The object of Origen being to correct the differences found in the then existing copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted all the alterations which he discovered; and for the information of those who might consult his work, he made use of the following marks: 1. Where any passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not found in the Hebrew, he designated them by anobelus÷with two bold points:annexed. This mark was also used to denote words not extant in the Hebrew, but added by the Septuagint translators, either for the sake of elegance, or for the purpose of illustrating the sense. 2. To passages wanting in the copies of the Septuagint, and supplied by himself from the other Greek versions, he prefixed an asteriskasteriskwith two bold points:also annexed, in order that his additions might be immediately perceived. These supplementary passages, we are informed by Jerom, were for the most part taken from Theodotion’s translation; not unfrequently from that of Aquila; sometimes, though rarely, from the version of Symmachus; and sometimes from two or three together. But, in every case, the initial letter of each translator’s name was placed immediately after the asterisk, to indicate the source whence such supplementary passage was taken. And in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of Daniel, Theodotion’s translation of that book was inserted entire. 3. Farther: not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were supplied by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed, but also where that version does not appear accurately to express the Hebrew original, having noted the former reading with anobelus:, he added the correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of thelemniscusandhypolemniscus, two other marks used by Origen, there is so great a difference of opinion among learned men, that it is difficult to determine what they were. Dr. Owen, after Montfaucon, supposes them to have been marks of better and more accurate renderings. These several marks of distinction have been carefully observed, so far as they have been recovered from various quarters, in the very accurate edition of the Septuagint commenced by our learned countryman, Dr. Holmes, and continued by his able successor, the Rev. J. Parsons, B. D.
For nearly fifty years was Origen’s stupendouswork buried in a corner of the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great expense of transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the means of private individuals; and here, perhaps, it might have perished in oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, and deposited it in the library of Pamphilus the martyr at Cæsarea, where Jerome saw it about the middle of the fourth century. As we have no account whatever of Origen’s autograph after this time, it is most probable that it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that city by the Arabs; and a few imperfect fragments, collected from manuscripts of the Septuagint and the catenæ of the Greek fathers, are all that now remain of a work, which, in the present improved state of sacred literature, would most eminently have assisted in the interpretation and criticism of the Old Testament. The Syro-Estrangelo translation of Origen’s edition of the Greek Septuagint was executed in the former part of the seventh century; the author of it is not known. This version exactly corresponds with the text of the Septuagint, especially in those passages in which the latter differs from the Hebrew. A manuscript of this translation is in the Ambrosian library at Milan; it contains theobelusand other marks of Origen’s Hexapla; and a subscription at the end states it to have been literally translated from the Greek copy, corrected by Eusebius himself, with the assistance of Pamphilus, from the books of Origen, which were deposited in the library at Cæsarea. From this version Norberg edited the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 1787; and Bugati, the book of Daniel, 1788.
HEZEKIAH, king of Judah, was the son of Ahaz, and born in the year of the world 3251. At the age of five-and-twenty he succeeded his father in the government of the kingdom of Judah, and reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem, namely, from the year of the world 3277 to 3306, 2 Kings xviii, 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxix, 1. The reign of his father Ahaz had been most unpropitious for his subjects. A war had raged between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, in which Pekah, king of Israel, overthrew the army of Ahaz, destroying a hundred and twenty thousand of his men; after which he carried away two hundred thousand women and children as captives into his own country: they were, however, released and sent home again, at the remonstrance of the Prophet Oded. As idolatry had been established in Jerusalem and throughout Judea, by the command of Ahaz, and the service of the temple either intermitted, or converted into an idolatrous worship, the first object of his son Hezekiah, on his accession to the throne, was to restore the legal worship of God, both in Jerusalem and throughout Judea. He cleansed and repaired the temple, and held a solemn passover. He improved the city, repaired the fortifications, erected magazines of all sorts, and built a new aqueduct. In the fourth year of his reign, Salmanezer, king of Assyria, invaded the kingdom of Israel, took Samaria, and carried away the ten tribes into captivity, replacing them by different people sent from his own country. But Hezekiah was not deterred by this alarming example from refusing to pay that tribute to the Assyrians which had been imposed on Ahaz: this brought on the invasion of Sennacherib, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, of which we have a very particular account in the writings of the Prophet Isaiah, who was then living, Isaiah xxxvi.
Immediately after the termination of this war, Hezekiah “was sick unto death,†owing, as the sacred historian strongly intimates, to his heart being improperly elevated on occasion of this miraculous deliverance, and not sufficiently acknowledging the hand of God in it, 2 Kings xx; Isaiah xxxviii. Isaiah was sent to bid him set his house in order, for he should die and not live. Hezekiah had instant recourse to God by prayer and supplications for his recovery; and the prophet had scarcely proceeded out of the threshold, when the Lord commanded him to return to Hezekiah, and to say to him, “Thus saith the Lord, I have heard thy prayer, and I have seen thy tears: I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of the Lord, and I will add unto thy days fifteen years.†And to confirm to him the certainty of all these tokens of the divine regard, the shadow of the sun on the dial of Ahaz, at his request, went backward ten degrees. After his recovery, he composed an ode of thanksgiving to the God of all his mercies, which the Prophet Isaiah has recorded in his writings, Isaiah xxxviii, 10, 11. Yet, as an instance of human fickleness and frailty, we find Hezekiah, with all his excellencies, again forgetting himself, and incurring the divine displeasure. The king of Babylon having been informed of his sickness and recovery, sent ambassadors to congratulate him on his restoration: an honour with which the heart of Hezekiah was greatly elated; and, to testify his gratitude, he made a pompous display to them of all his treasures, his spices, and his rich vessels; and concealed from them nothing that was in his palace. In all this the pride of Hezekiah was gratified; and to humble him, Isaiah was sent to declare to him that his conduct was displeasing to God, and that a time should come when all the treasures of which he had made so vain a display should be removed to Babylon, and even his sons be made eunuchs to serve in the palace of the king of Babylon. Hezekiah bowed submissively to the will of God, and acknowledged the divine goodness toward him, in ordaining peace and truth to continue during the remainder of his reign. He accordingly passed the latter years of his life in tranquillity, and contributed greatly to the prosperity of his people and kingdom. He died in the year of the world 3306, leaving behind him a son, Manasseh, who succeeded him in the throne: a son every way unworthy of such a father.
HIDDEKEL. SeeEden.
