search using CAPS ONLY


An Exposition

[An intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures is a secure haven, and an impregnable bulwark, and an immovable tower, and imperishable glory, and impenetrable armour, and unfading joy, and perpetual delight, and whatever other excellence can be uttered.]


J. Collord, Printer.


HABAKKUK, the author of the prophecy bearing his name, Habakkuk i, 1, &c. Nothing is certainly known concerning the tribe or birth place of Habakkuk. He is said to have prophesied about B. C. 605, and to have been alive at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It is generally believed that he remained and died in Judea. The principal predictions contained in this book are, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity of the Jews by the Chaldeans or Babylonians; their deliverance from the oppressor “at the appointed time;” and the total ruin of the Babylonian empire. The promise of the Messiah is confirmed; the overruling providence of God is asserted; and the concluding prayer, or rather hymn, recounts the wonders which God had wrought for his people, when he led them from Egypt into Canaan, and expresses the most perfect confidence in the fulfilment of his promises. The style of Habakkuk is highly poetical, and the hymn in the third chapter is perhaps unrivalled for sublimity, simplicity, and power.

HABITS. The dress of oriental nations, to which the inspired writers often allude, has undergone almost no change from the earliest times. Their stuffs were fabricated of various materials; but wool was generally used in their finer fabrics; and the hair of goats, camels, and even of horses, was manufactured for coarser purposes, especially for sackcloth, which they wore in time of mourning and distress. Sackcloth of black goat’s hair was manufactured for mournings; the colour and the coarseness of which being reckoned more suitable to the circumstances of the wearer, than the finer and more valuable texture which the hair of white goats supplied. This is the reason why a clouded sky is represented, in the bold figurative language of Scripture, as covered with sackcloth and blackness, the colour and dress of persons in affliction. In Egypt and Syria, they wore also fine linen, cotton, and byssus, probably fine muslin from India, in Hebrew , the finest cloth known to the ancients. In Canaan, persons of distinction were dressed in fine linen of Egypt; and according to some authors, in silk, and rich cloth, shaded with the choicest colours, or, as the Vulgate calls it, with feathered work, embroidered with gold. The beauty of their clothes consisted in the fineness and colour of the stuffs; and it seems, the colour most in use among the Israelites, as well as among the Greeks and Romans, was white, not imparted and improved by the dyer’s art, but the native colour of the wool. The general use of this colour seems to be recognized by Solomon in his direction: “Let thy garments be always white,” Eccles. ix, 8. But garments in the native colour of the wool were not confined to the lower orders; they were also in great esteem among persons of superior station, and are particularly valued in Scripture, as the emblem of knowledge and purity, gladness and victory, grace and glory. The priests of Baal were habited in black; a colour which appears to have been peculiar to themselves, and which few others in those countries, except mourners, would choose to wear. Blue was a colour in great esteem among the Jews, and other oriental nations. The robe of the ephod, in the gorgeous dress 430of the high priest, was made all of blue; it was a prominent colour in the sumptuous hangings of the tabernacle; and the whole people of Israel were required to put a fringe of blue upon the border of their garments, and on the fringe a riband of the same colour. The palace of Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, was furnished with curtains of this colour, on a pavement of red, and blue, and white marble; a proof that it was not less esteemed in Persia than on the Jordan. And from Ezekiel we learn, that the Assyrian nobles were habited in robes of this colour: “She doated on the Assyrians, her neighbours, which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men.”

2. The Jewish nobles and courtiers, upon great and solemn occasions, appeared in scarlet robes, dyed, not as at present with madder, with cochineal, or with any modern tincture, but with a shrub, whose red berries give an orient tinge to the cloth. Crimson or vermilion, a colour, as the name imports, from the blood of the worm, was used in the temple of Solomon, and by many persons of the first quality; sometimes they wore purple, the most sublime of all earthly colours, says Mr. Harmer, having the gaudiness of red, of which it retains a shade, softened with the gravity of blue. This was chiefly dyed at Tyre, and was supposed to take the tincture from the liquor of a shell fish, anciently found in the adjacent sea; though Mr. Bruce, in his Travels, inclines to the opinion, that the murex, or purple fish at Tyre, was only a concealment of their knowledge of cochineal, as, if the whole city of Tyre had applied to nothing else but fishing, they would not have coloured twenty yards of cloth in a year. The children of wealthy and noble families were dressed in vestments of different colours. This mark of distinction may be traced to the patriarchal age; for Joseph was arrayed, by his indulgent and imprudent father, in a coat of many colours. A robe of divers colours was anciently reserved for the kings’ daughters who were virgins; and in one of these was Tamar, the virgin daughter of David, arrayed, when she was met by her brother.

