161 religious encyclopedia harmoa Harmony of the Gospels

Popular of trees, serpents, animals, ghosts, both Religion

Download 5.36 Mb.
Size5.36 Mb.
1   ...   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   ...   46

Popular of trees, serpents, animals, ghosts, both Religion. malevolent and benevolent, disease,

and all the phenomena of nature, while totemism, fetishism, and animism each finds count­less adherents.

Bremoa8APH7: The best work on the sects of modern India in W. Crooke, Popular Religion and Folk Lore of Northern India, 2 vols., London, 1898; idem, Tribes and Castes of the North West Provinces and Oudh, 4 vols., Cal­cutta, 1898; next to these the best general work on India is It. W. Frazer, Literary History of India, New York, 1898. Consult further: E. Burnouf, Le Bhagavata pu­rana, ou histoire poitique de Krichna, 4 vole., Paris, 1840­1884; M. Williams, Hinduism, London, 1878; W. J. Wil­kine, Modern Hinduism, ib. 1887; A. Barth, The Religions of India, ib. 1890; F. W. Thomas. Mutual Injumoe of Mohammeda  and Hindus, Cambridge, 1892; A. Lyall. Natural Religion in India, London, 1891; idem, in Re­ligi0W Systems of as World, ib. 1893; J. N. Bhatta­eharya, Hindu Castes and Sects, Calcutta, 1898; J. A. Du­bois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, Oxford, 1897; E. Hardy, Indiwhe ReligionagewAirhte, Leipeio, 1899; C. Von Orelli Allgemeine Religionegeachichte, pp. 394 526, Bonn, 1899; General Report of the Census of In­dia. 1901, pp. 349 420, Calcutta, 1904 (valuable for Indian animism and for statistics); J. Happel, Die religi6mn . . . Grundanachauungen der Inder, Giessen, 19o2; P. D. C. de Is Saussaye, Ldrbuch der ReligionsgeseUchte, ii. 122 sqq., Freiburg, 1905; J C. Oman, The Brahmins, Deisfa and Muslim# of India. London, 1907; Daa Saurapuranam. Ein Kompendium apdtindiacher Kulturgeachichte and des Sivaismue. Einleitung, Inhaltagabe, nebat ueberaetzungen, Erk1drungen wnd Indices ton W. Jahn, Strasburg, 1908.

HINSCHWS, .(FRANZ CARL) PAUL: German canonist; b. at Berlin Dec. 25, 1835; d. there Dec. 13, 1898. He was educated at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg (J.U.D., Berlin, 1855) and

then took up practical work as a lawyer's assistant, referendary, and assessor in his native city. In 1859 he established himself as privatrdocent for canon and civil law. In 186"1 he made a tour of Italy, Spain, France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, and Belgium to collect material for a critical edi­tion of the pseudo Isidorian decretals, and in 1862 he visited Switzerland to collate the important Sangallensis manuscript of this work. In 1863 he was appointed extraordinary professor of canon, German, and civil law at the University of Halle, in 1865 in Berlin, in 1868 ordinary professor at Kiel, and in 1872 again at Berlin, where he lec­tured until the summer of 1898. He devoted himself zealously to the administrative affairs of the University of Berlin, and also took part in the practical activity of the Church as member of various synods, was member of the Reichstag for Flensburg Apenrade 1872 78 and 1880 81, and member of the Prussian House of Lords for the University of Kiel 1871 72 and for the University of Berlin 1889 until his death. Under Falk he collaborated in the Prussian Kul­tu8ministxrium 1872 76 in drafting the laws rela­ting to ecclesiastical affairs, the so called May laws, and laws concerning the legal status of private persons.

The first achievement of Hinschius was the edi­tion of the pseudo Isidorian decretals (Leipsic, 1863), the first critical edition. The principal work of his life, however, was his Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken and Protestanten in Deutschland (5 vols. and one part of vol. vi., Berlin, 1869 97). It re­mains a fragment; of the Roman Catholic canon law the first main part, Die Hierarehie and die Lei­tung der Kirche durch dieselbe, lacks two chapters of completion, while the  second main part (the rights and duties of church members and ecclesiastical associations) and the system of Protestant canon law are lacking. The work is a scientific achieve­ment of the first rank for the history of canon law and legal dogmatics, and will probably remain for generations the basis of Roman Catholic canon law. The work of Hinschius did not inaugurate a new period in the history of the science, but it brought a period to its culminating point. He was the first who, with the method of genuine historical criti­cism, depicted in a realistic and detailed manner the " process of amalgamation Of late Roman, Ger manic, and canonical views which is equally inter­esting for the history of law and for that of general culture." Other works of Hinschius are Die Stellung der deutschen StaaUregierungen gegenuber den Besehlussen des roadakanischen Konzila (Berlin, 1871); Die preussisehen Kirchengeaetze d, Jahres 1878 (1873); Die Orden and Kongregationen der kd"ischen Kirche in Preussen (1874); Das preus­si9che Gesetz fiber die Beurkundung des personen­standes and die Form der EhescNimsungen (1874); Das Reiehsgeeetz (1875, 3d ed., 1890); Die pretta­sischen Kirchengesetze der Jahre 1874 and 1875 (1875); Das preussische Kirchengesetz torn 14. Juli 1880 (1881); Staat and Kirche (Freiburg, 1883), which appeared in Marquardsen's Handbuch des bffentlichen Reckts der Gegenwart. All of these works reveal the author's view concerning the re 


