Chapter LIV: Part 54

(2.) As to the author, we now come to the result of this investigation. In the Egyptian and eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a pretty early period, some who had doubts whether St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is definitely known to us, who entertained these doubts; and it is manifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter, any important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the church, that Paul did write it. Not a single witness of any considerable respectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the church, for the negative of the question which we are considering. What Jerom avers, appears to be strictly true, namely, _Ab ecclesiis orientis et ab omnibus retrò ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Apostoli Pauli suscipi_. In the western churches a diversity of opinion prevailed; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can be adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerom and Augustine leave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the western churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times, we have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his epistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation. What produced a change of opinion in the west, we are left to conjecture. The scanty critical and literary records of those times afford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from being a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of the churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. Storr has endeavoured to show, that Marcion occasioned this revolution, when he came from the east to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable, that an extravagant man, excommunicated by the Roman church itself, should have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have with more probability, attributed it to the zealous disputes at Rome against the Montanist party, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was supposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the reception again into the bosom of the church of those persons who had so lapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages in Heb. vi, 4–8, and x, 26–31, at least seem strongly to favour the views which they maintained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against the Montanists very high; and Ernesti and many other critics have been led to believe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected by them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. As a matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this subject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the Epistle to the Hebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Roman church. Many such instances might be produced from the history of the church. The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it stood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many of the oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the Chiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that Luther himself rejected the Epistle of James, because he viewed it as thwarting his favourite notions of justification; yea, that he went so far as to give it the appellation of _epistola straminea_? [an epistle of straw.] It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church, exceedingly imbittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have gradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of the epistle; because it was to their adversaries a favourite source of appeal, and because, unlike St. Paul’s other epistles, it was anonymous. That all, even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very active part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of such an origin, or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. But whatever might have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty generally rejected by the churches of the west, the fact that it was so cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as St. Paul’s; although there were some among them who did receive it. It remains, then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as uniform for the first century after the apostolic age as in respect to many other books of the New Testament; and more so, than in respect to several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that the weight of evidence from tradition is altogether preponderant in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was the author of our epistle.

(3.) As to the language in which the epistle was originally written, there has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke carefully translated it into Greek. Eusebius in the same manner says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report, either Luke or Clement translated it. So Jerom, also, _scripserat ut Hebræus Hebræis Hebraicè_; [as a Hebrew he had written to the Hebrews in Hebrew;] and then he adds that this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from that of St. Paul’s. Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was Clement, of Alexandria; and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that the thoughts contained in the epistle were St. Paul’s, while the diction or costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the sentiments of the Apostle. By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably doubt, that these fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken in the days of the Apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long ceased to be a vernacular language. It is quite plain also, that these fathers were led to the conclusion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in the dialect of Palestine, from their belief, so universal in ancient times, of its having been addressed to some church, or to the churches, in that country. It was very natural to draw such a conclusion; for would not an epistle addressed to Hebrews in all probability be more acceptable, if written in their own vernacular language? Moreover, St. Paul was well acquainted with that language, for he was brought up at Jerusalem, and “at the feet of Gamaliel;” and when he had visited that city, he had addressed the Jewish multitude, who were excited against him, in their native tongue, Acts xxii, 1, 2. Why should it not be supposed, that if, as is probable, this epistle was originally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of that country? So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned; although other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not appear to have coincided in opinion with those to whom I have just referred. Among the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to defend the same opinion; and particularly Michaëlis, who has discussed the subject quite at length, in his introduction to this epistle. I do not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To my own mind they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are built on an exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, if admitted, would deduce a very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. Yet, assuming such a meaning, he thence concludes, that the original writer must have expressed a different idea, and that the translator mistook his meaning. He then undertakes to conjecture what the original Hebrew must have been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from considerations wholly _à priori_; as if these were admissible in a question of mere fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls _wrong translation_, which wears the appearance of any considerable probability. On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well acquainted with the Aramean language, who has gone through with the New Testament, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of translation from Aramean documents, confesses, that, in respect to this epistle, he finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an Aramean original, and no marks that there ever was such an original. This testimony is of considerable importance in respect to the question before us, as it comes from a critic who spent many years on the study of that which is most intimately connected with the very subject under consideration, namely, the detection of the Aramean originals of the various parts of the New Testament.

