hypothesis (§ 8).
Analysis Illustrated and Justified
(§ 7).
[The symbols J, E, JE, PD, used in this article, represent writers or schools of writers who, according to the critical hypothesis, produced the documents from which the Hexateuch was compiled. Thus J represents a document referred to the ninth century a.c.;• E, one referred to the eighth century; JE to their union in one strand in'the early part of the seventh century; D, to the product of a school working in the last half of the seventh and later, producing Deuteronomy and several of the historical books; P, a series of documents partly narrative, partly legal, assigned to the fifth and fourth centuries. For fuller explanation see HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LrraeAruaa, II., § 5.1

The Hexateuch is the name ,given to the first six books of the Bible as a whole, the first five of which are called the Pentateuch. The Old
	:. Names.	Testament names for the Pentateuch
		are Hattorah, " the instruction, the
law," Sepher hattorah, " the book of the law," Se
pher toroth Yahweh, "book of the law of Yahweh,"
and Sepher toroth Elohim, " book of the law of God "
(with reference to its source), and Sepher torath
Moaheh, " book of the law of Moses," or, Sepher
Mosheh (Ezra vi. 18; Neh. xiii. 1; with reference
to its human mediator). In Talmudic times Sepher
hattorah served to designate the Pentateuch written
as one roll for use in divine service, while Vamis8hah
Humshey hattorah, " the five fifths of the law," was
applied to the Pentateuch written in five rolls or in
book form. The Aramaic designation was 'Oraita,
" instruction "; the Greek, Ho nomoa or Ho namos
Mauuseas, " the law " or " the law of Moses." The
term Pentateuch was first used, it is believed, by
the Valentinian Ptolemeeus (c. 160 A.D.) in a letter
to Flora (Epiphanius, Har., viii. 14), the Latin
Pentateuehus (liber) by Tertullian (Adro. Mdrcion.,
i. 10), taking later the form Pentateuchum in Isidore
of Seville. The individual books were called by
the Jews' by the first words occurring in them:
Bereshith, Shemoth or We'elleh Shemoth, Wayyitra,
Bemidhbar or Wayyedhabber, Debharim or Elleh
debharim (cf. Origen in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI.,
xxv.). The Greek names Genesis, Ezodos, Leuiti
kon, Arithmoi, Deuteronomion appear in Hippolytus
(Hcer., vi. 15‑16) as though used by Simon Magus.
1846); Life of Princess Borgheae (New York, 1856); Life of Dumoulin‑Boris (1857); Life of Rev. Francis
A. Baker (1865); Problems of the Age, with Studies
in St. Augustine on Kindred Topics (1868); Light
in Darkness: A Treatise on the Obscure Night o f
the Soul (1871); and The King's Highway: or, The
Catholic Church the Only Way of Salutation as re
vealed in the Scriptures (1874). He also translated
A. Breseiani's Life of the Egyptian Aloyadus: or,
the Little Angel of the Copra (New York, 1865).

HE%APLA. See BIBLB VERSIONS, A, L, 1, § 4; ORI(iEN.
HE%ATEUCH.
Modern Conservative Writers (§ 8).
General Positions of Advanced Criticism ($ 9).
Position of KSnig, Dilhnann, Wellhausen, A., Kuenen (¢ 10).
Kloetermann's Recent Work (§ ll).
Limitations of Literary Analysis
The Constitution and the Statutes
The Tabernacle (§ 14). The Manual for the Priests (§ lb). Legislation not in the Law Books U 16). The Legislation and Specific Needs

Deuteronomy (¢ 18). Legislation and the Age (§ 19). Literature on §§ 12‑19 (¢ 20).
The division into five books is older than the Sep
tuagint, but not original. It is also older than
Chronicles, since in I Chron. xvi. the psalm put
into the mouth of David on the occasion of bringing
the ark into Jerusalem contains the doxology at
the end of the fourth book of the Psalms; and the
division of Psalms into five books doubtless cor
responds to the fivefold division of the Pentateuch.
	The contents include the history of God's kingdom
on earth and in Israel from the creation till the
		death of Moses, and the law of God's
	s. Con‑ kingdom in Israel. (1) Genesis: i.‑xi.
	tents is primitive history (creation, paradise,
		the fall, the flood, the table of nations,
building of the tower at Babylon, genealogy from
Shem to Abram); xii.‑xxvi. deals with Abraham
and Isaac; xxvii.‑xxxvii. 1 deals with Jacob, and
xxxvii. 2‑1. with Joseph. (2) Exodus: i.‑xv. 21
contains the oppression of Israel in Egypt, two
reports of the call of Moses (iii.‑vi. 1 and vi. 2
vii. 7), the ten plagues of Egypt, the exodus and
crossing of the Red Sea (vii. 8‑xv. 21); xv. 22
xxiv. 11 describes the journey to Sinai and the
conclusion of the covenant there (xx. 2‑17 con
tains the decalogue; xx. 22‑xxiii. is the Book of
the Covenant); axiv. 12‑xxxi. contains direc
tions concerning the building and equipment of
the Tabernacle and concerning the clothing and
consecration of the priests and the daily offer
ing; aaxii.‑xaxiv. describes the breaking of the
covenant and its renewal; xxxv.‑xl, narrates
the erection of the Tabernacle, the making of the
priestly garments and the consecration of the sanc
tuary. (3) Leviticus: i.‑vii. contains laws of offer
ings, the kinds of offerings and the .duties and
privileges of the priests; viii.‑x. describes the con
secration of the priests and their induction into
office; xi.‑xvi. contains directions regarding clean
and unclean and the day of atonement; xvii.‑xxvi.
is the Holiness Code, dealing with festivals and with
the Sabbatical and Jubilee years; xxvii. deals with
consecrations. (4) Numbers: i.‑x. 10 gives the

D81	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8ezateuch
last directions and events at Sinai; x. 11‑xxii. 1,
from Sinai to Moab (the spying out of the promised
land and the murmuring of the people, the insurrec
tions of Korah and of Dathan and Abiram, the
gathering of the people in Kadesh, the death of
Miriam and Aaron, three pieces of poetry); xxii. 2
xxxvi., occurrences and laws in Moab (Balsam,
numbering of the people, summary of halting
places). (5) Deuteronomy: i.‑iv. 43, introductory
addresses of Moses; iv. 44‑xxvi., the second ad
dress (repetition of the decalogue, directions to fear,
love, and worship God alone, the central sanctuary,
unclean foods, judgment at the central sanctuary
and the law of the king, priests, levites and prophets,
prayers and tithes); xxvii: xxx., final address (di
rection to write the words of the law in plaster on
great stones, blessings and cursings); xxxi ~xxxiv,
end of the life and work of Moses (command to
read the law every seventh year to the assemblies
of people at the feast of tabernacles, the Song of
Moses, the last words of Moms). (6) Joshua:
i.‑vi. recounts the crossing of the Jordan and the
capture of Jericho; vii.‑viii., the capture of Ai;
ix.‑x., the war in South Palestine; xi., the war
in North Palestine; xii., recapitulation; xiii.‑xxi.,
partition of the land among the tribes; xxii., dis
missal of the trans‑Jordanic tribes; xxiii: xxiv.,
final exhortations of Joshua, his death and
burial.
In the time of Jesus and the Apostles the Pentateuch was certainly regarded as the work of Moses
(Mark xii. 19; John viii. 5), and from 3. External this point of view the expressions of
Testimony the Lord and his disciples regarding to the "the law" are made (Jesus in Matt. Authorship. viii. 4; Mark xii. 26; Luke xvi. 29;
John v. 45; Peter in Acts iii. 22; Paul in Rom. ix. 15). For the view in the Apocrypha cf. II Mace. i. 29, vii. 26. For earlier times this same view is indicated as regnant in Ezra vi. 18; Neh. xiii. 1. In the prophetical writings the name of Moses as attached to the law occurs only Mal. iv. 4, and the expression there does not necessarily involve authorship. The passages in the books of Kings where occur the phrases " the law of Moses " and " the law‑book of Moses " relate only to Deuteronomy, I Kings ii. 2‑4; II Kings xiv. 6 (II Kings xviii. 6, 12, xxi. 8, xxiii. 25 designate the law as given by God through Moses). Moses' name appears in Psalms lxxvii., xcix., cv., cvi., but in these passages is not associated with literary activity. Moses gives no testimony for his authorship of the whole, since Ex. xvii. 14, xxiv. 4, 7, xxxiv. 27, and Num. xxxiii. 2 concern only portions, while Deut. xxxi. refers only. to the law in Deuteronomy. External testimony is therefore inconclusive. Regarding the citations from the New Testament it is to be remarked that they testify simply to the current opinion of the times. Were they an essential part of the authoritative teaching of the New Testament they would be decisive in themselves, and any introduction of further proof would be a setting aside of the authority of the Lord and his disciples. But none of the advocates of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch who have made themselves soquainted with the difficulties and development of
the question have gone so far as to assert that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is conclusively decided by the manner in which the books are referred to by the Lord and his apostles and that no further proof is required. A remarkable exception was the late William Henry Green of Princeton (q.v.).
From the contents, and especially from the composition of the Pentateuch, reasons appear which show that the Pentateuch is neither
4. Internal by Moses nor by a contemporary, nor
Testimony. indeed the work of one hand. (1) Moses would not have written concerning his own Egyptian name as the passage Ex. ii. 10 is worded; moreover, he would have called by their proper names both the king's daughter who rescued him and the Pharaoh of the oppression and of the exodus, while in the Pentateuch Pharaoh is used as though it were a proper name; he would have made known the identity of Reguel and Jethro, would not have mentioned the Cushite woman in the manner of Num. xii. 1; and he can not have written the conclusion of the genealogy found in Es. vi. 26‑27. (2) Numerous geographical, archeological, and historical details indicate post‑Mosaic times. Such are the mention of Hormah, Num. xxi. 3; Dent. i. 44; and the villages of Jair, Deut. iii. 14 (cf. Num. xxxii. 41; Josh. xiii. 30; Judges x. 4). The passage which cites the Book of the Wars of Yahweh, Num. xxi. 14‑15, must be post‑Mosaic, since the contemporaries of Moses who were led across the Arnon did not need a testimony that this river was in their time the northern border of Moab. The summary of stations in Num. xxxiii., even though with Ewald verses 36b‑41 a are put after verse 30a, gives no clear picture of the journey through the wilderness; moreover, it is strange that Hadesh is mentioned only once, though elsewhere it is stated that the Israelites were there in the second and in the fortieth year. (3) That the Pentateuch is not by one hand, but a composite, follows from the fact that there is a lack of relationship between parts which, were they by the same author, would have been brought into express connection by crossreference. How strongly the reader of Gen. xxvi. is reminded of Gen. xx.‑xxi., where the similar experiences of Abraham and Isaac are recorded I And yet the later narrative contains no reference to that containing the earlier event. With reference to Genesis, this objection may be answered by the supposition that Moses employed earlier sources, as Campegius Vitringa supposed regarding the relation of Gen. ii. 4 sqq. to Gen. i. 1‑ii. 3. But the same phenomenon is met in Exodus. There are two reports of the call of Moses; and while they are not contradictory, they in no way cross‑refer. Moses could be considered the author of two reports, but there would be needed a later hand to bring them together. And further examination shows that the second report belongs to P, while the first is a composite of the work of E and J. Difference of authorship here is indicated both by linguistic differences and by other peculiarities; and just this difference in presentation is, as will be shown, a weighty ground for holding to the compositeness of the Pentateuch.

Hesatenoh	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	sell
For a long time students were uncertainly groping for an answer to the question how to decide concerning the origin of the Pentateuch,
5. Early for the right key to the problem had
Theories of not yet been found. For two thousand
Composi‑ years the Mosaic authorship was main‑
	tion.	tained, the early synagogue following
		the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in
this position (except in certain small particulars, cf.
M. Eisenstadt, Ueber Bxbelkritik in der talmudischen
Lilteratur, Frankfort, 1895), and this way of
thinking was followed by the synagogue of the
Middle Ages, except in certain particulars (Isaac
ibn Jasos, cf. JE, vi. 623; Abraham ibn Ezra, cf.
JE, vi. 520‑524). The Church Fathers also re
garded Moses as the author in spite of the quite
common supposition based on IV Ezra xiv., that
Ezra, inspired by God, restored in their entirety
the Holy Scriptures which had been lost during
the Babylonian exile. Andreas Bodenstein, of
Carlstadt (Ln$ellua de canonicis scripturis, Witten
berg, 1520), regarded the law as Mosaic, but
doubted whether the thread of narration was the
same, because in the narrative of the death and
burial of Moses the method of expression differs not
at all from what precedes. Many after Bodenstein
questioned individual passages, so that in the
eighteenth century there gradually grew up the
interpolation hypothesis." Many objections against Mosaic authorship were disposed of on the hypothesis of retouching or change (such as is suggested by the passage Gen. xii. 6, " the Canaanite was then in the land "), but by no means all. The " fragment hypothesis," originated by Alexander Geddes in England, and taken over in Germany by J. S. Vater, did not long maintain itself, for against the disconnection manifest in many places was the fact that numerous and longer passages were mutually connected. Through similarity of language and of notions in Genesis, particularly in passages where the name Elohim is employed, there was formed the idea, in the minds of J. J. Stiihelin, F. Bleek, and F. Tuch, of a " supplementary hypothesis." An Elohim document, beginning with Gen. i. 1, named the foundation document, was filled out from a later document, the Yahwistic, by the addition of selections and remarks which were not entirely consistent. While this hypothesis seemed to meet many difficulties, the character of the long connected pieces proved that J was once an independent work alongside P, e.g., in the story of the flood, while sometimes J takes rank as the work which is supplemented from the narrative of P.
The French physician Jean Astruc (1684‑1766), by a literary analysis of Gen. i.‑Ex. ii., turned Pentateuchal criticism into anew channel.
6. Develop‑ Using the divine names as a criterion,
ment of the he set the pieces containing the name
Document‑ Elohim in a column designated A,
	ary	those containing the name Yahweh in
Hypothesis. a column B, and other pieces also
		apart, and regarded A and B as orig
inally complete and independent narratives. He
thought that Moses had used the arrangement in
columns and that later copyists had brought all
together into one column and so destroyed the order. A was regarded as the work of Levi with the use of an older document, but Ex. i.‑ii. by Amram, the father of Moses. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was maintained by Astruc. In this way he thought he had solved chronological difficulties and those arising from duplication in Genesis. Astrue's idea was introduced into Germany by J. G. Eichhorn and given a better basis by the proof that the two chief documents were further ‑differentiated by linguistic peculiarities. H. Ewald recognized that P and J were traceable not only as far as the first chapters of Exodus; but also in other books, and F. Tuch showed that they were recognizable even in Joshua. As early as 1822 F. Bleek had remarked upon the original relationship of Joshua to the Pentateuchal narrative, of which it formed the conclusion. The special position of Deuteronomy was recognized as early as 1806 by W. M. L. de Watts. H. Hupfeld followed K. D. Ilgen in proving that Elohim was used by two documents. K. H. Graf showed that Lev. xvii.xxvi. were to be discriminated by many individualities from the priestly document, and indicated a fifth document (to which the name " Holiness Code " was attached by A. Klostermann because the characteristic of this body of laws is the designation of God as holy, and emphasis is laid upon Israel's duty also to be holy). Still later analysis was carried farther by those who were not contented with the five sources, at least three documents were " discovered " in the J sections, two in the E sections, two in D, and four in P (Wellhausen's designation for the chronological thread in P was Q‑quatuor foxderum later, though only three covenants are mentioned, with Noah, Abraham, and Moses, not one with Adam). And it is assumed that these documents had been subjected to recensions before their incorporation into the Hexateuch, though the question of how far this can be recognised is not satisfactorily answered. It is very probable that into the Priest Code, which has special interest for the law of ritual, additions were interjected, and attempts have been made to determine these, though the certainty and value of these attempts is open to question. That the original Deuteronomy up to and during its inclusion in the Hexateuch did not escape change is certainly probable; but the attempt to use the employment of the singular anti plural numbers as means of discrimination seems unpromising. As an example of the minuteness attempted in analytical investigation, the results of C. 8teuernagel's work may be given. The law‑book of Josiah was put together from two documents, PI and Sg; PI has three sources, of which one is again resolvable into two originals; similar principal and auxiliary documents are discovered in Sg. Against the discrimination of J into two or more sources, growing mere prevalent nevertheless, cf. E. Honig's Eisleitvng in das Alte Testament (Bonn, 1893), pp.197‑200.
Justification of the analysis is attained by a careful reading even of a good translation of the following examples, in which the composition out of at least two sources is recognizable. The history of the flood and of Noah: P is in Gen. vi. 9‑22,

l383	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	HarAteuoh
vii. 6, 11‑viii. 5 (except vii. 12, l6b, 17, 22‑23,
viii. 2b), viii. 13a, 14‑19, ix. 1‑17,28‑29; all the
		rest is J except that in vii. 7‑10 there
	7. Analysis are editorial additions. Shechem and
	Illustrated Dinah in Gen. xxxiv.: Hamor is the
	and chief personage in the narrative of
	justified. P‑verses 1, 2a, 4, 6, 8‑10, 14‑18,
		20‑24; Shechem is the principal
personage in the other verses, which belong
to J. The spying out of the promised land,
Num. xiii‑xiv.: P is in xiii. 1‑17a, 21, 25,
26, 32, xiv. la, part of 2, 5‑7, 10, 26‑29,
34‑38. The rebellion of Korah and of Da
than and Abiram: JE makes Dathan and
Abiram direct their rebellion chiefly against Moses,
and his document is in xvi. lb, 2a, 12‑15, 25‑34;
P, in which Komh and his 250 followers espoused
the cause of equality of all Israel in priestly rights,
is in xvi. la, 2b‑11, 16‑24, 35 (and it appears that
Korah had a double part, since in verses 2‑7 he
seems to stand at the head of the men of various
tribes, while in verses 8‑11 he is the spokesman of
the Levites; Deut. xi. 6 appears to have had a
report in which Dathan and Abiram acted inde
pendently). The report of Israel's sin in Moab,
Num. xxv. 1‑5, is composed from J and E, as the
exchange of the designations " Israel " and " the
people " indicates; the one, in lb, 2, 4a, mentions
the lewdness between Israelites and Moabite women;
the other, in verses 3, 5, denounces only the worship
of Baal‑peor. Further justification is attained by
the recognition of varied linguistic peculiarities. If
one reads the creation story in Gen. i.‑ii. 4a, the
genealogies from Adam to Noah (Gen. v., except
verse 29), and from Noah to Abraham (Gen. id.),
the establishment of the covenant of circumcision
(Gen. xvii.), and the purchase of the piece of ground
at Machpelah (Gen. xxiii.), on the one hand, and the
narrative of Paradise and the fall (Gen. ii. 4b‑iv.),
the visit of the three heavenly beings to Abraham,
and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.
xviii‑xix., except xix. 29) and the mission of
Abraham's steward in behalf of Isaac (Gen. xxiv.),
on the other hand, he will be convinced, even in
using a translation, that the two sets of stories can,
not be by the same author, and that the differences
exist in mote than the material, the disposition of
the material, and the purpose. The principal. lin
guistic differences of the five main documents of
the Hexateuch are given in § 11 of H: L. Strack's
Einleitung (6th ed., Munich, 19061, cf. H. Hol
zinger's Einleitung in den Hezoteuch (Freiburg,
1896); see also FEASTS AND FESTIVAI$, I., §§ 4‑5.
	Of the scholars who, at the end of the nineteenth
century, thought the authorship of Moses scien
		tifically tenable, nearly all have died.
	8. Modern Some names are K. F. Keil, E. C.
	Conserve‑ Bissell, A. Zahn, W. H. Green. The
	tive Bavarian clergyman E. Rupprecht
	Writers. fights almost alone in this cause in
		Des. RdthBel des Fun fbuehea. Mose and
seine falsche Lfsung (Giltersloh,1894), Des Rdthsers
L6sung (1895‑97), and Wissenschaftliehes Hand
buch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1898).
Roman Catholic and conservative Jewish scholars
are apt to be dogmatically hindered from ac‑
cepting critical conclusions. Of Roman Catholics may be mentioned' F. Kaulen, Einleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten and Neuen Testaments (3 parts, 4th ed., Freiburg, 1897‑99), §¢ 190‑201; and A. Seh6pfer; Geschichte des Alten Testaments (Brixen, 1902), § 27; of Jewish scholars, D. Hoffmann, rector of the Rabbinerseminar in Berlin, in Magazin fur die Wiwensckaft des Judenthums (1876=80); Abhandlungen fiber die pentateuchiRchen Geaetze (Berlin, 1878); and Die wichtigsten Inatanxen gegen die GrafWellhausensche Hypothese (1904).
Practically all other scholars of the present seek with the aid of the documentary hypothesis to gain
a conception of the construction of the
y. General Hexateuch. Problems of importance Positions of under discussion are : the order in time
Advanced and the absolute age of the individual
Criticism. documents, the shape each of these
documents had up to its union with another or with others of its fellows, the number and character of the editorial efforts at combining the documents. In consequence of the expositions especially of K. H. Graf (1866) and J. Wellhausen (1876‑78); whom E. Reuss (since 1833) and W. Vatke (1835) preceded, the predominant majority of Old Testament scholars in Germany, England, and North America hold: that D was written immediately before the reformation of Josiah and with a view to using his influence; that the completed central. portion of P, brought together at the earliest in the Babylonian exile, is not historically trustworthy; and that the closing of the Hexateuch is to be placed in the time of Ezra (Wellhausen, B. Stade) or still later (E. Reuss, A. Kayser, A. Kuenen, and many others). But it must be remarked here that the law‑book which came to light in the eighteenth year of Josiah must have been written earlier; that the Holiness Code is earlier than Ezekiel; that the value of P, the priestly document, is by most scholars rated too low; and that P (Wellhausen's Q) was not taken into the united JED, but that D was taken into the united WE (QJE). The present writer is convinced that in the future neither the old traditional views nor those of the " advanced critics" will hold the field.
The conclusions of E. Konig (in his Einleitung) are: that from Mosaic times come the decalogue,
the book of the covenant (Ex. xx. 22ro. Position xxiii. 33), Ex. xxxiv. 10‑26, the poet, of Koenig, ical pieces in Ex. xv., Num. vi., x,.,
Dill‑anti, xxi., and at least for substance other Wellhausen, parts; E belongs to the time of the
A. guenen. Judges, J not before David nor after
Solomon; the analysis of JE is in many places no longer possible; the kernel of D is iv. 45‑46, v.‑xxviii. 46, xxxi. 9‑13, which has a Mosaic basis, but was worked over in the time of the Judges and immediately after 722 B.c.; P is a collection of oral traditions which grew up in priestly, circles and.was completed hardly before 600‑500; the union of JED, with P was probably made by Ezra in Babylon. A. Dillmapn (in his commentary on Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, Ldipsici 1888) places E (which he calls B) in the first half of the ninth century; it used written sources

8ezstsuch	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	264
particularly in Ex. xx.‑xxiii. and Num. xxi.; J (which he calls C) is a Judaic document not earlier than the middle of the eighth century; D is not much earlier than the eighteenth year of Josiah, and its author used E and J, especially the book of the covenant, and other laws (especially H) which now are embodied in P; Wellhausen's Q (which Dillmann calls A), the kernel of P, is dated e. 800 B.C.; E in its historical parts was constructed from oral sources and from written sources no longer extant, and in its legal parts from a collection of laws having the character of H; QEJ were worked together c. 600 by a redactor who still had J and E before him as independent documents (all other scholars hold that JE was consolidated before a third document was added); not much later, D was united with QEJ, so that D remained really the standard; before the return of Ezra H and some priestly instructions were added; Ezra brought the Pentateuch into recognition in 444, after which nothing essential was added, though editorial work and polishing of the text c ntinued. J. Wellhausen in Prolegomena zur Creechu~bte I.raela (5th ed., Berlin, 1899) holds that J beags to the golden age of Hebrew literature, the tits before the separation of the two kingdoms; the later E was worked together with J into the Jehovistic history, but takes in legislative elements only in the case of the giving of the law at Sinai in its historical connection; D (Deut. xii.‑xxvi.) was written immediately before it was found; next followed the fundamental piece, Lev. xvii.‑xxvi., later than Ezekiel, but closely related to him; P (of which Q designates the core, which treats history systematically and is found in its pure condition in Genesis) is the result of longcontinued literary labors during and after the exile, and was already incorporated in the Pentateuch when the latter was published by Ezra in 444. A. Kuenen in his " Introduction " (3 parts, Leyden, 1861‑85) places J in the ninth century or early in the eighth; E, to which J was known, is dated c. 750; both were northern documents, but a Judaic edition of both, somewhat extended, was made for Judah in the second half of the seventh century; these two documents were united into JE at the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century, before the Babylonian exile, and Moses' Song was in the possession of the redactor; D' (i.e., Deut. v.xxvi., xxviii., xxxi. 9‑13) was written as a guide for Josiah's reformation; D', drawn from JE, added to Deuteronomy the introduction i.‑iv. 4A; JE was united with D during the Babylonian exile, and the redactor made alterations only at the end of the history of Moses, in Deut. xxvi., xxxi., xxxiv.; further, in order to win Deuteronomy its place, he placed the Book of the Covenant and Ex. xxxiv. 10‑28 in the time of the giving of the law at Sinai; H (Lev. xvii.‑xxvi., Kuenen's P') is later than Ezekiel; still later and postexilic is the legal‑historical Q (Kuenen's P'); the book read by Ezra and accepted by the people's representative in 444 was Q united with H and other priestly instructions, but whether this union had taken place in Babylon or was made in Judea between 458 and 444 is not determinable; Ezra's law‑book underwent essential changes and extensions; consequently the redaction
of the Pentateuch is not a work completed all at once by the union of P with JED, probably before 400, but the result of a labor continued for some time as the differences of text in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint indicate.
A. Klostermann (Der Pentateuch, Leipsie, 1893; Daa chronolooche Syatem des P, in NKZ, 1894;
Die Heilighema‑ and Lagerordnung, ::. Kloster‑ 1897; Dag devteronomische Gesetsbuch,
mann's	1902‑03) complains (Pentateuch, pp.
Recent	1‑76) that modern Pentateuchal crit‑
Work.	icism founded upon the document‑
ary hypothesis lacks basis. It conceives that the synagogue text, by the side of which there are other and older ones, and which is regarded as a book often edited, is identical with that of the composer of the Pentateuch, and that all linguistic diversities, especially in the most variable element of divine names, originate not in differences of manuscripts which underlie our late edition, but in the diversity of historiographic sources which the author combined and thereby recognized as older. It ignores the fact, says Klostermann, that the Pentateuch was a book for the edification of the community, in the transmission of which the emphasis must hays fallen upon its edifying quality, upon its lucidity, and not upon the purity and age of the text. The work should, therefore, not be carried from above downward and begin with assumed authors J and E, but should first investigate when the author ‑or, if you will, the redactor‑wrote, that is, he to whom we owe the unified but materially multicolored Pentateuch. The starting‑point of the investigation is the report in II Kings xxii. of Hilkiah's discovery (Pentateuch, pp. 77‑114). Deut. iv. 44‑xxvii. 69 is the recension with introduction of homiletic addresses directed by Josiah to be made of the work found in the temple, which is to be understood not as the law itself, but as the elucidation by the teacher of the law. In this way only is the character of Deuteronomy explained, and the supposition that Deuteronomy is a counterfeited program for a reformation is shown to be unreasonable (Pentateuch, ii. 154‑428). In order ‑to make possible the fitting of this document into the pre‑Josianic Hexateuch, also in the time of Josiah, speeches of Moses and historical notes were interwoven, and so in the manner of a harmony attempts were made at smoothing away the difficulties which the reader discovers between Num. x. 11‑xxxvi. and Dent. xxxi. 14 aqq., on the one side, and Deut. iv. 44‑xxviii. 68, on the other. It results, therefore, that the report in Num. x.‑xxxvi. and Deut. xxxi. 14 sqq. held its place as an authoritative account of the Mosaic times from the departure from Sinai to the death of Moses, and so is an old document; indeed, it must be older than Isaiah and Micah (Pentateuch, i. 115‑152). Klostermann then takes up the Pentateuch of the times before Josiah (Pentateuch, i. 153‑187), in which statistical details and independent documents with legal ordinances were combined, to which Genesis belonged. In consequence of the loose union of material of varied character, this book suffered damage and disarrangement and also experienced augmentation.

266	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hszwtenoh
Examples of the latter are Num. xxviii: xxxvi.;
Deut. xxxi. 14‑23, xxxii. 1‑44, 48‑52. The forma
tion of the original work lay far back of Micah, who
knew this enlarged book. The limit a quo Klos
termann seeks to find in a discussion of the chron
ological system of the author who deals with the
consecration of the temple in the twentieth year of
Solomon as epoch‑making.	Three divine cycles
(one is 12 x 49 years) or 1,764 years to the flood,
two cycles or 1,176 years to the birth of Abraham,
and two cycles to the consecration of the temple
are discovered (concerning the Jubilee period as
49 years cf. Pentateuch, i. 419‑447). The section
concerning the tabernacle and the plan of the camp
shows that the author used two sources marked by
the distinctive use of separate terms for the taber
nacle, ohel mo'ed and mishkan ha‑`eduth. This work
can have originated only in a time when the sanc
tuary at Shiloh was still in the memory, and when
there was interest in preserving for posterity what
had been replaced by the temple and so had fallen
out of actual experience. The Sinaitic book of
the covenant is discussed in Pentateuch, ii. 429
579. In later studies Mostermann purposes to
investigate the older type of narration, and so
the fragments designated by the symbols J, E,
and Q, which then first come properly under
consideration. Klostermann's method, as indicated
by his keen investigations, is theoretically good.
He rightly considers that the confidence of most Old
Testament scholars in the security of the results
of analytical work is too strong. On the other hand,
he overvalues the meaning of the changes which the
text of the Pentateuch has suffered in the course
of time. 	(H. L. STRACg.)
Of critics who accept the traditional account of the origin and development of the religion of Israel not a few accept the current analysis
a. Limits‑ (§1 6 and 7 above) in its bolder outtions of lines (J. Robertson, C. H. H. Wright, Literary J. Orr); while others, after minute inAnalysis. vestigation, find the analysis illusory and reject it altogether (W. H. Green, E. C. Bissell). These critics are one in the conviction that the method of argument is " in very many respects precarious; the criteria alleged are often fallacious to the last degree; and the resulting partition is extremely dubious." The reasons which call for caution are such as these: (1) The divine names are evidently used at times with discrimination. The particular aspect of God which was at the moment prominent in the thought of the speaker or narrator determined the choice of the title, whether it should be Elobim or Yahweh or the Almighty or the Most High God or the Everlasting God. " The original distinction between Jahweh and Elohim very often accounts for the use of one of these appellations in preference to the other " (Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 56). According to the current analysis J at least uses each name as he has occasion; and Yahweh is found in passages of Genesis which are ascribed to the Elohist writer (Green, Unity of Genesis, pp. 539 sqq.; Higher Criticism, pp. 91 sqq.; E. Riehm, Einleitung, i. 126, Halle, 1889; P. J. Hoedemaker, Moaaischer Ursprung den Gesetze, p. 110 eqq., Gilters.
loh, 1897). The use of a particular divine name, therefore, can not in and of itself alone be conclusive evidence of authorship (cf. Gen. xv. 1, xx. 1, xaa. 2, 6, 8). (2) The diction, style, and religious conceptions of J and E are confessedly so similar that as evidences of authorship they are often " far from conclusive " and yield " nothing but conjectures as to the separation of the sources " (H. Gunkel, Legends of Genesis, p. 126, 134, Chicago, 1901; Strack, Commentary, p. xviii.; Driver, Introduction, 10th ed., pp. 116, 126). The same facts hold with regard to passages that are assigned to P, but not to the same extent (Green, Unity, p. 552; and on the scraps given to P in Gen. xii.xviii., p. 215; cf. also Ruenen, on Gen. vii., viii.). Occasionally D and JE are not readily distinguishable (Kent, Students 0. T., vol. i., on Gen. xiii.1417; Driver, Introduction, pp. 35, 66, and 99). (3) The difference of style between passages, moreover, where such difference actually exists, is largely one of mood and subject‑matter and purpose; calm or emotional, plain or graphic, rigid or easy, brief or descriptive or diffuse, stately or lively or formal, prosaic or poetic, declarative or hortatory. Unless other marks are present, stylistic differences of this general nature are at best an uncertain guide when the question concerns the analysis of a verse and the distribution of its clauses; for the style of a sympathetic author changes along these very lines and. adjusts itself to his moods and the varying aspects of his subject (Green, Unity, p. 552; idem, Feasts, p. 14; Dillmann; Commentary on Exodus and Leviticus, p. 676, 1897). (4) The analysis is being based more and more on asserted divergences or contradictions, the existence of which is quite unnecessarily assumed (see below). In view of these facts, caution is demanded, especially when the attempt is made to disintegrate a small bit of connected story. Before leaving the subject of the literary analysis a remark is in place regarding " contradictions." Many doublets and divergences are said to exist in the Hebrew records. There may be some. No textual critic would think for a moment of denying that possibility. But such as have been pointed out are not always, nor even generally, " contradictions " (Green, Higher Criticism, pp. 109‑113; C. H. H. Wright, Introduction, p. 100, London, 1891; J. Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 236, 361). They are diversities, indeed; but it is contrary to the canons of historical criticism constantly to pit sources against each other. Rather the historian regards variants as different aspects or incidents of the event.
The narrative of Israel's history contains an account of the organization of the people into a nation by Moses under the direction of God. Yahweh was acknowledged as the supreme head of the state; he was the sole object of worship and the ultimate source of all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial. The Ten Commandments with the prologue (Ex. xa. 2‑17) were made the fundamental law. They were the constitution of the nation. The body of laws contained in Ex. xxi.xxiii. 19, with the introduction and conclusion in xx. 22‑26 and xgiii. 20‑33, formed the statutes. The Ten Commandments were often called the

8exateuoh	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	266
covenant (Dent. iv. 13); and the combined legislation, or at any rate the statutes, were entitled the book of the covenant, since it was
13. The upon the basis of the solemn agreeConatitution ment of the people to obey these laws
	and the	that God made the covenant with Is
	Statutes.	rael at Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 4‑8). The
		articles of the constitution and the
statutes are codified, the related injunctions being
grouped together. The sections generally con
tain five or ten laws each, perhaps they all con
tained ten originally (Dillmann, Commentary on
Exodus, pp. 242‑245; Briggs, Higher Criticism of
the Hexateuch, pp. 212‑231; Paton, in JBL, 1893,
pp. 79‑83); and they relate to: (1) Forms of wor
ship (xx: 23‑26); (2) The protection of 'the rights
of man; (a) in respect to liberty, (xxi. 2‑11);
(b) concerning injury of person (xxi. 12‑36);
(c) concerning property rights (xxii. 1‑17). (3)
Regulation of personal conduct (xxii. 18‑xxiii. 9).
(4) Sacred seasons and sacrifice (xxiii. 10‑19).
(5) The promise annexed (xxiii. 20‑33). The con
stitution was, of course, unchangeable without the
consent of both parties. The statutes have the
characteristics of such laws; they are constitu
tional, involving no principle contrary to the or
ganic law of the State; they are expository, being
the, application of the doctrines of the constitution
to the social life and religious observances of the
people; and they were temporary in their nature
and liable to amendment, abrogation, and increase
in order to meet the new conditions and peculiar
needs of each age. According to the narrative this
process of modification began in the days of Moses
and under his authority (ef. Ex. xii. 6, 18, xxiii. 15
with Num. ix. 9‑14; also Num. xxvii. 1‑11, xxxvi.
1‑9). The laws were not new (Dillmann, Com
mentary on Exodus, p. 226). The Ten command
ments, or most of them, had long been authorita
tive among the children of Israel (Gen. iv. 9‑15,
ix. 6, xx. 3, 5. 6, xxxi. 32, 37, xxxiv. 7, xxsv. 2,
xliv. 9); and the laws of the second table, with the
probable exception of the tenth, were in force among
other nations. The significance of the decalogue
lay in the fact that God made recognized moral
obligations the fundamental law of his kingdom
and, by the tenth commandment, probed back of
the outward act into the inner nature of man and
located the source of sin in the evil desires of the
heart. The statutes also were not new. They
were .a hereditary body of usages, as is proven
among other evidence by the laws of Hammurabi
(see HAMIIURABI AND His CODE). The discovery
of this ancient codex enables the student of the
Bible to trace more of these ordinances back into
the period before Moses than he had heretofore
been able to do. It is remarkable that in so many
instances the same classes of people, particularly
the less fortunate members of society, were re
garded by both Babylonians and Israeli" as pos
sessing rights that could be. recognized by the State.
It is perhaps more remarkable that the Babylonian
and Hebrew law often imposes the same, or prao
tically the same, penalty for the same offense. To
a remarkable degree the two peoples shared the
same conception of justice. It is not necessary to
assume, nor is it probable, that the Hebrew legislator had the laws of Hammurabi before him; but it is certain that Israel inherited from some source the conceptions of justice and the judicial customs which existed among the Babylonians in the days of Hammurabi. Moses was inspired in the preparation of this book of the covenant; but a body of laws hidden from the foundation of the world was not revealed to him. Moses was a prophet (Dent. xviii. 15), and inspired as the prophets were. He was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, whereby he was made an infallible communicator of God's will to his fellow men. His mind was enlightened concerning the nature of the kingdom; he was led infallibly to choose the laws appropriate to the condition of the people and adapted to discipline them in the spirit of the kingdom; and he was prompted and controlled and enabled to frame a system, more or less out of old materials, yet distinguished from all known legislation of contemporary peoples by its humanity, by its amelioration of the hard lot of the unfortunate, by its extrication of the conduct of man from civil relations merely and the exhibition of that conduct in its relation to God also, and by its power to lift the secular life into the true service of God.
The architect's specifications for the tabernacle are contained in Exodus xxv.‑xxsi. They were obtained or completed from the study of a model seen in a vision (Ex. xxv. 9, 40); for
	:4. The	which Moses was psychologically pre
Tabernacle. pared by the need that was pressing
		upon him of organizing the religious
life of the people as he had regulated their civil
life, by hours spent on the mountain in calm and
earnest and prayerful meditation on the subject,
and by his acquaintance with the impressive tem
ples and symbolical ritual of Egypt. The sig
nificance of the tabernacle centered in the ark
of the covenant, where Yahweh dwelt between the
cherubim; and the description accordingly begins
with the ark as the chief object and proceeds out
ward‑an order of recital followed only in these
formal specifications and for symbolic reasons.
(1) The constant and essential features, patterns of
the heavenly: ark, table of ahewbread, and candle
stick (xxv. 10‑39); and then their housing (xxvi.
1‑37). The altar of burnt offering (xxvii. 1‑8),
and then the court in which it should stand (xxvii.
9‑19). Directions concerning the materials to be
used in connection with the permanent features:
(the ahewbread consisted of twelve loaves of ordi
nary bread, and hence specific directions for the
making of it were not required), specifications con
cerning the oil for the continual light (xxvii. 20,
21). (2) Provision for man's approach to Jehovah:
priests (xxviii. 1); their garments (xxviii. 2‑43)
and their consecration (xxix. 1‑35); consecration
of the altar of burnt offerings (xxix. 36, 37), and
the daily morning and evening offering upon it for
the nation (xxix. 38‑46). After the mediating
priesthood and the daily sacrifice have been pro
vided, the offering of incense, symbolical of the
prayers of God's people as being well‑pleasing to
Jehovah, is fitting; hence there follows the altar
of incense (xxx. 1‑10). (3) Provision for the

$87	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8azstso,oh
things needed in this approach of man to God: for defraying the expenses (xxx. 11‑16); for priestly functions, viz., the lever (xxa. 17‑21), oil for anointing the vessels (xsx. 22‑33), and incense (xxx. 34‑38); for the work of building the tabernacle, skilled artificers (xxxi. 1‑11). In this description the altar of incense, which symbolized the obligatory and acceptable adoration of God by his people, is not mentioned until provision has been made for sinful man to approach Jehovah. The place given to it in the specifications has its reason in the symbolism. Other considerations determine the order of narration afterward; other laws of association prevail, and the altar of incense is grouped with the furniture of the tabernacle (xxxv. 15, xxsvii. 25), or is mentioned at the proper place locally (xl. 5). It belonged to the holy of holies, before the mercy seat (I Kings vi. 22 R.V.; Heb. ix. 4); but, since none might enter the most holy place save the high priest and he but once in the year, the altar of incense was set in the holy place, in front of the veil that separated the holy from the most holy place, in order that the priest might officiate at it daily. Wealth was lavished on this movable and evidently temporary sanctuary. The gold alone amounted to twenty‑nine talents or nearly nine hundred thousand dollars, and the silver raised by taxation to two hundred thousand dollars (xxxviii. 24‑31), and this in addition to the silver, bronze, and precious stones given voluntarily (xsxv. 5‑8, 21‑29). But the riches were not wasted. The journey to the promised land might be accomplished in a few days (Dent. i. 2), but the tabernacle must serve during the expected ware of conquest and during the confusion of settlement and home‑making. And, moreover, costly stuff was not used for things of a temporary nature. The housing was comparatively inexpensive, ant) the materials for it were at hand. The acacia wood might be had in the wilderness for the cutting, and the skins for the outer covering of the tent from the aquatic animals in the neighboring sea; while from their own flocks the rams' skins and goats' hair were obtainable. The precious metals went into the costly furniture of the sanctuary, which might be used for centuries, and into the gold plating and silver sockets of the boards. They would not be lost to the treasury of the Lord, even though a more substantial temple might ultimately be erected.
The priests officiated at the altar; hence they were provided with (1) a directory of procedure to be observed by the worshiper and the priest at the offering of the various kinds of sacrifice (Lev. i.vi. 7), and a book on the disposal of the sacrifice (Lev. vi. 8‑vii.). The priests required authorization; hence they had (2) the record
:5. The of .Aaron's consecration to the priest‑
	Manual for hood, an official act that established
the	the order and placed it on a legal
Priests.	basis, and the precedent for future in
	ductions into the priestly office; to.
	gether with laws enacted to meet the deficiencies
	in the legislation which were revealed on that occa
	sion (viii a.). Approach to Yahweh was condi
	tioned upon holiness of life, both ceremonial and
moral; hence there was furnished for Israel and given to the priests as the teachers of the laws and guardians of the worship and overseers of the ritual: (3) a directory of ceremonial purity anc' a law of holiness, containing (a) laws concerning foods that defile, diseases or natural functions that render unclean, and an annual day of national ceremonial purification (x.‑avi.), and (b) laws concerning holiness of life (avii.‑xxvi.), followed by an appendix on vows, tithes, and things devoted .(xxvii.). These small collections of laws and precedent, all of which relate particularly to subjects of professional importance to the priests, form a distinct section of the Pentateuch‑the book of Leviticus ‑and, as thus segregated, constituted a manual for the use of the priests. The laws contained in each of three divisions of the handbook, as it may be termed, were enacted at Sinai, according to express declaration. The directions for the consecration of Aaron and his sons were prepared during Moses' first sojourn of forty days in Mount Sinai (Ex. xxis.), and the instructions were carried out immediately after the erection of the tabernacle. The function occupied a week. At its end the punitory death of Nabad and Abihu was the occa. sion of new legislation (trey. a. 6‑20). The directory of procedure to be observed at the sacrificial services is dated after the erection of the tabernacle (i. 1); and the book on the disposal of the sacrifice was elaborated at the same general time, when " he commanded the children of Israel to offer their obligations to Jehovah " (cf. vii. 38 with i. 2). The appointment of an annual day of atonement was made sometime after the death of Aaron's older sons (xvi. 1), and met a requirement of the tabernacle law (Ex. xxx. 10). The regulations concerning ceremonial purity and holiness of life are throughout attributed to Moses, the representative of Yahweh (Lev. xvii. 1, xviii. 1 et passim), when he was in or, as the preposition may be translated, at Mount Sinai (xxvi. 1, xsvi. 46; for the usage of the preposition, cf. Num. xx. 23 with 25, xxxiii. 37 with 38; Deut. i. 6, ix. 8; and for the fact that some of the legislation was enacted in the camp, (cf. Lev. xxiv. 10‑23). Possibly some laws, but certainly not all, that were enacted after the departure from Sinai were inserted for the sake of convenience in their proper place in the manual (cf. perhaps xxv. 32‑34 with Num. sxxv.). And it may be added, though no importance is attached to the matter, that if changes took place in the priestly praxis at a later time, there could scarcely have been serious objection to the introduction of the necessary verbal modification into the text of the law as contained in the handbook.
Many orders were issued while the Israelites were still at Mount Sinai and during the march to Canaan which were recorded in the annals of the State, but did not belong in a law book. But there was also legislation of a permanent character upon civil, religious, and ecclesiastical matters enacted while the people were yet at the Mount and after their departure. The documents to which these laws bore relation were the book of the covenant, the specifications for the tabernacle, and the collections relating to the priests. Only

Heiateuch	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	gas
the third was, for the present, liable to receive additions or modification; for the specifications for the building of the sanctuary had
16. Legis‑ been carried out, and in regard to the lation not book of the covenant there was doubtin the less a natural feeling at the time that Law Books. the document to which the people had sworn obedience should not be tampered with or touched. The priests' manual, however, might well have been enlarged by the introduction of pertinent material. The laws in Num. xv. relating to the constituents of the meal‑offerings, to the loaf of the first‑fruits, and to the burnt sacrifices for certain sins (probably sins of omission and thus a supplement to Lev. iv.‑v. 13), and the festival calendar of Num. xxviii. and xxix., enumerating the public sacrifices proper for each season, might fittingly have been given a place. in the manual. The reason why they were not inserted in the priests' handbook is not apparent. The amendment to the passover law, providing for its celebration at another date by those who were disqualified from partaking of it on the regular day (Num. ix. 1‑14), might have been introduced after Lev. xxiii. 8; but to have done so would have marred the symmetry of the section. A logical place is not readily found in the priests' manual for the law of jealousy (Num. v. 1‑31), a civil judicial matter in which the test was applied by the priest, or for the law of the Nazirite (Num. vi. 1‑21), which included the presentation of the Nazirite before the priest and the offering of sacrifice; and, of course, there was no call to put in the priests' handbook the conditions which determined the validity of vows taken by women (Num. xxx.).
The theocracy was based on the conception of Israel as a community, and its success at any period was conditioned by the attitude of the people toward God and toward the provisions of the covenant. Obedience to God and reliance
:7. The upon him were essential. During the Legislation thirty‑eight years since the covenant
	and Spe‑	was concluded at Sinai the weakness
	cific Needs.	of the communal bands that held the
		tribes in union, and the tendency of
the people to violate the terms of the covenant,
had been frequently in evidence. Moses had often
heard murmuring against God, a questioning of his
goodness and his power, and he had been witness
of their lack of faith at critical moments (Ex. xv.
24 etc.; Num. xiv. 4‑12). He had seen the prone
ness of the people to fall away from the spiritual
worship of Yahweh and bow down before images,
contrary to the second article of the constitution;
and worse yet, to turn aside from the pure and en
nobling worship of the holy God to the abominable,
licentious rites of heathenism (Ex. xxxii.; Num.
xxv.). He had seen will‑worship on the part of
the priests and the indifference of these ministers
at the tabernacle to the law of the sanctuary (Lev.
x. 1). He had found personal ambition and tribal
jealousy growing into conspiracy and open rebellion
against both the civil ruler and the ecclesiastical
authorities (Num. xvi.); and the prospect of mate
rial good leading to contentment with present con
ditions, to selfish choice, and for a time perhaps to
forgetfulness of duty (Num. xxxii.). Moses knew, and all knew, that he had been the main force that had inspired the people for the great undertaking, that he was the most potent influence that was making for righteousness, and that he was the greatest representative of Yahweh among them. It was natural that the old man, the father of his people, should be unwilling to release the reins of government to other hands without making a final effort to save his children from disaster and to secure the permanence of the institutions which in the providence of God he had founded. It was natural that the aged leader should wish to speak a farewell word to his people, and that he who bad so long borne the nation on his heart should desire to tell them how to act in the new circumstances. And God bade him speak.
His valedictory reflects the experiences of forty years with the Israelites, and the hopes and fears which these events had begotten. The words are the utterance of a wise statesman and
18. Deute‑ man of God. The address was deliv‑
	ronomy.	ered in three instalments. (1) Re
		hearsal of the history of the people
since the covenant was made with the preceding
generation at Sinai, for the sake of the evidence af
forded of both the goodness and the severity of Yah
weh to Israel, and as a motive for obedience to
Yahweh's laws (Deut. i. 6‑iv. 40, with supplemen
tary statement, 41‑49). (2) Rehearsal of statutes
which concerned the people, with emphasis on the
spirituality of the laws and urgent insistence upon
their observance (v.‑xxvi.). (3) Conclusion: di
rections for building an altar on Mount Ebal and
writing the law there on plastered stones; and
blessings and curses annexed to obedience and dis
obedience respectively (xgvii.‑xxviii.). This great
address is closely followed by a brief speech at the
ratification by the new generation of the covenant
as thus proclaimed (xxix.‑xxx.). This covenant,
like the former one at Sinai, was recorded in a'
book (xxix. 20, 21, 27, xxx. 10; of. Ex. xxiv. 4
8). The address is dated in the fortieth year,
eleventh month, and first day; and the place is
" beyond Jordan " or " on the oth6r side of Jor
dan " (i. 1, 3). The designation was an old gee
graphical term, inherited from their ance‑stors. To
Abraham and the Canaanites it meant the region
east of the river; and the rugged bluffs that rose
behind the camp were known as Abarim, that is,
the mountains of the other side. And the Jordan
still separated them from the country of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. They were in the country " on
the other side." Naturally enough under these cir
cumstances the distinctive feature of the address
is preparation for the settlement in Canaan. (1) It
affects the language. With the occupation of the
land imminent, and with a part of it in actual pos
session, the wilderness is a memory of the past and
the thought is now of the new home. The speaker
talks much about houses, towns, and city gates,
about the cultivation of the soil and the fruits of
the orchard and vineyard. (2) It leads to the ad
justment of the laws to the new conditions, and to
the reciting of so much only of an ordinance as ap
plies to the new life. In reminding the people of

889	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hexatenoh
the law of foods the speaker omits the reptiles, which are included in the earlier law among the forbidden articles of diet (cf. Lev. xi. 29, 30 with Deut. xiv.); passing them by without mention probably because the land of promise was before him, a land flowing with milk and honey, a land of corn and wine, of figs, pomegranates, and olives. Its fertility east of the river had already been seen by the people, and it was plain that there would be no temptation in the new home to eat the grosser forms of flesh. Again, the law which required animals that were slain for food to be slaughtered at the door of the tabernacle would necessitate a long journey on the part of those who dwelt in remote districts. It was changed so as to permit the people to slay for food in the town where they resided (Deut. xii. 15, 21; Lev. xvii. 3, 4). To meet the same difficulty a change was made in the law regarding the transport of certain tithes to the sanctuary (Deut. 22‑25) and, apparently, in the age at which the firstling of the herd and flock should be offered (xv. 19, 20; cf. Ex. xxii. 30). The same intention probably led to the omission of a clause from the statute defining the procedure to be followed for legally confirming the Hebrew bondservant's choice, who at the end of his period of service should elect to remain with his master. Henceforth he need not appear at the sanctuary before the Lord (Ex. xxi. 5, 6; cf. xxii. 8, 9) in order to declare his voluntary relinquishment of his right to go free; from this time on the ceremony of attachment was alone required, and that act was always performed at the master's own house, in whatever part of the country it might be (Deut. xv. 16, 17). (3) It leads to grave concern for the tribe of Levi, in view of the peculiar situation in which it would soon be placed: a tribe without an inheritance. The entire tribe of Levi had been set apart for service at the sanctuary. It was to receive no land in Israel; and was without support except from the gifts of the people to the Lord for the maintenance of worship. In his parting words he dwells on their rights and privileges, refers repeatedly to their dependent condition and exhorts the people to call them in as guests at their joyous feasts, and never to forsake them nor leave them in need (xii. 12, 18, 19 et passim). In alluding to their perquisites (x. 8, 9, xviii. 1,8) he takes for granted a thorough familiarity on the part of the people with the distribution of duties among the several families of the tribe, which had been adopted in the wilderness, and accordingly he uses the general designation Levi and Levites (xviii. 1, 6); just as the Hebrew historians often do who wrote after the legislation o' Leviticus and Numbers had been enacted, leaving it to be understood that each order of ministers had its own peculiar duties and privileges (ver. 7; cf. Num. xxxv. 1,8; Josh. xxi. 3‑7, 8‑11, 13‑20; I Kings xii. 31; I Chron. xv. 2, 4, 11, 15; II Chron. v. 4, 5; Mal. ii. 1‑10, iii. 3). He uses also the designation " the priests, the Levites " (xvii. 9, xviii. 1, xxiv. 8), as do subsequent historians and prophets, even the latest (Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21; Ezek. xliii. 19, xliv. 15; II Chron. xxiii. 18). It was eminently appropriate as a means of distinguishing the legitimate priests, who
had just been restricted to the family of Aaron,
tribe of Levi, from the former ministers among the
Israelites to whom it pertained to offer sacrifice
(Ex. xix. 22, xxiv. 5; cf. xviii. 1, 12), and perhaps
also from civil ministers to whom the ‑title kohen
applied (Paton, JBL, 1893, pp. 1‑14). (4) It leads
to insistence upon resort to the one altar by the
whole nation, located at the place which Yahweh
should choose out of all the tribes to put his name
there (xii.), and the urgent exhortation to destroy
all heathen altars. The unity of the altar was in
tended to counteract the tendency of the people to
lapse into idolatry by preventing them from wor
shiping at the numerous local sanctuaries of the
Canaanites and by keeping the service of Yahweh
under proper control; to render the worship of
Yahweh a grander spectacle and of greater pomp
than the rites of the idols of the Canaanites by
uniting the numbers and wealth of the Hebrews at
one sanctuary; and to strengthen the national
feeling and deepen the sense of brotherhood by
giving to every member of the nation a common
home and bringing all the tribes together at stated
seasons as a great family. The spirit of jealousy
between individuals and between tribes, the popu
lar proneness to idolatry, and the willingness of
large sections of the people to separate from their
brethren and settle in attractive pastoral regions
had already become manifest. And therefore the
old idea of the priestly legislation, " one God, one
sanctuary" (Wellhausen, Hist. of Israel, p. 34), the
idea of the book of the covenant also, is insisted
upon at this crisis. It was essential to the unity
of the nation and the continuance of the theocracy.
	The exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt,
and the activity of Moses, are usually referred to
the time of the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasty of
Egypt, thirteen or fourteen or fifteen centuries be
fore Christ. The age was one of culture. Evolu
tion in government and religion had been going on
for hundreds of years. Society had become highly
organized and regulated by law. Sacred architec
		ture had reached an excellence that
	ig. Legis‑ for its purpose has never been sur
	lation passed. Religious symbolism and rit
	and the ual had advanced to a stage of develop
	Age. ment, probably the highest they have
		ever attained. The primitive, crude,
and simple had long since become the complex and
refined. The imperfect had become the perfect.
Moses and his contemporaries were born to this
civilization, as children today are born into the
civilization of the twentieth century. Men do not
start de novo; they build on the achievements of
the past. So did Moses. When he began his work,
the organized state was already a definite concep
tion before the minds of men, its conditions were
understood, and a standard of attainment had been
set. The institutions of which the origin is ascribed
to Moses represent this civilization. (1) The book
of the covenant contains a body of laws of which
the form of statement, the organization into a
code, the rights guarded, and the developed sense
of justice, are an inheritance from a Semitic an
tiquity already hoary in the days of Moses. These
facts have been completely established by the dis•

~ly~°h	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	970
covery of the code of Hammumbi. (2) The tabernacle in its general plan conforms to a type of temple much favored by the Egyptians in the time of Moses: an open space or court where the people assembled; a gate where the worshiper with an offering met the priest and which admitted to the priestly precincts; then directly beyond and in line with the gate, the house of the deity and abode of the ark. The view from the assembly place in Israel was likewise directly through the gate, across the priests' court, through the door of the great tent, when opened, into the holy place with its lamp and table and incense altar to the curtain that screened‑the shrine where the ark stood. In many instances there is also a correspondence in shape and proportions between the ground plan of the Egyptian temple and that of the tabernacle of Israel. (3) This tabernacle and the ordinances of worship and the laws of the priests, in their character, elaborateness, and complexity, reflect the Mosaic age. From Babylon on the east to Egypt in the west the temple was the chief building in the community in point of nobility and richness. By the dignity of its architecture it impressed the beholder with religious awe. The encompassing court, the sacred house or pyramid, and the adytum of the deity were on a scale of beauty and grandeur commensurate with the opportunities of the worshiping people. Curtains within the chamber of the god, and sheathings of gold and silver and symbolical figures added to the splendor and impressiveness and significance of the place. The priesthood was a numerous body, and was accorded high social rank. At its head, to speak more particularly of the Egyptian priesthood, stood the high priest, the embodiment of the order, and officially distinguished by gorgeous attire. Under him were orders of priests and inferior temple servants. The respective duties and prerogatives of these various classes of sacred ministers were carefully defined. The prospective priests passed through an elaborate preliminary training in order to be fitted for the performance of pontificial functions, and when graduated and on duty purified themselves by ablutions and were arrayed in white raiment of linen or cotton. Besides the minute regulations to govern the conduct of the ministering priests, an elaborate ritual was drawn up. Among the Semites the offerings consisted of animals for sacrifice and vegetable products. Beasts were distinguished as clean and unclean. To be fit for use upon the altar the animal must be not only clean, but without blemish in the eyes of the priest. A ceremony was performed of such perfection that by action and dress it told its meaning to the worshiper. Festivals were celebrated in honor of the deity, and annual pilgrimages were made to the shrine by the populace. Moses did not borrow bodily. He did not take over as a whole. But the expression of esthetic feeling and religious thought in the forms of architecture and ritual had become a fine art. The symbols used may be likened to words. Moses took these words and by means of them told to men ‑not to the Hebrews only, but to strangers who might visit Israel‑the character of Yahweh, the way to approach him, the obligations of his wor‑
shipers. The tabernacle and the priestly ritual, elaborate and complex. though they were, were yet no novelty, no innovation. It is not surprising that at the. founding of the nation, politically and religiously, the book of the covenant; which in modern parlance would be called the constitution and statutes, should be immediately followed by the plan and specifications for a national sanctuary and by a manual for the priests containing minute instructions for their guidance in the performance of a symbolic service. The ideals of the age demanded these things; and Moses under the direction of God gave to Israel a code of laws, a sanctuary, and a service devised primarily to meet the needs of the nation, but intended to command the respect of cultured gentiles as well.
On the priority of the priestly legislation to Deuteronomy consult the works of the school of Ewald, those, for example, by Dillmann ut sup., glostermane, Strack ut sup.; further, E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure, New York, 1885. For evidence that the narrative portion of P is pre‑exilic, cf. Boyd, Eaekiel and so. Litera‑ the Modern Dating of the Pentateuch,
tune on in Princeton Theological Review, 1908, §~ :a‑r9. 29 sqq. On the origin and sequence of the legislation, and on the congruity between the pentateuehal law and the history of the people, Green's works ut sup. and his article on Critical Views respecting the Mosaic Tabernacle, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1894, pp. 69 sqq. On the national sanctuary, and on the early distinction between priest and Levite, Green ut sup.; A. van Hoonacker, Le Lieu du culte (Ghent, 1894); idem, Le Sacerdoce Uvitique, Louvain, 1899. On monotheism among the early Hebrews, J. Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, Edinburgh, 1892; A. Dillmaan, Altteatamentliche Theologies Leipsie, 1895; B,. Baentach, Altorwentalischen u. isrnelitischen Monotheismus, Tiibingen, 1908. On the stage of religious development during the early monarchy, J. Robertson, Poetry and Religion of the Psalms, Edinburgh, 1898. On the incompatibility between the prophetic teaching and the newer theories concerning the origin and growth of the religion of Israel, G. Vos, Recent Criticism of the Early Prophets, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1898 and 1899. A survey and estimate of the entire argument is found in J. Orr, Problem of the Old Teatament, London, 1906; and a lawyer's study of the legislation and its criticism is contained in two articles by Wiener in the Princeton Tluologicad Reviews, 1907, pp. 188, 605.
JOHN D. DAvis.
B‑LIOGSAPH7: For a review of the criticism consult J. Kley. Die PeatateurAfraw, Are Gesdhiehte and Okra Sw tmne, MOneter, 1903: H. L. 8track, Einleitunp in daaAlte Testament I§ 4‑15, 8th ed., Munich, 1908, and for lit~ature, §t 95‑98. For English students if not for Ali, the best presentation of the evidence for the documentary hypothesis is J. E. Carpenter and (3. HarfordBattereby, The Haxateurh according to as R. V., arranged in its Constituent Documents wroth Introduction, Notes, Marginal References and Synoptioal Tables, 2 vole., London. 1900. The literature is immense, and the following is a selection including the most notable and influential works: A. Kuenen, Hiatoriadaritiaa ondsraoek naar hat ontstaan en de veraamelinp roan de boeken dss ouden veH bonds, 3 vole., Leyden, 1881‑85, Eng. trend.. Hiworioa.

