161 religious encyclopedia harmoa Harmony of the Gospels

Download 5.36 Mb.
Size5.36 Mb.
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   ...   46



gelical Church receive financial aid from the gov­

ernment. (F. FL6RING.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Kirchenordnung was published at Mar­

burg, 1566, and the Agenda, das ist, Kirchenordnung in

1574 and often, of. Philipps des Grosamiithigen hessische

Kirchenreformationsordnung, ed. H. A. Credner, Giessen,

1852. Consult: C. W. Ledderhose, Beytrdpe zur Beschreib­

ung des Kirchenstaates der hessen kasseliachen Lands,

Cassel, 1781; E. Zimmermann, Verfassung der Kirchen

and Sehule im . . . Hessen, Darmstadt, 1832; C. B. N.

Falckenheiner, Geschichte hessischer Stddte and Stifter, 2

vols., Cassel, 1841 42; A. L. Richter, Die evangelischen

Kirchenordnunpen des 16. Jahrhunderts, Weimar, 1846;

C. W. Kbhler, Handbuch der kirchlichen Gesetxpebunp,

Darmstadt, 1847; W. Miineeher, Versuch einer Geschichte

der hessischen reformirten Kirche, Cassel, 1850; F. F.

Ferteeh Handbuch des . . . Kirchenrachts der evanpeli­

schen %irche im . . . Hessen, Friedberg, 1853; L. Baur,

Hessische Urkunden, 5 vola., Darmstadt, 1860 73; A. F.

C. Vilmar, Geschichte des Konfeasionstandes der evangeli­

schen Kirche in Hessen, Marburg, 1860; F. W. Hassen­

eamp, Hessisehe Kirchengeschichte, 2 vols., Frankfort,

1864; Beleuchtung der Declaration fiber den Bekenntnis­

stand der niederhessischen Kirche, Cassel, 1868; G. W. J.

Wagner, Die vormaligen Stifte im . . . Hessen, Darm­

atadt, 1873 78; H. Heppe, Kirchengeschichte der beiden

Hessen, 2 vols., Marburg, 1876; $ KShler, Kirchenrecht

der evangelischen Kirche . . . Hessen, Darmstadt, 1884;

A. B. Schmidt, Kirchenrechtliche Quellen des . . . Hessen,

Giessen, 1891; J. Friedrich, Luther and die Kirchenver­

fassung der Reformatio ecclesiarum Hessix, Darmstadt,

1894; W. Kohler, Hessische Kirchenverfassung . . der

Reformation, Giessen, 1894; W. Diehl, Zur Geschichte des

Gottesdienstes in Hessen, Giessen, 1899; KL, v. 1931 58.


Roman Catholic theologian; b. either at Arras

(100 m. n.n.e. of Paris), France, or at Louvain,

Belgium, 1522; d. at Louvain 1566. He taught

eight years in the Premonstratensian monastery of

Parc, near Louvain, and then became professor in

the theological faculty of that university in 1559.

He joined the Augustinian antischolastic party

which went back to the Church Fathers of the third,

fourth, and fifth centuries, but vigorously opposed

the Augustinism of the Protestants. With Bajus

and Cornelius Jansen he went, in 1563, to the

Council of Trent, where he seems to have taken part

in the preparatory work of the Catechismus Roma­

nus. The last three years of his life were occupied

with polemical agitation against Protestantism and

Cassander. He wrote polemical treatises and com­

mentaries on the Bible. His chief work in the

sphere of dogmatics is his Catechismus (Louvain,

1571, 2d ed., 1595). (O. Z&KLERt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. F. X. de Ram, Mbmoire Sur la part quB

le clerg6 de Belgique . . . ant prise au concile de Trento,

Brussels, 1841; F. X. Linsenmann, Bajus and die Grund­

legung des Jansenismus, Tdbingen, 1867; H. Hurter,

Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologise catholicle, i.

30 31, Innsbruck, 1867; KL, v. 1930 31.


land; b. at London July 17, 1814; d. there Dec. 24,

1892. He was educated at St.. John's College, Ox­

ford (B.A., 1836), and was ordained priest in 1838.