3. In these parts of the world, the fashion is in a state of almost daily fluctuation, and different fashions are not unfrequently seen contending for the superiority; but in the east, where the people are by no means given to change, the form of their garments continues nearly the same from one age to another. The greater part of their clothes are long and flowing, loosely cast about the body, consisting only of a large piece of cloth, in the cutting and sewing of which very little art or industry is employed. They have more dignity and gracefulness than ours, and are better adapted to the burning climates of Asia. From the simplicity of their form, and their loose adaptation to the body, the same clothes might be worn, with equal ease and convenience, by many different persons. The clothes of those Philistines whom Samson slew at Askelon required no altering to fit his companions; nor the robe of Jonathan, to answer his friend. The arts of weaving and fulling seem to have been distinct occupations in Israel, from a very remote period, in consequence of the various and skilful operations which were necessary to bring their stuffs to a suitable degree of perfection; but when the weaver and the fuller had finished their part, the labour was nearly at an end; no distinct artizan was necessary to make them into clothes; every family seems to have made their own. Sometimes, however, this part of the work was performed in the loom; for they had the art of weaving robes with sleeves all of one piece: of this kind was the coat which our Saviour wore during his abode with men. The loose dresses of these countries, when the arm is lifted up, expose its whole length: to this circumstance the Prophet Isaiah refers: “To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed” that is, uncovered: who observes that he is about to exert the arm of his power

4. The chosen people were not allowed to wear clothes of any materials or form they chose; they were forbidden by their law to wear a garment of woollen and linen. This law did not prevent them from wearing many different substances together, but only these two; nor did the prohibition extend to the wool of camels and goats, (for the hair of these animals they called by the same name,) but only to that of sheep. It was lawful for any man who saw an Israelite dressed in such a garment to fall upon him and put him to death. In the opinion of Maimonides, this was principally intended as a preservative from idolatry; for the Heathen priests of those times wore such mixed garments of woollen and linen, in the superstitious hope, it was imagined, of having the beneficial influence of some lucky conjunction of the planets or stars, to bring down a blessing upon their sheep and their flax. The second restraint referred to the sexes, of which one was not to wear the dress appropriated to the other. This practice is said to be an abomination to the Lord; which plainly intimates that the law refers to some idolatrous custom, of which Moses and the prophets always spoke in terms of the utmost abhorrence. Nothing, indeed, was more common among the Heathen, in the worship of some of their false deities, than for the males to assist in women’s clothes, and the females in the dress appropriated to men; in the worship of Venus, in particular, the women appeared before her in armour, and the men in women’s apparel; and thus the words literally run in the original Scriptures, “Women shall not put on the armour of a man, nor a man the stole of a woman.” Maimonides says he found this precept in an old magical book, “That men ought to stand before the star of Venus in the flowered garments of women, and women to put on the armour of men before the star of Mars.” But whatever there may be in these observations, it is certain that, if there were no distinction of sexes made by their habits, there would be danger of involving mankind in all manner of licentiousness and impurity.

4315. The ancient Jews very seldom wore any covering upon the head, except when they were in mourning, or worshipping in the temple, or in the synagogue. To pray with the head covered, was, in their estimation, a higher mark of respect for the majesty of heaven, as it indicated the conscious unworthiness of the suppliant to lift up his eyes in the divine presence. To guard themselves from the wind or the storm, or from the still more fatal stroke of the sun-beam, to which the general custom of walking bare headed particularly exposed them, they wrapped their heads in their mantles, or upper garments. But during their long captivity in Babylon, the Jews began to wear turbans, in compliance with the customs of their conquerors; for Daniel informs us, that his three friends were cast into the fiery furnace with their hats, or, as the term should be rendered, their turbans. It is not, however, improbable, that the bulk of the nation continued to follow their ancient custom; and that the compliance prevailed only among those Jews who were connected with the Babylonish court; for many ages after that, we find Antiochus Epiphanes introducing the habits and fashions of the Grecians among the Jews; and as the history of the Maccabees relates, he brought the chief young men under his subjection, and made them wear a hat, or turban. Their legs were generally bare; and they never wore any thing upon the feet, but soles fastened in different ways, according to the taste or fancy of the wearer.