271	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~SM
criicad Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateush, London, 1886; J. W. Colenso, The Pentatear& and . . . Joshua critically Examined. 7 parts, London, 1862‑79; L. Horst, Leviticus ssii‑xai. . uwd Hemkiel, Colmar, 1881; E. C. Bissell, The Psntatsuch, its origin and Structure, New York, 1885 (conservative); W. H. Green, Moses and the Prophets, New York, 1883; idem, The Hebrew Feasts in their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses, ib. 1885; idem, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, ib. 1895; Unity of Genesis, 1895. (Professor Green was the representative exponent in America of the defense of Mosaic authorship); A. Weill, Le Pentatsuque salon Man et Is Pentateuque selon Berri, Paris, 1885; J. P. P. Martin, Introduction h la a‑itique pinhole de Z'A. T., 3 vole., Paris, 1887‑89 (only the Pentateuch); A. Westphal, Les Sources du Pentateaque, nude de critique et d'hiatoire, 3 viola, Paris, 1888‑92; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, Berlin, 1889; Prokpomena, Berlin, 1899, Eng. tranel. of early ed., Edinburgh, 1885; E. Albers, Die Quellenberidts in Josua i.‑zii., Bonn, 1890; E. Kautssch and A. Socin. Die Genesis mit dussaw Unteracheidunp den Quellanschriften fihersetd, Freiburg, 1891; H. E. Ryle, Early Narratives of G, London, 1892 (illuminating); W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, 2 vole., London, 1892‑98 (exhibits the documents reunited); B. Babatsob, Das Bundesbuch, Halle, 1892; idem, Das Heilipkeiteposets, Lev. xcii‑=vi., Erfurt, 1893; B. W. Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis, Hartford, 1892; idem, The Triple Traditiowof Exodus, ib. 1894; Lox Mosaica: Moses and the Higher Criticism, London, 1895 (a composite volume of anticritical essays); F. Montet, La Composition do 1'Hezateaque, Geneva, 1895; S. C. Bartlett, Veracity of the Hsxateuch: a Defence, New York, 1897; C. A. Briggs, The Higher Criticism of the HerateucA, New York, 1897; idem and F. von HOgel, The Papal Commission and the Pentateuck, London, 1906 (Dr. Briggs summarises the evidence against Mosaic authorship; Von Htigel speaks for the Roman Catholic position); B. Stade, Akademische Reden and Abhandlungen, Giessen, 1899; C. F. Kent, Student's O. T., viol. i., New York, 1904 (a useful volume); R. H. McKim, The Problem of the PentatswA* an Examination of the Results of the Higher Criticism, ib. 1906; A. Gordon, Die Bezeichnunpen. den pentateuchischen Gesetskdaesen des Mosaismus, Frankfort, 1906; O. Proekeh, Das nordhebraische Sagenbueh: die Elohimqualls. Leipsi0. 1906; A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch . . . Verstandnise and Entetehunpapeschichte, ib. 1907; J. Krautlein, Die spradlichen Verschiedenheiten in den Hexateuehquellen, Leipslc, 1908: B. D. Eerdmans, Die Komposiaon den Genesis, Giesaen, 1908; DB, ii. 363‑376, and EB, ii. 2046‑b8 (neither is to be overlooked as convenient summaries of the critical position); JR, ix. fi89‑592; Smith, OTJC; a series of articles constituting a defense of the conservative view of the Pentateuch, by H. M. Wiener, in Bibliothsoa sacra, 1908‑1909; and the treatises on the Introduction to the Old Testament, such as Driver, and W. H. Bennett, London, 1899.
Commentaries on the Pentateuch which are important for the history of the subject are J. S. Voter, 3 viols., Halle, 180.3‑05; M. Baumgarten, viol. i., Kiel, 1843‑44; C. F. Keil, 3 viols., Leipsic, 1870‑78; A. Dillman, 3 vole., ib. 1880‑97, Eng. tranel. of Genesis, 2 viola., Edinburgh, 1897; Kurzpefaester Kommewtar, Gen.‑Numbers, by H. L. Struck, Munich, 1894, Genesis, 2d ed., 1905, DeuteronomyJby S. Oettli, ib. 1893; Handkommentar, Genesis, by H. Gunkel, G&ttingen, 1902, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers by B. Baentach, ib. 1903, Deuteronomy and Joshua by C. Steuernagel, ib. 1900; Kuraer HandCommentar_ Genes. Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua by H. Holsinger, 4 vols TObingen, 1898‑1903, Leviticus and Deuteronomy by A. Bertholet, ib. 1899‑1901 • International Critical Commentary, Numbers by G. B. Gray, New York, 1903, Deuteronomy by S. R. Driver, ib. 1895. on the Roman Catholic side: Curse acr%pturas sacra!, Genede‑Deuteronomy by F. de Hummelauer, 4 vole., Paris, 1895‑1901. On the Jewish side: M. M. Kafisoh, Genesis‑Leviticus, 3 vole., London, 1855‑M; S. R. Hirsoh, 5 vole., Frankfort, 1893‑1895. Commentaries on individual books are: F. Tuch, on Genesis, ed. Arnold and Mom Halls, 1871 (on the supplementary hypothesis); F. Delitssch, on Genesis, Leipsi0. 1887; Genesis by S. R. Driver, London, 1904; D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Levi(‑
ieue, 2 parts, Berlin, 1905‑08; Joshua by F. W. Spurling, London, 1901; A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis, Edinburgh, 1907 (masterly., though covering only part of the book); . Exodus; by A. H. McNeile. London, 1908. SBOT should also be consulted, of which Genesis by C. J. Ball, Leviticus by S. R. Driver and H. A. . White, Numbers by J. A. Paterson, and Joshua by W. H. Bennett have been published.
HEYLYlf, PETER: English controversialist and church historian; b. at Burford (16 m. w.n.w. of Oxford), Oxfordshire, Nov. 29, 1600; d. in London May 8, 1662. He studied at Magdalen College, Oxford (B.A.,1617; M.A.,1620; B.D.,1629; D.D., 1633), and held a fellowship there (1618‑29). He was made chaplain to the king in 1630, prebendary of Westminster Cathedral 1631, treasurer of the chapter in 1637, and subsequently subdean. In 1633 he was presented by Charles I. to the benefice of Houghton in the bishopric of Durham, which he exchanged for Alresford, Hampshire. In 1637 he was presented to the living of Islip, Oxfordshire. This he at once exchanged for the living of South Warren, Hampshire.
	In the religious controversies preceding the civil
war Heylyn proved a stanch supporter of the
king and the High‑church party. On account of the
bitterness he had shown toward the Puritans he
was singled out for punishment by the committees
of the Long Parliament. He was deprived of pre
ferments worth £800, and heavily fined; and his
parsonage at Alresford was stripped of its contents,
including his valuable library. To escape arrest he
was forced to wander in various disguises till 1648,
when he settled at Minster Lovel, Oxfordshire, the
home of an elder brother. In 1653 he removed to
Lacy's Court, near Abingdon. At the Restoration
he regained his former important position in the
councils of the Church, and would have been made
a bishop but for physical infirmity. As subdean
he attended the coronation of Charles II., Apr. 23,
1661, and on May 29 following hA preached at West
minster Abbey a jubilant sermon on the return of
Charles. He was an inveterate polemist, and was
inclined to find Puritan tendencies even in the
works of his fellow churchmen. Of his numerous
writings, which are generally marred by prejudice
and controversial rancor, the more important are:
MicTocosnme (Oxford, 1625), his once famous lec
tures at Oxford on geography, which he enlarged
into Cosmography (London, 1652); The History of
	. . St. George. of Cappadocia (London, 1631);
ExtraneusVaPuleu (1656), directed against Hamon
1'Estrange and Nicholas Bernard, his cleverest piece
of controversial writing; Ecclesia restaurata, or the
His" of the Reformation o f the Church o f England
(1661; ed. J. C. Robertson for the Ecclesiastical
History Society, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1849), his best
book, but strongly biased; Cypriaxiua Anglicus, or
the History of the Life arid Death of . . William
Laud (London, 1668), the chief authority for Laud's
private life, from which has been extracted The
Doctrine and Discipline of the English Church (Ox
ford, 1846); Aerius redivivus, or the History of the
Presbyterians (1670), a violent arraignment of the
Presbyterians; and Historical and Miscellaneous
Tracts (London, 1681), containing a life of Heylyn
by G. Vernon.

ftlin
Lectures	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	272
BIBLIoaHAPHY: The Life prefixed to the tracts (ut sup.) is a composite production, originally by George Vernon, revised without Vernon's knowledge by John Bernard (or Bernard), Heylyn's son‑in‑law, and re‑revised, again without the knowledge of either Vernon or Bernar, by Thomas Badow; Vernon then published his Life of Dr. Peter Heylyn, London, 1882, which evoked Barnard, e Theolopohiaforicus, or the True Life of . . Peter Hoyt^ ib. 1883 (of. on these 1. Disraeli, Curiosities of Literature, iii. 238, ib. 1849). Consult further: David Lloyd, Memoirs o/ the Limes . . . of . . . Personages that suffered . . for the nt Rely, PP. 526‑b28, ib. 1877; John Walker,
Sufferings of the Clergy, ii 190, ib 1714; A. A Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, iii. 662689, 4 vole., London, 1813‑20; DNB, xzvi. 319‑323.
HEYIILIN, hain'lin, VON STEAK (DE LAPIDE), JOHANN: German scholastic theologian; b. at Stein (10 m. e.a.e. of Carlsruhe) between 1425 and 1430; d. in a Carthusian monastery at Basel Mar. 12, 1496. He studied at Leipsic (1452); but removed to Paris (1454), where he became licentiate (1455), master (1456), fellow of the Sorbonne (1462), bachelor of theology (1463), and doctor of theology (1472). He then went to Basel, where by his energy and talent for organization he accomplished the victory of realism over nominalism (1464). Returning to Paris (1466), he became rector of the University of Paris (1469) and prior of the Sorbonne (1470). Together with Guillaume Fichet he introduced the art of printing in Paris and took an active part in the suppression of nominalism by the edict of Louis XI. (1473). Later he was prominent as a preacher in Basel (1474‑78); he then became professor of theology and rector in the University of Tdbingen (1478); but the opposition of the nominalists induced him to leave T(ibingen to become rector of the chapter in Baden‑Baden (1479). Afterward active as a teacher and reformer of morals in Bern (1480), but unable to attain success, he retired to Basel, first as canon and preacher of the cathedral (1484); but, wearied of the violent struggles with the nominslists, he entered the Carthusian monastery (1487). His commentary on Aristotle was written during his stay in Paris, but not published until many years later by his pupil Amerbach.
CARL ALBRieCHT BIBIRNoumm.
Brswoaasmr: F. Fischer, Johann" Heyntin, Basel, 1861;
W. Visoher, Oeschichte der Unieenitdt Basal, pp. 157‑188, ib. 1880; C. von Prantl, Geacnichte der Lopik, iv. 188 eqq., 298, Leipm0. 1890; H. Denifie and E. Chatelain, Auotwiwn charhaarii unioersitatis Parisiensis ii. 903, 907, 913, 918‑917, 921, Paris, 1897; A. Claudin, The Pirst Paris Press; an Amount of As Books puNiahed for O. Bidet and J. Heyntin . . .. 1470‑1472, pp. 35‑37, London, 1898.
HEZEKIAH.
Name, Character, and Chronology (4 1).
Rejection and Reaaeumption of Vassalage to Assyria (¢ 2).
8ennaoherib's Third Campaign (f 3).
Hem's Later Life and Deeds (1 4).
	Hezekiah (Hebr. ,H4iyyahu, Isa. xxxvi. 1 and
often; fli*yyah, II Kings xviii. 1, 14‑16; YeAiz
		tiYydhu, II Kings xx. 10 and often;
	:. Acme, Yelfizftyah, Hos. i. 1; Asayr. t1aza
	Character, kiya'u; Gk. Ezekias; Lat. Ezechias)
	and was twelfth king of Israel, son and
Chronology. successor of AWLz. His dates accord
		ing to the old chronology are 727‑696
B.C.; according to Krihler, 724‑896; according to
Duncker, 728‑697; and according to Wellhausen,
Kamphausen, Meyer, and Stade, 714‑686. The difficulty of determining the exact dates arises from the fact that II Kings xviii. 10 states that Samaria fell in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, wherefrom it would result that he ascended the throne in the year 728 B.C.; verse 13 states, however, that Sennacherib's campaign against Judea took place in Hezekiah's fourteenth year. The cuneiform inscriptions clearly establish that this campaign occurred in the year 701 B.c.; so, according to these data, Hezekiah began to reign in 715 B.c. According to II Kings xviii. 2, he was twenty‑five years old when he ascended the throne, but the text appears to be corrupt and should probably read fifteen instead of twenty‑five. He was possessed of energy and courage, was prudent and active, religious in disposition. He is the only king, except Josiah, of whom the Book of Kings says that, like David, he did that which was pleasing to Yahweh (II Kings xviii. 3‑4). He not only did away with the high places, but also endeavored to make it a rule that sacrifices should be offered only in the temple on Zion (II Kings xviii. 4; Mic. i. 5). In this way he strove to free the religious observances from those parts which he considered as either antagonizing (asherim and the brazen serpent) or as likely to endanger (high places and M"~ebhoth) the true knowledge and veneration of Yahweh as the holy and supernal God.
It was probably after the violent death of Sargon in 705 B.C., and while his successor, Sennacherib,
was occupied by a renewed attempt of
s. Rejec‑ Merodach‑baladan to make himself tion and master of Babylon (see AssymA, VI., Reassump‑ 3, if 12‑13), that Hezekiah severed
tion of his connection with Assyria. It seems
	Vassalage	that he took a prominent part in the
	to Assyria.	revolt against Babylon, since he took
		charge of King Padi of Ekron when the
latter was dethroned and made prisoner on account
of his faithfulness to the Great King. He seems also
to have been engaged in active negotiations with
Egypt (cf. Isa. xxx.‑xxxi.). After Sennacherib had
subdued Merodach‑baladan, he sought, in 701 B.c.,
to reestablish his sovereignty in the Mediterranean
region. The Book of Kings affirms that Hezekiah
sent a request for pardon to Sennacherib at Lachish
and afterward paid him a heavy tribute. It is then
stated in detail in II Kings xviii.17‑19, 35‑37, that
Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.
Hezekiah, however, refused, on Isaiah's assurance
that the city would not be captured, and Sen
nacherib was forced to turn back because the
angel of Yahweh destroyed 185,000 of his men.
Sennaaherib's description of the results of his third campaign in the year 701 B.C. (Schrader,
KB, ii. 91 sqq.) narrates the capture
3. Sen‑ of the Phenician cities, the defeat of
nacherib's Zidka of Ascalon, the conquest of Third Ekron in spite of the approach of an
Campaign. Egyptian‑Ethiopian army of relief, which was repulsed near Eltekeh, and lastly his successes against Hezekiah. But these successes involve only that Hezekiah was imprisoned in Jerusalem, was forced to surrender Padi, to send a heavy tribute to the Great King in Nineveh, and

.873	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8eyalia
		Hibbert Leotnree
also an embassy to pay homage.	The comparison
	of these statements with the other accounts of
	Sennacherib's victories shows that the campaign
	against Hezekiah failed in its principal aim. Prob
	ably Sennacherib, during his operations with the
	main army in Philistia, sent to Judah a division
	which occupied and devastated the county and
	also surrounded Jerusalem. Thereupon Hezekiah
	gave up his enterprise, although he had been one
	of the leaders in the revolt. He sent the message
	of his submission to Sennacherib at Lachish, prob
	ably after the battle at Eltekeh, and before the fall
	of Ekron, at the same time surrendering Padi. At
	first Sennacherib seemed to be satisfied with this;
	but after Ekron was taken and he decided to move
on toward Egypt, he did not consider it prudent
	to leave Hezekiah's still unimpaired and fortified
	city in his rear, and he demanded through the
	rabshak [commander] the surrender of Jerusalem.
	The surrender of Jerusalem to the Assyrians would
	have ended the remnant of independence enjoyed
	by Judah, and would have brought Hezekiah per
	sonally into great danger. In his perplexity Heze
	kiah turned to his God; and just as Isaiah had
	been right when he told Israel it would be to its
	injury to take part in world‑politics, so also the
	prophecy which he was then empowered to give
	proved true. Sennacherib was thus forced to
	return home without capturing Jerusalem. The
	cause of his return was probably, according to
	II Kings xix. 7, the news of a renewal of revolt in
	Babylonia. In addition to this (if II Kings xix.
	9‑19, 36 also refers to what took place in 701 B.c.,
	and not, as Winckler conjectures‑‑Geschichte Baby
	loniens and Assyriens, Leipsic, 1892, pp. 255‑258
	to a later event) some great misfortune, probably a
	plague, befell his army just when he intended to
move on toward Egypt.
	Although God did not .permit the Assyrians to
	capture Jerusalem, nevertheless Hezekiah became
	a vassal of Assyria. Of greater value
	4. Hezeki‑ than this semi‑independence was the
ah's	increase of earnest faith which the
	Later Life pious Jews derived from their mis
and	fortunes. The people, however, soon
Deeds.	relapsed into the state of immorality;
	and under Manasseh the moral and
	religious condition of the people became worse than
	it had been under Hezekiah. For this reason even
	in Hezekiah's time (cf. Jer. xxvi. 17‑19) Micah
	prophesied that the day would come when God
	would deliver Jerusalem to destruction. Hezekiah's
	intimate relation to his God is shown by the de
	scription of the illness which brought him near to
	death, when, after a fervent prayer of the sick king,
	he was cured by a remedy employed by Isaiah.
	isa. xxxviii. contains a song of thanksgiving ascribed
	to Hezekiah after his illness, of the authenticity of
	which there should be no doubt. It is certainly an
	error on the part of later critics to undervalue the
	title of the collection of proverbs, Prov. xxv.‑xxix.:
	" These are also proverbs of Solomon which the
	men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out." This
	is undeniable testimony that Hezekiah appointed
	a commission to make a selection of the proverbs
	of Solomon. That this commission had also other
literary duties, especially that of collecting psalms, is highly probable. Lastly, according to II Kings xx. 20; II Chron. xxxii. 30; Ecclus. xlviii. 17, Hezekiah built a subterranean canal from Gihon, the Virgin's Fountain of to‑day, on the eastern slope of the southern spurs of Zion, to a pool at the lower end of the Tyropaean valley. The Siloam Inscription (q.v.), found in this tunnel in 1880, is considered the oldest Hebrew inscription known, and to date from the time of Hezekiah. The Shiloah mentioned in Isa. viii. 6 was probably a watercourse which existed before Hezekiah's day. W. LoTz.
BIBLIOORAPRY: Besides the literature given under Ahab. consult: the sources in 11 Kings xviii.‑xx.; II Chron. xxix.‑xxxii.; and Isa. xxxvi‑xxxix; R. W. Rogers, Hint. op Babylonia and Assyria, 2 vole., New York, 1900; R. Sinker, Hezekiah and his Age, London, 1897; L. B. Paton, Early Hiat. of Syria and Palestine, ib. 1901; J. V. Prasek, Sanheribs Feldafge gegen Judo, in Mitteilunpen der vorderasialiachen Gesellechaft, viii. 4, Berlin, 1903; O. Weber, Sanherib, Konig yon Assyrien, in Der alts Orient, vi. 3, Leipeic, 1903; DB, ii. 376‑379; EB, ii. 205‑60; the commentaries on the Scriptural sours; and C. F. Kent, The Student'a Old Testament, ii. 499‑502, New York, 1905.
HIBBERT LECTURES: Next to the Bampton and the Boyle lectures perhaps the most noteworthy of the lectureships in Great Britain. The lectureship is named from Robert Hibbert (17701849), an English Unitarian, whose business interests were in Jamaica. In 1847 he executed a deed conveying to trustees after the death of his wife $90,000 in American railroad utocks, the income to be applied in a way " most conducive to the spread of Christianity in its most simple and intelligible form, and to the unfettered exercise of the right of private judgment in matters of religion." The income from the funds was used for some time in forwarding the independent research of students for the ministry whose attainments were regarded as especially brilliant. In 1878, however, a part of the funds was set apart for a limited series of years for the establishment of a lectureship to deal with the history of the religions of the world. The result is a series of volumes most of which have taken their place as classics in the subjects of which they treat. Many of the volumes have passed through several editions, and a new uniform edition has been issued, London, 1891‑97. The following is a list of the lecturers and their subjects:
1878. F. Max Mfiller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by the Religions of India, Oxford, 1878.
1879. P. Le Page Renouf, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt, London, 1880.
1880. J. E. Renan, The Influence of the Institutions, Thought and Culture of Rome on Christianity and as Do. velopment of the Catholic Church, ib. 1880.
1881. T. W. Rhys Davids, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by some Paints in the History of Indian Buddhism, ib. 1882.
1882. A. Kuenen, National Religions and Universal Religions, ib. 1882.
1883. C. Beard, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge, ib. 1883.
1884. ,A. REville, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by the Native Religions of Mexico and Peru, ib. 1884.
1885. O. Pfleiderer, The Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, ib. 1885.

Hiokes
8ieronymites
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
274
1888. J. Rhys, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by Celtic Heathendom, ib. 1887.
1887. A. H. 8ayee, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of
Religion, as Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, ib. 1887.
1888. E. Hatch, The Infuenoe of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, edited by A. M. Fairbairn, ib. 1890.
1891. E. Goblet d'Alviella, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Conception of God, as Illustrated by Anthropology and History, ib. 1891.
1892. C. G. Montefiore, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Hebre", ib. 1893.
1893. C. B. Upton, The Bases of Religious Belief, ib. 1894.
1894. J. Drummond, via, veritas, vita: Lectures on Christianity in its most simple and intelligible Form, ib. 1895.
HICKES, GEORGE: English nonjuror; b. at Newsham, near Thirsk (20 m. n.w. of York), Yorkshire, June 20, 1642; d. in London Dec. 15, 1715. He studied at St. John's and Magdalen Colleges, Oxford (B.A., 1663; M.A., 1665; B.D., 1675), and became fellow at Lincoln 1664; was appointed chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale 1676, and accompanied him to Scotland; was made prebendary of Worcester and vicar of All Hallows, Barking, 1680, chaplain to the king 1681, and dean of Worcester 1683. Refusing the oath of allegiance after the revolution of 1688, he was deprived of his deanery 1690, and for the rest of his life lived chiefly in London in more or less close concealment. In 1694 he was consecrated bishop of Thetford by the nonjurors. He published many sermons and controversial tracts, wrote the preface for a " reformed " version of John Austin's Devotions (see AusTIN, JOHN), and edited Thomas A Kempis; his Linguarum veterum septentrionalium thesaurus grammatieo‑criticus et archteologicus (Oxford, 17031705) is a work of much learning and industry.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Lathbury, A Hist. of the Nonjurors, London, 1862; DNB, xxvi. 35U‑354 (gives full fist of his works); W. H. Hutton, English Church . . . Id85‑171.¢, pp. 244, 316, 343, London, 1903.
HICKOCg, LAURENS PERSEUS: Presbyterian; b. at Bethel, Conn., Dec. 29, 1799; d. at Amherst, Mass., May 6, 1888. He was educated at Union College (B.A., 1820), and after studying theology privately was ordained to the Congregational ministry in 1824. He held pastorates in that denomination at Kent, Conn. (1824‑29), and Litchfield, Conn. (1829‑36), and from 1836 to 1844 was professor of theology in Western Reserve College, O. He then accepted a call to the professorship of the same subject in Auburn Theological Seminary, a position which he held until 1852, resigning to become professor of mental and moral science and vice‑president of Union College. In 1862 he became acting president of the same institution, of which he was full president from 1866 to 1868. In the latter year he retired from active life. He wrote Rational Psychology (New York, 1849); A System of Moral Science (1853); Empirical Psychology (1854); Rational Cosmology (1858); Creator and Crection (1872); Humanity Immortal (1872); and Logic of Reason (1875).
HICKS, ELIAS: Friend; b. at Hempstead, L. I., Mar, 19, 1748; d. at Jericho, L. I., Feb. 27, 1830.
He was a mechanic in the early part of his life, but
later devoted himself to agriculture. When he
was twenty‑seven he began to have " openings lead
ing to the ministry," and subsequently became a
noted preacher, traveling extensively among the
Yearly Meetings of American Friends. When the
more liberal element of the Society broke off from
the more conservative wing in 1827 they were
called Hicksites, and this separation extended to
New York, Baltimore, Ohio, and Indiana. (See
FRIENDS, SOCIETY OF, I., § 6.) Many were Unitari
ans, and some of Hicks's statements undoubtedly
tend in this direction. His philanthropic activities
were varied and effective. He published Observa
tions on Slavery (New York, 1811); Extemporane
ous Discourses (Philadelphia, 1825) ; Journal o f
Religious Life and Labors (5th ed., New York,
1832). 	ISAAC SHARPLESS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. 8. Turner, The Quakers PP 290‑295 et passim, London, 1889; American Church History Series, xii. 248‑284, New York. 1894.
HICKSITES. See Hlc", ELIAS; FItIENDs, SocIETY OF, I., § 6.‑
HIERACAS, HIERACITES: An early heretic and his followers, important for the early history of monasticism, and known principally from Epiphanius (Hter., lxvii.). Arius, however, as quoted by Epiphanius (l.c.), condemns the Christology of Hieracas, Valentinus, Manes, and Sabellius, and there is no reason to suppose another Hieracas. If he lived to be over ninety (as Epiphanius asserts), his birth would have fallen not long after 275. According to Epiphanius, he lived at Leontopolis, and was a man of the greatest learning. He knew the Bible almost by heart, composed a series of commentaries in Greek and Egyptian (Coptic), and wrote a great work on the Creation, and some psalms. He made his living by his skill as a copyist. His manner of life was extremely ascetic, including celibacy, complete abstinence from wine, and the reduction of food to the barest necessaries. His influence on the like‑minded soon assembled round him an ascetic community, who went even beyond their teacher in severity. Hieracas saw in the teaching of physical purity and self‑denial the essential difference between the Old and New Testaments. He denied the resurrection of the body, making the risen life a wholly spiritual one. He doubted the salvation of those who died in infancy, even baptized, because without knowledge there could be no conflict, and without conflict no reward. Epiphanius admits his orthodoxy on the Trinity. His Scriptural tendencies and his theoretical and speculative attitude toward renunciation of the world may be traced to the influence of Origen. If his monks were also his scholars, this would be one of the earliest instances of an ascetic community devoted at the same time to learning. According to Macarius Egyptius, there were followers of his teaching, known as Hieracites, as late as the end of the fourth century.
(ADOLF HARNAC%.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. W. F. Welch, Histmie der Ketzereisn, i. 815‑823, 11 vols., Leipsic, 1762‑85; Moeller, Christian Church, i. 287, 355; Harnack Dogma iii. 29 98 sqq
112, 128, iv. 8; idem, Geschichte, i. 467‑468, ii. 1, pp. 83‑

275	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hickes
		Hieronymites
	84; DCB, iii. 24‑25; Neander, Christian Church, i. 713
	716; KL, v. 2005‑08.
	HIERARCHY (from Gk. hieros, "sacred," and
archia, " rule "): The rule of sacred things; then
a body of rulers organized for such rule. The Ro
man Church probably presents the most perfect
example of a hierarchy organized monarchically,
the whole power centering in the pope, and most
minutely graded, both with respect to orders
bishops, priests, deacons (the ordines juris divini),
and subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, lectors, door
keepers, etc. (the ordines juris ecclesiastici), and
with respect to jurisdiction‑archbishops, metro
politans, exarchs, patriarchs, deans, vicars, cardi
nals, legates, etc. In the Greek Church the hier
archical organization is oligarchical: above the
several patriarchs there is no pope. In the Evan
gelical Churches, where the State rules the Church,
more or less of the hierarchical apparatus may be
retained, as in the Church of England and the Prus
sian Church; while, when the Church is established
on the principle of universal priesthood, and the con
gregation rules itself, as in the American churches
and many free churches in Europe, all hierarchy
disappears. See CHURCH; CLERGY; JURISDICTION,
ECCLESIASTICAL; ORDERS, HOLY.
	HIEROCLES: A persecutor and literary oppo
nent of the early Christians; d. not before 306. He
is probably the Sossianus Hierocles of an inscription
from Palmyra between Mar. 1, 293, and May 1;
305, the governor of the province to which Palmyra
then belonged. The responsibility for the out
break of the persecution of Diocletian is placed
chiefly upon him by Lactantius (De morte persecu
torum, xvi. 4; De divinis institutionibus, V., ii. 12).
As governor of Bithynia, he was at Nicomedia, the
very center of the persecution and the place where
it first broke out, when the church there was des
troyed on Feb. 23, 303, and the edict against the
Christians promulgated the next day. He was suc
ceeded in the governorship of Bithynia by Priscil
lianus, and became prefect of all Egypt. Here also
he persecuted the Christians, even confining Chris
tian women and virgins dedicated to the ascetic
life in houses of debauchery. The Christian tFde
sius went to Alexandria, accused him to his face of
overstepping the provisions of the law, and struck
him, but was tortured and thrown into the sea.
Hierocles was one of the two literary antagonists
of the Christians whom Laetantius describes (De
institutionibus, V., ii. 2) as coming forward in the
spring of 303. In the few extant fragments of his
work he appears as the upholder of a philosophic
monotheism, which, however, did not exclude a
polytheistic cult. Its line of attack is dependent
mainly upon Porphyry, especially in the attempt
to point out inconsistencies in the Scriptures. He
carries out in greater detail Porphyry's suggestion
of a comparison between Christ and Apollonius of
Tyana, in favor of the latter. With Hierocles the
Neoplatonic criticism, which had before been
merely theoretical, became practical and gained an
influence on the government. (K. J. NEUMANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The tract of Eusebius, Contra Hierodem,
	ad. Gaisford, was published Oxford, 1852. 1Y. Cave,
Scriptorum eccleaiasticorum hist. literaria, i. 131, ii. 90, London, 1688; C. Fleury, Hist. ecdkaiaatique, Il., viii. 30, 36 vole., Paris, 1704‑38; T1llemont, M4moirea, xiii. 333; A. J. Mason, The Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 58‑108, Cambridge, 1876; Neander, Christian Church, i. 173174; DCB, iii. 26‑27; KL, v. 2012‑13.

HIEROGLYPHICS. See INSCRIPTIONS, I.

HIERONYMITES, hai"e‑ren'i‑maits (HERMITS OF ST. JEROME) : The name of four religious orders in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, which lived after the rule of the Augustinian canons or hermits.
1. The Spanish Hieronymites were established in the diocese of Toledo about 1370 by Vasco, a Portuguese Franciscan tertiary, and Pedro Fernando Pecha of Guadalajara, chamberlain of Peter the Cruel. The order was confirmed by Gregory XI. in 1374, and spread rapidly through Spain and Portugal, extending even to America. Its chief monasteries in Spain were Santa Maria de Guadelupe, San Yuste, San Isidor in Seville, and the EscoriaI near Madrid. In Portugal it possessed the monastery of Belem, near Lisbon. The habit of the order, whose members were favorite confessors of the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs, is a coarse white cassock with a small black cowl and a black scapular. An order of Hieronymite nuns was founded in 1375 by Maria Garcias of Toledo, but did not take solemn vows until the time of Pope Julius II. Their habit was a white cassock and brown scapular. Their last convents fell in the Carlist struggles of 1835.
2. The Observantine Hieronymites were founded by Lupus Olivetus (Lope d'Olmedo), third general of the Spanish Hieronymites (d. 1433), and were confirmed by Martin V. in 1426. In Spain the order was united with the other Hieronymites in 1595, but in Italy, where it was known as the Congregation of St. Jerome of Lombardy, it possessed monasteries up to the middle of the nineteenth century.
S. The Poor Hermits of St. Jerome were established near Montebello in Italy in 1377 by Pietro Gambacorti or Petrus de Pisis (d. 1435), who formed his community from converted robbers. The rule was exceedingly strict, but was mitigated in 1444 and exchanged for that of St. Augustine in 1568. In the seventeenth century several communities of hermits in Bavaria and the Tyrol joined this order, but it now has only a few monasteries, especially one in Viterbo and one in Rome.
	4. The Congregatio Fesulana or Clerici apostolici
Sancti Hieronymi Jesuati was established in 1406
at Fiesole by Carlo de Montegranelli. The order
was suppressed in 1668 by Clement IX., and most
of its members joined the Poor Hermits of St.
Jerome. 	(O. ZSCKLERt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. P. de la Vega, Chronicon fratrum Hiero
	nymitani ordinie, Complutum, 1539; Helyot, Ordrea
	monastiques, iii. 423‑447; Heimbueher, Orden and Kon
	gregationen, ii. 235‑237; KL, v. 2014‑15; L. Holstenius,
	Codex regularum monasticarum at canonicarum, ad. M.
	Broeltie, vi., Additamenta, i. 10‑87, Augsburg, 1759.
	2. Eusebio Cremonense, O vero delta vita a progreasi de
	monachi Gieronimiani, Cremona, 1645; Helyot, ut sup.,
	iii. 447‑456; KL, v. 2015‑16; Heimbucher, ut sup., ii.
	239; L. Holstenius, ut sup., iii., Additamenta, xxvi. 43
	sqq. 3. P. Bonnacioli, Pisana Eremus, vita et pests

Hieronymus mus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	276
High Paces
	eremitarum llieronymi, Venice, 1692: A. M. Bonucci,
	latoria della vita a miracoli del . . . Pietro Gambocorti,
	Rome, 1716; Helyot, ut sup., iv. 1‑17; Heimbucher, ut
	sup., ii. 237‑239; KL, v. 2016‑17. 4. Helyot, iv. 18‑25; .
Heimbucher, ut sup., ii. 239‑240; KL, v. 2017.
HIERONYMUS. See JEROME.
	HIGH CHURCH. See ENGLAND, CHURCH OF,
II., § 5.
HIGH PLACES.
Sacred Mountains in Ethnic Religions (§ 1).
west‑Semitic Worship on Mountains (§ 2).
Hebrew High Places (§ 3).
Their Number and Location ($ 4).
High Places in Codes and History (§ 5).
Opposing Interests and Ideas (§ 6).
	In all primitive cults the jurisdiction of a deity
	is regarded as restricted within limits comparatively
	confined. Each spot may have its resident spirit
	who is for that spot the god or, as the Semites say,
	the baal, " lord." Early anthropomorphism con
	ceived such a baal as having a fixed residence in
	that place, which was therefore a sanctuary from
	which he seldom or never wandered.
	i. Sacred It was in this way that Yahweh was
	Mountains conceived to have taken up his abode
	in Ethnic in the Temple of Solomon (I Kings
	Religions. viii. 13; Ps. xxiv. 7‑10). It was a
	long step in advance of this stage in
	religious thought when, e.g., the Assyrians could
	think of Asshur going forth with his hosts to foreign
	conquests, or the Hebrews of Yahweh as coming
	from " Seir " to do battle for his people (Judges
v. 4‑5). The earlier condition is illustrated fre
	quently in the Old Testament, where baal is the
	first (or second) element of a compound place‑name.
	This Semitic principle is illustrated further by the
	fact that " Melcarth is Baal of Tyre, Astarte the
	Baalath of Byblus; there was a Baal of Lebanon,
	of Mt. Hermon, of Mt. Peor, and so forth " (Smith,
	Rel. of Sem., 1st ed., p. 93). Among the spots
	which deity inhabits are the crests of hill and moun
	tain. This is abundantly exemplified in both
	primitive and advanced cults. In early Cretan
	worship a notable place was the sanctuary of the
	Cretan mountain mother (A. Evans, in Annual of
	the British School at Athens, vii. 29, 1900‑01, cited
	in J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to . . . Greek Re
	ligion, p. 498, Cambridge, 1903). In the developed
	Greek religion the cult of Zeus shows many sanc
	tuaries on the mountain‑tops, such as Mt. Laphys
	tos in Beotia, Mt. Pelion, Olympus in Thessaly
	(Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, i. 50‑52, Oxford,
	1896). The Acropolis at Athens was the site of
	the most famous temples of the region. The Per
	sians had their Alburz, the people of India their
	Meru. The Javanese placed their paradise, the
	home of spirits and gods, on the crests of their high
	est mountain (E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, p. 60,
	Boston, 1874). In the Semitic sphere the baalim
	were generally connected with fertility, and con
	sequently their sanctuaries were probably early
	located at the springs and watery bottoms whence
	fertility seemed to have its source. But according
	to Semitic notions there were two great reservoirs
	whence fertilizing waters issued; one below the
	earth, from which springs and rivers sprang; and
one above the firmament or sky, whence came the rains (Gen. i. 6‑7; in Gen. vii. 1 both sources are represented as contributing to the flood). Frequently the clouds gathered about a mountain‑top and thence spread to deposit their moisture; hence the summits whence the rain seemed to come were regarded as homes of baals and their appropriate sanctuaries. A second cause of the selection of hilltops as places of worship was the conception of heaven‑gods who were most appropriately worshiped on the hills (Smith, ut sup., pp. 470‑471). The notion of mountain deities and of consequent worship on the hills is especially dominant in the Semitic realm. Arameans attributed Israelitic victory to the supposed fact that Yahweh was a god of the mountain (I Kings xx. 23, 28). Assyrian deities were wont to gather on the heights (Isa. xiv. 13). Mt. Sinai was a sacred spot before the Hebrews left Egypt, took its name from the Babylonian‑Himyaric moon‑god Sin (see BABYLONIA, VIL, 2, § 5); Horeb‑Sinai was during Hebrew history the sacred mountain (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Hab. iii. 1), with which Yahweh is connected in Judges (v. 4‑5), whither Elijah returned for communion with him (I Kings xix.), while it was the goal of pilgrimages during the early Christian centuries. Reminiscences of earlier worship on the hills are seen in the ziggurats of Babylonia, elevated sometimes to seven or eight stories.
That the branch of Semites to which the Hebrews belonged used heights as places of worship is abundantly attested in Scripture. The Moabites had altars on Mt. Pisgah (Num. xxiii. 14), Mt. Peor (xxiii. 28‑30), other unnamed places (xxii. 41xxiii. 1), and other Moabitio high
	2. West‑ places were Bajith, Dibon, and Nebo
	Semitic	(Isa. xv. 2; cf. Jer. xlviii. 35), and
	Worship possibly Bamoth‑baal and Beth‑baal
		on	meon (Josh. xiii. 17), while one of their
Mountains. deities was Baal‑peor. A high place
			has been discovered at Petra (cf.
Biblical World, xvii. 2, xxi. 170, xxvii. 386; Ben
zinger, Archdologie, p. 320, ed. of 1907). Further
illustrations of this are the frequent notice in
the Old Testament of high places used by the
Canaanites (Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. xii. 2). Zeus
oreios, " Zeus of the mountain," is named on a
post‑Christian inscription found near Saida, and
Jacob of Sarug knew of idolatrous high places in
the early sixth century. Among the ancestors and
leaders of the Hebrews it is recorded of Abraham
that the site of the intended sacrifice of Isaac was
on a mountain (Gen. xxii. 2); of Jacob that he
" ° offered sacrifice upon the mount " (Gen. xxxi.
54), in this case possibly an artificial mound; Moses
built an altar on the hill from which he had viewed
the battle between Amalek and Israel (Ex. xvii.
15); Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal (Josh. viii.
30; of. Deut. xxvii. 4‑5, in which Moses commands
the erection of an altar there). The case is strength
ened by the fact that for events having sacred or
solemn significance heights were frequently chosen.
The death of Aaron took place on Mt. Hor (Num.
xx. 22‑29), and of Moses on Nebo (Deut. xxxiv.
1‑5). Moabites (Isa. xv. 2) and Hebrews alike
went to the hills to mourn (cf. the mourning for the

277	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hieronymus
		High Places
	daughter of Jephthah, Judges xi. 40). The oracle
in Dent. xxxiii. 19 implies worship on the moun
tains led by the tribes of Issachar and Zebulon.
That the high places used by Israel during the
	period of the kings were taken over from the pre
Hebraic inhabitants of Canaan is held as almost
axiomatic. The establishment of a new holy place
came about usually through some supernatural
	phenomenon (as Jacob's dream, which showed that
	the spot was the haunt of deity, Gen. xxviii. 10
sqq., or the appearance of the angel of destruction
at the threshing‑floor of Araunah, II Sam. xxlv.
	16). For mountain‑tops as places of worship under
	the Hebrews of. I Kings xiv. 23; II Kings xvi. 4,
xvii. 10; Hos. iv. 13; Jer. ii. 20, iii. 6, vii. 2; Ezek.
vi. 13, xx. 27‑29. Especially illuminating is Jer.
iii. 2, where "high places" is the rendering of she
	phayim, from shaphah, " to be bare," the idea prob
	ably being that bare peaks, offering an unobstructed
	view of heaven, were especially propitious. Ac
	cording to Pa. lxviii. 16, God especially desires to
	dwell on the hill of Zion.
The Hebrew term bamah (pl. bamoth), "high
	place " (cf. Aasyr. bamatu, pl. bamati, the latter
used in the sense of " hill country"), probably
means " a crest." That the term is not merely
	figurative is proved by the fact that people " go
	up " to the high place (I Sam. ix. 13, 19; Isa. xv.
			2) and " come down " from it (I Sam.
	3. Hebrew x. 5, ix. 25; of. Ezek. xx. 29). The
		High	word has occasionally the significance
		Places.	of " mountain stronghold " (Ezek.
			xxxvi. 2), and so (in the plural) is
	symbolical of dominion (Dent. xxxii. 13; II Sam.
	xxii. 34; Isa. lviii. 14). But in general the use of
	the word is religious; it may have lost its physical
	meaning and have come to denote simply " sanc
	tuary," though generally as an elevation. In prose
	it always means a place of worship, though it is
	synonymous at times with gibh'ah, " hill," and
	ramah, " lofty place " (cf. Ezek. xx. 28‑29, xvi.
	16, 24‑25, 31, 39). It occurs in the plural as an
	element in names (Num. xxi.19‑20, 28, R. V.; Josh.
	xiii. 17); and it is found on the Moabite Stone (q.v.)
	as the name of a Moabitic sanctuary for Chemosh
	(line 3) and as an element in a place‑name (line
	27). It is debatable whether " all the worship of
	Old	Israel was worship at the high places " (EB,
	ii. 2066), since it is by no means certain that at all
	the shrines, e.g., under the sacred trees (see GRovEA
	AND TREES, SACRED), " high places " existed
	(though cf. I Kings xiv. 23). Yet that the word
	was not always used in its physical sense appears
	from the cases in which the bamoth were in valleys
	(Jer. vii. 31, xix. 2, 5), in cities (I Kings xiii. 32;
	II Kings xvii. 9, 29, xxiii. 5), in the temple (Jer.
	vii. 31; Ezek. xvi. 34), at the entrance to the city
	(II Kings xxiii. 8), or near the city (I Sam. ix. 25,
	x. 5). In these cases the bamah must have been
	an artificial mound, perhaps resembling on a small
	scale the Babylonian ziggurat (cf. the notice of the
	Phenician coin, ut sup.). It is to be noted that in
	some cases these ziggurats bore the name of moun
	tain or hill, thus revealing the idea which under
	lay their construction. This artificial construction
	is made quite clear by the cases in which the bamah
is distinguished from the hill on which it stood (I Kings xi. 7, xiv. 23; Ezek. vi. 3). The accessories of the high places were the mazzebah, a stone pillar (see MEMORIALS AND SACRED STONES); the asherah (q.v.), a wooden post or pole; the altar (q.v.); often images of some description (see IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, I., and cf. II Chron. xiv. 3); Ephod and Teraphim (qq.v.; cf. Judges viii. 27, xvii. 5; I Sam. xxi. 9); often a sacred tree (I Sam. xxii. 6); a structure like a house or shrine, cf. the " houses of high places " (I Kings xii. 31, xiii. 32; II Kings xxiii. 19). A house for the ark is indicated at Shiloh (I Sam. iii. 3), and one at Nob (I Sam. xxi. 9), while at these places were probably deposited sacred trophies, e.g., of war (cf. the last passage cited). The attendants were kohanim, " priests " (I Kings xii. 32, xiii. 2, 32), called also kemarim (II Kings xxiii. 5); kedheshim and kedheshoth, " male and female diviners," perhaps in the latter case prostitutes (Hos. iv. 14; Dent. xxiii. 18; I Kings xiv. 24, xv. 12), and prophets (I Sam. x. 5, 10). The practises indicated for these places by Hosea are festivals, joyous gatherings of the family or clan, while the individual was not prohibited from attending, with sacrifices and libations, offerings of corn, wine, oil, flax, wool, and fruits; licentious intercourse was also practised here, since female devotees were attached to the shrines; divination was common and Mutilations (q. v.) occurred (Hos. ii. 15, 17, ix. 4; cf. Dent. lxii. 5‑8, 11).
The number of high places used by the Hebrews is perhaps not more than hinted at in the Old Testament. With those already named, high places were possibly, probably, or certainly located at Bochim (Judges ii. 5), Ophrah (vi. 24‑26, viii. 27),
Dan (xviii. 30), Shiloh (xviii. 31), 4. Their Bethel (xx. 18; II Kings xxiii. 15),
Number Mizpeh (Judges xi. 11‑12, xx. 1; cf.
	and	I Sam. vii. 9), Kirjath‑jearim (" in
Location. the hill," I Sam. vii. 1), Ramah (I Sam.
vii. 5, 16‑17, ix. 12), Gibeah (x. 5, 13), Gilgal (x. 8, xi. 5, xv. 21), Bethlehem (xvi. 2 sqq., xx. 6), Nob (xxi. 1‑2), Hebron (II Sam. xv. 7); Olivet (xv. 30‑32), Gibeon (xxi. 6; according to the correct reading‑cf. H. P. Smith's commentary on the passage, New York, 1899‑the Gibeonitea crucified the descendants of Saul on Mt. Gibeon " before the face of Yahweh," showing that a sanctuary was located there; cf. also I Kings iii. 3 sqq., " the great high place "), an unnamed hill near Jerusalem (I Kings xi. 7), Carmel (I Kings xviii. 19, 30; Vespasian is said to have offered sacrifice there), Tabor (Hos. v. 1), and Gerizim (Josephus, Ant., XI. viii. 2, 4). How continuously these places were used is indicated not only by the detail preceding (showing that they were employed by the patriarchs, by Moses and Joshua, by the leaders and people in the time of the Judges, of Samuel, and of Saul), but also by the cases still to be cited. High places were erected by Solomon (I Kings iii. 3 sqq.; II Kings xxiii. 12‑13), were used in the especially significant reigns of Rehoboam (I Kings xiv. 23), Jeroboam (xii. 31‑32, xiii. 2, 32‑33), and Asa (xv. 14); Elijah bewails the destruction of the Yahweh altars (xix. 10, 14);

High Places	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	278
High Priest
these sacred places were still employed under Je
hoshaphat (xxii. 43), by Jehoash, who was under
the tutelage of Jehoiada (II Kings xii. 3), Amaziah
(xiv. 4), Azariah (xv. 4), Jotham (xv. 35), Ahaz
(xvi. 4), Manasseh (xxi. 3), and presumably Amon
(xxi. 20‑21). The first thoroughgoing attempt at
abolishment of these ancient seats of worship was
under Josiah, yet Ezek. vi. 3‑7 shows that they
continued after the promulgation of the Deutero
nomic law.
	The matter of the high places is important not
only for itself but for its bearing upon the date
and authorship of the Pentateuch (see HEXATEUCH).
Into this connection come not merely the sanc
tuaries which were technically high places, but the
entire circle of places of sacrifice outside the temple
			after Solomonic times. Within the
	g. High	Pentateuchal codes themselves three
	Places	situations appear. (1) Ex. xx. 24
	in Codes clearly recognizes the legitimacy of a
		and	plurality of places of worship, and this
	History.	is what appears in history until Josi
			ah's destruction and defilement of the
sanctuaries outside the temple and is echoed in Eli
jah's lament and his practise at Carmel (I Kings
xviii. 30, " repaired the altar of the Lord which
was broken down "). (2) Deuteronomy (xii. 4
7, xiv. 22‑23, xv. 19‑20, xvi. 1‑2, xviii. 8, xxvi. 2,
etc.) regards one sanctuary and one alone as sacred
and legitimate for purposes of worship (contrast
the use of the phrase " the place which the Lord
your God shall choose " in these passages with the
phrase " in all places where I record my name "
of Ex. xx. 24). (3) The Priest Code assumes that
there is but one sanctuary and legislates for it.
With this diverse usage history seems to accord.
The Judges erect altars, Samuel officiates at many
sites, Solomon's high places were not all the loci of
foreign cults, Elijah's position has been shown, while
the pious kings Asa, Jehoshaphat, Johoash, Ama
ziah, Azariah, and Jotham, as well as the evil kings,
used them. The idea underlying the use of the
many altars seems to be that " the whole land,
being Israel's possession, is Jehovah's house, peo
ple are convinced that they may worship him at
any place within it at which he may make himself
'known " (H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology, p.
209, Edinburgh, 1895; cf. Hos. viii. 3 sqq.; 11
Kings v. 17). The author and editors of the Books
of Samuel record the continued employment of the
many altars and high places without condemning
it. The Books of Kings, beginning their narrative
practically with the reign of Solomon, assume the
Deuteronomic position and denounce worship at
these places in spite of the fact that they contain
the story of Elijah and record that pious kings wor
shiped there, while the author excuses prior use
of the bamoth because the temple was not yet built
(I Kings iii. 2). Hezekiah was apparently the first
king who attempted to do away with a cult con
demned by the author of Kings (II Kings xviii.
4)*, and Manasseh's reign saw a very vigorous re
	* The reform of Hezekiah is doubted by some scholars on
the ground that II Kings xviii. 4, 32, xou. 3 are late, and
that the account of the reformation of Josiah seems to imply
no earlier efforts.
nascence of the cult. These historical facts are explained in two ways. (1) Those who hold to the substantially Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch regard the cult as the result of a defiance of the Deuteronomic and priestly codes, the persistent wrongdoing of a perverse nation. But this still leaves unexplained Ex. xx. 24. (2) Those who deny Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch and place the Deuteronomic Code in the seventh century affirm the legitimacy of the high places until that code was written, some time before 822. ‑ They regard that code as caused by the repulsion produced in the prophetic mind by the debased syncretism of the worship of Yahweh with Canaanitic practises, and explain the renewal of the cult under Manasseh as expressing not only the personal will of that king, but as a response to the demands of the populace who repelled what seemed an attack upon their religion in favor of the royal temple at Jerusalem. The unity of worship commanded in the Deuteronomic Code and assumed in the Priest Code is not that of Isaiah, who predicted an altar to Yahweh in Egypt (Isa. xix. 19); nor, from the standpoint of history, that of Jeremiah, who speaks of Shiloh as the place where Yahweh set his name " at the first " (Jer. vii. 12, 14) and employs the a fortiori argument that if Shiloh could not escape, surely Jerusalem cannot; nor of Amos, who speaks of the desolation of the high places as a part of the punishment of the people (vii. 9); nor of Hosea, whose complaint, according to modern commentators, is not that the people worshiped at the high places, but that they practised there abominable things (chap. iv.), just as the feast‑days, new moons, and sabbaths are not in themselves vicious but only occasions of wickedness (ii. 11‑13); and so things which the Deuteronomic Code comes to prohibit, but which throughout prior periods had been used without consciousness of wrong, are to be removed or destroyed not as prohibited but as a punishment (iii. 4). The pre‑Deuteronomic prophetic denunciation is therefore grounded not upon the inherent illegality of the high places as loci of worship, but upon the idolatry, confusion of worship, abominations, and human sacrifices which were practised there (cf. Jer. vii. 31, xi. 13, xix. 5).
That, from the time of the establishment of the temple cult at Jerusalem, a tendency would be established toward centralization of worship there was from the nature of the case to be expected from the fact that the cult was, under direct royal patronage. That such centralization did not mature earlier shows how strong must 6. Opposing have been the sentiment of regard in
Interests	the minds of kings, priests, and people
	and Ideas.	for the shrines hallowed by the devo
		tion and example of the patriarchs and
heroes of history whose names were associated with
those places. It was to be expected that the pres
ence of the ark first at Shiloh, then at Jerusalem,
would exalt those sanctuaries above the rest. Yet
prophets and godly kings knew of no obligation to
worship only at Jersualem. What was a priori
likely to lead to the discrediting of the bamoth and
concentration of worship in the capital was the in‑

279	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	$fsh places
		High Priest
troduction of foreign cults‑as when Solomon built
high places for Chemosh and Molech (I Kings xi.
7) and for Ashtoreth (II Kings xxi. 3), or as when
Ahab built altars for Baal (I Kings xvi. 31‑32)‑
with practises and suggestions alien to the pure
worship of Yahweh and tending to confuse him in
person and in conception with other gods or to sub
stitute these for him. The antagonism to these
grew up after the period when the two Hebrew
kingdoms were on terms of amity, and the syncre
tism in which the northern kingdom led had been
diffused toward the south; and this antagonism
was embodied in the Deuteronomic Code‑which
bore not a priestly, but a prophetic stamp. On the
other hand, tending to protect the cult of these
places was the strong religious conservatism, ever
a powerful factor in religious evolution, both of the
masses of the people and of the priests who served
at these shrines, and these would deem them
selves deprived of their privileges by prohibition
to use their long hallowed sacred places. The zeal
of the clear‑minded prophets who realized the in
creasing alienation from Yahweh and obscuration
of the people's conception of him, the prestige car
ried by the name of Moses under the protection of
whose name the Deuteronomic Code was promul
gated, the evident awe and fear produced in the
mind of Josiah at the complete disharmony between
the Deuteronomic requirements and daily practise
‑all these explain the fact that the high places so
completely disappeared that the postexilic code
had not to deal with them at all, but could legis
late for the central sanctuary alone. Ezekiel, in
deed, shows that there were still sporadic cases of
worship at the old shrines, but it is clear that this
was only the dernier resort of the skeptical who
saw all hopes wrecked and faith in Yahweh made
baseless by the fall of the holy city, who turned
therefore in sheer despair to the gods of the con
quering peoples, to the sun and moon and stars,
even to the animal deities of a bald, recrudescent
totemism (cf. Jer. xliv.). But how completely for
Israel the high places had been discredited is most
conclusively proved by the attitude of the Chron
icler who revises the history of the Books of Samuel
so as to make it accord with the course events
should have taken had the postexilic ideas gov
erned in the times of which he speaks.
	GEo. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOORAPBY: On i§ 1‑3: H. Ewald, Die Alterthiimer des
	Volkes Israel, pp. 156‑174, 420 sqq., Gottingen, 1886,
	Eng. transl., pp. 117 sqq., 366 sqq., Boston, 1876; K. F.
	Keil, Handbuch den biblischen Archddopie, pp. 451‑454,
	Frankfort, 1875; W. von Baudissin, Studien cur semiti
	echen Religionspeschichte, ii. 143 sqq., 231 aqq., Leipsie,
	1878; B. Stade, Geschichts des Volkes Israel, i. 448‑‑467,
	Berlin, 1887; F. F. von Andrian, H4hencultus ariatiacher
	and europ6ischer Volker, Vienna, 1891; R. Beer, Heilipe
	HBhen den Grieehen and Romer, ib. 1891; M. Ohnefalseh
	Riehter, Kupros, die Bibel and Homer, pp. 234‑238, Her ‑
	En, 1893; H. Schultz, Alttestamentlirhe Theolopie, G5t
	tingen, 1896, Eng. tranel., London, 1892; H. B. Greene,
	in The Biblical World, ix (1897), 329‑340; R. Smend,
	Ld irbuch den allkgtamenaicAen Relipionspeschichte, Frei
	burg, 1899; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, London, 1903;
	S. 1. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion Today, pp. 133
	143, Chicago, 1902; G. Dalman, Petra and seine Felaheilip
	thtimer, Leipsic, 1908; Bensinger, Archdolopie, pp. 364‑
383, ed. of 1894; Nowack, Arddolopie, ii. 1‑25.
On i § 4‑10: B. Ugolino, Thesaurus antiquitatum saerarum, x. 559 sqq., 34 vols., Venice, 1744‑1769 (collects the rabbinical remarks on the subject); M. L. de Wette, Einleitunp in das Alto Testament, i. 223‑261, 285‑299, Halle, 1806; G. L. Bauer Baschreibunp der pottesdienstlichen Verfassunp der alten Mebraer, ii. 1‑143, Leipsie, 1806; C. P. W. Gramberg, Kritiache Gexhichte der Religionsideew des Alten Testaments, i. 5‑94, Berlin, 1829; F. C. Movers, Kritieche Untarsuchunge» Uba die biblisehe Chronik, Bonn, 1834 J. F. L. George, Die allffen jitdisrhen Pests, pp. 38‑45, Berlin, 1835; J. L. SealschOts, Dos mosaische Reckk pp. 297‑306, Berlin, 1853; idem, Archdoiogie der Hebrtter, i. 233‑236, ib. 1855; E. Riehm, Die Gesetzgebund Mosis in Lands Moab, pp. 24‑31, 89‑93, Gotha, 1854; F. Block, Einleitung in das alfe Testament, pp. 188‑190, 295‑299, Berlin, 1860; M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der hebrdisrh‑j11diwhan A rch4olopi4, ed. RBbiger, pp. 274‑275, 327‑329, Leipsie, 1864; K. H. Graf, Die peschichtlichen BGcher des Alton Testaments pp 51‑66, 126138, ib. 1866; H. Pierson, Ds Tempel fe Silo, in ThT, i (1867), 425‑457; T. Ndldeke, Kritik des Alton Testaments, pp. 127‑128, Kiel, 1869; D. B. von Haneberg, Die relipit<aen Alterthilmer der Bibel, pp. 161‑168, 208‑225, Munich, 1869; A. Kayser, Daa voreziliscAs Buch der Urpesehichte Israels, pp. 153‑154, Strasburg, 1874; A. Kuenen, The Religion o/ Israel, i. 80‑82, ii. 25‑26, 166‑168, London, 1874; B. Duhm, Die Theolapie der Propheten, pp. 47‑54, Bonn, 1875; J. Emend Moses aped prophetas pp. 49‑63, Halle, 1875; L. 8einecke, Gesckichte des Volkes Israel, pp. 159‑167, Gottingen, 1876; A. Kohler, Lehrbuch der biUischen Geachichte des Alton Testaments, ii. 1014, Erlangen, 1877; J. Wellhausen, Geschirhts leraele, i. 17‑53, Berlin, 1878; idem, Prolegomena, pp. 17‑51 of Eng. tranel.; C. R. Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, pp. 304‑310, London, 1880; C. Clermont‑Ganneau, in Survey of Western Palestine, t,. 325, London, 1881; G. F. Oehler, Theolopie des Alten Testaments, vol. i., Stuttgart, 1891, Eng. transl., New York, 1883; A. Schlatter, Zur Topographie and GesehW to Paldstinae, pp. 62‑85, Stuttgart, 1893; A. van Hoonacker, Le Lieu du cults dons la l6pislation rituelle des Hebreux, Ghent, 1894; H. A. Poels, Le Sanclusire de Kirjat"earim, Louvain, 1894; Smith, OTJC, pp. 236 sqq., 275, 360; idem, Rat. of Sem., pp. 470 sqq.; A. von Gall, Altisraelitische KultatBUen, Giessen, 1898: DR, ii. 381‑383; EB, ii. 2064‑70; JR, vi. 387‑389. Besides the foregoing, the reader should consult the commentaries on the Biblical books involved in the discussion, particularly: those on the Pentateuch by Dillmann, Leipsie, 1875 sqq.; on Deuteronomy by P. Kleinert, Bielefeld, 1872, and by Driver, New York, 1895; on Judges, by Berthesu, Leipsic, 1883, by Moore, New York, 1895, and by Budde, Gottingen, 1897; , on Samuel by Klostermann, Munich, 1887, by Thenius, ed. LShr, Leipsic, 1898, and by H. P. Smith, New York, 1899; on the text of Samuel, by Welihausen, Gottingen, 1871• by Driver, London, 1890, and by Budde, in SBOT, 1894; on Kings, by Klostermann, Munich, 1887, by Bensinger, Gottingen, 1899, and by Kittel, ib. 1899; and on Chronicles, by Bertheau, Leipsie, 1873. Inasmuch as the subject of the high places furnishes a part of the material which is a point of attack and defense in the Pentateuchal discussion, the literature under HEzATEucu will furnish additional matter concerning the subject.
HIGH PRIEST.
Official Names, Character, and Robes according to P
0 1). The Office in Other Documents (§ 2). The Office in Historical and Prophetic Writings (§ 3). The Office in Postexilic Times (§ 4).
In the Old Testament the high priest is called either hakkohen, " the priest‑" (e.g., Lev. iv. 6; cf. I Chron. xvi. 39; Neh. xiii. 4), or hakkohen haggadhol, "the great priest" (e.g., Lev. xxi. 10; Neh. iii. 1), or hakkohen hammashiah, " the anointed priest " (e.g., Lev. iv. 3); also hakkohen harosh, " the chief priest " (e.g., II Kings xxv. 18), and once simply harosh, " the chief " (If Chron. xxiv. 6). The data concerning his office and position are contained in the priestly document in the Penta‑

8igh Priest
Hflesiua	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	280
teuch (see HExATEUCH). According to this, Aaron and his sons (really the descendants of his
two sons Eleazar and Ithamar) are i. Official alone the legitimate possessors of the
Names,	priestly office; among these Aaron
Character, as high priest took the leading place,
and Robes and was the type of official whose
according function at his death was to be asto P. sumed by one of his sons (Lev. xvi.
32), probably by the first‑born (cf. Num. xxv. 11), but, in case the high priest had no sons, by his oldest brother, as happened in Maccabean times. The high priest held office for life, since no higher authority is designated by which he could be deposed; his position was that of a prince, as is indicated by his crown, by the color of his raiment, and by amnesty at his death for certain crimes which had occurred (Num. xxxv. 25, 28). His authority was entirely spiritual as mediator between God and the people. As representative of the people, he bore on his breast in sacred functions the names of the tribes; as representative of deity, he carried the Urim and Thummim by which the will of deity was indicated. As head of the priesthood, he had sacrificial duties which he alone might perform (Lev. iv. 3 sqq., 13 sqq., ix. 8 aqq., vi. 12‑15). The period of seven days for the consecration ceremonies, with many other particulars, belonged to the induction into the ordinary priesthood as well as into the high priest's offce; and though the other priests were also anointed, especial significance seems to have attended the anointing of the high priest. Special importance is indicated also in the clothing assumed'by the high priest at investiture. The garments were: the me'il, a sleeveless gown of purple adorned with golden bells and pomegranate‑shaped knots of violet‑red or carmine; the ephod (q.v.), a shoulder cape of cloth of gold in blue purple, and scarlet with two onyx stones on which were engraved the names of the tribes; the hoshen, a breastplate containing twelve stones, each bearing the name of a tribe, in which were carried the Urim and Thummim (q.v.); and the miznepheth, a tiara, on the front of which was a gold plate carrying the inscription "holy to Yahweh" (Ex. xxxix.). It was significant of the high‑priesthood that it involved complete purity. Hence the high priest was forbidden to touch a corpse, even that of his nearest relation, and his wife was to be a virgin of pure Israelitic stock (Lev. xxi. 15).
In the other Pentateuchal sources no such princepriest appears. J makes Eleazar the successor of Aaron as priest (Josh. xxiv. 33; cf. Deut. x. 6), but of an organization of the clergy in general this doc‑
ument says nothing. Deut. xvii. 8 2. The in arranging for justice at the central
Office in sanctuary speaks of "the priest,"
	Other	which probably does not mean an or
Documents. dinary priest, but can not mean the
high priest. It is noteworthy that Ezek. xl.‑xlviii. fails to speak of the high priest; even xlv. 19 can hardly mean anything but the officiating priest of the occasion, and in Ezekiel the prince cares for the offcial ritual.
Comparison of the prescriptions of the priestly
document with the historical and prophetic wri‑
tings fails to reveal in the latter in preexilic times
a high priest corresponding to the offcial of the
former. Certain passages show a chief priest such
as Jehoiada (II Kings xi.‑xii.), Urijah (II Kings
xvi. 10), and Hilkiah (II Kings xxii.‑xxiii.),, where
the designation hakkohen haggadhol first appears
and where late critics see interpolation, though
without sufficient ground since the name of a later
		office may have had historic foreshad
	3. The owing. Such foreshadowing is indi
	Office in cated in kohen mishneh, " second
	Historical priest " (II Kings xxv. 18; Jer. Iii.
	and 24), a priest who had oversight of the
	Prophetic temple in late preexilic times. But
	Writings. that this is not the high priest appears
		from the fact that there were in the
time of David and Solomon two such priests, Zadok
and Abiathar (II Sam. xix. 11). The dealings of
Solomon with Zadok and Abiathar (I Kings ii. 35)
show that the absolute high priest was not yet in
existence. Similar conclLSions are indicated in the
existence of chief priests for the separate sanctu
aries of historic times. Immediately after the
exile, with Joshua, grandson of the murdered chief
priest Seraiah, the office assumes new importance
which suggests the Priest Code (cf. Zech. iii. and vi.
13). In Haggai Joshua's place is of importance,
but alongside that of Zerubbabel, who is generally
named first. Zechariah's view of the office is closely
related to that of the Priest Code. The steps to the
creation of the .offce as seen in the Priest Code are
hidden, especially in view of Ezekiel's silence. But
it may be affrmed on general grounds that the
emergence of the offce was due to a movement
which had for its purpose the emancipation of the
Church from the State. Ezekiel concentrated po
litical power in the hands of the prince, but made it
subsidiary to the cult. The Priest Code depended
upon the centrality of the Jerusalem cult and made
the high priest the highest authority for the people.
	The authority of the high‑priesthood grew in
postexilic times to a significant eminence through
the introduction of the priestly law which set the
anointed high priest forth as the one authority,
though still in a spiritual sense, which authority
was generally recognized. A characteristic exam
ple of this is given in I Mace. vii. 14, where it is
stated that Alcimus, made high priest by Demet
rius (162 B.c.), was received with confidence at
		Jerusalem upon the ground that he
	4. The was priest of the seed of Aaron and
	Office in would do no wrong. The panegyric
	Postexilic in Ecclus. 1. indicates the ideal of the
	Times. offce which was maintained. The
		concentration of political power into
the hands of the high priest continued in postexilic
times. Zerubbabel vanished without leaving a
successor, but the priest‑prince remained and be
came the political representative of the people.
The Urim and Thummim, upon which, according
to the Priest Code, priestly authority rested, does
not appear in postexilic times. But the growing
wealth of the Jewish community ever enhanced the
political importance of the offce. The high priest's
power was somewhat limited by the Sanhedrin, but

281	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hi larlueMirb, Priest
he alone cared for the external relations of the people and was their protector (Ecclus. 1. 4). The assumption of the royal title, e.g., by Aristobulus (104‑103 B.c.), did not alter the essential facts of the office, and the robes needed no change to express regal authority. Under the influence of the times, the political interests became predominant, as is seen in the history of the Maccabean period; but of the office between the days of Ezra and the last pre‑Maccabean high priest almost nothing is known. The transference of the office to the priestly family of the Maccabees in 153 B.c. was no less illegal than the deposition of Jason in favor of Menelaus, but the gratitude of the people restrained the opposition of the legalists. The downfall of the Hasmoneans marked the end of the high‑priesthood in its special significance. True, the office continued till the destruction of Jerusalem, and the holder was first in the Sanhedrin and possessed important influence; but he had lost the two essentials of the office, its transmission by heredity and its possession for life. Herod the Great and the Romans arbitrarily changed the high priests, and the title was held not only by those who at the time performed the duties of the office, but by those who had formerly done so. With the fall of Jerusalem the office ceased to exist. (F. BURL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The two early treatments of the subject, still useful, are: J. S. Selden, De successions in pontificatum Ebrworum, book i., chaps. 11‑12, Frankfort, 1673; J. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi Hierosolyrnitani, iv. 3, in vol. ix. of his works, London 1825. The most comprehensive modern treatise is W. Baudissin, Die Gewhichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthume, Leipsie, 1889. Consult further: H. Ewald, Alterthfimer des Volkes Israel, pp. 382 sqq., GSttingen, 1866, Eng. tranel., Antiquities of Israel, pp. 288 sqq., Boston, 1876; H. Gratz, in Monatsschrift fur Geeehichte and Wissenaohaft des Judenthums, 1877, pp. 450‑464, 1881, pp. 49‑64, 97‑110; J. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israel,, chap. iv., Berlin, 1878; Oort, De Aaronieden, in ThT, xviii (1884), 289‑335; H. Vogelstein, Der Karnp/ zwischen Priestern and Leaiten alit den Tagen Ezechiela, Stettin, 1889; A. Kuenen, in TAT, xxiv (1890),1‑42; A. van Hoonacker, Le 8acerdoce 1eritique, Louvain, 1899; Sehiirer, Geschichte, ii. 214 sqq., Eng. tranal., 11., i. 195 sqq.; idem, in TSK, 1872, pp. 593‑657; Bensinger, Archdologie, Passim; Nowack, Archdologie, ii. 106‑108, 117 sqil.; DB, iv. 83‑84; EB, iii. 3837‑47; JE, vi. 389393: and the commentaries on Enodus and Leviticus.
HILARION, SAINT: Palestinian hermit; b. at Tabatha (5 Roman m. s. of Gaza) 291; d. in the island of Cyprus 371. He received his first instruction at Alexandria, where he became a Christian. Hearing of St. Anthony and his hermit life, he lived two months with him. He then returned home, and, at the age of fifteen, began the life of a solitary in a little but in the vicinity of Majuma, the port of Gaza. Like the Egyptian hermits, he wove baskets of rushes to earn his subsistence. At the same time he observed the strictest discipline of fasting. He was visited by frequent apparitions of demons, but soon obtained the gift of healing demoniacs and other patients. He became especially known by curing the sons of an aristocratic lady, Aristtenete, and this gave occasion, in 329, to the founding of a colony of hermits about him. He is supposed to have maintained a correspondence with St. Anthony, and visited the sacred localities in Jerusalem (Jerome, Epist., lviii., ad Paulinum). Jerome has much to say of the conversions to Christianity wrought by Hilarion, as when he is reported
to have won over the Saracens of Elusa in the desert of Kades.
	Owing to predictions of impending times of dis
tress‑the persecutions of the Christians under
Julian‑Hilarion left Palestine never to return. By
way of Lychnos he reached Castrum Theubatum
(Thaubastum), where he visited Dracontius, exiled
by the Emperor Constantius on account of his or
thodoxy. His pilgrimage then led him to the Nile
city Aphroditopolis and to Mount St. Anthony,
from which he went to the Alexandrian suburb
Bruchium. At the port town of Paraitonion, in
the Egyptian Marmarica, he met his Palestinian
disciple Hadrian, who, apparently, came to con
duct him back to Palestine; but he refused to go.
Hilarion next reached Sicily, and lived as a hermit
in the vicinity of the promontory Pachynum.
Here, in a wonderful manner, he was discovered by
his pupil Hesychius. But he soon left Sicily, be
cause here, as elsewhere, a crowd of disciples gath
ered about him, so that he could not live the soli
tary life. He betook himself to Epidaurus in
Dalmatia. The last years of his life were spent in
Cyprus, first in the vicinity of Paphos, afterward
at a lonely, place in the interior, called Carbyria by
Sozomen. To his sojourn in Cyprus belongs the
period of his converse with Epiphanius. Shortly
before his death he made over to his favorite pupil,
Hesychius, his only belongings‑his tunic, cowl,
and cloak. He was buried in the neighborhood of
Paphos, but Hesychius stole his corpse, and, greatly
to the grief of the Cypriots, conveyed it to Majuma.
	Hilarion is accredited with the distinction of
having been among the first to transplant the hermit
life to Palestine, though he was not the only Pales
tinian hermit in the first half of the fourth century.
His activity, however, was confined exclusively to
southern Palestine; and, even here, he merely
naturalized the hermit life in its oldest Egyptian
form, without undertakingthe slightest . modification
or development. 	G. GRLYTZMACHER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Documentary sources for the life of Hilarion are a biography by Jerome (Opera, ed. Valarsi, ii. 13 sqq.; in MPL, xxiii. 29 eqq., and ASB, Oct., ix. 16‑59, Eng. transl., NPNF, 2d ser., vi (303‑314), compiled about 390 and notices by Sozomen (Hilt. eccl., iii. 14; v. 10). A brief letter of eulogy written by Epiphanius of Salamis not long after the saint's death has been lost, although Jerome used it for his Vita. Jerome is the main source. He greatly exaggerated his saint's importance in order to glorify Palestinian monasticism, to which he himself belonged. Hence, in spite of a historical nucleus, it is often hard to decide what are the facts. Consult w. Israel, Die Vita ,S. Hilarionis des Hieronvmua ale Quelle far die Anfange des Mbnchthums kritiwh untersucht, in ZIPT, xxiii (1880), pp. 129 sqq ; 0. ZSekler, in New Jahrbiichar far deutsche Theologie, iii (1894), pp. 147 sqq.; L. Servibres, Hist. de S. Hilarion, Rodez, 1884; Ceillier, Auteura sacr6a, vi. 376, vii. 593‑594, 690; Neander, Christian Church, ii. 142, 271, 378, iii. 420; KL, v. 2039‑42; DCB, iii. 52‑54.
HILARIUS: Roman deacon of the fourth century. Hilarius was an adherent of Bishop Lucifer of Calaris (q.v.), whom he probably accompanied to the Synod at Milan (355). He was mentioned by Jerome in the" Dialogue against the Luciferians" as already dead (NPNF, vi. 331, cf. 333, 334). To suppose that he is the same as the so‑called Ambrosiaster (q.v.) is without any warrant.
G. KRtGER.

