the law of foods the speaker omits the reptiles, which are included in the earlier law among the forbidden articles of diet (cf. Lev. xi. 29, 30 with Deut. xiv.); passing them by without mention probably because the land of promise was before him, a land flowing with milk and honey, a land of corn and wine, of figs, pomegranates, and olives. Its fertility east of the river had already been seen by the people, and it was plain that there would be no temptation in the new home to eat the grosser forms of flesh. Again, the law which required animals that were slain for food to be slaughtered at the door of the tabernacle would necessitate a long journey on the part of those who dwelt in remote districts. It was changed so as to permit the people to slay for food in the town where they resided (Deut. xii. 15, 21; Lev. xvii. 3, 4). To meet the same difficulty a change was made in the law regarding the transport of certain tithes to the sanctuary (Deut. 22 25) and, apparently, in the age at which the firstling of the herd and flock should be offered (xv. 19, 20; cf. Ex. xxii. 30). The same intention probably led to the omission of a clause from the statute defining the procedure to be followed for legally confirming the Hebrew bondservant's choice, who at the end of his period of service should elect to remain with his master. Henceforth he need not appear at the sanctuary before the Lord (Ex. xxi. 5, 6; cf. xxii. 8, 9) in order to declare his voluntary relinquishment of his right to go free; from this time on the ceremony of attachment was alone required, and that act was always performed at the master's own house, in whatever part of the country it might be (Deut. xv. 16, 17). (3) It leads to grave concern for the tribe of Levi, in view of the peculiar situation in which it would soon be placed: a tribe without an inheritance. The entire tribe of Levi had been set apart for service at the sanctuary. It was to receive no land in Israel; and was without support except from the gifts of the people to the Lord for the maintenance of worship. In his parting words he dwells on their rights and privileges, refers repeatedly to their dependent condition and exhorts the people to call them in as guests at their joyous feasts, and never to forsake them nor leave them in need (xii. 12, 18, 19 et passim). In alluding to their perquisites (x. 8, 9, xviii. 1,8) he takes for granted a thorough familiarity on the part of the people with the distribution of duties among the several families of the tribe, which had been adopted in the wilderness, and accordingly he uses the general designation Levi and Levites (xviii. 1, 6); just as the Hebrew historians often do who wrote after the legislation o' Leviticus and Numbers had been enacted, leaving it to be understood that each order of ministers had its own peculiar duties and privileges (ver. 7; cf. Num. xxxv. 1,8; Josh. xxi. 3 7, 8 11, 13 20; I Kings xii. 31; I Chron. xv. 2, 4, 11, 15; II Chron. v. 4, 5; Mal. ii. 1 10, iii. 3). He uses also the designation " the priests, the Levites " (xvii. 9, xviii. 1, xxiv. 8), as do subsequent historians and prophets, even the latest (Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21; Ezek. xliii. 19, xliv. 15; II Chron. xxiii. 18). It was eminently appropriate as a means of distinguishing the legitimate priests, who
had just been restricted to the family of Aaron,
tribe of Levi, from the former ministers among the
Israelites to whom it pertained to offer sacrifice
(Ex. xix. 22, xxiv. 5; cf. xviii. 1, 12), and perhaps
also from civil ministers to whom the title kohen
applied (Paton, JBL, 1893, pp. 1 14). (4) It leads
to insistence upon resort to the one altar by the
whole nation, located at the place which Yahweh
should choose out of all the tribes to put his name
there (xii.), and the urgent exhortation to destroy
all heathen altars. The unity of the altar was in
tended to counteract the tendency of the people to
set. The institutions of which the origin is ascribed
to Moses represent this civilization. (1) The book
of the covenant contains a body of laws of which
the form of statement, the organization into a
code, the rights guarded, and the developed sense
of justice, are an inheritance from a Semitic an
tiquity already hoary in the days of Moses. These
facts have been completely established by the dis•
~ly~°h THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 970