HADAD, son to the king of East Edom, was carried into Egypt by his father’s servants, when Joab, general of David’s troops, extirpated the males of Edom. Hadad was then a child. The king of Egypt gave him a house, lands, and every necessary subsistence, and married him to the sister of Tahpenes, his queen. By her he had a son, named Genubath, whom Queen Tahpenes educated in Pharaoh’s house with the king’s children. Hadad being informed that David was dead, and that Joab was killed, desired leave to return into his own country. Pharaoh wished to detain him, but at last permitted his return to Edom. Here he began to raise disturbances against Solomon; but the Scripture does not mention particulars. Josephus says, that Hadad did not return to Edom till long after the death of David, when Solomon’s affairs began to decline, by reason of his impieties. He also observes, that, not being able to engage the Edomites to revolt, because of the strong garrisons which Solomon had placed there, Hadad got together such people as were willing, and carried them to Razon, then in rebellion against Hadadezer, king of Syria. Razon received Hadad with joy, and assisted him in conquering part of Syria, where he reigned, and from whence he insulted Solomon’s territories.

HAGAR. After ten years’ residence in the land of Canaan, Abram, by the persuasion of his wife, who had been barren heretofore, and now despaired of bearing children herself when she was seventy-five years old, took, as a second wife, or concubine, her handmaid, Hagar, an Egyptian. When Hagar conceived, she despised her mistress, who dealt hardly with her, Abram giving her up to his wife’s discretion; so that she fled toward Egypt from the face of her mistress, but was stopped in her flight by the angel of the Lord, who foretold that she should bear a son called Ishmael, because the Lord heard her affliction, and that his race should be numerous, warlike, and unconquered; a prediction, as seen under the article Arabia, remarkably fulfilled to the present day. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bare Ishmael. When Isaac was weaned, Ishmael, the son of Hagar, who was now about fifteen years of age, offended Sarah by some mockery or ill treatment of Isaac; the original word signifies elsewhere, “to skirmish,” or “fight,” 2 Samuel ii, 14; and St. Paul represents Ishmael as “persecuting” him, Gal. iv, 29. Sarah therefore complained to Abraham, and said, “Cast out this bond-woman and her son, for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight, because of his son Ishmael;” but God approved of Sarah’s advice, and again excluded Ishmael from the special covenant of grace: “For in Isaac shall thy seed be called: nevertheless, the son of the bond-woman will I make a nation also, because he is thy seed.” God renewed this promise also to Hagar, during her wanderings in the wilderness of Beersheba, when she despaired of support: “Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hands, for I will make him a great nation. And God was with the lad, and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, and became an archer. And his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.” See Abraham and Ishmael.

We do not know when Hagar died. The rabbins say she was Pharaoh’s daughter; but Chrysostom asserts that she was one of those slaves which Pharaoh gave to Abraham, Gen. xii, 16. The Chaldee paraphrasts, and many of the Jews, believe Hagar and Keturah to be the same person; but this is not credible. Philo thinks that Hagar embraced Abraham’s religion, which is very probable. The Mussulmans and Arabians, who are descended from Ishmael, the son of Hagar, speak mightily in her commendation. They call her in eminency, Mother Hagar, and maintain that she was Abraham’s lawful wife; the mother of Ishmael, his eldest son; who, as such, possessed Arabia, which very much exceeds, say they, both in extent and riches, the land of Canaan, which was given to his younger son Isaac.

HAGARENES, the descendants of Ishmael: called also Ishmaelites and Saracens, or Arabians, from their country. Their name, Saracens, is not derived, as some have thought, from Sarah, Abraham’s wife, but from the Hebrew sarak, which signifies “to rob” or “to steal;” because they mostly carry on the trade of thieving: or from Sahara, the desert; Saracens, inhabitants of the desert. But some writers think Hagarene imports south, conformably to the Arabic; hence Hagar, that is, 432the southern woman; and Mount Sinai is called Hagar, that is, the southern mountain, Gal. iv, 25. But there seems also to have been a particular tribe who bore this name more exclusively, as the Hagarenes are sometimes mentioned in Scripture distinct from the Ishmaelites, Psalm lxxxiii, 6; 1 Chron. v, 19.