Hilary	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	989
Hilary of Poitiers
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Kruger, Lucifer won Calaris, pp. 13, 88
	89, Leipsic, 1886; DCB, iii. 75.
	HMARY (HILARIIJS, HILARUS): Pope 461
468. The Sardinian Hilarus was elected bishop of
Rome probably Nov. 17, 461, consecrated Nov. 19,
and died on Feb. 28 (7), 468. As archdeacon under
Leo I. he vigorously opposed the condemnation of
Flavian of Constantinople at the Council of Ephe
sus (449). As pope he continued the policy of his
predecessor in enforcing the claims of the Roman
see in southern Gaul (cf. Epist., x., to Mamertus of
Vienne, Feb. 25, 464). He, furthermore, gave laws
to the Spanish Church (cf. Epist., xiii.‑xvii.); and
the Liiber ponti ficalis praises his donations to Ro
man churches and cloisters. His briefs and de
crees are given in MPL, lviii. 11‑32; and (criti
cally) in A. Thiel, Epistolce pontiftcum Roma
norum, pp. 126‑174, Braunsberg, 1868.
		G. KRJQER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontifcalis, ed. Duchesne, vol. i.,
	Paris, 1886. ed. Mommeen, in MGH, Gest. pont. Ron., i
	(1898), 107‑111; Jaff6, Revesta, i. 75‑77; Schaff, Chris
	tian Church, iii. 323; DCB, iii. 72‑74; Bower. Popes, i.
	249‑257; B. Platina, Lives of Popes, i. 108‑109, London,
	n.d.
	HILARY OF ARLES (Hilarius Arelatensis),
SAINT: Bishop of Arles; b. in northern or middle
Gaul c. 401; d at Arles c. 450. He was a relative
of Honoratus, abbot of the monastery of Lerins and
bishop of Arles 426‑429, who induced him to enter
his monastery. On the death of Honoratus Hilary
became his successor. He owes his importance
chiefly to his attitude toward Augustinianism. He
repudiated the Augustinian doctrine of predestina
tion, accusing Augustine of fatalism.
	He believed, according to Prosper of Aquitaine;
that every man had sinned in Adam and could be
saved only by the grace of God in regeneration.
Salvation by the blood of Christ was offered to all
men without exception, and all who are willing to
accept faith and baptism could be saved. God
predestined for his kingdom all whom he foresaw
would be worthy of their election after their gra
tuitous call, and therefore every man is to be ex
horted to take part in the divine institutions in
order that nobody may despair of attaining eternal
life, since this depends upon voluntary consecra
tion. At the instigation of Prosper, Augustine
wrote his treatises De prcedestinatione sanctorum
and De dono perseverantim, but these did not con
vince the Gallic theologians. As he maintained
his independent judgment against a great author
ity, so also Hilary tried to vindicate the independ
ence of his position. On account of the political
importance of the city of Arles in the fifth century,
its bishops took the first rank in the Gallic episco
pate, and Bishop Patroclus had already attempted
to extend the primacy of Arles over the whole of
southern Gaul. Hilary renewed his efforts, but
was opposed by Leo the Great, who finally deposed
him (see ARLES, ARCHBISHOPRIC OF). Of his wri
tings the eulogy on Honoratus (usually quoted as
Vita Hoqorati) is undoubtedly genuine; also an
unimportant letter to Eucherius of Lyons. The
following works are enumerated in his biographies:
Vita. Honorati; Homilim in totius anni festivitt‑
tibus; Symboli ezpositio; Epistolce; Versus fondis
ardentis. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIoaBAPH7: His works are in MPL, i. 1213‑92. Consult A. Ebert, Litteratur des Miltelalters, i. 449‑402, Leip• sic, 1889; C. F. Arnold, Casarius won Arelate, Leipeic, 1894; 0. Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, pp. 489 eqq., Freiburg, 1894; FeeslerJungmann, Institutsones patrolopia ii. 2, pp. 336, Innsbruck, 1896; DCB, iii. 67‑72; %L, v. 2042‑46.
HILARY OF POITIERS.
Early Life. His Commentary on Matthew (1 1). E3dle in the East (¢ 2). Activity in Arian Controversy (¢ 3). Later Life in Gaul (¢ 4).

Hilary, who has been called the Athanasius of the Western Church, comes into clear historical light only after the Synod of Milan (355), and then not for long, since he died at Poitiers in 367. Of his early life we know little. He was born of pagan and probably well‑to‑do parents at Poitiers, was well educated there, married apparently while still a heathen, was led by his study of philosophy to the Christian faith, was baptized, and, some time before 355, was made bishop of Poitiers. At the time of the Synod of Milan he can not have been more than forty. He tells that at this time he did not know the Nicene Creed, and had
r. Early not heard of the strife over the disLife. His tinction between homoousion and hoCommen‑ moiouaion. In view of the paucity of tary on evidences as to Western orthodoxy of Matthew. the period before 356, when Greek influence became strong, the historical interest of Hilary's commentary on Matthew is very great. Though it lacks the beginning and end, its genuineness is beyond dispute. Its date is probably between 350 and 353. The Christology of this work is the old Western Christology of Novatian (and Tertullian), without the least trace of influence from Nicaea or of the Eastern catchwords of the time. Another specifically Western trait is the strong Pauline influence‑the antithesis of law and gospel, the emphasis laid upon justifying faith. It is difficult to decide exactly what were the sources of the theological learning set forth in this, the oldest of Hilary's works; but it will not suffice to say that he gained his knowledge of the orthodox belief, as it was set forth in the homoousion, from Scripture alone. He seldom names authorities; but he does mention Tertullian and Cyprian as the authors of expositions of the Lord's Prayer known to him, and he seems to have read Novatian's De trinitate under the name of one of these two. That he knew Irenaeus is possible from the parallelism of certain lines of thought, but there are things which tell in a contrary direction. Greek influences are improbable from the complete absence of any reference to the Greek text of the Bible. In fact, it is unlikely that Hilary's youthful education included a " good knowledge " of Greek. It was his being drawn into the Arian controversy that made him "the Athanasius of the West," and his exile in the Orient that turned him into a Greeizing Western theologian.
After Paulinus of Treves had been exiled in 353

283	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g	of Poitiers
and Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Calaris, and Dionysius of Milan in 355, the Arian controversy began to affect Hilary, who had been present neither at Arles nor at Milan. With other
z. Exile in Gallic bishops, he renounced com‑
	the East.	munion with Ursacius and Valens, who
		had dominated the situation at Milan,
and their partizan, Saturninus of Arles. At the
same time (355 or early in 356) he wrote his first
address to the Emperor Constantius. In it, with
out discussing dogmatic problems, he complains
of the behavior of the Arians and appeals for a
cessation of the persecution and the recall of the
banished bishops. He now evidently knows what
Arianism means, and takes his stand on the Nicene
side because it represents what he has always be
lieved. The Arianizing party knew what his in
fluence was worth, and made every effort to have
him also banished. They succeeded soon after the
synod held in 356 at Biterrse, the modern BSziers,
where he made fruitless efforts to win over his op
ponents. Envoys from the synod to the emperor
procured a decree of banishment against him. The
place of his exile was at first kept secret; after a
long journey he reached the civil province of Asia,
where (principally in Phrygia) he remained until
after the Synod of Seleucia, spending his time in
study and writing. The result of his studies was
his most important work, the De trinitate, called by
Jerome Contra Arianos, by Rufinus, Cassian, and
others De fade. It was written before he came in
contact with homoiousianism, and thus before the
Synod of Ancyra in the spring of 358. The pecul
iar western Christological tradition still appears
in it; in spite of the expression trinitas, which nat
urally occurs more than once, binitarian views make
themselves decidedly felt. But he has now come
to know Greek theology. The homoouaion is ac
knowledged; in place of the Novatian conception
of the eternity of the Son are clear expressions as
to his eternal generation; instead of speaking only
of the human corpus of Christ, as before, he now
speaks also of an anima created through the Logos
together with the body formed in Mary; and in
spite of all his use of the phrase susceptus homo, he
guards carefully the identity of the Logos‑subject
in the incarnate Logos.
Hilary followed with attention the exciting course of events in the East: the synod of the court bishops at Sirmium in 357, whose colorless formula (known as the Second Sirmian) even a
3. Activity Hosius subscribed; the appearance of
	in Arlan	the Homoiousians at the Synod of
Controversy. Ancyra; the struggle of Basil of An
		cyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Eleu
sius of Cyzicus with the court bishops; the recep
tion of the consecration formula at the Synod of
Sirmium in 358; the recrudescence of the Ariani
zing tendency; and the plans for a new council in
Nicomedia. At this time Hilary had news at last
from Gaul, where the orthodox faith was prevail
ing; the Sirmian formula had been rejected at a
synod held simultaneously with that of Ancyra,
and Saturninus of Arles had not improved his posi
tion in the three intervening years. The plan for
calling a new council, to which also some Gallic
bishops were invited, troubled him, because he knew that his friends in Gaul believed that orthodoxy dwelt there alone, and was afraid that discord would arise between them and the Homoiousians, out of which only the extreme Arians could make profit. When the plan of holding two synods, one at Ancyra and one at Rimini, was adopted, Hilary addressed both the Gallic bishops and the Homoiousians in his De synodis, a document which was intended to unite all the anti‑Arians, the Homoousians of the West and the Homoiousians of the East, in opposition to the graver danger by explaining the position of each to the others. He was somewhat in advance of his time, and zealous Westerns, especially Lucifer of Calaris, attacked him, so that he was compelled to write an Apologetics ad reprehensores libri de synodis responaio, of which only a few fragments remain. Even before writing this, probably, he took practical steps in the same direction. Attending the Synod of Beleucia, he maintained friendly relatior.ci with the Homoiousians, and accompanied their deputies to the capital at the close of the sessions. He remained here while the delegates from Seleucia met with those .from Rimini (among whom seems to have been his antagonist Saturninus of Arles), and were compelled to agree on a bare Homoian formula. He was still in Constantinople during the synod of January and February, 360, and then wrote his second book, Ad Constantium. After boldly pointing out the evils of the existing confusion, and strongly reprobating Homoianism, he asked leave to confront Saturninus in the emperor's presence and debate the question with him. Immediately after this he was allowed to return to Gaul‑‑either because he was considered a disturber of the peace of the East or his exile being terminated.
The mood in which he came back is evidenced by his indignant letter to the Gallic bishops under the title of Contra Constantium. He exhorts them to resist the " Antichrist " Constantius
4. Later to the death, and makes his policy,
Life in especially the Homoianism introduced
	Gaul.	by him, responsible for the troubles
		and the degradation of the Church.
When Hilary returned to Poitiers‑in 360 or more
probably in 361‑is uncertain; but it was he who
beat down heresy in Gaul. His spirit breathes
through the letter of the Synod of Paris (361) which
excommunicated Saturninus. Nor did he confine
his efforts to Gaul alone. In Italy he supported
Eusebius of Vercelli, now also returned from exile;
but their chief opponent, Auxentius of Milan, Be
lated them to the new emperor, Valentinian, as dis
turbers of the peace, and Valentinian forbade them
to trouble the church of Milan, which he regarded
as orthodox. Hilary made countercharges against
Auxentius, and after a personal hearing before
court officials, the latter, as a point of policy, ac
knowledged the homoousion‑though he repudiated
it again not later than the following spring‑and
threw fresh odium on Hilary and Eusebius. Hil
ary, attempting to expose his duplicity, was or
dered to leave Milan, and in his book Contra Au
xentium gave a full account of these proceedings to

Hilary of Poitiers	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	2'84
Hilduin
all the orthodox bishops and laity.	This date (365)
is the last certain one in his life.
	Several of his most important works, as enumer
ated in the list given by Jerome (De vir. ill., c.),
	have already been dealt with in their chronological
connection.	Of the others mentioned by him there
are still extant a commentary on part of the Psalms,
a portion of the Liber mysteriorum, and fragments
	of the Liber hymnorum and the commentary on
Job.	The work on the Psalms is even more exten
	sive than in Jerome's specification, covering Ps.
	i., ii., ix., xiii., xiv., li.‑lxix., cxi., and cxviii.cl.
	The Liber mysteriorum was long supposed to be
	lost, but in 1887 Gamurrini discovered a manu
	script which, though incomplete, he identified with
	this treatise, and found to contain a treatment of
the.mysteries of Old Testament typology.	Of the
	commentary on Job, which Jerome calls a free ren
	dering of Origen's, two fragments are preserved by
	Augustine; its dependence on Origen places it in
	the period after Hilary's banishment. There has
	been much discussion on the difficult question as
	to the existence of remains of what Jerome de
	scribes as Liter adversum Valentem et Ursacium, his
	toriam Ariminensis et Seleuciensis synodi eontinens.
	Fifteen " fragments " preserved in the manuscripts
	perhaps belong to this work, and scholars have
	held very divergent views about the authenticity
	of them, together or severally; but until further
	evidence is presented the hypothesis which re
	gards them all as genuine and belonging to this
book seems the least open to objection.
	(F. LoOFS.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best edition of the works is the Bene
	dictine of Constant, Paris, 1693, reprinted with additions
	by Maffei, Verona, 1730, and in MPL, ix.‑x. Earlier and
	less valuable are those by B. Asoensius, Paris, 1510, and
	by Erasmus, Basel, 1523. Hilary's principal work on the
	Trinity and several other tracts and homilies are in NPNF,
2d ser., vol. ix.
	The Vita by Venantius Fortunatus. ed. B. Krusch, is
	in MGH, Auct. ant., iv. 2 (1885), 1‑11; an early Vita is
	in vol. i. of Maffei's ed. and in vol. ix. of MPL. His life
	is given also by Jerome in De vir. ill., chap. c. An ex
	cellent and detailed introduction to Hilary's life and wri
	tings and theology is in NPNF, ut sup. Consult: J. H.
	Reinkens, Hilarius von Poitiers, Schaffhausen, 1864;
	J. B. WirthmOller, Die Lehre des . . . Hilarius von
	Poitiers, Regensburg, 1865; K. R. Hagenbacb, Hist. of
	Christian Doctrines, i. passim, ii. 82, Edinburgh, 1880;
	O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, Freiburg, 1894; G. Dreves,
	in ZHT, xii (1888), 358‑361; Baltzer, Die Christologie
	des heiligen Hilarius von Poitiers, Rottweil, 1889; F. W.
	Farrar, lives o/ the Fathers, i. 426‑467, New York 1889;
	A. Ebert, Allgemeine Gesehichte der Literatur des Mittel
	alters, i. 143‑145, Leipsic, 1889; S. W. Teuffel, Geschichte
	der rtimischen Literatur, pp. 1053‑1057, ib. 1890; H.
	Lindemann, Hilary von Poitiers, liber mysteriorum, Mun
	ster, 1905; Wilmars, in Revue b6nMictine, April and July,
	1907; Ceillier, Auteurs sarres, iv. 1‑89, 566‑576 et
	passim, consult index; 1Ceander, Christian Church, ii.
	618‑622 et passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 589,
664, 959‑961; DCB, iii. 54‑56.
	HILDA (HILD), SAINT: Abbess of Whitby (40
	m. n.n.e. of York); b. 614; d. at Whitby Nov. 17,
680.	She was baptized by Paulinus (q.v.) at York
	with her great‑uncle Edwin, king of Northumbria,
and his nobles in 627.	At the age of thirty‑three
	she started to join her sister, Hereswid, who was
	a nun in Gaul, but was recalled from East Anglia
	by Aidan and appointed over a small monastic
community on the north bank of the Wear. In 649 she became abbess at Hartlepool. In 657 she founded a double monastery at Whitby (then called Streanaeshalch), which became the most famous religious house in northeast England. The Synod of Whitby (q.v.) was held there in 664, after which Hilda accepted the Roman date for Easter. Five of the monks trained under her rule became bishops. The poet Cwdmon (q.v.), perhaps originally a laborer on the monastic lands, was made a brother of the house by Hilda, and received instruction and encouragement from her.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bede, Hist. eccl., iii. 24‑25, iv. 23, 24; J. B. Lightfoot, Leaders of the Northern Church, London,
1890; DCB, iii. 77‑78; DNB, xxvi. 381‑382; W. Bright,
Cha;tern of Early English Church History, Oxford, 1897.

HILDEBERT, Sl"de‑bar,' OF LAVARDIN : Bishop of Le Mans and archbishop of Tours; b. at Lavardin, near Montoire (24 m. w.n.w. of Blois), department of Loir‑et‑Cher, c. 1056; d. at Tours Dec. 18, 1133. After 1085 he was scholasticus in the cathedral of Le Mans, and became archdeacon there in 1091. He was made bishop of Le Mans in 1096. A minority of the clergy and William Rufus of England, at that time feudal lord of Maine, protested against his election as bishop; and until the death of the King Hildebert had to suffer much from the ill will of the English court. After the end of the second campaign against Maine, he was even forced to follow the king to England as prisoner, but in 1100 he was released. Shortly after his return to Le Mans, he undertook a journey to Italy, asking to be relieved from his duties; but Paschal II. would not give his consent. Richly provided with means for the continuation of the building of his cathedral, he returned to Le Mans in 1101. He developed a busy administrative activity, which was interrupted only by his attendance at various French councils, and by a captivity of several months in the castle of Count Rotrou du Perche (1112). About 1116 Henry of Lausanne (q.v.) appeared in Le Mans and preached fearlessly against the conduct of the higher clergy. The people enthusiastically hailed the anticlerical agitation, and when Hildebert returned from a second journey to Italy he was received with maledictions, though be banished Henry from town and diocese. In 1120 Hildebert had the great satisfaction of seeing the cathedral finished. In 1123 he attended the great Lateran Council of Calixtus II. at Rome. Through Louis VI. of France he was chosen archbishop of Tours in 1125, against his will. His new office involved him immediately in new and protracted struggles with Louis about appointments to offices, with the bishop of Dol about jurisdiction over the dioceses of Brittany, etc.
Hildebert achieved fame beyond the boundaries of his diocese chiefly by his literary works, particularly his poems. He had great talents for form. He was the first medieval writer who mastered Latin like a living language, but he was more of a versifier than of a poet. Next to his poems, Hildebert achieved fame by the elegant style of his letters and by his preaching in French and Latin. He was the first prominent representative of the tendency which led later to the Renaissance, but

285	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hilary of Poitiers
		Hilduin
was temporarily checked by the rise of monasti
cism and the activity of the mendicant orders.
	Beaugendre has embodied in his edition of Hil
debert's works (Paris, 1708) all anonymous wri
tings that he could possibly ascribe to his hero.
Bourass6's edition (MPL, clxxi. 1‑1486) is not
much better.	Of the numerous prose works at
tributed to Hildebert, the only ones surely genu
ine are four sermons, a work entitled Liber de
	querimonia et con flictu carnis et spiritus 8eu animm
(c. 1100), and two biographies of saints, Vita S.
	Radegundis and Vita Hugonis abbatis Cluniacemis.
The genuineness of the following poetical works is
	proved: Versus de sacriftcio missw; De operibvs
sex dierum; Inscriptionum christianorum libellus;
	Vita Mario Xgyptiacw; some of the Carmina mis
	cellanea and of the Carmina indifferentia. The gen
	uineness of the following poetical works has not
	yet been investigated : De ordine mundi; Carmen
	in libro8 regum; Versus de S. Vincentio; De inven
tions S. Crucis; Lamentatio peccatricis animm.	It
	is possible. that Hildebert is the author of a His
toria de Mahomete.	(H. BOHMER.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Criticisms by B. Haur6au of the editions
	of Besugendre and Bourassd are in Notices et extraits de
	la bibliothbyue nationals, xxviii. 2, pp. 289‑448, xxix. 231
	362, xxxi. 2, pp. 126‑140, xxxii. 2, pp. 7, 84‑166, xxxiii.
	1, pp. 257 sqq. Certain letters, ed. E. Sackur, are in
	MGH, Lib. de lite, ii (1893), 668‑673. Sources for a life
	are the Vita Hildeberti in the Aeta eguacaporum Cenno
	mannensium reprinted in the introductions to the editions
	of Beaugendre and Bourassd; Ordericus Vitalis, Hist.
	eccl., ed. A. le Prevost, ii. 250‑251, 576, iv. 41 sqq., 103,
	374, Paris, 18,18‑55; and William of Malmesbury, ed. W.
	Stubbs, in Rolls Series, no. 90, pp. 338‑340, 402‑403,
London, 1887‑89.	The biographies by V. H6bert‑Du
	perron (Bajocis, 1858) and P. Ddservilliers (Paris, 1876)
	are superseded by A. Dieudonnt;, Hildebert de Lavardin,
	. sa vie, ses lettres, Paris, 1898; of. E. A. Freeman,
	Reign of William Rufus, ii. 191‑245, 274‑302, 625‑$45,
	654‑56, Oxford, 1882; F. Barth, Hildebert von Lavardin
	and daa kirchliche Stellungbesetzungsrecht, Stuttgart,
	1906; Wattenbach, DGQ, ii (1886), 191, ii (1894), 217;
	Julian, Hymnology, PP. 522‑523; R. C. Trench, Sacred
Latin Poetry, pp. 106‑109, London, 1864.
HILDEBRAND. See GREGORY VII., Pope.
	HILDEGARD, SAINT: Abbess of Disibodenberg
	and Rupertsberg, near Bingen; b. at the castle of
	Bdckelheim (16 m. by rail a. of Bingen) 1098 or
	1099; d. at Rupertsberg 1178. She was educated
	at the Disibodenberg abbey by a female recluse,
	Jutta of Sponheim, and became abbess herself in
1136.	Subsequently she founded and superin
tended the cloister on the Rupertsberg.	She influ
	enced the ecclesiastical and moral conditions of
	the time by her speech and example, in the course
	of journeys to France, to Swabia, Cologne, and
	the Netherlands, and by her manifold writings,
	the product of ecstatic visionary conditions, and
	the earliest memorials of German mysticism. From
	1141 onward, Hildegard had her visions, imparted
	through the " inner light," recorded in writing;
	thus originated her principal work, Scivias [i.e., Sci
	viasj Domini, her Liber vito meritorum, Expositiones
	evangeliorum, and other books. Although never
	canonized, Hildegard's name has found recognition
	in the Martyrologium of the Roman Catholic Church;
	and she is still highly honored in the districts of the
confluence of the Nahe and the Rhine.
	K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An extensive list of literature is given in Potthast, Wegvxiaer, pp. 1373‑74, and another by F. W. E. Roth, in Quartalblatter des hiatmaschen Vereins fur . . . Hessen, 1886, pp. 221=223, 1887, pp. 78‑‑86. Hildegard's Epiatolm et prophetice are most accessible in MPL, cxcvii.; the Epistolm are in Germ. transl. in 2 vols., Regensburg, 1854; previously inedited works, ed. Davin, are in Le Monde, July 1, 1882; her Nova opera, ed. J. B. Pitra, appeared Paris, 1883, cf. Analecta Bollandiana, i (1882), 597‑608. The Life of Hildegard by Theodoric, with prefatorial matter, is in ASS, Sept., v. 667‑697, and in MPL, cxcvii. 91‑130, and in Fr. tranel., Louvain, 1822. Other pertinent matter is collected in ASB ut sup., pp. 697‑701. Consult: L. Clarus Leben der heiligen Hildegard, Regensburg, 18.14; W. ~Preger, Geschichte der deutachen Mystik, i. 13‑34, Leipsie, 1874; J. P. Schmelzeis, Leben and Wirken der heiligen Hildegard, Freiburg, 1879; A. Battandier, in Revue des question8 hiatoriquea, xxiii (1883), 395‑425; R. A. Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, i. 146, ii. 219, 8th ed., London, n. d.; KL, v. 2061‑74; Neander, Christian Church, iv. 216‑220, 225, 462, 586, v. 222, 381.
HILDESHEIM, BISHOPRIC OF: The bishopric for the Eastphalian districts in the northwestern regions of the Harz Mountains. It was probably created early in the reign of Louis the Pious (814840), as the Hildesheim catalogue of the bishops names two bishops before Ebo (q.v.) and the latter received the bishopric shortly before the Synod of Mainz in 847, in which he took part as bishop of Hildesheim. The most prominent among the Hildesheim bishops were Altfrid, founder of the cathedral of Hildesheim, Bernward, and Godehard. The most important monastery in the diocese was Gandersheim, founded 852 at Brunshausen and removed to Gandersheim in 856. (A. HAUCg.)
The bishops acquired great temporal power under the Hohenstaufen emperors, and had been so much distracted by the consequent cares and struggles that there was great need of reform when it was undertaken by Bishop Magnus of SaxonyLauenburg (1424‑52) supported by Nicholas of Cusa (see CUBA, NICHOLAS OF) who had been sent to North Germany for this purpose, and by Jan Busch (q.v.) and the Windesheim congregation, as well as by the Benedictine congregation later called of Bursfelde (q.v.), which originated within the diocese about this time. Worldliness, however, made fresh inroads, and under John IV. of Saxony‑Lauenburg (1504‑‑27) all was ripe for both political and religious innovations. A large part of the diocese became Protestant and the dukes of Brunswick‑Liineburg and Brunswick‑Wolfenbiittei took the power. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) confirmed the existing status and prevented any attempts at restoring Roman Catholicism. In 1803 the remaining territory of the diocese was secularized and annexed as a principality to Prussia; but the Concordat of 1824 between Hanover and Rome established new and much larger boundaries for the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops, including a Roman Catholic population of 55,000.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. A. Lantzel, Geschirhte der Dabaeee and Stadt Hildesheim, 2 vols., Hildeshelm, 1857‑58; A. Bertram, Die Biechbfe von Hildesheim, ib. 1896; idem, Geschichte des Bisthums Hildesheim, ib. 1899; Rettberg, KD, ii. 465; Hauck, KD, ii. 620.
HILDUIN, fl"d(i"an': Abbot of St. Denis; d. Nov. 22, 840. He came of a noble Frankish family, was a pupil of Alcuin, and became a man of great learning, admired by Rabanus Maurus, Walafried

Hilgenfeld	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	988
HiltaUnger
Strabo, and the famous Hincmar of Reims, his pu
pil. At the end of 814 or beginning of 815 he
became abbot of St. Denis, though he was not yet
a monk. In 819 or 822 he was made archicapel
lanus to Louis the Pious, and his subsequent career
was of more political than ecclesiastical impor
tance. In 827 an embassy from the Eastern em
peror, Michael Balbus, brought the works of Dio
nysius the Areopagite as a present to Louis the
Pious, who placed them in charge of Hilduin as
abbot of St. Denis, having a special devotion to
the saint, whom he regarded as identical with the
Areopagite, and in 835 charged him to write the life
of St. Denis. This biography is of importance as
taking the same view of the identity‑the view
which, although all his contemporaries did not share
it, prevailed finally and dominated the Middle Ages.
Involved in the struggle of Louis the Pious with his
sons, he lost his position at court and was impris
oned for a time in the abbey of Corvey. He was
soon pardoned by Louis, and some of his abbeys
were restored to him; but he took no further part
in political conflicts, and devoted himself to the
reformation of St. Denis, probably taking the mo
nastic vows in this period.	(Fosst.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are to be found in: MPL, cvi.
	109‑110; MGH, Epist., v (1898‑99), 325 sqq.; Ermol
	due Nigellus, III., v. 270‑271, IV., v. 412 in MPL, cv.
	Consult: A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geachichte der literatur des
	Mittelaltera, ii. 147, 248, 348, Leipeic, 1880; H. Fose,
	Ueber den Abt Hilduin, Berlin, 1888; Histoire litt&aire de
	la France, iv. 607‑613; KL, v. 2089‑90.
	HILGENFELD, ADOLF (BERNHARD CHRIS
TOPH CHRISTIAN): German Protestant; b. at
Stappenbeck (near Salzwedel, 54 m. n.n.w. of Mag
deburg) June 2, 1823; d. at Jena Jan. 12, 1907.
He studied at Berlin and Halls 1841‑45, and in
1847 became privat‑docent at Jena. In 1850 he
was appointed associate professor in the same uni
versity, and in 1869 was made honorary full pro
fessor, while from 1890 to his death he was full
professor of New Testament exegesis. In theology
he belonged to the liberal school of F. C. Baur. Be
sides his work as editor of the Zeitschrift fur wis
senschaftliche Theologie after 1858, he wrote Die
clementinischen Rekognitionzn and Homilien (Jena,
1848); Das Evangelium and die Briefe Johannis
mach ihremLehrbegriff (Halls, 1849); Kritische Un
tersuchungen fiber die Evangelien Justins, der cle
mentinischen Homilien and Marcions (1850); Die
Glossolalie in der alters Kirche (Leipsic, 1850); Das
Markus‑Evangelium (1850); DerGalaterbrief (1852);
Die apostolischen Vkter (Halls, 1853); Die Evan
gelien nach ihrer Entstehung and geschichtlichen Be
deutung (Leipsic, 1854); Das Urchristentum in
den Hauptwendepunkten seines Entwicklungsganges
(Jena, 1855); Die jitdische Apokalyptik (1857);
Der Paschastreit der alters Kirche (Halls, 1860); Der
Kanon and die Kritik des Neuen Testaments in ihrer
geschichtlichen Ausbildung (1863); Die Propheten
Esra and Daniel and ihre neueste Bearbeitungen
(1863); Novum Testamentum extra canonem recep
tum (4 parts, Leipsic, 1874); Messias Judmorum,
libris eorum paulo ante et paulo post Christum natum
conscriptis illustratus (1869); Historisch‑kritische
Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1875); Die khn‑
inische Weissagung fiber die Mark Brandenburg (1875); Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums (1884); Judentum and Judenchristentum (1886); Hermm pastor grcece integer (1887); Libellus de aleatoribus inter Cypriana scripts conservatus (Freiburg, 1889); Acta apostolorum grace et latine (Berlin, 1899); and Ignatii Antiocheni et Polycarpi Smyrncei epistula, et martyria (1902).

BIHLIOORAPHY: H. Hilgenfeld, Verzeichnie der won Adolf Hilgenfeld verfaeeten Schritten, Leipsic, 1908.

HILL, ROWLAND: Popular English preacher; b. at Hawkstone Park (11 m. n.e. of Shrewsbury), Shropshire, Aug. 23, 1744; d. in London Apr. 11, 1833. He was educated at Eton and at St. John's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1769), where he came under the influence of the Methodists. For preaching in the open air in and around Cambridge without a license he was opposed by the authorities and frequently assaulted by mobs. Finally, in 1773, after he had been refused ordination by six bishops, he was ordained by the bishop of Bath and Wells to the curacy of Kingston, Somersetshire, but was subsequently denied priest's orders. Having come into an inheritance throughthe deathof his father, Sir Rowland Hill, he built in 1783 Surrey Chapel, London. Here he preached to immense audiences almost up to the time of his death. Attached to the chapel were thirteen Sunday‑schools, with an enrolment of over 3,000 children. In the summer Hill preached through the country, even visiting Scotland and Ireland, and attracting large crowds wherever he went. He was one of the founders of the Religious Tract Society and an active promoter of the interests of the London Missionary Society and of the British and Foreign Bible Society. He was an early advocate of vaccination, and published a tract on the subject in 1806. His principal work is Village Dialogues (London, 1801; 34th ed., 1839).

BrBwoaRAPHY: W. Jones, Memoir of Rowland Hill, ed. Sherman, London, 1840; E. Sidney, Life of Rev. Rowland Hill, ib. 1845; James Sherman, Memorial of Rowland Hill, ib. 1857; V. J. Charlesworth, Rowland Hill: his Life, Anecdotes and Pudpit Sayings, ib. 1879; E. Broome, Rowland Hill: Preacher and Wit, ib. 1883; DNB, xxvi. 411.

HILLEL: Jewish rabbi in the time of Herod. He was called " the Elder " to distinguish him from other persons of the same name, and was descended from a poor Babylonian family which, as a later Jewish legend relates, traced its pedigree back to David. According to Siphrg on Deut. xxxiv. 7, he was forty years old when he emigrated from his native country to Palestine in order to devote himself in Jerusalem to the study of the law. His poverty compelled him to become a daylaborer. It was said that he used half of his wages to provide the fees for instruction under the most celebrated rabbis of his time. He distinguished himself not only by his zeal for knowledge, but also by his great patience and gentleness both in word and in deed. The " Sayings of the Fathers " and other sources have preserved many a beautiful sentence under the name of Hillel, and many examples of his noble deeds are recorded in the Talmud. But he can not be called a reformer; his

287	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hilgenfeld
Hiltalingrer
mode of thought was casuistic, and could in no way be compared to that of Jesus. The name of Hillel was little known among Christians until E. Renan in his Vie de Jesus (Paris, 1863) put him almost on a level with Jesus and called him his true teacher. A. Geiger and other rabbis, followed Renan. Delitzsch, however, in his monograph Jesus and Hillel (Erlangen, 1866) has convincingly shown that HilleI was overestimated and the unique importance of Jesus completely ignored by Renan and Jewish writers. The lack of even the most unimportant testimony is against the assumption that Jesus was influenced by Hillel. (H. L. &TRAC%.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: SchWer, GssWchte, ii. 359‑383 et passim, Eng. tranal., ll., i. 359‑363 et passim; A. Geiger, Dos
Judenthum and seine Gsarhichte, i. 99‑107, Brenlau, 1865:
M. Nicolas, Des Doct»nes relipieasea des juifs, part i.,
chap. iii., Paris, 1867; E. Stapler, Les 1d&s relipieuses an
Palestine h l'Evoque de Jbaus‑Christ, chap. xii.. ib. 1878;
G. Goitein, in Mapasin for die Wissenschaft des Juden‑
tums, a (1884), 1‑16, 49‑87; W. Bacher, Die Aqada der
Tannaflan, i. 4‑14, Strasburg, 1884; T. Leir, in &vus des
Jtudea fuivea, xx:jd. 202‑211; xxziii. 143‑144; JE, vi. 897‑
400.
HELLER: A family of Wilrttemberg poets and theologians.
1. Matth1us Hiller, Orientalist, was born at Stuttgart Feb. 15, 1646; d. at K6nigsbronn (45 m. e. of Stuttgart) Feb. 3, 1725. In 1677 he became assistant preacher in Herrenberg, 1686 preceptor in Bebenhausen, 1692 professor of Hebrew, 1698 of theology in TObingen, 1716 abbot in Konigsbronn. He wrote a Hebrew‑Latin dictionary, also De arcano kdhib et keri (Tiibingen, 1692), Onomastieum sacrum (1706), and Hierophyticon (Utrecht, 1725).
2. Friedrich Konrad Hiller, councilor of the chancery and hymn‑writer, was born at Unter6wisheim, near Brilchaal (12 m. n.e. of Carlsruhe), 1662; d. there 1726. He wrote 172 hymns which he edited under the title Denkmnl der Erkenntnis, Liebe and Lob Gottes in neven geistliche» Liedem (Stuttgart, 1711).
3. Philipp Friedrich Hiller, hymn‑writer, was born at MOMhausen‑on‑the‑Enz (near Vaihingen, 15 m. n.w. of Stuttgart) Jan. 6, 1699; d. at Steinheimon‑the‑Albuch (near Heidenheim, 22 m. n.n.e. of Ulm) Apr. 24, 1769. He was educated at Maulbronn and Tiibingen, was private tutor in Nuremberg from 1729 to 1731, became pastor of NeckarGr6ningen in 1732, of Miihihausen‑on‑the‑Enz in 1'736, and of Steinheim in 1748. In 1751 he almost completely lost his voice; and, being thus excluded from the pulpit, he devoted himself to hymn‑writing. He put all the prayers of Johann Arndt's Paradiesgdrtlein into the form of songs under the title Johann Arndts Paradiesgartlein von neuem angelegt (4 parts, Nuremberg, 1729‑31). Besides this work, he wrote more than a thousand hymns and religious songs which he published under the title Geistliches Liederkdstlein (2 parts, Stuttgart, 17621767). He also composed a life of Jesus in Alexandrine verses (2 parts, Heilbronn and Tiibingen, 1752); Kurze and erbduliche Andachten bet der Beicht and dem heiligen Abendmahl (Tiibingen and Stuttgart, 1752); Morgen‑ and Abendandaehten nach dem Gebet des Hewn (Stuttgart, 1785); finally a work in prose, Neues System aller Vorbilder Jesu Christi dureh das gdnze Alte Testament in zwei Teiien
(Stuttgart, 175"8). Hiller has become the favorite spiritual poet of Evangelical Wiirttemberg.
(H. MO$APP.)
BiBrdoaBAP87: On 1. S. Pfuster, in Hisrophytiuon, Utrecht, 1725. On 2: Denkmal der Erkenntuia, preface, Stuttgart, 1711; E. E. Koch, Gteehidde des Kirchenlieds, v. 59 eqq., Stuttgart, 1889. On 3: O. F. Hamer, Nachrirhten von Liedardichiern des Auosburger Geeanpbucha, pp. 119129, Schwabaoh, 1779; A. Knapp, Atiembergische Chmaktere, pp. 78‑142, Stuttgart, 1870; E. E. Koch, ut sup., v. 107 eqq.; ADB, xu. 425 eqq.; Julian, $ymnolocy, pp. 524‑525.
	H17 LER, ALFRED: Lutheran; b. at Sharon
Center, N. Y., Apr. 22, 1831. He was educated at
Hartwick Seminary, N. Y., from which he was
graduated in 1857. He then held successive pas
torates in his denomination at Fayette, N. Y.
(1857‑58), and at German Valley, N. J. (1858‑81).
Since 1881 he has been professor of systematic the
ology in Hartwiek Seminary. During the Civil
War he was a delegate of the U. S. Christian Com
mission, and in the spring of 1865 organized the
Army Church in the. cavalry department at Nash
ville, Tenn. Theologically he adheres to " the
doctrinal basis of the General Synod of the Evan
gelical Lutheran Church in the United States."
HILLIS, NEWELL DWIGHT: Congregationalist; b. at Magnolia, Ia., Sept. 2, 1858. He was graduated at Lake Forest University (B.A., 1884) and McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago (1887). He then entered the Presbyterian ministry and held pastorates at Peoria, Ill. (1887‑90), Evanston, Ill. (1890‑94), and Central Church, Chicago, an independent church (1894‑99). Since 1899 he has been pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, Brooklyn. He has written A Mart's Value to Society (New York, 1896); Foretokens of Immortality (1897); Investment of Influence: Study of Social Sympathy and Service (1898); William Bwdrt Gladstone: Scholar, Statesman, Christian (1898); Great Books as Life‑Teachers: Studies of Character, Reel and Ideal (1899); Right Living as a Fine Art
Study of Channing's Symphony (1899); Influence of Christ in Modern Life (1900); Across the Continent o f the Years (1901); David the Poet and King (1901); Faith and Character (1902); Master of the Science of Right Living (1902); The Quest of Happiness (1902) ; School in the Home: Debt Parents Owe their Children (1902); Building a Working Faith (1903); Success through Self‑Help (1903); The Quest of John Chapman (1904); and Fortune of the Republic (1906).
HILTALINGER, JOHANN (John of Basel, Johannes Angelus): Bishop of Lombez (a small town of France, department of Gera, 19 m. s.e. of Auch); b. at Basel c. 1315; d. at Freiburg 1392. He entered the Augustinian order and received the degree of master of theology at Paris in 1371. From 1371 to 1377 he was provincial in the RhenishSwabian province of the order. He again received this dignity in 1379, being general procurator in the mean time. At the outbreak of the Great Schism (see SCHISM), he sided with Clement VII., who made him general prior of the order in Sept., 1379. He .developed a ceaseless activity in the service of Clement, particularly in the Upper Rhine

Hilten	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	288
8lnomar of Reims
country. Even after his elevation to the see of
Lombez in 1389 he remained Clement's confidential
man on the Upper Rhine :nd continued to work
at Freiburg for the curia of Avignon. He wrote,
among other things, Commentaria in libros senten
tiarum.	HERMAN HAUPT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. F. A. HShn, Chronologies provincice
	Rhano‑Sueoica' ordinia . . Augustini, pp. 65 sqq.,
	Wiirzburg, 1744; H. Haupt, in ZKO, vi (1885), 334 eqq.,
	582; idem, in Zeitachrift far die Geschichte des Oberrheins,
	new series, v. 291, 296, 318‑319, vi. 212, 231; C. Eubel,
	in Rtimieche Quartalachrift ftir chrietliche Altertumakunde,
	vii (1893), 412, viii (1894), 261.
	HILTEN, JOHANN: Franciscan monk of Eisen
ach; b. in the diocese of Fulda before 1425; d. at
Eisenach c. 1500. After he had studied in Erfurt
and preached in Livonia, he entered the Franciscan
monastery in Magdeburg. From 1477 he was kept
a prisoner in the monasteries of Weimar and Eisen
ach. He studied the Bible diligently, as well as
the prophecies of St. Bridget of Sweden and of
his contemporary Johann Lichtenberger. He at
tacked ecclesiastical abuses, and on the basis of his
studies of the Apocalypse predicted great revolu
tions in Church and State. He deplored the sepa
ration between clergy and laity and denied the
claim of the pope to be the vice‑regent of Christ.
According to Myconius he put the decline of the
papal power in the year 1514, according to Me
lanchthon in 1516. He extended the rule of the
Turks in Europe, according to Myconius, from 600
to 1570; according to Melanchthon, he foretold
that the Turks would rule as Gog and Magog in
Germany and Italy in 1600; then he expected a
reformation of Christianity and an annihilation of
Mohammedanism. The last Holy Roman emperor,
he said, would resign and restore his power to
Christ; after the fall of Rome Antichrist would ap
pear. He predicted the end of the world for 1651.
	Hilten can not be regarded as a " forerunner of
the Reformation," but he belongs to the number
of those who longed for a reform of the Church
and tried to keep alive this desire by prophecies.
He went back to Scripture and deplored the con
tradiction between the claims of the hierarchy and
the life of the Church and the Bible; but reforma
tion he expected only by the fulfilment of the
judgments of God predicted in the Apocalypse. He
wrote commentaries on Daniel and the Apocalypse
of which, however, only fragments came to the
knowledge of the Reformers.		(P. WOLFr.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The report of a monk and a letter of My
	conius to Luther are in C. A. Heumann, Parerga critics,
	I., iii. 1 eqq., G6ttingen, 1736, cf. ZKO, iii (1882), 305
	sqq.; Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., xxv. 325, lx. 286;
	Luther's Briefs, ed. De Wette, iii. 514, 522, vi. 563; CR,
	i. 1108, iv. 780, vii. 653, 999, 1006, 1112, xiv. 841, xxiv.
	64, 225, xxv. 14, 80, xxvii. 627, and the literature deal
	ing with Luther's life, e.g., J. K6stlin, Martin Luther,
	ed. G. Kawerau, i. 29, Berlin, 1903. Consult also Ersch
	and Gruber, Encyklopddie, section II., viii. 190. Other
	literature is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, viii. 78.
	HIN. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, HEBREW.
	HINCKS, EDWARD: Orientalist; b. at Cork
Aug. 19, 1792; d. at Killyleagh (1fi m. s.s.e. of
Belfast), County Down, Dec. 3, 1866. He was ed
ucated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1811), and
was appointed rector of Killyleagh in 1825. He
resided there constantly till his death. Despite his seclusion and lack of books, he soon established a reputation of the first order as a pioneer in the field of cuneiform decipherment. His earlier work was on the Egyptian hieroglyphics, but later he turned his attention to Babylonian and Persian inscriptions and made many discoveries in this field. He enjoyed the distinction of having discovered simultaneously with Rawlinson the Persian cuneiform vowel‑system (see INSCRIPTIONS II., § 3). The results of his studies are embodied in articles contributed to the Dublin University Magazine, to the Journal o f Sacred Literature, and to the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy. He began an Assyrian grammar in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1866), but left no materials for its completion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Annual Report of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1867; R. W. Ropers, Hist. of Babylonia and Assyria, vol. i., New York, 1900; H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, Philadelphia, 1903; DNB, xxvi. 438‑439.
HINCKS, EDWARD YOUNG: Congregationalist; b. at Bucksport, Me., Aug. 13, 1844. He studied at Yale College (B.A., 186G), Union Theological Seminary (1866‑67), and Andover Theological Seminary, being graduated from the latter institution in 1870. He was pastor of the State Street Church, Portland, Me. (1870‑81). He then spent a year in Europe (1881‑82), and on his return to the United States was appointed Smith professor of Biblical theology in Andover Theological Seminary, a position which he held from 1883 to 1900. Since the latter year he has been professor of systematic theology in the same seminary. Besides having edited the Andover Review, he was a collaborator on the volumes, prepared by the editors of the Andover Review, entitled Progressive Orthodoxy (Boston, 1886) and The Divinity of Christ (1893).
HINCMAR OF LAON: Bishop of Laon; b. 830; d. 879. Through the influence of his uncle, HinCmar of Reims (q.v.), under whom he had received his education, he was made bishop of Laon in 858. Being of a violent temper, he soon refused obedience to his metropolitan, the more famous Hincmar, and even denied the jurisdiction of the state courts over the bishoprics. His violence is shown by the fact that during a temporary imprisonment at this time he laid an interdict upon his own diocese. After a long controversy he was finally deposed in 871 by the national synod of Douzy. He was then imprisoned by the king and deprived of his eyesight. A year before his death John VIII. allowed him a part of the episcopal revenues of the diocese of Laon and gave him permission to say public mass. His works, all of which had their origin in his controversies with his uncle and Charles the Bald, are printed in MPL, cxxiv. 979‑1072.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. de Noorden, Hinkmar . . , von Rheims, pp. 241‑248, 267‑291, Bonn, 1863; H. Schr6rs, Hinkmar . von Reims, pp. 315‑351, 424‑425, Freiburg, 1884;
E. Dtimmler, Geschichle des ostfrdakischen Reichs, ii. 323 sqq., Leipsic, 1887; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, iv. 380381, 489‑508; KL, vi. 6‑8; much of the literature under HINCMAR Or REIMS; and Neander, Christian Church,.iii. 364‑365.
HINCMAR OF REIMS: Archbishop of Reims; b. about 806; d. at Epernay (115 m. e.n.e. of Paris)

X089	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g ~onmr of g‑,
Dec. 21, 882. At an early age he was sent to the monastery of St. Denis, where he was taught by Abbot Hilduin, whom he accompanied to Aachen, when he was called to the imperial
	Life.	court in 822. Hincmar's presence
		there became of the greatest impor
tance for his future career, as he was here enabled
to study practical politics at the fountain‑head, and
acquire diplomatic ability and political sagacity.
Owing to political intrigues, Hilduin was exiled to
Corbie, whither Hincmar followed him voluntarily.
By his entreaties he induced the emperor to par
don Hilduin and restore to him the abbey of St.
Denis, where Hinemar acquired a mass of informa
tion for which he would have found no time in
later life. In acknowledgment of the services
rendered to his father, Charles the Bald made him
his councilor and recommended him for the archi
episcopal see of Reims, which had stood vacant
since the deposition of Ebo in 835; and in 845 he
was regularly elected and consecrated.
Thenceforth Hincmar's influence was decisive for almost four decades in Church and State. He was soon involved in the controversy on Controversy predestination, which had been started
with	by Gottschalk (see Got‑rsCHArs, 1.),
GottschalL and threatened to shake the foundations of the GaMcan Church. Rabanus Maurus had summoned Gottschalk before a synod in Mainz in 848, and then delivered him over to Hincmar for punishment. At the Synod of Chiersey in 849 Hincmar condemned him a second time, but influential men from all sides defended the doctrine of Augustine. By scientific treatises and the summoning of various synods the archbishop attempted to subdue his opponent, but no agreement was reached, and both parties were finally worn out by the protracted dimensions. Hinemar was involved also in a controversy on the Trinity with Gottschalk, and again he conquered only with great difficulty the opposition of the adherents of Augustine.
In the mean time there had arisen a still more dangerous struggle. After his deposition in 835, Ebo, his predecessor, had been reinControversy stituted as archbishop in 840 on the
with Ebo. death of King Louis, and had returned
The	to Reims. Though he had to flee
Pseudo‑ again at the advance of Charles in 841,
Isidorian he found time to consecrate several
Decretals. ecclesiastics and thus gained a number of adherents in the diocese of Reims. As Hinemar prohibited the performance of their functions, they started an agitation against him. Summoned before the Synod of Soissons in 853, they produced a writ of complaint, in which they tried to prove the legitimacy of Ebo's reinstitution on the basis of the Pseudo‑Isidorian Decretals (q.v.), which here emerged for the first time as a source of canon law. The synod, however, declared the deposition of Rho valid and the ordination of Hinemar legal. The friends of Ebo appealed to Rome, and Hinemar did likewise for the confirmation of the synodal decree. Benedict III. finally conceded the desire of Hincmar; but the dispute was not yet settled. Bishop Rothad of V.‑19
	Soissons became the spokesman of the deposed
	clerics and defended their pseudo‑Isidorian princi
ples.	Rothad was deposed and condemned to im
	prisonment in a monastery, but in his place there
arose a more dangerous opponent in Nicholas I.,
	the most powerful pope of that century. The
	struggle now assumed the most decisive and far
	reaching importance, since it revolved around the
	papal sanction of the pseudo‑Isidorian forgery.
	Nicholas summoned Rothad to Rome, where he
	arrived in 884, and succeeded in gaining in the pope
	the most powerful defender of the pseudo‑Isidorian
	decretals. On the basis of these documents, the
	pope reinstituted Rothad in his office, and Hinemar
was defeated in his struggle against the pseudo
	Isidorian party. The deposed ecclesiastics of
	Reims who knew about this extraordinary forgery
	and undoubtedly had lent their hand to its com
	pilation were encouraged by the success of Rothad,
	and under the leadership of Wulfad they brought
	their case before the pope. Nicholas induced Hinc
mar to resume his negotiations regarding their res
	toration. At the instigation of Hinemar, a synod
	at Soissons in 886 advocated such action, but
	Nicholas categorically demanded that Hinemar
	either acknowledge the legitimacy of their mstora
	tion or prove the legitimacy of their deposition.
	Hinemar was saved from this difficulty by the cir
	cumstance that the pope became less severe in his
	demands, as he needed the services of the arch
	bishop in his struggles with the Eastern Church.
	In his conflict with Adrian II. (q.v.) he was success
	ful. A new humiliation was heaped upon him when
	John VIII. conferred the dignity of the primacy of
	France upon Archbishop Ansegis of Sens, thus ig
	noring Hincmar, who had the first claim upon it.
	Hinemar played a prominent part also in the
	sphere of politics. He was the most faithful coun
	cilor of the West‑Frankish kings for more than
	three generations, and more than once he saved
	the kingdom from threatening down
	Hincmar's fall. He was likewise theacknowledged
Activity	leader of the Gallican Church, whose
in	national independence he tried in vain
Politics	to uphold against the increasing power
and	of Rome. He firmly defended the
	Writings. principle that the spiritual p ‑)wer take
	precedence over royal authority. In
	his theological views he was a child of his time.
	In learning he excelled his contemporaries, but he
	was without originality of thought. Driven away
	from Reims by the Normans a short time before
	his death, he found a refuge in Epernay. Of his
	literary works may be mentioned two treatises on
	predestination, which reveal his Semi‑Pelagian
	views. These were occasioned by his controversy
	with Gottschalk. A treatise, De una et non tria
	deitate, was the outcome of his controversy on the
	Trinity with the same monk. His best literary
	performance, however, is his Annales, 881‑888,
	continued byFlodoard (MGH, Script., i„ 1826, 45?r
	515, and Script. rer. Germ., 1883, 55‑x54; MPL,
	exxv. 1203‑1302). In his Opuaculum lv. capitu
	lorum he defines his attitude toward the pseudo
	Isidorian decretals. He considered the Dionysio
	Hadrianian codex as the exclusive source of canon

Hinduism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	290
Hinschius
	law and felt more or less the fictitious make‑up of
	the pseudo‑Isidorian laws, although he was unable
to prove it.	(ALBERT FREYSTEDT.)
	BxBwoaneray: The works of Hinemar were edited by Sir
	mond. Paris, 1645, and again in MPL, cxxv.‑cxxvi.
	Consult W. F. Gess, Merkwfirdigkeiten aus dem Leben and
	den Schriften Hinkmare, GSttingen, 1806; J. C. Prieh
	ard, The Life and Times of Hincmar, Littlemore, 1849;
	Weisekeker, in Historische Zeitschrlft, i (1858), 327‑430,
	iii (1860), 42‑96; C. Dies, De vita et inpenio Rincmari,
	Sens, 1859; C. von Noorden, Hinkmar Erzbiechof von
Rheims, Bonn, 1863; Loupot, Hincmar, .	. as vie, sea
	muvrea, son influence, Reims, 1869; T. FSrster, Drei
	Erzbfach6fe vor 1000 Jahren, Giitereloh, 1874; A. Vidieu,
	Hincmar de Reims, Paris, 1875; M. Sdralek, Hincmars
	van Rheims canoniatiachea Gutachten caber die Ehesaheidung
	des %6nigs Lothar 11., Freiburg, 1881; H. Schr6rs, Hink
	mar, Embischo/ von Reims, Freiburg, 1884; Hiatoire lit
	t6raire de la Prance, v. 544 sqq.; Ceillier, Auteurs eacrla,
	xii. 654‑691; AID‑, Latin Christianity, iii. 51, 64, 72,
	77, 80, iv. 184; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 354‑368,
	478‑482, 489‑494; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 276‑277,
	528, 534‑535, 552, 750‑761; Moeller, Christian Church,
ii. 162, 165, 198, 204‑205, 221.
HINDUISM.
	1. The Brahmanistic Counterreformation and the Rise of
the Hindu Sects.
The Mahabharata and Puranas (§ 1).
Krishna ($ 2).
Sivaism (§ 3).
11. Modern Hinduism and the Unitarian Movements.
Origin ($ 1).
The Popular Religion ($ 2).
	The name applied to the post‑Buddhistic develop
ment of native religion in India.
	I. The Brahmanistic Counterreformation and the
	Rise of the Hindu Sects: The elasticity of Brahman
	ism, which enabled it to survive the attacks of the
	pantheism of the Upanishads, carried it through
	the more open assaults of the great heretical lead
ers Buddha and Mahavira (see BRAHMANISM;
	BUDDHISM; JAINISM). The waning power of the
	older gods and the rise of a host of new divinities
	were not due to any influence of Buddha or Ma
	havira, but were apparently the result of contact
with non‑Aryan aboriginal tribes.	Early Hinduism
	finds its chief literary monument in the great epic
	of India, the Mahabharata. This poem, the com
	position of which probably lasted from the fourth
	or fifth century B.e. to 500 A.D., shows
I. The	a new force. as the key‑note of India's
	Mahabha‑ religion. This is found in asceticism,
rata and	or self‑immolation, which sways all
Puranas. powers of heaven and of earth.	Out
	of this has arisen the distinctively
	Indian class of fakirs, professional religious mendi
	cants, who represent the grotesque and outrt; sides
	of asceticism, and number perhaps two millions at
the present.	The only element of asceticism which
	is absolutely requisite to gain distinction as a fakir
	is the ability to endure terrific self‑torture. The
	gods, to protect themselves, frequently sent celes
	tial nymphs to seduce such ascetics as threatened
	the divinities by the power acquired through self
	castigation, and the temptation was by no means
	always unsuccessful. Yet true religion might con
	stantly be found both among the Brahmans and
	among the ascetics and hermits dwelling in the
forest depths.
	Beside the Mahabharata stand the Ramayana, an
	essentially Vishnuite poem, and the eighteen poems
called Puranas, which are of comparatively recent date, the latest being composed perhaps as late as 1500 A.D. Unlike the epic, which is non‑sectarian, the Puranas are avowedly written in honor of the deities who form the eponymous gods of the two great Hindu sects which characterized that period and have survived as active forces to the present day. The mythology of these minor epics still awaits thorough investigation and study, for in the poems lie a mass of legends of the gods which represent popular Brahmanism at a later period than the Mahabharata. Yet the great epic of India can not be dismissed without an allusion to what is, for Occidentals, its most famous episode, the Bhagavadgita, the " Divine Song " of Vishnuite Brahmanism. Before the great battle of Kurukshetra, which marks the culmination of the epic, the god Vishnu, acting as the charioteer of Arjuna, addresses the hero in a hymn proclaiming himself as the sole godhead. It is the Upanishad of Hinduism, but it differs from the early Brahmanic Upanishads in its teaching of salvation by " loving faith " (bhakti). Herein is sounded the key‑note of Vishnuitic sectarianism which is to‑day the most potent religious factor in India.
With the deity Vishnu is incorporated the human Krishna, and with reverence for the divine is combined love for the human to a degree known to no other religion excepting Christianity. Originally an earthly hero, Krishna becomes an incarnation of the Supreme God, the way being paved for this apotheosis by the avatars, or " descents," of the deity in the form of the fish, the tortoise, the boar, the man‑lion, the dwarf, " Rama with the ax," " the moonlike Rama " (the hero of the Ramayana), and Krishna. This list is also extended to
include Buddha, thus changing the 2. Krishna. opponent of Brahmanism to its friend,
and Kalki, the messiah of Hinduism. According to later texts, the avatars are innumerable, and modern Vishnuites even include Christ in the series. The great incarnation, however, is that of Krishna, and about him have been woven countless legends. Some of these show so great a similarity to traditions concerning Christ, especially in the apocryphal New Testament, that many older scholars sought to trace the influence of the legends about Krishna in early Christianity; but it is now generally conceded that this view is erroneous. The dark side of Krishnaitie Vishnuism is its erotic tendency, which is fostered in the popular mind by the adventures of Krishna with the gopis, or milkmaids.
Side by side with Vishnuism was developed the rival sect of the Sivaites. Sivaism is preeminently the sect which encourages cruelest self‑torture, though, on the other hand, it is marked, in the so‑
called " left‑handed worship," by wild 3. Sivaism. orgies and all manner of sexual ex‑
cesses. The phallic aspect of the cult seems to be non‑Aryan. It is, of course, a survival of the worship of the principle of fertility, personified usually by a nude woman who represents the Sakti, or female counterpart, of the male principle as it appears in the god.
17. Modern Hinduism and the Unitarian Movements: The tendency toward monotheism, or

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hinduism
Hinachius
rather toward unitarianism, which is traceable in the latter portions of the Rig‑Veda and, increasing steadily through the Upanishads and Vishnuite sectarianism, finds its culmination in the modern unitarianism of India. It is not impossible that this movement was aided by Mohammedanism. In a historical novel of the seventh century Bana portrayed King Harsha as presiding over a sort of
religious conference attended by Brah:. Origin. mans, Buddhists, Jains, and other sec‑
tarians, and in the sixteenth century the Emperor Akbar proposed a religious composite made out of Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity. It was not until the early part of the nineteenth century, however, that a religion of such diverse elements, though with a distinctly Hindu basis, was able to sustain a permanent existence. In the year 1830 Rammohun Roy (q.v.) founded at Calcutta the BrahmoSomaj (see INDIA, III.,1), in which selections were read and expounded from the sacred books of all the great religions. He was followed by Devendranath Tagore (see TAGORE, DEVENDRANATH) and by Keshub Chunder Sen (see SEN, KESHAV CHANDRA), who developed the principles laid down by Rammohun Roy and advocated still more radical reforms. The Brahmo‑Somaj is now one of the most important religious agencies of India among the cultured classes.
Side by side with orthodox Hinduism and with such heretical sects as the Jains (q.v.) and the Sikhs (q.v.), there exists the religion of the people,
both Aryan and non‑Aryan. Here is s. The found in richest profusion the worship
Popular of trees, serpents, animals, ghosts, both Religion. malevolent and benevolent, disease,
and all the phenomena of nature, while totemism, fetishism, and animism each finds countless adherents.
Bremoa8APH7: The best work on the sects of modern India in W. Crooke, Popular Religion and Folk Lore of Northern India, 2 vols., London, 1898; idem, Tribes and Castes of the North‑West Provinces and Oudh, 4 vols., Calcutta, 1898; next to these the best general work on India is It. W. Frazer, Literary History of India, New York, 1898. Consult further: E. Burnouf, Le Bhagavata purana, ou histoire poitique de Krichna, 4 vole., Paris, 18401884; M. Williams, Hinduism, London, 1878; W. J. Wilkine, Modern Hinduism, ib. 1887; A. Barth, The Religions of India, ib. 1890; F. W. Thomas. Mutual Injumoe of Mohammeda‑ and Hindus, Cambridge, 1892; A. Lyall. Natural Religion in India, London, 1891; idem, in Religi0W Systems of as World, ib. 1893; J. N. Bhattaeharya, Hindu Castes and Sects, Calcutta, 1898; J. A. Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, Oxford, 1897; E. Hardy, Indiwhe ReligionagewAirhte, Leipeio, 1899; C. Von Orelli Allgemeine Religionegeachichte, pp. 394‑526, Bonn, 1899; General Report of the Census of India. 1901, pp. 349‑420, Calcutta, 1904 (valuable for Indian animism and for statistics); J. Happel, Die religi6mn . . . Grundanachauungen der Inder, Giessen, 19o2; P. D. C. de Is Saussaye, Ldrbuch der ReligionsgeseUchte, ii. 122 sqq., Freiburg, 1905; J C. Oman, The Brahmins, Deisfa and Muslim# of India. London, 1907; Daa Saurapuranam. Ein Kompendium apdtindiacher Kulturgeachichte and des Sivaismue. Einleitung, Inhaltagabe, nebat ueberaetzungen, Erk1drungen wnd Indices ton W. Jahn, Strasburg, 1908.
HINSCHWS, .(FRANZ CARL) PAUL: German canonist; b. at Berlin Dec. 25, 1835; d. there Dec. 13, 1898. He was educated at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg (J.U.D., Berlin, 1855) and
then took up practical work as a lawyer's assistant, referendary, and assessor in his native city. In 1859 he established himself as privatrdocent for canon and civil law. In 186"1 he made a tour of Italy, Spain, France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, and Belgium to collect material for a critical edition of the pseudo‑Isidorian decretals, and in 1862 he visited Switzerland to collate the important Sangallensis manuscript of this work. In 1863 he was appointed extraordinary professor of canon, German, and civil law at the University of Halle, in 1865 in Berlin, in 1868 ordinary professor at Kiel, and in 1872 again at Berlin, where he lectured until the summer of 1898. He devoted himself zealously to the administrative affairs of the University of Berlin, and also took part in the practical activity of the Church as member of various synods, was member of the Reichstag for Flensburg‑Apenrade 1872‑78 and 1880‑81, and member of the Prussian House of Lords for the University of Kiel 1871‑72 and for the University of Berlin 1889 until his death. Under Falk he collaborated in the Prussian Kultu8ministxrium 1872‑76 in drafting the laws relating to ecclesiastical affairs, the so‑called May laws, and laws concerning the legal status of private persons.
The first achievement of Hinschius was the edition of the pseudo‑Isidorian decretals (Leipsic, 1863), the first critical edition. The principal work of his life, however, was his Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken and Protestanten in Deutschland (5 vols. and one part of vol. vi., Berlin, 1869‑97). It remains a fragment; of the Roman Catholic canon law the first main part, Die Hierarehie and die Leitung der Kirche durch dieselbe, lacks two chapters of completion, while the‑ second main part (the rights and duties of church‑members and ecclesiastical associations) and the system of Protestant canon law are lacking. The work is a scientific achievement of the first rank for the history of canon law and legal dogmatics, and will probably remain for generations the basis of Roman Catholic canon law. The work of Hinschius did not inaugurate a new period in the history of the science, but it brought a period to its culminating point. He was the first who, with the method of genuine historical criticism, depicted in a realistic and detailed manner the " process of amalgamation Of late Roman, Ger manic, and canonical views which is equally interesting for the history of law and for that of general culture." Other works of Hinschius are Die Stellung der deutschen StaaUregierungen gegenuber den Besehlussen des roadakanischen Konzila (Berlin, 1871); Die preussisehen Kirchengeaetze d, Jahres 1878 (1873); Die Orden and Kongregationen der kd"ischen Kirche in Preussen (1874); Das preussi9che Gesetz fiber die Beurkundung des personenstandes and die Form der EhescNimsungen (1874); Das Reiehsgeeetz (1875, 3d ed., 1890); Die prettasischen Kirchengesetze der Jahre 1874 and 1875 (1875); Das preussische Kirchengesetz torn 14. Juli 1880 (1881); Staat and Kirche (Freiburg, 1883), which appeared in Marquardsen's Handbuch des bffentlichen Reckts der Gegenwart. All of these works reveal the author's view concerning the re‑

Hipvo17tne	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	992
lation of Church and State; viz., that the State should separate its affairs from the ecclesiastical sphere, but that it is called to regulate the mutual relations. He rejected the opposite system of the Roman Catholics for modern legislation. The Church does not stand outside of the State, but lives in the State as an institution of public law. But the State does not possess all privileges; it is under the ethical obligation to let the Church regulate its internal affairs independently and autonomically in so far as the state principle of the liberty of conscience and the recognition of other Churches and religious societies is not violated. If the law of the State collides with the statutes of the Church, the State is the final judge.
(E. SECBEL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A detailed list of the works of Hinschiue is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, viii. 90‑92. A short autobiography is in J. F. Schulte, GewAirhte der Quelien and Littemtur des kanoniwhen Rechte, iii. 2, p. 240, Stuttgart, 1880. A biography is yet to be written.