(4.) The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original are deduced from two sources: That Hebrews are addressed in our epistle, to whom the Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intelligible, and many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, certainly could not read it: That the diversity of style in the Epistle to the Hebrews is so great, when compared with that of St. Paul’s epistles, that, unless we suppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we must be led to the conclusion that St. Paul did not write it. Both of these topics have been already discussed. I merely add here, therefore, that in case the writer of the epistle designed it should have a wide circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether the most feasible method of accomplishing this. Beside, if St. Paul did address it to the church at Cæsarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote in Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he did not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew; for in every considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who understood the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last position established beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug’s “Introduction to the New Testament,” vol. ii, pp. 32–50. When St. Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not write in Latin; yet there was no difficulty in making his epistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common in Rome. If St. Paul understood the Latin language, which is no where affirmed, and he had not resided when he wrote this epistle, in any of the countries where it was commonly used, still he understood Greek so much better that he would of course prefer writing in it. For a similar reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as more probable, that he would write the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At the time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty-five years at least, in Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period, only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every where saw, spoke Greek, not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and conversed. Is it any wonder, then, that, after twenty-five years’ incessant labour or preaching, conversing, and writing, in this language, he should have preferred writing in it? Indeed, can it be probable, that, under circumstances like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in his native dialect of Palestine? I cannot think it strange, therefore, that although the Epistle to the Hebrews was in all probability directed to some part of Palestine, yet it was written by St. Paul in Greek, and not in Hebrew. But, whatever may be the estimation put upon arguments of this nature, there are internal marks of its having been originally composed in Greek, which cannot well be overlooked.

HEBRON, one of the most ancient cities in the world; for it was built seven years before Zoan, the capital of Lower Egypt, Numbers xiii, 22. Now, as the Egyptians gloried much in the antiquity of their cities, and their country was indeed one of the first that was peopled after the dispersion of Babel, it may be from hence concluded that it was one of the most ancient. Some think it was founded by Arba, one of the oldest giants in Palestine; for which reason it was called Kirjath-arba, or Arba’s city, Joshua xiv, 15; which name was afterward changed to that of Hebron, Joshua xv, 13. Arba was the father of Anak; and from Anak the giants, called Anakim, took their name, who were still dwelling at Hebron when Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. When it was first called Hebron, is uncertain; some think, not till it was conquered by Caleb, and that he called it so from his son of that name. But Calmet is of opinion that the name of Hebron is more ancient; and that Caleb, to do honour to his son, named him after this ancient and celebrated place. Hebron was situated upon an eminence, twenty miles southward from Jerusalem, and twenty miles north from Beersheba. Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac were buried near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, or the double cave, which Abraham bought of Ephron, Genesis xxiii, 7–9. Hebron was the allotment of Judah. The Lord assigned it for the inheritance of Caleb, Joshua xiv, 13; x, 3, 23, 37. Joshua first took Hebron, and killed the king, whose name was Hoham. But afterward Caleb again made a conquest of it, assisted by the troops of his tribe, and the valour of Othniel, Judges i, 12, 13. It was appointed to be a dwelling for priests, and declared to be a city of refuge, Joshua xxi, 13. David, after the death of Saul, fixed the seat of his government there, 2 Sam. ii, 2–5. At Hebron, Absalom began his rebellion, 2 Sam. xv, 7, 8, &c. During the captivity of Babylon, the Edomites having invaded the southern parts of Judea, made themselves masters of Hebron; hence Josephus sometimes makes it a part of Edom. Here Zacharias and Elizabeth are believed to have dwelt; and it is supposed to have been the birth place of John the Baptist. Hebron is now called El Khalil; though not a town of large dimensions, it has a considerable population. According to Ali Bey, it contains about four hundred families of Arabs; but he does not notice either the Jews, who are numerous, or the Turks. He describes it as situated on the slope of a mountain, and having a strong castle. Provisions, he says, are abundant, and there is a considerable number of shops. The streets are winding, and the houses unusually high. The country is well cultivated, to a considerable extent. Hebron is computed to be twenty-seven miles south-west of Jerusalem.

HEIFER, a young cow, used in sacrifice at the temple, Num. xix, 1–10. Moses and Aaron were instructed to deliver the divine command to the children of Israel that they should procure “a red heifer, without spot,” that is, one that was entirely red, without one spot of any other colour; “free from blemish, and on which the yoke had never yet come,” that is, which had never yet been employed in ploughing the ground or in any other work; for according to the common sense of all mankind, those animals which had been made to serve other uses, became unfit to be offered to God,--a sentiment which we find in Homer and other Heathen writers. The animal was to be delivered to the priest, who was to lead her forth out of the camp, and there to slay her: the priest was then to take of the blood with his finger, and sprinkle it seven times before the tabernacle, and afterward to burn the carcass: then to take cedar wood and hyssop, and scarlet wood, and cast them into the flames. The ashes were to be gathered up, and preserved in a secure and clean place, for the use of the congregation, by the sprinkling of which ashes in water, it became a water of separation, by means of which a typical or ceremonial purification for sin was effected, Heb. ix, 13.

HELIOPOLIS. See ON.

