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, Epistleto 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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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).
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..