d. in Berlin Nov. 14, 1831. He studied Life. philosophy and theology at Ttbingen 1788-93, and lived as a private tutor, first at Bern 1793-96, then at Frankfort 1797-1801. In 1801 he settled at Jena as lecturer on philosophy in the university, and Schelling's coeditor of the Kritisches Journal der Philosophie. He was at that time fully agreed with Schelling (q.v.); and their journal, of which he wrote the larger part, was the organ of the system of identity-a philosophy which attempted to represent matter and mind, nature and spirit, world and God, as identical. However, this alliance did not last long, and after Schelling's departure for W iirzburg in 1803 it turned into philosophical antagonism. After the battle of Jena (1806), Hegel removed to Bamberg, where for some time he edited the Bamberger Zeitung. From 1808 to 1816 he was rector of the Aegidien gymnasium at Nuremberg. In the latter year he was appointed professor of philosophy at Heidelberg; and in 1818 he was called to Fichte's chair at the University of Berlin. It was here that he made himself the dominant figure in the philosophical world, and established the school of philosophy known as Hegelianism. By his defense of eating political institutions he attained to great political influence in Prussia.
The impression which Hegel made in Germany was at one time almost overpowering. His philoso-
phy swept away all other philosophies, Philosophy. and before he died it began to make
itself felt as an actual power both in State and Church. However, four years after his death a controversy was raised among his followers by Strauss's Leben Jesu (Tabingen, 1835), and further embittered by Strauss's Christliche Glattbenslehre (1840), with the result that the Hegelian school was divided into three groups, called the right, the left, and the center. The adherents of the right (G. A. Gabler, H. T. W. Hinrichs, K. T. Goschel) represented supernaturalism; those of the left (Strauss,
|
201 |
|
202 |
|
203 |
|
204 |
|
205 |
|
206 |
|
207 |
|
208 |
|
209 |
|
210 |
|
211 |
|
212 |
|
213 |
|
214 |
|
215 |
|
216 |
|
217 |
|
218 |
|
219 |
|
220 |
|
221 |
|
222 |
|
223 |
|
224 |
|
225 |
|
226 |
|
227 |
|
228 |
|
229 |
|
230 |
|
231 |
|
232 |
|
233 |
|
234 |
|
235 |
by the constitution Apostolicæ curæ of 1869 is specially reserved to the pope; forfeiture of Christian burial; for clerics, deposition and degradation; for impenitent heretics, delivery to the secular arm for a variety of secular penalties. Theoretically, the Roman Catholic Church still holds to the old severe legislation, and as late as 1878 Leo XIII confirmed a ruling of the cardinal vicar based on these principles in relation to those who attended Protestant services in Rome. But the altered position of the Church in modern times permits only the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties. A number of decisions of the Congregation of the Holy Office and of local councils, it is true, still forbid absolutely any communicatio in ditvinis with heretics, such as attendance at Protestant services (for the purpose of worship), and extend as far as possible even to the avoidance of sending children to Protestant schools.
In the Evangelical Churches not a few relics of the older attitude have continued, although Luther at first was unwilling to recognize heresy as an offense; to say nothing of the burning of Servetus (q.v.), a number of the older Protestant constitutions regard heresy as a crime, with special reference to the Anabaptists, whose punishment by the severe measures of the secular government was applauded by the Reformers. But logically the Evangelical Church, which declines to force the consciences of its members, and appeals solely to Scripture for the confirmation of its doctrines, can only rebuke erroneous doctrines as erroneous, and commend to pastoral exhortation those who hold them. This does not prevent the disciplinary dismissal of a minister who in his teaching transgresses the bounds of Evangelical freedom; and on the part of a layman, a public attitude of hostility toward the Evangelical faith would properly subject him also to discipline, extending, in case of obstinate persistence, to formal exclusion from church fellowship, although in modern practise this is seldom employed. See ORTHODOXY
(P. HINSCHIUS†)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: From the legal standpoint: B. Hobhouse, Treatise on Heresy as Cognizable by the Spiritual Courts, London, 1792, answered by F. Randolph, Scriptural Revision of Scriptural Arguments, ib. 1793; N. München, Das kanonisehe Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht, ii. 315, Cologne, 1865; E. Löning, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, i. 95 sqq., Strasburg, 1878; J. Havet, L'Hérésie et le bras séculier au moyen âge, Paris, 1881; P. Farinaccius, Law of the Church of Rome in Cases of Heresy, London, 1885; B. Guidonis, Practica inquisitionis heretice provitalis, Paris, 1886; A. L. Richter, Lehrbuch des . . Kirchenrechts, ed. W. Kahl, p. 229, Leipsic, 1886; P. Hinschius, Kirchenrecht . . . in Deutschland, iv. 790, 844, 847, v. 157, 378, 679, vi. 186, 189, Berlin, 1886-97.