HAGGAI was one of the Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem in consequence of the edict of Cyrus; and it is believed that he was born during the captivity, and that he was of the sacerdotal race. His prophecy consists of four distinct revelations, all which took place in the second year of Darius, king of Persia, B. C. 520. The prophet reproves the people for their delay in building the temple of God, and represents the unfruitful seasons which they had experienced as a divine punishment for this neglect. He exhorts them to proceed in the important work; and by way of encouragement predicts, that the glory of the second temple, however inferior in external magnificence, shall exceed that of the first; which was accomplished by its being honoured with the presence of the Saviour of mankind. He farther urges the completion of the temple by promises of divine favour, and under the type of Zerubbabel he is supposed by some to foretel the great revolutions which shall precede the second advent of Christ. The style of Haggai is in general plain and simple; but in some passages it rises to a considerable degree of sublimity.

HAIR. The eastern females wear their hair, which the prophet emphatically calls the “instrument of their pride,” very long, and divided into a great number of tresses. In Barbary, the ladies all affect to have their hair hang down to the ground, which, after they have collected into one lock, they bind and plait with ribands. Where nature has been less liberal in its ornaments, the defect is supplied by art, and foreign is procured to be interwoven with the natural hair. The Apostle’s remark on this subject corresponds entirely with the custom of the east, as well as with the original design of the Creator: “Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering,” 1 Cor. xi, 14. The men in the east, Chardin observes, are shaved; the women nourish their hair with great fondness, which they lengthen by tresses, and tufts of silk down to the heels. But among the Hebrews the men did not shave their heads; they wore their natural hair, though not long; and it is certain that they were, at a very remote period, initiated in the art of cherishing and beautifying the hair with fragrant ointments. The head of Aaron was anointed with a precious oil, compounded after the art of the apothecary; and in proof that they had already adopted the practice, the congregation were prohibited, under pain of being cut off, to make any other like it, after the composition of it, Exod. xxx, 32, 33. The royal Psalmist alludes to the same custom in the twenty-third Psalm: “Thou anointest my head with oil.” We may infer from the direction of Solomon, that the custom had at least become general in his time: “Let thy garments be always white, and let thy head lack no ointment,” Eccles. ix, 8. After the hair is plaited and perfumed, the eastern ladies proceed to dress their heads, by tying above the lock into which they collect it, a triangular piece of linen, adorned with various figures in needlework. This, among persons of better fashion, is covered with a sarmah, as they call it, which is made in the same triangular shape, of thin flexible plates of gold or silver, carefully cut through, and engraven in imitation of lace, and might therefore answer to , the moonlike ornament mentioned by the prophet in his description of the toilette of a Jewish lady, Isaiah iii, 18. Cutting off the hair was a sign of mourning, Jer. vii, 29; but sometimes in mourning they suffered it to grow long. In ordinary sorrows they neglected their hair; and in violent paroxysms they plucked it off with their hands.

John Baptist was clothed in a garment made of camel’s hair, not with a camel’s skin, as painters and sculptors represent him, but with coarse camlet made of camel’s hair. The coat of the camel in some places yields very fine silk, of which are made stuffs of very great price; but in general this animal’s hair is hard, and scarcely fit for any but coarse habits, and a kind of hair cloth. Some are of opinion that camlet derives its name from the camel, being originally composed of the wool and hair of camels; but at present there is no camel’s hair in the composition of it, as it is commonly woven and sold among us.

HAM, or CHAM, , son of Noah, and brother to Shem and Japheth, is believed to have been Noah’s youngest son. Ham, says Dr. Hales, signifies burnt or black, and this name was peculiarly significant of the regions allotted to his family. To the Cushites, or children of his eldest son, Cush, were allotted the hot southern regions of Asia, along the coasts of the Persian Gulf, Susiana or Chusistan, Arabia, &c; to the sons of Canaan, Palestine and Syria; to the sons of Misraim, Egypt and Libya, in Africa. The Hamites, in general, like the Canaanites of old, were a sea-faring race, and sooner arrived at civilization and the luxuries of life than their simpler pastoral and agricultural brethren of the other two families. The first great empires of Assyria and Egypt were founded by them; and the republics of Tyre, Sidon, and Carthage, were early distinguished for their commerce: but they sooner also fell to decay; and Egypt, which was one of the first, became the last and “basest of the kingdoms,” Ezek. xxix, 15; and has been successively in subjection to the Shemites, and Japhethites; as have also the settlements of the other branches of the Hamites. See Canaan.