He was vicar of Helidon, Nortbants. (1839), and

lecturer in logic in his college (1839 12). He was

public examiner in the University of Oxford

(1842 14), and headmaster of Merchant Taylors'

School (1845 70). He became examining chaplain

to the bishop of London (1870), and from 1875 until

his death was archdeacon of Middlesex. He was

likewise select preacher at Oxford in 1849, and at

Cambridge in 1878 79, preacher of Gray's Inn,

London, in 1850 79, Bampton Lecturer at Oxford

in 1860, prebendary of Oxgate in St. Paul's Cathe­

dral in 1860 75, Grinfeld Lecturer on the Septuagint

in Oxford in 1865 69, and Boyle Lecturer in 1871­

1873. He was one of the three permanent chairmen

of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,

took an active part in the movement against legal­

izing marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and in

theology was a moderate High churchman, with

deep sympathy with all that is earnest and true in

every school of his Church. In addition to editing

the Institutio Lingum Sanche of Victorinus Bythner

(2 parts, London, 1853), he wrote Schemata Rheto­

rica: or, Tables explanatory o f the Nature o f the

Enthymeme, and the Various Modes of Classification

adopted by Aristotle in his Rhetoric and Prior Ana­

lytics (Oxford, 1845); Sunday, its Origin, History,

and Present Obligation (Bamptonlectures; London,

1860); Biographies of the Kings of Judah (1865);

and Moral Difficulties Connected with the Bible

(Boyle lectures; 3 series, 1871 73).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, Supplement, ii. 415 416.

HESSHUSEN, TILEMANN: German Lutheran; b. at Nieder Wesel (32 m. n.w. of Diisseldorf), in the duchy of Cleves, Nov. 3, 1527; d. at Helmstedt (22 m. e. of Brunswick) Sept. 25, 1588. He studied at Wittenberg, where he became the pupil, friend, and guest of Melanchthon. During the Interim he went abroad, hearing lectures at Oxford and Paris. In 1550, after his return to Wittenberg, he lectured at the university. In 1553, at the recommendation of his teacher, he was appointed superintendent and Pastor primarius in Goslar; but his zeal for the reformation of the collegiate chapters and convents brought upon him the disfavor of the magistrates so that he was compelled to resign in 1556. He went to Magdeburg, where he collaborated on the " Magdeburg Centuries " and took an active part in attempts at mediating between Melanchthon and Flacius. After a few weeks he went to Rostock as professor at the university and pastor of the church of St. James. Here he joined Peter Eggerdes in preaching against the celebration of marriage cere­monies on Sundays and the carousals which usually followed them, against the participation of Evangel­ical Christians in Roman Catholic funerals and the employment of Roman Catholic sponsors. He ex­communicated the two burgomasters who opposed him, but although many citizens and even Duke Ulrich were on his side and that of Eggerdes, they were both expelled on Oct. 9, 1557.

In the following month Elector Otto Heinrich called Hesshusen to Heidelberg as first professor of theology, preacher at the Church of the Holy Spirit, and general superintendent of the Palatinate. Here, too, he gained few friends, and his attacks on the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper made him generally unpopular. Elector Frederick Ill., the successor of Otto Heinrich, demanded adherence to the Augustana variata. As Hesshusen did not submit, he was deposed in 1559. He had a still more vehement encounter on the question of the Lord's Supper with Albert Hardenberg, cathedral preacher in Bremen, who was an adherent of Philippism (see PHILIPPISTB). In 1560 he became



pastor of the Church of St. John in Magde­

burg, whence he continued his attacks on Hard­

enberg. In 1561 his opponent was deposed as

a disturber of the common peace and expelled.

At a convention held in Lilneburg in 1561, Hess­

husen achieved the victory of strict Lutheran­

ism, but the synod of Lower Saxony accepted

its resolutions only under the condition that

preachers be forbidden to condemn one another.

In the mean time Johann Wigand, whom Strigel

had expelled from Jena, had come to Magdeburg.

Hesshusen intended to secure for him a position at

the Church of St. Ulrich, and for this purpose tried

to expel Sebastian Werner. The magistrates, how­

ever, did not submit to this arbitrary procedure.

Riots followed, and Hesshusen declared that he did

not consider the council any longer a Christian

authority and imposed the ban upon its members.

As a consequence, in 1562 he was driven out of

Magdeburg by an armed force. He fled to Wesel,

his native city; but his denunciations. of the pope

as Antichrist aroused the displeasure of the duke of

Jiilich, and at his instigation the council expelled

him. He pleaded in vain with the authorities of

Strasburg to be received there. In 1565 Count

Palatine Wolfgang of Zweibriicken called him to

Neuburg as court preacher. In May, 1566, he took

part in the discussions of the Diet of Augsburg,

with the permission of his sovereign.