covery of the code of Hammumbi. (2) The tabernacle in its general plan conforms to a type of temple much favored by the Egyptians in the time of Moses: an open space or court where the people assembled; a gate where the worshiper with an offering met the priest and which admitted to the priestly precincts; then directly beyond and in line with the gate, the house of the deity and abode of the ark. The view from the assembly place in Israel was likewise directly through the gate, across the priests' court, through the door of the great tent, when opened, into the holy place with its lamp and table and incense altar to the curtain that screened the shrine where the ark stood. In many instances there is also a correspondence in shape and proportions between the ground plan of the Egyptian temple and that of the tabernacle of Israel. (3) This tabernacle and the ordinances of worship and the laws of the priests, in their character, elaborateness, and complexity, reflect the Mosaic age. From Babylon on the east to Egypt in the west the temple was the chief building in the community in point of nobility and richness. By the dignity of its architecture it impressed the beholder with religious awe. The encompassing court, the sacred house or pyramid, and the adytum of the deity were on a scale of beauty and grandeur commensurate with the opportunities of the worshiping people. Curtains within the chamber of the god, and sheathings of gold and silver and symbolical figures added to the splendor and impressiveness and significance of the place. The priesthood was a numerous body, and was accorded high social rank. At its head, to speak more particularly of the Egyptian priesthood, stood the high priest, the embodiment of the order, and officially distinguished by gorgeous attire. Under him were orders of priests and inferior temple servants. The respective duties and prerogatives of these various classes of sacred ministers were carefully defined. The prospective priests passed through an elaborate preliminary training in order to be fitted for the performance of pontificial functions, and when graduated and on duty purified themselves by ablutions and were arrayed in white raiment of linen or cotton. Besides the minute regulations to govern the conduct of the ministering priests, an elaborate ritual was drawn up. Among the Semites the offerings consisted of animals for sacrifice and vegetable products. Beasts were distinguished as clean and unclean. To be fit for use upon the altar the animal must be not only clean, but without blemish in the eyes of the priest. A ceremony was performed of such perfection that by action and dress it told its meaning to the worshiper. Festivals were celebrated in honor of the deity, and annual pilgrimages were made to the shrine by the populace. Moses did not borrow bodily. He did not take over as a whole. But the expression of esthetic feeling and religious thought in the forms of architecture and ritual had become a fine art. The symbols used may be likened to words. Moses took these words and by means of them told to men not to the Hebrews only, but to strangers who might visit Israel the character of Yahweh, the way to approach him, the obligations of his wor
shipers. The tabernacle and the priestly ritual, elaborate and complex. though they were, were yet no novelty, no innovation. It is not surprising that at the. founding of the nation, politically and religiously, the book of the covenant; which in modern parlance would be called the constitution and statutes, should be immediately followed by the plan and specifications for a national sanctuary and by a manual for the priests containing minute instructions for their guidance in the performance of a symbolic service. The ideals of the age demanded these things; and Moses under the direction of God gave to Israel a code of laws, a sanctuary, and a service devised primarily to meet the needs of the nation, but intended to command the respect of cultured gentiles as well.
On the priority of the priestly legislation to Deuteronomy consult the works of the school of Ewald, those, for example, by Dillmann ut sup., glostermane, Strack ut sup.; further, E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure, New York, 1885. For evidence that the narrative portion of P is pre exilic, cf. Boyd, Eaekiel and so. Litera the Modern Dating of the Pentateuch,
tune on in Princeton Theological Review, 1908, §~ :a r9. 29 sqq. On the origin and sequence of the legislation, and on the congruity between the pentateuehal law and the history of the people, Green's works ut sup. and his article on Critical Views respecting the Mosaic Tabernacle, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1894, pp. 69 sqq. On the national sanctuary, and on the early distinction between priest and Levite, Green ut sup.; A. van Hoonacker, Le Lieu du culte (Ghent, 1894); idem, Le Sacerdoce Uvitique, Louvain, 1899. On monotheism among the early Hebrews, J. Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, Edinburgh, 1892; A. Dillmaan, Altteatamentliche Theologies Leipsie, 1895; B,. Baentach, Altorwentalischen u. isrnelitischen Monotheismus, Tiibingen, 1908. On the stage of religious development during the early monarchy, J. Robertson, Poetry and Religion of the Psalms, Edinburgh, 1898. On the incompatibility between the prophetic teaching and the newer theories concerning the origin and growth of the religion of Israel, G. Vos, Recent Criticism of the Early Prophets, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1898 and 1899. A survey and estimate of the entire argument is found in J. Orr, Problem of the Old Teatament, London, 1906; and a lawyer's study of the legislation and its criticism is contained in two articles by Wiener in the Princeton Tluologicad Reviews, 1907, pp. 188, 605.