lation of Church and State; viz., that the State should separate its affairs from the ecclesiastical sphere, but that it is called to regulate the mutual relations. He rejected the opposite system of the Roman Catholics for modern legislation. The Church does not stand outside of the State, but lives in the State as an institution of public law. But the State does not possess all privileges; it is under the ethical obligation to let the Church reg­ulate its internal affairs independently and auto­nomically in so far as the state principle of the liberty of conscience and the recognition of other Churches and religious societies is not violated. If the law of the State collides with the statutes of the Church, the State is the final judge.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: A detailed list of the works of Hinschiue is given in Hauck Herzog, RE, viii. 90 92. A short auto­biography is in J. F. Schulte, GewAirhte der Quelien and Littemtur des kanoniwhen Rechte, iii. 2, p. 240, Stuttgart, 1880. A biography is yet to be written.
HIPPOLYTUS, hip pel'i tus.

Facts of his Life in Literature and Tradition ($ 1). Modern Additions to Knowledge of it (¢ 2).

Exegetical Works (§ 3). Polemical Works ($ 4). Theological Position ($ 5). Until the middle of the nineteenth century, Hip­polytus was practically an unknown personality. Eusebius, indeed, names eight of his works and mentions the existence of a number of others (Hilt.

eccl., vi. 22), but is unable to give the i. Facts name of his see. Jerome makes the of his Life same confession of ignorance, though in Litera  he gives the titles of more works (De ture and vir. ill., Ixi.). A chronographer of the Tradition. year 354 (MGH, Auct. ant., ix., Chron.

min., i., 1891, pp. 74 75) asserts that in 235 Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter were exiled to Sardinia, that there he laid down his office, and that Antheros was or­dained in his stead; a slightly different form ap­pears in the Liber pontifioali8 (i. 24, ed. Mommsen). Pope Damasus (366 384) placed on his grave in the Tiburtine cemetery an inscription in verse which records his living in times of persecution, uphold­ing the schism of Novatus, returning to the Catho­lic faith, and dying a martyr. Following this, Pru­dentius commemorates him among the martyrs (Peristephanon, xi.). Later Western tradition is almost purely legendary; in its Roman form it con­nects his martyrdom with that of Laurence. The legend of Portus, on the other hand, connects it with that of a number of local martyrs there, and even identifies him with one also called Nonnus. His writings were used by Ambrose, Jerome, and probably Tyconius; but all knowledge of the his­torical Hippolytus was lost. Eastern references to him grow altogether out of his works. Apolli­naris of Laodicea quotes him on Daniel, calling him " the most holy bishop of Rome." Theodoret names him in connection with Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneeus, and Justin, and he is similarly mentioned by Leontius of Byzantium and the pseudo Chrysos­tom. Thus the list of Eastern authors who name him goes on through Cyril of Scythopolis, Eustra­tius (c. 582), Jaoob of Edessa, George, bishop of

the Arabians, and OJcumenius (c. 1000), the last four of whom call him a martyr and bishop of Rome. Photius describes him as a pupil of Ire­neeus. In the fourteenth century Ebed Jesu knows of works of his which Eusebius and Jerome do not mention. Thus, although a Western writer, Hip­polytus was widely and long read in the East be­cause he wrote in Greek. Writings of his were wholly or in part translated into Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Arabic, and Old Church Slavic.

In 1551, in or near his burial place on the Via Tiburtina, in Rome a marble statue was discovered (now in the Lateran Museum, the upper part of the body restored) which represents him sitting in a seat on both sides of which his Easter canon is carved, and a list of his writings on the curve con­necting the left side with the back. The statue is dated in the third century by experts. The first lines of the inscription are illegible; the others name nine or ten works, to which two more were added later. [There is a plaster cast of this statue in the Union Theological Seminary, New York City.]