HIPPOLYTUS, hip‑pel'i‑tus.
Facts of his Life in Literature and Tradition ($ 1). Modern Additions to Knowledge of it (¢ 2).
Exegetical Works (§ 3). Polemical Works ($ 4). Theological Position ($ 5). Until the middle of the nineteenth century, Hippolytus was practically an unknown personality. Eusebius, indeed, names eight of his works and mentions the existence of a number of others (Hilt.
eccl., vi. 22), but is unable to give the i. Facts name of his see. Jerome makes the of his Life same confession of ignorance, though in Litera‑ he gives the titles of more works (De ture and vir. ill., Ixi.). A chronographer of the Tradition. year 354 (MGH, Auct. ant., ix., Chron.
min., i., 1891, pp. 74‑75) asserts that in 235 Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter were exiled to Sardinia, that there he laid down his office, and that Antheros was ordained in his stead; a slightly different form appears in the Liber pontifioali8 (i. 24, ed. Mommsen). Pope Damasus (366‑384) placed on his grave in the Tiburtine cemetery an inscription in verse which records his living in times of persecution, upholding the schism of Novatus, returning to the Catholic faith, and dying a martyr. Following this, Prudentius commemorates him among the martyrs (Peristephanon, xi.). Later Western tradition is almost purely legendary; in its Roman form it connects his martyrdom with that of Laurence. The legend of Portus, on the other hand, connects it with that of a number of local martyrs there, and even identifies him with one also called Nonnus. His writings were used by Ambrose, Jerome, and probably Tyconius; but all knowledge of the historical Hippolytus was lost. Eastern references to him grow altogether out of his works. Apollinaris of Laodicea quotes him on Daniel, calling him " the most holy bishop of Rome." Theodoret names him in connection with Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneeus, and Justin, and he is similarly mentioned by Leontius of Byzantium and the pseudo‑Chrysostom. Thus the list of Eastern authors who name him goes on through Cyril of Scythopolis, Eustratius (c. 582), Jaoob of Edessa, George, bishop of
the Arabians, and OJcumenius (c. 1000), the last four of whom call him a martyr and bishop of Rome. Photius describes him as a pupil of Ireneeus. In the fourteenth century Ebed Jesu knows of works of his which Eusebius and Jerome do not mention. Thus, although a Western writer, Hippolytus was widely and long read in the East because he wrote in Greek. Writings of his were wholly or in part translated into Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Arabic, and Old Church Slavic.
In 1551, in or near his burial‑place on the Via Tiburtina, in Rome a marble statue was discovered (now in the Lateran Museum, the upper part of the body restored) which represents him sitting in a seat on both sides of which his Easter canon is carved, and a list of his writings on the curve connecting the left side with the back. The statue is dated in the third century by experts. The first lines of the inscription are illegible; the others name nine or ten works, to which two more were added later. [There is a plaster cast of this statue in the Union Theological Seminary, New York City.]
Hippolytus really, however, came into full historical light only after the discovery of the PhiZosophumena. Of this work the first book was known earlier than the rest, but the section from the fourth to the tenth was discovered in
a. Modern 1842 in Greece in a fourteenth‑century Additions to manuscript, and all together was pubKnowledge lished at Oxford in 1851 by E. Miller of it. as a work of Origen's. Duncker and Schneidewin then edited it carefully as by Hippolytus. The author speaks of having written a short treatise against heresies, as it is known from Eusebius that Hippolytus did; he is a Roman and a bishop; his words have had an effect upon Zephyrinus, and Callistus (Calixtus) has excommunicated Sabellius on his representations. Now there is no one but Hippolytus who answers to this description, and the result is confirmed by essential parallelism between this book and the admitted writings of Hippolytus. This conclusion accepted, the Philmophumena gives a more thorough insight into the author's life. It does not mention his relation to Irenaeus, but presents him first in Rome, where he must have become a presbyter under Zephyrinus. According to Eusebius, Origen was in Rome during this pontificate, and Jerome speaks of his having been present at a sermon of Hippolytus. To Calixtus, the successor of Zephyrnus, Hippolytus was in determined opposition as to Christology and as to discipline (see CAmxmus I.), and it came to an open breach of communion, which evidently continued under the succeeding popes. This agrees with the description of Hippolytus as a Roman bishop and the reference of Darn us to the Novatian schism. The fact of his having been a schismatic bishop of Rome accounts for the inability of Eusebius and Jerome to name his see, since he was not included in the lists of the Roman succession to which they had access. His identification with Nonnus and consequent description as bishop of Portus may spring either from his martyrdom by the sea or from his special popularity in Portus. He maintained his position until 235, when Maximin's persecution

293	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hippolytv
banished him to Sardinia, together with Pontianus, the legitimate bishop; and on that " unwholesome island " he died.
Hippolytus was a very fertile ecclesiastical writer. His exegetical work was specially extensive; only a few specimens of it, however, have been
preserved entire, the " Antichrist " 3. Exeget‑ and the later commentary on Daniel, ical Works. and of these only the former exists in
the original (in three manuscripts of the tenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; there is also an Old Church Slavic version of probably the eleventh century). The dependence of its content upon Ireraeus is unmistakable. The Daniel commentary, once the most widely read of his works, is extant from book i. 29 in a manuscript of the tenth century found at Athos, and book iv. is also found in another of the fifteenth, while the whole is in the Old Church Slavic version, besides indirect tradition in the catenae and portions in Syriac and Armenian versions. The book was written not long after a severe persecution, and thus can scarcely belong to the end of Hippolytus's life. A more rhetorical character belongs to the commentary on the Song of Solomon, of which fragments exist in the Old Church Slavic and some also in the Armenian. In the Georgian this commentary appears to have been preserved entire (Germ. tranal. by Bonwetsch in TU, xxiii., part 2, 1903). Bonwetsch also edited Hippolytus's exegesis of the Blessing of Jacob and of moms, and of the narrative of David and Goliath (T U, xxvi. Is, 1904). The Greek of the Blessing of Jacob seems to be in existence at Athens. Fragments on Genesis are Preserved in the catens of Prooopius of Gaza, besides one by Jerome, one by Leontius, and three by Theodoret. A fragment discovered by Achelis in an Athos manuscript is the only evidence for the former existence of a commentary on Ruth. Theodoret gives citations from a work on Elkanah and Hannah, and one on the witch of Endor is mentioned both by the inscription and by Jerome. Of the treatise on the Psalms, probably not a complete commentary, the historical introduction is preserved in Syriac, and some fragments in Greek by Theodoret. Some fragments of that on the Proverbs are in the catenve, and a few unimportant ones exist from those on Ecclesiastes and on parts of Isaiah and Ezekiel, while of that on Zechariah nothing remains. There are fragments, again, on Matt. xxiv. and xxv. 24 sqq., which have an eschatological bearing, as had also the commentary on the Apocalypse (of which genuine fragments are extant in Arabic), the °` Chapters against Caius " (fragments published by Gwynne, HennaWm, vi. 397 sqq., 1888), and the treatise on the resurrection addressed to the Empress Mammma (a few Syriac and and Greek fragments), mentioned in the inscription. Possibly some fragments of a commentary on the oracles of Balaam belong to Hippolytus. Theodoret has also preserved a portion of a discourse on the two thieves. On the other hand, the sermon on the raising of Lazarus (Greek and Syriac), is of doubtful authenticity, and still more questionable is that on the divine epiphanies, because both form and contents are unlike Hippolytus.
Of the polemical treatises, that against Marcion has entirely disappeared. The "treatise against All Heresies," which, according to Photius, con‑
tained thirty‑two forms of error, from
4. Polem‑ Dositheus to Noetus, was used as a ical Works. source by the pseudo‑Tertulliah, Epi‑
phanius, and Philaster, which at least determines the sequence of heresies treated in it. It is a question whether the extant homily against Noetus originally formed the close of this book or not. As he defended the Apocalypse against Caius, so he attacked the opponents of the Johannean writings in general in a treatise " On the Gospel and Revelation of John." Of the contents of this some idea may be gained from Epiphanius, Her., li., where Hippolytus is undoubtedly quoted, as in Hair., x1viii. there are traces of his polemic against the Montanists. In the Philosophumena, or " Refutation of All Heresies," also he undertakes to show the origin of heresies from the older philosophies, his knowledge of which, however, according to Diels, was gained from inadequate extracts. The second, third, and beginning of the fourth books are lost; the remainder of the fourth deals with the astrologers. His treatment of the heresies is mainly confined to exposition without thorough polemic. His account of the Gnostic system is based partly on Irenmus and Tertullian; where he is independent of them he has been supposed by some critics to have trusted too much to forged documents‑‑but forgery is unlikely in the case of so speculative a system as that, e.g., of Basilides. Against the pagans he wrote a treatise which seems from its variously given title to have dealt with the Platonic doctrine of the All and the First Cause; the extant fragment is eschatological. The work " On the Faith " attributed to Hippolytus is later than the Nicene Council; that " On the Method of the Vow " is more likely Aphraates'. The polemical treatise against the Jews, though no such work is mentioned in the inscription, and though its present form is possibly not all due to Hippolytus, yet has reminders of his work; and his having written against the Jews is rendered likely by the use of material from him in later anti‑Jewish writings. Of several other works mentioned in various places scarcely anything more than the titles is known. That called " On Charismata " or 'c Apostolic Tradition on Charismata " (according to whether the inscription is here naming one or two works) may well have been incorporated in the '1 Teachings of the Holy Apostles on Charismata," and H. Achelis has made the attempt to determine exactly what part comes from Hippolytus. The " Canons of the Holy Apostles on the Election [of Bishops] by Hippolytus," which are parallel to the Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 4 eqq., are an extract from a primitive form of the Apostolic Constitutions, and according to Achelis and Harnack are based upon genuine canons of Hippolytus, of which a working‑over exists in the Arabic " Canons of Hippolytus." Achelis thinks that Hippolytus wrote the " On Charismata " while still in the catholic communion, and that the assertion that an ignorant or immoral bishop was no true bishop had reference to Zephyrinus, while the canons were in‑

Hippolytus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	294
Hiram
tended for the governance of his schismatic com
munity. If this be true, they are of considerable
historical importance. Works on church discipline
are mentioned also by Jerome, dealing with the
propriety of fasting on Saturday and of daily com
munion. The chronological works of Hippolytus
enjoyed no little esteem, as is shown by the carv
ing on the statue of his Easter table for the years
222‑233. The work called " Chronicle " in the in
scription exists only in Latin adaptations, such as
the Liber generationis and the so‑called Barbarus
Scalageri.	The original form has been exhibited
by A. Bauer.
	The theology of Hippolytus in general is sum
marized at the close of the PhiZosophumena. The
Christian's boasted possession is the knowledge of
the One God, creator and lord of all things. He
alone, of his own free will, created eternally out of
			nothing first the four elements and
5. Theolog‑ then the rest out of them; all that is
		ical	composed of them is separable and
	Position. therefore mortal. By a process of
			thought God generated the Logos,
who, conscious of the will and mind of his begetter,
became the mediate operator of all that was done
in the work of creation. As lord over all he made
man, a compound of the four elements, neither God
like the Logos nor yet an angel. God, being good,
made nothing but good; man by his own will went
further and created evil. Man received a law on
the basis of his free will‑first through just men,
then through Moses and the prophets, but all un
der the administration and in the power of the
Logos, who according to the command of God led
men back from disobedience, not forcing them, but
calling them to a free choice. At last the Father
sent the Logos himself, who, taking a body from a
virgin, put on the old man by a new creation; of
the same nature as our own, because only so could
he exhort us to follow him, he experienced all the
sufferings that belong to human nature, so that men
might hope to follow him also in his exaltation.
	Hippolytus urges his readers to cling to " the
inspired prophets, interpreters of God and the Lo
gos," who have laid down the divine truth in the
Scripture. The New Testament writings are desig
nated equally with the Old as " divine scriptures,"
with " the fourfold gospel " at their head. The
Epistle to the Hebrews is not included among the
Pauline epistles, though Hippolytus uses it not in
frequently; he also makes use of II Peter and
probably of James. Only grace bestows under
standing of the Scriptures, much in which is sealed,
as to the devil, so to unbelievers. The personal
distinction between the Father and the Logos is
defended against Sabellius and Calixtus, as still
earlier against Noetus; but Hippolytus repudiates
the reproach of ditheism‑the one God reveals him
self in two persons, to whom the Spirit is added as
a third, although no clear distinction is made be
tween the Logos and the Spirit. Insight into the
manner of the generation of the Logos is not per
mitted to us. But, though always the perfect
Logos, he is not the perfect Son until, clothed with
flesh as at once the Son of God and the Son of Man,
he appears in the world. While the death of Christ
is of special significance for redemption, j:Iippolytus lays particular emphasis on the completion of the knowledge of God already given through nature and history, but especially in the Law and the Prophets. Men are now enabled, by the same free will with which they sinned, to return to the following of God, and by their good works to win heaven. The Church is " the sacred assembly of those who live in righteousness . . . the spiritual house of God . • . rooted in Christ," who sanctifies all that believe in him. The water of life is given to the thirsty soul first in baptism, with its remission of sins and clothing with the Spirit; in the Eucharist Christ's body and blood are a pledge of immortality. But only those belong to the Church who keep the commandments; all others are " deprived of the Holy Spirit," " driven from the Church," or, if they belong to it externally, their damnation is all the greater. The Church suffers not less from unworthy Christians than from heretics. Thus Hippolytus was as much opposed to Calixtus for his lax discipline as for his monarchianizing theology. But, in spite of his approbation of asceticism and his enthusiasm for martyrdom, he opposes the new precepts of the Montanists, especially in regard to fasting. Against extravagant eschatological views also he takes a stand in the interest of Christian sobriety. In opposition to Caius, for whom " the binding of the strong man" had already taken place, Hippolytus sees the millennium still far in the future, though he makes the point that for the individual the hour of death is that of Christ's advent. But if his attitude toward this whole question is not that of a later age, neither is it quite the same as that of Irenaeus, from whose primitive realism he makes a distinct departure‑thus, as in other points (e.g., his attitude toward the Roman Empire), standing at a turning‑point in theological and ecclesiastical development. (N. BoNWETscm)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A quite complete list of literature is given in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 55‑58. The Opera were edited by J. A. Fabricius in Greek and Latin, 2 vole., Hamburg, 1716‑18; by A. Gallandius, in Bibliotheca veterum patrum, ti. 409‑630, 14 vole. Venice, 1765‑81• in MPG, x.; in Greek by P. de Lagarde, Leipsie, 1858. Editions of the Philosophumena are by E. Miller, Oxford, 185l; L. Dunoker and F. G. Schneidewin, GSttingen, 1856‑59; and P. Cruice, Paris, 1881. Eng. transl. is to be found in ANF, v. 9‑258. Consult: C. K. J. Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, 4 vole., London, 1852; J. J. I. von D511inger, Hippolyt and Kalliatus, Regensburg, 1853, Eng. tranel., Edinburgh, 1876 (from the Roman Catholic standpoint); W. E. Taylor, Hippolytus and the Christian Church of the 8d Century, London. 1853 (opposes D51linger); G. Volkmar, Hippolytus and du romiachen Zeitgenossen, Zurich, 1856; O. Bardenhewer. Des heiligen Hippolyts . . Commentor cum . . . Daniel, Freiburg, 1877; C. Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. London, 1880; G. Salmon, in Hermathena, v (1885), 389 eqq., viii (1892), 161 eqq.; J. H. Kennedy, Part of the Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Daniel, Dublin, 1888; E. Erbee, in Jahrbfcher tar protestantiache Theolopie, xiv (1888) 611‑646; F. W. Farrar, Lives o/ the Fathers, i. 88‑92, New York, 1889; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, ii. 317‑477, London, 1890; G. Fieker, Studien zur Hippolytus/rage, Leipsic, 1893; G. N. Bonwetech, in GGA, 1894 pp. 753 eqq.; W. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung des Judentume, des Neuen Testaments and der alien Ksrche, GStcingen, 1895; W. Riedel, Die Kirehenrechiaquellen des Patriarchate Alexandrien, Leipsic, 1900; K J. Neumann, Hippolytus von Rom in seiner Stellung zu Stoat and Kirehe, ib. 1901; A. d'Alps, La Thlologie de S. Hippolyte, Paris, 1906. In TU the following important coi,tributions are

1296	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hippolytus
Hiram
available: H. $tahelin, Gnostische Qudkn Hippolyta, and A. Harnsok. DM Gwynn'achen Fragments, vi. 3, 1891; H. Achelis, Canonea Hippolyts, vi. 4, 1891; G. N. Bonwetech, Studien zu den Kommentaren HippolvtW. xvi. 2, 1897, xxiii., 1903 idem, Die unter Hippolyts Nanten fiiberlieferte Schrift ' Ueber den Glauben,' Leipsie, 1907, and the numbers named in the text, $ 3; H. Aehelis, Hippolytstudien, xvi. 4, 1897; A. Bauer, Die Chronik des Hippolylos, xxix. 1, 1905. Consult also: Ceillier, Auteurs sacra, i. 607‑842; Harnaek, Litteratur, i. 605646 et pass, ii. 2, pp. 200‑256 et passim; A. R& ville, in Revue des deux mondes, Ivii. 892‑924; N sander, Christian Church, i. 681‑883; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 757‑774 et passim; Moeller, Christian Church, i. 201202; Kriiger, History, pp. 321‑344; KL, vi. 12‑21; DCB, iii. 85‑105, cf. i. 508‑509.
HIPPOLYTUS, SAINT, BROTHERS Or HOSPITALERS OF: A Roman Catholic congregation established in the City of Mexico by Bernardino Alvarez in 1585. They were entrusted with the care of a hospital erected in Mexico by Alvarez and dedicated to St. Hippolytus, whence their name‑in its full form " Brothers of Christian Love of St. Hippolytus " (officially, Congregatio f ratrum S. Hippolyti). The members of the congregation formed a monastic body with a constitution drawn up by their founder and approved by Sixtus V. The only vows were those of poverty and Christian love, and each brother might leave the order at will. The superior was termed " Major " and was elected by the twenty oldest brothers. The order increased steadily, but the privilege of resignation led to such disorganization that Clement viii., by a brief of Nov. 1, 1594, bound the brothers to perpetual obedience and hospitality. Even this failed in its object, however, and in 1700 the procuratorgeneral, Juan Cabrera, sought to introduce the rule of St. Augustine. Innocent XII. refused to permit this, but obliged the brothers to take the vow of chastity in addition to those of poverty, obedience, and hospitality. In the early part of the nineteenth century Clement XI. conferred on them the privileges of the mendicant orders. They were absorbed later in the Brothers of Charity, although they retained their distinctive brown
habit. 	(O. ZbCg1.ERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Helyot, Ordres monastiques, iv. 147 eqq.; Heimbueher, Orden and Kongregationen, ii. 253; KL, vii. 1999.
HIRAM (Hebr. Viram, Hirom; cf. Asayr. ,Hirummu, Huram; in Phenician inscriptions, ,Hrm): A king of Tyre who was on friendly terms with David and Solomon and of a Tyrian metal‑worker (I Kings vii.). The name is probably an abbreviation of A,hi‑ram (" My brother [i.e., God] is sublime "). King Hiram of Tyre, the dates of whose reign can not be exactly determined, was one of the most famous kings of Phenicia. Josephus (Ant. VIII., v. 3 and Apion, i. 17‑18) gives extracts from Men‑der and Dina, who used older Phenician sources. Syncellus and Eusebius derived their information from Josephus. Later mythical tales in the writings of the Church Fathers, from Chwtus, Theophilus, and Eupolemus, are of little value. According to Menander and Dina, Hiram the son of Abibal, during his reign of thirty‑four years (he died at the age of fifty‑four) enlarged and embellished his capital, erecting on the eastern side of the island a new part of the city. He caused the
Tyrian sanctuaries to be covered with a roofing of cedar from the woods of Lebanon and erected a much admired golden column in the sanctuary of the " Olympian Jupiter" (cf. Herodotus, ii. 44), i.e., Baal the god of heaven (cf. Eusebius, Prteparatio evangelica, ix. 34). His foreign policy was eminently resourceful and energetic. By a war he forced the inhabitants of Cyprus to resume the payment of the taxes which they had refused and maintained the hegemony of Tyre over Phenicia and the colonies.
Hiram put himself on a friendly footing with the new kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon (cf. II Sam. v. 11, I Kings v. 12 with II Chron. ii. 3). This, however, occasions a chronological difficulty. According to I Kings ix. 10, Hiram lived twenty‑four years after the accession of Solomon; therefore, according to Mena,nder, who says that he reigned thirty‑four years, he can have ruled only during the last years of David's reign. This period would be still further restricted by the statement of Josephus that the building of the temple began only in the twelfth year of Hiram's reign (Ant. VIII., iii. 1; Apion, i. 18, 5), according to which Hiram reigned only seven or eight years contemporaneously with David. That David began the building of his palace only at a late period is contrary to II Sam. vii. 2, according to which the palace was completed before Solomon's birth. Either the account of Menander must be rejected, and 'to King Hiram a longer life and reign be ascribed, or the identity of the friend of David with the friend of Solomon must be denied, in which cams the Biblical account has confused the famous Hiram with a less known king in the time of David, unless, as is possible, all the Tyrian kings bore the same name [or used it as a title].
II Sam. v. 11‑12 discloses that the Tyrian king sought David's friendship for political and commercial reasons. For the building of the palace in Jerusalem he placed at David's disposal timber and workmen, which David accepted on account of the superiority of Phenician workmanship. For the same reason Solomon was eager to maintain the friendship with Hiram and, above all, to secure his aid in the building of the temple. Hiram, on his part, responded willingly to Solomon's overtures and promised to furnish the necessary persons and materials for the enterprise, in return for which Solomon provided the Tyrian court with grain oil, and wine. Hiram. also sent to Jerusalem a clever metal‑worker whose name also was Hiram (according to II Chron. ii. 13, Huram‑abi), who was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali and of a Tyrian father. To this artist are ascribed the brazen masterpieces of the temple. In addition King Hiram furnished a considerable amount of gold, in exchange for which Solomon later assigned (I Kings ix. 10
sqq.) twenty cities in the neighborhood of Naphtali, where dwelt a population principally composed of
heathens. The aid he gave in the voyages to Ophir (q.v.), for which he sent carpenters and seamen (I Kings ix. 26 sqq., x. 11, 22), was the result of careful prevision, since from his use of the harbor of Elath on the Red Sea, which was in the possession of Israel, he gained no little profit,

g~,~e	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	$98
Later tradition asserts that Solomon married a daughter of Hiram, which is not improbable considering the close relations between the two courts and the presence of Sidonians in the harem of Solomom (I Kings xi. 1, 5). Other legends about Hiram are given by F. Movers (Die Ph6nizier, 11, Bonn, 1841, pp. 338‑339). His son Balemar succeeded the great king on the throne. Hiram's grave is shown a little to the southeast of the city of Tyre, containing an immense sarcophagus which bears no inscription and offers no assurance of its authenticity.
A second Tyrian king bearing the name of Hiram lived in the time of Cyrus and reigned twenty years (551‑532? B.c.) according to Menander (in Josephus, Apion, i. 21; cf. Herodotus, vii. 98; Movers, ut sup., ii.,pp. 466‑467).
	The name Huram was borne also by a Levite,
I Chron. viii. 5. 	C. VON ORELLI.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the works and sources indicated in
	the text and the commentaries on the Scriptural paessgee
	and the appropriate sections in the works on the history
	of Israel, consult: Gieeebrecht, in ZATW, 1881, pp. 239
	240 (on Xluram‑abi); R.. Pieteahmann, Oemhichte der
	Phanisier, pp. 294‑297, Berlin, 1889; L. B. Paton, Early
	Hiat. of Syria and Paleatine New York, 1901; DB, ii.
	388‑390; $B, ii. 2073‑74; JR, vi. 4b6‑408,
HIRSCH, EMIL GUSTAV: Jewish rabbi; b. at Luxemburg, Germany, May 22, 1852. He was educated at the University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 1872), the universities of Berlin (1872‑76) and Leipsio (Ph.D., 1876), and the Hochechule filr die Wissenschaft des Judentums, Berlin (1872‑76). Returning to the United States, he was rabbi of Har Sinai Congregation, Baltimore, Md. (1877‑78), and Adas Israel Congregation, Louisville, Ky. (1878‑80), and since 1880 has been rabbi of Sinai Congregation, Chicago. He has been professor of rabbinical literature and philosophy'in the University of Chicago since 1892, and in 1902 was Percy Turnbull Lecturer in Johns Hopkins University. He was one of the founders of the Jewish Manual Training School, Chicago, the Associated Jewish Charities, the Civic Federation, and other similar movements. He is well known as an orator, and in theology belongs to the advanced wing of Reformed Judaism. He has edited Der Zeitgeist (Milwaukee, 1880‑‑83); Hebraica (in collaboration with W. R. and R. F. Harper and I. M. Price, Chicago, 1892‑95); The Reformer (New York, 1886‑92); and The Reform Advocate (Chicago, since 1892); besides being editor of the Biblical department of The Jewish Encyclopedia.
HIRSCHAU (HIRSAU): A Benedictine monas‑
tery, once famous, now in ruins, in the Black For
est district of Wihttemberg, 2 m. n. of Calw. For
its reputed foundation in 645, by a widow Helicena,
		there is no evidence prior to a Ger
	Earlier man document of 1534. Opinions are
	History. also at variance on the second found
	Abbot ing of the monastery in 830; but it is
	William erroneous to deny the existence of a
	and his monastery at Hirschau before 1065,
	Reform. since the fact is attested by the im
		perial brief of sanction, dated ‑Oct. 9,
1075, by the papal bull of Urban II., Mar. 8, 1095,
and by the Hireehau Traditianenkodez ; and be
cause excavations made in 1892. discovered the
foundation walls of a church traceable to the Caro‑
lingian era. Of this foundation, however, nothing is known except that Count Erlafrid of Calm, in 830, built a church in honor of St. Peter and the Armenian bishop Aurelius (d. 383), and filled the monastery with monks from Fulda. The new founding of the monastery emanated from a visit of Pope Leo IX., in 1049, to his nephew, Count Adalbert II. of Calw. In 1065 the first monks arrived from Einsiedeln, with Abbot Frederick as superior, who, in 1069 was deposed by Count Adalbert upon accusations by the monks. He was succeeded by William (1069‑91), who'had acquired a scholastic education in the monastery of St. Emmeram at Regensburg. His foremost aim at Hirschau was to emancipate the monastery from the patronage of Count Adalbert, and change the latter's relation to it into one purely protective. He gained both points in 1075. Thoroughly convinced of the need of a reform of the Benedictine Order in Germany, William devised his Constitution" Hirsaugienses after the pattern of the Cluniac institutions. With the new n.anastic customs the monks now wore white robes, and instead of the old upper cloak (the cuculla), they donned the Cluny froce‑, a woolen garment with wide sleeves, and, under it, a ,second garment, the ancient scapulars. For the severe winters of the Black Forest, William introduced the stamineum, a woolen shirt, and the pellicium, a sheepskin, worn under the outer garment. The monks also wore baeeches (femoralaa). The broad tonsure, as in vogue at Chilly, distinguished the Hirschau monks from the unreformed Benedictines. Strict silence was observed in the cloister. William also applied himself to the organization of lay brothers, who lived under the oversight of a special magiater, and were subject to the cloistral discipline except that they observed an abridged office. The reform was not restricted to Hirschau. Along with the Swabian monastery of St. Blasien, Hirschau .became a center of monastic reform, and many monasteries were founded as offshoots from Hirschau, or furnished with monks and abbots or reconstructed by it. Bishop Otto of Bamberg reformed the monasteries of his diooesO with monks of Hirschau. The Conats'tudines Hir= satigwnsm were widely introduced through northern Germany. Yet William did not succeed in establishing upon German soil a congregation after the type of Cluny. The sole bond of union that endured permanently was that of the confraternities, by means of which persons pledged themselves to common prayer for living and deceased members of the several monasteries.
William of Hirechau was also concerned in the conflict between emperor and pope. He belonged to the most loyal adherents of the Gregorian party of Germany. Likely enough, he had
His Part been won over to Gregory's cause on in the the occasion of his visit to Rome in
Contest 1075. In 1077 the opposition king, between Rudolph of Rheinfelden, was at Emperor Hirschau; and in 1081 Gregory VII. and Pope. turned to Bishop Altmann of Passau (q.v.) and William of Hirechau, to promote the election of a king devoted to the Apostolic See. The strictly moral and zealously devout

5397
abbot was moved to side with Gregory by interest in church reform and in the battle against licentiousness and simony, not because he desired the empire to be subjected to the world‑rule of the papacy. Accordingly he did not hesitate, in a letter to the opposition king, Hermann of Luxemburg, to reproach in the severest terms the antiimperial bishops of Saxony, who were allied with the pope for political interests, on account of their ecclesiastical deportment, which was inconsistent with the reformatory requirements.
No sooner was Abbot William dead than the soclesiastical and political influence of Hirschau began to decline. His successor, Gebhard (10911105), completely abandoned the
Decline thought of establishing a congregaafter tion; and Hirschau now ceased to be
William's the opposition's headquarters in the
	Death.	investiture strife. Gebhard (d. 1107)
		received from the hand of the Em
peror Henry V. the diocese of Speyer, and achieved
a bad repute as bishop.on account of his treatment
of the dead body of the banished emperor, Henry
IV. The period of the monastery's. moral and eco
nomic degeneracy began after the death of Abbot
Mangold (1157‑65). In 1215 Emperor Frederick
II. assumed the patronal administration of the
monastery, which was vested thenceforth in the
reigning emperor.
Not until Abbot Wolfram's day (1428‑60) was Hirschau revived by his introduction of the Bursfelde rules (see BuRelrEr.DE, CON(i:RE‑
Second GAT1oN oh) in 1457. The monastery
Period of now enjoyed a second season of pros
Prosperity. perity, until in 1534 it was reformed
The Prot along Protestant lines; when, as during
estant the times of Abbot William, it again
Reforms‑ Bent its reforming colonies to other don. monasteries. Abbot John II. (1524‑56) suffered in the Peasants' War, in 1525, when the monastery was stormed and severely damaged. The same abbot had to endure an Evangelical " reading‑master," sent to Hirschau in 1535, the same as to other monasteries. After proclamation of the interim (July 22, 1548) Roman monks again returned; but after the victory by Maurice of Saxony over the emperor, Duke Christopher, on June 11, 1552, gave orders to his abbots forbidding the reception of novices, and prohibiting Roman worship‑ By his monastery deem in 1556, he instituted at Hirechau one of the four higher cloister schools of his territory, for the education of Evangelical clergymen.
In the Thirty Years' War the monastery was occupied, in 1630, by the imperial troops, and the Protestant abbot, Albrecht Bauhof, Later had to yield. From 1630 to 1631 the
	History.	monastery was occupied by the Ro
		man Catholic abbot, Andreas Geist;
and after the battle near Nardlingen, in 1634, the
Catholics were able to hold the monastery till
1648. The last of the Catholic abbots, Wunibald
Zomher (1637‑48), refused to acknowledge the duke
of W ihttemberg as territorial sovereign, and claimed
for his monastery immediate dependency oh the
empire. From the Peace of Westphalia (1648)
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
me
Hirschau fulfilled its new and richly favored appointment as Evangelical cloister school till, on Sept. 20, 1692, the French general, Melac, burned the buildings. The cloister school was thereupon, removed to Denkendorf. Only the transept of the monastery, a tower of St. Peter's Church of the eleventh century, and the Lady Chapel built in 1516 are still preserved. G. GR$TZMACHER.
BrHLjoa$ABHY: Sources are: Haymo, Vita of the Abbot Wilhelm of Hirechau, ed. W. Wattenbach, in MGH. Script., :rii (18M), 209‑225; Mist, monasterii Hirxiupisnsis, ed. G. Waits, in MGH. Supt.. my (1883), 264‑286; Constitutiones et constuetudines monachorum Hirsaupiensium, (n Hergott, Vatus disciplina monaetioa, pp. 37‑132, Paris, 1728; J. Trithemius, Chronicon insigne Hirsaupiense, Basel, 1659; Annales Hirsaupienses, 2 vole., 8t. Gall, 1890. Consult: M. Berker, WOW= der Selipe, AN su Hirachau, TObingen, 1883; C. D. Christmann, Geschichte des %loaters Hirsdu,u, ib. 1782; B. Albers, Hirsdiau and seine GrUndunpen, Freiburg, 1837; F. 8teek, Dos %loster Hirsduou, Calw, 1844; A. Helmed6rfer, Forschungen sur Geed"" des . . . WAsbma con Hirschau, G6ttingen, 1874; P. Giseke, Ausbreitunp der Hiraduau‑Repel, Halls, 1877; idem, Die Hirechauer wdhrend des inroeatituratrsan. Gotha, 1883; P. F. Stalin, GeschieIVA Wrirtumberpa, i. 12, Goths, 1882‑87; B. Maiber. Kloster Hirsrhau, TObingen, 1888; M. Witten, Der *digs Wiuwm At son, Hirsdou, Bonn, 1890; D. Hafner, in Studien and mitwIn aus den Benediktiner‑ and Ciatersienserordsn, .xfi. 244 eqq., riii. 84 eqq., gv. 74 sqq., xv. 82 sqq., xv. 54 M.l Hauck, %D, ii. 599, 801, iii. 380. 813, 888 eqq.
HIRSCHE, GEORG KARL: German Lutheran divine; b. at Bruxlswick April 19, 1816; d. at Hamburg July 23, 1892. He was educated at the Collegmm Carolinum in Brunswick, then at Gottingen (1833‑36). He studied under Locke at Gottingen and was greatly influenced by him; he also heard Erdmann lecture on philosophy at Berlin (1836). In Nov., 1836, he took his first examination in theology at Wolfenb(ittel, and his second in Aug., 1840. Hirsche taught in the public school at Holrr minden (1841‑46), and in Oct., 1846, he was chosen minister of the Marienldrche at osnabrtick. The choice was not approved by the government but, after tedious negotiations, it was confirmed in 1848. In 1858 he was appointed an ecclesiastical councilor to the duke of Brunswick, which office he held until 186.3, when he again entered the ministry at Hamburg, being chosen pastor of the St. Nicholas Church there. He held this position until $ few months before his death.
During his pastorate at Hamburg he devoted himself to a study of Thomas A Bempis and his book De imitdione Christi. These labors have made him known both to Protestants and Roman Catholics. His purpose was a double one: to restore the"Imitation of Christ" to its original form and secondly to prove that Thomas is xempis was the author of the book. He succeeded in both these aims. He discovered from a manuscript in the library at Brussels that the original form of the book must have been in meter and rime. He then hunted through the other works of Thomas and the related literature in order to discover the thoughts which were peculiar to Thomas. This led him to a thoroughgoing investigation of the Brethren of the Common Life (q‑v.), the results of which he published in the Herzog RE (2d ed., ii.

678‑760). He drew from these investigations the conclusion that the Brethren of the Common Life

Hirscher	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	298
Hittites, The
can not be regarded as forerunners of the Reforma
tion. His studies on Thomas he gave to the world
in his Prolegomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe der Imir
tatio Christi (3 vols., Berlin, 1873‑94), and in his
edition of the De imitatione Christi (1874).
		CARL BERTHEAU.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ADB. 1. 364‑365.
	HIRSCHER, JOHANN BAPTIST: German Ro
man Catholic; b. at Altergarten, near Ravensburg
(22 m. e.n.e. of Constance), Upper Swabia, Jan. 20,
1788; d. at Freiburg Sept. 4, 1865. He studied at
Freiburg, and from 1812 to 1817 officiated as tutor
at Ellwangen and Rottweil. In the latter year he
was appointed professor of moral and pastoral
theology at the University of Tiibingen, and in
1834 he was called to Freiburg to fill a similar
office, which he held until 1863. In 1839 he was
elected a member of the cathedral chapter of
the archdiocese of Freiburg. His works include:
Christlich: Moral als Lehre von der Verwirklichung
des gottlichen Reichs in der Menschheit (Tiibingen,
1835); Die Geschichte Jesu (1839); Beitrdge zur
Homiletik and Katechetik (1852); Das Leben Marid
(Freiburg, 1854); and Die HauptstAcke des christ
liehen Glaubens (Tiibingen, 1857). Prior to and
during the revolution of 1848 he was a member of
the House of Representatives of Baden. His wri
tings favored the introduction of certain changes,
such as the admission of lay members to diocesan
synods. His Erorterungen fiber die grossen re
ligi6sen Fragen der Gegenwart (3 vols., Freiburg,
1846‑55) and Die kirchlichen Zustdnde der Gegen
wart (Tiibingen, 1849), are the most important of
his writings of this period.	(C. WEIZSecsERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: TQB, 1866, pp. 298 sqq.; F. von Weech.
	Badische Biogrtphieen, 2 vols., Darmstadt, 1875.
HISTORICAL BIBLES. See BIBLES, HISTORICAL.
	HITCHCOCK, ROSWELL DWIGHT: Presbyte
rian; b. at East Machias, Me., Aug. 15, 1817; d.
at Fall River, Mass., June 16, 1887. He was ed
ucated at Amherst (B.A., 1836), and after teaching
for two years (1836‑38) and studying in Andover
Theological Seminary for a year (1838‑39), was a
tutor in Amherst College from 1839 to 1842. In
1844‑45 he was in charge of a church at Water
ville, Me., and from the latter year until 1852 was
pastor of the First Congregational Church at Exe
ter, N. H., studying theology at Halle and Berlin
in 1847‑48. He was then professor of natural and
revealed religion in Bowdoin College from 1852 to
1855, when he was appointed professor of church
history in Union Theological Seminary. This po
sition he held after 1880 after his election to the
presidency of the same institution. In addition to
editing The American Theological Review from 1863
to 1870; Hymns and Songs o f Praise (in collabora
tion with Z. Eddy and P. Schaff, New York, 1874);
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (in collabora
tion with F. Brown, 1884); and Carmina Sanc
torum (in collaboration with Z. Eddy and L. W.
Mudge, 1885), he wrote Life of Edward Robinson
(New York, 1863); Complete Analysis o f the Holy
Bible (1869 which supersedes West's work on
the subject) ; Socialism (1879) ; and the pos‑
thumous Eternal Atonement (a collection of sermons, 1888).
HITTITES, THE.
Egyptian Accounts (§ 1). Assyrian Notices (§ 2). Biblical Mention (§ 3). Hittite Monuments (§ 4). Attempted Decipherment of Inscriptions (§ 5). The People (§ 6). Their " Empire " ; Influence on Culture (§ 7).
The Hittites (Hebr. Ha‑$itti, ,Hittim, Septuagint Chettaioi, Egyptian ,Rata, Assyr. ,Hatti, Vate) were a people of disputed ethnological affiliations whose traces have been found over the territory lying between the western boundary of Assyria and the tEgean coast of Asia Minor, and between the Black Sea and the Egyptian border. Present interest centers in two points, historic and apologetic. The decipherment of Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions and documents and the discovery of a considerable number of monuments and inscriptions, no doubt correctly attributed to this people, have led to the knowledge of an " empire " or an aggregation of kingdoms to which the name Hittite is assigned. The apologetic interest is due to the fact that at one time a few critics were disposed rashly to question the existence of such a people as was indicated in the Biblical texts.
Thothmes III. (c. 1500 B.C.?) mentions the Hittites in his annals inscribed at Karnak as paying tribute to him, or at least as sending him presents on his great campaigns which took him as far as Mitanni (see AssyRiA VI., 2, § 1), and as sending him tribute seven years later. In the I. Egyptian Amarna Tablets (q.v.) they appear Accounts. making their way aggressively down through Syria and Palestine. Thothmes IV., and Amenophis III. and IV. were frequently in conflict with them. Seti I. claimed to have defeated them under their leader Mutal, son of Mulsar and grandson of Saphl, though they had established themselves at Carchemish and at Kadesh on the Orontes. Rameses II. was in serious danger from them while besieging Kadesh, and his exploits in extricating himself there gave rise to the celebrated poem of Pentaur. He made a treaty of alliance with their king Rata‑sar (a name which suggests, ungrammatically, "Rittite king " in Assyrian), son of Mutal, married Hata‑sar's daughter, and Kadesh became the Hittite frontier. It is probable that the extension of Hittite power to the south was checked at this time not more by the Egyptians than by the people known later as the Philistines (q.v.). The impression given by the Egyptian inscriptions is that of a unified power, in contradistinction to the separate states which appear in Assyrian annals a century later, though this may be due to the uncertain knowledge possessed by the Egyptians and to their assuming ethnic affinity for all the inhabitants of the region in which the Hittites were their chief opponents.
The records of the Assyrians indicate that that power came into contact with the Hittites about 1400 B.c., if, as some suppose, Mitanni was a Hittite state. But long prior to this there appears the phrase " land of the Hittites " in Babylonian as‑

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
trological inscriptions believed to belong about 2000 B.C. Mention of them by name occurs in the
annals of Tiglath‑Pileser I. (c. 1100 2. Assyrian B.C.), at which time there appears to Notices. have been a number of Hittite states
in northern Ararmea and Syria, Kummu4 (see ABSYRTA, VI., 2, § 1; 3, § 3) being the limit westward of which information is given in this source and this being under Hittite control. In the ninth century the conquests of Asahurnasirpalsubjected Hittite kingdoms in the region named, as did those of Shalmaneser II. Sargon finally overthrew the Hittites and ended their career in the east by capturing Carchemish, the great center of their power in that region. The sum of the notices in Egyptian and Assyrian monuments would lead then to two conclusions. The first is that the Hittites were widely scattered north and northwest of the Syrian desert, their southern boundary being in Palestine at least as far south as Kadesh, their eastern frontier coincident with the western limits of Assyria, and their western limits at least as far west as Kummuh. The second is that they were an element of the preHebraic population of northern Palestine.
With these conclusions the scattered notices in the Old Testament fully agree, except that they carry the Hittites still farther south to Hebron.
Gen. x. 15 (J) connects them with the 3. Biblical Canaanites as of Cushite stock. This
Mention. is also the view of E (Ex. xxiii. 28,
xxxiii. 2), with which P (Gen. xxiii. 3, 5, etc., xxv. 9, xxvi. 34‑35, xxvii. 46, xlix. 29) and the writers closest to him (Ezra ix. 1‑2; Ezek. xvi. 3) fully coincide, and also R and D in the Hexateuch (Josh. ix. 1, xi. 3). The passages in Samuel and Kings and their parallels in Chronicles reflect the Hittites either as an absorbed element of the population (I Sam. xxvi. 6; II Sam. xi., xii. 9‑10) or as a power to be reckoned with outside Palestine
(I Kings x. 29, xi. 1; II Kings vii. 6).
The history of the modern discovery of Hittite monuments begins with 1736, when Otter found at Irviz in Asia Minor some peculiar hieroglyphic inscriptions. In 1812 Burckhardt found others at Hamath in Syria; in 1834 Texier discovered still more at Boghazkeui in northern Asia. Minor, and in 1851 Layard found some Hittite seals at Nineveh. These and other isolated inscriptions were not connected until 1872, when W. Wright secured the Hamath inscriptions for the Imperial Museum at Constantinople. From that time these monuments have been found in considerable numbers
from near the tEgean coast of Asia 4. Hittite Minor along the old reads leading to Monuments. Cappadocia and to Syria, and as far
east as Carehemish and to the south as far as Babylon (in the latter place being of course spoils of war, among which is a splendid dolorite relief of the Hittite war‑god wielding hammer and lightning bolts). They are collected partly in Perrot and Chipiez and more fully in Messerschmidt. The most recent researches have been conducted by P'Of. Hugo Winekler at Boghazkeui in Asia Minor, in 1906‑Og, one result of which has been the recovery of a large number of documents, a second is the identification of Bo‑
Hirsoher
Hittites, The
ghazkeui with Arzaba (one of the leading Hittite
cities between 1500‑1100 B.C.), and a third is the
assurance that the Hittites formed a large confed
eration of states under the leadership of a single
king. The inscriptions, except the most recent,
are in relief, not incised, thus agreeing in form with
the oldest Aramean inscriptions, and they are
boustrophedon (a discovery due to Dr. W. H.
Ward in 1873). Their age is placed by Jensen be
tween 1300 and 550 B.C. All are monolingual so
far as known, except that called the boss of Tar
kondemos, which is in Hittite and Assyrian, but
is so brief that the cuneiform is of little use as an
aid to decipherment. Two of the Amama Tab
lets are in an unknown tongue, and may be Hittite.
	Since these inscriptions are not in any strict
sense deciphered, the information they afford is
little, apart from the indications their situation gives
concerning the region covered by Hittite action.
		While for years Professor Sayce has
g. Attempted been claiming to have deciphered
	Decipher‑ parts of them, and others, as Conder
	ment of and Jensen, make like claims, except
Inscriptions. in isolated cases no one of these con
		cedes the claim of the others, and in
general the assumed decipherments assign the lan
guage to different basal stocks. Ward holds the
language to be Turanian, possibly Ural‑Altaic;
Conder declares it Ural‑Altaic, with suggestions of
a connection with the Akkadian; Campbell masses
	under the name Hittites a number of races and
	tribes; Hal6vy thinks he has proved the language
	to be Semitic; Jensen calls it " proto‑Armenian,"
	i.e., Indo‑Germanic, and in his " decipherment),
	attempts to make out a connection with the Ar
	menian (of which he naively acknowledges that he
	knows little), and charges his predecessors in the
	attempt to read the inscriptions with " wild logic,"
	a charge, which Messerschmidt retorts upon him
	with many exclamation‑marks. Thus the Hittite
	people and language have been connected with
	both of the great families of nations and with the
	Turanian group, a fact which speaks eloquently of
	the obscurity in which the subject still lies. Pro
	fessor Sayce in 1906 made the candid statement
	that decipherment of the inscriptions is yet unae
	cOmPlished. While shrewd deductions have been
	made, a few names read with general agreement,
	and in several cases, probably, fairly close approach
	to the meaning bas been gained, these facts do not
	contradict the statement that the Hittite script is
	still a puzzle for the solution of which adequate
	material and clear clues have till the present been
	lacking. It now seems possible, however, with the
	very abundant material recovered from Boghaz
	keui, including treaties between the Hittites and
	the Mitanni, that a solution of the vexed problems
	will be reached. Thus it has been shown that a
	group of Indian deities is appealed to in the trea
	ties referred to, the names Mitra, India, paruna
‑
and Nasatya being unmistakable. The indications given by the divine names are strengthened by dynastic and proper names of Iranian type. These facts suggest either Hindu‑Aryan affinities or bon rowing, the former much the more likely. Decided progress has been made in reading the records, and

HHittite*, The	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	800
the prospects for decipherment of inscriptions and therefore of more complete and accurate information are (1909) very bright.
On the Egyptian monuments the people are always figured as a yellow race, with very prominent protuberant noses and large nostrils, retreating forehead and chin and thick lips, high cheek bones, black hair and eyes. They are generally portrayed as beardless and as wearing the hair in a queue. They appear short in stature, but heavy in build. Since the Assyrians were not expert in drawing, as were the Egyptians, the Assyrian portraiture gives nothing additional. The monuments of the Hittites corroborate all the de‑
b. The tails afforded by the Egyptian por‑
	People.	tfaiture except the color, which the
		nature of the remains does not indi
cate. But the men are everywhere portrayed as
wearing high boots with the toes curling upward
and even backward, and generally as wearing mit
tens with a separate stall for the thumb only. The
raiment seems heavy and agrees with the items just
given in suggesting the emergence of the people
from a cold snowy climate. Along with this goes
the fact that the region into which they spread
favors their coming by a route between the Black
Sea and the Caspian. The evidence points to a
period between 1600 and 1300 s.c. as the time
when perhaps they pushed their outposts south
ward till forced back by Egyptian and perhaps
Philistine resistance, when they spread eastward
toward the Egean. Their centers were at Car
chemish, Hamath, Kadesh on the Orontes, Senjirli,
and Boghazkeui, while Hebron seems to have been
their most southern point of settlement. The men
tion in the historical books of the Old Testament
suggests that they constituted an element in the
population of Palestine. Some points of their
physiognomy seem to corroborate Jensen's con
tention that they were " proto‑Armenians." On
the other hand, the accounts of the many Assyrian
campaigns in Armenia do not contain a single hint
that the sturdy opponents of that power in the
Armenian Mountains were of the Hittite race.
This is the more decisive since the Assyrians were
at the time in conflict with Hittites elsewhere.
Moreover, other physiological characteristics, such as
hair (especially the queue), and the high cheek bones
seem to connect them with the Mongolian race.
The idea of a Hittite " empire " in the sense of a unified rule is not borne out by the historical indications, but what does appear is the appearance of confederation (see § 4 above). As invaders of southern Asia and opponents of Egyptian and later of Assyrian aggression, there was a power of reserve which with other marks suggests mutual support and a power of confederation which contrasts strongly with Semitic
7. Their separativeness. The condition is some"Empire"; thing like that of the Philistines whose
Influence	cities were under individual rule yet
on	who acted together in case of aggres‑
Culture.	sive campaigns. Their meaning for
	civilization is only secondary, through
	the Greek. They unquestionably influenced early
	Greek inscriptions and art‑early Greek writing
was boustrophedon. A Hittite seal in the possession of Dr. Ward is unmistakably allied to the Mycenaean seals and drawings. The Eons of Mycen2e, the rope pattern of Greek adornment, the Greek sphinx, and some of the Greek deities are firmly held to be of Hittite origin. Dr. Ward suggests that not improbably they gave to the Greeks the last five letters of the Greek alphabet, a suggestion which does not seem to have been used in attempts at decipherment. See ASSYRIA; CANAAN, CANAANITE6, § 7; CARCHEMISH.
GEO. W. GILmORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Brown, in Presbyterian Review, 1880; W. Wright, The Empire of as Hittites, London, 1888; Ball in PSBA, x (1888), 437 aqq.; G. Perrot and C. Chipies, History of Art in . . Assyria, Phanicia . . . and Asia Minor, 2 vols., London, 1884‑85; A. H. 8ayee, The Hittites; the Story of a forgotten Empire, London, 1888; C. R. Conder, Altaic Hieroglyphs and Hittite Inscriptions, ib. 1889; J. Campbell, The Hittites, 2 vols.. Toronto, 1890 (covers language, ethnology, and history); Halivy, in MEvaires de Cacad6xiie des inscriptions et belles‑lettres, Paris, 1892; idem, in Revue almitique, i. 56 sqq., 126 sqq.; F. E. Peiser, Die hditisrhan Inachriftan, Berlin, 1892 (attempts decipherment); T. Tyler, in Religious systems of the world. London, 1893; C. A. de Care. Gill Hethei‑Palaapi, 3 vole., Rome, 1894‑1902 (identifies the Hittites and the Pelasgians); J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, i., ¢§ 156‑167, New York. 1894; P. Jensen, Hittiter and Armenier, Strasburg, 1898 (sums up his work on the inscriptions); idem, in H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 753‑793, Philadelphia, 1903; L. Messerschmidt, Bemerkunpen su den hetitischsn Inachriften, also Corpus inscriptionum Hitticarum, all in Miuheilunpen der roorderasiatischen Oessllschaft, Berlin, 1898, 1900, 1902, 1906; W. H. Ward, in H. V. Hilpreeh, Recent Research in Bible Lands, pp. 159‑190, Philadelphia, 1898; Menant, in MEvwires de 1'acadfie des inscriptions, vol. xxxiv. 1 aqq.; Nowack, Archdolopie, i. 96, 282, 341; especially H. Winokler and O. Puahetem in Mittedunpen der deutachen Orient‑(lesellackaft, for 1908‑08, especially Dec., 1907, and E. Meyer in 3itsunpabarichte der preussischen Akadernie der Wiseenschaften, Jan., 1908. The files of the PSBA since 1887 contain much material which is pertinent.
	HITZE, FRANZ: German Roman Catholic; b. at
Hannemicke, Westphalia, Mar. 16, ,1851. He
studied at Wilrzburg 1872‑78, and then was chap
lain of the German Campo Santo at Rome for two
years. He was then appointed secretary of the
Roman Catholic society Arbeiterwohl at Munich
Gladbach, and two years later was elected to the
Landtag, going to the Reichstag in 1904. In 1893
he was appointed associate professor of Christian
sociology at Munster, where he was promoted to
his present position of full professor of the same
subject in 1904. He has written: Die soziale
Frage and die Beatrebungen zu ihrer Uaung (Pader
born, 1877); %apital and Arbeit and die Reorgani
sation der Gesellsehaft (1880);, Quintessenz der 8o
zialen Frage (1880); Pflichten and Aufgaben der
Arbeitgeber (Cologne, 1888); Wesentliche Bestim
mungen des Gesetzes betreffend die Invaliditf‑ and
Alteraversicherung (Munich‑Gladbaeh, 1889); Schutz
dem Arbeiter (Cologne, 1890); Normale Arbeitaord
nteng (1891); and Arbeiter frage (Berlin, 1898).
HITZIG, hit'siH, FERDINAND: German exegete and Old Testament critic; b. near L6rrach (28 m. s.s.w. of Freiburg), Baden, June 23, 1807; d. at Heidelberg Jan. 22, 1875. He studied theology at Heidelberg, Halle, and GBttingen, and became privet‑docent at Heidelberg in 1829. He first at‑

tracted attention by the two treatises, Begri ff der Kritik am Alter Testament praktisch erortert (Heidelberg, 1831) and Des Propheten Jonas Orakel caber Moab (1831). From 1833 till 1861 he was professor of theology at Zurich. Here his upright character, commanding scholarship, and critical acumen won for him recognition, even among those who did not approve of his rationalizing tendencies. In 1861 he returned to Germany as professor of theology at Heidelberg.
Hitzig was remarkably productive, but whimsical. As in the cuneiform inscriptions he perceived an Indo‑Germanic speech, similarly he sought to explain certain words of the Old Testament through the Sanskrit. Still more widely prejudicial to his scholarly standing was the constructive criticism which he professed, in contrast to the more negative attitude of De Wette. Thus he thought he could determine exactly the original condition of most of the Psalms from David's era down to the first century l;.c. Another defect was his superficial view of revelation, which he assigned to faith (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2 parts, Leipsic, 18691870; cf. vol. i., p. 82), the true God having been discovered " by means of a stronger power of thought." But despite these and other untenable views, Hitzig greatly advanced the exegesis of the Psalms (Die Psalmen, 2 vole., Heidelberg, 18351836; enlarged into a comprehensive commentary, 2 vole., Leipsic, 1863‑65). Although he derived many a Psalm from Jeremiah's dungeon, and referred about half of all the Psalms to the Maccabean era, he can not be classed as a distinctly radical critic, even among his own contemporaries, seeing that he held the decalogue to be Mosaic.
Other works on the Old Testament by Hitzig are: Der Prophet Jesaia zibersetzt and ausgelegt (Heidelberg, 1833), his best exegetical work the Minor Prophets (Leipsic, 1838; 4th ed., 1881), Jeremiah (1841; 2d ed., 1866), Ecclesiastes (1847; 2d ed., 1883), Ezekiel (1847), Daniel (1850), and the Song of Songs (1855) in the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alter Testament; Die Sprdche Salomos (Zurich, 1858); and Dab Buch Hiob (Leipsic, 1874). His Vorlesungen tlber bxblische Theologie and messianische WeiBsagungen des Alter Testaments were published at Carlsruhe,1880. A. KAMPHAUBEN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Lebew‑ und',Charakter‑Skisrewas prefixed
by Kneucker to Hitsig's Vorleaunpen fiber bibliaehe Theologie, Carleruhe, 1880. The Gednchtniarede, by A. Hausrath, is in the addition to the Aupaburgieehe allgemoine Zeitung, 1875,, no. 30; and a notice by Kneucker is in F. ion Weech, Badiache Biopraphieen, i. 377‑380, Heidelberg, 1875.
HIVITES. See CANAAN.

HOADLY, h6d'li, BENJAMIN: English bishop; b. at Westerham (15 m. s.s.e. of London), Kent, Nov. 14, 1676; d. at Winchester Apr. 17, 1761. He studied at Catherine Hall, Cambridge (B.A., 1696; M.A., 1699), where he was fellow (1697‑1701) and tutor (1699‑1701). After his ordination in 1701 he was lecturer at St. Mildred's, London, till 1711. Meanwhile he had received in 1704 the rectory of St. Peter‑le‑Poer, London. It was as an opponent of Edmund Calamy (q.v.) in the discussion re‑
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hittites, The 8oadly
garding conformity at the beginning of the eighteenth century that he first established his reputation as a controversialist. In 1706 he began a controversy with Francis Atterbury (q.v.) on the interpretation of I Cor. xv. 19. Against Atterbury's view that Christians are compensated in a future world for their unhappiness in this, Hoadly took the ground that the greatest happiness in this life is attained by those who lead a Christian life. In 1709 he became the leader of the Low‑church party in a controversy with Atterbury and other supporters of hereditary right and passive obedience. In recognition of his strenuous assertion of the " Revolution principles," particularly in his Measures of Submission to the Civil Magistrate (London, 1706) and Original and Institution of Civil Government (1709), parliament presented an address to Queen Anne in Dec., 1709, praying her to bestow some dignity upon him. Through the accession of the Tories to power Hoadly's preferment was indefinitely postponed, though he was presented by a private patron to the rectory of Streatham in 1710. In 1715 he was made a royal chaplain and elevated to the bishopric of Bangor. In 1716 he published his famous treatise, A Preservative against the Principles and Practices of Nonjurors both in Church and State, in which he attacked the divine authority of kings and clergy. On Mar. 31, 1717, he continued his attack in a sermon preached before the king on John xviii. 36, in which he denied pointblank that there is any such thing as a visible Church of Christ, and maintained that, since Christ was the only authoritative lawgiver, no one has the right to make new laws for Christ's subjects, or to interpret or enforce, old laws, in matters relating purely to conscience. This sermon, which was at once printed by royal command, precipitated what is commonly called the Bangorian Controversy. The Highchurch party sought to proceed against Hoadly in convocation, but the king prevented this by proroguing that body on Nov. 22, 1717. This controversy, which raged for three years, produced more than 200 tracts by fifty‑three different writers, and caused such intense excitement among all classes that for a time business in London was practically at a standstill. Hoadly's most important contribution to this controversy was The Common Rights of Subjects Defended (London, 1719). Among his more prominent opponents were Andrew Snaps, Thomas Sherlock, and William Law (qq.v.). Hoadly was translated to the see of Hereford in 1721, to that of Salisbury in 1723, and to the rich see of Winchester in 1734. He was an aggressive Latitudinarian (see LATITuDINARTANg) and the recognized leader of the extreme Latitudinarian party in Church and State. He was the friend and admirer of Samuel Clarke (q.v.), and was almost in entire accord with Clarke's refined Arianism. Though his writings are heavy, dull, and devoid of originality, they did excellent service in their day for the cause of civil and religious liberty. Hoadly's works were edited by his son, John Hoadly (3 vols., London, 1773).
131BLIOGRAPIIY: John Nichol, Literary Anecdotes of the 18th
Century, vole. i. v., 9 vols., London, 1812‑15; John Hunt,
Hia. of Religious Thought in Englnd, vol. iii., i5,. 1873;
C. J. Abbey, The English Church and its Bishops, 17oo‑

Hobart Hodge
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
1800, ii. 1‑20 ib. 1887; J. H. Overton The Church in England, ii. 203, 217‑218 227‑229, ib. 1897; idem and F. Ftelton, The English Church 171.¢‑1800, pp. 14‑18 et passim, ib. 1906; DNB, xxvii. 16‑21.
HOBART, ALVAH SABIN: Baptist; b. at Whitby, Ontario, Mar. 7, 1847. He was graduated at Colgate (then Madison) University in 1873 and Hamilton Theological Seminary in 1875. He has held pastorates at Morris, N. Y. (1874‑78), Mount Auburn, Cincinnati (187885), First Baptist Church, Toledo, 0. (1885‑88), and Warburton Avenue Church, Yonkers, N. Y. (18881900). Since 1900 he has been professor of the English New Testament at Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa. . He was chairman of the Board of the American Baptist Home Missionary Society in 1897‑99, and has been the recording secretary since 1890. He has written Life of Alvah Sabin (Cincinnati, 1885); Those OldFashioned Christians (Philadelphia, 1895); Gifts of the Spirit (Chicago, 1898); and Our Silent Partner (New York, 1908). In theology he ranks as a semiconservative.
HOBART, JOHN HENRY: Protestant Episcopal bishop of New York; b. in Philadelphia Sept. 14, 1775; d. at Auburn, N. Y., Sept. 12, 1830. He studied at Princeton (B.A., 1793) and was tutor there 1795‑98, when he was admitted to holy orders. After having served parishes in Philadelphia, New Brunswick, N. J., and Hempstead, L. I., he became an assistant at Trinity Church, New York, in 1800. He was elected assistant bishop of New York in 1811, and bishop of New York and rector of Trinity in 1816. In 1821 he was appointed to the chair of pastoral theology and pulpit eloquence in the General Theological Seminary, New York, an institution that had been founded largely through his exertions. He also organized at Geneva, N. Y., an Episcopal college, which in 1860 changed its name to Hobart College. He was an eminently successful leader and organizer in his Church, a zealous advocate of episcopal ordination, and the author, or compiler, of a number of books that attained a wide circulation and contributed in a marked degree to the rapid growth of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America during the first half of the nineteenth century. His more important works are: A Campanionfor the Altar (New York, 1804); Festivals and Fasts (1804); Essays on Episcopacy (1806); The Clergyman's Companion (1806); An Apology for Apostolic Order (1807); The Christian's Manual (1814); and Sermons on . . . Redemption (2 vols., New York and London, 1824). His Posthumous Works were edited, with a Memoir, by W. Berrian (3 vols., New York, 1833).
BIHLIoaRAPHT: J. F. Schroeder Memoir of Bishop Hobart, New York, 1833• J. MaeViekar, Early Years of the Late Bishop Hobart, ib. 1834; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, v. 440‑453 ib. 1859; Appleton's CycloPodia of American Biography, ed. J. G. Wilson and J. Fiske, iii. 221‑222 ib. 1898; W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in America, pp. 25‑27, ib. 1895.
HOBBES, hebz, THOMAS: English philosopher; b. at Malmesbury, Wiltshire, Apr. 5, 1588; d. at Hardwick Hall (17 m. n.n.e. of Derby), Derbyshire, Dec. 4, 1679. He was educated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford (B.A., 1608), and upon his graduation was recommended to William Cavendish, afterward first
302
earl of Devonshire, as tutor for his eldest son. This was the beginning of a lifelong intimacy with the Cavendiahes. After the death of the second earl, his pupil and patron, he became tutor to the third earl of Devonshire, who in turn became his friend and patron. In his capacity as tutor Hobbes traveled extensively in Europe, meeting many distinguished people and forming friendships with Galileo, Mersenne Gaesendi, and others. In London he met Francis Bacon, Ben Jonaon, Lord Herbert of Cherbury. John Selden, and William Harvey. At the beginning of the Long Parliament in 1640 Hobbes fled to Paris, where in 1646 he became mathematical tutor to the prince of Wales, afterward Charles II. His position in Paris having become difficult by reason of suspicions as to his orthodoxy, he returned to England in 1651, submitted to the new government, resumed his position in the household of his patron, and set about finishing his philosophical system. At the Restoration he received a pension of £100 from Charles II. He now engaged in several controversies, both religious and scientific. He attributed his exclusion from the founders of the Royal Society to the malignity of his opponents. In his later years he busied himself by translating Homer and writing in Latin verse his autobiography and an ecclesiastical history.
In epistemology and psychology Hobbes was a sensualist, in metaphysics almost a materialist, and in ethics a hedonist. The only source of knowledge, he maintains, is sensation, the only objects of knowledge are bodies, either natural or political, and the only end of action is self‑interest. He regarded motion as the ultimate fact of existence, and self‑love as the fundamental law of nature. His political philosophy, his greatest achievement, is based upon these general views. The State, as he argued in his beat known work, Leviathan, is a contrivance for putting an end to the war of all against all, in the interest of the pursuit of happiness. That there may be no disturbing dissensions, the power of the sovereign must be absolute. This power is merely delegated to him, and is in no sense original or divine. Against Grotius, Hobbes maintained that the social compact is not between the sovereign and his subjects, but between the subjects to obey the sovereign. This absolutism gives rise to the distinctions of good and bad. Whatever the sovereign commands is good, whatever he forbids is bad. Hobbea_proposed to remove the evils of sectarian animosity by completely subordinating the ecclesiastical to the secular authority, thus making religion dependent upon the whim of the absolute ruler. In 1666 his views were condemned by the House of Commons, and thereafter he was not permitted to publish anything relating to human conduct.
On account of his rationalistic treatment of religious doctrine Hobbes might well be called the second deist, just as Herbert of Cherbury has been called the first (see DEISM). In his day he produced an intellectual ferment comparable only to that produced by Darwinism; and even till the middle of the eighteenth century Hobbism remained a term of reproach. Among his assailants were John Bramhall, Thomas Tenison, John Eachard, Ralph

303	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hobart
		Hodge
	Cudworth, Henry More, Richard Cumberland, and
Samuel Clarke.	Though in bad repute at home,
	abroad Hobbes stood higher as a thinker than any
	of his contemporaries. His associational psychology
	and hedonistic ethics were revived by the English
utilitarians.
	Hobbes's principal works are De cive (Paris, 1642;
	Amsterdam, 1647; Eng. transl., 1651); De corpore
	(London, 1655; Eng. transl., 1656); The Elements
	of Law, Natural and Politic (ed. F. T6nnies, 1889),
	which was originally published in two parts, Human
	Nature, or the Fundamental Elements of Policy (1650),
	and De corpore politico, or the Elements of Law,
	Moral and Politic (1650); Leviathan, or the Matter,
	Form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical
	and Civil (1651; Lat. transl., Amsterdam, 1668;
	ed. A. R. Waller, Cambridge, 1904), his most 1m
	portant work; Of Liberty and Necessity (London,
	1654); Concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance
	(1656); and Behemoth (1679; ed. F. Tbnnies, 1889),
	a history of the Civil War. Hobbes's Opera philo
	8ophica were published at Amsterdam in 1668, and
	his Moral and Political Works at London in 1750.
	The standard edition is that of Sir W. Molesworth,
	English Works (1.1 vols., 1839‑45) and Opera. philo
sophica (5 vols., 1839‑45).
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists of literature, covering the contro
	versies which Hobbes caused, are in J. M. Baldwin, Dic
	tionary of Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp. 264‑268.
	New York, 1905, and in the British Museum Catalogue
	and Supplement. His autobiography, in Latin verse, was
	published London, 1679, Eng, transl., ib. 1680. Consult:
	G. C. Robertson, Hobbes, in Philosophical Classics, Lon
	don, 1901 (eminently satisfactory); J. G. Buhle, Ge
	achichte der neueren Philoaophie, iii. 223‑325, GSttingen,
	1802; F. D. Maurice, Modern Philosophy, pp. 235‑290,
	London, 1862; V. Cousin, Philosophie sensualiste, pp. 212
	310, Paris, 1866; J. Hunt, in Contemporary Review, vii
	(1868), 185‑207; B. Wille, Der Phanamenalismus yes
	Thomas Hobbes, Kiel, 1889; G. Lyon, Philosophic de
	Hobbes, Paris, 1893; H. Schwartz, Die Lehre yon den
	Sinnesqualitdten bei Descartes and Hobbes, Halle, 1894;
	F. TSnnies, Hobbes' Leben and Lehre, Stuttgart, 1896;
	J. Aubrey, Letters . . . and Lives of Eminent Men,
	ed. A. Clark, i. 321‑403, Oxford, 1898; W. Dilthey, in
	Archiv Air Geschichte der Philosophic, xiii (1900), 307
	360, 445‑482; DNB, xxvii. 37‑45; M. W. Calkins,
	Metaphysical System of Hobbes, London, 1905; and the
	discussions in the standard works on the history of
philosophy.
	HOBERG, GOTTFRIED: German Roman Cath
	olic; b. at Heringhausen, Westphalia, Nov. 19, 1857.
	He was educated at Munster, Dillingen, and Bonn
(Ph.D., 1885; D.D., Munster, 1886).	He was
	privat‑docent at Bonn in 1886‑87, after which he
	was professor of Old Testament exegesis at Pader
	born until 1890, when he was appointed professor
	of New Testament exegesis at Freiburg, being trans
	ferred to his present chair of Old Testament exegesis
	in 1893. He is a member of the papal committee
	on the Bible, and besides editing the Theologische
	Rundschau fiir das katholische Deutschland since
	1894, has written 11m dinnii de fexione libellus
	(Leipsie, 1885); Die Psalmen der Vulgata (Freiburg,
	1892); Akademisches Taschenbuch fur katholische
	Theologen (3 vols., Paderborn,1892‑95); Die Genesis
	nach dem Litteralsinn erkldrt (Freiburg, 1899); Die
	alteste lateinische Uebersetzung yes Buches Baruch
	(1902) ; and an edition of the Hebrew text of
Genesis, with the Vulgate (1008).
HOBSON, BENJAMIN LEWIS: Presbyterian; b. at Lexington, Mo., July 31, 1859. He was educated at Central University, Central, Ky. (B.A., 1877), Johns Hopkins University (1881‑82), Union Theological Seminary,Va. (1882‑83), Princeton Theological Seminary (1883‑86), and the University of Berlin (1888‑90). After holding Presbyterian pastorates at Springfield, Mo. (1886‑‑87), and Crescent Hill Church, Louisville, Ky. (1891‑93), he was appointed in 1893 to his present position of professor of apologetics in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ill.
HOCHMANft (hoH'mdn) VON HOHENAU (HOCHENAU), ERNST CHRISTOPH: Pietist; b. at Lauenburg (25 m. s.e. of Hamburg) 1670; d. 1721. He began the study of law at Halle, but was expelled in 1693 on account of his eccentric views. In 1697 he was at Giessen, where he lived in intimate association with Arnold and Dippel; in the following year he was a missionary to the Jews in Frankforton‑the‑Main, whence he was soon expelled on the occasion of a general persecution of the Pietists. After a short stay at Darmstadt, whence he was also expelled, he found a refuge at Berleburg on the estates of Count Wittgenstein. Here he lived a devotional and ascetic life and won the esteem and friendship of the ruling family of Wittgenstein, but his restless nature did not suffer him to remain very long in this secluded spot. In 1697 his unsteady wanderings through western, northern and southern Germany had begun; whenever a field of labor opened itself to him, he was expelled. This labor consisted in the nurture of an inner, living, and personal Christianity under an unchurchly and even antichurchly form. External churchliness and loyalty to a creed he considered not only insufficient, but evil, and he vehemently opposed churchdom and orthodoxy. The five main points of his doctrine are: baptism for adults only; the Lord's Supper only for the chosen disciples of Jesus; the possibility of a perfect sanctification on earth; the reign of the spirit, i.e., Christ alone is the head of the congregation, and no human magistrate may institute preachers and teachers; the magistrate belongs to the sphere of nature and is to be obeyed on civil and external matters, but not in things that are contrary to the word of God, to the conscience of the individual, or to the liberty of Christ. Hochmann found many adherents, especially at Crefeld, Duisburg, Muhlheim, Wesel, Emmerich, and other places in the Rhine region; later on, however, there occurred a split in his party on account of differences in regard to the validity of infant baptism.
(F. BossE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Jung‑Stilling, Theobald, oder der Schwhrmer, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1784‑85, Eng. transl., Theobald; or the Fanatic, Philadelphia, 1846; M. Gobel, Geachichte yes christlichen Lebens in der rheinisch‑uxstfalischen evangelischen Kirche, ii. 809‑855, Coblenz 1852 A. Ritsehl, Geschichte yes Pietismuz, 3 vols., Bonn, 1880‑86.
HOCHSTRATEN, JAKOB VAN. See HOOGSTRATEN, JAKOB VAN.
HODGE, ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER: American Presbyterian, son of Charles Hodge; b. at Princeton, N. J., July 18, 1823; d. there Nov. 12, 1886. He studied at Princeton, graduating from both the

