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.
6. But in the above remarks of this learned German, some considerations
are wanting, necessary to the right understanding of several of the
above passages quoted from St. Paul. The philosophic system above
mentioned was built on the Scripture doctrine of good and evil angels,
and so had a basis of truth, although abused to a gross superstition,
and even idolatry. It was grounded, too, upon the notion of different
orders among both good and evil spirits, with subordination and
government; which also is a truth of which some intimation is given in
Scripture. The Apostle then could use all these terms without giving any
sanction to the errors of the day. He knew that the spiritual powers
they had converted into subordinate deities, were either good or evil
angels in their various ranks, and he uproots the whole superstition, by
showing that the “thrones and dominions” of heaven are submissive
created servants of Christ; and that the evil spirits, the rulers of
“the darkness of this world,” are put under his feet.