HELL. This is a Saxon word, which is derived from a verb which signifies _to hide_ or _conceal_. A late eminent Biblical critic, Dr. Campbell, has investigated this subject with his usual accuracy; and the following is the substance of his remarks. In the Hebrew Scriptures the word _sheol_ frequently occurs, and uniformly, he thinks, denotes the state of the dead in general, without regard to the virtuous or vicious characters of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating that word, the LXX have almost invariably used the Greek term ἅιδης, _hades_, which means the receptacle of the dead, and ought rarely to have been translated _hell_, in the sense in which we now use it, namely, as the place of torment. To denote this latter object, the New Testament writers always make use of the Greek word γέεννα, which is compounded of two Hebrew words, _Ge Hinnom_, that is, “The Valley of Hinnom,” a place near Jerusalem, in which children were cruelly sacrificed by fire to Moloch, the idol of the Ammonites, 2 Chron. xxxiii, 6. This place was also called _Tophet_, 2 Kings xxiii, 10, alluding, as is supposed, to the noise of drums, (_toph_ signifying a drum,) there raised to drown the cries of helpless infants. As in process of time this place came to be considered an emblem of hell, or the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the name _Tophet_ came gradually to be used in this sense, and at length to be confined to it. In this sense, also, the word _gehenna_, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New Testament, where it occurs about a dozen times. The confusion that has arisen on this subject has been occasioned not only by our English translators having rendered the Hebrew word _sheol_ and the Greek word _gehenna_ frequently by the term _hell_; but the Greek word _hades_, which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, is, in every instance, except one, translated by the same English word, which it ought never to have been. In the following passages of the Old Testament it seems, however, that a future world of wo is expressed by _sheol_: “They,” the wicked, “spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to _sheol_,” Job xxi, 13. “The wicked shall be turned into _sheol_, and all the nations that forget God,” Psalm ix, 17, 18. “Her feet go down to death, her steps take hold on _sheol_,” Prov. v, 5. “But he knoweth not that the ghosts are there, and that her guests are in the depths of sheol,” Prov. ix, 18. “Thou shalt beat him with a rod, and shalt deliver his soul from _sheol_,” Prov. xxiii, 14. Thus, as Stuart observes, in his “Essay on Future Punishment,” while the Old Testament employs _sheol_, in most cases to designate the grave, the region of the dead, the place of departed spirits, it employs it also, in some cases, to designate along with this idea the adjunct one of the place of misery, place of punishment, region of wo]. In this respect it accords fully with the New Testament use of _hades_. For though _hades_ signifies the grave, and often the invisible region of separate spirits, without reference to their condition, yet, in Luke xvi, 23, “In hades ἐν τῷ ᾅδη, he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,” it is clearly used for a place and condition of misery. The word _hell_ is also used by our translators for _gehenna_, which means the world of future punishment, “How shall ye escape the damnation of hell, κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης?“

HELL, _Gates of_. See GATES.

