HEGESIPPUS
158
HEGIRA
theory ; for whereas the latter considers pure Being iden- tical with the All, Hegel regards it as equivalent to non- entity. Secondly, pantheism has always held fast to the abstractions of the understanding, and hence it has attacked all forms of Becoming; but Hegel's invincible dialectic has demolished this strong position, and led us up to the higher ground of tlie concrete notion. Third- ly, the pantheistic view of the Negative is abstract. 'Being alone is, and non-being is not.' But with He- gel the ultimate form of the negative is immanent con- tradiction ; the negative is not &for itself, but out of it is constituted the true positive. (This leads to the view of the Universal as the only real, independent individ- ual, tlie I Am that I Am.) Fourthly, the true panthe- ists held Distinction to be impossible, while the theory of the materialistic pantheists was Atomism, the ab- stract and separate validity of Identity and Distinction ; but Hegel leaves both theories far beliind him when he penetrates to the inmost depths of the subject, and ar- rives at Self-determination as the origin and principle of all distinction whatever. (This, again, leads to the self-determination of the Absolute— the spirituality of God.) Fifthly, the unity of pantheism is a ' negative unity,' which annuls the independence of multiple fac- tors ; but with Hegel the true unity, the unity of the Absolute, is purely affirmative, subsisting througli the very independence of its members. (And here we reach a development of the great Christian idea of the Trin- itvi) Here is not pantheism taking a new dress, but pantheism receiving a flat contradiction upon its cardi- nal principles" (ibid. p. 403-4).
Literature. — For an able article on Hegel's philoso- phy, and its influence on religion and theology in Ger- many, see Uhici, in Herzog, Beal-Enr>/Hopddie, v, G29- 646. See also, besides the works cited above, Kahnis, History of German Protestantism, p. 196, 244; Saintes, History of Rationalism, chap, xiii, xviii; Schaff, ^^jos- tolic Church, § 34; Princeton R< r!r/r. Oct. 1848, art. iv; MoreU, History of Modern I'/i/7ns:,j)/i//, cliap. v.; Bib- liotheca Sacra, viii, 503; Vera, Infmihirfion a la Philc- sophic. de Hegel (Paris, 1855); Havm. U(</(1 und seine Zeit (BerUn, 1858); Chalybasus, Hist'orynf Philnsophyfroni Kant to Her/el; Sibree, translation of llegel's Philosophy of History (London, Bohn) ; Sloman and Wallon, trans- lation of Hegel's Subjective Logic (Lond. 1855) ; Lewes, History of Philosophy (4th edit. Lond. 1871, 2 vols. 8vo), ii, 531 sq. ; Stirling, Secret of Hegel, giving a translation of portions of Hegel's Logic (London, 1865, 2 vols. 8vo) ; Saisset, J/ocfc?-)« Pantheism, ii, 11 sq. ; Rosencranz, //e^ei als deutscher Xaturulphilnsoph (Leipz. 1870).
Hegesippus, one of the earliest writers on Church History (between A.D. 150 and 180), was originally a Jew, born near the beginning of the 2d century. He Avas converted to the Christian faith, and came to Rome aliout A.D. 168, where he died, according to the .Alexan- drine Chronicle, in the reign of Commodus, about A.D. 1!^(>. He wrote a collection of "Y7ro/ii^(j/tor«, or Memo- rials of the History of the Church, in Ave books, from the birth of our Lord to the time of Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Anicetus in A.D. 170. This worlc is all lost except a few fragments preserved by Eusebius, and one in the Bibliotheca of Photius. Sev- eral extracts may be found translated by Lardner (Cred- ibility, vol. ii). All that remains of Ilegesiiipus is given by Routh (Reliquim Sucrce, 2d edit. i. 205 si|.), and als.i by Grabe (Spicilegium, ii, 203 sq.) and l)y ( Jallaiid ( hiltl. Patr. ii, 59). " The reports of Hegesippus on the char- acter and martyrdom of St. James the Just, Simeon of Jerusalem, the rise of heresies, the episcopal succession, and the preservation of the orthodox doctrine in Cor- inth and Rome, as embodied in the history of Eusebius, command attention for their antiquity; but, as they show that his object was apologetic and polemical rath- er than historical, and as they bear a somewhat Juda- izing (though by no means Ebionistic) coloring, they must be received with critical attention" (^chaS, Church History, vol. i, § 123). The Socinians of the 17th cen-
tur\' use his brief statements as proof of the general spread of Judaizing tendencies in the 1st and 2d centu- ries, and Baur, of Tubingen, and his school, have recent- ly reproduced this view. Bishop Bull answered the former, and Dorner, in his Lehre v. d. Person Christi, i, 219 (Edinbiurgh trans, i, 139 sq.), has refuted the latter. " The evidence tends to prove that he was not even a Hebrew Christian in the sense of observing the law, and there is the most complete proof that he did not regard the observance of the law as essential to salvation. With the destruction of this premise, the keystone of the two theories of the early Unitarians and of Bam: is utterly destroyed. The Unitarians maintained that Hegesippus was an Ebionite or Nazarene, and that con- sequently the whole Church was in his day Ebionitic, though, unfortunately, the few Platonizing writers, who formed a miserable exception to the mass, have been the only AVTiters that a subsequent corrupt age has preserved to us. Baiu- finds in Hegesippus a most determined an- tagonist of Paul, and his testimony is appealed to as proof that the Petrine faction had gained the predomi- nance not only in the chiu-ches of the East, but even in those of the West. Both theories run directly contrary to the repeated testimony of Eusebius, and to all the information which we have in regard to the Western chiu-ches, and they both fall to pieces unless it be proved that Hegesippus insisted upon the observance of the law as essential to salvation" (Donaldson, History of Christian Literature, iii, 188 sq.). See also Clarke, Suc- cession of Sacred Literature; Neander, Church History, i, 675, 676; Lardner, Worls, vol. ii; Cave, Hist. Lit.'i, 265; Fabricius, Bibl. Greeca, \i\, 156; Dupin, Eccles. Writers, cent, ii; Illgen, Zeitschriff, 1865, pt. iii.