Nodes	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	804
college (1841) and the Princeton Theological Seminary (1`847), and, after spending three years (18471850) in India as a missionary, held pastorates at Lower West Nottingham, Md. (1851‑55), Fredericksburg, Va. (18551), and Wilkesbarre, Pa. (18611864). In 1864 he accepted a call to the chair of systematic theology in the Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, Pa. Here he remained until in 1877 he was called to Princeton to be the associate of his father in the chair of systematic theology, to the full duties of which he succeeded in 1878. This post he retained till his death. At the time of his death Dr. Hodge was in the zenith of his powers. Every element that entered into his eminent reputation put on its best expression during the closing years of his life. He was public‑spirited, and helped every good cause. He was a trustee of the College of New Jersey and a leading man in the Presbyterian Church. He was a man of wide interests and touched the religious world at many points. During the years immediately preceding his death he was writing, preaching, lecturing, making addresses, coming into contact with men, influencing them, and by doing so widening the influence of truth.
Hodge's distinguishing characteristic as a theologian was his power as a thinker. He had a mind of singular acuteness, and though never a professed student of metaphysics, he was essentially and by nature a metaphysician. His theology was that of the Reformed confessions. He had no peculiar views and no peculiar method of organizing theological dogmas; and though he taught the same theology that his father had taught before him, he was independent es well as reverent. His first book and that by which he is best known was his Outlines of Theology (New York, 1860; enlarged ed., 1878), which was translated into Welsh, modern Greek, and Hindustani. The Atonement (Philadelphia, 1868) is still one of the best treatises on the subject. This was followed by his commentary on the emfesaion of Faith (1869), a very useful book, full of clear thinking and compact statement. He contributed some important articles to encyclopedia"ohnson's, McClintock and Strong',, and the Schaff_ Herzog. He was one of the founders of the presbylerian Review, to the pages of which he was a frequent contributor.
In the Pulpit Hodge was a man of marked power. As he was not under the necessity of making fresh preparation every week, he had but few sermons, and he preached them frequently. They were never written; nor were they deliberately planned as great efforts. They grew from small beginnings and, as he went through the process of thinking them over as often as he preached them, they gradually became more elaborate and became possessed of greater literary charm. There are few preachers like him. To hear him when he was at his beat was something never to be forgotten. It is possible to entertain different views of what a professor's funotion ought to be. According to one view a professor ship means an opportunity for special investigation and leisurely research, the results of which are communicated in the lecture‑rOOm to men who desire knowledge. According to another view the scar demio lecture is intended to stimulate interest in the
department to which it belongs. It is not intended
to be a substitute for independent reading and that
mastery of the subject which only independent
reading can give. According to still another view
the professor's business is to see that a certain
definite body of instruction is safely and surely
transferred from his mind to the minds of those who
hear him. He is not only, or even chiefly, to present
truth that men may receive if they choose; he is to
see that they receive it. Hodge was a teacher of
this type, and one of the greatest that America has
ever produced. 	FRANCIS L. PATTON.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. L. Patton, in Presbyterian Review, viii
(1887), 125 eq4.
BODGE, CASPAR WISTAR: American Presbyterian, son of Charles Hodge; b. at Princeton, N. J., Feb. 21, 1830; d. there Sept. 27, 1891. During his boyhood he enjoyed the companionship and instruction of Joseph Addison Alexander, who exercised a molding influence upon his life. He was graduated with distinction from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in 1848, and from the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1853. He was ordained to the ministry Nov. 5, 1854, his first pastoral charge being the Ainslie Street Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn. In 1856 he was called to the pastorate of the Presbyterian Church in Oxford, Pa., and in 1860 he was called to the Princeton Theological Seminary as the successor of Dr. Addison Alexander in the chair of New Testament literature. He retained this position till his death.
Only those who came into close relations with Hodge knew how great a man he was. He was singularly modest and retiring. He was free from vanity and self‑seeking. He gave himself to the work of his chair, and his permanent influence is to be found in the men whom he trained and who found in him inspiration for the work to which they had consecrated their lives. With theological students was he a great favorite as a preacher, but he was not what is usually called a popular preacher. He had a voice of marvelous richness, but he would never use it for oratorical effect. He preached apparently with the consciousness that the gospel message should make its appeal to men in majestic simplicity and that God's word did not need the aid of human art to give it power or beauty. He made no attempt to decorate the earthen vessel that contained the heavenly treasure‑that the excellency of the power might be of God. His
sermons were really studies in Biblical theology, and while they were beyond the grasp and abounded in distinctions that would escape the notice of an
ordinary audience, they were model discourses for the seminary pulpit. They were university sermons of a high order. They were full of subtle thinking, but always practical. In these sermons the errors ',If, the day were presented to the view of candidates for the ministry, not as though the preacher were a defender of the faith or a professed champion of orthodoxy, but as a Christian friend who would warn his hearers against evil tendencies that might cripple them: work or weaken their faith.
Hodge's at. work, however, was done in the lecture‑room. He did not scatter his energies; his department 'was the New Testament, and he kept

805	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hodge
rigidly to it. It is probable that the students carried
more out of his class‑room into the actual work of
pulpit preparation than out of any other in the
seminary. He was a reverent believer in the Bible
as the word of God and in the doctrines of the Bible
as they are formulated in the creed of his Church.
He was honest, fair‑minded, and firm. He knew .the
resources of the enemy and did not underrate them;
but he also knew the argumentative resources of
Christianity. The consequence was that his lec
tures strengthened faith and deepened conviction;
and men who had no great critical sagacity them
selves felt that they had been reenforced immensely
by the fact that they had a man of Hodge's scholar
ship and judgment on the side of the Reformed
theology. Hodge did not write for the press. His
ideals were very high, and probably dissatisfaction
with even his best work had something to do with
his resisting all efforts to induce him to publish
a book. 	FRANCIS L. PATTON.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. L. Patton, Caspar Wietar Hodge, a Memorial Address, New York, 1892.
	HODGE, CHARLES: American theologian; b.
at Philadelphia Dec. 18,1797; d. at Princeton, N. J.,
		June 19, 1878. He matriculated at the
	Life. College of New Jersey in 1812, and
		after graduation entered in 1816 the
theological seminary in Princeton, having among
his classmates his two lifelong friends, John Johns,
afterward bishop of Virginia, and Charles P. Me
Evaine, afterward bishop of Ohio. In 1822 he was
appointed by the General Assembly professor of
Biblical and Oriental literature. In 1822 he married
Sarah Bache, great‑granddaughter of Benjamin
Franklin. Soon after he went abroad (1826‑28) to
prosecute special studies, and in Paris, Halle, and
Berlin attended the lectures of De Sacy, Tholuck,
Hengstenberg, and Neander. In 1825 he founded
the Biblical Repository and Prineeton Review, and
during forty years was its editor and the principal
contributor to its pages. In 1840 he was transferred
to the chair of didactic theology, retaining, however,
the department of New Testament exegesis, the
duties of which he continued to discharge until his
death. He was moderator of the General Assembly
in 1846. Fifty years of his professorate were com
pleted in 1872, and the event was most impressively
celebrated on Apr. 23. A large concourse, includ
ing 400 of his own pupils, assembled to do him
honor. Representatives from various theological
institutes, at home and abroad, mingled their con
gratulations with those of his colleagues; and letters
expressing deepest sympathy with the occasion
came from distinguished men from all quarters of
the land and from across the sea. Dr. Hodge en
joyed what President Woolsey, at the jubilee just
referred to, hoped he might enjoy, " a sweet old
age." He lived in the midst of his children and
grandchildren; and, when the last moment came,
they gathered round him. " Dearest," he said to a
beloved daughter, " don't weep. To be absent from
the body is to be present with the Lord. To be
with the Lord is to see him. To see the Lord is
to be like him." Of the children who survived him,
three were ministers of the Gospel; and two of these
succeeded him in the faculty of Princeton Theo‑
V.‑20
logical Seminary, Dr. C. W. Hodge, in the department of exegetical theology, and Dr. A. A. Hodge, in that of dogmatics.
Dr. Hodge was a voluminous writer, and from the beginning to the end of his theological career his pen
was never idle. In 1835 he published
Literary his Commentary on the Epistle to the and Romans, his greatest exegetical work,
Teaching and one of the most masterly eommen‑
Activities. taries on this epistle that has ever been
written. Other works followed at intervals of longer or shorter duration‑Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (1840); Way of Life (1841, republished in England, translated into other languages, and circulated to the extent of 35,000 copies in America); Commentary on Ephesians (1856); on First Corinthians (1857); on Second Corinthians (1859). His magnum opus is the Systematic Theology (1871‑1873), of 3 vols. 8vo. and extending to 2,2&0 pages. His last book, What is Darwinism ? appeared in 1874. In addition to all this it must be remembered that he contributed upward of 130 articles to the Princeton Review, many of which, besides exerting a powerful influence at the time of their publication, have since been gathered into volumes, and as Selection of Essays and Reviews from the Princeton Review (1857) and Discussions in Church Polity (ed. W. Durant, 1878) have taken a permanent place in theological literature. This record of Dr. Hodge's literary life is suggestive of the great influence that he exerted. But properly to estimate that influence, it must be remembered that 3,000 ministers of the Gospel passed under his instruction, and that to him was accorded the rare privilege, during the course of a long life, of achieving distinction as a teacher, exegete, preacher, controversialist, ecclesiastic, and systematic theologian. As a teacher he had few equals; and if he did not display popular gifts in the pulpit, he revealed homiletical powers of a high order in the " conferences " on Sabbath afternoons, where he spoke with his accustomed clearness and logical precision, but with great spontaneity and amazing tenderness and unction. Dr. Hodge's literary powers were seen at their best in his contributions to the Princeton Review, many of which are acknowledged masterpieces of controversial writing. They cover a wide range of topics, from apologetic questions that concern common Christianity to questions of ecclesiastical administration, in which only Presbyterians have been supposed to take interest. But the questions in debate among American theologians during the period covered by Dr. Hodge's life belonged, for the most part, to the departments of anthropology and soteriology; and it was upon these, accordingly, that his polemic powers were mainly applied.
Though always honorable in debate, one would not gain a correct idea of his character through
judging him only by the polemic re‑
Character lations in which his writings reveal him. and Controversy does not emphasize the Significance. amiable side of a man's nature. Dr.
Hodge was a man of warm affection, of generous impulses, and of John‑like piety. Devotion to Christ was the salient characteristic of his

$°°t	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	BOB
experience, and it was the test by which he judged the experience of others. Hence, though a Presbyterian and a Calvinist, his sympathies went far beyond the boundaries of sect. He refused to entertain the narrow views of church polity which some of his brethren advocated. He repudiated the unhistorical position of those who denied the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. He gave his sympathy to all good agencies. He was conservative by nature, and his life was spent in defending the Reformed theology as set forth in the Westminster symbols. He was fond of saying that Princeton had never originated a new idea; but this meant no more than that Princeton was the advocate of historical Calvinism in opposition to the modified and provincial Calvinism of a later day. And it is true that Dr. Hodge must be classed among the great defenders of the faith, rather than among the great constructive minds of the Church. He had no ambition to be epoch‑making by marking the era of a new departure. But he earned a higher title to fame in that he was the champion of his Church's faith during a long and active life, her trusted leader in time of trial, and for more than half a century the most conspicuous teacher of her ministry. The garnered wisdom of his life is given in his Systematic Theology, the greatest system of dogmatics in our language.
FRANCl6 L. PATTON.
BIHLIOGBAPH7: His life was written by his eon, A. A. Hodge, New York, 1880, and by F. L. Patton, Boston, 1888. Articles upon his life and work are by E. Bond, in Bibliotheca Sacra, xxx. 371 eqq.; T. Dwight, in New Englander, A. 222 ®qq.; J. W. Chadwick, in The Nation, xxxi. 381; cf. London Quarterly, ii. 56 eqq.
HODGE, RICHARD MORSE: Presbyterian: b. at Mauch Chunk, Pa., May 25, 1864. He was graduated from Princeton (B.A., 1886) and Princeton Theological Seminary (1889). He then spent an additional year in study at Princeton University, after which he held pastorates at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Milwaukee (1890‑92), and Calvary Church, Riverton, N. J. (1893‑95). From 1895 to 1898 he was dean of the Missionary Training School for Women, Fredericksburg, Va., and was then superintendent of the Bible Institute, Nashville, Tenn., for three years (1898‑1901). Since 1901 he has been director of extension courses for lay students in Union Theological Seminary, and has also been lecturer in Biblical literature in Teachers' College, New York City, since 1902. He has prepared Historical Atlas of the Life of Jesus Christ (Wytheville, Pa., 1898) and Historical Maps for Bible Study (New York, 1906‑07).
HODGSON , JAMES MUsc17TT: Scotch Congregationalist; b. at Cockermouth (23 m. s.w. of Carlisle), Cumberland, England, Aug. 18, 1841. He was educated at Glasgow University (M.A., 1862), Lancashire Independent College, Manchester (18621865), and Edinburgh University (D.Sc., 1882). After being pastor of the Congregational Church at Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, from 1866 to 1875, he was appointed professor of apologetics and the science and philosophy of religion in Lancashire Independent College, where he remained until 1894, since when he has been principal and Baxter professor of
systematic theology in the Theological Hall of the Congregational Churches of Scotland, Edinburgh. In theology he is a liberal Evangelical. In addition to editing T. M. Herbert's Realistic Assumptions of Modern Science Examined (London, 1879), he has written Philosophy and Faith: A Plea for Agnostic Belief (Manchester, 1885); Philosophy and Revelation: A Plea for Scientific Theology (1888); Facts and Ideas in Theology (Edinburgh, 1894); and Theologies Pectoris: Outlines of Religious Faith and Doctrine Founded on Intuition and Experience (1897).
HODY, HUMPHREY: Anglican Biblical scholar; b. at Odoombe, Somersetahire, Jan. 1, 1659; d. while on a journey to Bath Jan. 20, 1707. He was educated at Wadham College, Oxford (B.A., 1679; M.A., 1682; B.D., 1689; D.D., 1692), where he obtained a fellowship in 1685. In 1690 he became chaplain to Stillingfieet, bishop of Worcester. For his support of the government in a controversy with Henry Dodwell regarding nonjuring bishops he was made domestic chaplain to Tillotson, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1694, and retained the position under Archbishop Tenison. In 1695 he was presented by Tenison to the rectory of Chartham, Kent, which he immediately exchanged for the rectories of St. Michael Royal and St. Martin Vintry, London. In 1698 he became regius professor of Greek at the University of Oxford, in 1701 rector. of Monks' Risborough, Buckinghamshire, and in 1704 archdeacon of Oxford. To the controversy about convocation he contributed Some Thoughts on a Convocation, and the Notion of its Divine Right (London, 1699) and A History of English Councils and Convocations, and of the Clergy's Sitting in parliament (3 parts, 1701). His reputation, however, rests upon his valuable work on the history of the text and translations of the Old Testament, De btbliorum textZus 071P‑llWua, ver&wn*us Grtects et Latina Vulgates, lt7m: iv (1705). The first book contains his earlier dissertation, Contra historiam Aristew de LXX interprettbua (Oxford, 1684), in which he had shown that the alleged letter of Aristeas concerning the origin of the Septuagint was a forgery. By his will he founded ten scholarships at Wadham College for the study of Greek and Hebrew.
BIBLIOasAPHr: The principal source for a Life is the socount in Latin, chiefly from an autobiography in English, prefixed by 19. Jebb to Hody's posthumous De Gracie illustribus London, 1742. A biography is still lacking. Consult also E‑ R.iehm Einleitunp in do# A. T., pp. 480
eqq., Halls, 1890; H. B. 8wete Introduction to the O. T. in Greek, p. 15, Cambridge, 1900; DNB, xxvii. 77‑78.

HOE VON HOENEEGG, MATTHIAS:. Court preacher in electoral Saxony in the time of the Thirty Years' War; b. at Vienna Feb. 24, 1580; d. at Dresden Mar. 4, 1645. He was educated at the University of Wittenberg. At the age of twentyone he became licentiate of theology and soon afterward lectured at the university. In 1602 he was
appointed third court preacher in Dresden, but in 1603 was transferred to Plauen as superintendent apparently because he lacked tact in his intercourse with his older colleagues. His activity in Plauen
(1604‑11) was successful and beneficent, as he was removed from the court spirit which incited his

307	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g
ambition. The elector continued to show him favor and allowed him, in 1611, to accept a call to Prague as director of the Evangelical churches and schools, with the condition that he would resign when his services were needed in Saxony. _ In 1613 John George I. called him to Dresden as first court preacher and he remained there until his death. After a five‑years' struggle he succeeded in ousting his colleague, H#nichen, so that he could assert his influence without restriction. This influence he used over his well‑meaning but narrow‑minded ruler for the advantage of church and school. But he was not satisfied with the influence of a preacher and theologian; as a Protestant church ruler he tried to compete with the highest dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church. He became a politician to whom all parties paid their regards on account of his influence, but by his political activity he injured the interests not only of Saxony, but of the Evangelical cause in general.
The Catholic League as well as the Protestant Union sought the favor of the elector of Saxony. As H6e tried to retain the friendship of both Roman Catholics and Protestants, the elector wavered in his decision, and after the outbreak of the war attempted to mediate between the contending parties. H6e thought he could persuade John George to accept the crown of Bohemia, and his ambition was greatly disappointed when he learned that the Calvinist count palatine had been elected. The fact that Saxony now took the part of the Roman Catholic emperor and combated the Protestants must be attributed largely to Hoe's mortified ambition and intrigues. His course incited the greatest resentment among his contemporaries, and he was accused of being responsible for the approaching disaster. The suspicions, expressed at the time, that Hde had been bribed by money from the imperial and papal party have not yet been silenced. However, his conscience was awakened by the persecution of Protestantism which was tolerated in Bohemia in contravention of all agreements, and he asked the interference of the emperor. No attention was paid to his entreaties, and his injured vanity made it easy for him to accommodate himself to the change of policy on the part of his sovereign, who by the Edict of Restitution and by the unexpected appearance of Gustavus Adolphus on German soil was forced to convene an assembly of Protestant estates in Leipsic in 1631, and to organize the Protestant league of Leipsio.
Of HSe's literary works may be mentioned his Evangelisches Handbuchlein (Leipsic, 1603; new ed., Dresden, 1871), in which he sought to show from Scripture that the Lutheran faith was truly catholic while the papal doctrine was erroneous and against the clear word of God. He also wrote a commentary on the Galatians (1605) with the special purpose of explaining the doctrine of justification in the Lutheran sense, a commentary on the Apocalypse, the result of thirty years' work, and numerous polemical treatises against the Calvinists, among them Augenscheinliche Probe, wie die Calvinisten in 99 Punkten mit den Arianernund Tiarken flbereinstimmen (1621). He had a part in the Deciaio Soxoniea (1623) which settled the Christologioal controversy between the
Tabingen and Giessen theologians (see CHB18T01r
oGy). 	(F. W. DIBELIUB.)
BrawOOSAPHT: I. A. Gleieh, Annals@ eceZeaiaetici, Dresden, 1730; G. L. Zeieeler, Geschichte der eadsiaclien Oberhofprediper, Leipeic, 1856; E. Otto, Die Sdu•iften des er.ten kursdchaisdten Oberhofpredipers H8e won Haenew, Dresden, 1898.
	HOEFLI1fG, h0'fling, JOHANN WILHELM
FRIEDRICH: German Lutheran; b. at Drosaen
feld (a village between Kuhnbach and Baireuth)
1802; d. at Munich Apr. 5, 1853. He was educated
at the University of Erlangen, and in 1823 was ap
pointed pastor at Wtlrzburg. Four years later he
was called to St. Jobst, near Nuremberg, where he
officiated until 1833, when he was appointed to the
chair of practical theology at the University of
Erlangen. In 1852 he was elected chief councilor
of the consistory of Munich. In 1835 H6fling pub
lished at Erlangen a treatise entitled De aymbolorum
natura, necessitate, audoritate et usu, and in 1837
Die liturgische Abhdndlung von der Komposition der
christlichen Gemeindegotteadiende. His most ‑ im
portant work, however, was his Dos Sakrament der
Taufe (2‑ vols., Erlangen, 1846‑48), a work dis
tinguished by its comprehensive, though condensed,
formulation of Lutheran dogma, while his Grund
adltzeevartgdiaM‑lutheri.cherKirehenterfasaung (1850)
attracted much attention. He was one of the found
ers of the Erlanger Zeitschrift ffr Protestantismus
and Kirche, and at the general synod held at Ans
bach from Jan. 28 to Feb. 22, 1849, he represented
the theological faculty of Erlangen, his ideas fur
nishing the basis for the suggestions offered by
that synod concerning the future organization of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Bavaria. His
Liturgiaches Urkundenbuch, a fragment of a large
work which he had planned, was edited after his
death by Tbomasius and Harnack (Leipsic, 1854).
		(J. J. HEBZ0Gt.)
BtaLIOGRAP87: The " Memorial " was edited by Drs. N9gelbach and Thomasius, Erlangen, 1853.

HOEKSTRA, hfik'stra, SYTSE: Dutch theologian; b. at Wieringerwaard (32 m. n. of Amsterdam) Aug. 20, 1822; d. at Elleoom, province of Gelderland, June 12, 1898. He studied at the Mennonite seminary at Amsterdam, and became a professor there in Feb., 1857, after having spent several years in the Mennonite ministry. He held this professorship till June, 1892. After 1877 he was also professor of theology at the University of Amsterdam. He was one of the most eminent exponents of the modern theological school of Holland. In numerous exegetical and critioo‑historical treatises on Biblical subjects, in ThT, and in his De benaming " De Zoon des Menwhen " (Amsterdam, 1866) he showed himself a versatile scholar and an incisive investigator, while in several popular works and in his sermons he unfolded for educated laymen the character and the foundation of Christian belief. In Bronnen en Gronslagen van hd godsdLnatig gdoof (1864); De Hoop der Onaterflijkheid (1867); Gedachten over hat Wezen en de Methods der godsdienatleer (ThT, vi.) he did the same for the theologian, in the belief that he was leading. men back to " the faith of man in himself, in the truth of his own being." With this formula he expounded the hypothesis that the oos‑

Hoekatra	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	308
Hogmann
mical order is such as to guarantee the realization of man's highest personality, seeing that, whereas man is continuously threatened by this order, he has actually emerged from it. Thus he espoused an anthropocentric‑teleological, or ethical, idealism, under which religion was characterized as a matter of the heart, not positively demonstrable in a logical sense, but still defensible, and quite as indestructible as science in its particular domain. Thanks to this idealism, the path of religious philosophic thought in modern theological Holland, that lay partly circumscribed by the intellectualism of J. H. Scholten (q.v.), partly by the empiricism of C. W. Opzoomer (q.v.), was cleared for more diversified and more fruitful studies.
Hoekstra's important advances in his critical and Christological views, together with his constant veneration of Christianity as the most perfect form of the religious consciousness, may distinctly be seen from a comparison of his earlier writings De Weg der Wetenschap op godgeleerd en wijageerig gebied (1857) and De Zonddoosheid twn Jezus (1862), with his later Wijsgeerige godadienstleer (2 vols., 1894) and Christelijke geloopleer (2 vols., 1898).
Hoekstra likewise wrote a work on doctrinal ethics (3 vols., 1894) and a history of ethics (2 vols., 1896). If in De Ontwikkeli" van de Zedelijke idee (1862) he conceded an independent origin of morality, it nevertheless appears from his treatises on the relation between religion and morality, utilitarian morality (cf. ThT, ii. 117 sqq., and 390 sqq.), and his exposition of the consciousness of duty in Gronslag van het besef van onvoorwaardelijken plieht (1873), as also from his vindication of indeterminism in Vrijheid in verband met zelfbewusthead, zedelijkheid en Zonde (1858), that his main object was to maintain that the moral consciousness, on its potential side, has likewise its roots in a metaphysical principle, in the ideal nature of spiritual personality, in which case it can but serve to confirm the belief in the reality of a supersensuous cosmic order.
I. MOLENAAR.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Busken Huet, in Gida, 1858, pp. 622 aqq.; A. Pierson. in Gids, 1858, pp. 493 aqq.; J. H. Scholten, De vrije wil, Leyden, 1859; A. M. Cramer, Beginselen en leer der oude Doopagesinden in Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 1864; L. W. E. Rauwenhoff, in ThT, ii. 257; idem in Wijsbegeerte van den Godadienst, vol. i., chap. 2b and § 1, Leyden, 1887; L.H. Slotemaker, in ThT, xv. 265 eqq.; T. Molenaar, Man^ nen en Vrouewn van beteekenis, 1897, part 8; S. Cramer, in ThT, xxxii. 448 eqq.; idem, in Doopagerinde BOdragen, 1898, pp. 150 aqq.

HOELEMANNN, hu"le‑man, HERMANN GUSTAV:
Professor at Leipsic; b. at Baude (near Grossenhain, 19 m. n.n.w. of Dresden), Saxony, Aug. 8,1809; d. at Leipsic Sept. 28, 1886. He studied at the Royal School at Neissen and, from 1829, at Leipsic, where, in 1832, he became privat‑docent in the philosophic faculty. Before long, however, he turned wholly to theology, and in the winter of 1834‑35 he delivered his lectures on the Epistle to the Philippians, later printed as a commentary (Leipsic, 1839). After teaching for ten years in the gymnasium at Zwickau, he returned to Leipsic, where, from 1861, he ranked as honorary ordinary professor. His lectures, generally delivered in Latin, treated various writings of the Old and New Testa‑
ment. He also directed a Hebrew society, which he
subsequently affiliated with the Societas exegetica
Lipsiensis. The most important of his writings not
already mentioned were the BZelatudien (4 series,
Leipsic, 1859‑75). In all his writings and lectures
he adhered firmly to the older dogmatic concept of
inspiration. 	TREoDOR FICKER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ARgemeine ludheriache Kirchenzeitung, 1886,
no. 46; SBcheiachee Kirchen‑ and Schulblatt, 1886, no. 46.
HOENNNICE:E, hon'ni'ke, GUSTAV: German Protestant; b. at Heiligenstadt (48 m. n.w. of Erfurt) Sept. 11, 1871. He was educated at the universities of Tubingen, Halle (Ph.D., 1$97), and Berlin (lic. theol., 1900), and since 1901 has been privat‑docent for New Testament exegesis at the latter university. Theologically he is a pupil of Bernhard Weiss. He has written Studien ztcr altprotestantischen Ethik (Berlin, 1902) and Chronologie des Lebens des Apostela Paulus (Leipsie, 1903).

HOFACKER, LUDWIG and WILHELM: Two brothers, both popular and influential preachers o€ Wurttemberg. The elder, Ludwig, was born at Wildbad (29 m. w. of Stuttgart) Apr. 15, 1798; d. at Rielingshausen, near Marbach (12 m. n.n.e. of Stuttgart), Nov. 18, 1828. He studied at the seminaries of Sch6ntbal and Maulbronn, and in 1816 at the seminary in Tiibingen. Here, in his eighteenth year, he experienced a sudden conversion. He became vicar in Plieningen and Stuttgart, and in 1826 preacher at Rielingshausen.
His younger brother, Wilhelm, was born at Gart_ ringen (21 m. s.w. of Stuttgart) Feb. 16, 1805; d. in Stuttgart Aug. 10, 1848. He was educated at Stuttgart and (1823‑28) the University of Tiibingen. He was more versatile than his brother, and his open mind enabled him to appreciate various theological tendencies. After his examination he became for eight months the substitute of his brother, who had fallen ill, and after his death was regular pastor for the same length of time. In 1830 he became repetent at Tiibingen, in 1833 dean at Waiblingen, and in 1835 dean at St. Leonard's in Stuttgart, where he developed a far‑reaching activity in church and school affairs. He was broader than his brother, but less powerful. Ludwig's sermons bear the stamp of his personal experiences and convictions. They are powerful and original, but the range of thought is narrow. Everything centers in sin and grace. His strength is in depicting the corruption of sin and preaching repentance. He does not argue or reason, but addresses himself immediately to the conscience and feeling; he is intent upon immediate conversion. His sermons lack all exegesis; whenever the text fits into his one and only theme of sin and grace he uses it, but otherwise it is for him only a means to an end. Wilhelm Hofacker's sermons are also based upon the experience of grace, but they show the repose and harmony of a more steady Christian development, united with a more rounded education. But Wilhelm, no less than his brother, emphasizes the doctrine of atonement. The grace of the Savior of sinners is his one and allabsorbing theme; he is also intent upon awakening and converting, but conversion is for him a gradual process. He does not penetrate the innermost heart

309	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hoeketra
		HOfI$lann
of the sinner with the same force as Ludwig, but
he knows how to depict the condition of the heart
with greater psychological skill in its more del
icate nuances. Ludwig Hofaeker's sermons were ex
ceedingly popular and have been sold in hundreds
of thousands of copies (42d ed., Stuttgart, 1892;
Ausgewdhlte Predigten, ed. F. Bernmann, Leipsie,
1892). Wilhelm's sermons, ed. Kapff, appeared in
the 3d ed. at Stuttgart, 1880.
		(ROBERT KIBELt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Knapp, Ludwig Hofackers Leben, Calw,
	1895; there is a sketch of Wilhelm Hofaeker's life in
	Kapff's edition of his sermons, ut sup.; Wilhelm Hofackers
	Leben, by his son Ludwig, appeared Stuttgart, 1872.
	HOFFBAUER, CLEMENS MARIA. See LIGUORI,
ALFONSO MARIA DE.
	HOFFMAN, EUGENE AUGUSTUS: Protestant
Episcopalian; b. in New York City Mar. 21, 1829;
d. there June 17, 1902. He was educated at Rutgers
College (B.A., 1847), Harvard (1847‑48), and the
General Theological Seminary, from which he was
graduated in 1851. He was missionary at Eliz
abethport, N. J. (1851‑53), rector of Christ Church,
Elizabeth, N. J. (1853‑63), St. Mary's, Burlington,
N. J. (1863‑64), Grace, Brooklyn, N. Y. (1864‑69),
and St. Mark's, Philadelphia (.1869‑79). In 1879
he was elected dean of the General Theological
Seminary, a position which he retained until his
death. In this dignity his personal means and his
executive ability enabled him to reestablish the
seminary on a firm foundation and practically to
reorganize it. His rectorates were equally energetic
and beneficial, churches being established at Mill
burn and Woodbridge, N. J., while he was at Christ
Church, and the first working men's club in the
United States being founded by him at St. Mark's.
He was the author of Free Churches (New York,
1856); The Eucharistic Week (1870); and Gen
ealogy of the Hoffman Family (1899).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. M. Riley, A Memorial Biography o,
	Eugene Augustus Hofman (2 vols., Jamaica, N. Y., 1904).
	HOFFMANN, ANDREAS GOTTLIEB: German
Protestant Semitic scholar; b. at Welbaleben, near
Magdeburg, Apr. 13, 1796; d. at Jena Mar. 16, 1864.
He was educated at the gymnasium of Magdeburg
and the University of Halle (Ph.D., 1820), where he
became privat‑docent in 1822. There he lectured
on Oriental languages, especially on Arabic, and
received calls to K6nigaberg and Jena. He chose
the latter and was active there until his death,
becoming senior of the theological faculty and of the
academic senate. His lectures on Jewish antiquities
were most popular, but he also taught church his
tory, Old and New Testament isagogics, exegesis of
the Old Testament, and Semitic and Hindu languages,
though his main strength lay in Hebrew and Syriac.
His Grammatica Syriaca (Halle, 1827; Eng. transl.
by B. H. Cowper, The Principles of Syriac Gram
mar, London, 1858) was based on that of Michaelis.
Other important works are Entwurf der hebrd
ischert Alterthiimer (Weimar, 1832); Das Buch
Henoch (2 parts, Jena, 1833‑38), translated from
the English and Ethiopic; Ctmtmentareus philo
logico‑criticus in Mosis	benedictio‑nem, Deut.
XXXIII. (Halle, 1823).	Besides his original
works, he edited and translated much, and
wrote numerous articles for periodicals and en
cyclopedias. 	(G. FRANxt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Frank, in Protestantisehe Kirchenwitunp, 1864, no. 13, repeated in part in Allgemeine akademiache Zeitung, 1864, no. 12; ADS, xii. 571.
HOFFMANN, CHRISTOPH. See FRIENDS OF THE TEMPLE.
HOFFMANN, DANIEL: German Lutheran theologian; b. at Halle 1540; d. at WolfenbUttel, Brunswick, 1611. About 1558 he studied at Jena. He was called by Duke Julius of Brunswick in 1576 to Helmstedt at the opening of the university as professor of ethics and dialectics, and in 1578 was transferred to the theological faculty. He became the most influential adviser of Duke Julius in the affairs of the churches and the university; he opposed the rise of the Philippists (q.v.) and humanists in Helmstedt, but at the same time assumed a peculiar position toward foreign Lutheran theologians, especially since he rejected the doctrine of ubiquity, and thus helped to separate the Lutheran State Church of the duchy of Brunswick from those Lutherans who accepted the Formula of Concord. In 1589 Duke Julius died, and the new duke, Henry Julius, immediately appointed the humanist J. Caselius and several of his friends as professors, who soon won such an influence that Hoffmann could assert his theological predominance only with great difficulty. He was especially incited against Caselius and his followers in 1597 by a ducal reacript in their favor, forbidding the public teaching of Ramus' philosophy as contradicting the statutes of the university. Adherence to Ramus meant likewise rejection of the study of Aristotle as pagan and dangerous to faith. Hoffmann and his adherents saw in the ducal prohibition of Ramism an attack on Christianity, and Hoffmann answered in a treatise consisting of 101 theses. Several colleagues of Hoffmann, especially Caseliua himself, saw in the theses of Hoffmann a criticism of their academic labors. Again and again conferences were arranged to settle the dispute, even the sovereign was appealed to, but all attempts at reconciliation failed because of Hoffmann's violence and obstinacy. The petty university quarrel of Hoffmann is of theoretical and historical importance, because it is on the one side an echo of the medieval conflict between nominalism and realism, and, on the other side, a prelude of the later conflict between rationalism and supranaturalism. Because of the controversy Hoffmann was deposed and expelled from Helmstedt in 1601, but he was rehabilitated in 1603.
(PAUL TsCHACKERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Malleus impietatis Hofmmanniano:, Frank‑
fort, 1604; G. Thomasius, De controversies Hoff'manniana, Erlangen, 1844; G. Frank, Geschichte der protestantiachen Theologie, i. 259, Leipsic, 1862; E. Schlee, Der Streit des Daniel Hofmann, Marburg, 1862; ADS, xii. 628‑629.
HOFFMANN, HEINRICH: German Protestant; b. at Magdeburg Mar. 24, 1821; d. at Halle May 20, 1899. He studied theology at Berlin and Halle. For several years he was prevented by ill health from taking up pastoral work, but in 1852 he accepted a call to Berlin as assistant at the Church of St. Matthew. In 1854 he was called to the Neumarkt parish, Halle, where he labored till his retirement in 1895. He was particularly successful

Hoffmann
Hoffnieister
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
in meeting the difficulties due to the strong following of the Friends of Light (see FREH CONGREGATIONS IN GERMANY, § 1), and later to the rapid increase in the population of his parish. He reapportioned the parish, increased the number of clergy, and erected the splendid new Church of St. Stephen. His theology was Christocentrie on a Lutheran basis. He excelled as a pulpit orator and, besides many single sermons, published several collections that have been frequently reprinted. To be mentioned are: ZwBV Festpredigten (Halle,. 1862); Der Heilaweg (1864); Sande urud Erlfung (1873); Unterm Kreuz (1884); Kreuz and Krone (1891); Die Bergpredigt (1893); Eins iat Not (1895); and Die letzte Nock and der Todealag den Herrn Jeeu (1898).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal work is M. BBhler and H. Hering, Heinrich Hoffmann, . Lobe., Wirksn and
Predigt, Halls, 1900. His Letters were edited by M.
Hart, ib. 1902 and biographical material is found also in
Aus dem Tapebuch, ed. M. Hart, ib. 1900.

HOFFMANN (HOFMANN), MELCHIOR: German mystic and Anabaptist; b. at Schwgbisch‑Hall
(35 m.. n.e. of Stuttgart), Wurttemberg,
Earlier toward the end of the fifteenth Preaching. century; d. at Strasburg about 1543,
He was a leather dresser by trade; in the pursuit of his calling he went to Livonia and, in 1523, advocated there the doctrines of Luther and of the Wittenberg Reformation.
With this teaching Hoffmann blended a strain of mysticism that later assumed predominance in his beliefs. He is the type of the untrained lay preacher of the Reformation period who, by sheer force of religious fervor, vehemence of speech, and directness of appeal, presented a formidable competition to the educated clergy. The lack of preachers of the latter type in Livonia made Hoffmann's success the more emphatic. Driven from W ohnar in the autumn of 1524, he made Dorpat the scene of. his labors, where an attempt on the part of the archiepiscopal authorities to seize him led to an iconoclastic uprising (Jan. 10, 1525). Hoffmann's activity was regarded askance by a faction.of the Reformers, but he succeeded in obtaining a letter of approval from Luther and Bugenhagen, and with augmented authority engaged in a feud with the official clergy, against whom he upheld the divine nature and origin of the preacher's mission, advocating also a prophetic interpretation of the Scriptures. Forced finally to leave Dorpat, in 1526 he became preacher among the Germans of Stockholm. There he published a commentary on Dan. xii. which, with other writings, revealed a growing departure from the Lutheran position. The dogmas of justification and predestination were still retained, but eschatological ideas came into the foreground, centering in a belief in the speedy approach of the end of the world. With much labor he evolved his own scheme of the Last Day, and passed from the attitude of preacher to that of prophet, whose. mission was to announce the coming of the Lord. The year 1533 was set for the end of things.'

I In his eschatol which was not marked by~, ty, Hoffmann followed Franciscan Spirituals the •?aborites (see Hum, JOHN, Huserru), Nicholas storo&, and others
A. a. N.
	In 1527 Hoffmann left Stockholm, for Holstein.
There he preached for two years openly at odds
		with Luther. Frederick 1. of Denmark,
	Doctrine however, after subjecting his doctrines
	of the to a test, permitted him to continue
	Lord's his mission labors, and assigned Kiel
	Supper. as his special field. As the result of a
		prolonged controversy with Armsdorf
at Magdeburg and with the Sleswick preacher
Marquard Schuldorp, in the course of which Hoff
mann formally abjured the Lutheran theory of the
Lord's Supper, Frederick I. ordered a public dis
putation to be held at Flensburg (Apr. 8, 1529), at
which the Lutheran party was represented by
Bugenhagen. Hoffmann expounded, not without
skill, his conception of the Lord's Supper, the
kernel of which was that the bread is not the body
of Christ but is a seal, sign, and memorial of the
body of the Savior. In receiving the bread the
communicant through faith receives the Word, and
with it the spiritual body of Christ, into his heart.
The origins of his doctrine are to be found in the
early form of the Lutheran doctrine and in Carl
stadt; the principal sources, however, are in his
own mystical thought. He attempted, too, to
distinguish between his theory and that of Zwingli.
	Banished from Denmark as a result of the dis
putation, Hoffmann arrived at Strasburg, where at
		first he was welcomed by Butzer on
	joins the account of his opposition to Luther,
	Ana‑ but soon lost favor.$ During 1529 and
	baptista. 1530 he issued a number of writings
		the most important of which, an in
terpretation of Revelation, reveals his doctrine in
completely developed form. The history of the
Church is divided into three periods: the first ex
tended from the Apostles to the establishment of
the power of the papacy; the second was marked by
the unrestrained might of the papacy; the third,
beginning with the Reformation, was marked by the
final revelation and the substitution of the,Spirit
for the letter. Two witnesses of the final day were
to appear and were to fall before the power of the
papacy united with the followers of the letter;
then was to follow the disappearance of truth, the
destruction of the spiritual Jerusalem by the Turks,
and the final appearance of Christ. Hoffmann now
drew nearer to the Anabaptists, for whom he de
manded in 1530 the exclusive possession of a church
in the town. Hoffmann was arrested and compelled
to leave Strasburg' but his experiences only hastened
his entrance into the ranks of the Anapabtists, to
whom he brought enthusiasm and courage at a time
when their power in South Germany was already
broken. The impetus which he lent to the move
ment was not without appreciable influence in pre
paring the way for the excesses of John of Leyden
(see ANABAms7s, II., 1 2; MfsTRR, ANABAPTISTS
IN.) From 1530 to 1533 he appeared alternately in
East Friesland and in the Strasburg region. His la
bors were the most important factor in transplanting
Anabaptist doctrines from the south to the north of

	' On his way to Strasburg, in cooperation with Carlstadt
he Propagated anti‑Lutheran views in East Friesland, where
Lutheranism and Zwmg banism were in open conflict. There
he gained an influence that was momentous in consequences,
A. IL N.

811	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	HothneLeter
Germany, where Emden became the center of his activity. In East Friesland he published his most important work, the Ordonnanlie Gottes, the basic principle of which is the bond that exists between God and man. Toward the end of 1530 he went to Holland, where the Anabaptist teachings had already been disseminated by Jan Volkertezoon. The preaching of the two established an Anabaptist community in Holland which exercised a historic influence in later times.
In 1533 he came once more to Strasburg. It was the year set for the final catastrophe, and Strasburg
was to be the new Jerusalem. In May Later the authorities caused him to be ar‑
Years.	rested, in which act he saw but the
fulfilment of his own prophecies. Before his judges he asserted that he had never preached opposition to authority, and disavowed whatever was illegal in Anapabtist teaching. Yet it was quite apparent that, however submissive to authority he may have been, the effect of his teachings was revolutionary. In June Butzer and other leaders of the Strasburg Church disputed with him on his doctrine of the body of Christ (he maintained that the material body of the Savior was not derived from the virgin, but that the eternal Word had been made flesh in the womb of Mary by a special act of God), the freedom of the will, and infant baptism. Hoffmann held fast to his views, so that even the passing of the date fixed for the destruction of the world did not shake him. The number of " Melchiorites " in Strasburg, on the lower Rhine, in Westphalia, and in Holland continued to grow. While he was personally irreproachable in character, his chiliastic hopes inspired the outrages of the fanatics of Munster who, until the capture of that city, possessed his hearty sympathy. Kept under restraint by the authorities, Hoffmann refused to abjure his millennial expectations, though in his later years he showed himself more in sympathy with the Strasburg Church. The Melchiorites remained a separate faction among the Anabaptists for some time, and spread as far as Holland and England, but in Germany disappeared ultimately among the other Anabaptist parties. The influence of Hoffmann may be traced in the writings of Menno Simon and other Anabaptist writers. See ANABArrlsTs, II., § 2. (A. HEGLBat) K. HoLL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best biographies are W. 1. Leenderts,
	Melchior Hofmann, Haarlem, 1883, and F. 0. our Linden,
	Melchior Hofmann, Haarlem, 1885. Consult: H. C.
	Vedder, Short Hiat. of Baptiste, pp. 88, 97, Philadelphia,
	1891; A. H. Newman, in American Church History Series,
	ii., pp. 25‑27, New York, 1894; idem, Hint. of Anti‑Pedo
	baptism, pp. 254‑271, Philadelphia, 1897; K. Rembert,
	Die Wiedertdufer im Herzogtum Jilieh, Berlin, 1899; G.
	Tumbitlt, Die Wiedertaufer, p. 30, Bielefeld, 1899; J.
	KSetlin, Martin Luther, i. 625, ii. 148, Berlin, 1903; Cam
	bridge Modern History, ii. 314, 320, New York, 1904; A.
	Hulshof, Geschiedenis roan de dooppesinds to Shaaaeburp.
	Amsterdam, 1905; ADB, xii.838; also the literature under
ANABArxrs". '

HOFFMANN, (LUDWIG FRIEDRICH) WILHELM: Court preacher in Berlin and general superintendent. of the Brandenburg oonsistory; b. at Leonberg (8 m. w.n.w. of Stuttgart), Wiirttemberg, Oct. 30, 18(16; d. at Berlin Aug. 28, 1873. He was educated at the seminaries of Schoathal and Ttl‑
bingen, and in 1829 became vicar of Heumaden, near Stuttgart, but three years later was appointed a lecturer in the seminary of Tilbingen. The following year he was made vicar at Stuttgart, and went to Winnenden in 1834 as deacon, where, together with the physician Zeller, he was active in the sanitarium at Winnenthal. In 1839 he was called to Basel as inspector of missions, and there reorganized the educational institutions, expanded the missionary territories of Basel in Asia, Africa, and North America, and reformed the missionary meetings of his congregation, increasing their interest by leotures'on geography, history, and ethnology. At the same time he lectured at the university. From Basel he went to Tiibingen as professor and superintendent of the seminary. ‑ In 1852 Frederick William IV. appointed him court preacher, and soon afterward made him general superintendent of the Brandenburg consistory. For two decades.he held this position, for which his theological convictions, in which he was an adherent of Bengel, especially adapted him, since he regarded the union of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions as an indispensable requirement of the time. Here, too, he carried out the king's plan for the organization of a Domkanditatenatift, in which theological students should be enabled to continue their studies, gain practice in sermons and catechesis, and do practical work among the congregation of the cathedral. Among Hoffmann's numerous literary works special mention may be made of the following: Miaaions8tunden and Vortrdge (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1847‑53); Misaionafragen (Heidelberg, 1847);Die Epochen der Kirchengeschit:hte Indiena (Berlin, 1853); Die chriethche Litteratur als Werkzeug der Mission (1859); and Deutschland einat and jetzt in Lichte des Reichea Gottes (1868). He also reedited Johann Albrecht Bengel's Erktdrte Ofenbarung Johannes and, in collaboration with Heim, a‑ preacher in Stuttgart, published Erbatliehe Auslegung der grossen Propheten naeh Auszugen ate den Schriften der Reformer toren. He likewise wrote a refutation of the Leben Jesu of David Strauss (Stuttgart, 1836), who had been his fellow student at Tubingen, and for thirteen years was the editor of the Baaeler Miaaion&~azin, bides being the author of numerous sermons and reports of missionary activity. (R. K6G$Lt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. H. Hoffmann, Leben and Wirken des . . . L. P. W. Hoffmann, Berlin, 1878 (by his son); New
evanpelische Kirchenuitunq, 1873, nos. 43‑49.
HOFFMANN, RICHARD ADOLF: German Protestant; b. at Kbnigsberg June 22, 1872. He was educated at the universities of K6nigsberg and Halle, and after being assistant to Prof. A. H. E. Klbpper from 1893 to 1897, became in the following year privat‑docent for New Testament exegesis and dogmatic theology at K6nigsberg, and professor of New Testament exegesis in 1907. He has written Die Abendmahlegedanken Jeau Christi (K6nigsberg, 1896) and Das Markusevangelium and seine Quillen (1904).
HOFFMANNITES. See FRIENDS OF THE TEMPLE.
HOFFMEISTER, lief‑mai'ster, JOHANNES‑ Augustinian; b. at Oberndorf (43 m. s.w. of Stuttgart), Wurttemberg, e. 1510; d. at Gilnaburg (30 m.

8oftmeister	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	312
Hofstede
w.n.w. of Augsburg) Aug. 21 or 22, 1547. It is
uncertain where he received his education, and when
and where he entered the Augustinian order. About
1527 he lived in Mainz, and was designated as an
Augustinian when he was . matriculated at the
University of Freiburg, Dec. 15, 1528. From 1533
he was prior in the monastery of the imperial city
of Colmar. The monastery was much demoralized,
and Hoffineister took great pains to effect better
conditions. The Evangelical faith threatened to
enter its doors, and the prior inflicted the severest
punishments upon monks who deserted their faith.
He perceived that deficiency in preaching was one
of the great causes of the decline of the Roman
Catholic Church, and by his own example attempted
reforms. In 1542 he became provincial of the
Augustinians in the Rhenish‑Swabian province.
There were only eleven monasteries left, with less
than forty monks, and Hoffineister tried his beat
to keep them from the Lutheran heresy. In the
mean time his efficiency and activity in preaching
had become known. He was called to preach in the
cathedral of Worms during the session of the diet
in 1545. Shortly after his return to Colmar, the
emperor summoned him to take part in a colloquy
at Regensburg. Rut he was little adapted for peace
ful negotiations, and religious disagreement was in
tensified by personal differences and mutual lack of
respect. During his sojourn in Regensburg Hoff
meister preached in the cathedral, and at the solicita
tion of the ‑ emperor continued his activity there
even after the colloquy. In 1548 he was appointed
vicar‑general over all Augustinian monasteries of
Germany; but his main interest was devoted to the
politics of the emperor. After his activity in Regens
burg he preached for two months at Munich. On
Jan. 15, 1547, he went to Uhn, and a few months
later to Dillingen. Shortly before his death the
emperor called him to the Diet of Augsburg, but he
died on the way thither.
	Hoffmeister's first published work was Dialogorum
hbri duo, quibus aliquot ecclesite dogmata Luthera
norum et verbis et aententiis roborantur (Freiburg,
1538), in which he tried to show that the " innova
tors " not only disagreed among themselves, but
that they defended the Roman doctrines by some
statements in their writings. A second treatise,
written in still more vehement language, was
directed against Luther's Schmalkald Articles,
Wahrhdftige Entdeckung and Widerlegung deren
Artikeln die M. Luther au, f das Concilium zu schicken
and darauf beharren furgenammen. Mit vorgesetzter
Anzeig wer das Conch fliehe oder hinders (Colmar,
1539). The Council of Colmar, although it was
Roman Catholic, confiscated the publication be
cause it feared serious trouble in consideration of the
growing Evangelical sentiment; but Hoffmeister
was not discouraged. The colloquies at Hagenau,
Worms, and Regensburg induced him to treat the
Augsburg Confession as he‑had done the Schmalkald
Articles. In this way originated his treatise, Judi
eium de articulis eonfesstonis Jtdei anno MDXXX
Ccesar. M. Augusta; exh"is, quatenus scilicet d
Catholicis admittendi sunt aut reiieiendi (published
after his death, Mainz, 1559; German, Constance,
1597). In the hope of winning the Protestants by
a real betterment of conditions which he expected from the council, Hoffmeiater made at times sweeping concessions, and with great frankness expressed himself on the conditions of his Church. Another polemical treatise of Hoffineister is entitled Canones give clause aliquot, ad interpretandum sttcrae Biblir arum scrn:Pturas (Mainz, 1545). He also published Loci, communes rerun theologicarecm (Ingolatadt, 1547), a comprehensive compilation of passages from the Church Fathers, which has been frequently edited, and several series of sermons.
(T. Kornia.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. HShn, Chronolopia provincia RlwnaSueuicw ordinis . . . S. Aupuetini, Wiiraburg, 1744; H. Rocholl Einfiihrung der Reformation in Kolmar Colmar, 1878; A. van Druseel, in AMA, 3d class, i., f (1878), 137 eqq.; idem, ZK(#, iii (1879), 484; N. Paulus, Dar AuyustinermGnda Johann Ho$meiater, Freiburg, 1891; G. Bogy serf, in sU#er ,/fir tottrttembergiache Kirohen?uchichte, 1894 p 70, 1895, p. 172; J. 8ohleoht, Johann Hoffineister ale Dichtcr, in Katholik, lxavii. 2, pp. 188 eqq.

HOFMANN, JOHANN CHRISTIAN KONRAD:
German Protestant; b. at Nuremberg Dec. 21, 1810; d. at Erlangen Dec. 20, 1877. He was educated at the universities of Erlangen (1827‑29) and Berlin (1829‑32), devoting himself chiefly to theology and history. After teaching several years at the gymnasium in Erlangen, he became repetent in the theological faculty of the university, where he first became entirely absorbed in the study of the Bible and where the questions to which he devoted the beat part of his life began to occupy him. These were especially the doctrine concerning the inspiration of the Bible, prophecy, and fulfilment. In 1838 he established himself as privet‑docent, at the same time keeping his position at the gymnasium. In 1841 he was appointed professor at the university; the following year he accepted a call to Rostock. Although the number of his hearers was here considerably smaller, a new field of activity opened itself‑in union with Kliefoth, Karsten, and Wichern, he labored zealously in the field of home missions. He remained at Rostock until 1845, when he was recalled to Erlangen, and it was chiefly through his proficiency and his working in harmony with his colleagues that a new period of prosperity for the university dated from this time. His interest in missions increased in the land of his birth; he became committee member of different missionary societies and member of the General Synod of Bavaria, and took part in the editorship of the ZeitsehriJt fur Protestantismua and Kirehe. He was also interested in political affairs, and represented ErIangen and Fiirth at several sessions of the Bavarian parliament. But he did not lose eight of the main purpose of his life, his career as professor and writer. He lectured on a great number of books in the New Testament, on hermeneutics, propsedeutica, and ethics, the secret of his success lying in the fact that he confined himself in a consistent, clear, and precise manner to the subject‑matter and pretended to be nothing but an interpreter of Scripture.
Among Hofmann's first publications were two historical works‑‑Geachichte des Aufruhrs in den .Sevennen (Ndrdlingen, 1837) and Tl'eltgeschichte fur Gymntcsien (1839; 2d ed., 1843). His first effort in theology was Die siebenzig Jahre des Jeremiaa

$i$	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Hoffmeister
		Hofetede
and die siebenztg Jahrwochen des Daniel (Nurem
berg, 1836). The seventy weeks of Daniel he counts
in the order 62+1+7; the 62 extend from 605 to
171 B.C.; the single week, from 171 to 164 B.C.; the
other seven mark the intervening period before
Christ's coming. In his Weissagung and Erfullung
im Alien and NeuenTestament (2 parts, N6rdlingen,
1841‑44) he brought prophecy into closest connec
tion with history, and treated it as an organic whole.
History itself is prophecy; and each period contains
the germ of the future, and prefigures it. The entire
Scriptural history is a prophecy of the final and
eternal relation between God and man. The incar
nation marks the beginning of the essential fulfil
ment; for Christ is the new man, the antitype of
the old; but it marks only the beginning of this
fulfilment; for the head is only the realization of
the intended perfect communion with God, when it
is joined with the body of believers. Prophecy in
the Old Testament becomes ever richer ,and richer
in its forms, but points only to one goal‑the God
man. He is then, in turn, the starting‑point for
new prophecy and hope; his appearance being the
prefigurement of the final glorification of the church
of believers. The permanent worth of this work
consists in the proof that the Old and New Testa
ments are parts of a single history of salvation; dis
playing the gradual realization of redemption for
the race. Hofmann's second great work, Der
Schriftheweis (3 parts, N6rdlingen, 1852‑56; 2d ed.,
2 vols., 1857‑60), is an attempt to prove the authen
ticity and divine origin of Christianity from its
records by using the Biblical record as one organic
whole. He started from the idea that, to understand
Christianity, it was necessary only to develop the
simple fact that makes men Christians, or the com
munion of God with man mediated by Christ. He
starts with the new birth, and with him all is his
torical. The work aroused opposition. The author
had denied the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and
the charge of denying the atonement altogether was
made against him. To this he replied in Schutz
schriften (5 parts, 1856‑59). His other works were
Die heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments (9 parts,
186281); Theologische Ethik (1878); Eneykloptidie
der Theologie (NSrdlingen, 1879); Btblische Herme
neutik (1880).	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Volck, Erinnerunpen an J. C. K. von
	Hofmann, Erlangen, 1878; A. F. C. Gran, A. P. C. Vil
	mar . . . and J. C. K. von Hofmann, GGtereloh, 1879; H.
	Schmid, Vermischte Auisdsze von Prof. von Hofmann, Er
	langen, 1878; W. Volek, Theolopiache Briefe der Prof
	Delitzach and won Hotmann, Leipsic, 1891.
	HOFMANN, RUDOLPH HUGO: German Lu
theran; b. at Kreischa (10 m. a. of Dresden) Jan.
3, 1825. He studied at the University of Leipsic
1843‑47, and after being afternoon preacher in
the university church at Leipsic in 1850‑51 and
pastor at Stormthal, near Leipsic, in 1851‑54, was
professor in the Ftlrstenschule at Meissen until 1862.
In 1862 he was appointed associate professor of prac
tical theology at Leipsic, and four years later became
honorary full professor, while since 1871 he has been
active professor of the same subject. He is also a
privy ecclesiastical councilor and a cathedral canon,
and in theology is an Evangelical Lutheran. He has
written Das ZeicKen des Menschensohns am Himmel (Leipsie, 1849); Das Leben Jesu naeh den Apokryphen (1851); Symbolik (Leipsie, 1856); Die Lehre vom Gewn:ssen (1866); Predigten gehalten in der Universitditskirche zu Leipzig (1869); Schulbt'bel (Dresden, 1872); Zum System der praktiachen Theologie (Leipsie, 1875); Predigten fiber daa Vaterunser(1881); Die freaenchristlichenLiebest4tigkeiten and die Gemeinde (1884); Rechtfertiggung der Schule der Reformation gegendberungerechtfertigtenAngrifen (1889); and Galiltia auf dein Oelberg (1896).

HOFMEISTER, hef‑mai'ster (Gr. Oikonomos), SEBASTIAP: Swiss Reformer; b. at Schaffhausen 1476; d. at Zofingen (25 m. s.e. of Basel) Sept. 26, 1533. He became a Franciscan friar in Schaffhausen, and then went to Paris and studied classical languages and Hebrew for five years. In 1520 he returned to his native city, and in the same year became lector in the monastery of his order at Zurich and entered into close friendship with Huldreich Zwingli, whose influence upon him became decisive. He was removed to Constance and thence to Lucerne, and at the latter place began his reformatory activity. After having been accused of heresy and expelled from the town, he returned to Schaffhausen, where he became preacher of the principal church. He attacked the ecclesiastical abuses so forcibly that he won over a great number of the citizens to his cause, while at the same time he excited the opposition of another and stronger party.
In Jan., 1523, Hofmeister took part in the religious colloquy between Zwingli and Faber, vicargeneral of Constance, at Zurich, and was one of the presidents in the second disputation at Zurich in Oct., 1523, against the Anabaptists. The Romanists sent Erasmus Ritter of Bavaria to Schaffhausen to oppose Hofmeister's activity, but Ritter took the part of the Reformer. ~ In 1525, however, Hofmeister had to leave the city. He became preacher in Zurich after abandoning his antipedobaptist views, but in 1526 appeared again in Grisons as leader of an important religious colloquy at Ilanz. In 1528 he went to the disputation at Bern, where, upon the recommendation of Zwingli, he was retained and employed as professor of Hebrew and catechesis. But after a few months he went to Zofingen asPreacher. For the cause of the Reformation in Switzerland he wrote Ein treuwe ermanung an die Strengen, Edlen, festen, frommen and weisen Eidgenosaen, das sieh nit dureh ire falschen propheten verfiirt, sich wider die lere Christi setzend (1523).
(E. BLbscHt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Kirchhofer, Seb. Wagner, penannt Hofmei8ter, Zurich, 1808; C. Brunner, Due alte Zoflnoen and sein Chorherrenetift, pp. 58‑59, Aarau, 1877; R. Stiihelin, Huldreich Zwinpli, 2 vole., Basel, 1895‑97; S. M. Jackson, Huldre%ch Zwinpli, pp. 204, 253‑255, New York, 1903; Sebaff, Christian Church, vii. 129‑130. Hofmeister'a letters are in Zwingli, Opera, ii. 166, 348, vii. 146, 289.
HOFSTEDE, PETRUS: Dutch theologian; b. at Zuidlaren (10 m. s.s.e. of Groningen), province of Drenthe, Apr. 16, 1716; d. at Rotterdam Nov. 27, 1803. He studied theology at Groningen and Franeker, and in 1739 became preacher at Anjum, in the province of Friesland. Then he was appointed preacher in Steenwijk and in Oost‑Zaandam, until

Horetede Holbaoh
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
in 1749 he received a call to Rotterdam. In 1770 he became also professor honoraraus at the university and lectured on church history and archeology.
In 1767 there appeared at Paris a political novel &lisaire, by J. F. de Marmontel, in which the author defended not only entire freedom of religion, but preached the doctrine that it is of no consequence what a man believes if he only lives in a ‑virtuous manner. The work caused a sensation, and after being translated into Dutch in 1768, was attacked by Hofatede in his De Belisarius van den Heer Marmontel beoordeeld . . . (Rotterdam, 1769). He calls Marmontel a Pelagian naturalist, because he admits the truth of revelation, but denies its necessity for salvation; because he taught that all virtuous pagans are saved; and because, according to his view, reason is entirely sufficient for salvation. He appealed to Scripture against Marmontel and undertook to prove that a closer investigation would leave little of the virtues of those pagans who have been praised most. Hofstede's work appeared in three editions in one year, and a German translation was published in Leipsic and Wesel. Being attacked by liberal theologians, especially by the Remonatrants, for statements concerning the sins of Socrates and other pagans, he now found it necessary to combat with all his powers the views of the Liberals. He contributed considerably to De Nederlandsche Bibliolheek, an orthodox periodical, founded in 1774. His principal work is Byzonderheden over de Heilige Schrift (3 parts, 1766‑75), in which he shows himself a keen exegete, a good scholar, and a capable archeologist. In God,geleerde en Geschiedkundige Verhandeling over het klein getal der egte MartelOs,rs (appended to the second part of his Byzonderheden) he tried to prove that in the first centuries as well as in later times there were few who revealed the true character of a martyr. In OoatIndische kerkzaken (2 arts, 1779‑80) he developed a good plan for presenting Christianity to the inhabitants of the East‑Indian colonies.
(S. D. vAN VEEN.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. P. de Bie, Hat Imen en de werken van Petrua Hofstede, Rotterdam, 1899. Consult also C.Bepp,
Johann Stinstra en sifn tiyd, 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1865‑
1866; J. Hartog, in Geloof en Vriyheid, 1875; 8. D. van
Veen, in the Historische Avonden collection of the Gron‑
ingen Historical Society, 1896, pp. 242‑264.

HOFSTEDE DE GROOT, PETRUS: A founder of the Groningen school of theology (see GRONINGEN SCHOOL); b. at Leer, in East Friesland (38 m. e. of Groningen), Oct. 8, 1802; d. at Groningen Dec. 5, 1886. He was educated at the University of Groningen, and in 1826 he became preacher of the Reformed congregation in Ulrum, province of Groningen. In 1829 he was appointed professor at Groningen as successor of Clarisse. With his colleagues, J. F. van Oordt and L. G. Paresu, he founded the Groningen School (q.v.), and edited the periodical Waarheid in Liefde, to which he contributed numerous articles of a scientific and devotional nature.
Although De Groot adhered to the reality of the facts of salvation and laid all emphasis upon the person, the work, and the life of Christ, looking
814
upon him as the center of universal history, he was nevertheless in open contradiction with the doctrine of the Church in important articles of belief. He qualified the doctrine of the absolute inspiration of the Bible, denied the divinity of Christ and the atoning power of his blood, and rejected the dogma of the Trinity. The orthodox party protested against his teachings, but the synod took the part of De Groot, and the number of his adherents among preachers and members of .congregations increased steadily. The orthodox opposition, however, also became stronger and stronger. It can not be denied that the Groningen School paved the way for " modern theology," but De Groot was not able to follow it like some of his associates. He was too mystically inclined to find peace in its intellectualism, and his conservative spirit rebelled against its destructive criticism; but the influence of the modern tendency increased in such a way that many of his disciples and adherents forsook him. In this way De Groot was brought into closer contact with the orthodox.
Of his numerous works may be mentioned Epis‑
ttala ad Hebraos cum Paulinis epistolis armparota
(Utrecht, 1825) and De Clemente Alezandrino,
philosopho Chriatiano (Groningen, 1826). He re
edited Hugo Grotius' Adnotationes in Novum Tes
tamentum (9 parts, Groningen, 1826‑34). The fruits
of his studies in church history were: Geschiedenis
van de Broederenkerk to Groningen (Groningen, 1832)
and, in his old age, De oud‑katholieke beweging in het
licht der Kerkgeschiedenis (Groningen, 1877). Of
text‑books he published Inatitutio Theologize naluralis
eive disquishtio philosophica de Deo hmninisque cum
Deo coniundione (Groningen, 1834; 4th ed., 1861);
Inetitutizrnes histories eccleeize Christiante (Groningen,
1835; 2d ed., 1852, under the title Lineamenta his
tonze ecclesize Christiana); Overzicht der Bijbelsche
en Kerkelijke Godgeleerdheid (Groningen, 1856).
With Pareau he published Eneyclopadia theologi
Chriatiani (Groningen, 1840; 3d ed., 1851), and
Compendium dogmaticw et apologeticw Christian&
(Groningen, 1840; 3d ed., 1848). For a larger circle
of readers he published Voorlezingen over de ge8chie
denas der opvoeding des mensehdoma door God tot op
de komst van Jezus Christ= (2 vols., Groningen,
1846; 3d ed., 1855), to which, in 1885, was added
a third part under the title Gods openbaring de bron
van Godsdienst en Wijsbegeerte voor het menschdz»n
(2d revised ed., 1885). He expounded the principles
of the Groningen School in De Groninger Godgeleerden
en hunne eigenaardigheid (Groningen, 1855; Germ.
trawl., Gotha, 1863). In reply to Isaak da Costa's
attack on the Groningen School he wrote De berich
ten omtrent de Groninger Godgeleerde School van 1.
da Costa toegdicht (Groningen, 1848). His views
on " modern theology " are found in his works
Over moderns theologie . . . (2d ed., Groningen,
1863) and De moderns theologie in Nederland, volgens
do hoofdwerken harer beroemdste vooratanders (Gron
ingen, 1870; Germ. trawl. by W. Krafft, Bonn,
1870). 	(S. D. vAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPH7: The autobiographic Vijftig jaren in do
Theologie, Groningen, 1872; J. B. F. Heerspink, Dr. P. Hofatede de Groot's leven en werken, Groningen, 1898; H.
G. Braam, in Gsloof an Vriiheid, pp. 253‑313, Rotterdam,
1887; J. Offerhaus, in Lsumsberichten der qfgsatorvsa

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
8of
Holsteao
de bh
mdtleden roan de Maat‑3chappij der Nederlandechs Letterkunde, pp. 237‑309, Leyden, 1887 (contains lint of works).