Hippolytus really, however, came into full his­torical light only after the discovery of the PhiZo­sophumena. Of this work the first book was known earlier than the rest, but the section from the fourth to the tenth was discovered in

a. Modern 1842 in Greece in a fourteenth century Additions to manuscript, and all together was pub­Knowledge lished at Oxford in 1851 by E. Miller of it. as a work of Origen's. Duncker and Schneidewin then edited it carefully as by Hippolytus. The author speaks of hav­ing written a short treatise against heresies, as it is known from Eusebius that Hippolytus did; he is a Roman and a bishop; his words have had an effect upon Zephyrinus, and Callistus (Calixtus) has excommunicated Sabellius on his representa­tions. Now there is no one but Hippolytus who answers to this description, and the result is con­firmed by essential parallelism between this book and the admitted writings of Hippolytus. This conclusion accepted, the Philmophumena gives a more thorough insight into the author's life. It does not mention his relation to Irenaeus, but presents him first in Rome, where he must have become a presbyter under Zephyrinus. According to Euse­bius, Origen was in Rome during this pontificate, and Jerome speaks of his having been present at a sermon of Hippolytus. To Calixtus, the successor of Zephyrnus, Hippolytus was in determined opposition as to Christology and as to discipline (see CAmxmus I.), and it came to an open breach of communion, which evidently continued under the succeeding popes. This agrees with the description of Hippolytus as a Roman bishop and the refer­ence of Darn us to the Novatian schism. The fact of his having been a schismatic bishop of Rome accounts for the inability of Eusebius and Jerome to name his see, since he was not included in the lists of the Roman succession to which they had access. His identification with Nonnus and con­sequent description as bishop of Portus may spring either from his martyrdom by the sea or from his special popularity in Portus. He maintained his position until 235, when Maximin's persecution


banished him to Sardinia, together with Pontianus, the legitimate bishop; and on that " unwholesome island " he died.

Hippolytus was a very fertile ecclesiastical wri­ter. His exegetical work was specially extensive; only a few specimens of it, however, have been

preserved entire, the " Antichrist " 3. Exeget  and the later commentary on Daniel, ical Works. and of these only the former exists in

the original (in three manuscripts of the tenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; there is also an Old Church Slavic version of probably the eleventh century). The dependence of its content upon Ireraeus is unmistakable. The Daniel com­mentary, once the most widely read of his works, is extant from book i. 29 in a manuscript of the tenth century found at Athos, and book iv. is also found in another of the fifteenth, while the whole is in the Old Church Slavic version, besides indi­rect tradition in the catenae and portions in Syriac and Armenian versions. The book was written not long after a severe persecution, and thus can scarcely belong to the end of Hippolytus's life. A more rhetorical character belongs to the commen­tary on the Song of Solomon, of which fragments exist in the Old Church Slavic and some also in the Armenian. In the Georgian this commentary ap­pears to have been preserved entire (Germ. tranal. by Bonwetsch in TU, xxiii., part 2, 1903). Bon­wetsch also edited Hippolytus's exegesis of the Blessing of Jacob and of moms, and of the narrative of David and Goliath (T U, xxvi. Is, 1904). The Greek of the Blessing of Jacob seems to be in exis­tence at Athens. Fragments on Genesis are Pre­served in the catens of Prooopius of Gaza, besides one by Jerome, one by Leontius, and three by Theo­doret. A fragment discovered by Achelis in an Athos manuscript is the only evidence for the former existence of a commentary on Ruth. Theodoret gives citations from a work on Elkanah and Han­nah, and one on the witch of Endor is mentioned both by the inscription and by Jerome. Of the treatise on the Psalms, probably not a complete commentary, the historical introduction is pre­served in Syriac, and some fragments in Greek by Theodoret. Some fragments of that on the Prov­erbs are in the catenve, and a few unimportant ones exist from those on Ecclesiastes and on parts of Isaiah and Ezekiel, while of that on Zechariah nothing remains. There are fragments, again, on Matt. xxiv. and xxv. 24 sqq., which have an escha­tological bearing, as had also the commentary on the Apocalypse (of which genuine fragments are extant in Arabic), the °` Chapters against Caius " (fragments published by Gwynne, HennaWm, vi. 397 sqq., 1888), and the treatise on the resurrection addressed to the Empress Mammma (a few Syriac and and Greek fragments), mentioned in the inscription. Possibly some fragments of a commentary on the oracles of Balaam belong to Hippolytus. Theo­doret has also preserved a portion of a discourse on the two thieves. On the other hand, the sermon on the raising of Lazarus (Greek and Syriac), is of doubtful authenticity, and still more questionable is that on the divine epiphanies, because both form and contents are unlike Hippolytus.