JOHN D. DAvis.
B LIOGSAPH7: For a review of the criticism consult J. Kley. Die PeatateurAfraw, Are Gesdhiehte and Okra Sw tmne, MOneter, 1903: H. L. 8track, Einleitunp in daaAlte Testament I§ 4 15, 8th ed., Munich, 1908, and for lit~ature, §t 95 98. For English students if not for Ali, the best presentation of the evidence for the documentary hypothesis is J. E. Carpenter and (3. HarfordBattereby, The Haxateurh according to as R. V., arranged in its Constituent Documents wroth Introduction, Notes, Marginal References and Synoptioal Tables, 2 vole., London. 1900. The literature is immense, and the following is a selection including the most notable and influential works: A. Kuenen, Hiatoriadaritiaa ondsraoek naar hat ontstaan en de veraamelinp roan de boeken dss ouden veH bonds, 3 vole., Leyden, 1881 85, Eng. trend.. Hiworioa.
271 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA ~SM
criicad Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateush, London, 1886; J. W. Colenso, The Pentatear& and . . . Joshua critically Examined. 7 parts, London, 1862 79; L. Horst, Leviticus ssii xai. . uwd Hemkiel, Colmar, 1881; E. C. Bissell, The Psntatsuch, its origin and Structure, New York, 1885 (conservative); W. H. Green, Moses and the Prophets, New York, 1883; idem, The Hebrew Feasts in their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses, ib. 1885; idem, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, ib. 1895; Unity of Genesis, 1895. (Professor Green was the representative exponent in America of the defense of Mosaic authorship); A. Weill, Le Pentatsuque salon Man et Is Pentateuque selon Berri, Paris, 1885; J. P. P. Martin, Introduction h la a itique pinhole de Z'A. T., 3 vole., Paris, 1887 89 (only the Pentateuch); A. Westphal, Les Sources du Pentateaque, nude de critique et d'hiatoire, 3 viola, Paris, 1888 92; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, Berlin, 1889; Prokpomena, Berlin, 1899, Eng. tranel. of early ed., Edinburgh, 1885; E. Albers, Die Quellenberidts in Josua i. zii., Bonn, 1890; E. Kautssch and A. Socin. Die Genesis mit dussaw Unteracheidunp den Quellanschriften fihersetd, Freiburg, 1891; H. E. Ryle, Early Narratives of G, London, 1892 (illuminating); W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, 2 vole., London, 1892 98 (exhibits the documents reunited); B. Babatsob, Das Bundesbuch, Halle, 1892; idem, Das Heilipkeiteposets, Lev. xcii =vi., Erfurt, 1893; B. W. Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis, Hartford, 1892; idem, The Triple Traditiowof Exodus, ib. 1894; Lox Mosaica: Moses and the Higher Criticism, London, 1895 (a composite volume of anticritical essays); F. Montet, La Composition do 1'Hezateaque, Geneva, 1895; S. C. Bartlett, Veracity of the Hsxateuch: a Defence, New York, 1897; C. A. Briggs, The Higher Criticism of the HerateucA, New York, 1897; idem and F. von HOgel, The Papal Commission and the Pentateuck, London, 1906 (Dr. Briggs summarises the evidence against Mosaic authorship; Von Htigel speaks for the Roman Catholic position); B. Stade, Akademische Reden and Abhandlungen, Giessen, 1899; C. F. Kent, Student's O. T., viol. i., New York, 1904 (a useful volume); R. H. McKim, The Problem of the PentatswA* an Examination of the Results of the Higher Criticism, ib. 1906; A. Gordon, Die Bezeichnunpen. den pentateuchischen Gesetskdaesen des Mosaismus, Frankfort, 1906; O. Proekeh, Das nordhebraische Sagenbueh: die Elohimqualls. Leipsi0. 1906; A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch . . . Verstandnise and Entetehunpapeschichte, ib. 1907; J. Krautlein, Die spradlichen Verschiedenheiten in den Hexateuehquellen, Leipslc, 1908: B. D. Eerdmans, Die Komposiaon den Genesis, Giesaen, 1908; DB, ii. 363 376, and EB, ii. 2046 b8 (neither is to be overlooked as convenient summaries of the critical position); JR, ix. fi89 592; Smith, OTJC; a series of articles constituting a defense of the conservative view of the Pentateuch, by H. M. Wiener, in Bibliothsoa sacra, 1908 1909; and the treatises on the Introduction to the Old Testament, such as Driver, and W. H. Bennett, London, 1899.