HOGS, MOSES DRURY: Presbyterian; b. at Hampden Sidney, Va., Sept. 17, 1818; d. at Richmond, Va., Jan. 9, 1899. He was educated at Hampden Sidney College (B.A., 1839) and at Union Theological Seminary, Va. (then also at Hampden Sidney), from which he was graduated in 1843. He was a tutor in Hampden Sidney College (1839‑13), and after being assistant pastor to W. S. Plumer at the First Presbyterian Church, Richmond, Va. (1843‑45), founded the Second Presbyterian Church in the same city in 1845, of which he was pastor until his death. He rendered important service as a member of a committee to prepare a hymnal long used in his denomination and to revise its Directory of Worship, and in 1888 was chairman of a committee appointed by his Assembly to confer with a similar committee of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America regarding cooperation. In theology he held to the inerrancy of the Scriptures and to strict Calvinism as set forth in the Westminster standards. From 1854 to 1859 he was one of the proprietors and editors of The Central Pre8byterian (Richmond). A volume of his sermons was edited by his daughter under the title The Perfection of Beauty (Richmond, 1903).
BIBLIOGRAPHY; P. H. Hogs, Moves Drury Hoge: Life and Letters, Richmond, 1899.
HOHENALTHEIM, h6h"en‑alt'heim, SYNOD OF:
An assembly of Sept. 20, 916, in the Church of St. John spud Altheim in pogo Retia, i.e., the present Hohenaltheim, south of N6rdlingen, in Bavaria. The names of the bishops who were present are not preserved; the Saxon bishops kept aloof, but as those present considered themselves as a generalis synodue, it is probable that the bishops of the three remaining tribes appeared in full number. King Conrad did not take part, but the pope was represented by Bishop Peter von Orte. The purpose of the synod was to a certain extent political since the bishops in the interest of the kindgom united themselves against the rebellious leaders of the tribes in South Germany. Another aim was to strengthen the episcopate, which was menaced on many sides. Measures were adopted to protect church property, and to safeguard clerics and bishops against accusations of laymen and against unlawful insults by rebellious leaders. A set of resolutions aimed at the reform of the Church. In the political sphere the synod did not attain its purpose, as the attitude of King Conrad was as unfavorable afterward as before, but a great part of its resolutions entered into the collections of canon law. (A. HAUCg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The acts of the synod are preserved in a manuscript from Freieing now at Munich, and printed in MGH, Leg., ii. 1 (837), 554‑661. Consult Refele, Conaifisagsachichte, iv. 578‑587; Hauck KD, iii. 13 eqq.

HOHENLOHE, hbh'en‑loh"e, ALEXANDER LEOPOLD FRANZ EMMERICH, PRINCE OF: German Catholic; b. at Kupferzell (37 m. n.e. of Stuttgart), Wilrttemberg, Aug. 17, 1794; d. at VSslau (19 m. s.s.w. of Vienna) Nov. 17, 1849. His scientific and theological education at Vienna, Bern, and
elsewhere was frequently interrupted. In 1815 he
was ordained subdeacon and became domiciliarus at
Ohniltz. In 1816 he was ordained priest and un
dertook a journey to Rome which seems to have
decisively influenced him.	After his return to
Germany he lived at Munich, and in 1819 went
to Bamberg, preaching and writing and everywhere
finding popular response and esteem. In 1821 he
appeared at Wtirzburg where he made a great sen
sation as preacher, and it was here that he met
Martin Michel, a Franconian peasant, who performed
miraculous cures by means of prayer. Prince
Alexander himself wrought miracles, but yet he had
so many failures that his whole undertaking had
to be restricted. He retired to Austria and in 1825
was made canon at Grosswardein in Hungary, in
1829 grand provost, and in 1844 bishop of Sardica
in partibua. Driven from Hungary by the revolution
of 1848, he went to Innsbruck, in 1849 to Vienna,
and finally to V6slau. Of his numerous writings
may be mentioned his LichtNicke and Erlebniase
alts der Welt tend dem Priesterleben (Regensburg,
1836). 	(PAUL TBCHACKERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His life up to 1822 was written by C. G. Scharold, W OrsburL 1824. Consult: G. M. Pachtler, Biopraphieehe Notisen fiber . . . Prinsan Alexander, Augsburg, 1850; S. Brunner, Aug dam Nachksa des . . . HohenWe, Regensburg, 1851; ADS, xii. 883‑884; KL, vi. 163‑188.

HOLBACH, hsl"bas', PAUL HENRI THYRY, BARON D': French philosopher; b. at Heidelsheim (13 m. e.n.e. of Carlaruhe), Baden, 1723; d. in Paris June 21, 1789. At an early age he went to Paris, where he Tesided till his death. As he was a man of wealth and a good host, he was able to make his house the meeting‑place of the most eminent thinkers of the time. Among his friends were Condorcet, Diderot, Helvtstius, D'Alembert, and Rousseau. Holbach was himself one of the cleverest and most influential men of the group of freethinkers that assembled about him. He had much in common with the English deists and translated into French many works of deistic writers. He was one of the Encyclopedists (q.v.), and is known particularly as the champion of naturalism, or Materialism (q.v.). Adopting the current egoistic and sensualistic ethics of the period, he opposed Christianity and all positive religion as an impediment to the pursuit of happiness. Of his numerous antireligious and materialistic works, which were printed in foreign countries and published anonymously, all have now passed into oblivion except one, the famous Syst~me de la nature (2 vols., London [Amsterdam], 1770; Eng. tranals., Nature and her laws, 2 vols., 1820; The Syatem of Nature, London, 1884), which has been called the Bible of materialism. It should be added that in his personal life Holbach was better than his books. Despite his theories he was a man of the most unselfish benevolence: He was an egoist and materialist in the interest of humanity. See DE16m, II., § 2.
BIBLIoOBAPH7: A Brisf Sketch of as Life and Writings of the Baron d'Holbarh, London, 1834; C. Aveseo‑‑Lavigne. Diderot et la socifi du Baron d'Holbach, Paris, 1875; J. Morley, Baron Holbach's ' System of Nature,' in Portnighay Review, xxvifi (1877), 257‑284. The Eng. traneb. named in the text contain memoirs, the second by Charles Brad. laugh.

	a
Holiness of God	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	ale
HOLINESS OF GOD.
Etymology of the Hebrew Term ($ 1). Holiness in Objects (§ 2). Holiness in the People (¢ 3). The Primitive Content of " Holiness " (§ 4). Ethical Content of " Holiness " (1 5). Holiness as Transcendence (§ 6). Usage in the New Testament (§ 7). In Theology (¢ 8).
The word used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament for " holiness " is kadhesh, while " holy " is expressed by kadhosh, both connected
i. Etymol‑ with the denominative verb kadhash.
ogy of the The efforts to trace the origin of the
Hebrew	idea from the etymology have not been
	Term.	satisfactory. It has been connected
		(by Fleischer, Delitzsch, and Baudis
sin) with a root ,kadhadh, " to cut off, to separate,"
and so appears to have a purely negative connota
tion. But the word itself does not tell from what or
for what the separation takes place, leaving more
exact definition to be made by the limiting ex
pressions. Another derivation proposed (especially
by Dilhnann, on Isa. vi. 3 and in his Alttestament
liche Theologie) is from a root found in Arabic and
Ethiopic, kada, " to be pure, clear " (Assyrian
,kuddushu, " brilliant "; of. Hebr. hadhash, " new,
shining "). This derivation has the advantage over
the other that etymologically it gives a positive as
against a negative sense which applies easily to deity
and to divine things. Yet it is to be remembered
that holiness in the Old Testament is not necessarily
conjoined with the idea of brilliance. In the his
torical usage of the Old Testament kadhosh has
always a religious sense, and a better knowledge
will be gained from examination of the historical
usage than from investigation of etymological possi
bilities. Such an examination involves the double
question, what holiness means as applied to things
and persons and as applied to God.
Objects, times, and the like are called holy when they belong to God, are devoted or dedicated to him, are then no longer " profane or
z. Holiness common," and so are excluded from
	in Objects.	ordinary use. Examples of such things
		are the temple, the tabernacle, and their
belongings, the Sabbath and festivals, and heaven
as God's dwelling‑place (Lev. vi. 9 sqq., xix.; Ise.
lviii. 13, Ivij. 15). In such cases the idea of separa
tion is consequent upon the holiness of the things;
holiness is primary, separation is secondary. The
relation of the notion to persons is well exemplified
in Num. xvi. 5, 7. Priests and priestly persons are
holy doubtless because they belong to God; but
in this passage a weightier circumstance enters than
mere external relationship‑there is involved per
sonal quality. Whoever belongs to God must have
the essential character which accompanies such rela
tionship. This is brought out in relation to the
Nazirite in Num. vi. 5 sqq., and with especial
clearness in I Sam. xxi. 6 in connection with the
gift of the shewbread to David. So, according to
Lev. xxi. 5 sqq., it is expected of the Levite that his
relation to deity and the consequent holiness will
affect and govern his external relations‑he will not
make himself impure by contact with a corpse, by
shaving his head, or by taking other than a virgin as
his wife. Another kind of holiness is stated in Isa. iv. 3, where those remaining in Jerusalem are holy, but because the "filth" of the women is washed away and Zion's blood‑guiltiness is done away. The underlying fact here, too, is not mere relationship to deity, but ethical quality is implied (cf. Isa. j. 26).
The same idea comes out in relation to the people as a whole in Num. xvi. 3, in that they are holy just
as the priests are holy (verse 5). They 3. Holiness belong to God, who dwells among
in the them; they are in a connection of
People. special nearness to him, are his pos‑
session, and have the right of approach to him (cf. Ex. xix. 4 sqq.), and consequently are under certain obligations to exhibit ethical or religious qualities. Holiness here, therefore, implies a condition and a demand; it involves both cultic and ethical requirements (Lev. xix. 2, " Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy "). This is the point of view of the entire Holiness Code in Lev. m. sqq., especially xi. 44‑45, which gives expressly both external ritual and ethical duties. Thus the double conception of holiness comes to light. On the one side Israel, as exemplifying the holiness of God, is not to touch or deal with certain impure things, and is to keep certain observances; on the other, Israel is to honor father and mother, to do righteousness, to practise charity and eschew evil. So in Ex. xix. 5‑6 it appears that if Israel keeps the commands of God it will be God's possession and a kingdom of priests and a holy people, showing the underlying conception of character as belonging essentially to the idea. And this is rooted in the thought of the possession by God of the people which is to be holy. The conception of separation is, therefore, throughout only secondary.
The term kadhosh in its application to God, however, implies throughout, both etymologically and
historically, a negative sense. If things 4. The and persons are not in themselves holy,
Primitive but are so because they belong to God,
Content of holiness as applied to him must involve " Holiness." what is essential to his attributes as
deity and what is worthy of him. But just what this involves is not stated in the Old Testament in any simple formula which is good for all steps in the development which the idea certainly underwent. In early times in the mind of the people the holiness of God implied something fearful and unapproachable; in the height of the prophetic age, the content was strongly ethical; in the law and whatever was connected with it the transcendence of God came out as the motive of the ritual and service. The earlier and popular notion comes out in such passages as Lev. x. 2‑3; I Sam. vi. 20, where the idea of God is that of a power who by destruction punishes those who by coming near to him invade his holiness. To such a being access can be had only through painstaking preparation and care. The inclusion of this idea in the late Priest Code proves only how tenacious the idea was.
But this is only one side of the thought. As soon as God came to be conceived as an ethical being, kadhosh came to have an ethical content, not because in itself it meant " pure," but because it was applied to deity to whom that quality was at‑

817	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Holiness of God
tributed. So Amos (ii. 6‑7) speaks of the unethical dealings of Israel as acts which profane the holy name of Yahweh. The " holy " name
5. Ethical of Yahweh is his name and his being as
Content of God of Israel and of the world, "Holiness." and since this being is regarded as ethical in essence, the conception of holiness is that of ethical purity. When, then, in Amos iv. 2 God swears by his holiness, it does not mean by his majesty; and when, in vi. 8, he swears by himself he must swear at least by his ethical majesty and sublimity. Similarly, in Hos. xi. 9 God is represented as asserting the difference between himself and man as the ground why he will not utterly destroy Ephraim. This ethical content must exist also in the passage Isa. vi. 3 sqq., where the prophet as a sinful man fears lest he be consumed by the holy God, because as a sinful man he has come near to the ethically pure and sublime Being. The idea of the unapproachability of God remains, but it is epiritualized and totally changed. So in the speech of the seraphim a difference is expressed in the words " holy " and " glory " (kabhodh); the first expresses the essence of God's being, the second the external manifestation of His holiness. Similarly the prophet speaks of the " Holy One of Israel " when he wishes to express the inner essence of God as related to Israel, while, as suggested by Ps. xviii., the expression " glory of Israel " is available to convey the idea of his external manifestations. Yet the two ideas of holiness and glorification are brought together in Lev. x. 3, in which God is sanctified to the priests and glorified to the people. The people see the glory of Yahweh, the priests have closer access and know more of his essential character.
When Israel began to express the idea of God in an emphatic exposition of his ethical and spiritual character, the growth of the notion of
6. Holiness holiness in this sense became more ex‑
as Tran‑ tended. .This took form in the idea of
	scendence.	transcendence and sublimity, and is
		found especially in Ezekiel and the
Priest Code expressing itself not merely in the
ethical, but also in the cultic and ceremonial purity
of mankind. It is this thought which dominates
the legal provisions, that Israel is to exemplify the
holiness of God. And the sense of the sin of man
enhanced the emphasis upon the transcendence and
supermundane essence of deity and the recession of
deity to a distance from man. So it is at this point
that the idea of separateness reenters. And the
separateness of Israel from the Gentiles butmirrors
that of God from the world, viewed in this aspect
(Lev. xx. 26). But the ethical remains dominant.
Dishonoring of parents is forbidden, not because
to do it is heathen, but because it is unethical. The
same point of view comes out in Ezekiel, though not
with the same emphasis. Thus in xxxvi. 25 sqq. the
purification from all defilement and the renewing of
the heart through the spirit of God is the essence
of the sanctifying activity of God.
A review of the entire case as presented in the Old Testament makes evident that it is not a proper conclusion to assert that the idea of the holiness of God is but one side of his essential being; rather it is the comprehensive designation for the total
content of the divine Being in his relation to the
external world. So that the "holiness" of .God
expresses all that is implied in the word kabhodh,
" glory "; while the latter expresses in particular
the divine majesty. The development of the thought
therefore shows first an extension from the popular
idea of unapproachableness to that of sublimated
ethical purity which sinks again to a partial ex
pression of externalized or transcendental separa
tion. 	(R. KITTEL.)
	Several words are used to convey the idea of holi
ness in the New Testament‑hagios, hagnos, and
derivatives from these. Hagiazein signifies to cause
to share in God's holiness, whether the act is re
ferred to God or to men. Hagiasmos designates
		either the process of making holy
7. Usage in (I Thess. iv. 3; I Pet. i. 2) or the re‑
Ihe flew silt of this process (Rome v. 22, vi. 19;
Testament. Heb. xii. 14). Hagiosune stands for the holy character which corresponds to the gospel (II Cor. vii. 1; I Thess. iii. 13), also for the inner spirit of Jesus (Rome i. 4). Hagiotes describes either the holy character of man (II Cor. i. 12) or of God (Heb. xii. 10). Hagnos, from the same root as hagios, in the New Testament as in classical Greek refers to chastity (Tit. ii. 5; I Pet. iii. 2), to sincerity (II Cor. xi. 2‑3) or freedom from defilement (Phil. iv. 8; I Tim. v. 22; Jas. iii. 17). Hagios like hagiazean has reference either to God or to some aspect of his creation, especially men, as objects of God's electing and redeeming grace. In general holiness is applied (1) to God. It represents his ethical purity and perfection manifested in reaction against sin, but also in cleansing and finally redeeming those whom he elects (Luke i. 49; John xvii. 11; I Pet. i. 15‑16). (2) Since holiness is the essential characteristic of God, the same is true of the Spirit of God. He is holy, as the principle of the divine self‑communication (I Cor. ii. 10; Mark xi. 13), the permanent principle of the new life (Mark i. 8; Rom. xv. 16; Tit. iii. 5), and of special divine gifts (Luke i. 15, 35, 67). (3) Jesus as holy occupies a unique relation to God (Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; John vi. 69; Acts iv. 30), and in virtue of an act of self‑dedication (John xvii. 19) he stands in a peculiar relation to men, partly with reference to his name or mystic union with him, and partly as the cause of their sanctification (I Cor. vi. 11, i. 2; Eph. v. 26; Heb. ii. 11). (4) Holiness is also applied to men who are called to share the holiness of God (John xvii. 17; I Cor. i. 2; II Cor. vii. 1; Eph. i. 4); or they are designated simply as holy or saints (Mark vi. 20; Luke i. 70; Eph. i. 1, iii. 5; Rev. xiii. 10), or there is here the characteristic term for Christians in general (Acts ix. 13, xx. 32; I Cor. xvi. 1). It is also the description of those who are set apart for the service of God (cf. John x. 36). (5) The term has further to do with persons and things set apart as already belonging to God (" the name," Luke xi. 2; " blood of the covenant," Heb. x. 29; " Christ as Lord," I Pet. iii. 15), or as associated with God for an ethical end (" every creature," I Tim. iv. 5; " vessels unto honor," II Tim. ii. 21). (6) Finally it concerns objects which derive their character from their relation to God, as a given place (Matt. xxiv.

ga °_ God	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	818
15; Acts xxi. 28), city (Rev. xxi, 2), law (Rom. vii. 21), the Scriptures (Rom. i. 2), calling (II Tim. i. 9), covenant (Luke i. 72), and nation (I Pet. ii. 9). From the foregoing, it is evident that while the idea of holiness in the New Testament follows lines already clearly marked in the Old Testament, it is characterized by a distinctive difference. It is, e.g., finally emancipated from all ceremonial associations. As applied to God, it is no longer as in contemporary Judaism connected with transcendence in the sense of exaltation and aloofness from the world and men. Its sole reference is as in Hos. xi. 9 to the inner essence of the nature of God, whether God is thought of as a personal being or in relation to men. It is true that holiness as the designation of God is far less frequent in the New than in the Old Testament and the term holiness is giving place to that of love, but this does not justify the contention of Ritschl that its meaning in the New Testament is lacking in clearness and that it is not valid fqr Christianity (Juatif catian and Reconciliation, iii. 255, Edinburgh, 1900). No tension is affirmed as between holiness and love; holiness is rather the essential quality of love viewed in relation to the inner side of God's character as perfect consistency with the ethical ideal of personality. As applied to men, holiness is also freed from all ceremonial content and refers only to their God or Christlike character and deeds.
In theology, the holiness of God has several references‑an immanent predicate of his nature, a transitive attribute of activity, which, moreover, sustains a particular relation to love in the doctrine of the atonement. As an immanent predicate of the divine Being, it designates the inmost and
fundamental essence of God in which
8. In all other properties are embraced and Theology. from which all activities originate.
Something of its etymological significance has always clung to it; God is supramundane, exalted, incorruptible, absolutely unique. In comparison with the defects and impurity of the world, he is the perfectly pure and spotless One. Holiness in God is the " infinite beauty and excellence of his nature " (Jonathan Edwards, Essay on the Trinity, ed. G. P. Fisher, p. 97, New York, 1903), " the perfect agreement of the divine willing with the divine being " (G. Thomasius, Christi Person and Werk, i. 137, Erlangen, 1856), " Conformity to his own perfect nature " (W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, i. 362, New York, 1888). On account of this inner essential excellence, God is the absolutely good Being; from this fact springs his ethical sovereignty; here too is found the principle which determines his redemptive activity. Holiness is also a transitive attribute of God. In this sense it was defined by Baier as the " rectitude of the divine will in virtue of which he wills all that is just and good in accordance with his eternal law." Quenstedt held that it is the " supreme, faultless purity in God which demands from his creatures a corresponding purity." According to Schleiermacher it is the " legislative divine causality in human life." Holiness is that attribute in God by which in all his relations to moral beings he maintains and realizes his ethical perfection.
Thus " he is the one unconditioned Law of the good, the Power which both must and does react against the evil" (F. A. B. Nitzsch, Dogmatik, p. 415, Freiburg, 1902). It is therefore directed not merely to the conquest and eradication of sin, but to the creation and perfection of the highest good and the kingdom of God. So far as holiness involves the consistency of God's holy action with reference to men, it is designated as Righteousness (q.v.). Since the Reformation, holiness has been conceived with special regard to love: holiness the fundamental attribute of God, love conditioned and limited by it. Thus, it has been affirmed that God may be merciful but he must be just. Mercy may exist under conditions which preclude its expression; holiness, never, since the very existence of holiness is dependent on its being exercised. Mercy is therefore optional, but justice is necessitated. The significance of this conception of the relation of holiness to love appears in the doctrine of the atonement, where the application of mercy‑once justice is satisfied‑is limited to those whom God has chosen (Calvin, Institutes, III., xxiii. 11; J. Owen, Works, " Dissertation on the Divine Justice," x. 48324; W. G. T. Shedd, op. cit., i. 218219, 319‑390; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, i. 296, Philadelphia, 1907). Holiness and love have also been related to each other as distinct attributes of God, but yet not as implying conflict or requiring reconciliation. God's action in redemption thus equally expresses both qualities, and each of these is as fundamental as the other. The distinction between holiness and love, however, except so far as love is regarded as primarily emotional in content, is hard to maintain and in the discusion tends to fade out (W. N. Clarks, Christian Theology, pp. 83‑93, New York, 1898). The reason for this is not far to seek. If love is regarded se the supreme designation of God in the New Testament (I John iv. 16), we shall find in the history of the idea of God the explanation of what would otherwise not be clear. Holiness, God's elevation above the world, his ethical absoluteness, his persistent reaction against sin, and as such the moral ideal of his people's life, was the earlier form of the idea of God (Lev. xx. 2). Later, both experience and reason yielded up that wider interpretation of the character of God in relation to men which is registered in the term " righteousness." In Jesus' consciousness, however, appears the full disclosure of the divine nature and will; the Fatherhood of God lays bare the hidden depths of God's being. The association of the terms " holy " and " righteous " in Jesus' prayer in the upper room as descriptive of " Father " is in the highest degree significant (John xvii. 11, 2b). Instead, therefore, of being left behind in Christianity (cf.
A. Ritsehl, Justification and Reconciliation, iii. 255),
or regarding it as antagonistic to love, " holiness " and " righteousness " are the earlier ,yet integral forms through which God was leading his people to the perfect knowledge of himself as love. It is an anachronism in the doctrine of the atonement to set holiness over against love, as having to be satisfied ere love can come to expression. On the other hand, to express the divine purpose of love to set

819	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Holiness of Clod
		Holland
	men free from sin, the term " holy love " states the
	essential truth (cf. T. Haering, Der Chriatliche
Glaube, pp. 217‑219, Calw, 1906).
	C. A. BncswITH.
	BIHLIOUSAPHr: Achelie, in TBK, xzi (1847), 187 eqq.; J.
	M. Rupprecht, in TBK, xxiii (1849), 684 eqq.; J. C. K.
	von Hofmann, Bchriftbewess, i. 81 eqq., Nbrdfngen, 1857;
	K. C. W. F. Bghr, 3ymbolik des mosdisclun Kuttua, i. 48
	eqq., 430 eqq., ii. 20 eqq., 173 eqq., Heidelberg, 1874,
	1839; H. Ewald, Die Lehre der Bibel von Goff, iL 237
	sqq., Leipsie, 1874; B. Duhm, Theologis der Prophslen,
	pp. 189 eqq., Bonn, 1875; W. von Baudissin, Studien cur
	semitisden Relipionspeachichta, ii. 1 eqq., Leipsie, .1878;
	A. Ritschl, Die duidliche Lahre von der Rechwertipunp and
	Verabhnunp, 189 sqq, Bonn, 1889; Smith, Prophets, pp
	224 sqq., 422; idem, Rel. of Son., pp. 91, 140 sqq.; the
	works on O. T. Theology by P. Scholz, Regensburg, 1881;
	H. Schultz, C78ttingen, 1895, Eng. trans]., London, 1892;
	A. Dillmann, Leipsic, 1895; R. Emend, Freiburg, 1899;
	and A. Kayser. ed. K. Marti, Strasburg, 1903; and the
	commentaries on the books containing the passages cited
in the text.
	ROLL, KARL: German Protestant; b. at Ti1
	bingen May 15, 1866. He studied at the university
	of his native city (Ph.D., 18$9), and, after being
	an assistant in the preparation of the edition of the
	Church Fathers by the Berlin Academy of Sciences
	for two years, became privat‑docent at the Univer
	sity of Berlin in 1896. In 1898 he was made titular
	professor at. the same university, but resigned in
	1900 to accept the position of associate professor
	of church history at Tilbingen, returning to Berlin
	in 1907 as full professor in the same subject. He
	bas written Die Sacra Parallels des Johannes Damae
	zenus (Leipsic, 1896); Enthusiaamus and Bumgewadt
beim griechischen Mfchtum (1898);	Fragmente
	vornicdniecher Kirchenvdter aus den Sacra Parallela
	(1899); Amphilochus von Ikonium in deinem Ver
	hdltnis zu den gromen Kappadoztern (Tiibingen,
1904); and Moderni8mua (1908).
HOLLAND.
I. Protestant Churches. 1. The Reformed Church. 2. The Christian Reformed Church. 3. The Lutheran Church.
4. Baptists.
b. Remonetrsnts.
II. The Roman Catholic Church.
III. The Janeaniet Church.
IV. The Jews.
The kingdom of Holland (or the Netherlands), on the western border of Continental Europe, has an area of 12,650 square miles and a population (1905) of 5,591,701, of whom about three‑fifths are Protestants. The conversion of the Netherlands was begun under Dagobert I. (628‑838), continued by Willibrord (q.v.), and completed by Charlemagne toward the end of the eighth century. The inhabitants now enjoy full religious liberty. The adherents of the several sects have equal civil and religious rights and privileges, and enjoy complete freedom of administration in everything refitting to their religion and its exercise. The several religious bodies, save the Christian Reformed Church, and a new body called "The Reformed Churches" (1892), which refuse such aid, are subsidized by the state. In the northeastern parts of the country Protestantism prevails, in the southern parts Roman Catholicism, while in the central parts both these forma are fairly well represented. During the last century there has been a slow but steady increase of Protestants and Jews, and a corresponding decrease of Roman Catholics.
I. Protestant Churches.‑1. The Reformed Church (DTederlanwh Hervormde Herkgenoot~ohap): This body took its rise at the beginning of the Reformation. Its doctrines and polity began to be formulated as early as 1566, and after passing through successive revisions took a form at the Synod of Dort (1619), which lasted with unimportant changes for a couple of centuries. It was not, however, until the Pesos of Westphalia (1648) that the Reformed religion became the recognized religion of the country. Its adherents constituted the national church. In the interval between 1795 and 1818 the national church suffered greatly from lack of support. All income from the state was cut off, and the clergy were reduced to the greatest straits. When William I. became king in 1818 he called a general synod (the first since the Synod of Dort is 1819) and offered to support the Church if it would accept a constitution modified to suit his views. The Church yielded, and the older strictly Presbyterian form of government was greatly modified and made bureaucratic. General synods have been held yearly since 1816, but they consist of less than twenty members; and in all the higher church assemblies administrative boards direct all ecclesiastical affairs. This change in the government then met with no opposition except from the classic of Amsterdam, the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth volumes of whose minutes (17901818) are filled with memorials, protests, and petitions relating to the changes then occurring in the government of the Church. The constitution, finally accepted in 1816, is still the basis of the existing church‑order, since it gave shape to " The General Regulations of the Reformed Church " made in 1852. But, while these latter gave to that body greater independence than was possessed by the articles of 1816, it was still hampered by many conditions. These conditions were annulled in 1870. In 1857, under the influence of the Liberals and the Romanista, the government banished religious instruction from the schools; and in 1876 it changed the theological faculties in the universities into faculties of comparative religion; but funds were granted to the National Synod for special theological instruction. But, when rationalists secured these professorships, the orthodox party established a Free Reformed University at Amsterdam in 1880. The same party has secured free schools all over Holland in which Evangelical religion is taught.
The Reformed Church embraces a large portion of the Reformed elements in the country, including the Walloons, the English Presbyterians, and the Scotch congregations. The congregations are divided into forty‑four classes (or presbyteries), and these are subdivided into 148 smaller groups, called rings, or circuits, for convenient conferences. There are ten provincial synods, and s Walloon Commission. There is one general synod, which consists of only nineteen members, thirteen of whom are ministers, and six are elders. The choice of these is made by the provincial synods, the members of the latter being elected by the classes. The classical assemblies are the characteristic feature of the organism of the Church. They

Holland	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	320
meet yearly for the election of officers and the consideration of such topics as are presented to them by the synod. While in the other assemblies the ministers are twice as many as the elders, the classes are composed of all the ministers within the bounds and an elder from each congregation. The local congregations are governed by their consistories, consisting of an equal number of elders and deacons. Since 1867 the members of the consistory have been chosen by a college of representatives, the latter being chosen by the whole body of adult members, except those supported by the poor funds. It is this participation of the members in the elections which has brought the Church back to orthodoxy. In 1898 the Church had 1,348 churches and 1,606 ministers. The Walloons or French congregations are mostly composed of the descendants of the refugees driven by persecution from France and Flanders; but as these gradually blended with the Netherlanders their numbers decreased. While in 1815 they had thirty‑five churches and forty‑seven ministers, in 1898 they had only sixteen churches and twenty four ministers. There have been in all between thirty and forty British Presbyterian churches in Holland and Belgium, not to speak of English Congregational and Episcopal churches and Quaker meetings. Of the Presbyterian churches only those of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Middelburg remain; and these, as well as the Walloon churches, are now included in the Reformed Church. The management of church property was directed for a time by decrees of William I., issued in 1819 and 1833, but these decrees were annulled in 1869. Since that time most of the congregations have placed themselves under a " Committee of Control," while the others are independent.
From the beginning of the independence of Holland the ministers were generally trained at the state universities, where theological faculties were constituted for that purpose; yet a course in the universities was not obligatory. The law of 1877 released the faculty from the duty of teaching the theology of the confessions, while in each university two professors, nominated by the synod of the Reformed Church, are charged with the duty of lecturing on dogmatic and practical theology. During the entire period of the Dutch Republic the classic of Amsterdam was the great agency of Holland, and largely of all Continental Europe, for carrying on mission work among twenty colonies as well as among the heathen. Her deputati ad res externs, as exhibited by their minutes and correspondence, show an amount of work in this line almost appalling. But neither foreign nor domestic missions are now carried on by the Church or its officers, as such; yet the subject of missions has grown in interest during recent years. Besides the Moravian Society, which has long labored in the West Indies, there was for many years only the Netherlands Missionary Society, founded in 1797. But in 1881 no less than ten missionary societies existed for sending missionaries to non‑Christian countries. There is also one society laboring especially among the Jews. The number of the church members in the Dutch missions is about 100,000. They have 200 schools attended by about 14,000
scholars. The public schools of Holland are now confessionless, but there are hundreds of private parochial schools supported by Protestants or Roman Catholics. Two considerable associations have been formed, one in 1860 and another in 1877, to support and extend such schools. Evangelistic work is carried on by several associations of believers. Activity in this direction, as well as other philanthropic work, for example, work for homeless children, for fallen women, for the blind, etc., is ever on the increase; but the desirable cooperation of all the religious bodies is yet wanting.
2. The Christian Reformed Church (Chrietelifke Ciereformeerde gerken): At the general synod of 1816 (see above) a slight, though important, change in the subscription form for candidates gave occasion for a great controversy. The question arose whether the standards of doctrine were authoritative because they agreed with the Word of God, or so far as they agreed therewith. The synod of 1835 gave the right to every candidate to decide this for himself. This, it was believed, gave liberty for the introduction of all manner of error, as well as for its propagation. Royal mandates also often interfered with the internal affairs of the Church. The " New Regulations " adopted in 1816 and the administrative committees then formed controlled everything. With the deposition of one of the Evangelical ministers; De Cock, because he would not conform in certain matters, a crisis came in 1834, and the Evangelical party came into conflict with the authorities, and a secession was resolved upon. The movement was supported by Da Costa and Groen van Prinsterer, although they never left the old Church. It was embarrassed, however, by an ancient law, forbidding the assembling together of more than twenty persons, outside the recognized churches, for public worship. In 1836 a royal decree, repeated in 1841, confirmed this law, yet it pointed out a way by which new congregations could be legally constituted. The seceders organized the Christian Reformed Church, declaring that they did not wish to secede from the Church, but only from the bureaucratic administrative committee. Large multitudes soon joined them. In 1836 their first synodical meeting was held. Revivals followed the purer preaching of the Word, and new churches were organized; but many fines and imprisonments followed. The result was that emigration was determined upon by several pastors with their entire flocks. These began to come to America about 1846, settling in Michigan and other States of the Middle West. After half a century these pilgrim Dutch churches, partly under their own name and partly under the Reformed Church in America, now number about 400 (see REFORMED CHURCHES). New decrees in Holland, in 1849, 1852, 1868, abrogated all restrictions. The separated churches at length secured a legal standing, except that they received no support from the state. These churches adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Synod of Dort, and thus stand in agreement with the Reformed Church in America. Their general synod meets triennially. In 1854 they established their theological school at Kampen; and in 1879 arrangements were also made for higher education by the founding of

321	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8011
the Free University of Amsterdam. This thriving seceder Church in Holland had 276 churches in 1860 and 400 in 1900. It,has exerted a most happy influence upon the old Reformed Church by reviving the power of the Reformation faith in that body.
In 1892 a union was effected between the Synod of " The Christian Reformed Church "‑with the exception of a small protesting body‑and a certain Provisional Synod of " Dutch Reformed Churches," known as the " Doleerende Kerken," originating in 1886, and claiming to be the successors in doctrine of the Synod of Dort of 1619. These united bodies style themselves the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (" de Gereformeerde Kerken in.Nederland "). They have more than 700 churches and represent one‑tenth of the entire population. This knew body at once gave Notice to all other Reformed or Presbyterian churches, in all lands, of its formar tion, its doctrine and polity, and invited correspondence and exchange of delegates. The Reformed Church in America at once entered into correspondence with this body, and appoints delegates regularly to its triennial general synods.
8. The Lutheran Church: The Reformation in Holland started simultaneously with, but independently of, the Lutheran Reformation in Germany; but Lutherans soon penetrated also into Holland. This form of Protestantism, however, was always of minor importance in that country. The first congregation was at Woerden, which adopted the Augsburg Confession in 1566. In 1605 a union was effected among seven Lutheran ministers, who agreed on a system of faith and a liturgy. This union developed by 1612 into the so‑called " Lutheran Brotherhood," which held conventions once in five years. The last Lutheran synod under the Republic met in 1696. In 1818 King William I. gave a new organization to the Evangelical Lutheran Church. This was modified in 1855 and again in 1859, so as to render the Church independent of all state control. Since 1819 their synod has held annual meetings, consisting of fifteen members, eight of whom are ministers. Each local church is governed by a consistory. At first their ministers were all educated in Germany, but in 1816 a Lutheran seminary was founded in Amsterdam. Like all other Protestant bodies, this church was affected, more or less, by the rationalism of the period. A reaction began about 1791, and a rupture occurred between the rationalists and those who insisted on returning to the old confessions and liturgy. An " Old Lutheran Church " finally obtained legal standing in 1835, and further legal confirmation in 1866. Its affairs are directed by an assembly of seventeen members, nine of whom must be ministers. Candidates for the ministry were at first instructed in different schools in Amsterdam, but since 1877 in the University of Amsterdam, where a Lutheran minister teaches theology. The sharp differences between the two bodies gradually subsided, and in 1874 they were reunited. The Evangelical Lutheran Church is divided into the seven districts of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Haarlem, Groningen, and Hertogenbosch, and numbers at present forty‑nine congregations and nine mission congregations, with sixty‑one active ministers. The
V.‑21
seminary of this body is connected with the University of Amsterdam. The Revived (Hersteld) Evangelical Lutheran Church has at present eight congregations with eleven active pastors. All these congregations are free to call their pastors and are independent in government. There are also churches styled the Evangelical Brotherhood at Zeist and Haarlem, and German Evangelical churches at The Hague, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam.
4. Baptists: This body is often called Mennonites from Menno Simons (q.v.). They rejected infant baptism. For a time they had no central organization, and hence several divisions existed among them, but these were harmonized in 1650. Doctrinal differences subsequently sprang up. The orthodox took the name of Zonists, and the liberals that of Lamists. The names were derived from the armorial bearings of their respective localities; but in 1801 the two divisions reunited. One special feature of this Church is its confessional freedom. There is no common standard of doctrine. Whoever makes a sincere confession of sin, and promises to lead a righteous life, is admitted to membership, without regard to his views of the person and work of Christ. As a rule, only regularly educated persons enter the ministry, but there is also. a class of " exhorters." In 1811 a General Society was formed for the encouragement of theological education and for the support of the ministry among the poorer congregations. At the same time they enlarged the curriculum of their seminary, which was founded in 1731. They had in 1898 116 congregations. All the congregations have perfect freedom in calling ministers and are independent in government. See MENNONITES. [There are in the Netherlands several Baptist churches of the Anglo‑American type.
A. H. N.]
6. Remonstrants: This body, dating from about 1618, in regulations revised in 1879 set forth the aim of the body to be " to further the Christian life on the basis of the Gospel, while at the same time holding fast to freedom and toleration." The control of the body is vested in an assembly which meets annually. It is composed of the professors, all the ministers, delegates from the congregations, and a few others. A permanent committee of five members executes the resolutions of the assembly, and supervises the administration. But this body is gradually declining. The Church of Rotterdam is their principal church, having about 600 memklers. They have freedom in making calls and are independent in government. See REmoNsTRANTs.
II. The Roman Catholic Church: At the time of the Reformation the Netherlands belonged to the bishopric of Utrecht. In 1559 this was made an archbishopric. After the death of Ferdinand Schenk van Toutenberg in 1580, the last archbishop, the ecclesiastical affairs of Holland were administered by apostolic vicars. From 1717 onward papal legates took control. They were called vice‑superiors and dwelt at Cologne or Brussels. Since 1840 Dutch ecclesiastical affairs have been under a papal internuncio at The Hague, and three apostolic vicars, located at Hertogenbosch, Breda, and Limbursch. The overthrow of the State Church in 1796 led to renewed activity among the Romanists. The

Holland	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	822
hierarchy was reestablished in 1853, with a great increase of priests. Many of the priests are engaged in schools and administration. In the reconstituted hierarchy Holland forms one province, divided into five dioceses, namely, the archbishopric of Utrecht, with suffragans at Haarlem, Hertogenbosch, Breda, and Roermond. Each diocese has a chapter, consisting of a dean and eight canons, who are the bishop's council and who meet monthly. In case of vacancies they name three persons, from whom the pope selects the successor. Each diocese has a seminary for priests, under the bishop, who names all the professors.
Ill. The Jansenist Church: For an account of this body the reader is referred to the article JANSENIST CHURCH IN HOLLAND.
IV. The Jews: The number of Jews in Holland was not large until Holland had gained her independence. They came principally from the Iberian Peninsula and Germany. After the Union of Utrecht in 1579 Jews of Spain and Portugal fled to Holland, became strong supporters of the House of Orange, and received from it corresponding protection. The Portuguese Jews in Holland were richer and more refined than the German Jews, but the latter were far more numerous. Between these two bodies there was at first but little intercourse; but the German Jews gradually increased in wealth and culture, while the Portuguese Jews in their affluence either stood still or retrograded. There were also some differences in their ritual and ceremonies, and in the pronunciation of the Hebrew language. These circumstances tended to prevent close relationship at first; but in 1814 a union was effected, and rabbinical vacancies were thenceforth filled from either nationality.
The German Jews incorporated their brethren, who were already settled in the Netherlands, with themselves, and subsequently many other Jewish refugees from eastern Europe. All these collectively now constitute the Netherlandish Israelite Society. The German Jews began to enter Holland in considerable numbers about 1615; and although they were never so highly esteemed nor had enjoyed such privileges as the Portuguese Jews, yet their congregation at Amsterdam, established in 1636, is the central congregation of Jews in Holland. Their petition in 1648 to be allowed to build a synagogue was at first refused. But their ranks were so largely increased during the two or three decades following that permission was granted them, and (in 1671) they erected a great synagogue in Amsterdam, which stands to this day. In this they are all united to form one great congregation. Political equality was not secured by them until 1796. The first decree for the management of their affairs was issued in 1808. This made one supreme consistory over all German Jews in Holland. When the country became a French province in 1813 this consistory was for a time subordinate to the central Jewish consistory at Paris; but in 1816 William I. appointed " A General Commission of Advice " for all Jews in the kingdom. A definite organization was not attained until 1870. The affairs of the Netherlandish Israelite Society are now in the hands of a central board, which meets annually, while a permanent
committee of three sitting in Amsterdam attends to current business. The Portuguese Jews were permitted to build a synagogue at Amsterdam as early as 1597. Others were soon built, including one at The lftague. Their school, established at Amsterdam in 1639, developed into a rabbinical seminary, and still exists. Since 1870 their affairs are managed by a central board. The society at The Hague has one rabbi, while that at Amsterdam has a college with three associates. In 1900 the number of Jews in Holland was 103,988. Of these, 64,748 were Holland Jews, 5,645 were Portuguese Jews.
E. T. CORWIN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: General and statistical are: P. H. Wicksteed, The Ecclesiastical Institutions of Holland, London, 1875; J. R. Gunning, Het Protestanache Nederland onzer Dapen, Groningen, 1889; M.. W. L. van Alphen, Nieuw Kerkehjk Handboek (annual). For the Protestants consult: G. Brandt, Hist. of the Reformation in and about the Low Countries, 4 vols., London, 1720; J. M. Neale, Hist. of the So‑called Janwnist Church of Holland, ib. 1858 J. Knappert, De Nederlandeche Hervmmde Kerk, Leyden, 1883; M. G. Hausen, The Reformed Church in the Netherlands, New York, 1884; G. J. Vos, De tepenwoordipe inricting der Vaderlandache Kerk, Dort, 1884; D. van Pelt, A Church and her Martyrs, New York, 1889; J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, and History of the United Netherlands, in his Works 7 vols., New York, 1900; H. J. A. Copeens, Alpemeen Ovxzicht der Kerkgeschiedenis van Noord‑Nederland, Utrecht 1902; Hvon' Hoffmann, Das Kirchenverfaseunperecht der niedrl8ndiechen Reformierten bis 1618, Leipsie, 1902; J. Kuiper, Oeschiedenis van hit godedienatip en Kerkehjk Leven van hat Nederlandache Volk, Nijkerk, 1902‑03; Nederland8che evanpelisch protestantache Vereenipung, 18631808, The Hague, 1903; C. W. van Boetselser van Dubbeldam, De pereformeerde Kerken in Nederland en de Zending in Oost‑India in de dapen der Ooshlndische compagnie, Utrecht, 1906; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neueden Kirchengeschichle, iv. 451‑479, Berlin, 1901. For the Catholics and Old Catholics: De Oud‑Katholieken in Nederland, The Hague, 1872; Bijdragen voar de geachiedenie der Roomach‑Katholieks Kerk in Nederland, Rotterdam 1888; F. A. van Kerkhoff, Ben Terugblik op hit heretel der Hierarchic in Nederland, Vlaardingen, 1893; P. H. Albers, Geachiadenis van hot hratel der Hierarchic in do Nederlanden, 2 vols., Nijmegen, 1903‑04; F. Nippold, ut sup., ii. 412430.
HOLLAND, HENRY SCOTT: Church of England; b. at Ledbury (13 m. e. of Hereford), Herefordshire, Jan. 27, 1847. He studied at Balliol College, Oxford, (B.A., 1870), and was senior student at Christ Church, Oxford, from 1870 to 1885, and theological tutor in the same college from 1872 to 1885. In 1883,84 he was honorary canon of St. Petroc in Truro Cathedral and examining chaplain to the bishop of Truro in 1883‑1904. He was commissary to the bishop of Brisbane from 1885 to 1903, and has been examining chaplain to the bishop of St. Andrews since 1893, and to the bishop of Oxford since 1901. Since 1884 he has been a canon of St. Paul's Cathedral. In addition to editing Commonwealth since 1899 and contributing Faith to Charles Gore's Lux Mundi (London, 1889), and Church and State to the same theologian's Essays in Aid of the Reform of the Church, (1898), as well as The Obligation of Civil Law to J. E. Hand's Good Citizenship (1899), he has written The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1878); Four Addresses on the Sacrifice of the Cross (1879); Logic and Life, with Other Sermons (1882); Good Friday Addresses at St. Paul's Cathedral (1884); Christ or Ecclesiastes (1887); Creed and Character (1887); On Behalf of

823	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Holland
		Holste
Belief (1888); Memoir of Madame Jenny Lind
Goldschmidt (in collaboration with W. S. Rockstro;
2 vols., 1891); Pleas and Claims for Christ (1892);
God's City and the Coming of the Kingdom (1894);
Old and New (1900); Personal Studies (1905); and
Vital Values (1906). A selected collection of his
writings was edited by J. H. Burn under the title
Helps to Faith and Practice (London, 1900).
	HOLLATZ (HOLLATIUS), DAVID: 1. Lutheran
dogmatician; b. at Wulkow, near Stargard (21 m.
e.s.e. of Stettin), in Pomerania, 1648; d. at Jakobs
hagen (15 m. e. of Stargard) Apr. 17, 1713. He
studied at Erfurt and Wittenberg, and became
preacher at Patzeriin near Stargard in 1670, at
Stargard in 1681 (in 1683 also conrector), rector in
Colberg in 1684, and pastor in Jakobshagen in 1692:
His principal work is his Examen theologicum acro
amaticum (Rostock‑afterward Stockholm‑and
Leipsic, 1707; 7th and 8th eds. by Romanus Teller,
1750 and 1763). The work is the last of the strict
Lutheran systems of dogmatics.	Hollatz knows
Pietism, but does not mention it, although he refutes
mysticism. The system is divided into qucestiones,
which are explained by probationes; these are fol
lowed by antitheses, against which the different
inatantia are brought forward. Hollatz also pub
lished Scrutinium veratatis in mysticorum dogmata
(Wittenberg, 1711); Ein gottgeheiligt dreifaehes
Kleeblatt (Leidender Jesus) (1713); a collection of
sermons; and other works.
	2. Grandson of the preceding, preacher at Giin
tersberg, near Zachau, in Pomerania from 1730
till his death, June 14, 1771. He wrote devotional
books which were much read, often translated, and
are still being edited and republished (e.g., Gebahnte
Pilgerstrasse nach dem Berge Zion, Basel, 1866;
Evangelische Gnadenordnungen, Basel, 1894; Eng.
transl., The Order of Evangelical Grace in the
Economy of Salvation, London, 1838; Verherr
lichung Christi in seinem theueren and unschatz
baren Blute, Basel 1894). After a controversy
between Hollatz and S. J. Baumgarten of Halle the
orthodox looked upon him with disfavor. He
steadily receded more and more from the church
doctrines and adopted the views of the Moravians,
among whom he found greater sympathy. His
Samtliche erbauliche Schriften were published in
2 parts at G6rlitz, 1772‑73, and Frankfort, 1782.
		(P. WOL1rP'.)
	HOLLY, JAMES THEODORE: Protestant Epis
copal missionary bishop of Haiti; b. at Washington,
D. C., Oct. 3, 1829. His parents were colored Ro
YAan Catholics, and he was educated at Washing
ton, New York, Buffalo, and Detroit. At the age
of twenty‑one he became a convert from the Roman
Catholic to the Protestant Episcopal Church, and
after being associate editor of The Voice of the
Fugitive at Windsor, Ont., from 1851 to 1853, and
principal of a public school in Buffalo, N. Y., in 1854,
he was ordered deacon in 1855 and ordained priest
in the following year. He was then rector of St.
Luke's, New Haven, Conn., for five years (1856‑61),
after which he was a missionary at Haiti (1861‑74).
In 1874 he was consecrated bishop of Haiti. He
was also consul of Liberia at Port‑au‑Prince, Haiti, from 1864 to 1874.
HOLIM, ROBERT: English Biblical scholar; b. in London 1748 (baptized at St. Martin's‑in‑theFields Nov. 30); d. at Oxford Nov. 12, 1805. He was educated at Winchester College, and at New College, Oxford (B.A., 1770; M.A., 1774; B.D., 1787; D.D., 1789). In 1770 he obtained a fellowship in New College, and subsequently the college rectory of Stanton St. John's, Oxfordshire. He was Bampton lecturer in 1782, and in 1783 he succeeded John Randolph as professor of poetry. He received prebends in Salisbury Cathedral (1790), Hereford Cathedral (1791), and Christ Church, Oxford (1795). He was elected fellow of the Royal Society in 1797, and was made dean of Winchester in 1804. He published his Bampton lectures, On the Propheciesand Testimony of John the Baptist, and the Parallel Prophecies of Jesus Christ (Oxford, 1782), and several theological tracts and sermons. Most of these writings were included in Treatises on. Religious and Scriptural Subjects (1806). His great work, however, was his collation of the text of the Septuagint, Vetus Testamentum Gracum cum variis lectionxbus (5 vols., 1798‑1827; see BIBLE VERsIoNs, A, 1., 1, § 2). In this important undertaking, to which he devoted the last seventeen years of his life, Holmes was assisted by many scholars in the libraries throughout Europe, and supported financially by the delegates of the Clarendon Press. After his death the work of editing the 142 manuscript volumes of collations, which had been deposited in the Bodleian Library, was completed by James Parsons. During the progress of the work annual reports were published, which are of bibliographical interest.
BIBLIOGRAPHT: DNB, xxvii. 197‑198; T. H. Horne, Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, bibliographical appendix, I., section v., ¢ 2, no. 15, New York 1867; E, Riehm, Einkitung in das A. T., pp. 501 sqq., Halle, 1890; C. A. Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, pp. 207 et passim, New York, 1899; H. B. $wete, Introduction to the O. T. in Greek, pp. 185 sqq., Cambridge, 1900.

HOLOFERNES. See APOCRYPHA, A, IV., 8.
HOLSTE (HOLSTENIUS), LUCAS: German convert from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism in the seventeenth century; b. at Hamburg 1596; d. at Rome Feb. 2, 1661. He was educated in his native city and after 1617 at Leyden, making special studies of the old geographers, and showing a predilection for Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy. Disappointed by his failure to attain a position as teacher in Hamburg, he went in 1622 to England and in 1624 to Paris, where he was made librarian of President de Mesmes, and under Jesuit influence adopted the Roman religion. The change has been explained as due to ulterior motives, but Holste himself ascribed his conversion to personal conviction resulting from his philosophical and theological studies. In 1627 he established himself in Rome, where he found a protector and friend in Cardinal Francesco Barberini, nephew of Urban VIII., and received a canonry in St. Peter's. Innocent X. made him librarian of the Vatican, and Alexander VII. a consultor of the Congregation of the Index. He helped to convert prominent Protestants, and was sent to give instructions to Queen Christina of

Holston
Holy Family
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Sweden before her reception into the Church of
Rome. His literary undertakings, which were of
such a comprehensive nature that he could not
finish them before his death, were of great impor
tance for the Liber pontifwalis, Ltber diurnus pony
tt'ficum Romanorum, the older martyrologies and
monastic rules (Codex regularum etc., 3 vols., Rome,
1661), papal briefs and acts of councils (Colledio
Romana veterum aliquot historice ecclesiasticor monu
mentorum, 1662). 	(E. HErrREt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The reports concerning Holste are carefully collected in J. Moller, Cimbria literata, iii. 321‑342, Copenhagen, 1744. Consult: [N. Wilckens] Leben des getelerten Luc. Holetenii, Hamburg, 1723; ADB, aii. 778; A. Bass, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation, v. 186 sqq., Freiburg, 1867.
HOLSTEN, KARL CHRISTIAN JOHANN: Theologian of the Tubingen School; b. at Gtistrow (100 m. n.n.w. of Berlin), Mecklenburg, Mar. 31, 1825; d. at Heidelberg Jan. 26, 1897. He was educated at Leipsic, Berlin, and Rostock (Ph.D., 1853), and became teacher of religion, German, and Greek in the Rostock gymnasium (1852), remaining in this position until 1870. Through his writings on the Pauline theology he attracted the attention of the leaders of the theological Reformatory movement in Switzerland, and was called in 1870 to the University of Bern. Besides his duties as professor he rendered great services to the development of the school‑system in that city. In 1876 he accepted a call to Heidelberg, where he held the chair of New Testament theology until liis death.
Holston's literary and academic activity lay chiefly in the sphere of Pauline theology, of the synoptic Gospels, and philosophy of religion. Like Pfleiderer, he traced the history of primitive Christianity to a pantheistic basis. In the original congregation there were countercurrents of two forms of consciousness. After Jesus had awakened in Peter the spirit of the inwardness of the law and of indifference to its external forms, he preached the Gospel of salvation from sin through the death of Christ, and, in like manner, Paul successfully taught justification through the death of the Messiah. But under the influence of James there arose an antiPauline and judaistic Gospel. James counteracted the influence of Peter and the original apostles, and suppressed even the gospel of Paul, until with his death and the destruction of Jerusalem there came again into prominence the freer spirit of the original Gospel which binds to the law in its inward form, but loosens from its ritual bonds. Our Synoptic Gospels correspond to these three tendencies, and are, therefore, to he considered as Tendewwhriften. The original Gospels of Peter, Paul, and James, corresponding to our canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have been lost. Within thirty years after the death of Jesus all consciousness of the historical facts of Christ's life had disappeared, and its representation was now made serviceable to dogmatic purposes by violating history. Our canonical Gospel of Matthew represents the Gospel of Peter and is based upon an anti‑Pauline and Judaistic Gospel; it originated from a reaction of the Jewish Christianity of Peter against the anti‑Pauline Judaism of James. Our Gospel of Mark forms the counterpart of the Gospel of Matthew in being based
324
entirely upon the views of Paul. After the authority of Evangelical history had been shaken by these two different tendencies, Luke tried to establish it anew. We have therefore: (1) primitive Petrinism, which is related to Paulinism as being free from law, without drawing the last consequences; (2) Paulinism; (3) anti‑Pauline Judaism under James (until about the year 70); (4) the restitution of non‑legal Petrinism, especially in the beginning of the second century. The principal works in which Holston laid down these views are Das Evangelium des Paulus (Berlin, 1880); Die drei ursprunglichen, noch ungeschret'benen Evangelien. Zur &ynoptischen Frage (Carlsruhe and Leipsic, 1883); and Die 8ynoptiachen Evangelien nach der Form ihres Inhaltes (Heidelberg, 1885). The principal work of Holsten in the field of philosophy of religion is his Uraprung urtd Wesen ‑der Religion (Berlin, 1886). The influence of Schleiermacher which pervades all his works shows itself especially here, where he found the basis and essence of religion in feeling. (MEHLHORN.)
BInwoaRAPHT: Consult the memorial address of A. Hausrath at Heidelberg, Jan. 29, 1897, Heidelberg, 1897, and P. Mehlhorn, Zum Geddchtniss Karl 11olstens, in Das Evanpelium des Paulus, part ii., Berlin, 1898.

HOLTZMANN, HEINRICH JULIUS: German Protestant; b. at Carlaruhe May 17, 1832. He was educated at the universities of Heidelberg and Berlin, and, after being a pastor in Baden from 1854 to 1857, became privat‑docent at Heidelberg in 1858. Three years later he was appointed associate professor and was advanced to a full professorship in 1865. In 1874 he accepted a call to Strasburg as professor of New Testament exegesis, a position which he retained until 1904, when he became professor emeritus. In theology he is one of the leading representatives of the critical school. Among his writings special mention may be made of his Kanon and Tradition (Basel, 1859); Die synoptischen Evan. gelien, ihr Uraprung and geschichelicher Charakter (Leipsic, 1863); Geschichte des Volkes Israel and die Entstehung des Christentums (in collaboration with G. Weber; 2 vols., 1867); Kritik der Epheser‑ and Kolosserbriefe auf Grund einer Analyse ihrer Verwand8chaft8verhdUniase (Leipsic, 1872); Die Paetoralbriefe, kratisch and exegetisch behandelt (1880); Lexikori fitr Theologie and Kirchenwesen (in collaboration with R. Z6pffel; 1882); Lehrbuch der hiatorischkritiachen Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg, 1885); Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie (2 vols., 1896‑97); R. Rothea speculatives System (1899); Gesammelte Predigten (Carlarahe, 1901); Die Entatehung des Neuen Testaments (Halle, 1905); and Das messianiache Bemuastsein Jesu (Tiibingen, 1907). He likewise contributed the volumes on the Apocrypha and the New Testament to C. C. J. Bunsen's BZelwerk (2 vols., Leipsic, 1866, 1869), on John, the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, the Johannine Epistles, and Revelation to the Hand‑Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, which he edited in collaboration with R. A. Lipsius, P. W. Schmiedel, and H. von Soden (Freiburg, 1889, 1890, 1891; 3d ed. of the Commentary on the Johannine writings, Tiibingen, 1908), and assisted K. Budde in editing Eduard Reuss' Briefwechsel mit aeinem Schiller und Freunde Karl Heinrich Grdf (Giessen, 1904).

825	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Holaten
		Holy Family
	HOLTZMANN, OSKAR KARL ADOLF: German
Protestant; b. at Stuttgart Oct. 20, 1859. He was
educated at the universities of Strasburg, Gottingen,
and Giessen and at the theological seminary at
Friedberg from 1877 to 1883, and after a year as
pastor at Bickenbach was provisional teacher at the
seminary of Algau in 1884,86 and director of the
high school at Gross‑Gerau in 1886‑88 and a
teacher at the grand‑ducal gymnasium at Giessen
in 1888,89. In the latter year he became privat
docent at the University of Giessen, and in 1890
was appointed to his present position of associate
professor of New Testament exegesis in the same
institution. He has written Das Johannes‑Evanr
gelium undersucht and erklart (Darmstadt, 1887);
Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Freiburg, 1895);
LebenJesu (Tiibingen, 1901; Eng. tranal., Life of
Jesus, Edinburgh, 1904); Religlonageschichtliche
Vortrdge (Giessen, 1902); and War Jeans Ekstatiker ?
Eine Untersuchung zum Leben Jesu (Tiibingen,1903).
	HOLY COAT: An ancient garment preserved at
Treves, and held to be the " coat without seam "
of John xix. 23. This coat was regarded by the
Church Fathers after Tertullian as a symbol of the
indivisible Church, but was believed by them to be
no longer in existence. The earliest trace of the
belief that the Holy Coat was at least partially pre
served occurs in an Arabic life of the Egyptian monk
Shnudi of Athribe (d. 451); but the real develop
ment of the tradition is medieval. The legend
assumes two chief forms, according to whether the
Holy Coat is regarded as gray or brown. The former
is the older. According to it, Christ wore at his
crucifixion a gray " coat without seam," which his
mother had woven for him in his infancy, and which
had increased with his stature. After the crucifixion
Herod gave it to a Jew who, unable to remove the
blood stains, threw it into the sea, where it was
swallowed by a whale. Meanwhile Orendel, or
Arendel, son of the Christian king Eygel of Treves,
had been shipwrecked near Palestine and had been
forced to enter the service of a fisherman. The two
took the whale, and for thirty gold guldens, the
sum for which Judas had betrayed Christ, and which
the Virgin had sent Orendel, the prince purchased
the Holy Coat, which rendered him invulnerable
and invincible. Orendel became king of Jerusalem.
In obedience to an angelic revelation, he returned to
Treves and rescued his father from his enemies,
but was soon obliged to seek the Holy Land to fight
for the Holy Sepulcher. At the command of an
angel, he left the Holy Coat at Treves. Another
version of this type of the legend makes the Emperor
Constantine take the place of Orendel, while the Jew
is represented by Pilate until Veronica reveals to
the emperor the means of gaining the Holy Coat.
	In the second recension of the legend of the Holy
Coat, which gradually became the one officially
held at Treves, the knightly element is replaced by
clerical figures. To this cycle, which is probably
of later origin than the one described above and
apparently developed after the eleventh or twelfth
century, belongs the tradition that the Holy Coat
was brought to Treves by a Christian maiden who
had received it from a Jew in payment for a year's
wages. In another recension the Empress Helena sends or gives the Coat to Treves, and a bishop, Agricius, receives or transmits it. Yet as late as the beginning of the twelfth century Abbot Theofried of Echternach, when writing to Archbishop Bruno of Treves, though mentioning a Holy Coat, describes it as having been brought from Safed, in Palestine, to Jerusalem, where it had remained. After 1132, however, the Holy Coat of Treves was frequently mentioned as a genuine relic.
Besides Treves and Safed, other places are said to contain the Holy Coat, as Galathea, near Conatantinople, San Iago de Compostella, St. John Lateran at Rome, and a Franciscan monastery in Friuli. There are, indeed, no less than twenty rivals to the HolyCoatof Treves,the most formidable being that at Argenteuil, near Paris, which can boast in its favor a brief of Gregory XVI. (Aug. 22,1843). The Holy Coat of Treves is described as five feet one and one‑half inches long, and reddish‑brown in color, consisting, according to some, of fine linen, and according to others, of fine muslin. It was first made an object of public veneration and pilgrimage in 1512. It was then exhibited frequently, especially in 1515 (when Leo X. issued a bull defending its authenticity), 1531, 1545, etc., evoking the anger of Luther. It was again exhibited in the seventeenth century, particularly in 1653, but the French invasions of the eighteenth century forced it to be taken for a considerable time to Ehrenbreitstein and in 1792 to Augsburg, where it remained until 1810, when it was brought back to Treves and venerated by more than 200,000 pilgrims. In 1844 it was exhibitedby Bishop Arnoldi and venerated by 1,100,000, many miraculous cures being reported. Opposition to this led to the German Catholic movement of Ronge and Czerski (see GERMAN CATHolicIsM). Despite attacks on the authenticity of the relic, including more or less skepticism from Roman Catholics, Bishop Korum, with the sanction of Leo XIII., exhibited the Holy Coat in 1891, when it was venerated by nearly 2,000,000 pilgrims.
(O. Z6CICLRRt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The two works in English are: E. A. Plater,
The Holy Coat of Treoea, London, 1891; and R. F. Clarke, Pilgrimaps to the Holy Coat of Treves, ib. 1892, In German, from the Catholic standpoint are: J. Marx, Geschichts do* heiligen Rocks, Treves, 1844; F. J. Clemens, Der heilige Rock and die protestantiache Kritik Coblens, 1845; A. J. Binterim ZoWnisae fur die Ech"t des heiligen Rocks, Doeseldorf, 1845; J. N. von Wilmovsky, Der heiIiQ6 Rock sins arcA9olopiache Prafung, Treves, 1878; C. Willems, Der Wigs Rock su Trier, ib. 1891; idem, Der Wigs Rock . . . and seine Gepner, ib. 1892; F. Korum, Wunder and gbttliche Gnadenerweise bei der Auaatellung des Wigen Rocks, ib. 1891; J. Hulley, Kurze GeackicAts der Walifahrt sum hsiligen Rock, ib. 1891. From the Protestant standpoint: J. Gildemeister and H. von Sybel, Der heilige Rock su Trier and die 80 anderen heiligen ungenahten Racks, Dilseeldorf, 1844; F. Jaskowski, Der Wigs Rock won Trier gerichtet von semen sigenen Freunden, &arbrileken, 1891; J. Risks, Der Trierer Rock, Hadereleben, 1891; T. Fbrster, Der heilige Rock son Trier im . . . 184,4 and 1891, Halle, 1891; 13. Benecke, Der Wigs Rock zu Trier im . . . 1891, Berlin, 1891; M. Lindner, Der heilige Rock vu Trier and die Wunderhsilungen, Leipsic, 1891; G. Kaufmann, Die Lends room heiligen ungenahten Rock und'das Verbot der .j Lateransynode, Berlin, 1892;
H. Kurtz, Trier and der heilige Rock, Zurich, 1892.
HOLY FAMILY, SISTERS or DAUGHTERS OF THE. See GENEViAVE, SAINT, ORDERS oF, 2.