Of the polemical treatises, that against Marcion has entirely disappeared. The "treatise against All Heresies," which, according to Photius, con 

tained thirty two forms of error, from

4. Polem  Dositheus to Noetus, was used as a ical Works. source by the pseudo Tertulliah, Epi 

phanius, and Philaster, which at least determines the sequence of heresies treated in it. It is a question whether the extant homily against Noetus originally formed the close of this book or not. As he defended the Apocalypse against Caius, so he attacked the opponents of the Johannean wri­tings in general in a treatise " On the Gospel and Revelation of John." Of the contents of this some idea may be gained from Epiphanius, Her., li., where Hippolytus is undoubtedly quoted, as in Hair., x1viii. there are traces of his polemic against the Montanists. In the Philosophumena, or " Ref­utation of All Heresies," also he undertakes to show the origin of heresies from the older philosophies, his knowledge of which, however, according to Diels, was gained from inadequate extracts. The second, third, and beginning of the fourth books are lost; the remainder of the fourth deals with the astrologers. His treatment of the heresies is mainly confined to exposition without thorough polemic. His account of the Gnostic system is based partly on Irenmus and Tertullian; where he is independent of them he has been supposed by some critics to have trusted too much to forged documents  but forgery is unlikely in the case of so speculative a system as that, e.g., of Basilides. Against the pagans he wrote a treatise which seems from its variously given title to have dealt with the Platonic doctrine of the All and the First Cause; the extant fragment is eschatological. The work " On the Faith " attributed to Hippolytus is later than the Nicene Council; that " On the Method of the Vow " is more likely Aphraates'. The polemical treatise against the Jews, though no such work is mentioned in the inscription, and though its present form is possibly not all due to Hippoly­tus, yet has reminders of his work; and his hav­ing written against the Jews is rendered likely by the use of material from him in later anti Jewish writings. Of several other works mentioned in various places scarcely anything more than the titles is known. That called " On Charismata " or 'c Apostolic Tradition on Charismata " (according to whether the inscription is here naming one or two works) may well have been incorporated in the '1 Teachings of the Holy Apostles on Charismata," and H. Achelis has made the attempt to determine exactly what part comes from Hippolytus. The " Canons of the Holy Apostles on the Election [of Bishops] by Hippolytus," which are parallel to the Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 4 eqq., are an extract from a primitive form of the Apostolic Constitu­tions, and according to Achelis and Harnack are based upon genuine canons of Hippolytus, of which a working over exists in the Arabic " Canons of Hippolytus." Achelis thinks that Hippolytus wrote the " On Charismata " while still in the catholic communion, and that the assertion that an ignorant or immoral bishop was no true bishop had reference to Zephyrinus, while the canons were in 



tended for the governance of his schismatic com­

munity. If this be true, they are of considerable

historical importance. Works on church discipline

are mentioned also by Jerome, dealing with the

propriety of fasting on Saturday and of daily com­

munion. The chronological works of Hippolytus

enjoyed no little esteem, as is shown by the carv­

ing on the statue of his Easter table for the years

222 233. The work called " Chronicle " in the in­

scription exists only in Latin adaptations, such as

the Liber generationis and the so called Barbarus

Scalageri. The original form has been exhibited

by A. Bauer.

The theology of Hippolytus in general is sum­

marized at the close of the PhiZosophumena. The

Christian's boasted possession is the knowledge of

the One God, creator and lord of all things. He

alone, of his own free will, created eternally out of

nothing first the four elements and

5. Theolog  then the rest out of them; all that is

ical composed of them is separable and

Position. therefore mortal. By a process of

thought God generated the Logos,

who, conscious of the will and mind of his begetter,

became the mediate operator of all that was done

in the work of creation. As lord over all he made

man, a compound of the four elements, neither God

like the Logos nor yet an angel. God, being good,

made nothing but good; man by his own will went

further and created evil. Man received a law on

the basis of his free will first through just men,

then through Moses and the prophets, but all un­

der the administration and in the power of the

Logos, who according to the command of God led

men back from disobedience, not forcing them, but

calling them to a free choice. At last the Father

sent the Logos himself, who, taking a body from a

virgin, put on the old man by a new creation; of

the same nature as our own, because only so could

he exhort us to follow him, he experienced all the

sufferings that belong to human nature, so that men

might hope to follow him also in his exaltation.