Commentaries on the Pentateuch which are important for the history of the subject are J. S. Voter, 3 viols., Halle, 180.3 05; M. Baumgarten, viol. i., Kiel, 1843 44; C. F. Keil, 3 viols., Leipsic, 1870 78; A. Dillman, 3 vole., ib. 1880 97, Eng. tranel. of Genesis, 2 viola., Edinburgh, 1897; Kurzpefaester Kommewtar, Gen. Numbers, by H. L. Struck, Munich, 1894, Genesis, 2d ed., 1905, DeuteronomyJby S. Oettli, ib. 1893; Handkommentar, Genesis, by H. Gunkel, G&ttingen, 1902, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers by B. Baentach, ib. 1903, Deuteronomy and Joshua by C. Steuernagel, ib. 1900; Kuraer HandCommentar_ Genes. Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua by H. Holsinger, 4 vols TObingen, 1898 1903, Leviticus and Deuteronomy by A. Bertholet, ib. 1899 1901 • International Critical Commentary, Numbers by G. B. Gray, New York, 1903, Deuteronomy by S. R. Driver, ib. 1895. on the Roman Catholic side: Curse acr%pturas sacra!, Genede Deuteronomy by F. de Hummelauer, 4 vole., Paris, 1895 1901. On the Jewish side: M. M. Kafisoh, Genesis Leviticus, 3 vole., London, 1855 M; S. R. Hirsoh, 5 vole., Frankfort, 1893 1895. Commentaries on individual books are: F. Tuch, on Genesis, ed. Arnold and Mom Halls, 1871 (on the supplementary hypothesis); F. Delitssch, on Genesis, Leipsi0. 1887; Genesis by S. R. Driver, London, 1904; D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Levi(
ieue, 2 parts, Berlin, 1905 08; Joshua by F. W. Spurling, London, 1901; A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditionsof Genesis, Edinburgh, 1907 (masterly., though covering only part of the book); . Exodus; by A. H. McNeile. London, 1908. SBOT should also be consulted, of which Genesis by C. J. Ball, Leviticus by S. R. Driver and H. A. . White, Numbers by J. A. Paterson, and Joshua by W. H. Bennett have been published.
HEYLYlf, PETER:English controversialist and church historian; b. at Burford (16 m. w.n.w. of Oxford), Oxfordshire, Nov. 29, 1600; d. in London May 8, 1662. He studied at Magdalen College, Oxford (B.A.,1617; M.A.,1620; B.D.,1629; D.D., 1633), and held a fellowship there (1618 29). He was made chaplain to the king in 1630, prebendary of Westminster Cathedral 1631, treasurer of the chapter in 1637, and subsequently subdean. In 1633 he was presented by Charles I. to the benefice of Houghton in the bishopric of Durham, which he exchanged for Alresford, Hampshire. In 1637 he was presented to the living of Islip, Oxfordshire. This he at once exchanged for the living of South Warren, Hampshire.