Holy Fire
Holy Roman Empire
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
HOLY FIRE. See EASTER, I., 4, § 3.
HOLY GHOST. See HOLY SPIRIT.
HOLY GHOST, ORDERS AND CONGREGATIONS OF THE : I. Hospitalers of the Holy Ghost: The oldest of the religious associations named after the Holy Spirit was founded at Montpellier about 1198 and confirmed on May 23, 1198, by Innocent III. In 1204 the order was placed in control of one of the most important hospitals in Rome, and after the pontificate of Honorius III. this became the mother house of the Italian, English, and Hungarian branches of the order, while Montpellier remained the center for France and the neighboring countries. The brothers added to the usual three monastic vows that of voluntary service to the poor. They were distinguished by a white linen cross with twelve points, worn on the left side of their black habit, which resembled that of the Augustinian canons. The order began to decline during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; and in France, where Cardinal Archbishop Polignac of Auch (d. 1741) was its last general, it completely disappeared before the outbreak of the Revolution. The last remnant of the order, the hospital and monastery of Santo Spirito in Sassia at Rome, was suppressed by Pius IX.
Many Roman Catholic hospitals assumed the name of the Holy Spirit without belonging to the order, especially in northern Germany, although several in southern Germany and Switzerland, as at Memmingen, Wimpfen, Pforzheim, Rufach, Neumarkt, and Bern, were true branches of the order.
For the Hospital Sisters of the Holy Ghost, see HOBPITALERs.
II. Among medieval and modern congregations of the Holy Ghost six deserve special mention:
1. The Canons of the Holy Ghost were founded about 1430 by the Venetian Canon Andreas Bondimerio (patriarch of Venice 1460‑64) and three other clerics. Though confirmed by Martin V., they attained merely local importance, and were suppressed by Alexander VII. in 1656.
2. The Priests of the Holy Ghost, or Mulotists, were founded in 1703 by Louis Maria Grignon de Montfort (d. 1703), and received their rule from his successor, Rent; Mulot. Their object was the education of young ecclesiastics, and their mother house was situated at St. Laurent‑sur‑Sevon.
$. A Benedictine Congregation of the Holy Ghost arose early in the eighteenth century in the diocese of Augsburg through the secession of eight South German Benedictine monasteries, and was confirmed with certain privileges by Benedict XIII. in 1725.
4. The Daughters of the Holy Ghost (Filler du Saint Esprit) originated in St. Brieuc, Brittany, in 1706, and spread through most of the dioceses of that province. Their objects are the instruction of girls and works of charity, and they are now said to possess more than a hundred institutions.
5. The Sisters of the Holy Ghost, or Sisters of the Heart of Jesus and of Mary of the Holy Ghost, form a female congregation for conducting poor schools. They were established at Tours in 1805 by the Abb6 Bourignon with the aid of a number of ex‑Carmelite nuns.
6. The Fathers of the Holy Ghost (P&ea du S. Esprit), or the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, popularly known as the " Black Fathers " (P&es noirs) from their habit, were established by a Jewish convert, Jacob Libermann (baptized as Frangois Maria Paul Libermann; b. in Alsace 1804; d. at Paris 1852), by the union of two missionary congregations. The first of these was the congregation of the Holy Ghost, founded at Paris in 1709 by P6re Desplace and suppressed during the French Revolution, but revived in 1816; the second was the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded by Libermann himself in 1841 for negro missions. The first general was Libermann, and since his death the "Black Fathers" have rivaled the "White Fathers " of Cardinal Lavigerie in their missionary zeal, not only in the French colonies of Africa, but also in the Portuguese, Dutch, and English districts. They are active likewise in Mauritius, Trinidad, Haiti, and Australia, while their seminary in Paris trains missionaries for the French colonies in India and South America. They are represented in Portugal, Ireland, and the United States (Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin), and after being expelled from Germany in 1872 were permitted to return in 1895. In the latter country they have a seminary in the former Premonatratensian abbey of Knechtsteden and exercise the supervision of the shrine of Drei Aehren in Alsace‑Lorraine, besides conducting the French S6minaire du Cceur Sacre de Marie in Rome.
HI. Two knightly orders of the Holy Ghost likewise require mention. In Whitsuntide of 1352 Queen Joanna I. of Naples founded the Cavaliers di Santo Spirito del Retto Desiderio. The knights, whose number was restricted to sixty, received a rule based on that of St. Basil and approved by Clement VI. Their emblem was an intricate loveknot (whence they were often called Cavalieri del nodo), which was replaced after some distinguished feat of arms by a dove, as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. The order became extinct before the end of the fourteenth century.
A French Ordre du Saint Esprit was established on Dec. 31, 1578, by Henry III. The order was intended to honor the feast of Whitsuntide and to revive the prestige of the knights of St. Michael. The king himself was the grand master, and all the members were required first to be knights of St. Michael. The number was restricted to 100, and included all princes of the royal family, four cardinals, four French bishops, and the high almoner of the king. Membership carried with it important privileges, and also certain religious obligations. The order retained its prestige during the four following reigns, and Louis XVI. conscientiously observed its religious requirements. It was dissolved by a decree of the French National Convention, and has been replaced since the reign of Napoleon I. (except for a brief revival by Louis XVIII.) by the Legion of Honor.
(O. ZOCKLERt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On T.: F. E. von Hurter, Geachichte rnnocena' 111., iv. 224, Hamburg, 1842; G. Uhlhorn, Die
ehriatliche LiebeathNigkeit im Mittelalter, pp. 187‑192

327	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Holy Fire
		Holy Eoman Empire
	Stuttgart, 1884; G. Brune, Hint. de 1'ordre hotpitalier du
	$. Esprit, Paris, 1892; C. de Smedt, L'Ordre hospitalier
	du Saint‑Esprit, in Revue den questions histordques, lia
	(1893), 216 aqq.; Helyot, Ordres monaetiques, i., zlvi.,
	ii. 195‑221; Heimbueher, Orden and Konprepationen, ii.
	31‑33; HL, 1 1832‑33.
		On II.: J. B. Pitra, Vie du Pyre Libernwnn, Paris, 1882;
	W. Hohnes, Der ehrwardipe Dinner Gottee P. DS. P. Liber
	mann, Minster, 1894; Helyot, ut sup., ii. 308‑309; Heim
	bucher, ut sup., iii. 477 eqq, 515‑516, 520, 551‑552, 575;
	HL, v. 218‑227; Currier, Religious Orders, pp. 525‑529.
		On III.: Exseh and Gruber, Encyklopadie, lvi. 263‑285
	(contains list of the older literature); Helyot, Germ. ed.,
	viii. 471 sqq.; %L, v. 218; L. H. Martin, Hiet. de la
	France, ix. 473‑475, 17 vols., Paris, 1855‑60.
	HOLY GHOST AND US SOCIETY: A sect
founded in 1893 by the Rev. Frank W. Sandford,
having central headquarters at Durham, Me. The
immediate neighborhood is named Shiloh, where a
vast frame building houses the community. The
front towers are used as watch‑ and prayer‑towers;
and dormitories, Bible‑school rooms, a dining room,
etc., occupy the remainder of the structure. The
founder of the sect was born in 1862 in Bowdoin, Me.,
was educated at Bates College and Cobb Divinity
School, Lewiston, Me. He was pastor of Free
Baptist churches in Great Falls, N. H., and Top
sham, Me., having but moderate success in these
fields. In 1893, at a convention of his denomination
held at Ocean Beach, Me., Sandford announced
that he had received certain divine revelations, the
chief purport of which was that he was commanded
to preach the Gospel to all the world before the
" coming of the end." The structure at Shiloh was
projected by reason of an alleged vision commanding
him to " arise and build." He preached absolute
community of goods, requiring those who should
form the community to turn in all their earthly
possessions. Of the business he took entire charge,
every legal title being in his own name.
	The local community numbers about 300, though
it was at first larger. Of these the majority are
women and children. Proselyting stations have
been established at various points, but have not
flourished. Camp‑meetings are held on the coast
islands of Maine every summer, and bands of the
sect, led by Sandford, have made tours of the
world on vessels owned by the community.
Several actions, civil and criminal, have been un
dertaken against Sandford by the local authori
ties, for cruelty, disregard to health laws, and
other causes.
	The beliefs of the sect are strongly chiliastic. A
great catastrophe of fire, falling mountains, and
other cosmic judgments soon to destroy the earth
and its inhabitants comprise much of the preaching.
Sandford claims to be Elijah, preaching in prepara
tion for this judgment. There is insistence on
baptism by immersion as prerequisite to salvation,
and no prior baptism is accepted as valid. The
Apocalypse, Daniel, and the judgment pictures in
the Synoptic Gospels are interpreted literally. Great
emotional excitement pervades the meetings. Mi
raculous healings are affirmed, credence in which
has not been shaken with the community by an
epidemic of smallpox, including several fatal cases,
that prevailed there in 1903. The sect is apparently
waning.	W. C. STILES.
HOLY OFFICE, CONGREGATION OF THE: The department of the papal government which is charged with the direction of the Inquisition (q.v.). It was established by Paul III. in 1542, and has among its officers twelve cardinals, a commissary, and a number of theologians and canonists who act in an advisory capacity. The pope is ex officio prefect of the congregation, and on solemn occasions he may preside in person.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE: The designation of the German‑Italian empire established by Otto I., the Saxon king, who was crowned in Rome by Pope John XII. Feb. 2, 962. The " Holy Roman Empire " was at the best an ideal rather than an
		accomplished fact. The Roman em
	Origin	pire, by reason of its almost world
	and	wide dominion and its tendency under
	Name.	the better rulers to promote universal
		peace and well‑being, had made a
great and lasting impression upon the Teutonic
peoples, and it was natural that, when the seat of
empire had been transferred to the East and when
at last the empire had lost its grip upon the great
and rapidly developing West, the first western ruler
whose dominion seemed to justify imperial preten
sions should seek to revive the title of Emperor of
the Romans. At the close of the eighth century
the authority of the Eastern Empire in Italy had
reached the vanishing‑point. The Frankish pre
decessors of Charlemagne from Clovis onward had
professed the Catholic faith and had cooperated
with the bishops of Rome in extending the domin
ion of the papal church so as to be conterminous
with Frankish conquest as the most effective means
of civilizing barbarian peoples and reconciling them
to Frankish rule. The Lombards held a large part
of Italy and imperilled the autonomy of the Church
and its authority over what was claimed as the
donation of Constantine or the patrimony of Peter
(see PAPAL STATES). Charlemagne (q.v.) pro
tected the Roman See against Lombard aggres
sion, received the imperial crown at the hands of
the pope, and completed with the Roman See an
offensive and defensive alliance; and, while he
committed himself to the protection of the Roman
Catholic Church and the promotion of its interests
throughout his vast domain to the exclusion of all
other forms of religion, he entertained no thought
of surrendering any part of his monarchical author
ity, and to the last legislated as freely in ecclesias
tical as in civil matters and required obedience from
ecclesiastical no less than from civil functionaries.
The empire of Charlemagne came nearer to the
realization of the idea of a Holy Roman Empire
than did any subsequent imperial administration.
The origin of the name is obscure. It is found in
no early documents. A certain sanctity was at
tached to the old Roman empire whose head was
the recipient of divine honors. That it should be
applied to the dominion of a Christian sovereign
who aspired to universal civil dominion and who
professed an earnest desire to bring about the uni
versal acceptance of the religion of Christ might
have been expected.
	It is not probable that the idea of the Holy Ro‑

Holy Roman Empire Holy Sepulcher
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
man Empire in its fully developed form was ever conceived or entertained by pope or emperor. Popes and emperors were for the most part practical men who were beset with practical difficulties and who made use of whatever means were
Underlying available for the gaining of practical Ideas. ends. If the pope dreamed of ideal conditions he was sure to conceive of the one holy Catholic Church with its papal head as exercising absolute dominion throughout the whole world and of all civil rulers as yielding willing obedience to the dictates of the head of the Church. If emperors ever idealized, they were sure to think of themselves as exercising universal sway in Church and State alike and of all ecclesiastics with the pope at their head as disinterestedly devoting their energies to the promotion of universal peace and obedience to the imperial will. Who first conceived the idea of a Holy Catholic Church and a Holy Roman Empire, both world‑wide in extent, the Church with the pope at its head beneficently ruling a unified and willingly obedient Christian world and supported in its work by a unified and harmonious civil world‑administration; and the empire with undisputed dominion ruling the world in righteousness with the interests of the Church a supreme object of endeavor, the pope giving unstinted support to the civil administration without infringing upon its functions; the emperor being single‑minded in his devotion to spiritual interests without wishing in any way to interfere with the spiritual administration, does not appear. The sanctity of the old Roman Empire and the " eternal city " and of the Catholic Church now identified with the kingdom of God on earth and having the eternal city as its administrative center was in a sense conferred upon the German princes through the bestowal of the imperial crown. Yet nothing could be further removed from sanctity than the motives of John XII. in bestowing, and Otto I. in receiving, the imperial crown, as was manifest in the deposition of the profligate youth who held the papal office by the ambitious and selfish Saxon chieftain whom he had crowned and the excommunication of the emperor by the pope who sought the aid of Magyars and Saracens against his imperial foe. The almost continuous conflict between popes and emperors during the Middle Ages illustrated by the prolonged and .unrelenting hostilities between Gregory VII. and Henry IV., Alexander III. and Frederick I., Innocent III. and his three successors and Frederick II., shows that the ideal of the Holy Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire utterly failed of realization.
	During the earlier time the imperial office was
practically hereditary, but owing to the lack of
centralized administrative machinery, occasional
failures in male heirs to the throne, the disposition
		of the popes to interfere in favor of
Succession rivals ready to pledge themselves to to the greater subserviency' the growth of
	Throne.	the idea of the holiness and universal
		ity of the office, the elective principle
finally prevailed. Theoretically, the entire body of
freemen were supposed to be the electors, but, as
no provision was made for the exercise of the ballot,
it devolved upon the leaders to vote for the people. The tradition that Gregory V. (998‑99) and Otto III. arranged that the electoral function should be limited to seven princes is not confirmed by contemporaFy documents. In 1125 I,otbair II. was nominated by a small number of nobles and then or not long afterward the number seven was fixed upon for the electors and came to have a sacred significance. Urban IV. (1263) speaks of the choosing of the emperor by seven electors as a matter of immemorial custom. The electoral dignity at that time belonged to the archbishoprics of Mainz, Treves, and Cologne, and to four secular princes. There was much dispute as to which of the nobles should be electors. The Golden Bull (1356) fixed upon the king of Bohemia, the count palatine, the duke of Saxony, and the margrave of Brandenburg. Frankfort was agreed upon as the place for the assembly of the electoral college and the archbishop of Mains as the convener. This arrangement remained in force until the Thirty Years' War, when (1621) the Count Palatine was deprived of his eieotorship in favor of the duke of Bavaria. The peace of Westphalia (see WESTPHALIA, PEACE OF) restored the palatine electorship without annulling that of the duke of Bavaria. In 1692 the house of Brunswick‑Lilneburg was given an electorate.
The imperial dignity was retained by the house
of Saxony from 962 to 1138 (the Salic line from 1024), the Hohenstaufen from 1138 to 12'73, the HapebUrgers 1273‑92, 1298‑1308, 1438‑1742, and 1765‑1806. During the earlier centuries of the modern period the house of Hapsburg represented the greatest aggregation of power in Europe. The Holy Roman Empire consistently opposed the Protestant Reformation, yet Luther's reverence for it as an ancient and legitimate institution was so great that to the end of his life he discouraged his followers from taking up arms against it and predicted calamity in case his counsel should be unheeded. The hostility of France to the imperial house of Hapsburg on several occasions saved the Protestants from destruction (as in the Smalkald War, Thirty Years' War, etc.). The empire ended as a result of the Napoleonic conquest (1806).
A. H. NEWMAN.
HOLY SATURDAY. See HOLY WEEK, § 6.

HOLY SEPULCHER.
	I.	The Site.
		The Name Golgotha, its origin and TmpGcntione (§ 1).
		Eueebiua concerning the Site ($ 2).
		Modern Identifications (§ 3).
II. The Structures Erected There.
I. By Constantine. The Rotunda of the Resurrection (§ 1). The Basilica, Atrium, and I'ropyls°um (§ 2).
2. Later Structures.
I. The Site: The tomb of Jesus was located in a garden belonging to the Jewish councilor Joseph of Arimathas (q.v.), near or at the place of crucifixion, which. was called in Aramaic gulgulta or gulgalta (Matt. xxvii. 60; John xia. 41), corresponding to the Hebrew haggulgoleth, " the skull." The name in Greek was written golgotha which appears in Matthew (xxvii. 33), Mark (xv. 22), and John (xix. 17), with the explanation "the place of a skull," while Luke (xxiii. 33) has " the place

829	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
called skull" (Gk. kranion; A. V. "Calvary" from the Lat. calvaria). The location was evi‑
dently well known by the current 1. The designation. There was doubtless
Name originally in the Aramaic a limiting
Golgotha, addition, as there are traces in the its Origin Pseudepigrapha (particularly in the and Im‑ Ethiopic Book of Adam) and in
plioatione. the Church Fathers (Epiphanius, Har., xlvi.; Basil, of Seleucia, Oratio, xxxviii.) that it was connected with the name of Adam. For the story in its Jewish form consult J. A. Fabrieius, Codex pseudepigraphuset Veris Teatamenti, i. 60, 75, 267‑268, Hamburg, 1722. The form and content of the tradition imply that there was a round knoll, by its shape suggesting the form of a skull, and near it a sharp depression which was associated in legend with the name of Adam, whose skull was said to have been deposited there by Shem fu the center of the earth (cf. Ezek. v,. 5). The New Testament locates Golgotha outside the city (Heb. xiii. 12; Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 20; John xix. 17), but near the city (John xix. 20) and by the road (Matt. xxvii. 39). The marks of identification require that the place be sought to the north of Jerusalem, since only there do the exits from the city debouch upon a plain, as was remarked as early as the time of Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, Gbttingen, 1870, p. 229, cf. 99 and 248, also 130). The place Eusebius had in mind was certainly the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher built by Constantine, but that this is the true site has in modern times been questioned.
Eusebius, in telling of the command of Conatantine to erect a stately structure over the tomb of
Jesus (Life of Constantine, iii. 25‑40), 2. Eueebius says nothing of any official order to
concerning make search for the true site of the the Site. death and resurrection of Jesus. He
narrates that the place had been buried deep in rubbish, over this a pavement had been laid, and on this a temple to Venus erected. By command of the emperor this temple was destroyed and the rubbish carried away, when the tomb of Jesus was disclosed, to the great joy of the emperor (Life of Constantine, iii. 30). The story of Eusebius shows that in Jerusalem, at least among Christians, not the slightest doubt existed concerning the site of the tomb. Yet Edward Robinson and other scholars who could not feel sure of the site called attention to the fact that, according to the words of Eusebius, the place had remained forgotten, and that the words of Constantine were that the rediscovery was a miracle. On the other hand, it is to be noted that no words of Eusebius affirm that knowledge of the place had been lost, as in that case it would have been expected that Constantine would have ordered careful search for the true site. Eusebius has raised doubts in another direction by the fact that his list of the bishops of Jerusalem is not altogether trustworthy (Hiat. ecd., iv. 5‑6, v. 12). Still it is to be presumed that the short break (between 70 and 135 A.D.) in the continuity of the Christian community had not resulted in the total loss of knowledge of the notable site of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And, though the first
generation of Christians might place no special emphasis upon knowledge of the sacred sites; it does not follow that they forgot the location, especially since Golgotha is shown by the way the word is used in the Gospels to have been a well‑known place. The covering and defiling of the site Eusebius traces to ungodly men (whom he does not name) and to the whole horde of demons. Jerome states that for 180 years, from Hadrian's time to that of Conatantine, a statue of Jupiter stood on the place of the resurrection and one of Venus on the place of the crucifixion, placed there with the design of casting scorn upon the faith. So far as Jerome controverts Eusebius, he may not receive the preference. In general, the attribution of design in the placing of rubbish on the spot and the erection of the heathen objects there may be wrong, and the results rhay have been brought about simply by the location just outside the walls. While Eusebius's identifica, tion may be correct, he mentions no mark by which the identification was assured. So long as other graves in the vicinity were unknown, his location would be unchallenged. That is no longer the case, since the graves assigned to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea are now known and supposed to have been connected with that known as the Holy Sepulcher. Indeed, the discovery of still others has made questionable the assertion that the site of Constantine's church covered that of the tomb of Jesus.
	The objections of Jonas Korte, who first ques
tioned the identification, were based upon the
		relation of the site to the walls, oonsid‑
8. Modern erations which are vitiated by remem‑
Identiaca‑ bering that the present north wall dates tione. from 41 to 70 A.D., and that the "second " wall was in the time of Jesus the northern limit of the city. Recent investigations by tracing the course of the "second" wall have made it very likely that Golgotha lay outside. 0. Thenius decided for the Grotto of Jeremiah northeast from the Damascus Gate and the hill near it. James Fergusson hit upon the strange identification with Mount Moriah, that is, the site of the present Mosque of Omar. Still more recently a small hill outside the Damascus Gate and to the left of the road to Nablus has been claimed as the site‑so General Gordon in 1883. E: M. Clos selected a spot for the tomb about 200 yards south of the present church. These identifications are without value.
It was the followers of Eusebius‑Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret‑not Eusebius himself, who brought Helena, the mother of Constantine, into connection with the finding of the grave and of the three crosses and the inscription of Pilate and with the building of the church on the site (see CROSS, INVENTION OF Tm). Eusebius places her church on the Mount of Olives, and he is to be followed. It is to be remembered that it was the custom in Christian circles to honor the sites of the burial of martyrs. Eusebius relates (Demonahatio evangelica, vi. 18) that Christian pilgrims came from all parts to Jerusalem to assure themselves by sight of the ruined state of Jerusalem of the fulfilment of prophecy and to pray in the cave of Bethlehem or on the Mount of Olives. It was in connection with

Holy Sepulcher	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	ggp
these pilgrimages that Constantine thought to adorn the tomb by a structure, the knowledge of which is due chiefly to Eusebius's description (Life of Constantine, iii. 25‑40). Another writing of Eusebius dealing wholly with this subject is not extant. Eusebius's account is confirmed and supplemented by the account of the pilgrimage of Silvia Aquitana (380‑390), and C. Mommert's investigations have shed much light on the subject. The site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is to‑day shut in by streets. The rocks under the foundation slope from west to east and from north to south, so the site is not level, leading to the necessity for preparation for building by leveling the ground. That fact has led to certain investigations, and invites a description of the parts of the church.
111. The Structures Erected There.‑1. By Constantine: The rocks about the grave are broken away on all sides so that it has the
1. The appearance of a monument. The lev‑
8otnnda	eling of the site probably produced
		of the	changes in the relation of the tomb to
	8esurreo‑ its entrance, though it is possible that
		tion.	the level of the approach remained as
			it was. To the east of the tomb lay the
stone, described by Antoninus Placentinus (c. 570)
as like a millstone, which was rolled to the mouth
of the grave to close it (Mark avi. 3). The interior
of the tomb is said by Arculf (c. 670) to have been
large enough to hold nine men standing, and the
roof might be touched by raising the hand. The
grave was to the north, on the right of the entrance,
trough like, three spans above the floor. This, as
the central point of interest, Constantine had
adorned with beautiful and costly pillars. A round
structure was arranged about the grave, with a
circular hall, the upper part of which was open
to the sky. The connection of this structure with
the other buildings is shown to be possible from the
fact that neither the inner circle of pillars which it
contained nor the containing wall were closed toward
the east.
The basilica stretched in a broad middle aisle and two smaller side aisles eastward from the rotunda, about 245 feet in length. The
2. The elevated choir, with the altar, bishop's
Basilica,	throne, and twelve beautiful pillars,
Atrium,	closed the middle aisle to the east.
and Pro‑ Mommert locates it partly over Hel‑
	pyleeum.	ena's chapel and partly over the Chapel
		of the Invention of the Cross. Doubt
arises as to the place meant as that where the cross
was found; whether it was at or near Golgotha, or
in the holy tomb, or in the so‑called Chapel of
Helena, or in a still deeper hole in the rock, the so
called Chapel of the Invention of the Cross. The
finding was first mentioned by Cyril of Jerusalem
about 350 (Catecheaes, x. 19), described first by
Rufinus, Socrates, and others, though the accounts
differ. The place of the crucifixion was given as
in the southern aisle, west of the choir. Conatan
tine's builders treated this in like manner as they
did the grave, breaking away the rock so that a
high hexagonal platform raised itself above the sur
rounding level, to which the names Mount of the
Rock, Mount Golgotha, and Mount Calvary became
attached. Three doors in the east‑ wall of the basilica. connected the latter with the atrium. That this was to the east of the basilica is confirmed by the Madeba map, by investigations on the spot, and by the fact that to the east lay the market‑place. The architect thus departed from custom in the construction of the building, constrained partly by the circumstance that the tomb would not be suitably located in the court of the church. The atrium was a hall of pillars provided with lavers. From this three doors led into the propylaeum. As early as 1844‑46 Dr. SchultzandProfessorKrafft, of Bonn, found traces of this structure, which were confirmed by Mommert and supplemented by later discoveries. The whole building was begun in 326 and consecrated in 336.
2. Later Structures: These buildings were destroyed by fire under Chosroes II. in 614. In 616 Modestus, abbot of the monastery of Theodosius, began the erection of new structures which, finished in 626, differed from those erected by Constantine. He supplied the rotunda with three new niches on the south, east, and north, and installed altars. To the southeast he built a Church of St. Mary; over Golgotha, a special chapel; and over the place of the invention of the cross he erected a basilica called the Martyrium, between which and the rotunda was a square, entered from the south. The situation of Christians and their possessions after the taking of the. city by the Arabs under Omar in 637 became constantly more precarious. From an old Arabic inscription on stone, found July 31, 1897, it appears that the Arabs possessed in the first half of the tenth century a mosque on the site of Constantine's atrium, commemorating the fact that Omar had prayed there. In the same century the buildings of Modestus were burned, and about 1010 special orders directed the destruction of the tomb. In 1048 new structures were erected under the auspices of the Byzantine emperor which embraced the rotunda, chapels over Golgotha and over the stone on which Jesus was said to have been laid for his anointing, and the Chapel of the Invention of the Cross. These coincided in general with those of Modestus, and were entered by the Crusaders in 1099. Under the Crusaders new structures were begun in 1140 and completed about 1168, among them a church with three aisles, in the French style of the twelfth century. The tomb itself was also subjected to change. After the destruction in 1244, the church of the Crusaders was restored in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The chapel of the tomb was newly erected by Boniface of Ragusa, also the Chapel of the Angels: On Oct. 12, 1808, the larger part of the church over the tomb was destroyed by fire. Restoration began in 1809 under the auspices of Greeks and Armenians upon the plans of Komnenus Kalfa, a Greek. The present dome was erected in 1868 under the joint auspices of France and Russia.
Light is thrown on the form of these varied structures by models in Europe copied from the originals. These are the holy tomb in San Stefano in Bologna (430), the Chapel of the Tomb in Constance (tenth century), and that in G6rlitz (1480).
(H. Gums.)

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Holy 8e uloher Holy Sprit
BIBLIOGRAPHY: In general: G. William, The Holy City and the Architecture of the Holy Sepulchre, vol. ii., London, 1849; R. Willis, The Architectural Hut. of the Holy City, ib. 1849; T. Tobler, Golgotha, seine Kirchen and K16eter, Bern, 1851; M. de Vogild, Les LR'alises de la terre sainte, Paris, 1860; P. Schegg, Die Bauten Constantine fiber dem WipenGrab, Freising, 1867; C. Warren and C. Wilson, Recovery of Jerusalem, London, 1876; C. Schick, in ZDPY, viii (1885), 245 sqq., 259 eqq., ui (1889), 1 sqq.; H. Lewis, The Holy Places of Jerusalem, London, 1888; G. Jeffery, The Buildings of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, ib. 1895; Publications of the Pilgrims' Text Society, 13 vols., ib. 1897 (vol. i. is very important, contains excerpts from the writings of Eusebius pertinent to the subject, also the " Pilgrimage of St. Sylvia "); J. Germer‑Durand La Basilique de Constantin, in Echos d'orient, April, 1898; C. Mommert, Die Wigs Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem in ihrem urspranglichen Zustande, Leipsic, 1898; Golgotha and das heilige Grab zu Jerusalem, ib. 1900.
On the location: J. Korte, Reiss nach dem pelobten Lande, Halle, 1743‑51; F. A. de Chatesubriand, Itin6raire de Paris h Jerusalem, Paris, 1811; Robinson, Researches and Newer Researches, Passim; A. Schaffter, Die echte Laps des heilipen Grabes, Bern, 1849; J. N. Sepp, Jerusalem and das heilipe Land, i. 263 sqq., 418 sqq., Schaffhausen, 1873; C. Clermont‑Gannesu, L'AuthenticitM du Saint‑Sbpulae, Paris, 1877; C. Warren and C. Wilson, The Temple or the Tomb, London, 1880; C. Wilson, Goh gotha and the Holy Sepulchre, ib. 1906; K. Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, pp. 35 sqq., New York, 1906; PEF, Quarterly Report, Jan. ‑ Apr., 1907.
Consult further: O. Thenius, in ZHT, 1842, part iv., pp. 3 eqq.; J. Fergusson, The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem, London, 1865; F. W. Unger, Die Bauten Constantine am heilipen Grabezu Jerusalem, G5ttingen, 1863; C. R. Conder, in the Survey of Western Palestine, pp. 429 sqq., London, 1884; S. Merrill, in Andover Review, 1885, 483‑488; PEF Quarterly Statements, particularly for 1892; E. M. Clos, Krenz and Grab Jesu, Kempten, 1898. On the story of Adam referred to in the text consult Das christliche Adamburh des Morgenlandes, in Jahrbucher der biblischen Wiasenschaft, v. 111 sqq., GSttingen, 1853. Plans and reproductions are given in vol. i. of the Publications of the Pilgrims' Text Society, ut sup.
HOLY SEPULCHER, ORDERS OF THE: Among the several Roman Catholic orders of the Holy Sepulcher four deserve special mention:
1. Canons of the Holy Sepulcher (Fratres cruciferi dominici sepulcri Hierosolymitani) : An order founded at the beginning of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, when Patriarch Arnulf of Jerusalem (1111‑18) united the clerks of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher into a community. Calixtus II. confirmed the order in 1122, and in 1144 it had more than seven houses in Palestine. In 1187 the seat of the order was transferred to Acre and in 1291 was centered in the Occident, where its houses furnished lodging and assistance to pilgrims to the Holy Land. In 1489 the Canons of the Holy Sepulcher were united by Innocent VIII. with the Knights of St. John, and preserved their independence only in Spain, Sicily, and Poland, where some houses survived until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The only house still existing is that at Cracow.
2. Canonesses of the Holy Sepulcher (Sepulcrines)
The female branch of the Canons since the Middle Ages. The order attained its zenith after the rigid reform carried through by the Marchioness Claudia de Mouy, when she erected a house for the Canonesses at Charleville. Her rule was confirmed by Urban VIII. in 1631, and houses of the order still exist in France and Belgium, with one in BadenBaden and branches at Bruchsal.
3. Knights of the Holy Sepulcher (Golden Knights)
An oruer, founded toward the close of the Middle Ages, which included all knightly pilgrims to Palestine who had received the accolade at Jerusalem from the Guardian of the Holy Sepulcher. The order is said to have been orally confirmed by Leo X., but it was not until 1746 that Benedict XIV. gave it a written confirmation. Pius IX., after reestablishing a Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem in 1847, granted the patriarch the exclusive right to create Knights of the Holy Sepulcher, and by the brief Cum multa of Jan. 24, 1868, promulgated a formal rule for the order. The Knights wear on a white mantle a red enameled quintuple cross (the " cross of Godfrey de Bouillon "). The accolade is to be given in Jerusalem, but may be conferred through a deputy. The recipient promises to be willing to work for the Holy Land, and the order is divided into three classes: knights, commanders, and grand crosses, the first being required to pay 1,000 francs on admission, the second 2,000, and the third 3,000.
4. Fathers of the Holy Sepulcher: A name applied to the Franciscans stationed in Jerusalem. Even after the fall of Acre Franciscan minorites remained in Palestine to protect the Holy Places, notwithstanding the martyrdom of almost 2,000 of their number. Since 1657 the mother house of the order has been the great monastery of San Salvator in Jerusalem, which normally contains twenty‑five regular priests and fifty‑five lay brothers. A smaller monastery, adjoining the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, serves as a residence for the priests and lay brothers who conduct the services in the church.
(O. ZdCKLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: In general consult R. R6hricht, Regesta regni Hierosolymitani no. 75, Innsbruck, 1893; idem, Geachichte des Kenigareichs Jerusalem, p. 96 et passim, ib. 1898. On 1 consult: Heimbucher, Orden and Konprepationen, ii. 24; Helyot, Ordres monastiques, ii. 114 sqq.; KL, v. 977. On 2 consult: Heimbucher, ut sup., ii. 8182; Helyot, ut sup., ii. 124 sqq.; KL, v. 977. On 3 consult: J. Hermes, Der Orden vom heiligen Grabe, Cologne, 1870; Passini, 11 sacro militare ordine perosolimitano del s. sepolrro, Pisa, 1889; KL, v. 978. On 4 consult: Heimbucher, ut sup., ii. 427; KL, v. 978‑980; L. Michiele, Album de la mission franciacaine de terre saints, 2 vole., Venice, 1893.
HOLY SPIRIT (in the A. V. and older English, Holy Ghost): The third person of the Trinity. Other Scriptural designations are: the Spirit (Matt. iv. 1); the Spirit of God (I Cor. ii. 14); the Spirit of Christ (I Pet. i. 11); the Spirit of grace (Heb. x. 29); the Spirit of truth (John xvi. 13); the Comforter (Gk. parakl&es, " advocate, intercessor, helper "; John xiv. 26, xv. 26). For the Trinitarian relation of the Spirit see TRINITY; for the procession of the Spirit see FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY. This article will deal with the personality and work of the Spirit.
I. Personality: While early Christian writings (the Shepherd of Hernias, Justin Martyr, Irenmus, Origen) seem at times to teach the subordination of the Spirit to the Father and to the Son, and to waver concerning his personality, upon the whole their testimony is unmistakably in favor of the personality. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit was not made prominent till the fourth century. The Apostles' and Nicene Creed have

Holy Week hit
holy	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	332
the simple statements of belief °' in the Holy Ghost." The Nicene Creed as revised at ConstantinopIe (381) has the fuller formula, [And we believe] " in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who spake by the prophets." The personality of the Spirit is rejected by Sabellians, Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians, the Socinians representing the Spirit as an energy or power of God. The personality is proved by the following considerations: (1) The personal pronoun " he " is used of the Spirit (John xvi. 13). (2) He is expressly distinguished from God the Father and the Son (John xiv. 16, 26; I Cor. ii. 10). (3) Acts of will and intelligence are attributed to him, such as belong only to a personal agent (John xv. 26, xvi. 8, 13; Acts xiii. 2; Rom. viii. 26). (4) He is directly contrasted with Satan (Acts v. 3) and may be the object of blasphemy (Matt. xu. 31), falsehood (Acts v. 3), and grievance (Eph. iv. 30). (5) In the formula of baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19) and in the apostolic benediction (II Cor. xiii. 14) he is distinguished from the Father and the Son; so also in I Pet. i. 1‑12 distinct functions are ascribed to the Father, Son, and Spirit.
	II. Office	and Work: Like the Father and the
Son, the Spirit has ever been active. His person
		ality and his work are brought out
Biblical	clearly in the New Testament as effi‑
	Teaching.	cient in the renewal of the soul and its
		sanctification. The fact that Christ
promised to send the Holy Spirit and assured the
disciples that they should be filled with the Holy
Spirit indicates that his temporal mission in the
Church involved, if not some now element of ac
tivity, at least some increase in the efficacy of that
influence which it has always been his office to
exercise upon the hearts of men. According to the
statements of the apostolic writers, he was the
author of the light which the prophets of the Old
Testament had of the coming of Christ (I Pet. i. 11)
and of their inspiration (II Pet. i. 21). It might
be possible to explain all passages of the Old Testa
ment referring to the " Spirit of God " (Gen. i. 2,
vi. 3; etc.) as meaning the influence of God upon
the heart of man; but in view of the New Testa
ment revelation the influence of the personal Holy
Spirit appears in the operation of God upon the
hearts of the Old Testament saints and prophets.
As for the New Testament, it is not always possible to determine with assurance whether the personal Holy Spirit is meant or the divine influence (cf. Luke iv. 18). But that he had a definite work assigned to him in the development of our Lord's life the language certainly implies (Matt. iii. 16, iv. 1; Luke i. 35). In his last discourses Jesus promised that the Spirit should come as his representative after his removal from the earth and the dispenser of the benefits of his life to the souls of believers (John xiv. 16, xv. 26, xvi. 7, 13; Acts i. 8). The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9) because he holds the relation of a dispenser to the benefits of Christ's salvation. He has a relation to Christ similar to that which the Son has to the Father: as the Son reveals the Father (John
i. 18), so the Spirit reveals the grace and meritorious atonement and promises of Christ to the heart of the believer (John xvi.15).
The Spirit, as promised, descended with power on the Day of Pentecost (Acts ii.). Since that day
		the Church has looked to the Spirit as
	The	the source of all inner enlightenment,
	Descent	without whose agency man neither
	of the	knows Christ as his Savior nor can call
	Spirit.	him Lord (I Cor. xii. 3). He is called
		the " Holy Spirit of promise " (Eph.
	i. 13) with reference to the new life of the believer
	and the new realm into which the believer is trans
	ferred. He is the originator of the conviction of sin
	(John xvi. 8‑9) and the author of regeneration
	(John iii. 5). He promotes the sanctification of the
	soul (I Cor. vi. 11), and imparts to the Church his
	special gifts (I Cor. xii. 4). The agency of the Spirit
	extends to assuring the believer of his union with
	Christ, and participation in the promises of eternal
life (Rom. viii. 16).	All spiritual blessings, right
	eousness, peace, and joy, come to the believer by
	reason of his reception of the Holy Spirit (Rom. xiv.
	17; Eph. ii. 18). All kinds and degrees of sin may
	be forgiven, except the sin of blasphemy against the
	Holy Spirit (Matt. xii. 31, 32). This sin is unpardon
	able, because it is the final rejection of the saving
knowledge of Christ himself.
	The present dispensation is called the dispensa
	tion of the Spirit because of the prominence given
	to his work and person. The Spirit's work, however,
	is in no sense an atoning work or a substitute for
	that of Christ. It is mediatorial between the Savior
	and the saved, realizing the salvation of Jesus in
	the lives and experiences of individuals. The mani
	festation of the Spirit continues, as on the Day of
	Pentecost, a manifestation of power‑the power of
	a new life and spiritual energy (Acts i. 8). There
	is no indication in the New Testament that this
	manifestation of power was to be confined to apos
	tolic times, though it is reasonable that the methods
	of the manifestation should be different in kind at
different epochs.	D. S. Scam.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Of the Confessions the Westminster Con
	fession as revised in 1903 by the Presbyterian Church con
	tains the fullest treatment. Consult: A. Kuyper, The
	Work of the Holy Spirit, New York, 1900 (contains a bib
	liography of the older literature); J. Owen, Of the Holy
	Spirit, London, 1674 (the classic in English); R. Heber,
	Personality and Office of the , . . Corlforter, ib. 1816; Pye
	Smith, On the Holy Ghost, ib. 1831; K. A. Kahnis, Die
	Lehre vom heiligen Geisls, Halle, 1847 (incomplete); J.
	Buchanan, Ofce and Work of the Holy Spirit, Edinburgh,
	1856; J. Hare, The Mission of the Comforter, ed. E. H,
	Plumptre, ib. 1877; H. H. Wendt, Die Begrife Pleisch
	and Geist in bibliachen SpradWebrauch, Gotha, 1878;
	G. Smeaton, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Edinburgh, 1882;
	H.'Gunkel, Die Wirkunpen des heiliyen Geistes nach der
	Anachauung der aposWischen Zeit and each der
	Lehre des . . . Paulus, Halle, 1888; J. Robson, The Holy
	Spirit, the Paraclete, Aberdeen, 1893; A. J. Gordon, The
	Ministry of the Holy Spirit, New York, 1894; W. K511
	ing, Pneumatolopie oder die Lehre von der Person des heili
	pen Geiates, Giitersloh, 1894; J. P. Coyle, The Holy Spirit
	in Literature and Life, Boston, 1895; K. von Lechler, Die
	biblische Lehre vom heiligen Geiste, Leipsic, 1899; K.
	F. Nbegen, Geschichte won der Lehre room heiligen Geiste,
	Gatersloh, 1899; idem, Do# Wesen and Wirken des
	Heilipen Geietes, Berlin, 1907; F. B. Denio, The Supreme
	Leader, Boston, 1900; J. E. C. Welldon, The Revelation
	of the Holy Spirit, London, 1902; L. B. Crane, Teachings
	of Jesus concerning the Holy Spirit, New York, 1908;

888	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	soles8oly v~e~
t3 11'ft
J. H. B. Masterman, " ! believe in the Holy Ghost." A Study of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Light of Modern Thought, London, 1907; A. C. A. Hall, The Work of the Holy Spirit, Milwaukee, 1907; J. D. Folsom, The Holy Spirit our Helper, New York, 1907; G. F. Holden, The Holy Ghost the Comforter, New York, 1908; F. C. Porter, The Spirit of God and the Word of God in Modern Theology, ib. 1908; E. W. Winetanley,. The Spirit in the N. T., ib. 1908. Consult also the pertinent sections on the systems of theology cited under DOGMA, DOGMATICS.
HOLY THURSDAY. See HOLY WEEK, 1 4.
HOLY WATER: Water over which the prayer of consecration has been offered, which is then used symbolically in ceremonial lustration. Purifications in religion and worship by means of water were familiar both to the Oriental and 'to the classical systems of antiquity. On this point Egyptians, Indians, Persians, and Semites stood on a common ground. The custom is found in ancient and later Judaism (see DEFILEMENT AND PURIFICATION, CEREMONIAL). There was a vessel provided for the lustration of priests in both Tabernacle and Temple. Greeks and Romans not only paid reverential honor to sacred wells, but vessels of water stood in the confines of ancient temples, lustration being accomplished by the individual or the priest. Under the influence of both Jewish and heathen precedent Christianity introduced similar forms of purification. Tertullian speaks of the custom of washing the hands before prayer (De oratio, xi.), and the Apostolic Constitutions witness to the same habit (viii. 32). A bowl of water (see CANTnARus) was provided in the atrium of the basilica (Eusebius, Hint. eccb., X., iv. 40). In this connection the old inscription was frequently applied, " Cleanse not only the face, but lawlessness," and on the vessel before old St. Paul's Church in Rome there was the inscription: " Whoever thou art who approachest the sacred shrine of Paul, venerated for its merits, wash as a suppliant thy hands in the font." In celebrating the Lord's Supper, the hands of those who received, as well as the hands of the ministering priest, were washed (of. the authorities cited in DCA, i. 758‑759). These lustrations were symbolic acts and were made with unblessed water, which was distinguished from that which the Church used in the sacrament of baptism. The effects of this sacrament were associated with the blessing of the water, and the sphere of the benediction was superstitiously extended, as was done in the case of the bread in the Lord's Supper (Tertullian, Ad uxorem, ii. 5), being regarded as efficacious in sickness and as a protection against demons. But this development required considerable time. Lustrar tion and baptism were for a time found side by side; then a third element was introduced in the fourth century, blessed water or holy water. The blessing element originated from the sacrament, the free use of it from the custom of lustration. The increase of popular superstition caused this combination. A formula for benediction occurs in the Apostolic Constitutions (viii. 29; Eng. transl. in ANF, vii. 494), and the conferrer of the benediction was the bishop or, in exceptional cases, the presbyter. Stories of miracles made the custom popular. In order to regulate the usage and to protect it against the extension of superstitious practises, at the be‑
ginning of the Carolingian age the benediction of water was made an ordinary act of worship. A formula was established for it in the Gregorian Sacramentary, which became the standard and is found in the Roman Ritual. Its connection with the superstition of the ancient Church is evident, especially shown by the fact that in exorcism a prayer was offered beseeching the banishment of the evil one, while the closing petition in the blessing of holy water also mentions the driving away of demons and diseases, freeing the recipients from all evil, and asking that the spirit of pestilence may not reside there, and that all acts of envy of the latent enemy may be averted. Salt was mixed with the water, through an apocryphal direction of Pope Alexander I.; the altar was first sprinkled, then the ministry and clergy, and then the people; the faithful were allowed to take the holy water home for sprinkling the sick, houses, fields, and so on. Holy water is used by the Church for numerous benedictions, besides those mentioned above. It is kept in church in a special movable vessel or in a permanent holy water stoop. Probably the earliest example of this stoop came from Tunis, and dates from about the fifth century. More certainly applied to this use was a Byzantine marble urn (cf. F. X. Kraus, RealencyklaWie der chriatlichen Alterhimer, ii. 980, Freiburg, 1886). Perhaps in the catacombs vessels of holy water were placed to protect the dead from evil spirits. There is an old example of a bronze vessel in the Vatican museum; the first certain representation of a basin is on the ivory cover of the well‑known sacramentary of Drogo of the ninth century. Various forms came into use later on (cf. K. Atz, Die chrialiche Kunst in Wort and Bild, p. 547, Regensburg, 1899). The Greek Church maintains the close connection between holy water and baptismal water. It distinguishes between the great consecration (on the evening before Epiphany or on Epiphany) and the lesser consecration (whenever occasion requires). Orientals practise also the blessing of rivers or the sea. (VICTOR SCHULTZE.) BIawoasAray: Bingbam, Oripines, XI., s.; H. Pfannenschmid, Dal WeAwaaser im heidniechen and christlichen %ultus, Hanover, 1889; F. Probst, $akramente and Sakramentalien in den drei ersten chriatlicAen Jahrhundertsn, pp. 74‑83, Ttibingen, 1872; R. de Fleury, La Meese, part v., Paris, 1887; A. von Maltzew, Bitt‑, Dank‑ and WeiheGottesdienste der orthodox‑katholischen %irehe des Morgenlandes, Berlin, 1897; John, Marquis of Bute, and E. W. Budge, The Blessing of the Waters on the Eve of the Epiphany, London, 1901; H. Usener, in Archio for Relipionsmisaensccha/t, viii (1904), 290 sqq.; Cabral, Dictionnaire, part 3av., cola. 886‑713 (brilliant and minute, deals with the formulae, many of which it collates); HL, rii. 12621283.
HOLY WEEK. Origins (4 1).
Palm Sunday in the East (¢ 2). In the West (§ 3).
Monday to Thursday (§ 4). Good Friday (5 5).
Holy Saturday (¢ 6).
Protestant Usage (§ 7).
Holy Week, that is, the week before Easter, was originally called the " great week." •The oldest witnesses for this designation are the pilgrim Egeria in the account of her travels, the so‑called Peregrinatio Silvia (text and Eng. transl. in pub‑

Holy Week	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	884
lications of Palestine Pilgrim's Text Society, London, 1896), and Chrysostom (Hom., xxx., c. 1 in
Gen. x. et xi.). In the account of trav‑
r. Origins. els of Egeria from the time about 385
we find a detailed description of the rich liturgical celebrations by which the " great week," beginning with Palm Sunday, was distinguished in Jerusalem (in CSEL, xxxix. 78‑92). From this account two conclusions may safely be drawn: (1) The liturgical usages, especially the custom to celebrate solemnly this week before Easter, owe their origin to the custom in Jerusalem; (2) at the time when Egeria wrote, similar celebrations must have .been unknown in the Occident; the customs in Jerusalem are evidently strange and new to her. The great week in the East was distinguished in the first place by strict fasting; but the custom was not uniform; some fasted the whole week, others only four or three, or even only two, days, namely, Friday and Saturday. As early as the time of Chrysostom all public amusements were forbidden, all public offices closed, prisoners dismissed, slaves benefited in every way, especially by their release, and the poor were provided with plentiful alma. The Occidental Church adopted the same name for this week; for its official designation in the Roman Church is still to‑day hebdomada magna or major. It was called also sancta. It is mentioned in liturgical writings as early as the twelfth century. The German expression Karwoche (Karfreitag) is derived from karen, " to wail, to mourn," hence denotes week of mourning or lamentation. With the Greeks the " great week " began only with the Monday after Palm Sunday, while in the Occident it commenced with that Sunday. Originally it was the same way in 'the East.
The oldest description of the liturgical celebration of this day in Jerusalem in the fourth century is
given in the Peregrinatio Silvi,as (CSEL,
2. Palm xxxix. 82 sqq., Eng. transl. of Palestine
Sunday	Pilgrim's Text Society, pp. 57 sqq.).
	in the	The festival began at one o'clock in the
	East.	afternoon in the church upon the
		Mount of Olives, with singing of hymns
and antiphones and the reading of lessons. The
characteristic feature of the celebration was the
several processions from one church to another which
took place accompanied by the repeated acclamation
of the people, " Blessed is he that cometh in the
name of the Lord." Children held branches of
palms or olives in their hands and accompanied the
bishop, who represented the Lord and rode upon
an ass. Ephraem the Syrian (q.v.) testifies that
the same procession of palms took place as early as
the fourth century in Edessa. In the fifth century
the festival of palms had spread over the whole of
Palestine. It should be noticed that the oldest
testimonies for the procession of palms on Palm
Sunday are entirely silent concerning a consecration
of the palms, and these testimonies prove that
Palm Sunday was considered throughout as a day
of joy, not as a day of mourning; moreover, the
epistle read on this day was Phil. iv. 4‑9.
In the Occident there was originally no such celebration with branches of palms or other branches on
this day. The oldest Western testimonies for
Palm Sunday agree that the day bore entirely the
character of a Passion Sunday, consequently that
		of mourning. It was still the same
	3. In the way at the time of Leo the Great (d.
	West. 461), who calls this Sunday Dominica
		Passionis because the history of the
Passion was read. With this agrees entirely the fact
that the Spanish pilgrim evidently, until that time,
had not known of a procession of palms as she
experienced it in Jerusalem. The oldest Occidental
testimony for the procession of palms and their
consecration is found in the Liber ordinum of the
Visigothic Church (ed. Fdrotin, Paris, 1904). There
can be no doubt that this Spanish ceremonial be
longs to the Visigothic time, hence to the sixth
century. It must have been in the course of the
fifth century that the Eastern custom either directly
or indirectly penetrated Spain. Apart from the
consecration of palms, there is an unmistakable
agreement between the Spanish celebration and
that of Jerusalem as described in the Peregrinatio
Silvim (ut sup.). The consecration of palms is
probably of Occidental origin, and was at first
entirely independent of the celebration. Such a
consecration was hardly necessary for the pro
cession, but the consecrated branches were believed
to possess the power of exorcism, to expel diseases,
and to guard against demons, lightning, fire, and
tempests. It is not known at what time and place
consecration of palms and procession were com
bined. One of the oldest testimonies of a special
celebration of Palm Sunday in the Occident is a
passage in the work of the Anglo‑Saxon bishop
Aldhelm of Sherborne (q.v.), De laudibus virginitatis
(MPL, lxxxix. 128). He speaks of a " very holy
solemnity of the palms." At the celebration on this
day there was sung antiphonally Benedict= qui
venit in namine Domini, to joyful airs. Amalarius
of Metz (q.v.) testifies that on Palm Sunday
branches were carried through the churches while
Hosannah was sung (MPL, cv. 1008); he says
nothing of the consecration of pahns. In the later
Middle Ages the procession developed so as to imi
tate as faithfully as possible the entrance of Jesus
into Jerusalem. As in the East, the bishop, as
Christ, rode upon an ass or a horse. There devel
oped, on the other hand, also the ceremony of
consecration. Not only were branches consecrated,
but also flowers, which were then carried in the
procession. Therefore the Sunday was called also
pascha, foridum, dominica forum et ramorum, les
pdques fUuriea; flower day. On the same day the
symbol. was given to the competitors in various
territories of the Church, as in the fifth and sixth
centuries in Gaul and Spain; therefore Palm Sunday
was called in some places dominica or paacha comr
peterdium. In the Roman Catholic Church the fol
lowing solemn observances take place on Palm
Sunday: (1) the consecration of palms; (2) the
procession; (3) the mass, which throughout bears
the character of mourning. As the Greek Church
does not count Palm Sunday as belonging to the
" great week," and has given to this day from the
beginning the character of joy, it does not now
employ the procession, but only the consecration of

335	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Holy Week
palms. In the Greek Church the names of the day are similar to those in the Latin Church.
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the " great week, " according to the Peregrinatio Silvice (CSEL, xxxix. 84 sqq.; Eng. transl.,
	4. Monday ut sup., pp. 59‑60), were early dis
to tinguished by special services. 	On
	Thursday.	Tuesday in the vigil the bishop him
		self reads the Gospel of the day, Matt.
xxiv. 4 sqq., upon the Mount of Olives, from the
cave in which the Lord used to teach his disciples.
On Wednesday the vigil takes place in the Church
of the Resurrection; the presbyter reads the Gospel
of the day (Matt. xxvi. 14‑16), the history of the
betrayal, whereupon the congregation utters loud
cries of resentment. The same lessons are to a
certain extent still used in the Greek Church. The
masses of the Roman Church on those days are of a
pronounced character of passion.
Concerning Maundy Thursday, in the description of the Peregrinatio Silvia (CSEL, xxxix. 85 sqq.; Eng. transl., ut sup., pp. 60‑62), which gives a detailed account of the celebration of this day in Jerusalem, it is to be noted that the writer apparently has no special name either for Maundy Thursday or for the preceding days, and in the second place, that this day is distinguished by a general celebration of the Holy Supper, which takes place in a definite place. This evidently constitutes the proper celebration of this day, while the services in the evening are to be regarded as preparations for the following Friday. The custom of celebrating the Holy Supper on this day extended over the whole Orient. Augustine testifies to the same custom in Africa in the fifth century. An important ceremony on Maundy Thursday was the washing of feet (see Foom‑wABHINQ). .On the same day there took place the solemn readmission or reconciliation of the penitents to the congregation, but this custom was not universal in the Occident. Ambrose testifies to its existence in Milan, and Innocent I. in Rome. In the Middle Ages this custom disappeared. Another custom of the ancient church on this day was the consecration of the Chrism (q.v.) by the bishop. Originally this consecration took place during the act of baptism; but when the bishops had to leave baptism to the presbyters they still claimed for themselves the consecration of the anointing‑oil, as early as the fourth century in Rome. It is very probable that these blessings were then performed on Maundy Thursday; for baptism took place shortly before Easter. The Roman Catholic Church possesses still other peculiar customs for this day, as, for instance, the chanting of the Tenebrce. During the service a large candlestick, supporting fifteen lights, arranged in the form of a triangle, which denote Christ and the prophets who predicted his coming, stands in the sanctuary; the lights are one by one extinguished until only the upper one remains, which is taken down and placed under the altar until the close of the office, and then brought back. It is also customary on this day for all clericals to commune. In the Greek Church on this day, beside the washing of pilgrims' feet and the consecration of oil, also the consecration of the holy myron takes place. The derivation of the term
" Green Thursday," the German designation for Holy Thursday, is uncertain. Some derive it from the green herbs that used to be eaten on this day in order to guard against diseases; others, from the penitents who were readmitted on Holy Thursday, and who, according to them, were styled " green." According to Keller, the name originated from the green paraments used in Germany in the mass of that day in contrast with the paraments of other colors used on other days of the "great week." While " Green Thursday " and " Holy Thursday " are only popular designations, the liturgical name of the Church isto‑day, and has been for a long time, Ca‑na Domini.
According to the oldest testimonies, this day bears throughout the character of mourning. This ap‑
pears in the interesting description of
5. Good the celebration of this day in Peregri‑
Friday. natio Silviice (CSEL, xxxix. 87 sqq.;
Eng. transl., ut sup., pp. 62 sqq.). The account shows that on this day there was customary the strictest fasting and vigilance, that a crucifix was exhibited and adored, and that the divine services consisted in reading of the Scripture, hymns, and prayers, but not in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The custom of the Greek Church of to‑day hardly differs from the custom of old Jerusalem as preserved in the account of Silvia. The Syriac Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions demand absolute fasting on Good Friday and Saturday before Easter. About the middle of the third century it was customary also in Alexandria to abstain entirely from food on both days, although not unconditionally. The custom of the Occident in keeping this day is closely related to that of the East; the day is one of deepest mourning and of strict fasting, and there is a tendency to limit church services as much as possible. John of Naples, a contemporary of Paulinus of Nola (d. 431), bears witness that he administered the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, but on the next day devoted himself entirely to prayer, which shows that on this day no mass was celebrated. In some parts of Spain in the seventh century the churches were closed on Good Friday. Even in the ninth century in Rome no communion was celebrated. Nevertheless, Good Friday was always distinguished by a peculiar celebration. The morning service in the Roman Catholic Church consists of four parts: (1) the readings; (2) the intercessory prayers; (3) the unveiling and adoration of the cross; and (4) the celebration of the missy prmsanati, fwatorum (" shortened " mass). In the Middle Ages there was customary also a solemn burial, which used to follow immediately the adoration of the cross‑the cross was laid down in a " holy " grave in the tomb chapel and covered with a piece of cloth (sudarium), and in connection with it there were sung corresponding responsories, ver. sicles and prayers. This custom is said to have arisen in the tenth century. The adoration of the cross was followed by the " shortened " mass, which is explained as follows: On Holy Thursday there are consecrated two wafers; one is eaten by the priest, the other he places back in the chalice, which he puts on a side altar. This " presanetified " wafer (hence the Latin name, ut sup.) is carried on Good

9017 Week
omberg Synod
Friday by the priest and the entire clergy in procession Trom the side altar to the main altar. The origin of this " mass of .the presanctified " lies, without doubt, in the East, where, on certain days of the week, the " service of the preaanctified " is still celebrated, the elements of which are sanctified on the preceding Sunday. In the Roman Catholic Church Good Friday is not a holiday, and therefore the performance of daily work is allowed. The liturgical name of Good Friday, especially among the Latins, is " day of preparation." Among the Jews that was the name for every Friday as the day of preparation for the following Sabbath. The Christians, too, often designated any Friday by this expression, but finally it was restricted to Good Friday. The Greeks call this Friday as every day of the holy and great week, the " holy and great " Friday or " the great preparation." At an earlier time it was designated by " Pascha of the crucifixion," in distinction from " Pascha of the resurrection," the Easter festival (Augustine, De trinitate, in MPL, xhi. 894). The Italians call it venerdi santo, the French vendredi saint. In Germany, beside the name " Good Friday," there was current also the term " White Friday."
On the ceremonies of Holy Saturday or Easter Saturday see EASTER, I., 4, §§ 2‑3. In the Greek
Orthodox Church the " great Sabbath "
6. Holy was esteemed more highly than Good
Saturday. Friday. Until the time of vespers it
still bears the character of mourning and earnestness; therefore it is a day of the strictest fasting. The liturgical service of this day has a specially dramatic character. The most important ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church on Holy Saturday are at the present time the consecration of the new fire, the consecration of the Easter candle, the consecration of water, the litany and the mass which, to a certain extent, still bears the impress of penitence and mourning; but this mass is celebrated with white paraments and the singing of the Gloria and the Hallelujah (see LITuRoIcs, III.). The lessons refer to the resurrection. The liturgical name of Holy Saturday is Sabbatum sanctum; the Italians therefore call it sabato canto, and the Frenchmen aamedi saint, while in Germany it is known as Osteraonnabend or Karsamstag.
The Lutheran Reformation brought about the general abolishment of the Roman Catholic cere‑
monies of the week. Luther had so
q. Protes‑ great an aversion against them that tant Usage. in the Formula. miss&, of 1523 he did
not mention at all the celebration. In Wittenberg, therefore, these customs seem to have disappeared at a very early time. But from sermons of Luther dating from the years 1521 and 1522 it is evident that at that time Holy Thursday and Good Friday were distinguished by special services with sermons in Wittenberg. All Roman Catholic abuses in connection with the celebration of Holy Week were removed, but the traditional Evangelical pericopes of Passion week were adhered to. The Wittenberg church order of 1533 prescribes even double preaching for Holy Wednesday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. It is a characteristic trait of the sixteenth and seventeenth
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
8a8
centuries that Holy Thursday and Good Friday were treated as being of an entirely equal value. Sometimes they are considered half‑holidays, at other times whole holidays; then again they are not mentioned at all as days specially to be celebrated, but Good Friday is never valued more highly than Holy Thursday. The custom of celebrating Holy Week was in no way uniform in the first decades of the Reformation. There were territories in which it was celebrated as closely as possible in connection with the old Catholic customs. Good Friday developed only gradually into a full holiday. In the first half of the seventeenth century it began, in public estimation, to take precedence of Holy Thursday. In the Reformed Church the regulations of Zwingli had a decisive influence. Accordingly, Holy Thursday and Good Friday belonged from the beginning to the official days of the administration of the Lord's Supper. It must be assumed that the customs and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church soon disappeared in Zurich. In the Reformed German territories of to‑day Holy Thursday is considered a half‑holiday and Good Friday a full holiday. In the Anglican Church the entire week is distinguished by special church services. This is nowhere the case now in German Evangelical territories. Palm Sunday is in many state churches the customary Sunday for confirmation. Holy Thursday is nowhere any longer a legal holiday, but is characterized only by the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Good Friday is generally a full holiday, celebrated with great earnestness. [In the Evangelical churches of Great Britain and the United States other than those named above, the observances of the week as a whole are disregarded. There is, however, a very decided tendency in several of the denominations to make Good Friday a day of special service. The usages of the churches are also affecting social and business life‑shown in the former by refraining from participation in amusements, in closer attendance upon public worship, and in acts of self‑denial, and in the latter by such customs as the closing of exchanges, banks, and even of the offices of corporations.]
(P. DREWS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Orapines, XXI., i. 24‑32 (excellent
se a historical review); J. C. W. Augusti, Denkwurdipkeiten, i. 157‑163, Leipaic, 1817; A. J. Binterim, Denkw~2rdigkeiten, v., i., 173‑233, Mainz, 1829; G. F. H. B,heinwald, Die kirchliche ArchMogie, pp. 190 sqq., Berlin, 1830; T. Kliefoth, Liturpiache Abhandlunpen, vols. ii.‑iv., Schwerin, 1859‑61; H. Alt. Der christliche Cultus, ii. 22‑31, 214‑218, 352‑364, Berlin, 1880; P. Gu4ranger, Das Kirchenjahr, vol. vi., Mainz, 1890; V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der katholischen Liturpik, ii. 540‑550, Freiburg, 1890; D. Sokolow, Darstellung des Gottesdienstes der . . . Kirche des Horpenlandes, pp. 105 eqq. Berlin, 1893; S. Bikumer, Geschichte des Breviers, pp. 112 sqq., Freiburg, 1895; E. C. Achelis, Lehrbuch der praklischen Theoloqie, i. 288 sqq., Leipeic, 1898; A. von Maltzew, Fasten‑ and Bluraen Triodion, pp. lxxviii. sqq., 329 sqq., Berlin, 1899; E. Wiefen, Palmsonntagsprozessionen and Palmead Bonn, 1903; F. Cabrol, Les Oripines liturriques, pp. 173 eqq., Paris, 1900; H. Kellner Heortolopie, pp. 44 aqq., Freiburg, 1908; Maximilian of Saxony, Pralectiones de liturpicis orientalibus, i. 105 sqq., Freiburg, 1908; J. H. Feaeey,
Ancient English Holy Week Ceremonial, London, 1897.
HOLZHAUSER, BARTHOLOMAEUS. See BARTHOLOMITEB, .2.

