HYMEN
431
HYMENJEUS
to pantheism ; but " tlie Stoics, on the other hand, while they did not accord activity or life to every distinct particle of matter, held that the universe, as a whole, was animated by a principle which gave to it motion, form, and life." Tlie followers of Plotinus, who held that the " soul of the universe" animated the least parti- cle of matter; or, in other words, while they admitted a certain material or plastic life, essential and substantial, ingcnerable, and incorruptible, attributed all to matter, especially favored the Stoical doctrine, and " Spinoza as- serted that all things were alive in different degrees (' om- nia quamvis diversis gradibus animata tamen sunt')." All the various forms of this doctrine evidently mistake force, for life. According to Leibnitz, Boscovich, and others, " Jlatter is always endowed with force. Even the vis inei-tim ascribed to it is a force. Attraction and repulsion, and chemical affinity, all indicate activity in matter; but life is a force always connected with or- ganization, which much of matter wants. Spontaneous motion, growth, nutrition, separation of parts, genera- tion, are phenomena which indicate the presence of life, which is obviously not coextensive with matter." See Fleming, Vocabulary ofPhilos. (edited by Ivrauth), p. 219 $■ sq. ; Cudworth, Intellect. Si/stem, i, 106 sq., 144 sq., etc. ;
Hallam, Hist, of Europe, iv, 188.
Hymen, or Hynienaeus, in Grecian mythology, is the god of marriage. Originally the word seems to have denoted only the bridal song of the companions of tlie bride, sung by them as she went from her father's house to that of the bridegroom. The god Hymen is first mentioned by Sappho. " The legends concerning him are various ; but he is generally said to be a son of Apollo and some one of the JIuses. He is represented as a boy with wings and a garland, a bigger and graver Cupid, with a bridal- torch and a veil in his hands." — Chambers, Encjclop. v, 494.
Hymenae'us (Yfikvaioq, hymeneal), a professor of Christianity at Ephesus, who, with Alexander (1 Tim. i, 20) and PliUetus (2 Tim. ii, 18), had departed from the truth both in principle and practice, and led others into apostasy (Neander, Pflanz. i, 475). The chief doctrinal error of these persons consisted in maintaining that "the resurrection was past already." The precise meaning of this expression is by no means clearly ascertained : the most general, and perhaps best founded opinion is, that they understood the resurrection in a figurative sense of the great change produced by the Gospel dispensation. See below. Some have suggested that tliey attempted to support their views by the apostle's language in his Epistle to the Ephesians (yiKpovq — avvEi^MTroit](T(v — (Tvv>}yiipiv, etc., ii, 1-5) ; but this is very improbable; for, if such misconception of his language had arisen, it might easily have been corrected ; not to say that one of them appears to have been personally inimical to Paul (2 Tim. iv, 14), and would scarcely have appealed to him as an authority. Slost critics suppose that the same per- son is refciTed to in both tlte epistles to Timothy by the name of II\-nienreus (see Heidenreich,P««?o?-oZ6;-. i. 111). Jlosheim. however, contends that there were tAvo. He seems to lay great stress on the apostle's declaration in 1 Tim. i, 20, " Whom / have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." But, whatever may be the meaning of this expression, the infliction was ev- idently designed for the benetit and restoration of the parties (comp. 1 Cor. v, 5), and was therefore far from in- dicating their hopeless and abandoned wickedness. See below. Nor do the terms employed in the second epis- tle import a less flagrant violation of the Christian pro- fession tlian those in the first. If in the one the intlivid- uals aUuded to are charged with having "discarded a good conscience" and '• made shipwreck of faith," in the other they are described as indulging " in vain and pro- fane babblings, which would increase to more ungodli- ness," as '• having erred concerning the truth," and "overthrowing the faith" of others. These can hardly be said to be '■ two distinct characters, having nothing in common but the name" (ilosheim's Commentaries, i,
304-306). For other inteqiretations of 2 Tim. ii, 1 8, see Gill's Commentary, ad loc, and Walchii Miscellanea Sa- cra, i, 4; Be Hymemeo Phiktn, Jen. 1735, and Amstel. 1744. — Kitto. Two points referred to above require ful- ler elucidation.
1. The Error of Hymenwus. — This was one that had been in part appropriated from others, and has frequent- ly been revived smce with additions. What initiation was to the Pythagoreans, wisdom to the Stoics, science to the followers of Plato, contemplation to the Peripatet- ics, that " knowledge" {yvuiai^) was to the Gnostics. As tliere were likewise in the Greek schools those who looked forward to a complete restoration of all things {cnroKarcKTTaaiQ, see Heyne, ad Virg. iic/. iv, 5 ; comp, ^En. vi, 745), so there was " a regeneration" (Tit. iii, 5 ; jMatt. xix, 28), " a new creation" (2 Cor. v, 17 ; see Al- ford, ad loc. ; Kev. xxi, 1), " a kingdom of heaven and of Messiah or Christ" (Matt, xiii; Rev. vii)— and herein popular belief among the Jews coincided — unequivocal- ly propounded in the N. T. ; but here with tliis remark- able difference, viz., that in a great measure it was pres- ent as well as future — the same thing in germ tliat was to be had in perfection eventually. " The kingdom of God is within you," said our Lord (Luke xvii, 21 ). " He that is spiritual judgeth all things," said Paid (1 Cor. ii, 15). " He that is born of God cannot sin," said John (1 Ep. iii, 9), There are likewise two deaths and two res- urrections spoken of in the N. T. ; the first of each sort, that of the soul to and from sin (John iii, 3-8), " the hour which now is" (ibid, v, 24, 25, on which see Augus- tine, Be Civ. Bei, xx, 6) ; the second, that of the body to and from corruption (1 Cor. xv, 30-44 ; also John v, 28, 29), which last is prospective. Now, as the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was found to involve im- mense difficulties even in those early »days (Acts xvii, 32 ; 1 Cor. xv, 35 : how keenly they were pressed may be seen in Augustine, De Civ. Bei, xxii, 12 sq.), while, on the other hand, there was so great a predisposition in the tlien current philosophy (not «veii extinct now) to magnify the excellence of the sold above tliat of its eartlily tabernacle, it was at once the easier and more attractive course to insist upon and argue from the force of those passages of Holy Scripture which enlarge upon the glories of the spiritual life that now is, under Christ, and to pass over or explain away aUegoricall}^ all that refers to a future state in connection with the resurrec- tion of the body. In this manner we may derive the first errors of the Gnostics, of whom Hymen.ieus was one of the earliest. They were spreading when John wTote ; and his grand-disciple, Irena?us, compiled a voluminous work against them {adv. I/cer.). A good account of their full development is given by Gicseler, E. H., Per. i, Div. i, § 44 sq. See Eesuerection.