HAMAN, son of Hammedatha, the Amalekite, of the race of Agag; or, according to other copies, son of Hamadath the Bugean or Gogean, that is, of the race of Gog; or it may be read, Haman the son of Hamadath, which 433Haman was Bagua or Bagoas, eunuch, that is, officer to the king of Persia. We have no proof of Haman’s being an Amalekite; but Esther iii, 1, reads of the race of Agag. In the apocryphal Greek, Esther ix, 24, and the Latin, Esther xvi, 10, he is called a Macedonian, animo et gente Macedo. King Ahasuerus, having taken him into favour, promoted him above all the princes of his court, who bent the knee to him (probably prostrated themselves wholly before him, as to a deity) when he entered the palace: this Mordecai the Jew declined, for which slight, Haman plotted the extirpation of the whole Jewish nation; which was providentially prevented. He was hanged on a gibbet fifty cubits high, which he had prepared for Mordecai; his house was given to Queen Esther; and his employments to Mordecai. His ten sons were likewise executed. See Esther.

HAMATH, a city of Syria, capital of a province of the same name, lying upon the Orontes, Joshua xiii, 5; Judges iii, 3; 2 Kings xiv, 25; 2 Chron. vii, 8. The king of Hamath cultivated a good understanding with David, 2 Sam. viii, 9. This city was taken by the kings of Judah, and afterward retaken by the Syrians, and recovered from them by Jeroboam the Second, 2 Kings xiv, 28.

HAND sometimes denotes the vengeance of God: “The hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod,” after they had taken the ark, 1 Samuel v, 6, 7. To pour water on any one’s hands, signifies to serve him, 2 Kings iii, 11. To wash one’s hands, denotes innocence: Pilate washed his hands to denote his being innocent of the blood of Jesus, Matthew xxvii, 24. To kiss one’s hand, is an act of adoration, 1 Kings xix, 18. “If I beheld the sun when it shined, and my mouth hath kissed my hand,” Job xxxi, 27. To fill one’s hands, is to take possession of the priesthood, to perform the functions of that office; because in this ceremony, those parts of the victim which were to be offered, were put into the hand of the newly created priest, Judges xvii, 5, 12; 1 Kings xiii, 33. To lean upon any one’s hand, is a mark of familiarity and superiority. The king of Israel had a confident on whom he thus leaned, 2 Kings vii, 17. The king of Syria leaned on the hand or arm of Naaman when he went up to the temple of Rimmon, 2 Kings v, 18. To lift up one’s hand, is a way of taking an oath which has been in use among all nations. To give one’s hand, signifies to grant peace, to swear friendship, to promise entire security, to make alliance, 2 Kings x, 15. The Jews say, they were obliged to give the hand to the Egyptians and Assyrians, that they might procure bread, 2 Macc. xiii, 22; that is, to surrender to them, to submit. To stretch out one’s hand, signifies to chastise, to exercise severity or justice, Ezek. xxv, 7. God delivered his people with a high hand, and arm stretched out; by performing many wonders, and inflicting many chastisements, on the Egyptians. To stretch out one’s hand, sometimes denotes mercy: “I have spread out my hands,” entreated, “all the day unto a rebellious people,” Isaiah lxv, 2. Hand is also frequently taken for the power and impression of the Holy Spirit felt by a prophet: “The hand of the Lord was on Elijah,” 1 Kings xviii, 46. It is said that God gave his law by the hand of Moses, that he spoke by the hand of prophets, &c; that is, by their means, by them, &c. The right hand denotes power, strength. The Scripture generally imputes to God’s right hand all the effects of his omnipotence: “Thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy,” Exodus xv, 6. The Son of God is often represented as sitting at the right hand of his heavenly Father: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,” Psalm cx, 1; thou hast done thy work upon earth, now take possession of that sovereign kingdom and glory which by right belongeth unto thee; do thou rule with authority and honour, as thou art Mediator. The right hand commonly denotes the south, as the left does the north; for the Hebrews speak of the quarters of the world, in respect of themselves, having their faces turned to the east, their backs to the west, their right hands to the south, and their left to the north. For example: “Doth not David hide himself with us in strong holds, in the woods, in the hill of Hachilah, which is on the south of Jeshimon” in Hebrew, “on the right hand of Jeshimon.” The accuser was commonly at the right hand of the accused: “Let Satan stand at his right hand,” Psalm cix, 6. And in Zech. iii, 1, Satan was at the right hand of the high priest Joshua, to accuse him. Often, in a contrary sense, to be at one’s right hand signifies to defend, to protect, to support him: “I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved,” Psalm xvi, 8. To turn from the law of God, neither to the right hand nor to the left, is a frequent Scripture expression, the meaning of which is, that we must not depart from it at all. Our Saviour, in Matt, vi, 3, to show with what privacy we should do good works, says that our left hand should not know what our right hand does. Above all things, we should avoid vanity and ostentation in all the good we undertake to do, and should not think that thereby we merit any thing. Laying on hands, or imposition of hands, is understood in different ways both in the Old and New Testament. It is often taken for ordination and consecration of priests and ministers, as well among the Jews as Christians, Num. viii, 10; Acts vi, 6; xiii, 3; 1 Tim. iv, 14. It is sometimes also made use of to signify the establishment of judges and magistrates, on whom it was usual to lay hands when they were entrusted with these employments. Thus, when Moses constituted Joshua his successor, God appointed him to lay his hands upon him, Numbers xxvii, 18. Jacob laid his hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, when he gave them his last blessing, Gen. xlviii, 14. The high priest stretched out his hands to the people, as often as he recited the solemn form of blessing, Lev. ix, 22. The Israelites, who presented sin offerings at the tabernacle, confessed their sins while they laid 434their hands upon them, Lev. i, 4. This testified that the person acknowledged himself worthy of death, that he laid his sins upon the sacrifice, that he trusted in Christ for the expiation of his sins, and that he devoted himself to God. Witnesses laid their hands upon the head of the accused person, as it were to signify that they charged upon him the guilt of his blood, and freed themselves from it, Deut. xiii, 9; xvii, 7. Our Saviour laid his hands upon the children that were presented to him, and blessed them, Mark x, 16. And the Holy Ghost was conferred on those who were baptized by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, Acts viii, 17; xix, 6.