337	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Holy Week
Sr.. berg Synod
HOM13ERG SYNOD AND CHURCH ORDER OF 1526.
I. The Homberg Synod. II. The Homberg Church Order.
Chapters i.‑xiv., Ritual, Worship, etc. ($ 1).
Chapters xv.‑xxviii., Church Organisation and Government (¢ 2).
Chapters xmx.‑mtiv., Instruction (§ 3).
The Church Order never Officially Adopted (¢ 4).
Excellences and Defects of the Church Order (§ 5).
Its Models and Sources (§ 6).
I. The Homberg Synod: Even before Luther's dramatic appearance, the lords of the State in Germany, no less than in France and England, had extended their prerogatives into the sphere of ecclesiastical affairs. The decision of the Diet of Speyer, Aug. 27, 1526, which allowed every sovereign authority, pending the meeting of a council, to decide matters of faith for itself and its province, recognizing its accountability to God and the emperor, conceded, even though in limited terms, a canonical basis for the application of territorialism in favor of the Reformation. Landgrave Philip of Hesse had the sagacity to utilize the situation in a judicious manner and convened an assembly of spiritual and temporal estates at Homberg (20 m. s.w. of Cassel) Oct. 20, 1526, " to deal in the grace of the Almighty with Christian matters and disputes." The proceedings were opened in the church at Homberg on Sunday, Oct. 21. To promote discussion, the former Franciscan Franz Lambert (q.v.), of Avignon, had put forth 158 articles of debate (paradoxa), which had already been posted on the church doors. After the opening speech by the chancellor, Johann Feige, Lambert read his theses, and proceeded to substantiate them from Scripture and to enumerate the abuses of the Church. In the afternoon Adam Krafft, of Fulda, translated Lambert's theses into German, and challenged whoever found them at variance with God's Word to declare himself. Only the Franciscan prior Nicholas Ferber, of Marburg, came forward, and took the floor the following morning. He flatly contested the landgrave's authority to hold a synod, to undertake ecclesiastical changes, and to pass any measures in the affairs of the Christian faith; since this was altogether the privilege of the pope, the bishops, and the Church. When the chancellor urged the duty of the civil authorities to abolish abuses and idolatry Ferber still more sharply contested the assembly's competency to. deal with an ecclesiastical question, and finally he attacked the prince's character for laying hands on the goods of the Church. He did not succeed, however, in giving another turn to the proceedings; nor did he attempt to refute the proffered articles of debate. He soon afterward left Hesse, and issued at Cologne Aasertianes trecentat ac viginta adversus Fr. Ldmherti paradoxa impia; and subsequently Amertiones alive. On the following day (Tuesday, Oct. 23), when the synod was on the point of closing, there appeared unexpectedly Master Johann Sperber, of Waldau, near Cassel, and made a vain attempt to justify the invocation of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, by the angelic salutation in Luke i.
II. The Homberg Church Order: As a result of the deliberations of a committee appointed prior to the closing of the synod, there was issued the V: 22
Homberg church order, or Reformatio Heasice, which in thirty‑four chapters deals with the entire sphere of church life. Foremost stands i. Chapters the declaration that the Word of God
i.‑xiv., shall be the only norm (i. if.). It is
Ritual, affirmed in the passage concerning the
Worship, Lord's Supper (iii.‑iv.) that " Christ etc. is present in this supper, God and man " ; provision is made for administration of the sacrament under both kinds; and the observance of the " ritual which Martin Luther has just written in German " (i.e., Die deutsche Mesas, 1526) is ordered. The wearing of a mass gown, the lighting of candles, and the use of a suitable cup are recommended; but the recitation of the canon of the mass and of all prayers in which the terms " sacrifice " and " host " occur, the invocation of the saints, and the like are forbidden. It is also enjoined that the organ be played not at all, or only very seldom, because it ministers to the ear alone; and, furthermore, that the pompous peal of bells be avoided. At daily morning and evening service, held in the native language, the Old and New Testament Scriptures are to be read (v.). Obligatory confession and the avowal of separate sins (vi.), with fasting, are repealed, but fast‑days may be appointed by the civil ruler and by the congregation; in the latter case, however, not in the way of obligation (vii.). Chapter viii., " Concerning Festivals," reduces their number, and sets forth that for the faithful all days, properly considered, are alike, save that Sunday and the other festival days are sanctioned to the end that God's Word may be freely heard by the whole congregation. The important social principle is declared that on such days, apart from the hours of divine service, and without scruple of conscience, it is allowable to ply one's calling, since this is better than idleness; but one has no right to compel hired people to work at such times. No tolerance is socorded to images and altars in the churches‑‑only the altar from which the Lord's Supper is administered shall remain, and it shall be called not altar, but table; it is temperately subjoined, however, that these things are not to be removed by the civil authority until the congregation may have neglected to remove them, after, the Gospel shall have been preached some considerable time (ix.). " Superstitious benedictions " of bread, wine, water, salt, etc., are forbidden, and in place of them grace at meals is recommended, though not as :e matter of compulsion (x.). The passage on baptism (xi.), visitation of the sick (xii.), form of burial (xiii.), and marriage (xiv.) follow, and then come the provisions affecting the congregational and ecclesiastical organization (xv. aqq.), the clauses which have made this church order famous.
Their dominating ideas are as follows: The congregations of the faithful are the foundation of the entire Church (xv.); and they are constituted by means of a separation of the true brethren from the false. The organization of these congregations shall be preceded by a more or less prolonged proclaiming of the Gospel; and, furthermore, by a preparatory season of one month, during which the prospective organization shall be advertised

Homberg Ssaod	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	888
Home ~~isslons
on Sundays and festivals. The hope is enter
tained that by virtue of this preaching a congrega
			tion of the faithful may be formed in
	a. Chapters advance of its actual organization.
	xv.‑xxviii., The latter shall then be effected by
		Church	the following process: on the duly
	Organiza‑ appointed day those who desire to be
		tion and reckoned in the number of the saints
		Govern‑ make public announcement thereof,
		meat.	and at the same time promise their
			submission to Holy Scripture and
the church discipline. One who by his man
ner of life or by his doctrine provokes offense
is not to be admitted among the number of
the faithful unless, within a period of two weeks,
he succeeds, by repentance, in removing the ob
jections against him. Congregational activity
is to be exercised in assemblies and by means of
constituted officers. This assembling of the faithful
‑women were allowed to be present, but not to
speak‑should occur every Sunday, at a suitable
place. The faithful are particularly entrusted with
the election of bishops and deacons, and the exercise
of church discipline, but, with reference to bishops
(=pastors), the qualification is made that " for this
year, and until the congregations are instructed by
God's Word" they shall be called, installed, or de
posed by the civil sovereign and the visitatores (see
below). The bishops' duties include administration
of Word and sacrament, cure of souls, and presiding
at	conventions. Eligible as bishops are devout,
learned, and blameless men of every estate, but not
princes, lords, and government officials. Deacons
are of two kinds‑those who assist the bishop, and
" deacons of the church," who care for the poor and
administer church property. Fervent interest is
manifested in behalf of the poor (xxvii.). Provision
is made for those who have been driven from home
for the sake of their faith (xxviii.). Besides the
episeopi. and diaeaai, seniores are mentioned (xii.,
xv., xx., xxi.), but only in the position of men of
trust in the congregation, not as officers. The per
manent cause of rectitude in the congregation was
promoted by the church discipline, which could pro
ceed as far as excommunication and was exercised
by direct naming of the guilty. Excommunication
consisted in exclusion from the weekly meetings and
from intercourse with the faithful, and if one who
had incurred it was overtaken by death impenitent
he should not be buried in the cemetery of the faith
ful (xvi.). Absolution of sinners is to be granted
before the entire congregation, upon public con
fession of sins, and subject .to open repentance
(xvii.). The congregations become incorporated as
a part of the Hessian State Church by the action of
a synod to be convened annually at Marburg, reg
ularly on the third Sunday after Easter, for which
a session of three days at the longest was prescribed
(xviii.). The synod was to be composed of the
bishops, the congregational delegates‑‑‑each con
gregation electing one delegate from its own mem
bers‑the princes, counts and lords (nobilea). It
devolved on the synod to pass upon all matters of
administering and ordering the Church according to
the Word of God, which is the only binding canon;
all decisions rendered by the synod are but so many
interpretations. To cover the interval between the several synods, an executive committee of thirteen members was to be chosen by the synod from its members, and this committee had charge of instituting and directing the synods, and of devising provisional arrangements to be duly submitted to the synod itself. The synod, furthermore, was to elect three vi&itatorm (xxii.), upon whom it devolved to visit all the Hessian congregations once a year; to test, with a view to their fitness, those elected as bishops; to confirm the worthy and remove the unworthy; to support the congregations and bishops agreeably to the Word of God; and to inculcate respect for the Word of God and the synod's resolutions. In urgent matters the committee should. confer with the inspectors for joint action. Very significant of the spirit of this church order is the declaration (xxvi.) that none of the church officials, neither the executive committee nor the inspectors, neither bishops nor deacons, hold priority of rank; while any striving to that end was to be punished with forfeiture of office; provision is made for rotation of office to be observed in the synods.
After church organization comes the matter of instruction. It is declared (xxix.) that nothing shall be taught at the new university (uni3. Chapters versale stadium) which it was proposed xxix.‑xxxiv., to found at Marburg " which may be Instruction. prejudicial to the interests of the kingdom of God." Schools for boys are to be erected in the various towns and villages (xxx.); likewise, schools for girls (xxxi.), if possible, in the country as well, to train up capable housekeepers. The Reformatio closes with provisos .affecting cloisters and monks (xxxiv.); provision shall be made for all who withdraw, while in the main tolerance is the portion of those that stay behind, though they are subject to serious limitations of their freedom. In the case of vacated cloisters, either schools are to be inaugurated or, if the congregation so decides, they shall be applied to church or public objects.
Forasmuch as the Reformatio had not been formally accepted by the Homberg Synod, but was only the draft of a committee serv‑
o. The ing by the synod's appointment, there
Church was need of some special act of legis‑
	Order	latibn to secure official validity in Hem
	Never	for this private labor. Such reeog
Ofcially nition, however, was never conceded.
	Adopted.	Landgmve Philip accounted it advi
		sable to submit the same to the great
Reformer for a judicial opinion. In a communica
tion dated Jan. 7, 1527, Luther counseled not to
circulate the constitution in printed form, but first
to supply the parishes and schools with good and
worthy incumbents, and furnish them with very
brief directions. He advised not to begin with
the promulgation of finished laws, which people
could not carry out; on the contrary, let the laws
grow out of practical experience and usage. This
letter settled the fate of the church order. It not
only did not appear in print, but, as the sole two
manuscripts which have been hitherto discovered
prove, it was evidently kept discreetly in the back
ground. The formerly much‑agitated question as

889	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	HomHomber~ 8ynod
e l~ss~as
to whether it was at least provisionally in legal operation, is decided negatively. by the instructions to the visikttores at Pentecost, 1527, wherein with express reference to the Homberg Constitution it is declared that no other rule shall be valid than the Word of God, and that no other scheme of regulations shall be expected.
Luther's verdict was justified in fact, and the landgrave acted wisely in heeding the same. True enough, the constitution embodies
g. Excel‑ many excellent ideas, nor does it by
lences and any means deserve the reproach of
Defects	radicalism. In confining church dis‑
of the cipline to notorious and flagrant sins,
Church	without intruding upon the province
	Order.	of faith, it betokens great moderation
		in comparison with other church enact
ments of the Reformation, while by transfer of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction to a sypod it pointed out
a new course for the organization of Evangelical
congregations which became legally recognized as
time advanced. It was none the less encumbered
with grave drawbacks. The most serious objection
is the one emphasized by Luther, to the effect that
the constitution was not suited to the actual situa
tion of affairs in Hesse, but that it outlined theoret
ically a finished constitution for a church as yet to
be founded. Along with this formal and structural
blunder, the fundamental design of the Reformatio
to establish the entire Church on the basis of elect
congregations was at fault, since it amounted to
the renouncing of a popular Church, and issued in
the creation of conventicles. By the privileged
status conceded to the civil ruler and the nobility,
which they enjoyed without, as full members of
the congregation, the responsibilities appointed for
others, the constitution provided a check on its own
principles, but at the same time demonstrated its
impracticability.
The church order being no original product, the question arises, where are its prototypes and sources to be sought? The assumption of a 6. Its dependent connection between it and
Models Luther has been made, and an Upper and German origin is armed; the " spir‑
	Sources.	itualism " of the Franciscans has been
		adduced; likewise Waldensian in
fluence, and certain Wyclifian and Bohemian in
fluences; the tendency of Gallican Christianity has
been discovered, with its emphasis on ecclesiastical
discipline; and some have referred to the general
consciousness of the Reformation, and to the tract
by Eberlin of Giinzberg, Die fttrefzehn Bundea
genoetren (see EBERLIN, JOHANN). Amid all these
hypotheses, which, in turn, occur in a more or less
combined form, one fact appears plainly, viz., that
the Reformatio was derived not merely from one
quarter. In any case, the decisive instigation ema
nated from Luther and from his tract Dmtsche
Meaae and Ordnung des GottesdienaW. That Luther's
influence, however, was not the only one at work
upon the Reformatio is patent from manifold par
ticulars of the church order (eg., the committee of
thirteen, which has been found analogous to local
arrangements at Metz, Strasburg, and among the
Bohemian Brethren). Just what these influences
were is the more perplexing since even in the matter of Luther's statements in the Deutwhe Messe the question arises, to what extent here also the counsel of alien (Anabaptist?) elements is demonstrable. Any systematic analysis of the sources of the Reformatio will have to reckon with the facts that it can neither be regarded as the landgrave's work nor as the exclusive work of Lambert, seeing he was attended by colaborers; that the proof of a relative dependency is not yet established; that in those days of great ferment many Biblical ideas, medieval adjuncts‑‑and theories were commingled and were still operative in such a way that it was impossible to undertake to separate them distinctly. CARL MIRBT.
BrnwoaaAP87: Sources are: Epist. Franeisci Lamberti Aeenionensis ad Colonisnsea, Feb. 16, 1627, ed. E. C. Draud, Giessen, 1730; the Acts synodi were never published: W. Muse, in Zeitschrift des Vervains far hesaisdie Gesshiehte, vol. 1. supplement 2, pp. 123‑139, Csssel. 1849; the Kirdranordnuny, not preserved in the original, was fast published from an old MS. by F. C. Schminke in Monimenta Hassioca, ii. 588‑886, ib. 1748, and a second copy was edited by K. A. Credner, in Philipp du Groesmitthipen Hessiaaha KirehemWormationsordnunp, Giessen, 1852, cf. K5hle1, in ZHT, zaavii (1867), 217 sqq. Consult: C. von Rommel, Geschiedts eon Hessen, 3 vols., Cassel, 1827; F. W. Hassencamp, Hessisehe Kirchsflpeechichis exit den Zeitalter der Reformation, 2 vols., Frankfort, 1864; H. Heppe, Airclurngeschichts beider Hawn, Marburg, 1876; T. Brieger, Die anpeblichs Afarburper Kirdmwrdnunp, in ZKG, iv (1881), 549 eqq.; K. Rieker, Die redhtdiehe Stellunp der esanpelixksn Kireha Deutsehlands in Arer gsxhirhtlidhen Enhoicklunp, pp. 75 eqq., Leipsie. 1893; J. Friedrich, Luther and die Kirduneerfassunp der Refornwtio eccteaiarum Hessice, Darmstadt, 1894 (improvement of Credner's edition); idem, Entstehunp der Wormatio aedssiarum Hesaior, Giessen, 1905; W. K5hler, Heasitdu Kirdhenewfamunp im Zeifalter der Reformation, Giessen, 1894; A. Laval, Le Synods de Hombera, Paris, 1894; G. Conrad, Die Refornwtioruordnunp ffir die Gemeinden Heaaens con 1688, Halle, 1897.

HOME MISSIONS.
Spanish Missions (¢ 1).
French Missions (¢ 2).
Missionary Purpose of English Settlers (f 3).
Organisation of Congregations! Effort, 1798‑1807 (1 4). Other Early Denominational Organisations (¢ 5).
Work in the Northwest Territory (¢ 6).
The American Home Missionary Society (1 7). Denominational Societies (5 8).
Effect of the Louisiana Purchase (1 9). Work in Later Aooessions (4 10).
Work for Negroes and Immigrants (1 11). Summary (5 12).
	The religious movement known as American
Home Missions may be said to have begun with the
		discovery of the country. Columbus
	i. Spanish	was both explorer and missionary. His
	Missions.	first act upon landing on the wooded
		island which he named San Salvador
was to erect two standards; one, the ancient flag of
Leon and Castile, and, by its side, the elder banner
of the Cross, thus dedicating the New World at its
southern entrance 0 civil rule and to the spiritual
dominion of the Church. On his second voyage
(1494) he brought with him twelve Franciscan
monks, whose sole business was to be the conversion
of the native races to Christianity. This dual pur
pose of Spain is repeatedly recognized in the early
patents issued by the Spanish Court to successive
bands of emigrants. Charles V., successor to Fer
dinand and Isabella, in one of these royal patents

Home Xiesions	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	340
plainly declares: " You are bidden to attract the natives to receive preachers who shall inform and instruct them in the affairs of our holy Catholic faith, that they may become Christians; " and he significantly adds: " Our principal intent in the discovery of new lands is that the inhabitants and natives thereof, who are without the light of the knowledge of faith, may be brought to understand the truth of our holy Catholic faith, and that they may come to, the knowledge thereof and become Christians and be saved." For more than 200 years this double intent, civil conquest and spiritual dominion, was persistently followed, the one as devotedly as the other. Whatever may be thought of the religious creed of Franciscan and Dominican monks, or of their some time violent methods of church extension, their missionary zeal has never been questioned. To make a convert they counted no cost and dared every danger. Sacrifices became luxuries. They undertook long and perilous journeys which led them into the heart of hostile and cruel tribes, where the reward was often death or torture worse than death, which they bore with composure. And everywhere they went missions were established, chapels and convents sprang up, whose ruins still bear silent witness to the devotion of these men. They patiently conquered the native dialects that they might add the printed page to the spoken word. They put the Christian truths into meter, and meter into music. It is little wonder that they made converts or that their heroic labors, and more especially their personal bravery and contempt for every form of terror, commended them to the admiration of these children of the wilds. In 300 years Spain had extended her domain from the Atlantic to the Pacific, south of the thirty‑eighth degree of latitude, a territory including the present States of Florida, Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, and California, and in all that vast and rapid advance missionaries were pioneers. " Over a hundred thousand of the aborigines," says T. O'Gorman, the Catholic historian, "were brought to the knowledge of Christianity, and introduced, if not into the palace, at least into the antechamber, of civilization " (American Church History Series, ix. 112, New York, 1895). Such were the early conquests of Spain, civil and religious; but, with all their promise, they were destined to ultimate failure. The same historian confesses the Spanish defeat in language equally true and pathetic: " As we look around to‑day we find nothing of it that remains. Names of saints in melodious Spanish stand out from maps in all that section where the Spanish monk toiled, trod, and died. A few thousand Christian Indians, descendants of those they converted and civilized, still survive in New Mexico and Arizona, and that is all."
	The French entered America at the northern gate,
by way of the St. Lawrence, and with the same
		double purpose of conquest and con‑
s. French version. Their missionaries were Jesuit
	Missions.	priests who treated the Indian with
		great kindness, seeking to make him
a friend and partner in their plans of conquest.
Not less brave or devoted than their Franciscan
predecessors, they were more shrewd and politic,
with the result that their success was proportionately rapid. Eighty years from the founding of Quebec the French posts, " military, commercial, and religious," had been pushed westward to Lake Superior. The vast domain of Canada, half the present territory of Maine, half of Vermont, more than half of New York, the entire valley of the Mississippi, and the whole of Texas became a vast French possession, " in which," says O'Gorman, " all the North American Indians were more or less extensively converted." It is impossible not to admire the flaming zeal, the tireless devotion, the almost superhuman bravery which accomplished these astounding results in less than 300 years. Their converts were still multiplying when the ambitious schemes of both Spain and France were brought to an end by the opening of the Seven Years' War, which prepared the way for a new civilization and another type of missionary enterprise which were destined to survive. [For additional matter on this and the preceding paragraph see INDIANS OF NORTH AMERICA, MISSIONS TO; MISSIONS AMONG THE HEATHHN, A.]
To the English pioneers was reserved the middle way of approach. First at Jamestown in 1607, and later at New York, Plymouth, and
3. Mission‑ Boston; and again it is to be noticed
ary ‑ that the spirit of civil conquest and Purpose of missionary zeal moved hand in hand.
English	Perhaps no nation in history, unless it
	Settlers.	be the chosen people, was ever more
		distinctly religious and missionary in
the character of its early settlers than the United
States. The different charters and commissions
under which they emigrated from the Old World
contain, almost, without exception, an explicit
recognition of the divine claim. " The thing is of
God," said the London Trading Company, in its
letters patent to the Plymouth Pilgrims. " In the
name of God, amen!" are the opening words of
the Mayflower compact, and the full meaning of
that document is summed up in the phrase following
For the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith." The signers of this historic compact paused on the threshold of their great enterprise, " at a time," says Bancroft, " when everything demanded haste," to keep a Sabbath of prayer and praise on Clark's Island. Governor Bradford, in his history of the Plymouth Colony, declares that the colonists " had a great hope and inward zeal of laying some good foundation for propagating and advancing the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ in these remote parts of the world, yea," he adds, " though it should be as steppingstones to others." In this germinant and prophetic sentence lies hidden the seed of all the wonderful missionary history of the nineteenth century. The early settlers of North and South Carolina declared themselves to be actuated " by a laudable zeal for the propagation of the Gospel." Even Virginia, not always regarded as a distinctly religious colony, urges upon its first governor " the using of all possible means to bring over the natives to a love of civilization and to a love of God and of his true religion." Georgia, the last of the colonies to be settled, was a religious enterprise from the start,

341	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Home Missions
dominated by godly Moravians from Germany and Presbyterians from the Highlands of Scotland. Thus, for continuous years, a soil was being prepared into which in due time the seed of organized home and foreign missions should fall and spring up again to make glad the City of God.
Yet it was not until 1798, nearly 200 years after the Pilgrim landing, that American home missions began to assume this organ4. Organiza‑ ized form. Previous, to that date
tion of missionary efforts had been mostly
Congrega‑ sporadic. Before the war of the Revo‑
tional	lution individual churches of the Con‑
Effort,	gregational order in Connecticut were
x798‑r8o7. sending out their pastors on missionary errands to what were then known as the New Settlements (Vermont, New York, and Ohio)For this service they were paid four and one‑half dollars a week, and were allowed four dollars more for the supply of their pulpits during their absence, which usually covered about four months at a time. These missionary pastors followed the new settlers to their forest or prairie homes, preaching the Word, administering the ordinances, setting up the Church and the Sunday‑school, and carrying‑ the greeting of old friends and neighbors to their distant kindred on the frontier. Yet it was something more than mere kinship and friendship that prompted these missionary journeys. There was also a great fear of barbarism, a profound dread of new States gathering strength and coming into the Union without churches or schools, without the Christian sabbath or the Christian home. Such fears seemed to haunt the churches of Connecticut and Massachusetts, which at that time were predominantly Congregational, until, in 1798, organization against an evil so threatening became a necessity. In June of that year the Missionary Society of Connecticut was organized, and one year later the Massachusetts Missionary Society came into being. These two organizations, with slight changes of name, are in existence to‑day. Both of them were Congregational in origin, and, for more than a hundred years, they have been the twin springs from which an everbroadening stream of home missionary interest and effort has flowed. It is important to remember that both these mother societies, while bearing the names of the States where they originated, and supported by the States whose names they bear, were not primarily for the benefit of Connecticut and Massachusetts. The object of the Connecticut society, as defined in its charter, was " to Christianize the heathen (Indians) of North America, and to support and promote Christian knowledge in the new settlements of the United States." The charter of the Massachusetts Society describes its object as being " to diffuse the Gospel among the heathen (Indians) as well as other people in the remote parts of our country." Both societies, therefore, while local in their origin and support, were truly national in spirit and aim. Other New England States followed the lead of Connecticut and Massachusetts; New Hampshire in 1801, Rhode Island in 1803, Maine and Vermont in 1807. Thus, within ten years of the first movement, the Congregational churches of the six New England States
were organized for home missions. The four States last named were animated by the same broad spirit as Connecticut and Massachusetts. If they attempted less for the new settlements to the westward than their elder neighbors, it was only because they were themselves new settlements, needing more help than they were able at that stage to bestow.
To the same fruitful decade belongs the origin of Baptist home missions in New England. Its genesis is singularly like that of the Congrega‑
g.Other tionalists. The Massachusetts DoEarly mestic Society, the first organization
Denomina‑ of its kind among American Baptists, tional dates from 1802. Its object, as de‑
Organiza‑ fined by its constitution, was " to furtions. nish occasional preaching and to promote the knowledge of evangelistic truth in the new settlements of the United States, or further, if circumstances should reader it proper." This organized movement was preceded, as in the case of Connecticut and Massachusetts, by intermittent effort on the part of individual churches. Indeed, the significant feature of all these early organizations is that they were the natural outgrowth of an evangelistic spirit within the churches, and in no single instance were they forced upon the churches by outside influence. Baptist home missionary effort, like Congregational, looked beyond the place of birth, sending its missionaries into Maine, lower Canada, western New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. To the same year, 1802, belongs the first systematic effort of the Presbyterians of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, acting under the same broad charter with the movement of Congregationalists and Baptists in New England, namely, " to send forth missionaries well qualified to be employed in mission work on the frontiers, for the purpose of organizing churches, administering ordinances, ordaining elders, collecting information concerning the state of religion in those parts, and preparing the best means of establishing a Gospel ministry among the people." Meanwhile the Reformed Church of America had not been idle. Sporadic missionary work began with them as early as 1786, culminating in 1882 in the organizing of the Missionary Society of the Reformed Dutch Church, differing nothing in spirit from its forerunners, but with wider scope, as it included home and foreign missions under a single organization. Methodist and Episcopalian missions, as well as Lutheran and those of the Disciples of Christ, belonged necessarily to a later period.
At the opening of the nineteenth century the new settlements, so called, were found mainly in northern New England, eastern and cen‑
6. Work tral New York, and in northern and in the southern Ohio, and these were naturalNorth‑ ly the first points of home missionary west attack. The opening of the Northwest
Territory. Territory (including the present States
of Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan and
, ,
Wisconsin) and the passage by Congress of the ordinance of 1787 attracted a stream of immigration from the East, mingled with a considerable element from Great Britain, Holland, Scandinavia, Germany

moms 3asdaaw	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZZOG	842
and Moravia, Belgium and Switzerland. The earlier settlers of New York, Ohio, and Illinois, were generally Protestant in their sympathies, but unable at once, with a new country to settle and homes to be built, to provide for themselves the institutions of worship. To the help of these hopeful but destitute settlers came the organized missionary societies of the East. Their missionaries were hurried forward to every needy point, not only in the wilds of New York and Ohio, but to the remoter sections of Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee. They even found their way down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico and they crossed the northern borders into Canada. A specially promising field of effort was the section of Ohio bordering on Lake Erie, which had been settled chiefly by families from Connecticut, and for that reason commonly known as New Connecticut. At the beginning of the century this tract contained about 1,400 inhabitants. In 1804 it had 400 families. One year later the 400 had grown to 1,100, one‑half of them from New England. In less than thirty years from the beginning of organized home missions ninety churches had been planted in this section, all of them by missionaries sent out and supported by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. To sum up in a sentence, the Missionary Society of Connecticut, at the end of thirty years of work, had employed 200 missionaries, by whom 400 churches had been established in the new settlements of the nation. With what wear and tear of body, with what sacrifice of comforts in the wilderness, with what patience of hope and courage of faith and labors of love no words could fully portray. Not a mile of railway had been built. The river and canal, the stage‑coach, the emigrant wagon, and the saddle were the only conveniences of travel, and to these the missionary often added foot‑sore and weary tramps from settlement to settlement. No Franciscan, Dominican, or Jesuit missionary of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, toiling over the same ground on missionary errands, accomplished a grander service or endured hardships more cheerfully.
All the earlier efforts above described were marked by a commendable absence of sectarian rivalry. The vastness of the problem
7. The forbade all such trifling. Prompt,
American united action was demanded. Denom‑
Home	inational supremacy was buried under
Missionary the all‑absorbing issue whether New
	Society.	America should be a heathen or a
		Christian nation. Between Presbyte
rians and Congregationalists, at that time the strong
est church bodies in the land, the spirit of union
was particularly active. For the long period of
fifty years, between 1801 and 1851, these two
churches carried on their missionary work in the
new settlements under a " Plan of Union " so called,
mutually agreed to, by which the churches of either
order, wherever formed, might worship in the same
house, elect and listen to the same pastor, and
profess the same creed, while each body was left
free to govern itself by the church polity it loved
and preferred. In 1826 Congregational, Presby
terian, Reformed, and Associate Reformed churches
still further illustrated their unsectarian spirit by uniting in the organization of a national society, known as the American Home Missionary Society. The growth and needs of the home missionary movement made this step a necessity. Hitherto State societies had been doing national work, each in its own wag. But these organizations, operating independently, had resulted in an unequal distribution of both men and money. Some regions were oversupplied, while others were left entirely destitute. Moreover, the laborers themselves inevitably came into conflict with each other. Obviously the time had arrived for federation and coordination under one national society; and that society, as above stated, was organized May 26, 1826, with headquarters in New York, the various state societies making themselves auxiliaries to the national organization. Perhaps nothing more potential in the progress of the home missionary movement, up to this date, belongs to its history than this act. For years the churches forming this alliance labored together in fraternal unity, contributing to a common treasury, and governed by a single board of directors. Receipts rapidly increased, the missionary force doubled and trebled in number, and instead of being an itinerant preacher, the home missionary became a settled pastor, bearing the commission of a national society, dwelling continually among his people, and building them up in unity and strength. It was only when these cooperating church bodies had grown strong that they amicably withdrew from this federation to organize separate societies of their own, leaving the Congregationalists to inherit the name and good‑will of this honored society. In fact, it was not until many years later that " American" was dropped from its charter name and " Congregational," which had become more truly descriptive of its nature, was substituted.
Meanwhile the Methodist Church, growing in strength and burning , to have a part in national evangelization, organized its mission‑
8. Denom‑ ary society in 1819, which covered both
inational	home and foreign work; the Episcopal
	Societies.	Church, its Domestic and Foreign Mis
		sionary Society in 1821, also national;
the Baptists, their American Baptist Home Mission
ary Society in 1832; the Lutherans, their Home
Missionary Society of the General Synod in 1845; and
the Disciples, their American Christian Missionary
Society in 1849. The Southern Presbyterians,
Southern Baptists, and Southern Methodists also
have their homeland organizations, doing an inval
uable work in the Southern States. Other church
bodies, Evangelical in character, will be found
enumerated in the table given below, which have
taken their part 8180, and are still intensely con
cerned, in this great home missionary movement.
Thus, by a steady; natural evolution of national
need and evangelistic interest two societies have
grown to be more than thirty; all the leading
church bodies of America have gradually become
organized for home evangelization, and a movement
which began in New England in 1798 for the Chris
tian enlightenment of a few kindred or neighbors
moving westward has developed into a system as

343	RELIGIOUSENCYCLOPEDIA
Home Kisdons
broad as the national domain, by which the stronger churches of the land have shared, and are continuing to share, the burden of their weaker brethren, and, by a united.,effort, are strengthening those forms of Christian civilization upon which the safety of the nation depends.
The following table is taken by permission from Social Progress, New York, 1906, ed. J. Strong, W. H. Tolman, and W. D. P. Bliss. No later figures than these of 1904 have been tabulated.
a moment's hesitation the missionary organizations of the East and Middle West, with the loyal support of the churches, threw themselves into the breach. Emigration from the East and the Middle West began at once, and the missionary was not slow in following the trail. The order of missionary progress through the Louisiana Purchase bas been strictly along the lines of immigration and settlement. There is not a State in that vast tract which the home missionary did not enter while it was yet a
STATISTICS OF HOME MISSIONS.
ip ~
1832
1824 1877 1845

1828 1848

1853 1814

1849 1834 1882 1880

1819 1885

18890 1849

1818 1878 1844
1821
1831 1854
1853
1872 1885
Baptist:
American Baptist Home Missionary Society .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
American Baptist Publication 8ooletx..
	Women's American Baptist Home Mission $ociety .	. . . 	. . .
	Women's Baptist Home Mission Society 	..	..	..	......	....	. .
Southern Baptist Convention ..........
	National Baptist Publication Board ... .
Con~re gational:
	Home Missionary Society 	........	..
American Missionary Association . . . . . . .
Sunday‑school and Publishing Society .
Church Building Society . .. .. .. ... . . . .
Education Society ... Cumberland Presbyterian ................. Disciples of Christ:
	American Christian Missionary Society 	..............	....	. .
Free Baptist ....................................................
Free Meodist..................................................
Mennonites .....................................................
Methodist Episcopal
	Miseionary Society of Methodist Episcopal Church .. . .... . . . . . . . .
	Church Eatenaion Board .....................................
	Freedmen's Aid Society ......................................
Women's Home Missionary Society of Methodist Episcopal Church. Moravian',...................................................... Presbyterian:
Board of Home Missions of Presbyterian Church, U. 8. A. . . . . . . . .
Women's Board of Home Missions of Presbyterian Church . . . . . . . .
Board of Church Erection .................................... Southern Presbyterian ....................................... Examining Committee General AesemblY ....................... Protestant Episcopal ............................................ Reformed Church:
Board of Domestic Missions .. . . .
Church Building Department ....
Board of Publication . . . . . . . . . . . United Brethren ..'.............. United Presbyterian:
Board of Home Missions . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Board of Freedmen's Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1458.771
	134,012
	43.484
	87.283
	109,870
	27,520
b70,829
441,938
	89.889
207.493
	12,189
100,000
385,000
31,888
	3,148
	10,000
534,452
148,103
124,710
308.998
	11,003
479,812 346,883 193,570 180,000 40,000
539,9893
95,600 23,600
b00 85,000
105,000 67,530
Mission‑
aries.
1,
144
72
1793
30
1,918
	784
	43
14
65
628
	9
8
4.0001
34
1,180
484
188 1,140
186
180
245
225
Added on Confession.
8,000
1,078
b,787
1,134
1,000
1,860 919
20
422
7,378
1,153
1 Churches sided. 2 Work carried on by the church, not by a society. s In addition to the amount expended there were given for diocesan missions during the three years ending Sept. 30, 1904, 11,413,117.
	Another mighty impulse in the same direction as
that resulting from the opening of the Northwest
		Territory followed the purchase of
	g. Effect Louisiana in 1803. While the North
	of the west Territory was still in the first
	Louisiana stages of occupation, even before the
	Purchase. earlier settlers had obtained peaceful
		possession of the soil, the area of the
nation was suddenly doubled. The Louisiana Pur
chase gave us the mouth of the Mississippi and un
disturbed possession of its entire course. It carried
our western boundaries from Lake Superior to the
Rocky Mountains. Fourteen States and Territories
have been carved out of this imperial 'tract. They
include the vast corn and wheat belts of the United
States, which are capable of feeding the world,
while their underground treasures are among the
richest on the globe. Here was a new and mag
nificent opportunity for home missions, and without
Territory, and always in the first and feeblest stages of settlement. From Missouri to Iowa, from Iowa to Minnesota, Kansas, and Nebraska, thence to the Dakotas, and on from these points to Wyoming and 'Colorado and Montana, and, last of all, to Oklahoma until every square mile inhabited by men has been sown with Sunday‑schools, churches, and other institutions of education and religion. Something of the volume of this work may be gathered from the fact that on the one hundredth anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase, by a careful investigation, about 30,000 Protestant churches were enumerated within the bounds of this purchase, holding property valued at $58,000,000, sad having, approximately, 2,000,000 communicants. With rare exceptions this church growth was the fruit of home missionary culture, begun and maintained and ceasing only when the need ceased, or continuing to‑day in the

Home missions	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	344
assured hope of independence and self‑support. The churches of the East have never tired in this work. The fear, the hope, the purpose of early New England have been loyally inherited by her sons and daughters, the fear of barbarism, the hope of prevention, and the wide‑spread conviction that America's day of judgment is in the West, a judgment to be determined only by the planting of churches and Christian schools.
The missionary history of the Northwest Territory and the Louisiana Purchase was repeated when, about midway in the century, the
ro. Work Oregon treaty made sure possession of
in Later the Far Northwest and the discovery
Accessions. of gold opened the Californias to the world. Home missionaries, ordained in the East, promptly started for the Pacific Coast, reaching their destination by way of Cape Horn and the Sandwich Islands. The strategic position of the coast missions, as related to foreign missions in China and Japan, was keenly appreciated by the churches of the East and their missionary boards; money was contributed more freely than ever, and many of their ablest preachers went forth cheerfully to lay the foundations of Christian society on the sunset shores of the republic. The Mexican Cession, one of the fruits of the Mexican war, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, opened still another belt of peculiar missionary need, which, in spite of ancient superstitions and modern delusions, has proved a rich and rewarding field of missionary effort. Perhaps the most significant feature of these early missionary movements thus far considered was their close connection with the historic development of the nation. Yet " connection " is hardly the word to describe their real influence. More truly they were an integral and saving part of that development.
Two events belonging to the latter half of the nineteenth century were destined to have a marked influence on home missionary history.
ii. Work The close of the Civil War introduced,
	for	at the South, a missionary problem ab
Negroes solutely new, which immediately st‑
	and	tracted, and continues to absorb, the
Immigrants. attention of the Northern churches to
		an extraordinary degree. Four million
blacks. hitherto inaccessible to missionary effort,
were suddenly emancipated. At once the National
Government opened its bureaus of relief, and mis
sionary boards of the North hurried forward preach
ers and teachers. To the missionary himself there
was in this call a certain element of peril which, so
far from checking, only stimulated his zeal. At first
the Northern preacher and teacher were not well
received by the white of the South; social ostracism
was their frequent lot, and even violence to their
persons and destruction of their property were not
uncommon in the early days. An ugly spirit of caste
included the teacher of the negro with the negro
himself, and young women, delicately reared in the
best homes of the North, suffered, not merely from
social neglect, but occasionally from open indignity.
These early conditions have greatly softened and
are passing away. Appreciation, and even gratitude,
have taken their place as the results of these mis‑
sionary efforts have become more apparent. Such fruits appear, not only in organized churches for the negro race, but in a long array of universities, colleges, academies, normal institutes, and industrial schools, opened exclusively for the benefit of the blacks, all of them specifically Christian, and all of them originally planted and supported by the freewill offerings of the North. Howard, Hampton, Fisk, Atlanta and Tougaloo, Talladega and Straight, Shaw and Richmond, Nashville and Bishop, Wayland and Leland, and a host beside, are names that are becoming as familiar to the educational world as Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. They were all made possible by negro emancipation, and they are all the creation of home missions. See MIS$IONs AMONG THE HEATHEN, B, III., 1, § 3. Another fact, as marked in its influence upon the home missionary spirit of the churches, has been foreign immigration, beginning to attract attention as early as 1840, and growing, decade by decade, in its insistent demand for treatment, until to‑day it vies with the missionary call of the West and South for prompt, wise, and far‑sighted consideration on the part of the churches and their missionary boards. The figures used to measure the volume of this problem are too familiar to need rehearsal here. Sufficient to say that up to 1840 the total of foreign immigration had not exceeded 500,000 in the previous history of the country, while during the year 1906 alone more than twice that number were landed in the United States. Here is a gigantic problem, sufficient to tax not only the wisdom of rulers and lawmakers, but appealing in a special way to the missionary spirit of the churches and to the thoughtful interest of every lover of his country. It is only true to say that the exigency of this problem revolutionized the home missionary appeal. To the peril of domestic heathenism, which stirred the zeal of Connecticut and Massachusetts in 1798, has now been added the larger fear of imported barbarism; and thus for several recent years foreign missions in America have come to be of burning interest to American home missions. All branches of the Church, without exception, have taken part in this work through their organized agencies. No nationality has been overlooked; Germans, Scandinavians, Bohemians, Poles and Russians, Hollanders and Hebrews, Spanish, French and Italians, Armenians, Syrians, Japanese and Chinese‑‑every sort and condition of foreigner, however apparently hopeless, has been made the subject of home missionary effort and culture. The results have astonished the most sanguine; they have rebuked the most despairing, and have all but silenced the prophets of evil, ever ready to foretell the direst consequences from the infusion of so much foreign blood into the moral, social, and political life of the nation. Many times over it has been demonstrated that every grade of alien is susceptible to religious development, is entirely capable of being both civilized and Christianized, and is in fact being rapidly assimilated into a hopeful type of American life. Twenty‑five years ago there was hardly a foreign‑speaking missionary in the employ of any home missionary society. To‑day they are numbered by the thousands, who preach and teach in twenty different

34$	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Home Xissdons
tongues, planting Protestant churches for the foreign‑born and gathering into them intelligent members by tens of thousands. It is beginning to be recognized that one powerful solvent of the evils of immigration has been found. Great migrations are not the dread they were forty years ago. Disturbing fears have been quieted, and, with all the natural apprehension that remains and must remain, our native American people are viewing with less and less alarm what but a few years ago almost crazed them with apprehension. This era of hopefulness is due, in no small measure, to the undoubted success of American home missions in enlightening and Christianizing adopted citizens. See EMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS, MISSION WORK AMONG, II.; and SLAVIC MISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.
To attempt any adequate summary of the fruits of home missions at the end of 100 years would require a survey of the history of
12. Sum‑ fifty States and Territories, so vitally
	mary.	have the home missionary and his work
		entered into the early development of
most of the commonwealths. A few salient facts
must suffice. In the first place, the growth of
organizations is significant. Beginning in 1798
with a single society, the first of its kind in
history, having in its treasury a capital of $600,
the home missionary movement, then started,
has given birth, during the last 100 years,
to thirty‑five distinct societies, all Protestant, all
Evangelical, all national, collecting and disbursing
during the last calendar year more than $6,000,000
for the Christian instruction of communities which,
without such help, might have lived and died in
religious destitution. Together these organizations
have disbursed $150,000,000 for the planting of
churches alone. Their chief agent has been the
Church, with its ordained preachers and its divinely
appointed ordinances, and for the Church these
millions have been given. This total, however, takes
no account of those cooperating agencies which
have been called into being to serve this missionary
work of the churches. Add, therefore, Sunday
school planting, Bible and tract printing, church
building, and Christian colleges, all of which have
sprung up in the path of home missions and are
among its legitimate fruits, and the grand total of
home missionary expenditure, root and branch, in
organized form, is found by careful computation
to be not less than $360,000,000. Not a dollar of
this immense fund has been paid, in any commercial
sense, for value received. All of it has been given,
a free‑will offering of Christian people, to mark
their intense conviction of the peril of a nation with
out the Gospel and their supreme faith in its leaven
ing power. But beyond the growth of mere or
ganizations and the multiplication of missionary
capital, what have these agencies and these millions
accomplished, and what visible fruits remain to
justify the cost of the effort? It is a fact not gen
erally known, and when known, not sufficiently
appreciated, that the great ecclesiastical bodies of
the United States‑Baptist, Congregational, Dis
ciple, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed
‑trace the origin of most of their church organiza‑
tions directly to home missions. It is admitted that about nine‑tenths of all the Evangelical churches in this country were either planted or, in periods of distress, were helped and maintained, by the aid of home missionary grants. It becomes, therefore, a fair question to ask, what and where, but for home missions, would be these great ecclesiastical bodies, which are acknowledged to be the conservers of American Christianity? But what does all this mean in the religious development of the country? The figures at this point palpitate with life. In the year 1800, when home missions began, the United States had one Evangelical communicant in 14.50 of the population. In. 1850 that ratio had grown to one in 6.57; in 1870, to one in 5.78; in 1880, to one in 5; in 1890, to one in 4.53; and in 1900, to one in 4.25; which is to say, that in less than 100 years Evangelical church‑membership increased thirty‑eight fold, while the population grew only eleven and eight‑tenths fold. Church‑membership increased three and one‑half times faster than the population, and this in spite of the foreign flood. It is no vain boast, but an obvious truth, that by far the larger part of this magnificent growth is due to the direct agency of American home missions, since in its own carefully planted gardens most of this splendid growth has taken place.
J. B. CLARK.
The reader should compare the articles on CITY MISSIONS; JEws, MISSIONS TO THE; and, for home mission work in Germany, INNERE MISSION.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature is extensive; only a selection of the later works is attempted here. A useful view can be obtained, from the denominational standpoint, of early mission work in America from the American Church Histort' Series, 13 vole. (especially vol. xiii., L. W. Bacon, Hist. of American Christianity), New York, 1893‑97. Useful and from another point of view is the American Commonwealth Series, Boston, 1901 sqq. (still in progress). Consult further: L. Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, New York, 1874; W. Salter, Life of Joe. W. Pickett, Iowa City, 1881; W. F. Bainbridge, Along the Line at the Front ; . . Baptist Home and For eipn Missions, Philadelphia, 1882; The Church Revived; . Parochial Missions in England, Canada, and the United States, New York, 1886; S. Loomis, Modern Cities, ib. 1887; A. HaygOOd, Pleas for Progress, ib. 1889; G. F. Magoun, Life and Times of Asa Turner, Boston, 1889; R. Storrs, The Puritan Spirit, Boston, 1890; H. Caswell, Life among the Iroquois Indians, ib. 1892• J. Strong, Our Country, New York, 1891; idem, The New Era, ib. 1893; D. Dorchester, The Problem of Religious Progress, ib. 1895; W. Puddefoot, The Minute Man on the Frontier ib. 1895; A. Dunning, Congregationalists in America, Boston, 1897; S. L. Gulick, Growth of the Kingdom q% God, New York, 1897 R. Hill, Cuba and Porto Rico, ib. 1898; B. T. Washington, UP from Slavery, ib. 1901; W. Mowry, Marcus Whitman and the Early Days of Oregon, ib. 1901; E. H. Abbott, Religious Life in America, ib. 1902; E. Adams, The Iowa Band, Boston, 1902; L. W. Bef, The Leaven in a Great City, New York, 1902; S. Doyle, Presbyterian Home Missions. Philadelphia, 1902; J. Riis, The Battle with the Slums, New York, 1902; R, Thompaon, The Hand of God in American History, ib. 1902 J. Tillinghast The Negro in Africa and America, ib. 1902; G. Warneck, H(atory of Protestant Missions, ib. 1902; H. Whipple, Lights and Shades of a Long Episcopate, ib. 1902; J. Clark, Leavening the Nation, ib. 1903; W. Du Bois, Souls of Black Folk Chicago, 1903 R. Hitch~ok, The Louisiana Purchase, Boston, 1903; B. Brandenburg, Imported Americans ew York, 1904; J. Horton, The Burden of the City, ib 1904; H. B. Gross, Incoming Millions ib. 1905; P. F. Hall, Immigration and its Effects upon the United States, ib. 1906; H. Holt, Life Stories of Undietinpuished Americana, ib. 1906; A. L. Phillips, Call

Handletics	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	848
of the Home Land; A Study of Home Miesiom, ib. 1906;
A. M. GubrnseY. Citiaens of Tomorrow, ib. 1907. Further
literature in to be dieooveted in the histories of the eeps
rate denominations, most of which deal with the home
mission work of the respective denominatki,
HOMILETICS.
The Terms Employed (§ 1). Theory of Homiletics (1 2). Edification the Object of the Sermon (; 3). Balation of the Sermon to Scripture and the Creeds (1 4).
Subject and Basis of the Sermon (4 5). Varieties of Sermons (; 6).
The Structure of the Sermon (E 7). Preparation and Delivery (1 8).
The Occasional Address (1 9).
History of the Occasional Address (f 10).
Homiletics in Great Britain and America (§ 11). Definition and Treatment (1 12).
Homiletics as the name of a discipline is of late origin, since only in recent times have theologians begun to treat in special works the r. The theory of the sermon. Gregory of Terms Em‑ Nazianaen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and
	ployed.	Gregory the Great offer only occasional
		remarks on the subject. Augustine,
in the fourth book of his De dodgy‑ins Chriatiana, first
treated the subject explicitly, and he was followed
by Rabanus Maurus, who, in the third book of De
insOutione clerimmm treated the liberal arts as
related to ecclesiastics. Humbertus de Romanis
(fl. c. 1275) dealt with the subject more extensively
in his Enidrttio rdigiosorum prtedwestorum. Finally,
toward the end of the Middle Ages Ulrich Surgant
wrote a Manvale auratorum which treats the sermon
especially with reference to technique, structure, and
delivery. The transition to the homiletics of the
churches of the Reformation was formed by the
Ecclesiaatm of Erasmus (1535). Of the works of
Protestant theologians on homiletics from the six
teenth century may be mentioned: Andreas Ger
hard Hyperius, De formandis concionslua sacris
(1553); Lucas Osiander, De rations concicrnandi
(1597); Jacob Andrefi, Mdhodus concionarudi, ed.
P. Lyser (1594); and Egidius Hunnius, Methodua
concionandi (1596). The term " homiletics " 8e the
designation of a special discipline seems to have
originated with the Methodologies homildicce (1672)
of Sebastian G6bel and the Compendium theologise
homtZeticce (1677) by J. W. Bajer; but other names
retained their authority, and new names were
chosen; thus Mosheim in his Anweisung erbaulich
eu predigen (1771) used the term " spiritual elo
quence" which is still employed in H. Bassermann,
Handbuch der geisdichen Beredsamkeit (Stuttgart,
1885). There is no doubt that the terms homa7ein
and homilies were used of the sermon in the earliest
times (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI. xix.). The word
homtZia passed over into the Occident; but in the
Middle Ages the terms sermo and prteddiwre with its
derivatives were frequently used. For the churches
of'the Reformation Preduo and "sermon" became
the established designations in the church orders.
In modern times " sermon " has become the collec
tive name, while " homily " is restricted to a special
kind of sermons.
Homiletics, treats of the discourse or address customarily delivered in the church service of the Christian congregation. There was early mani‑
fested a tendency to incorporate homiletics in the theory of rhetoric; even Augustine was governed
by the classical theories of rhetoric, 2. Theory of and the medieval custom of subordiHomiletica nating the liberal arts to the service of
theology brought about a still closer union with rhetoric. Melanchthon established in the interest of the sermon a new rhetorical genus, the 9en‑ didascolicum, but the opportunity to raise homiletics to the rank of an independent discipline was not seized. Hyperius, in his attempt to base the theory of the sermon upon Scripture, found no imitators and successors. It is impossible to arrive at a worthy treatment of this theological discipline until the starting‑point is sought within systematic theology and in the churchly community. Thus considered, homiletics branches off as a apeeial discipline. The Christian community has come into being, is in a state of growth and therefore of imperfection, consequently exposed to the influences of sin and evil. Since now the possession of spiritual blessings in the congregation must be continually kept alive and the influences of sin and evil combated, the Word adapted to the needs of the congregation is the means to accomplish the one ss well as the other. The mere possession of Holy Scripture is not sufficient; it must be used and applied to the needs of the congregation; hence the necessity for preaching. Even if the congregation could ever leave behind its imperfection, the very possession of Christian truth would still necessitate a continual presentation of the Word (cf. Schleiermacher, Der christliche G7aube, § 134, 3, Berlin, 1821). This presentation originates therefore in the pedagogical and practical needs of the congregation, and is an essential factor in its upbuilding. Alexander Schweizer distinguished between general or theoretical, material and formal, homiletics, a division which correctly designates the course which homiletics must take, and the writers on homiletics adhere to it, treating first the conception of the sermon, then its content, and finally its diction and delivery.
The teachers of the primitive church cared little for theoretical questions concerning the conception
and purpose of the sermon. Preaching 3. Edifica‑ was usually considered as teaching,
tion the even by Augustine and throughout the
Object of Middle Ages. Melanchthon'e concepthe tion of the sermon was essentially the
Sermon. same, and even later writers adhered
to this idea. This conception may be explained easily from the fact that until the time of the Reformation, and even far beyond it, only imperfect means of religious instruction existed. The Protestants, indeed, had a higher conception of the congregation of Christ; Luther, for instance, speaks of a congregation of pure saints, under one head Christ, called together by the Holy Spirit, in one faith, sense, and understanding, but this new conception had as yet no influence upon the problem of the sermon. Only in modern times have theologians rightly concluded from this higher estimation of the congregation that it can be in no way the exclusive or principal task of the sermon to teach the ignorant and punish sinners. The actual con

847	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
dition of the congregation requires that in the sermon the communion with God as established by him be represented, and, after that, the attitude of the congregation toward him as conditioned by that relationship. In this sense the sermon, like Christian worship in general, may be regarded as an expository activity. Schleiermacher distinguishes between an expository and an effective activity; but it is impossible to exclude from the former the idea of effective purpose. A homiletics which admits the means of grace to be real powers of salvation can not refrain from putting the sermon into the category of effective activity. Thus the question is raised in what the effect of the sermon should consist. It has been shown that instruction is not simply and solely the purpose of the sermon. But it must be admitted that lack of knowledge is a prominent and pervading defect of personal Christianity, to remove which instruction is the only means, and this is accomplished most effectively in preaching. Moreover, the congregation has the promise that the Spirit of truth will guide it into all truth (John xvi. 13). Homiletics must therefore find a designation which does not exclude instruction. A comprehensive designation offers itself in the word " to edify," which leaves room for instruction (I Cor. xiv. 4). This indication of purpose was not unknown to the older church, and has been correctly explained in Mosheim's Anweisung erbaulich xu predigen, Vorb., 1 2 (Erlangen, 1771) : The hearers are (1) to be confirmed in the knowledge of religion which they have already obtained, and this is to be extended; (2) to be awakened and exhorted to diligence and growth in godliness. This confirmation takes place through the exposition of Christian truth, which has edifying power through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. As a means of accomplishing this it is evident that, above all, the subject‑matter of the sermon must be edifying. Thus Hyperius requires that that should be preached which concerns faith, love, and hope. To faith belong all those religious subjects which are contained in the. Apostles' Creed. To love belong the doctrine of morals, the decalogue, especially the second table, the doctrine of the Church and of the sacraments. To hope belongs the doctrine of the last things. Hyperius, like other writers on homiletics, thus arrives at the catechism, guided by the correct idea that that should be preached which corresponds to the religious needs of the congregation. But even though the subjectmatter be properly chosen, this does not guarantee that the sermon is capable of edifying. The subjectmatter becomes edifying or unedifying according to its treatment by the preacher. It was rationalism which made the subject‑matter responsible for edification through the sermon, and as rationalism discarded catechetics, it excluded from the sermon the very matters upon which earlier times bad laid stress. Rent writers on homiletics again tend toward the opposite extreme by trying to eliminate from the sermon almost all social, economical, and merely philosophical questions. But all such subjects have a religious side, and are therefore subject to sermonic treatment. Theoretical homiletics must insist upon the fact that there is nothing which a priori may be excluded from the sermon as un‑
edifying. Edification lies not in the quality of the subject‑matter, but in the quality of the sermon; hence the doctrine of the edification of the sermon must be distributed over both material and formal homiletics.
But there are other problems which theoretical homiletics must try to solve. The congregation
possesses in Holy Scripture an authoc4. Relation itative norm, inasmuch as the Spirit of
of the God acts in it and through it. What,
Sermon to therefore, is the connection between Scripture sermon and Scripture? All theologians and the agree that the authority of Scripture Creeds. is higher than that of the sermon, but
a question which arises is whether the sermon is superfluous if Scripture is all‑sufficient. The answer must be that the Bible, without detriment to its authority, belongs to the past, though destined for all times, while the sermon is a testi. mony from the present life of the congregation and in its immediate object applies only to the present. This testimony must agree with Scripture, but must have an independent form, corresponding to modern needs. Therefore the. sermon is necessary alongside of Scripture. Theoretical homiletics also asks how far the preacher is bound to the confession of his Church. Protestant Church commmuties have in the past provided for their preachers certain norms of doctrine in which the sum total of Christian doctrine is expressed. These church communities were not contented merely to unite against the Catholic Church and to decide not to have anything in common with fanatics. They felt bound to explain why they dissented, to give to their better knowledge a definite positive expression, and this not merely from reasons of church polity, but because of pastoral interest in their own congregations. This is the deeper reason why preachers were always bound to teach according to such doctrinal standards. Homiletics may not surrender this obligation. It must admit, however, that not everything in the different confessional writings is to be regarded as an integrating constituent of the confession. But this concession does not involve the possibility that the Evangelical confessions will some time be abolished; for homiletics rests upon the presupposition that it is one and the same spirit, the spirit of Jesus Christ, who speaks in Scripture and leads his disciples to the knowledge of truth. From this it is self‑evident that the preacher is to be personally devoted to the faith and confession of his Church. It would be too little simply to keep within the limits of the confession without personal fidelity to it, although the effect of the sermon does not depend upon the personal attitude of the preacher to that which he preaches.
From these fundamental conceptions concerning the nature and purpose of the sermon in general,
homiletics passes to the treatment of g. Subject the quality of the individual sermon, and Basis i.e., material and formal homiletics. of the Since edification is the purpose of the
Sermon. sermon, while the possibility of edifica‑
tion through the individual sermon is dependent upon its quality, the first question is, What can homiletics teach in regard to the subject

8omi18tioe	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	348
to be treated by the preacher? A first requisite is that it be a subject which corresponds to the need of the congregation; the assembled congregation again is to be considered as a part of the great congregation of God which has been founded upon the redemption of Christ. This work of redemption is celebrated by an annual cycle of festivals which forms the basis of the so‑called Church Year (q.v.; and see CALENDAR, THE CHRISTIAN). On such festivals the facts underlying them should form the subject of the sermon. Under certain circumstances there may arise in congregations special needs, independently of the course of the church year, coming with such a force that the sermon must be adapted to them (see §§ 9‑10). But what should be preached during the long intervals of Sundays on which there are no festivals and no special occasions arising from special needs? The general custom is to take a Biblical text as .basis. While the absolute necessity for a text can not be asserted, such a method has the advantage that it gives the preacher a definite course which is advantageous to the congregation from the very fact that the texts are taken from Scripture and must be treated according to the congregation's need. This method is justified also by the history of preaching and by the fact that congregations are accustomed to it. It would be well if the texts were prescribed by some central authority, because then they would be expounded to a larger number of congregations‑a fact of great advantage for ecclesiastical instruction. A well‑chosen system of pericopes aids greatly in a survey of the essential truths of the Bible in a comparatively short period. In former times in lieu of texts sermons were based on the catechism and on hymns, these being regarded as paraphrases or presentations of Scripture or its doctrines. The text must really be utilized and not be cited after the manner of a maxim. The indispensable basis for the proper treatment of the text is a comprehensive study of Scripture, and the text should be thoroughly studied in the original language. At the same time the Bible as used in the church must not be discredited before the congregation.
A distinction between the analytical and synthetical sermon was made by Jacob Andrea (q.v.). By analysis he understood the discussion 6. Varieties of the parts of the text, and by synof Sermons. thesis he understood the union of the individual parts into a whole. The analytical and synthetical activity of the preacher is exercised in his preparation of the sermon, and the audience receives in the sermon the results of this twofold activity. Andrea does not recognize two species of sermons, but every sermon, according to him, contains analytical and synthetical constituents. It was only in the later development that two kinds of sermons were recognized, which, however, were still capable of being combined. Thus Mosheim asserts (ut sup., p. 265): We have three kinds of sermons: (1) Analytical sermons, in which the text is traversed and explained word by word and sentence by sentence; (2) synthetical sermons, in which one doctrine of faith or of life is drawn from the text and then elaborated; (3) mixed sermons, in which first the text is explained and then
special truths elicited from the text are worked out. The name " homily " for the sermons that follow the text step by step seems to have arisen in the first half of the eighteenth century.
In considering the structure of the sermon, homiletics can dispense with the assistance of rhetoric.
As theological conceptions concerning q. The the Church and congregation, the life Structure of communion and Holy Scripture
of the are sufficient as a general basis for Sermon. homiletics, the same is true also in
regard to all questions that arise with relation to the individual sermon. The structure of the individual sermon may be explained from the sermon itself. The preacher must prepare the congregation for what he intends to deliver, and must awaken its interest. He is further naturally intent upon keeping awake this interest until the close of the church service and beyond it. From these points of view results what homiletics has to say on the introduction, on its necessity and proper quality, as well as on the different ways of concluding the sermon. The preacher will, furthermore, arrange what he has to say according to his purpose (dispositio). In order that the congregation may better follow, it must in time be informed of the course of the sermon (propositio). Homiletics may treat also the linguistic side of the sermon. The preacher must before everything take pains to use expressions intelligible to his congregation; he must take care not to transfer his hearers into the sphere of worldly things by his manner of expression; he must use his own words and not imitate the language of the Bible.
The last duty of homiletics is to treat of the preparation of the sermon and of its delivery. Here,
too, homiletics needs no assistance 8. Prepara‑ from other branches of science. The
tion and necessity of preparation is justified
Delivery. from the circumstance that the sermon
is a regularly recurring act of worship and therefore, like every other act of worship, needs forethought. Moreover, since the sermon is destined to serve the life of the congregation, it follows that sermon‑preparation is not an episode in the life of the preacher to be postponed till Saturday, but extends over the preacher's whole life. In the matter of delivery, whether the preacher shall or shall not use manuscript, homiletics can not pronounce unconditionally; the oldest Christian sermon transmitted was read (Clement ii. 19). But it should be remembered that speaking without manuscript corresponds more closely to the nature of the sermon, and that it is no mere whim of congregations which requires this method of their preachers. See PREACHING, HISTORY OF; HOMILARIUM.
(W. CASPARL)
An occasional address is one that has reference to an event which has importance for the spiritual
life of an individual Christian or of a g. The Christian community, such as baptism, Occasional the celebration of marriage, a funeral,
Address. and the like. It is distinguished from
the sermon only by the form and place of delivery. While the sermon on Sundays and holy days deals with needs common to members of the

349	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Homiletics
congregation, the purpose of the occasional address is to use any given occurrence in the life of the individual or of the congregation for the upbuilding of faith of those who take part in the ceremony. The liturgical act of the Church which is occasioned by a special case is purely objective; the species of address under consideration, however, regards primarily the individual or individuals, justly presupposing that the effect of the case and of the Word in connection with it is dependent upon the quality of the persons primarily concerned. Truthfulness and appositeness with reference to the special oocurrence which has occasioned the address are the most fundamental demands. The preacher must therefore have closely observed the life of the members of his congregation and must be in sympathy with their joys and sufferings. He must not exaggerate praise or blame, being guided by the demand for truthfulness. He can not speak at the grave of a man who has kept aloof from the church as he may of a faithful and living member. The purpose of this form of address is to win hearts for Christ; if an address at the baptism of a child in a worldiyminded family, for instance, expresses merely joy over the birth of a son and does not exhort the parents to bring up their child in the fear of the Lord, that address has not been used for the upbuilding of faith. Such an address will produce spiritual gain only if it is based on the Word. It need not necessarily be based upon a special text of the Bible, but its whole substance must be pervaded by the spirit of the Word. Its form is that of the sermon, but although it centers around a uniform thought, it has no theme and divisions like a sermon.
	The occasional address is found also in the New
Testament. The words of Jesus when sending
		forth the twelve disciples (Matt. x.)
io. History and the seventy disciples (Luke x.) are
of the in a certain sense addresses of installaOccasional tion. The model of a valedictory ser‑
	Address.	mon is found in the address of Paul to
		the elders at Ephesus (Acts xx. 18
sqq.). Examples of addresses on special occasions
are preserved by Eusebius, Basil, Gregory of Nyasa,
Augustine, and other Fathers. A collection of such
addresses from the fourth and fifth centuries has
been translated from Greek and Latin by J. C. W.
Augusti (Predigten auf alle SontN and Festtage des
Kirchenjahres, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1838‑39). In the
Middle Ages the development of the liturgical form
put free speech into the background. The Reforma
tion, however, by emphasizing the right of the in
dividual, engendered a revival of the occasional
address. In spite of all decided emphasis upon the
objective value of ecclesiastical acts, it made. their
effect dependent upon the disposition of the receiv
ing subject. The address usually precedes the
ecclesiastical ceremony because its purpose is to
prepare the persons concerned for the reception of
the blessing which the ceremony confers. On
account of this connection with ceremonial, the
principal thoughts of the occasional address must
center in the essence, effect, and ensuing obligation
of those acts. There are addresses on such occasions
as baptism, confirmation, confession, marriage,
funerals, ordination, installation, consecration of churches, cemeteries, holy vessels, organs, bells, and the like. There are also to be mentioned sermons on non‑ecclesiastical events, such as floods, storms, conflagrations, as well as for special ecclesiastical or general religious occasions.
(J. L. SOMMER.)
	The history and development of homiletical
teaching in the British Islands and the United
States have necessarily been guided and formed by
the religious, educational, and social character of
		the peoples and institutions of those
x r. Homi‑ countries. Formal teaching of homiletics in letics seems not to have had so large
Great Brit‑ a place in the education of the minisain and try in England and Scotland as in the
	America.	United States; and the output of hom
		iletical literature is correspondingly
larger in America. The seventeenth century is the
starting point for a survey of Anglo‑American
homiletics. The great English preaching of that
epoch‑both Anglican and Puritan‑profoundly
and permanently influenced all, that has followed
it; and this in respect both to practise and theory.
As early as 1613 there appeared a treatise by Will
iam Perkins, originally written in Latin but trans
lated by Thorpas Tuke under the title The Arte of
Prophecying. It contains eleven chapters and dis
cusses such topics as The Word of God, Interpre
tation and Expounding, Applying Doctrines, Mem
orie in Preaching, Promulgation (i.e., Delivery).
Several other works of less importance followed
this, and in 1667 appeared one from Bishop John
Wilkins of Chester, who thus expresses the essence
of his teaching: " The principal scope of a divine
orator should be to teach clearly, convince strongly,
persuade powerfully. Suitable to the chief parts
of a sermon are these three: Explication, Confirma
tion, Application." These subjects are enlarged
upon and unfolded in a dry scholastic manner.
These and some other works are noticed by Kidder,
but none seem to be of great importance. In the
eighteenth century a few English and Scotch au
thors wrote on the art of preaching. Chief among
these treatises are those of Philip Doddridge (1751),
George Campbell (Lectures on pulpit Eloquence,
1775), and the once well‑known Rhetoric of Hugh
Blair, who devotes several chapters of his work to
the eloquence of the pulpit. In the nineteenth
century the literature greatly increased in amount
and value; but interest in the subject, while con
siderable, does not seem to have kept pace in Eng
land with that displayed in Germany and the United
States. In America the first treatise on the theory
of preaching was that of the famous Doctor Cotton
Mather, which appeared under the title Manuductio
in Ministertum (Boston, 1726). Pedantic and
quaint, it is characteristic of author and age, but
has no other than historic value. The effective
beginning of homiletical teaching in the United
States dates from the founding of Andover Theo
logical Seminary in 1807. There was established
a chair of " Sacred Rhetoric," to which was called,
in 1812, Ebenezer Porter. He taught the subject
with earnestness and success, writing several minor
works and finally publishing his Lectures on Homi‑

Homnileee ca	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	850
letics and Preaching (New York, 1834). This pioneer work has been followed by a long and brilliant line of continuance. Distinguished professors and preachers have produced a literature great in sum, for the most part excellent in quality, and devoted to every phase of the work of preaching. The Yale Lectureship on Preaching, .founded in 1871, has added some notable works to homiletical literature. Homiletics has long been an established discipline in the curricula of theological schools of all the leading denominations of Christians in the United States.
	As to the word " homiletics " the etymology,
while interesting, does not throw much light upon
the present usage. After the analogy of other
scientific nomenclature the term has obtained rec
		ognition, though by no means exclu‑
r2. Defini‑ sive use, as describing the body of
tion sad knowledge and principles pertaining
Treatment. to the composition and delivery of sermons. Most of the treatises on the subject appear under other and various titles, though the largest number under any one title employ the term " homiletics." One of the beat known American books on the subject bears the title A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (by J. A. Broadus, Philadelphia, 1870, 25th ed., by E. C. Dargan, New York, 1905), and another is The Theory of Preaching (by A. Phelps, New York, 1881). These may be accepted as definitions of homiletics; to which may be added the elaborate statement of Dr. W. M. Taylor in his article in the first edition of this work: " It is the science which treats of the analysis, classification, preparation, composition, and delivery of sermons, viewed as addressed to the popular mind on subjects suggested by the word of God, and designed for the conversion of sinners and the edification of believers (ii. 1014). " And this may be taken as a representative statement of the Anglo‑American view of homiletics. Preaching is primarily a distinctive institution of Christianity, and secondarily a kind of public speaking. This order of thought determines the relation of homiletics to general rhetoric and should make discussion unnecessary. Any wise and earnest study of the beat methods of presenting the truths of the gospel to the people in such manner as to win acceptance for them, must take account of what history, experience, and culture bring forward as the tested principles of suecessful public speaking. Homiletics, therefore, may rightly be regarded as the application of rhetoric to preaching. But the origin, history, concomitants, materials, and aims of preaching are so different from those of other kinds of public speaking as to require distinctive treatment. Treatises and courses of homiletical instruction differ in many details, but the essentials are not far to seek. The four leading topics of homiletics are: Material, Arrangement, Style, Delivery, or, in the old Latin terminology: Inventio, Diapoaitib, Elocutio, Pro. nunciatio. Under " Materials " first place belongs to Scripture, and the selection, interpretation, exposition, and enforcement of Bible texts is to be considered. Other materials of dbecourse, such as narrative, description, argument, illustration, and
application have their place. In " Arrangement " or " Division," custom and proprieties call for some peculiarities of sermon analysis; but in general the usual counsels of rhetoric are here applicable. For " Style " or " Diction," homiletics urges the importance of the grammatical qualities of correctness and propriety, and of the rhetorical qualities of clearness and force, with such attention to beauty or ornament as may serve the higher ends of preaching. In " Delivery " homiletics considers three methods: reading from manuscript, recitation from memory of a previously written discourse, speaking freely after various sorts or degrees of previous preparation. Anglo‑American homiletics takes little account of recitation; a few homileticians practise and defend reading from manuscript; but the consensus of opinion and practise decidedly favors the so‑called extemporaneous method, while insisting upon thorough preparation. Elocution, or the training and practise of voice and gesture, is sometimes taught under homiletics and sometimes made a special discipline. Together with these technical aspects of homiletics there are a number of closely related and highly important subjects which claim incidental or special treatment according to, circumstances, such as the character of the preacher, his view of his work, his relation to his age and people, his habits and methods of study, and many other matters which directly and powerfully influence his preaching. E. C. DARQAN.
LITERATURE.‑An exhaustive list is not attempted; only those books which are considered most important or representative are mentioned. Works dealing with related subjects, such as Pastoral Theology and the History of Preaching, are omitted.
BIBLIOa6AB87: In spite of what is said in the teat, such works on rhetoric se J. Genung, Outlines of Rhetoric, Boston, 1893, and A. S. Hill, Principles of Rhetoric, New York 1895 may not be neglected in laying a foundation for the work of preaching. Of historical importance are: W. Perkins, The Arts of Prophayinp, 1813; J. Wilkins, Ecclesiastes, or a Discourse concerning as Gift of Preaching, London, 1649; J. Glanvil, Essay concerning Preaching, ib: 1678; T. Blackwell, Methodus Evanyelica, ib. 1712; Sir Richard Blackmore, The Accomplished Preacher, ed. J. White, 1731; P. Doddridge, Lectures on Preaching and the Ministerial Office, London, 1751; G. Campbell, Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence, ib. 1775; E. Porter, Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching, New York, 1834. Among the many handbooks and treatises the following may be reckoned important: T. H. Skinner, Aide to Preaching and Hearing, New York 1839; J. W. Alexander, Thoughts on Preaching, 1861; D. P. Kidder, Treatise on Homiletics ib., 1864; T. J. Potter, Sacred Eloquence, London, 1866; idem The Spoken Word, ib. 1872; W. G. T. Shedd, Homiletics and Pastoral Thlogy, New York, 1867; R. L. Dabney, Sacred Rhetoric, Richmond, 1886; J. Parker, Ad Clerum, London, 1870; G. W. Hervey, Christian Rhetoric, New York, 1873; C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to my Students, 3 series, London, 1875‑94; R. S. Storrs, Conditions of Success in Preaching without Notes, New York, 1875; A. Vinet, Homilitiqae, Paris, 1874, Eng. tranel., Homiletics, New York, 1880 (long a standard); M. Simpson, Lectures on Preaching, ib 1879; H W. Beecher Yale Lectures on Preaching, ib. 1881; H. Burgess, Tke Art of Preaching, London, 1881; R. W. Dale, Lectures on Preaching, ib. 1882; A. Phelps, Theory of Preaching, ib. 1882; idem Men and Books, ib. 1882; idem, English Style in Pulpit Discourse, ib. 1883 (Professor Phelps was reckoned one of the great masters in homiletics); J. M. Hoppun. Homiletics, ib. 1883; A. Kraus, Lelubueh den Homiletik, Goths, 1883; N. J. Burton, Leeturse on Preach. inp, New York, 1884; F. W. Fiske, A Manual of Preach‑