HELLENISTS. On this appellation, Dr. Jennings observes, There is a very remarkable appellation which the Apostle Paul, after glorying in his being “of the stock of Israel, and of the tribe of Benjamin,” applies to himself, namely, that he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” Phil. iii, 5. By this expression Godwin understands a Hebrew both by father’s and mother’s side. But if this be all that the phrase imports, there seems to be very little occasion for the Apostle’s using it immediately after having declared, that he was “of the stock of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin;” which, on Godwin’s supposition, is the same as a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for the Jews were not allowed to marry out of their own nation; or if they sometimes married proselytes, yet their number was comparatively so small among them, especially while they were under oppression, as they were at that time by the Romans, that methinks Paul would hardly have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and honour, that neither of his parents were proselytes. It is therefore a much more probable sense, that a Hebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by nation and language, which multitudes of Abraham’s posterity, in those days, were not; or one of the Hebrew Jews, who performed their public worship in the Hebrew tongue; for such were reckoned more honourable than the Hellenistic Jews, who in their dispersion having, in a manner, lost the Hebrew, used the Greek language _in sacris_, and read the Scripture out of the Septuagint version. We meet with this distinction among the converted Jews, in the Acts of the Apostles: “In those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians or Hellenists against the Hebrews,” Acts vi, 1. This is what St. Paul probably meant by his being a Hebrew, as distinguished from an Israelite: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I,” 2 Corinthians xi, 22. In one sense, these were convertible terms, both signifying Jews by nation and religion; but in the sense just mentioned, there were many, in those days, who were Israelites, but not Hebrews. St. Paul was both, not only an Israelite by birth, but a Hebrew, and not a Hellenistic Jew. Godwin expresses himself inaccurately, when he says that those who lived in Palestine, and who, as using the Hebrew text in their public worship, were opposed to the Ἑλληνιϛαί, are called Hebrews, or Jews. For, though Hebrew and Jew are convertible terms, when opposed to Gentiles, as denoting the seed of Abraham, and professors of the Mosaic religion, see Jer. xxxiv, 9; yet, as opposed to the Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, they are not convertible terms, there being Hebrew Jews and Hellenistic Jews; for it is said, that when “they, who were scattered by the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled into several countries, preaching the word to none but Jews only,” yet they spoke, ϖρος τοὺς Ἑλληνιϛὰς, to the Hellenists or Grecians, Acts xi, 19, 20. In order to confirm the sense which is here given of the word Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, in opposition to the appellation Hebrews, it is proper we should take notice of the distinction between the Ἕλληνες and Ἑλληνιϛαὶ. The former were Greeks by nation, and as such distinguished from Jews, Acts xvi, 1; xix, 10; and the Greek empire having been rendered by Alexander in a manner universal, and their language being then the most common and general, the appellation Greeks is sometimes given to the whole Heathen world, or to all who were not Jews, Rom. i, 16; ii, 9. These Greeks, called Ἑλληνικοὶ by Josephus, are always styled Ἕελληνες in the New Testament. On which account Grotius, understanding by the Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, or “Grecians, to whom some of those who were dispersed on the persecution which arose about Stephen, preached the Lord Jesus,” Acts xi, 19, 20, Greeks by nation, concludes there is a mistake in the text, and alters it according to the Syriac and Vulgate versions: “_Certè legendum_,” [it ought certainly to be read,] saith he, “ϖρος τοὺς Ἕλληνας.” So indeed the Alexandrian manuscript reads, but it is supported by no other copy. And this is decisive against it--that from the words immediately preceding, it is evident that these Grecians were by nation Jews, and not Greeks; it being expressly said, that those who were scattered on the persecution “preached the Gospel to the Jews only.” As for the Ἕλληνες, or Greeks mentioned in St. John’s Gospel, as being come to Jerusalem at the passover to worship in the temple, John xii, 20, and likewise those mentioned in the Acts, as worshipping along with the Jews in the synagogues, Acts xiv, 1; xviii, 4; they were doubtless Greeks by birth and nation, yet proselytes to the Jewish religion. There is a distinction made between Jews and proselytes, Acts ii, 10; but none between Hebrews and proselytes, because a proselyte might be either a Hebrew or a Hellenist, according to the language in which he performed public worship. That the Hellenists or Grecians, were Jews, is farther argued from the account we have, that when at Jerusalem St. Paul “disputed against the Grecians, they went about to slay him,” Acts ix, 29, as the Jews at Damascus had done before, Acts ix, 23. Now had these Grecians been strangers of a different nation, it cannot be imagined they durst have attempted to kill a Jew, among his own countrymen, in the capital, and without a formal accusation of him before any of their tribunals. Upon the whole, the Ἑλληνιϛαὶ, or Grecians being Jews who used the Greek tongue in their sacred exercises, the Hebrew Jews and Grecian Jews were distinguished in those days, in like manner as the Portuguese and Dutch Jews are among us, not so much by the place of their birth, (many being born in England, others abroad,) as by the language they use in their public prayers and sermons.

Among the wonderful dealings of God, says Dr. Neander, by which the coming of Christianity was prepared, must be placed the spreading of the Jews among the Greeks and Romans. Those among them who belonged to the Pharisees gave themselves much trouble to obtain proselytes; and the loss of respect for the old popular religion, and the unsatisfied religious wants of multitudes, farthered their views. Reverence for the national God of the Jews, as a mighty Being, and reverence for the secret sanctuary of the splendid temple of Jerusalem, had long gained admittance among the Heathen. Jewish goetæ (enchanters, jugglers, &c) permitted themselves to make use of a thousand acts of delusion, in which they were very skilful, to make an impression of astonishment on the minds of those around them. Confidence in Judaism had in consequence made such wide progress, especially in large capital towns, that the Roman writers in the time of the first emperors openly complain of it; and Seneca, in his book upon superstition, said of the Jews, “The conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” The Jewish proselyte-makers, “blind leaders of the blind,” who had themselves no conception of the real nature, of religion, could give to others no insight into it. They often allowed their converts to take up a kind of dead monotheism, and merely exchange one kind of superstition for another; they taught them, that, by the mere outward worship of one God, and outward ceremonials, they were sure of the grace of God, without requiring any change of life; and they gave to them only new means of silencing their conscience, and new support in the sins which they were unwilling to renounce: and hence our Saviour reproached these proselyte-makers, that they made their converts ten times more the children of hell, than they themselves were. But we must here accurately distinguish between the two classes of proselytes. The proselytes in the strict sense of the word, the proselytes of righteousness, who underwent circumcision and took upon themselves the whole of the ceremonial law, were very different from the proselytes of the gate, who only bound themselves to renounce idolatry, to the worship of the one God, and to abstinence from all Heathenish excess, as well as from every thing which appeared to have any connection with idolatry. The former often embraced all the fanaticism and superstition of the Jews, and allowed themselves to be blindly led by their Jewish teachers. The more difficult it had been to them to subject themselves to the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law, necessarily so irksome to a Greek or a Roman, the less could they find it in their hearts to believe, that all this had been in vain, that they had obtained no advantage by it, and that they must renounce their presumed holiness. What Justin Martyr says to the Jews, holds good of these proselytes: “The proselytes not only do not believe, but they calumniate the name of Christ twice as much as you, and they wish to murder and torture us who believe on him, because they are desirous to resemble you in every thing.” The proselytes of the gate, on the contrary, had taken many of the most admirable truths out of Judaism. Without becoming entirely Jews, they had become acquainted with the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, they had heard of the promised messenger from God, of the King armed with power from God, of whom a report had been spread, as Suetonius says in the life of Vespasian, over the whole of the east. Much of that which they had heard from their Jewish teachers, whose writings they had read, had remained dark to them, and they were still to seek in them. By the notions which they had received from the Jews, of one God, of the divine government of the world, of God’s judgment, and of the Messiah, they were more prepared for the Gospel than other Heathens; and because they still thought that they had too little, because they had no determined religious system, and were curious after more instruction in divine things, and because they had not received many of the prejudices which swayed the Jews, they were more fitted to receive the Gospel than many of the Jews. From the very beginning they must have been attentive to the preaching of the Gospel, which secured to them, without making them Jews, a full share in the fulfilment of those promises of which the Jews had spoken to them. To these proselytes of the gate, (the φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεὸν, the εὐσεβεῖς of the New Testament,) passed, therefore, according to the Acts, the preaching of the Gospel, when it had been rejected by the blinded Jews; and here the seed of the divine word found a fitting soil in hearts desirous of holiness. There were, however, doubtless, among the proselytes of the gate, some who, wanting in proper earnestness in their search after religious truth, only desired, in every case, an easy road to heaven, which did not require any self-denial; and who, in order to be sure of being on the safe side, whether power and truth lay with the Jews or the Heathens, sometimes worshipped in the synagogue of Jehovah, sometimes in the temples of the gods, and who, therefore, fluttered in suspense between Judaism and Heathenism.