HANNAH. See Samuel.

HARAN, the eldest son of Terah, and brother to Abraham and Nahor. He was the father of Lot, Milcah, and Iscah, Gen. xi, 26, &c. Haran died before his father Terah.

2. Haran, otherwise called Charran, in Mesopotamia, a city celebrated for having been the place to which Abraham removed first, after he left Ur, Gen. xi, 31, 32, and where Terah was buried. Thither it was likewise that Jacob repaired to Laban, when he fled from Esau, Gen. xxvii, 43; xxviii, 10, &c. Haran was situated in the north-western part of Mesopotamia on a river of the same name running into the Euphrates. Mr. Kinneir says, that Haran, which is still so called, or rather Harran, is now peopled by a few families of wandering Arabs, who have been led thither by a plentiful supply of good water from several small streams. It is situated in 36° 52´ north latitude, and 39° 5´ east longitude; in a flat and sandy plain. Some think that it was built by Terah, or by Haran, his eldest son.

HARE, , Arabic arneb, Lev. xi, 6; Deut. xiv, 7. This name is derived, as Bochart and others suppose, from , to crop, and , the produce of the ground; these animals being remarkable for devouring young plants and herbage. This animal resembles the rabbit, but is larger, and somewhat longer in proportion to its thickness. The hare in Syria, says Dr. Russel, is distinguished into two species, differing considerably in point of size. The largest is the Turkman hare, and chiefly haunts the plains; the other is the common hare of the desert: both are abundant. The difficulty as to this animal is, that Moses says the arnabeth chews the cud, which our hares do not: but Aristotle takes notice of the same circumstance, and affirms that the structure of its stomach is similar to that of ruminating animals. The animal here mentioned may then be a variety of the species.

HAROSHETH OF THE GENTILES, a city supposed to be situated near Hazor, in the northern parts of Canaan, called afterward Upper Galilee, or Galilee of the Gentiles, for the same reason that this place probably obtained that title, namely, from being less inhabited by Jews, and being near the great resorts of the Gentiles, Tyre and Sidon. This is said to have been the residence of Sisera, the general of the armies of Jabin, king of Canaan, who reigned at Hazor.

HARP, a stringed musical instrument. The Hebrew word kinaor, which is translated “harp” in our English version, very probably denoted all stringed instruments. By the Hebrews, the harp was called the pleasant harp; and it was employed by them, not only in their devotions, but also at their entertainments and pleasures. It is probable, that the harp was nearly the earliest, if not the earliest, instrument of music. David danced when he played on the harp: the Levites did the same. Hence it appears, that it was light and portable, and that its size was restricted within limits which admitted of that service, and of that manner of using it.