On the death of the Count Palatine in 1569, Duke

John William called him to the University of Jena,

with the special task to reestablish strict Luther­

anism in the country. With his colleagues Wigand

and Coelestin he subjected the clergy of Thuringia

to a vigorous examination. The fruit of this visita­

tion was Hesshusen's Examen theologicum (1570).

In 1570 Jacob Andreik came to Weimar to win the

duke for the Formula of Concord; but all attempts

at union were bitterly opposed by Hesshusen, and

Andreiiwas dismissed without having achieved his

purpose. In 1571 Hesshusen attacked Flacius,

his former friend, who, according to him, taught

that hereditary sin formed the substance of man.

On the death of Duke John William in 1573, the

administration of the country was entrusted to

Elector Augustus, who speedily expelled Hesahusen

and Wigand and a hundred other clergymen and

theologians. The two leaders turned to Brunswick,

where Chemnitz offered them a place of refuge.

On Sept. 21, 1573, Hesshusen was consecrated

bishop of Samland. In his zealous defense of the

Lutheran doctrine against the Calvinists he went

so far as to say that not only is Christ omnipotent,

but that the humanity of Christ is omnipotent, on

the basis of the unity of the two natures. Now the

tables were turned upon him. After having trium­

phantly represented Flacius as teaching that the

devil was a creator as well as God, he was now

proved to teach that there were two divine beings,

both omnipotent. As Hesshusen did not retreat,

the duke deposed him from his office (1577).. With

the assistance of Chemnitz, he received a position

in the University of Helmstedt. He was finally

persuaded to sign the Formula of Concord, and every

obstacle to its introduction in Brunswick seemed

to be removed; but in comparing the printed copy

with the written text, Hesshusen found a consider­able number of deviations, and was not satisfied with the explanations of Chemnitz. The duke of Brunswick also opposed the Formula, so that it was not accepted in his country, and thus lost much of its general authority.

Of his works may be mentioned: Von Amt and Gewalt der Pfarrherren (1561; ed. Friedrich August Schiitz, Leipsic, 1854), in which he developed his rigorous views on church discipline, and De servo arbitrdo (1562). Against the supposed adiaphorism of men like Andreii who tried to harmonize, he wrote Vom Bekenntnis des Namens Jesu (1571). Several treatises are directed against the Witten­berg catechism of 1570 and against the Consensus of Dresden. He wrote against Rome in his exposi­tion of the nineteenth Psalm (1571) and in De 600 errorl7ws pontificis ecclesice (1572). Against Flacius he wrote Analysis argumentorum Flacii (1571), Gegenbericht von der Erbsiinde wider Flacius (1571). Clara et perapicua testimonia Augustini (1571), and Antidotum contra Flacii dogma (1572, 1576). He developed the thoughts of his Examen theologicum further in De vera ecclesia et ejvs auloritate libri ii. (1572). Against the Calvinistic doctrine of ubiquity he wrote Verce et sacrte Confessionis de prrTsentia eorporis Christi pia defensio (1583); Bekenntnis von der pers6nlichen Vereinigung beider Naturen (1586) and other works. Hesshusen also wrote commen­taries on the Psalms and on the epistles of Paul, six books De justifccatione (1587), and several collec­tions of sermons. (K. HACKEN8CHMIDT.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief source is J. G. Leuckfeld, His­toria Heahusiana, Quedlinburg, 1716. Consult further: K. von Helmolt, Tilemann Heashusen and seine eieben exilia, Leipsic, 1859; C. A. Wilkens, Tilemann Hes.hmen, tin Streittheologe der Lutherkirche, ib. 1860; Schaff, Chrie­tian Church, vii. 671 sqq.; Moeller, Christian Church, iii. 185 et passim.