HEMLOCK, רוש and ראש, Deut. xxix, 18; xxxii, 32; Psalm lxix, 21; Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam. iii, 5, 19; Hosea x, 4; Amos vi, 12. In the two latter places our translators have rendered the word _hemlock_ in the others, _gall_. Hiller supposes it the _centaureum_, described by Pliny; but Celsius shows it to be the hemlock. It is evident, from Deut. xxix, 18, that some herb or plant is meant of a malignant or nauseous kind, being there joined with _wormwood_, and in the margin of our Bibles explained to be “a poisonful herb.” In like manner see Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; and xxiii, 15. In Hosea x, 4, the comparison is to a bitter herb, which, growing among grain, overpowers the useful vegetable, and substitutes a pernicious weed. “If,” says the author of “Scripture Illustrated,” “the comparison be to a plant growing in the furrows of the field, strictly speaking, then we are much restricted in our plants likely to answer this character; but if we may take the ditches around, or the moist or sunken places within the field also, which I partly suspect, then we may include other plants; and I do not see why hemlock may not be intended. Scheuchzer inclines to this rather than _wormwood_ or _agrostes_, as the LXX have rendered it. The prophet appears to mean a vegetable which should appear wholesome, and resemble those known to be salutary, as judgment, when just, properly is; but experience would demonstrate its malignity, as unjust judgment is when enforced. Hemlock is poisonous, and water-hemlock especially; yet either of these may be mistaken, and some of their parts, the root particularly, may deceive but too fatally.”

HEN, ὄρνις, 2 Esdras i, 30; Matt. xxiii, 37; Luke xiii, 34. In these last two passages our Saviour exclaims, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” The metaphor here used is a very beautiful one. When the hen sees a bird of prey coming, she makes a noise to assemble her chickens, that she may cover them with her wings from the danger. The Roman eagle was about to fall upon the Jewish state; our Lord invited them to himself in order to guard them from threatened calamities: they disregarded his invitations and warnings, and fell a prey to their adversaries. The affection of the hen to her brood is so strong as to have become proverbial. There is a beautiful Greek epigram in the Anthologia, which affords a very fine illustration of the affection of this bird in another view. It has been thus translated:--

“Beneath her fostering wing the hen defends
Her darling offspring, while the snow descends;
And through the winter’s day unmoved defies
The chilling fleeces and inclement skies;
Till vanquish'd by the cold and piercing blast,
True to her charge she perishes at last.”

Plutarch, in his book _De Philostorgiâ_, represents this parental attachment and care in a very pleasing manner: “Do we not daily observe with what care the hen protects her chickens; giving some shelter under her wings, supporting others upon her back, calling them around her, and picking out their food; and if any animal approaches that terrifies them, driving it away with a courage and strength truly wonderful?”