HIGH PLACES. The prophets reproach the Israelites for nothing with more zeal than forworshipping upon the high places. The destroying of these high places is a commendation given only to few princes in Scripture; and many, though zealous for the observance of the law, had not courage to prevent the people from sacrificing upon these eminences. Before the temple was built, the high places were not absolutely contrary to the law, provided God only was there adored, and not idols. They seem to have been tolerated under the judges; and Samuel offered sacrifices in several places where the ark was not present. Even in David’s time they sacrificed to the Lord at Shiloh, Jerusalem, and Gibeon. But after the temple was built at Jerusalem, and the ark had a fixed settlement, it was no longer allowed to sacrifice out of Jerusalem. The high places were much frequented in the kingdom of Israel. The people sometimes went upon those mountains which had been sanctified by the presence of patriarchs and prophets, and by appearances of God, to worship the true God there. This worship was lawful, except as to its being exercised where the Lord had not chosen. But they frequently adored idols upon these hills, and committed a thousand abominations in groves, and caves, and tents; and hence arose the zeal of pious kings and prophets to suppress the high places. Dr. Prideaux thinks it probable that theproseuchæ, open courts, built like those in which the people prayed at the tabernacle and the temple, were the same as those called high places in the Old Testament. His reason is, that theproseuchæhad groves in or near them, in the same manner as the high places.
HIN,הין, a liquid measure, as of oil, or of wine, Exodus xxix, 40; xxx, 24; Lev. xxiii. According to Josephus, it contained two Atticcongii, and was therefore the sixth part of an ephah. He says that they offered with an ox half a hin of oil; in English measure, six pints, twenty-five thousand five hundred and ninety-eight solid inches. With a ram they offered the third part of a hin, or three pints, ten thousand four hundred and sixty-nine solid inches: with a lamb, the fourth part of a hin, or two pints, fifteen thousand and seventy-one solid inches.
HIND,×ילה, Gen. xlix, 21; 2 Sam. xxii, 34; Job xxxix, 1; Psalm xviii, 33; xxix, 9; Prov. v, 19; Cant. ii, 7; iii, 5; Jer. xiv, 5; Hab. iii, 19; the mate or female of the stag. It is a lovely creature, and of an elegant shape. It is noted for its swiftness and the sureness of its step as it jumps among the rocks. David and Habakkuk both allude to this character of the hind. “The Lord maketh my feet like hinds’ feet, and causeth me to stand on the high places,†Psalm xviii, 33; Hab. iii, 19. The circumstance of their standing on the high places or mountains is applied to these animals by Xenophon. Our translators make Jacob, prophesying of the tribe of Naphtali, say, “Naphtali is a hind let loose: he giveth goodly words,†Gen. xlix, 21. There is a difficulty and incoherence here which the learned Bochart removes by altering a little the punctuation of the original; and it then reads, “Naphtali is a spreading tree, shooting forth beautiful branches.†This, indeed, renders the simile uniform; but another critic has remarked that “the allusion to a tree seems to be purposely reserved by the venerable patriarch for his son Joseph, who is compared to the boughs of a tree; and the repetition of the idea in reference to Naphtali is every way unlikely. Beside,†he adds, “the word rendered ‘let loose,’ imports an active motion, not like that of the branches of a tree, which, however freely they wave, are yet attached to the parent stock; but an emission, a dismission, or sending forth to a distance: in the present case, a roaming, roaming at liberty. The verb ‘he giveth’ may denote shooting forth. It is used of production, as of the earth, which shoots forth, yields, its increase, Lev. xxvi, 4. The word rendered ‘goodly’ signifiesnoble,grand,majestic; and the noun translated ‘words’ radically signifiesdivergences, what is spread forth.†For these reasons he proposes to read the passage, “Naphtali is a deer roaming at liberty; he shooteth forth spreading branches,†or “majestic antlers.†Here the distinction of imagery is preserved, and the fecundity of the tribe and the fertility of their lot intimated. In our version of Psalm xxix, 9, we read, “The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests.†Mr. Merrick, in an ingenious note on the place, attempts to justify the rendering; but Bishop Lowth, in his “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews,†observes that this agrees very little with the rest of the imagery, either in nature or dignity; and that he does not feel himself persuaded, even by the reasonings of the learned Bochart on this subject: whereas the oak, struck with lightning, admirably agrees with the context. The Syriac seems, for×ילות,hinds, to have read×לות,oaks, or rather, perhaps,terebinths. The passage may be thus versified:--
“Hark! his voice in thunder breaks,And the lofty mountain quakes;Mighty trees the tempests tear,And lay the spreading forests bare!â€
“Hark! his voice in thunder breaks,And the lofty mountain quakes;Mighty trees the tempests tear,And lay the spreading forests bare!â€
“Hark! his voice in thunder breaks,And the lofty mountain quakes;Mighty trees the tempests tear,And lay the spreading forests bare!â€
“Hark! his voice in thunder breaks,
And the lofty mountain quakes;
Mighty trees the tempests tear,
And lay the spreading forests bare!â€
HINNOM,Valley of, called also Tophet, and by the Greeks Gehenna, a small valley on the south-east of Jerusalem, at the foot of Mount Zion, where the Canaanites, and afterward the Israelites, sacrificed their children to the idol Moloch, by making them “pass through the fire,†or burning them. To drown the shrieks of the victims thus inhumanly sacrificed, musical instruments, called in the Hebrewtuph, tympana or timbrels, were played; whence the spot derived the name of Tophet.Ge Hinnom, or “The Valley of Hinnom,†from which the Greeks framed their Gehenna, is sometimes used in Scripture to denote hell or hell fire. SeeHell.
HIRAM, king of Tyre, and son of Abibal, is mentioned by profane authors as distinguished for his magnificence, and for adorning the city of Tyre. When David was acknowledged king by all Israel, Hiram sent ambassadors with artificers, and cedar, to build his palace. Hiram also sent ambassadors to Solomon, to congratulate him on his accession to the crownSolomon desired of him timber and stones for building the temple, with labourers. These Hiram promised, provided Solomon would furnish him with corn and oil. The two princes lived on the best terms with each other.
HIRELING. Moses requires that the hireling should be paid as soon as his work is over: “The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night unto the morning,†Lev. xix, 19. A hireling’s days or year is a kind of proverb, signifying a full year, without abating any thing of it: “His days are like the days of a hireling,†Job vii, 1; the days of man are like those of a hireling; as nothing is deducted from them, so nothing, likewise is added to them. And again: “Till he shall accomplish as a hireling his day,†Job xiv, 6; to the time of death, which he waits for as the hireling for the end of the day. The following passage from Morier’s Travels in Persia, illustrates one of our Lord’s parables: “The most conspicuous building in Hamadan is the Mesjid Jumah, a large mosque now falling into decay, and before it a maidan or square, which serves as a market place. Here we observed, every morning before the sun rose, that a numerous band of peasants were collected with spades in their hands, waiting, as they informed us, to be hired for the day to work in the surrounding fields. This custom, which I have never seen in any other part of Asia, forcibly struck me as a most happy illustration of our Saviour’s parable of the labourers in the vineyard in Matt. xx; particularly when, passing by the same place late in the day, we still found others standing idle, and remembered his words, ‘Why stand ye here all the day idle?’ as most applicable to their situation; for in putting the very same question to them, they answered us, ‘Because no man hath hired us.’â€
HITTITES, the descendants of Heth, Gen. xv, 20.