HART, , Deut. xii, 15; xiv, 5; Psalm xlii, 1; Isaiah xxxv, 6, the stag, or male deer. Dr. Shaw considers its name in Hebrew as a generic word including all the species of the deer kind; whether they are distinguished by round horns, as the stag; or by flat ones, as the fallow deer; or by the smallness of the branches, as the roe. Mr. Good observes that the hind and roe, the hart and the antelope, were held, and still continue to be, in the highest estimation in all the eastern countries, for the voluptuous beauty of their eyes, the delicate elegance of their form, or their graceful agility of action. The names of these animals were perpetually applied, therefore, to persons, whether male or female, who were supposed to be possessed of any of their respective qualities. In 2 Sam. i, 19, Saul is denominated “the roe of Israel;” and in the eighteenth verse of the ensuing chapter, we are told that “Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe:” a phraseology perfectly synonymous with the epithet swift-footed, which Homer has so frequently bestowed upon his hero Achilles. Thus again: “Her princes are like harts which find no pasture; they are fled without strength before their pursuers,” Lam. i, 6. “The Lord Jehovah is my strength; he will make my feet like hinds’ feet; he will cause me to tread again on my own hills,” Hab. iii, 19. See Hind.

HARVEST. Three months intervened between the seed time and the first reaping, and a month between this and the full harvest. Barley is in full ear all over the Holy Land, in the beginning of April; and about the middle of the same month, it begins to turn yellow, particularly in the southern districts; being as forward near Jericho in the latter end of March, as it is in the plains of Acre a fortnight afterward. The reaping continues till the middle of Sivan, or till about the end of May or beginning of June, which, as the time of wheat harvest, finishes this part of the husbandman’s labours.

2. The reapers in Palestine and Syria make use of the sickle in cutting down their crops, and, according to the present custom in this country, “fill their hand” with the corn, and those who bind up the sheaves, their “bosom,” Psalm cxxix, 7; Ruth ii, 5. When the crop is thin and short, which is generally the case in light soils, and with their imperfect cultivation, it is not reaped with the sickle, but 435plucked up by the root with the hand. By this mode of reaping, they leave the most fruitful fields as naked as if nothing had ever grown on them; and as no hay is made in the east, this is done, that they may not lose any of the straw, which is necessary for the sustenance of their cattle. The practice of plucking up with the hand is perhaps referred to in these words of the Psalmist, to which reference has already been made: “Let them be as the grass upon the house tops, which withereth afore it groweth up; wherewith the mower filleth not his hand, nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom.” The tops of the houses in Judea are flat, and, being covered with plaster of terrace, are frequently grown over with grass. As it is but small and weak, and from its elevation exposed to the scorching sun, it is soon withered. A more beautiful and striking figure, to display the weak and evanescent condition of wicked men, cannot easily be conceived.

3. The reapers go to the field very early in the morning, and return home betimes in the afternoon. They carry provisions along with them, and leathern bottles, or dried bottle gourds, filled with water. They are followed by their own children, or by others, who glean with much success, for a great quantity of corn is scattered in the reaping, and in their manner of carrying it. The greater part of these circumstances are discernible in the manners of the ancient Israelites. Ruth had not proposed to Naomi, her mother-in-law, to go to the field, and glean after the reapers; nor had the servant of Boaz, to whom she applied for leave, so readily granted her request, if gleaning had not been a common practice in that country. When Boaz inquired who she was, his overseer, after informing him, observes, that she came out to the field in the morning; and that the reapers left the field early in the afternoon, as Dr. Russel states, is evident from this circumstance, that Ruth had time to beat out her gleanings before evening. They carried water and provisions with them; for Boaz invited her to come and drink of the water which the young men had drawn; and at meal-time, to eat of the bread, and dip her morsel in the vinegar. And so great was the simplicity of manners in that part of the world, and in those times, that Boaz himself, although a prince of high rank in Judah, sat down to dinner in the field with his reapers, and helped Ruth with his own hand. Nor ought we to pass over in silence the mutual salutation of Boaz and his reapers, when he came to the field, as it strongly marks the state of religious feeling in Israel at the time, and furnishes another proof of the artless, the happy, and unsuspecting simplicity, which characterized the manners of that highly favoured people. “And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you. And they answered him, The Lord bless thee,” Ruth ii, 4.