HENOTICON, a decree or edict of the Emperor Zeno, which was dated at Constantinople in the year 482, and by which he intended to unite all the parties in religion under one faith. For this reason the decree was called _henoticon_, which signifies “union” or “uniting.” It is generally agreed that it was published by the advice of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, who wished to reconcile the contending parties. This decree repeated and confirmed all that had been enacted in the councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, against the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, without particularly mentioning the council of Chalcedon. The _henoticon_ was approved by all those of the two contending parties who were remarkable for their candour and moderation; but it was opposed by the violent and obstinate, who complained that it was injurious to the honour and authority of the most holy council of Chalcedon. Hence arose new contests and new divisions not less deplorable than those which this decree was intended to suppress. The Catholics opposed it with all their strength; and it was condemned in form by Pope Felix II.

HERESY, _hæresis_, αἵρεσις, from αἱρέω, _I choose_, signifies an error in some essential point of Christian faith, publicly avowed, and obstinately maintained; or, according to the legal definition, “_Sententia rerum divinarum humano sensu excogitata, palam docta, et pertinaciter defensa_.” [An opinion of divine things invented by human reason, openly taught, and obstinately defended.] Among the ancients, the word _heresy_ appears to have had nothing of that odious signification which has been attached to it by ecclesiastical writers in later times. It only signified a peculiar opinion, dogma, or sect, without conveying any reproach; being indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one disapproved, by the writer. In this sense they spoke of the heresy of the Stoics, of the Peripatetics, Epicureans, &c, meaning the sect or peculiar system of these philosophers. In the historical part of the New Testament, the word seems to bear very nearly the same signification, being employed indiscriminately to denote a sect or party, whether good or bad. Thus we read of the sect or heresy of the Sadducees, of the Pharisees, of the Nazarenes, &c. See Acts v, 17; xv, 5; xxiv, 5; xxvi, 5; xxviii, 22. In the two former of these passages, the term _heresy_ seems to be adopted by the sacred historian merely for the sake of distinction, without the least appearance of any intention to convey either praise or blame. In Acts xxvi, 4, 5, St. Paul, in defending himself before King Agrippa, uses the same term, when it was manifestly his design to exalt the party to which he had belonged, and to give their system the preference over every other system of Judaism, both with regard to soundness of doctrine and purity of morals.

2. It has been suggested that the acceptation of the word αἵρεσις in the epistles is different from what it has been observed to be in the historical books of the New Testament. In order to account for this difference, it may be observed that the word _sect_ has always something relative in it; and therefore, although the general import of the term be the same, it will convey a favourable or an unfavourable idea, according to the particular relation which it bears in the application. When it is used along with the proper name, by way of distinguishing one party from another, it conveys neither praise nor reproach. If any thing reprehensible or commendable be meant, it is suggested, not by the word αἵρεσις itself, but by the words with which it stands connected in construction. Thus we may speak of a strict sect, or a lax sect; or of a good sect, or a bad sect. Again: the term may be applied to a party formed in a community, when considered in reference to the whole. If the community be of such a nature as not to admit of such a subdivision, without impairing or corrupting its constitution, a charge of splitting into sects, or forming parties, is equivalent to a charge of corruption in that which is most essential to the existence and welfare of the society. Hence arises the whole difference in the word, as it is used in the historical part of the New Testament, and in the epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul; for these are the only Apostles who employ it. In the history, the reference is always of the first kind; in the epistles, it is always of the second. In these last, the Apostles address themselves only to Christians, and either reprehend them for, or warn them against, forming sects among themselves, to the prejudice of charity, to the production of much mischief within their community, and of great scandal to the unconverted world without. In both applications, however, the radical import of the word is the same; and even in the latter it has no necessary reference to doctrine, true or false. During the early ages of Christianity, the term _heresy_ gradually lost the innocence of its original meaning, and came to be applied, in a reproachful sense, to any corruption of what was considered as the orthodox creed, or even to any departure from the established rites and ceremonies of the church.