In the religious controversies preceding the civil
war Heylyn proved a stanch supporter of the
king and the High church party. On account of the
bitterness he had shown toward the Puritans he
was singled out for punishment by the committees
of the Long Parliament. He was deprived of pre
ferments worth £800, and heavily fined; and his
parsonage at Alresford was stripped of its contents,
including his valuable library. To escape arrest he
was forced to wander in various disguises till 1648,
when he settled at Minster Lovel, Oxfordshire, the
home of an elder brother. In 1653 he removed to
Lacy's Court, near Abingdon. At the Restoration
he regained his former important position in the
councils of the Church, and would have been made
a bishop but for physical infirmity. As subdean
he attended the coronation of Charles II., Apr. 23,
1661, and on May 29 following hA preached at West
1'Estrange and Nicholas Bernard, his cleverest piece
of controversial writing; Ecclesia restaurata, or the
His" of the Reformation o f the Church o f England
(1661; ed. J. C. Robertson for the Ecclesiastical
History Society, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1849), his best
book, but strongly biased; Cypriaxiua Anglicus, or
the History of the Life arid Death of . . William
Laud (London, 1668), the chief authority for Laud's
private life, from which has been extracted The
Doctrine and Discipline of the English Church (Ox
ford, 1846); Aerius redivivus, or the History of the
Presbyterians (1670), a violent arraignment of the
Presbyterians; and Historical and Miscellaneous
Tracts (London, 1681), containing a life of Heylyn
by G. Vernon.
Lectures THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 272
BIBLIoaHAPHY: The Life prefixed to the tracts (ut sup.) is a composite production, originally by George Vernon, revised without Vernon's knowledge by John Bernard (or Bernard), Heylyn's son in law, and re revised, again without the knowledge of either Vernon or Bernar, by Thomas Badow; Vernon then published his Life of Dr. Peter Heylyn, London, 1882, which evoked Barnard, e Theolopohiaforicus, or the True Life of . . Peter Hoyt^ ib. 1883 (of. on these 1. Disraeli, Curiosities of Literature, iii. 238, ib. 1849). Consult further: David Lloyd, Memoirs o/ the Limes . . . of . . . Personages that suffered . . for the nt Rely, PP. 526 b28, ib. 1877; John Walker,
Sufferings of the Clergy, ii 190, ib 1714; A. A Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, iii. 662689, 4 vole., London, 1813 20; DNB, xzvi. 319 323.
HEYIILIN,hain'lin, VON STEAK (DE LAPIDE), JOHANN: German scholastic theologian; b. at Stein (10 m. e.a.e. of Carlsruhe) between 1425 and 1430; d. in a Carthusian monastery at Basel Mar. 12, 1496. He studied at Leipsic (1452); but removed to Paris (1454), where he became licentiate (1455), master (1456), fellow of the Sorbonne (1462), bachelor of theology (1463), and doctor of theology (1472). He then went to Basel, where by his energy and talent for organization he accomplished the victory of realism over nominalism (1464). Returning to Paris (1466), he became rector of the University of Paris (1469) and prior of the Sorbonne (1470). Together with Guillaume Fichet he introduced the art of printing in Paris and took an active part in the suppression of nominalism by the edict of Louis XI. (1473). Later he was prominent as a preacher in Basel (1474 78); he then became professor of theology and rector in the University of Tdbingen (1478); but the opposition of the nominalists induced him to leave T(ibingen to become rector of the chapter in Baden Baden (1479). Afterward active as a teacher and reformer of morals in Bern (1480), but unable to attain success, he retired to Basel, first as canon and preacher of the cathedral (1484); but, wearied of the violent struggles with the nominslists, he entered the Carthusian monastery (1487). His commentary on Aristotle was written during his stay in Paris, but not published until many years later by his pupil Amerbach.
CARL ALBRieCHT BIBIRNoumm.
Brswoaasmr: F. Fischer, Johann" Heyntin, Basel, 1861;
W. Visoher, Oeschichte der Unieenitdt Basal, pp. 157 188, ib. 1880; C. von Prantl, Geacnichte der Lopik, iv. 188 eqq., 298, Leipm0. 1890; H. Denifie and E. Chatelain, Auotwiwn charhaarii unioersitatis Parisiensis ii. 903, 907, 913, 918 917, 921, Paris, 1897; A. Claudin, The Pirst Paris Press; an Amount of As Books puNiahed for O. Bidet and J. Heyntin . . .. 1470 1472, pp. 35 37, London, 1898.