On the historical side consult: G. Arnold. Unparteiische Kirchen- and Ketserhiatorie, Schaffhausen, 1740; C. W. F. Walch, Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der Ketzereien, 11 vols., Leipsic, 1762-85; N. Lardner, Hist. of the Heretics of the First Two Centuries, London, 1780; E. Burton, The Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Oxford. 1829; C. U. Hahn, Ketzer in Mittelalter, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1846-50; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought, Philadelphia, 1874; M. Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos Españoles, 3 vols., Madrid, 1881; H. H. Wyatt, Principal Heresies Relating to our Lord's Incarnation, London, 1881; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, Leipsic, 1884; F. Tocco, L'Eresia nei medio evo, Florence, 1884; S. E. Herrick, Some Heretics of Yesterday, Boston, 1885; P. Pierini, La Genesi del Liberatismo, Prato, 1889; U. Robert, Les Signes d’infamie au moyen âge. Hérétiques, Paris, 1889; J. J. I. von Döllinger, Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Munich, 1890; C. Heuner, Beiträge zur Organisation der päpstlichen Ketzergerichte, Leipsic, 1890; A D. White, Hist. of the Warfare of Science with Theology, New York, 1896; H. C. Hiller, Heresies, 5 vols., London, 1899-1902. A history of the attitude of the English law is given in J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, pp. 306-311, Philadelphia, 1870. Consult also the literature under ARIANISM, DONATISM, EUTYCHIANISM, GNOSTICISM, INQUISITION, MONTANISM, PELAGIANISM, etc., and consult also the works on the history of the Christian Church; DCB, ii. 907-911; DCA, i. 766-769.
</div2><div2 type="Article" title="Heretic Baptism"> HERETIC BAPTISM
Its Validity Denied. Controversy between Cyprian and Stephen (§ 1).
The Donatist Controversy. Augustine (§ 2).
Attitude of the Eastern Church (§ 3).
The Roman Catholic Position (§ 4).
The Protestant Position (§ 5).
The initiation into the Church was accomplished from the beginning by Baptism (q.v.), and the question naturally arose, how is the rite to be regarded if the administrant did not belong to the true communion? If the working of the Spirit was effective exclusively in the Church, a new baptism of those baptized into a heretical body seemed inevitable. Even Clement of Alexandria regarded the baptism of heretics as not genuine (Strom., i. 19). Tertullian declares with great vigor against heretic baptism (De baptismo, xv.), and in a Greek work now lost treated especially of the subject. A Carthaginian synod held under Agrippinus, between 200 and 220, declared baptism performed outside of the Church invalid (Cyprian, Epist., lxx. [lxxi.] 4). In Asia Minor, at the synods of Iconium and Synnads, the baptism of the Montanists was not recognized (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, vii. 5; Firmilian, in Epist. Cypriani, lxxiv. [lxxv.] 5). As for Rome, Hippolytus charges Calixtus (pope 217-222) with having first (hardly "especially") introduced the repetition of baptism (Philosophoumena, ix. 12). Nevertheless, Stephen (253-257) could assert as Roman tradition the reception of heretics and schismatics by mere imposition of hands. Stephen's position is not altogether clear. According to Cyprian (Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.]) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl., vii. 2), Stephen regarded the imposition of hands at the reception of all heretics as sufficient, but, some Christian form of baptism is evidently presupposed (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.] 9, 18; lxxii. [lxxiii.] 18; lxxiii. (lxxiv.] 5). Also the beginning of the controversy with Cyprian is not clear. But Cyprian's letters lxvi. and lxvii. [lxviii. and lxvii.] show that the relation between Cyprian and Stephen, who held communion with bishops who had lapsed, was not at all friendly. According to the extant sources, Cyprian opened the controversy, probably provoked by Stephen. At first Cyprian carried on the contest with the help of African councils. The synod at Carthage, in 255, declared that "no one could be baptized out of the Church" (Cyprian, Epist., lxix. [lxx.] 1), without mentioning Stephen. At the synod of 256, seventyone bishops decided in like manner (Cyprian, Epist., lxxii. [lxxiii.]), and so did the eighty-seven bishops assembled on Sept. 1 of the same year; but their
|
236 |
decision was not to be binding upon bishops who represented another tradition. Nevertheless, the rupture with Rome could not be avoided (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiii. [1xxiv.]), and this because Stephen refused all concessions. Cyprian now tried to place against the authority of Rome the " unanimity " of the other bishops. Firmilian of Cesarea in Cappadocia joined him (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.]), whereas Dionysius of Alexandria tried to mediate. Death probably prevented Stephen from excommunicating the churches of Cappadocia and Cilicia. His successor, Sixtus II, seems to have been on friendly terms with Cyprian. See CYPRIAN, § 3; STEPHEN I., POPE.