3. The heresies chiefly alluded to in the apostolical epistles are, first, those of the Judaizers, or rigid adherents to the Mosaic rites, especially that of circumcision; second, those of converted Hellenists, or Grecian Jews, who held the Greek eloquence and philosophy in too high an estimation, and corrupted, by the speculations of the latter, the simplicity of the Gospel; and third, those who endeavoured to blend Christianity with a mixed philosophy of magic, demonology, and Platonism, which was then highly popular in the world. With respect to the latter, the remarks of Hug will tend to illustrate some passages in the writings of St. Paul:--Without being acquainted with the notions of those teachers who caused the Apostle so much anxiety and so much vexation, a considerable part of these treatises must necessarily remain dark and unintelligible. From the criteria by which the Apostle points them out, at one time some deemed that they recognised the Gnostics; others perceived none but the Essenes; and every one found arguments for his assertions from the similarity of the doctrines, opinions, and morals. It would, however, be as difficult to prove that the Gnostic school had at that time indeed perfectly developed itself, as it is unjust to charge the Essenes with that extreme of immorality of which St. Paul accused these seducers, since the contemporaries and acquaintances of this Jewish sect mention them with honour and respect, and extol its members as the most virtuous men of their age. The similarity of the principles and opinions, which will have been observed in both parties compared with St. Paul’s declarations, flows from a common source, from the philosophy of that age, whence both the one and the other have derived their share. We shall therefore go less astray, if we recede a step, and consider the philosophy itself, as the general modeller of these derivative theories. It found its followers among Judaism as well as among the Heathens; it both introduced its speculative preparations into Christianity, and endeavoured to unite them or to adjust them to it, as well as they were able, by which means Christianity would have become deformed and unlike to itself, and would have been merged in the ocean of philosophical reveries, unless the Apostles had on this occasion defended it against the follies of men. An oriental, or, as it is commonly called, a Babylonian or Chaldean, doctrinal system had already long become known to the Greeks, and even to the Romans, before Augustus, and still more so in the Augustan age, and was in the full progress of its extension over Asia and Europe. It set up different deities and intermediate spirits in explanation of certain phenomena of nature, for the office of governing the world, and for the solution of other metaphysical questions, which from time immemorial were reckoned among the difficult propositions of philosophy. The practical part of this system was occupied with the precepts by means of which a person might enter into communication with these spirits or demons. But the result which they promised to themselves from this union with the divine natures, was that of acquiring, by their assistance, superhuman knowledge, that of predicting future events, and of performing supernatural works. These philosophers were celebrated under the name of magi and Chaldeans; who, for the sake of better accommodating themselves to the western nations, modified their system after the Greek forms, and then, as it appears, knew how to unite it with the doctrine of Plato, from whence afterward arose the Neo-Platonic and in Christendom the Gnostical school. These men forced their way even to the throne. Tiberius had received instruction in their philosophy, and was very confident that by means of an intelligence with the demons, it was possible to learn and perform extraordinary things. Nero caused a great number of them to be brought over from Asia, not unfrequently at the expense of the provinces. The supernatural spirits would not always appear, yet he did not discard his belief of them. The magi and Chaldeans were the persons who were consulted on great undertakings, who, when conspiracies arose, predicted the issue; who invoked spirits, prepared offerings, and in love affairs were obliged to afford aid from their art. Even the force of the laws, to which recourse was frequently necessary to be had at Rome, tended to nothing but the augmentation of their authority. As they found access and favour with people of all classes in the capital, so did they also in the provinces. Paul found a magus at the court of the proconsul at Paphos, Acts xiii, 6. Such was that Simon in Samaria, Acts viii, 10, who was there considered as a higher being of the spiritual class. The expression is remarkable, as it is a part of the technical language of the Theurgists; they called him Δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ μεγάλη, “The great power of God.” So also Pliny calls some of the demons and intermediate spirits, by whose coöperation particular results were effected, _potestates_. [Powers.] Justin Martyr, the fellow countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some technical expressions of his followers. He says that they ascribed to him the high title ὑπεράνω ϖάσης ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐξουσίας, καὶ δυνάμεως. [Far above all principality, and power, and might.] Of these classes of spirits, which appear under such different appellations, the superior were those who ruled; but the inferior, who had more of a material substance, and who, on that account, were able to connect themselves immediately with matter, were those who executed the commands of the superior. By an intelligence with the superior spirits a person might have the subaltern at his service and assistance; for the more powerful demons thus commanded the inferior to execute certain commissions in the material world: Ἐν τῶ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων, “By the prince of the devils,” Matt. xii, 24.

4. The Syrian philosopher, Jamblichus, of Chalcis, has furnished us with a circumstantial representation of this system and its several varieties, in his book on the mysteries of the Chaldeans and Egyptians:--The nature of the gods is a pure, spiritual, and perfect unity. With this highest and perfect immateriality no influence on matter is conceivable, consequently, no creation and dominion of the world. Certain subordinate deities must therefore be admitted, which are more compounded in their nature, and can act upon gross matter. These are the “creators of the world,” δημίουργοι, and the “rulers of the world,” κοσμοκράτορες. The superior deities are, however, the real cause of all that exists; and from their fulness, from their ϖλήρωμα, it derives its existence. The succession from the highest deities down to the lowest is not by a sudden descent, but by a continually graduating decrease from the highest, pure, and spiritual natures, down to those which are more substantial and material, which are the nearest related to the gross matter of the creation, and which consequently possess the property of acting upon it. In proportion to their purer quality, or coarser composition, they occupy different places as their residence, either in a denser atmosphere, or in higher regions. The highest among these classes of spirits are called ἄρχαι, or, ἀρχικὸν ἀιτιόν. Others among the “divine natures,” θείαι οὐσίαι, are “intermediate beings,” μέσαι. Those which occupy themselves with the laws of the world are also called ἄρχοντες, and “the ministering spirits” are δύναμεις and ἄγγελοι. The archangels are not generally recognised in this theory; this class is said to have been of a later origin, and to have been first introduced by Porphyry. (See _Archangel_.) If we take here also into consideration the ἐξουσίαι, of which Justin has before spoken, we shall have enumerated the greater part of the technical appellations of this demonology. But to arrive at a union with the higher orders of the spiritual world, in which alone the highest bliss of man consists, it is necessary, before all things, to become disengaged from the servitude of the body, which detains the soul from soaring up to the purely spiritual. Matrimony, therefore, and every inclination to sexual concupiscence, must be renounced before the attainment of this perfection. Hence, the offerings and initiations of the magi cannot, without great injury, be even communicated to those who have not as yet emancipated themselves from the _libido procreandi_, and the propensities to corporeal attachments. To eat meat, or to partake in general of any slain animal, nay, to even touch it, contaminates. Bodily exercises and purifications, though not productive of the gifts of prophecy, are nevertheless conducive to them. Though the gods only attend to the pure, they nevertheless sometimes mislead men to impure, actions. This may perhaps proceed from the totally different ideas of that which is good and righteous, which subsist between them and mankind.