Name, Character, and Chronology (4 1).
Rejection and Reaaeumption of Vassalage to Assyria (¢ 2).
8ennaoherib's Third Campaign (f 3).
Hem's Later Life and Deeds (1 4).
Hezekiah (Hebr. ,H4iyyahu, Isa. xxxvi. 1 and
often; fli*yyah, II Kings xviii. 1, 14 16; YeAiz
tiYydhu, II Kings xx. 10 and often;
:. Acme, Yelfizftyah, Hos. i. 1; Asayr. t1aza
Character, kiya'u; Gk. Ezekias; Lat. Ezechias)
and was twelfth king of Israel, son and
Chronology. successor of AWLz. His dates accord
ing to the old chronology are 727 696
B.C.; according to Krihler, 724 896; according to
Duncker, 728 697; and according to Wellhausen,
Kamphausen, Meyer, and Stade, 714 686. The difficulty of determining the exact dates arises from the fact that II Kings xviii. 10 states that Samaria fell in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, wherefrom it would result that he ascended the throne in the year 728 B.C.; verse 13 states, however, that Sennacherib's campaign against Judea took place in Hezekiah's fourteenth year. The cuneiform inscriptions clearly establish that this campaign occurred in the year 701 B.c.; so, according to these data, Hezekiah began to reign in 715 B.c. According to II Kings xviii. 2, he was twenty five years old when he ascended the throne, but the text appears to be corrupt and should probably read fifteen instead of twenty five. He was possessed of energy and courage, was prudent and active, religious in disposition. He is the only king, except Josiah, of whom the Book of Kings says that, like David, he did that which was pleasing to Yahweh (II Kings xviii. 3 4). He not only did away with the high places, but also endeavored to make it a rule that sacrifices should be offered only in the temple on Zion (II Kings xviii. 4; Mic. i. 5). In this way he strove to free the religious observances from those parts which he considered as either antagonizing (asherim and the brazen serpent) or as likely to endanger (high places and M"~ebhoth) the true knowledge and veneration of Yahweh as the holy and supernal God.
It was probably after the violent death of Sargon in 705 B.C., and while his successor, Sennacherib,
was occupied by a renewed attempt of
s. Rejec Merodach baladan to make himself tion and master of Babylon (see AssymA, VI., Reassump 3, if 12 13), that Hezekiah severed
tion of his connection with Assyria. It seems
Vassalage that he took a prominent part in the
to Assyria. revolt against Babylon, since he took
charge of King Padi of Ekron when the
latter was dethroned and made prisoner on account
of his faithfulness to the Great King. He seems also
to have been engaged in active negotiations with
Egypt (cf. Isa. xxx. xxxi.). After Sennacherib had
subdued Merodach baladan, he sought, in 701 B.c.,
to reestablish his sovereignty in the Mediterranean
region. The Book of Kings affirms that Hezekiah
sent a request for pardon to Sennacherib at Lachish
and afterward paid him a heavy tribute. It is then
stated in detail in II Kings xviii.17 19, 35 37, that
Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.
Hezekiah, however, refused, on Isaiah's assurance
that the city would not be captured, and Sen
nacherib was forced to turn back because the
angel of Yahweh destroyed 185,000 of his men.
Sennaaherib's description of the results of his third campaign in the year 701 B.C. (Schrader,
KB, ii. 91 sqq.) narrates the capture
3. Sen of the Phenician cities, the defeat of
nacherib's Zidka of Ascalon, the conquest of Third Ekron in spite of the approach of an
Campaign. Egyptian Ethiopian army of relief, which was repulsed near Eltekeh, and lastly his successes against Hezekiah. But these successes involve only that Hezekiah was imprisoned in Jerusalem, was forced to surrender Padi, to send a heavy tribute to the Great King in Nineveh, and