HESYCHASTS: A community of Greek quiet­

istic and mystic monks, especially on Mount Athos

in the fourteenth century. Since the

First elevation of the Palaeologi to the im­

Appearance. perial throne, the Church had been

Barlaani. in a state of continuous unrest, the

policy of the government inclining al­

ternately to union with the Roman Catholic Church

and to hostility to the Latin faith; while the first

half of the fourteenth century was a period of civil

war. This was the time at which the Hesychasts

originated, first on Mount Athos, under the leader­

ship of Gregorius Palanlas (q.v.), later archbishop of

Thessalonica. They spoke of an eternal, uncreated,

and yet communicable divine light, which had

shone on Mount Tabor, the Mount of Transfigura­

tion, and had passed to them. They were soon

assailed, however, by the monk Barlaam, a native

of Calabria, of Greek descent, but educated in the

Roman Catholic Church, and originally a member

of a Roman Catholic Basilian order. He had gone

to Greece at the beginning of the reign of Androni­

cus, joined the Greek Church, and won prominence

by polemics against the Roman Church and as an

agent of Andronicus to Benedict XII. at Avignon,

ostensibly to procure the support of western Europe

against the Turks, but really to labor for a union



between the Greek and Roman churches. After his

return to Greece Barlaam attacked the Hesychaats

and declared their teaching heretical, since such a

light could only be the essence of God. To the

argument of Palamas that the light was not the

absolute essence, but a divine agency and grace in

its communicability, Barlaam replied with a charge

of teaching a twofold divinity, approachable and

unapproachable, thus approximating dualism. The

matter was brought by Barlaam before the Patriarch

Johannes, and a synod was convened at Constan­

tinople in 1341 under the presidency of the emperor

and the patriarch. The Calabrian was defeated and

returned to Italy, where he rejoined the Roman

Church, and in 1342 was made bishop of Gemce in

Calabria. He now wrote as violently against the

Greek Church as he had formerly against the Latin.

He died in 1348. A second synod confirmed the

decision of the first, especially as Barlaam was

suspected in Greece of being an adherent of Rome.

Notwithstanding all this, the number of those who

agreed with him increased, and in a third synod

his party were able, through the influence of the

Empress Anna, to depose the patriarch, although

their success was checked by the victory of John

Cantacuzenos over Anna. A fourth synod was held

in 1351, and the final decision was completely in

favor of the monks. The Hesychasts were accord­

ingly approved, while Barlaam wasexcommunicated

and his partizan, the archbishop of Ephesus, was


The object of the Hesychasts was a revival of the

mysticism which had prevailed in Greek theology

from ancient times. Since Clement of

The Alexandria, it had been an axiom that

Hesychast illumination might be gained by purifi­

Doctrine. cation, and the pseudo Dionysiua, who

sought some other means of approach

to God than the ordinary method of knowledge and

meditation, postulated a hidden light into which one

who was deemed worthy to see God might enter.

Similar concepts recur under different terminology

in Maximus, but the chief theologian to raise the

theory of the divine light to a cardinal doctrine in

the Greek system was Symeon Neotheologus (q.v.),

who flourished about the year 1000. He regarded

the vision of God and the consequent union with the

divine as the chief end of the Christian, and for the

attainment of this object required a systematic

education which was to be perfected by baptism, as­

ceticism, penance, and the sacraments. This teach­

ing formed the basis of the Hesychasts of Mount

Athos, although they devised an artificial mode of

obtaining these visions. The light was regarded as

superterrestrial and divine, but was not identified

with God, and a distinction was accordingly drawn

between essence and activity. The latter was

divided into an indefinite number of individual

energies of wisdom, power, counsel, illumination,

and life. These form the " divinities " which em­

anate from God and are inseparably connected with

him. To them belongs the Tabor light, which is

superterrestrial, visible, eternal, and uncreated, yet

deifies that through which it passes and raises it

to the region of the uncreated. Against this the

followers of Barlaam, represented especially by

V. 17

Nicephoraa Gregoras, argued that the uncreated light must be either a substance or a quality. In the former case, a fourth hypoatasis is assumed, and in the latter a quality, which is impossible with­out a subject. In either case, two Gods would be presupposed: one superior, and the other inferior and capable of being attained to by physical vision. On the other hand, the most necessary attributes of God are unity and goodness; but the former ex­cludes all combination, and the latter is unthinkable, except in a union of essence and activity.

The problem presented to the synod was two­fold: the distinction between essence and activity, and the Hesychaatic interpretation of The their uncreated energies as " divin 

Points of ities, "which became the principle of a

Controversy. mysterious deification. On the basis

of the latter question the Hesychasta

could scarcely have been sustained, but the synod

gave prominence to the purely speculative problem

without regard to the peculiar point of view from

which it was deduced. The Greek Fathers had

always recognized the acme of the divine tran­

scendency as the absolute, to which no name might

be given and which no eye, either of mind or body,

might behold. On the other hand, they admitted

life and activity proceeding from the absolute, and

these qualities could not fail unless the finite was

to be separated from all vital association with God.