HIVITES, a people descended from Canaan, Gen. x, 17. They are also mentioned, Deut. ii, 23. The inhabitants of Shechem, and the Gibeonites, were Hivites, Joshua xi, 19; Gen. xxxiv, 2. Mr. Bryant supposes the Hivites to be the same as the Ophites, or ancient worshippers of the sun under the figure of a serpent; which was, in all probability, the deity worshipped at Baal-Hermon.
HOLY GHOST, the third person in the Trinity. The orthodox doctrine is, that as Christ is God by an eternalfiliation, so the Spirit is God byprocessionfrom the Father and the Son. “And I believe in the Holy Ghost,†says the Nicene Creed, “the Lord and Giver of life, whoproceedethfrom the Father and the Son, who, with the Father and the Son together, is worshipped and glorified.†And with this agrees the Athanasian Creed, “The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, butproceeding.†In the Articles of the English church it is thus expressed: “The Holy Ghost,proceedingfrom the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.†The Latin church introduced the termspiration, fromspiro, “to breathe,†to denote the manner of this procession: on which Dr. Owen remarks, “As the vital breath of a man has a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person, or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine emanation, still abiding one with them.†On this refined view little can be said which has clear Scriptural authority; and yet the very term by which the Third Person in the Trinity is designated,WindorBreath, may, as to the Third Person, be designed, like the termSonapplied to the Second, to convey, though imperfectly, some intimation of that manner of being by which both are distinguished from each other, and from the Father; and it was a remarkable action of our Lord, and one certainly which does not discountenance this idea, that when he imparted the Holy Ghost to his disciples, “Hebreathedon them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,†John xx, 22.
2. But, whatever we may think as to the doctrine ofspiration, theprocessionof the Holy Ghost rests on more direct Scriptural authority, and is thus stated by Bishop Pearson: “Now this procession of the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly in relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. 1. It is expressly said, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, as our Saviour testifieth, ‘When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me,’ John xv, 26. And this is also evident from what hath been already asserted; for being the Father and the Spirit are the same God, and, being so the same in the unity of the nature of God, are yet distinct in the personality, one of them must have the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath been already shown to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it from him. 2. Though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and Son, yet the substance of the same truth is virtually contained there; because those very expressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father, for that reason, because he proceedeth from the Father, are also spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there must be the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son, which is expressed in reference to the Father. Because the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, therefore it is called ‘the Spirit of God,’ and ‘the Spirit of the Father.’ ‘It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you,’ Matt. x, 20. For by the language of the Apostle, ‘the Spirit of God’ is the Spirit which is of God, saying, ‘The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. And we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God,’ 1 Cor. ii, 11, 12. Now the same Spirit is also called ‘the Spiritof the Son:’ for ‘because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,’ Gal. iv, 6. ‘The Spirit of Christ:’ ‘Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,’ Romans viii, 9; ‘Even the Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets,’ 1 Peter i, 11. ‘The Spirit of Jesus Christ,’ as the Apostle speaks: ‘I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,’ Phil. i, 19. If then the Holy Ghost be called ‘the Spirit of the Father,’ because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that, being called also ‘the Spirit of the Son,’ he proceedeth also from the Son. Again: because the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, he is therefore sent by the Father, as from him who hath, by the original communication, a right of mission; as, ‘the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send,’ John xiv, 26. But the same Spirit which is sent by the Father, is also sent by the Son, as he saith, ‘When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you.’ Therefore the Son hath the same right of mission with the Father, and consequently must be acknowledged to have communicated the same essence. The Father is never sent by the Son, because he received not the Godhead from him; but the Father sendeth the Son, because he communicated the Godhead to him: in the same manner, neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy Spirit; because neither of them received the divine nature from the Spirit: but both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because the divine nature, common to the Father and the Son, was communicated by them both to the Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare expressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father; so do they also virtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son.â€
3. Arius regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by Christ, κτίσμα κτίϛματος,the creature of a creature. Some time afterward, his personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was considered as theexerted energyof God. This appears to have been the notion of Socinus, and, with occasional modifications, has been adopted by his followers. They sometimes regard him as an attribute; and at others, resolve the passages in which he is spoken of into a periphrasis, or circumlocution, for God himself; or, to express both in one, into a figure of speech.
4. In establishing the proper personality and deity of the Holy Ghost, the first argument may be drawn from the frequent association, in Scripture, of a Person under that appellation with two other Persons, one of whom, the Father, is by all acknowledged to be divine; and the ascription to each of them, or to the three in union, of the same acts, titles, and authority, with worship, of the same kind, and, for any distinction that is made, of an equal degree. The manifestation of the existence and divinity of the Holy Spirit may be expected in the law and the prophets, and is, in fact, to be traced there with certainty. The Spirit is represented as an agent in creation, “moving upon the face of the waters;†and it forms no objection to the argument, that creation is ascribed to the Father, and also to the Son, but is a great confirmation of it. That creation should be effected by all the three Persons of the Godhead, though acting in different respects, yet so that each should be a Creator, and, therefore, both a Person and a divine Person, can be explained only by their unity in one essence. On every other hypothesis this Scriptural fact is disallowed, and therefore no other hypothesis can be true. If the Spirit of God be a mere influence, then he is not a Creator, distinct from the Father and the Son, because he is not a Person; but this is refuted both by the passage just quoted, and by Psalm xxxiii, 6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath (Heb.Spirit) of his mouth.†This is farther confirmed by Job xxxiii, 4: “The Spirit of God hath made me, and thebreathof the Almighty hath given me life;†where the second clause is obviously exegetic of the former: and the whole text proves that, in the patriarchal age, the followers of the true religion ascribed creation to the Spirit, as well as to the Father; and that one of his appellations was, “theBreathof the Almighty.†Did such passages stand alone, there might, indeed, be some plausibility in the criticism which resolves them into a personification; but, connected as they are with the whole body of evidence, as to the concurring doctrine of both Testaments, they are inexpugnable. Again: If the personality of the Son and the Spirit be allowed, and yet it is contended that they were but instruments in creation, through whom the creative power of another operated, but which creative power was not possessed by them; on this hypothesis, too, neither the Spirit nor the Son can be said to create, any more than Moses created the serpent into which his rod was turned, and the Scriptures are again contradicted. To this association of the three Persons in creative acts, may be added a like association in acts of preservation, which has been well called acontinued creation, and by that term is expressed in the following passage: “These wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to dust: thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth,†Psalm civ, 27–30. It is not surely here meant, that the Spirit by which the generations of animals are perpetuated, iswind; and if he be called an attribute,wisdom,power, or both united, where do we read of such attributes being “sent,†“sent forth from God?†The personality of the Spirit is here as clearly marked as when St. Paul speaks of God “sending forth the Spirit of his Son,†and when our Lord promises to “send†the Comforter; and as the upholding and preserving of created things is ascribed to the Father and the Son, so here they are ascribed, also, to the Spirit,“sent forth from†God to “create and renew the face of the earth.â€