The question of heretic baptism came up again in the Donatistic controversy, since the characteristic of Donatism (q.v.) was the rebaptism of heretics and schismatics. At the Synod of Arles in 314 it was decided (canon viii.) that schismatics are to be received by mere imposition of hands. Cæcilian gave up the previously existing African practise; but the Donatists in rejecting their opponents rejected also their baptism, though they do not seem at first to have consistently carried out their principle (cf. T. Hahn, Tyconiusstudien, Leipsic, 1900, pp. 102 sqq.; Augustine, Epist., xciii. 43-44). The persecution of the Donatists by Macarius intensified their opposition, but still they did not always rebaptize (Augustine, De baptismo, i. 2, 7, ii. 16-17, v. 6, Contra epist. Parmeniani, iii. 21, ii. 34). The Donatist Tyconius opposed a rebaptism from principle. He held that the sacraments of the Church catholic were real; but in Africa, where the Church was opposing Donatism, they were not the media of salvation. Tyconius's ideas were taken up by Augustine and carried further. According to his notion of the Church as the externa communio sacramentorum, i.e., a "communion of saints," he distinguishes between the having baptism and the having salvation through baptism. Though not correctly, yet actually, baptism is administered outside of the Church catholic (De baptismo, i. 2, 22-23). The sacredness of the baptism can not be destroyed by the unholy administrant, because it has in itself the divine power for salvation or evil (De baptismo, ii. 15). Even among heretics there can be "a real Christian baptism" (De baptismo, v. 2, 5). The baptismal formula according to the Gospel guarantees the sacrament, hence the achis matics also have a "legitimate" sacrament, though not "legitimately" (De baptismo, v. 8). Independent of administrant and recipient a character dominicus belongs to baptism (De baptismo, vi. 1; cf. Contra epist. Parmeniani, ii. 29); for not the administrant, as Petilian says, but Christ, is the "origin and root and head of the baptized" (Contra epist. Petiliani, iii. 64). But of course only in the Church catholic is baptism received for salvation (De baptismo, vi. 78, vii. 75, Contra Cresconium, i. 27-28); for the forgiveness of sins is entirely connected with the Church (De baptistno, iii. 22, v. 29). An unbeliever who has been baptized does not receive forgiveness or loses it at once, yet if he be converted he needs no rebaptism (De baptismo, i . 18-19, iii. 18; and elsewhere). But what prevents the schismatic from receiving salvation is his lack of love. True, the Holy Spirit dwells even in a schismatic communion, but not as the spirit of love. Hence a schismatic, be he ever so praiseworthy, has not the true love, but only he who has become a "partaker in the holy unity" (Contra Cresconium, ii. 16 sqq.). Without love all sacraments avail nothing, and love is wanting in the schismatic (De baptismo, i. 12, 22, ii. 22, iii. 20 sqq., iv. 24 sqq_).
In the East, the attitude toward heretic baptism was uncertain and depended on the estimate of the various sects. The eighth canon of the Council of Nicæa recognizes the baptism of the Novatians; canon xix. rejects that of the adherents of Paul of Samosata. The Synod of Laodicea (c. 360) also makes distinctions (canons vii. and viii.). The Apostolic Constitutions refuse to acknowledge baptism by heretics, but forbid a repetition of the rite (vi. 15). The Second Trullan Council (692) distinguishes again between heretics.