5. This philosophy of which the elements had already existed a long time in the east, formed itself, in its progress to the west, into a doctrinal system, which found there far more approbation and celebrity than it ever had deserved. It was principally welcome in those countries, to which the epistles of the Apostle are directed. When St. Paul had preached at Ephesus, a quantity of magical and theurgical books were brought forward by their possessors and burned before his eyes, Acts xix, 19. This city had long since been celebrated for them, and the Ἐφέσια ἀλεξιφάρμακα, and Ἐφέσια γράμματα, were spells highly extolled by the ancients for the purpose of procuring an authority over the demons. As late even as the fourth century, the synod at Laodicea was obliged to institute severe laws against the worship of angels, against magic, and against incantations. These opinions had taken such a deep root in the mind, that some centuries did not suffice for the extinction of the recollection of them. Now, there are passages in the Apostle which strikingly characterize this theory. He calls the doctrinal system of his opponents φιλοσοφία οὐ κατὰ Χριϛὸν, “a philosophy incompatible with Christianity,” Col. ii, 8; θρησκειά τῶν ἀγγέλων, “a worship of angels,” Col. ii, 18; διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων, “a demonology,” 1 Tim. iv, 1. He calls it still farther γοητεία, 2 Tim. iii, 13. This is the peculiar expression by which the ancients denoted magical arts and necromantic experiments; γόης is, according to Hesychius, μάγος, κόλαξ, ϖερίεργος, and γοητεύει, ἀπατᾶ μαγεύει, φαρμακεύει, ἐξάιδει. λ. St. Paul compares these teachers to Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy iii, 8. These two persons are, according to the ancient tradition, the magicians who withstood Moses by their arts. They were from time immemorial names so notorious in the magical science, that they did not remain unknown even to the Neo-Platonics. When the Apostle enjoins the Ephesians to array themselves in the arms of faith, and courageously to endure the combat, Ephes. vi, 12, he says that it is the more necessary, because their combat is not against human force, οὐ ϖρὸς [not against] ἄιμα καὶ σάρκα, “flesh and blood,” but against superhuman natures. Where he mentions these, he enumerates in order the names of this magico-spiritual world, ἀρχὰς, ἐξουσίας, particularly the κοσμοκράτορας, “principalities,” “powers,” “rulers;” and likewise fixes their abode in the upper aërial regions, εἰς τὸν ἀέρα ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. In like manner, in the Epistle to the Colossians, for the sake of representing to them Christianity in an exalted and important light, and of praising the divine nature of Jesus, he says, that all that exists is his creation, and is subjected to him, not even the spiritual world excepted. He then selects the philosophic appellations to demonstrate that this supposititious demonocracy is wholly subservient to him; whether they be θρόνοι, or κυριότητες, ἀρχαὶ ἐξουσίαι, [thrones, dominions, principalities, powers,] Col. i, 16. Finally, to destroy completely and decisively the whole doctrinal system, he demonstrates, that Christ, through the work of redemption, has obtained the victory over the entire spiritual creation, that he drags in triumph the ἀρχὰς [principalities] and ἐξουσίας [powers] as vanquished, and that henceforth their dominion and exercise of power have ceased, Col. ii, 15. But what he says respecting the seared consciences of these heretics, respecting their deceptions, their avarice, &c, is certainly more applicable to this class of men, than to any other. None throughout all antiquity are more accused of these immoralities, than those pretended confidents of the occult powers. If he speaks warmly against any distinction of meats, against abstinence from matrimony, this also applies to them; and if he rejects bodily exercises, it was because they recommended them, because they imposed baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparations, as the conditions by which alone the connection with the spirits became possible. These, then, are the persons who passed before the Apostle’s mind, and who, when they adopted Christianity, established that sect among the professors of Jesus, which gave to it the name of Gnostics, and which, together with the different varieties of this system, is accused by history of magical arts. Other adherents of this system among the Heathens, to which the Syrian philosophers, as well as some Egyptian, such as Plotinus and his scholars, belonged, formed the sect of Neo-Platonism.