5. The next association of the three Persons we find in theinspirationof the prophets: “God spake unto our fathers by the prophets,†says St. Paul, Heb. i, 1. St. Peter declares that these “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,†2 Peter i, 21; and also that it was “the Spirit of Christ which was in them,†1 Peter i, 11. We may defy any Socinian to interpret these three passages by making the Spirit an influence or attribute, and thereby reducing the term Holy Ghost into a figure of speech. “God,†in the first passage, is, unquestionably, God the Father; and the “holy men of God,†the prophets, would then, according to this view, be moved by theinfluenceof the Father; but the influence, according to the third passage, which was the source of their inspiration, was the Spirit, or theinfluenceof “Christ.†Thus the passages contradict each other. Allow the trinity in unity, and you have no difficulty in calling the Spirit, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, or the Spirit of either; but if the Spirit be an influence, that influence cannot be the influence of two persons,--one of them God, and the other a creature. Even if they allowed the pre-existence of Christ, with Arians, these passages are inexplicable by the Socinians; but, denying his prëexistence, they have no subterfuge but to interpret, “the Spirit of Christ,â€the spirit which prophesied of Christ, which is a purely gratuitous paraphrase; or “the spirit of an anointed one, or prophet;†that is, the prophet’s own spirit, which is just as gratuitous and as unsupported by any parallel as the former. If, however, the Holy Ghost be the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, united in one essence, the passages are easily harmonized. In conjunction with the Father and the Son, he is the source of that prophetic inspiration under which the prophets spoke and acted. So the same Spirit which raised Christ from the dead, is said by St. Peter to have preached by Noah while the ark was preparing;--in allusion to the passage, “My Spirit shall not always strive (contend, debate) with man.†This, we may observe, affords an eminent proof, that the writers of the New Testament understood the phrase, “the Spirit of God,†as it occurs in the Old Testament,personally. For, whatever may be the full meaning of that difficult passage in St. Peter, Christ is clearly declared to have preached by the Spirit in the days of Noah; that is, he, by the Spirit, inspired Noah to preach. If, then, the Apostles understood that the Holy Ghost was a Person, a point which will presently be established, we have, in the text just quoted from the book of Genesis, a key to the meaning of those texts in the Old Testament where the phrases, “My Spirit,†“the Spirit of God,†and “the Spirit of the Lord,†occur; and inspired authority is thus afforded us to interpret them as of a Person; and if of a Person, the very effort made by Socinians to deny his personality, itself, indicates that that Person must, from the lofty titles and works ascribed to him, be inevitably divine. Such phrases occur in many passages of the Hebrew Scriptures; but, in the following, the Spirit is also eminently distinguished from two other Persons: “And now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me,†Isaiah xlviii, 16; or, rendered better, “hath sent me and his Spirit,†both terms being in the accusative case. “Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered them,†Isaiah xxxiv, 16. “I am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts, according to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come,†Hag. ii, 4–7. Here, also, the Spirit of the Lord is seen collocated with the Lord of Hosts and the Desire of all nations, who is the Messiah.
6. Three Persons, and three only, are associated also, both in the Old and New Testament, as objects of supreme worship; and form the one “name†in which the religious act of solemn benediction is performed, and to which men are bound by solemn baptismal covenant. In the plural form of the name of God, each received equal adoration. This threefold personality seems to have given rise to the standing form of triple benediction used by the Jewish high priest. The very important fact, that, in the vision of Isaiah, the Lord of hosts, who spake unto the prophet, is, in Acts xxviii, 25, said to be the Holy Ghost, while St. John declares that the glory which Isaiah saw was the glory of Christ, proves, indisputably, that each of the three Persons bears this august appellation; it gives also the reason for the threefold repetition, “Holy, holy, holy!†and it exhibits the prophet and the very seraphs in deep and awful adoration before the Triune Lord of hosts. Both the prophet and the seraphim were, therefore, worshippers of the Holy Ghost and of the Son, at the very time and by the very acts in which they worshipped the Father; which proves that, as the three Persons received equal homage in a case which does not admit of the evasion of pretended superior and inferior worship, they are equal in majesty, glory, and essence.
7. As in the tabernacle form of benediction, the Triune Jehovah is recognised as the source of all grace and peace to his creatures; so also we have the apostolic formula: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.†Here the personality of the three is kept distinct; and the prayer is, that Christians may have a common participation of the Holy Spirit, that is, doubtless, as he was promised by our Lord to his disciples, as a Comforter, as the Source of light and spiritual life, as the Author of regeneration. Thus the Spirit is acknowledged, equally with the Father and the Son, to be the Source and the Giver of the highest spiritual blessings; while this solemn ministerial benediction is, from its specific character, to be regarded as an act of prayer to each of the three Persons, and thereforeis at once, an acknowledgment of the divinity and personality of each. The same remark applies to Revelation i, 4, 5: “Grace be unto you, and peace, from Him which was, and which is, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are before his throne,†(an emblematical reference, probably to the golden branch with its seven lamps,) “and from Jesus Christ.†The style of this book sufficiently accounts for the Holy Spirit being called “the seven spirits;†but no created spirit or company of created spirits is ever spoken of under that appellation: and the place assigned to the seven spirits, between the mention of the Father and the Son, indicates, with certainty, that one of the sacred Three, so eminent, and so exclusively eminent in both dispensations, is intended.
8. The form of baptism next presents itself with demonstrative evidence on the two points before us, the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is the form of covenant by which the sacred Three become our one or only God, and we become his people: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.†In what manner is this text to be disposed of, if the personality of the Holy Ghost is denied? Is the form of baptism to be so understood as to imply that baptism is in the name of oneGod, onecreature, and oneattribute? The grossness of this absurdity refutes it, and proves that here, at least, there can be no personification. If all the Three, therefore, are persons, are we to have baptism in the name of one God and two creatures? This would be too near an approach to idolatry, or, rather, it would be idolatry itself; for, considering baptism as an act of dedication to God, the acceptance of God as our God, on our part, and the renunciation of all other deities and all other religions, what could a Heathen convert conceive of the two creatures so distinguished from all other creatures in heaven and in earth, and so associated with God himself as to form together theone name, to which, by that act, he was devoted, and which he was henceforward to profess and honour, but that they were equally divine, unless special care were taken to instruct him that but one of the Three was God, and the two others but creatures? But of this care, of this cautionary instruction, though so obviously necessary upon this theory, no single instance can be given in all the writings of the Apostles.