Hippolytus urges his readers to cling to " the

inspired prophets, interpreters of God and the Lo­

gos," who have laid down the divine truth in the

Scripture. The New Testament writings are desig­

nated equally with the Old as " divine scriptures,"

with " the fourfold gospel " at their head. The

Epistle to the Hebrews is not included among the

Pauline epistles, though Hippolytus uses it not in­

frequently; he also makes use of II Peter and

probably of James. Only grace bestows under­

standing of the Scriptures, much in which is sealed,

as to the devil, so to unbelievers. The personal

distinction between the Father and the Logos is

defended against Sabellius and Calixtus, as still

earlier against Noetus; but Hippolytus repudiates

the reproach of ditheism the one God reveals him­

self in two persons, to whom the Spirit is added as

a third, although no clear distinction is made be­

tween the Logos and the Spirit. Insight into the

manner of the generation of the Logos is not per­

mitted to us. But, though always the perfect

Logos, he is not the perfect Son until, clothed with

flesh as at once the Son of God and the Son of Man,

he appears in the world. While the death of Christ

is of special significance for redemption, j:Iippolytus lays particular emphasis on the completion of the knowledge of God already given through nature and history, but especially in the Law and the Proph­ets. Men are now enabled, by the same free will with which they sinned, to return to the following of God, and by their good works to win heaven. The Church is " the sacred assembly of those who live in righteousness . . . the spiritual house of God . • . rooted in Christ," who sanctifies all that believe in him. The water of life is given to the thirsty soul first in baptism, with its remission of sins and clothing with the Spirit; in the Eucharist Christ's body and blood are a pledge of immortality. But only those belong to the Church who keep the commandments; all others are " deprived of the Holy Spirit," " driven from the Church," or, if they belong to it externally, their damnation is all the greater. The Church suffers not less from un­worthy Christians than from heretics. Thus Hip­polytus was as much opposed to Calixtus for his lax discipline as for his monarchianizing theology. But, in spite of his approbation of asceticism and his enthusiasm for martyrdom, he opposes the new precepts of the Montanists, especially in regard to fasting. Against extravagant eschatological views also he takes a stand in the interest of Christian sobriety. In opposition to Caius, for whom " the binding of the strong man" had already taken place, Hippolytus sees the millennium still far in the future, though he makes the point that for the individual the hour of death is that of Christ's advent. But if his attitude toward this whole question is not that of a later age, neither is it quite the same as that of Irenaeus, from whose primitive realism he makes a distinct departure thus, as in other points (e.g., his attitude toward the Roman Em­pire), standing at a turning point in theological and ecclesiastical development. (N. BoNWETscm)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A quite complete list of literature is given in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 55 58. The Opera were ed­ited by J. A. Fabricius in Greek and Latin, 2 vole., Ham­burg, 1716 18; by A. Gallandius, in Bibliotheca veterum patrum, ti. 409 630, 14 vole. Venice, 1765 81• in MPG, x.; in Greek by P. de Lagarde, Leipsie, 1858. Editions of the Philosophumena are by E. Miller, Oxford, 185l; L. Dunoker and F. G. Schneidewin, GSttingen, 1856 59; and P. Cruice, Paris, 1881. Eng. transl. is to be found in ANF, v. 9 258. Consult: C. K. J. Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, 4 vole., London, 1852; J. J. I. von D511inger, Hippolyt and Kalliatus, Regensburg, 1853, Eng. tranel., Edinburgh, 1876 (from the Roman Catholic standpoint); W. E. Taylor, Hippolytus and the Christian Church of the 8d Century, London. 1853 (opposes D51linger); G. Volk­mar, Hippolytus and du romiachen Zeitgenossen, Zurich, 1856; O. Bardenhewer. Des heiligen Hippolyts . . Com­mentor cum . . . Daniel, Freiburg, 1877; C. Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. London, 1880; G. Salmon, in Hermathena, v (1885), 389 eqq., viii (1892), 161 eqq.; J. H. Kennedy, Part of the Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Daniel, Dublin, 1888; E. Erbee, in Jahr­bfcher tar protestantiache Theolopie, xiv (1888) 611 646; F. W. Farrar, Lives o/ the Fathers, i. 88 92, New York, 1889; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, ii. 317 477, London, 1890; G. Fieker, Studien zur Hippolytus/rage, Leipsic, 1893; G. N. Bonwetech, in GGA, 1894 pp. 753 eqq.; W. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung des Judentume, des Neuen Testaments and der alien Ksrche, GStcingen, 1895; W. Riedel, Die Kirehenrechiaquellen des Patriarchate Alexandrien, Leipsic, 1900; K J. Neumann, Hippolytus von Rom in seiner Stellung zu Stoat and Kirehe, ib. 1901; A. d'Alps, La Thlologie de S. Hippolyte, Paris, 1906. In TU the following important coi,tributions are

1   ...   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   ...   46

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

    Main page