In the West, Augustine laid a lasting foundation for the estimate of heretic baptism. Following him, Peter Lombard ("Sentences," IV., dist. 6 A) says that persons baptized by heretics with the Christian baptismal formula are to be received by imposition of hands. Bonaventura (on Peter Lombard, ut sup.) sees a reason for not repeating baptism in the "impression of a character." Thomas Aquinas (Summa, iii., qucæst. 66, art. 9) emphasizes the indelible character which baptism impresses, but holds that the res sacramenti, the blessed efficacy, is lacking to heretics. The decree of the Council of Florence for the Armenians (§ 10; cf. H. Denzinger, Encheiridion, Würzburg, 1888, p. 161) declared that even a heathen and heretic can baptize "provided he keeps to the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does," but the decree for the Jacobites (Denzinger, ut sup., p. 170) says that only in the Church are the sacraments sufficient for salvation. The Council of Trent acknowledged as valid baptism performed by heretics in the name of the Trinity "with the intention of doing what the Church does" (Session vii., de baptismo, canon iv.), and in view of this demanded the obedience of all baptized (canon viii.; cf. the letter of Pius IX. to the emperor of Germany in 1873, in Mirbt, Quellen, p. 386). At the Synod of Evreux in 1576 it was decided (and often repeated afterward) that the Protestants were not to be denied the general intention. In practise the disposition prevails to rebaptize Protestant converts, but with exceptions.
Protestantism has from the beginning preserved its ecumenical character in the estimate of baptism. Hence in the Lutheran Church, in case of necessity, the administration of baptism even by a Roman Catholic priest has been conceded. Calvin, in 1565, allowed the non-Lutherans at Frankfort to have their children baptized by Lutheran ministers. Only against the validity of baptisms by anti-Trinitarian communions are
|
237 |
N. BONWETSCH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are: Cyprian, Epistola, lxix - lxxv., ed. G. Hartel, ii. 547 sqq., 3 vols., Vienna, 1868-71, and the anonymous De rebaptismate, ib., iii. 69 sqq. (Eng. transl. of these is to be found in ANF, v. 375-402 and 667 sqq.); Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, ii.-ix.; and the anti-Donatistic writings of Augustine. Consult: J. W. F. Höfling, Das Sakrament der Taufe, i. 62 sqq., Erlangen,1846; W. Elwin, Hist. of Church Opinion . . . with Reference to Heretical, Schiamatical and Lay Administration, London, 1889; T. Hahn, Tyconiusstudien, Leipsic, 1900; J. Ernst, Die Ketzertaufangelegenheit in der all christlichen Kirche, Mainz, 1901; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 117 sqq., 201 sqq., 407 sqq., 427 sqq., Eng. transl., i. 98 sqq., 180 sqq., 409 sqq., 430 eqq.; Neander, Christian Church, i. 317-323, ii. 219; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 262-265. Further matter is found in the literature under CYPRIAN and AUGUSTINE.
</div2><div2 type="Article" title="Hergenroether, Joseph"> HERGENROETHER, her'gen-rü"ter, JOSEPH: Roman Catholic scholar; b. at Würzburg Sept. 15, 1824; d. in the Cistercian monastery of Mehrerau (1½ m. w. of Bregenz) Oct. 3, 1890. He studied at Würzburg and in Rome, and was ordained priest there in 1848; became professor extraordinary (1852), and ordinary professor of ecclesiastical law and history (1855) at Würzburg. In 1868-69 he was one of the committee to prepare for the Vatican Council, and took a consistent stand in favor of the infallibility dogma. Pius IX. made him one of his domestic prelates; and Leo XIII., on May 12, 1879, cardinal deacon and the first prefect of the apostolic archives. His publications are numerous; of especial interest are Der Kirchenstaat seit der französischen Revolution, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1860; Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, 3 vols., Regensburg,1867-69 (one of the great monographs of modern times; in vol. 3 is Monumenta Græca ad Photium ejusque historiam spectantia, also separately issued, 1869); Anti-Janus, Freiburg, 1870 (English transl., Dublin, 1870; a reply to Döllinger's Janus); Katholische Kirche and christlicher Staat in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung and in Beziehung auf die Fragen der Gegenwart,1872, abridged ed.,1873 (Eng. transl., Catholic Church and Christian State, 2 vols., London, 1876, with a supplementary volume of documents and appendixes, 1876); Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols., Freiburg, 1876-80. He also continued Hefele's Conciliengeschichte by publishing vols. viii. and ix. (1887-1890), published the Regesta Leonis X., sections 1-8, 1884-91, and was the editor of the great Kirchenlezikon of Wetzer and Welte, 2d ed., 1880-1901.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. B. Stamminger, Zum Gedächtnisse Cardinal Hergenröthers, Freiburg, 1892; J. Nirschl, Gedächnisrede auf Cardinal J. Hergenröther, Bregens, 1897.