For so fluctuating a differentiation, which formed,

moreover, a ready basis for mysticism, it was not

difficult to find proofs both from analogy and from

the earlier theologians; and the synod accorlingly

rendered its decision regardless of the philosophical

error contained in the mystical deductions of the

Hesychasts. The justice of their claims to the dis­

covery of the Tabor light, the retainable portion of

their Gnosticizing description of the energies, and

the reconciliation of the contradiction of an un­

created visibility were unexplained; nor was the

relation of essence and activity clearly defined.

Nevertheless, the Greek Church remained content

with this unsatisfactory result, partly because it

squared with the tendency of its theology. In its

turn, the Roman Catholic Church upheld Barlaam,

and even made the controversy one of the points of

difference between itself and the Greek Church.

The struggle for Hesychasm was in defense of the

essentially Greek dogma that the spirit o: God still

operates creatively in the Church as it did in the

Apostolic Age, and it was likewise a battle against

Occidental scholasticism, which was then rejected

forever by the Greek Church.

From this point of view it becomes clear why the doctrine of the sight of the divine light has been retained in Greek theology, and why it gained new power with the revival in that body in the nine­teenth century. The chief representative of the Hesychasts in that period was Nikodemus Hagi­orites (q.v.), a monk of Athos, in his " Manual of Symboliatics " (Venice [P],1801), who was followed by such dogmaticians as Eugenios Bulgaria in his "Theology " (ed. Leontopuloa, Venice, 1872) and Athanasioa Parios (q.v.) in his " Epitome " (Leipsic, 1808), while a work on the " spiritual prayer," which leads to the vision of fight, was


published at Athens in 1854 under the title of " Spiritual Synopsis " by Sophronios, an archi­mandrate of a monastery on Athos.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are in John Cantaeusenos, Hint. Byaantina, in MPG, cliii (gives the case for the Hesy­chasts); Nicephoras Gregoras, Hist. Byzantina, MPG, eAviii (given the Barlsam side); review of the sources in Krumbacber, Geschichte. For history and discussion con­sult: lilgen, in ZHT, viii (1838), 48 sqq.; W. Gass, Go­schidats der Athoe Klb6ter, Gieseen, 1865; J. H. Krause, Die Byaa"ner den Milklaltas, pp. 312 (on Barlsam), 327 (on the Hesychasts), Halle, 1869; Stein, $tudien Uber As Hbaydhaaten des  14. Jahrhunderta, Vienna, 1874; J. Hergenrbther. Handbarh der allpemeinen Kirchen®a­echiehte, 1860 sqq., Freiburg, 1885; K. Holl, D' nthuaiaa­;nue and Buasgewalt bei den prierhiachen MSnchtum, Leip­sic, 1808; A. H. Hore, Biphteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church, pp. 457 4U, New York, 1899; KL, i. 2012­2016 (Barlaam), v. 1960 8 (the Hesychasts).

HESYCHIUS, he sik'i us •. A name of frequent oc­currence in the history of early ecclesiastical liter­ature.

1. An Egyptian bishop of the third century who suffered martyrdom under Maximus about 311 A.D. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., viii. 13). He is known chiefly as a Biblical, critic, A revision of the Sep­tuagint prepared by him once occupied in Alex­andria and Egypt a position of importance anal­ogous to that held by the work of Lucian fmn Constantinople to Antioch (see BIBLE VERSIONS, A, I. 1, f 5). He also prepared an edition of the New Testament which found a few enthusi­astic admirers, though it was rejected by Jerome (cf. Ad Ruftnum, ii. 26; De vir. ill., lxxvii.;' cf. Gelasius I., Decretum, vi. 14 15). None of his writings have been preserved, and nothing is now known of the nature of his critical work.

fd. Presbyter of Jerusalem; d. 430. He was the author of a work on church history, of which a portion was read before the Fifth General Council (Second Constantinople, 553; of. Mansi, Concilia, ix. 248 249). This work has been lost. A large amount of literary material (printed in part in MPG, xciii.), commonly ascribed to Hesychius, has been preserved, but further research is necessary before the authorship can be definitely determined. The Explanationes in Leroiticum (MPG, xeiii. 787­790) are manifestly spurious, as they are based upon the Vulgate. W. Cave was of the opiniod that the author of these writings was a presbyter named Hesychius who lived at Jerusalem about 600 A.D.

For others of this name consult Fabricius Harles, Bx7bliotheea Gro;ca, vii. 544 (Hamburg, 1801).

Share with your friends:
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   ...   46

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page