9. But other arguments are not wanting to prove both the personality and the divinity of the Holy Spirit. With respect to the former, (1.) The mode of his subsistence in the sacred Trinity proves his personality. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and cannot, therefore, be either. To say that an attribute proceeds and comes forth, would be a gross absurdity. (2.) Many passages of Scripture are wholly unintelligible and even absurd, unless the Holy Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as those who take the phrase as ascribing no more than a figurative personality to an attribute, make that attribute to be theenergyorpower of God, they reduce such passages as the following to utter unmeaningness: “God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power;†that is, with the power of God and with power. “That ye may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost;†that is, through the power of power. “In demonstration of the Spirit and of power;†that is, in demonstration of power and of power.
(3.) Personification of any kind is, in some passages in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of, impossible. The reality which this figure of speech is said to present to us, is either some of the attributes of God, or else the doctrine of the Gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon the following passages: “He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.†What attribute of God can here be personified? And if the doctrine of the Gospel be arrayed with personal attributes, where is there an instance of so monstrous a prosopopÅ“ia as this passage would exhibit?--the doctrine of the Gospel not speaking “of himself,†but speaking “whatsoever he shall hear!â€--“The Spirit maketh intercession for us.†What attribute is capable of interceding, or how can the doctrine of the Gospel intercede? Personification, too, is the language of poetry, and takes place naturally only in excited and elevated discourse; but if the Holy Spirit be a personification, we find it in the ordinary and cool strain of mere narration and argumentative discourse in the New Testament, and in the most incidental conversations. “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.†How impossible is it here to extort, by any process whatever, even the shadow of a personification of either any attribute of God, or of the doctrine of the Gospel! So again: “The Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.†Could it be any attribute of God which said this, or could it be the doctrine of the Gospel? Finally, that the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an attribute, is proved by the use of masculine pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the New Testament, in connection with the neuter noun Πνεῦμα,Spirit, and also by many distinct personal acts being ascribed to him, as, “to come,†“to go,†“to be sent,†“to teach,†“to guide,†“to comfort,†“to make intercession,†“to bear witness,†“to give gifts,†“dividing them to every man as hewill,†“to be vexed,†“grieved,†and “quenched.†These cannot be applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore establish the Spirit’s true personality.
10. Some additional arguments to those before given to establish the divinity of the Holy Ghost may also be adduced. The first is taken from his being the subject of blasphemy: “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,†Matt. xii, 31. This blasphemy consisted in ascribing his miraculous works to Satan; and that he is capable of being blasphemed proves him to be as much a person as the Son; and it proves him to be divine, because it shows that he may be sinnedagainst, and so sinned against that the blasphemer shall not be forgiven. A person he must be, or he could not be blasphemed: a divine person he must be, to constitute this blasphemy a sin against him in the proper sense, and of so malignant a kind as to place it beyond the reach of mercy. He is called God: “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost? Why hast thou conceived this in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God,†Acts v, 3, 4. Ananias is said to have lied particularly “unto the Holy Ghost,†because the Apostles were under his special direction in establishing the temporary regulation among Christians that they should have all things in common: the detection of the crime itself was a demonstration of the divinity of the Spirit, because it showed his omniscience, his knowledge of the most secret acts. In addition to the proof of his divinity thus afforded by this history, he is also called God: “Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.†He is also called the Lord: “Now the Lord is that Spirit,†2 Cor. iii, 17. He iseternal: “The eternal Spirit,†Heb. ix, 14.Omnipresenceis ascribed to him: “Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost,†1 Cor. vi, 19. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,†Rom. viii, 14. For, as all true Christians are his temples, and are led by him, he must be present to them at all times and in all places. He isomniscient: “The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,†1 Cor. ii, 10. Here the Spirit is said to search or know “all things†absolutely; and then, to make this more emphatic, that he knows even “the deep things of God,†things hidden from every creature, the depths of his essence, and the secrets of his counsels; for, that this is intended, appears from the next verse, where he is said to know “the things of God,†as the spirit of a man knows the things of a man.Supreme majestyis also attributed to him, so that to “lie†to him, to “blaspheme†him, to “vex†him, to do him “despite,†are sins, and as such render the offender liable to divine punishment. How impracticable then is it to interpret the phrase, “the Holy Ghost,†as a periphrasis for God himself! A Spirit, which is the SpiritofGod, which is so often distinguishedfromthe Father, which “sees†and “hears†the Father, which searches “the deep things†of God, which is “sent†by the Father, which “proceedeth†from him, and who has special prayer addressed to him at the same time as the Father, cannot, though “one with him,†be the Father; and that he is not the Son is acknowledged on both sides. As a divine person, our regards are therefore justly due to him as the object of worship and trust, of prayer and blessing.
11. Various are the gracious offices of the Holy Spirit in the work of our redemption. He it is that first quickens the soul, dead in trespasses and sins, to spiritual life; it is by him we are “born again,†and made new creatures; he is the living root of all the Christian graces, which are therefore called “the fruits†of the Spirit; and by him all true Christians are aided in the “infirmities†and afflictions of this present life. Eminently, he is promised to the disciples as “the Comforter,†which is more fully explained by St. Paul by the phrase “the Spirit of adoption;†so that it is through him that we receive a direct inward testimony to our personal forgiveness and acceptance through Christ, and are filled with peace and consolation. This doctrine, so essential to the solid and habitual happiness of those who believe in Christ, is thus clearly explained in a sermon on that subject by the Rev. John Wesley:--
“(1.) But what is the witness of the Spirit? The original word, μαÏÏ„Ï…Ïία, may be rendered either, as it is in several places,the witness, or, less ambiguously,the testimony, or,the record: so it is rendered in our translation: ‘This is the record,’ the testimony, the sum of what God testifies in all the inspired writings, ‘that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son,’ 1 John v, 11. The testimony now under consideration is given by the Spirit of God to and with our spirit. He is the person testifying. What he testifies to us is, ‘that we are the children of God.’ The immediate result of this testimony is, ‘the fruit of the Spirit;’ namely, ‘love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness.’ And without these, the testimony itself cannot continue. For it is inevitably destroyed, not only by the commission of any outward sin, or the omission of known duty, but by giving way to any inward sin: in a word, by whatever grieves the Holy Spirit of God. (2.) I observed many years ago, It is hard to find words in the language of men to explain the deep things of God. Indeed, there are none that will adequately express what the Spirit of God works in his children. But, perhaps, one might say, (desiring any who are taught of God to correct, soften, or strengthen the expression,)bybythe ‘testimony of the Spirit,’ I mean, an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses with my spirit, that I am a child of God; that ‘Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me;’ that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God. (3.) After twenty years’ farther consideration, I see no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive how any of these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will point out any other expressions which are more clear, or more agreeable to the word of God, I will readily lay these aside. (4.) Meantime, let it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies this by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although he may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose, that he always applies to the heart, though he often may, one or more texts of Scripture. But he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong, though inexplicable, operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves subside, and there isa sweet calm: the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied that all his ‘iniquities are forgiven, and his sins covered.’ (5.) Now what is the matter of dispute concerning this? Not, whether there be a witness or testimony of the Spirit. Not, whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that we are the children of God. None can deny this, without flatly contradicting the Scriptures, and charging a lie upon the God of truth. Therefore, that there is a testimony of the Spirit, is acknowledged by all parties. (6.) Neither is it questioned, whether there is an indirect witness or testimony, that we are the children of God. This is nearly, if not exactly, the same with ‘the testimony of a good conscience toward God;’ and is the result of reason or reflection on what we feel in our own souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the word of God, and partly from our own experience. The word of God says, Every one who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God. Experience or inward consciousness tells me, that I have the fruit of the Spirit; and hence I rationally conclude, Therefore I am a child of God. This is likewise allowed on all hands, and so is no matter of controversy. (7.) Nor do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the Spirit, without the fruit of the Spirit. We assert, on the contrary, that the fruit of the Spirit immediately springs from this testimony; not always indeed in the same degree even when the testimony is first given; and much less afterward: neither joy nor peace is always at one stay. No, nor love: as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and clear. (8.) But the point in question is, whether there be any direct testimony of the Spirit at all; whether there be any other testimony of the Spirit, than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit. I believe there is, because that is the plain, natural meaning of the text, ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ It is manifest here are two witnesses mentioned, who together testify the same thing, the Spirit of God, and our own spirit. The late bishop of London, in his sermon on this text, seems astonished that any one can doubt of this, which appears upon the very face of the words. Now, ‘the testimony of our own spirit,’ says the bishop, ‘is one which is the consciousness of our own sincerity;’ or, to express the same thing a little more clearly, the consciousness of the fruit of the Spirit. When our spirit is conscious of this, of love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, it easily infers from these premises, that we are the children of God. It is true, that great man supposes the other witness to be ‘the consciousness of our own good works.’ This, he affirms, is ‘the testimony of God’s Spirit.’ But this is included in the testimony of our own spirit: yea, and in sincerity, even according to the common sense of the word. So the Apostle: ‘Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity we have our conversation in the world;’ where it is plain, sincerity refers to our words and actions, at least, as much as to our inward dispositions. So that this is not another witness, but the very same that he mentioned before: the consciousness of our good works being only one branch of the consciousness of our sincerity. Consequently, here is only one witness still. If therefore, the text speaks of two witnesses, one of these is not the consciousness of our good works, neither of our sincerity; all this being manifestly contained in ‘the testimony of our spirit.’ What, then, is the other witness? This might easily be learned, if the text itself were not sufficiently clear, from the verse immediately preceding: ‘Ye have received, not the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.’ It follows, ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ This is farther explained by the parallel text, Gal. iv, 6: ‘Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.’ Is not this something immediate and direct, not the result of reflection or argumentation? Does not this Spirit cry, ‘Abba, Father,’ in our hearts, the moment it is given? antecedently to any reflection upon our sincerity, yea, to any reasoning whatsoever? And is not this the plain, natural sense of the words, which strikes any one as soon as he hears them? All these texts, then, in their most obvious meaning, describe a direct testimony of the Spirit. That the testimony of the Spirit of God, must, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the testimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration: We must be holy in heart and life, before we can be conscious that we are so. But we must love God before we can be holy at all, this being the root of all holiness. Now, we cannot love God, till we know he loves us: ‘We love him, because he first loved us.’ And we cannot know his love to us, till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Since, therefore, the testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of God and all holiness, of consequence it must precede our consciousness thereof.â€
12. The precedence of the direct witness of the Spirit of God to the indirect witness of our own, and the dependence of the latter upon the former, are also clearly stated by other divines of great authority. Calvin, on Romans viii, 16, says, “St. Paul means that the Spirit of God gives such a testimony to us, that he being our guide and teacher, our spirit concludes our adoption of God to be certain. For our own mind, of itself, independent of the preceding testimony of the Spirit, [nisi præunte Spiritûs testimonio,] could not produce this persuasion in us. For while the Spirit witnesses that we are the sons of God, he at the same time inspires this confidence into our minds, that we are bold to call God our Father.†On the same passage Dr. John Owen says, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits that we are the sons of God; the witness which our own spirits do give untoour adoption is the work and effect of the Holy Spirit in us; if it were not, it would be false, and not confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit himself, who is the Spirit of truth. ‘And none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God,’ 1 Cor. ii, 11. If he declare not our sonship in us and to us, we cannot know it. How doth he then bear witness to our spirits? What is the distinct testimony? It must be some such act of his as evidenceth itself to be from him immediately, unto them that are concerned in it, that is, those unto whom it is given.†Poole on the same passage remarks, “The Spirit of adoption doth not only excite us to call upon God as our Father, but it doth ascertain and assure us, as before, that we are his children. And this it doth not by an outward voice, as God the Father to Jesus Christ, nor by an angel, as to Daniel and the Virgin Mary, but by an inward and secret suggestion, whereby he raiseth our hearts to this persuasion, that God is our Father, and we are his children. This is not the testimony of the graces and operations of the Spirit, but of the Spirit itself.†Bishop Pearson, in his elaborate work on the Creed, and Dr. Barrow, in his Sermons, are equally explicit in stating this Scriptural doctrine.
HOMOIOUSIANS, a branch of the high Arians, who maintained that the nature of the Son, though not the same, was similar to that of the Father.
HOMOOUSIANS, or HOMOUSIASTS, was, on the other hand, a name applied to the Athanasians, who held the Son to behomousios, or consubstantial with the Father, that is, of the same nature and substance.
HONEY,דבש. It is probable, that it was in order to keep the Jews at a distance from the customs of the Heathen, who were used to offer honey in their sacrifices, that God forbade it to be offered to him, that is to say, burnt upon the altar, Lev. ii, 11; but at the same time he commanded that the first-fruits of it should be presented. These first-fruits and offerings were designed for the support and sustenance of the priests, and were not consumed upon the altar. In hot weather, the honey burst the comb, and ran down the hollow trees or rocks, where, in the land of Judea, the bees deposited great store of it. This, flowing spontaneously, was the best and most delicious, as it was quite pure, and clear from all dregs and wax. The Israelites called itיערה,wood honey. It is therefore improperly rendered “honeycomb,†1 Sam. xiv, 27; Cant. v, 1; in both which places it means the honey that has distilled from the trees, as distinguished from the domestic, which was eaten with the comb. Hasselquist says, that between Acra and Nazareth, great numbers of wild bees breed, to the advantage of the inhabitants; and Maundrell observes of the great plain near Jericho, that he perceived in it, in many places, a smell of honey and wax as strong as if he had been in an apiary. Milk and honey were the chief dainties of the earlier ages, and continue to be so of the Bedoween Arabs now. So butter and honey are several times mentioned in Scripture as among the most delicious refreshments, 2 Sam. xvii, 29; Job xx, 17; Cant. iv, 11; Isaiah vii, 15. Thus Irby and Mangles, in their Travels, relate, “They gave us some honey and butter together, with bread to dip in it, Narsah desiring one of his men to mix the two ingredients for us, as we were awkward at it. The Arab, having stirred the mixture up well with his fingers, showed his dexterity at consuming, as well as mixing, and recompensed himself for his trouble by eating half of it.†Thewild honey, μÎλι ἄγÏιον, mentioned to have been a part of the food of John the Baptist, Matt. iii, 4, was probably such as he got in the rocks and hollows of trees. Thus, “honey out of the stony rock,†Psalm lxxxi, 16; Deut. xxxii, 13.