</div2><div2 type="Article" title="Heriger"> HERIGER, här"i"zhê´: Abbot of Lobbes (Laubach, in Belgium, 10 m. a.w. of Charleroi on the Sambre); d. at Lobbes Oct. 31, 1007. As a monk he taught with much success at Lobbes, the seat of a famous school, between 970 and 980. In all ecclesiastical and political affairs he was the right hand of the great Bishop Notker of Liége (q.v.) and accompanied him on his journey to Rome in 989. In 990 he became abbot of the monastery. Next to Gerbert of Aurillac (see SYLVESTER II., POPE) Heriger was perhaps the most important and versatile writer of his time. The following of his works have been preserved: (1) Gesta episcoporum Tungrensium et Leodicensium, written before 980; it extends only to the death of Bishop Remaclus (667 or 671) and is of little value. (2) S. Landvaldi et sociorum translatio, written after June, 980, at the order of Notker for the monks of St. Bavo in Ghent; the saint and his associates are not known and seem to be fictitious. (3) Vita S. Uramari, a fragment in hexameter. (4) Epistola ad quendam Hugonem monachum, concerning the calculation of the Easter term, the extent of the time of Advent, and some chronological problems. (5) Regulte nummorum super abacum Gerberti, a mathematical work. (6) Libellus de corpore et sanguine Domini.
(H. BÖHMER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Parts of his works are in MGH, Script., vii (1846), 134 sqq., and xv (1888), 599 sqq., and in MPL, cxxxix. For his life consult: Sigebertus Gemblacensis, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, chap. cxxxvii., in MPL, clx.; Histoire littérairs de la France, vii. 194 sqq., 472 sqq.; Wattenbach, DGQ, i. 382-383, 385; Hauck, KD, iii. 319, 326, 485, 486; K. Werner, Gerbert von Aurillac, Vienna, 1881.
</div2><div2 type="Article" title="Herimann Contractus"> HERIMANN CONTRACTUS. See HERMAN CONTRACTUS.
</div2><div2 type="Article" title="Hering, Hermann Julius"> HERING, HERMANN JULIUS: German Lutheran; b. at Dallmin (a village of Brandenburg) Feb. 26, 1838. He was educated at the University of Halle (1858-62), and was then deacon at Weissensee, Thuringia (1863-69), archdeacon at Weissenfels-on-the-Saale (1869-74), chief pastor at Lützen (1874-75), and superintendent there (1875-78). From 1878 until his retirement in 1908 he was professor of practical theology at Halle, being also consistorial councilor after 1894 and university preacher after 1902. He has likewise been president of the society for the care of released convicts in the Prussian province of Saxony and the duchy of Anhalt since 1893, and in theology adheres to the orthodox school. He has written: Die Mystik Luthers im Zusammenhang seiner Theologie and in ihrem Verhältnis zur älteren Mystik (Leipsic, 1879); Doctor Pomeranus, Johannes Bugenhagen (Halle, 1888); Hilfsbuch zur Einführung in das liturgische Studium (Wittenberg, 1888); Heinrich Hofmann, sein Leben, sein Wirken and seine Predigt (in collaboration with M. Kähler, Halle, 1900); and Der akademische Gottesdienst in Halle von seiner Gründung bis zu seiner Erneuerung und der Kampf um die Schulkirche (Halle, 1908). He has also edited selected sermons of Berthold of Regensburg and A. Tholuck for Die Predigt der Kirche (xxi., xxviii., Leipsic, 1893-95), and since 1894 has been the editor of the Sammlung von Lehrbüchern der praktischen Theologie, to which he himself contributed Lehre von der Predigt (2 vols., Berlin, 1905).
</div2><div2 type="Article" title="Herkenne, Heinrich"> HERKENNNE, HEINRICH: German Roman Catholic; b. at Cologne July 5, 1871. He studied at Bonn and Münster 1890-95, and since 1898 has been lecturer at the Collegium Albertinum, Bonn, also privat-docent for Old Testament exegesis at the university in the same city since 1903. He has
|
238 |
|
239 |
|
240 |
|
241 |
|
242 |
|
243 |
|
244 |
|
245 |
|
246 |
|
247 |
|
248 |
|
249 |
|
250 |
| Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL. |  |