HOPHNI. SeeEli.
HOPKINSIANS, or HOPKINSONIANS, so called from the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D.D., pastor of the first Congregational church at Newport, Rhode Island, North America, about A. D. 1770. Dr. Hopkins, in his sermons and tracts, made several additions to the sentiments previously advanced by the celebrated President Edwards, of New-Jersey College. The following is a summary of their distinguishing tenets:--
1. That all true virtue or real holiness consists in disinterested benevolence. The object of benevolence is universal being, including God, and all intelligent creatures. It wishes and seeks the good of every individual, so far as is consistent with the greatest good of the whole, which is comprised in the glory of God, and the perfection and happiness of his kingdom. The law of God is the standard of all moral rectitude or holiness. This is reduced into love to God and to our neighbour; and universal good will comprehends all the love to God, our neighbour, and ourselves, required in the divine law, and therefore must be the whole of holy obedience. Let any person reflect on what are the particular branches of true piety, and he will find that disinterested affection is the distinguishing characteristic of each. For instance, all which distinguishes pious fear from the fear of the wicked consists in love. Holy gratitude is nothing but good will to God and man, ourselves included, excited by a view of the good will and kindness of God. Justice, truth, and faithfulness, are comprised in universal benevolence. So are temperance and chastity; for an undue indulgence of our appetites and passions is contrary to benevolence, as tending to hurt ourselves or others, and so opposite to the general good, and the divine command. In short, all virtue is nothing but love to God and our neighbour, made perfect in all its genuine exercises and expressions.
2. That all sin consists in selfishness. By this is meant an interested affection, by which a person sets himself up as the supreme or only object of regard; and nothing is lovely in his view, unless suited to promote his private interest. This self-love is, in its whole nature, and every degree of it, enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God, andit is the only affection that can oppose it. It is the foundation of all spiritual blindness, and the source of all idolatry and false religion. It is the foundation of all covetousness and sensuality; of all falsehood, injustice, and oppression; as it excites mankind, by undue methods, to invade the property of others. Self-love produces all the violent passions, envy, wrath, clamour, and evil speaking; and every thing contrary to the divine law is briefly comprehended in this fruitful source of iniquity, self-love.
3. That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the actions of the unregenerate. For as far as men act from self-love, they act from a bad end; for those who have no true love to God really fulfil no duty when they attend on the externals of religion. Also, that inability, which consists in disinclination, never renders any thing improper to be the subject of a command.
4. That the impotency of sinners, with respect to believing in Christ, is not natural, but moral; for it is a plain dictate of common sense, that natural impossibility excludes all blame. But an unwilling mind is universally considered as a crime, and not as an excuse; and is the very thing wherein our wickedness consists.--Also,
5. That in order to faith in Christ, a sinner must approve in his heart of the divine conduct, even though God should cast him off for ever; which, however, neither implies love to misery, nor hatred of happiness. But as a particle of water is small, in comparison of a generous stream, so the man of humility feels small before the great family of his fellow creatures. He values his soul; but, when he compares it to the great soul of mankind, he almost forgets and loses sight of it: for the governing principle of his heart is, to estimate things according to their worth. When, therefore, he indulges an humble comparison with his Maker, he feels lost in the infinite fulness and brightness of divine love, as a ray of light is lost in the sun, and a particle of water in the ocean. It inspires him with the most grateful feelings of heart, that he has opportunity to be in the hand of God, as clay in the hand of the potter; and as he considers himself in this humble light, he submits the nature and size of his future vessel entirely to God. As his pride is lost in the dust, he looks up with pleasure toward the throne of God, and rejoices, with all his heart, in the rectitude of the divine administration. He also considers that, if the law be good, death is due to those who have broken it; and “the Judge of all the earth cannot but do right,†Gen. xviii, 25. It would bring everlasting reproach upon his government to spare us, considered merely as in ourselves. When this is felt in our hearts, and not till then, we shall be prepared to look to the free grace of God, through Christ’s redemption.
6. That the infinitely wise and holy God has exerted his omnipotent power, in such a manner as he purposed should be followed with the existence and entrance of moral evil in the system: for it must be admitted, on all hands, that God has a perfect knowledge, foresight, and view of all possible existences and events. If that system and scene of operation, in which moral evil should never have existence, was actually preferred in the divine mind, certainly the Deity is infinitely disappointed in the issue of his own operations. Dr. Hopkins maintains, therefore, that “God was the author, origin, and positive cause of Adam’s sin:†yea, “that he is the origin and cause of moral evil, as really as he is of the existence of any thing that he wills.â€
7. That the introduction of sin is, upon the whole, for the general good. For the wisdom and power of the Deity are displayed in carrying on designs of the greatest good: and the existence of moral evil has, undoubtedly, occasioned a more full, perfect, and glorious discovery of the infinite perfections of the divine nature, than could otherwise have been made to the view of creatures.
8. That repentance is before faith in Christ. By this, is not intended, that repentance is before a speculative conviction of the being and perfections of God, and of the person and character of Christ; but only, that true repentance is previous to a saving faith in Christ, by which the believer is united to Christ, and entitled to the benefits of his mediation and atonement. So Christ commanded, “Repent ye, and believe the Gospel;†and Paul preached “repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.â€
9. That though men became sinners by Adam, according to a divine constitution, yet they were and are accountable for no sins but personal: for, (1.) Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the act of his posterity; therefore they did not sin at the same time that he did. (2.) The sinfulness of that act could not be transferred to them afterward; because the sinfulness of an act can no more be transferred from one person to another, than an act itself. (3.) Therefore Adam’s act, in eating the forbidden fruit, was not the cause, but only the occasions of his posterity being sinners. Adam sinned, and now God brings his posterity into the world sinners.
10. That though believers are justified through Christ’s righteousness, yet his righteousness is not transferred to them. For personal righteousness cannot be transferred from one person to another, nor personal sin; otherwise the sinner would become innocent, and Christ the sinner. The Scripture, therefore, represents believers as receiving only the benefits of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’s righteousness’ sake; and this is the proper Scripture notion of imputation. Jonathan’s righteousness was imputed to Mephibosheth, when David showed kindness to him for his father Jonathan’s sake, 2 Samuel ix, 7.
11. The Hopkinsians warmly advocate the doctrine of the divine decrees, not only particular election, but also reprobation; they hold also the total depravation of human nature,the special influences of the Spirit of God in regeneration, justification by faith alone, the final perseverance of the saints, and the consistency between entire freedom and absolute dependence; and therefore claim it as their just due, since the world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists. Calvinists, however, have demurred against several of these propositions, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in the United States; to a few points of which we shall advert.--(1.) Selfishness, as confining our affections and exertions to ourselves, is confessedly a vice; but that self is not to be excluded from our affections, is evident even from the terms of the divine law,--“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.†And the Scriptures teach us, that “no man hateth his own flesh.†Such a “disinterested benevolence,†therefore, as implies no peculiar anxiety for our personal salvation and happiness, can never be required of us. A good man may and must be convinced, that God would be just in his final condemnation, considered out of Christ; but it is impossible to acquiesce in such a prospect; it is making holiness to consist in being satisfied with remaining for ever unholy, which is as impious as it is contradictory; and the strong and strange things which some Hopkinsonians have said on this subject, can only be accounted for from the love of paradox. (2.) The other principal point on which Calvinists dissent, is the making God “the author and efficient cause of sin.†It is true that the Doctor says elsewhere, that “in causing or originating sin, there is no sin;†this, however, is a position so dangerous, so unsupported, and so contrary to the common sense of mankind, that we may well shrink from it; and should risk no speculation that can implicate the divine character, or furnish an excuse for sin. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?†saith the Apostle. “God forbid! for how then shall God judge the world?†Rom. iii, 5, 6. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully gratified in the “Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism,†by Ezra Styles Ely, A. M., (New-York, 1811,) and other American publications. In this country the controversy is but little known; but we may remark that the theory of Hopkins appears to be an attempt to unite some points of mystic theology with the Calvinism commonly received, and that where it differs from the latter system, it relieves no difficulty.
HOR. This mountain, in its general acceptation, is probably the same with Mount Seir, Hor being the name by which that mountainous tract was denominated before it was exchanged for Seir. But one particular mountain of this region retained the name of Hor long after; as it was a mountain of this name, “by the coast of the land of Edom,†that Aaron was commanded to ascend, in order to die there, Num. xx, 23. This mountain, or at least the one to which tradition assigns the tomb of Aaron, was visited by Burckhardt; from whose account it appears to form a conspicuous object in the chain of the Djebel Shera, or Mount Seir, rising abruptly from the valley of El Araba, or desert of Zin, about fifty miles north of Akaba, or Ezion-Geber.
HOREB, a mountain in Arabia Petræa, a part of which, or near to which, was Sinai. At Horeb God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Exod. iii, 1, &c. Hither Elijah retired to avoid the persecution of Jezebel, 1 Kings xix, 8. Sinai and Horeb seem to be two parts of the same mountain; hence the law is sometimes said to be given there.
HORN. By horns the Hebrews sometimes understood an eminence, or angle, a corner, or a rising. By horns of the altar of burnt offerings, many understand the angles of that altar; but there were also horns, or eminences, at the corners of that altar, Exod. xxvii, 2; xxx, 2. Horn also signifies glory, brightness, rays. God’s “brightness was as the light, he had horns coming out of his hand,†Hab. iii, 4; that is, refulgent beams issuing from the hollow of it. As the ancients frequently used horns to hold liquors, vessels containing oil and perfumes are often called horns, whether made of horn or not. “Fill thine horn with oil,†says the Lord to Samuel, “and anoint David,†1 Sam. xvi, 1. Zadok took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon, 1 Kings i, 39. Job called one of his daughters Kerenhappuch, horn of antimony, or horn to put antimony (stibium) in, which the women of the east still use at this day, Job xliii, 14. The principal defence and strength of horned beasts consist in their horns; and hence the Scripture mentions the horn as a symbol of strength. The Lord exalted the horn of David, the horn of his people; he breaketh the horn of the ungodly; he cutteth off the horn of Moab; he cutteth off the horn of Israel; he promiseth to make the horn of Israel to bud forth; to reëstablish the honour of it, and restore its former vigour. Moses compares Joseph to a young bull, and says that he has horns like those of a unicorn. Kingdoms and great powers are often in Scripture described by the symbol of horns. In Daniel vii, viii, horns represent the power of the Persians, of the Greeks, of Syria, of Egypt, or of Pagan and Papal Rome. The prophet represents three animals as having many horns, one of which grew from the other. This emblem is a natural one, since in the east are rams which have many horns.
HORNET,הצרעה, Exod. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20; Joshua xxiv, 12. The hornet, in natural history, belongs to the speciescrabo, of the genusvespaor wasp. It is a most voracious insect, and is exceedingly strong for its size, which is generally an inch in length, and sometimes more. In each of the instances where this creature is mentioned in Scripture, it is as sent among the enemies of the Israelites, to drive them out of the land. Some explain the word metaphorically, as “I will send my terror as the hornet,†&c. But Bochart contends that it is to be taken in its properliteral meaning, and has accumulated examples of several other people having been chased from their habitations by insects of different kinds. Ælian records that the Phaselites, who dwelt about the mountains of Solyma, were driven out of their country by wasps. As these people were Phenicians or Canaanites, it is probable that the event to which he refers is the same as took place in the days of Joshua. How distressing and destructive a multitude of these fierce and severely stinging insects might be, any person may conjecture. No armour, no weapons could avail against them. A few thousands of them would be sufficient to overthrow the best disciplined army and put it into confusion and rout. From Joshua xxiv, 12, we find that two kings of the Amorites were actually driven out of the land by these hornets, so that the Israelites were not obliged to use either sword or bow in the conquest. One of these, according to the Jewish commentaries of R. Nachman, was the nation of the Girgashites, who retired into Africa, fearing the power of God. And Procopius, in his history of the Vandals, mentions an ancient inscription in Mauritania Tingitana, stating, that the inhabitants had fled thither from the face of Joshua, the son of Nun. This account accords with Scripture, in which, though the Girgashites are included in the general list of the seven devoted nations either to be driven out or destroyed by the Israelites, Gen. xv, 20, 21; Deut. vii, 1; Josh. iii, 10; xxiv, 11; yet they are omitted in the list of those to be utterly destroyed, Deut. xx, 17; and among whom, in neglect of the divine decree, the Israelites lived and intermarried, Judges iii, 1–6. That the name of the Girgashites, however, was not extirpated, we may collect from the Gergesenes, in our Saviour’s time, inhabiting the same country, Matt. viii, 28. Other tribes of the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites, were also expelled by the hornet gradually; not in one year, lest the land should become desolate, and the wild beasts multiply to the prejudice of the Israelites, Exod. xxiii, 28–30.
The “arms of Jove,†to which Virgil refers, (Æneidviii, 355–358,) in describing the flight of Saturn from the east, were the hornets sent by the God of Israel, Iahoh, or by contraction Io, to which also his description of the Asilus exactly corresponds:--