4. It appears from the beautiful history of Ruth, that, in Palestine, the women lent their assistance in cutting down and gathering in the harvest; for Boaz commands her to keep fast by his maidens. The women in Syria shared also in the labours of the harvest; for Dr. Russel informs us, they sang the ziraleet, or song of thanks, when the passing stranger accepted their present of a handful of corn, and made a suitable return. It was another custom among the Jews to set a confidential servant over the reapers, to see that they executed their work properly, that they had suitable provisions, and to pay them their wages: the Chaldees call him rab, the master, ruler, or governor of the reapers. Such was the person who directed the labours of the reapers in the field of Boaz. The right of the poor in Israel to glean after the reapers was secured by a positive law, couched in these words: “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy land; neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard: thou shalt leave them to the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God,” Lev. xix, 9. It is the opinion of some writers, that, although the poor were allowed the liberty of gleaning, the Israelitish proprietors were not obliged to admit them immediately into the field, as soon as the reapers had cut down the corn, and bound it up in sheaves, but when it was carried off: they might choose, also, among the poor, whom they thought most deserving, or most necessitous. These opinions receive some countenance from the request which Ruth presented to the servant of Boaz, to permit her to glean “among the sheaves;” and from the charge of Boaz to his young men, “Let her glean even among the sheaves;” a mode of speaking which seems to insinuate that though they could not legally hinder Ruth from gleaning in the field, they had a right, if they chose to exercise it, to prohibit her from gleaning among the sheaves, or immediately after the reapers.

HATE. To hate is not always to be understood rigorously, but frequently signifies merely a less degree of love. “If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated,” Deut. xxi, 15; that is, less beloved. Our Saviour says that he who would follow him must hate father and mother; that is, he must love them less than Christ, less than his own salvation, and not prefer them to God. “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated;” that is, have deprived of the privileges of his primogeniture, through his own profanity; and visited him with severe judgment on account of his sins.

HAURAN. The tract of country of this name is mentioned only twice in Scripture, Ezek. xlvii, 16, 18. It was probably of small extent in the time of the Jews; but was enlarged under the Romans, by whom it was called Auranitis. At present it extends from about twenty miles south of Damascus to a little below Bozra, including the rocky district of El Ledja, the ancient Trachonitis, and the mountainous one of the Djebel Haouran. Within its limits are also included, beside Trachonitis, 436Ituræa or Ittur, now called Djedour, and part of Batanæa or Bashan. It is represented by Burckhardt as a volcanic region, consisting of a porous tufa, pumice, and basalt, with the remains of a crater on the Tel Shoba, on its eastern side. It produces, however, crops of corn, and has many patches of luxuriant herbage, which are frequented in the summer by the Arab tribes for pasturage. It abounds, also, with many interesting remains of cities, scattered over its surface, with Grecian inscriptions. The chief of these are Bozra, Ezra, Medjel, Shoba, Shakka, Souerda, Kanouat, Hebran, Zarle, Oerman, and Aatyl; with Messema, Berak, and Om Ezzeitoun, in the Ledja.

HAVILAH, the son of Cush, Genesis x, 7. There must have been other, and perhaps many, Havilahs beside the original one, a part of the numerous and wide-spread posterity of Cush. By one and the first of these, it is probable that the western shores of the Persian Gulf were peopled; by another, the country of Colchis; and by another, the parts about the southern border of the Dead Sea and the confines of Judea, the country afterward inhabited by the Amalekites.

HAWK, , from the root , to fly, because of the rapidity and length of flight for which this bird is remarkable, Lev. xi, 16; Deut. xiv, 15; Job xxxix, 26. Naz is used generically by the Arabian writers to signify both falcon and hawk; and the term is given in both these senses by Meninski. There can be little doubt that such is the real meaning of the Hebrew word, and that it imports various species of the falcon family, as jer-falcon, goshawk, and sparrow-hawk. As this is a bird of prey, cruel in its temper, and gross in its manners, it was forbidden as food, and all others of its kind, in the Mosaic ritual. The Greeks consecrated the hawk to Apollo; and among the Egyptians no animal was held in so high veneration as the ibis and the hawk. Most of the species of hawk, we are told; are birds of passage. The hawk, therefore, is produced, in Job xxxix, 26, as a specimen of that astonishing instinct which teaches birds of passage to know their times and seasons, when to migrate out of one country into another for the benefit of food, or a warmer climate, or both. The common translation does not give the full force of the passage: “Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom” The real meaning is, “Doth she know, through thy skill or wisdom, the precise period for taking flight, or migrating and stretching her wings toward a southern or warmer climate” The passage is well rendered by Sandys:--

“Doth the wild haggard tower into the sky,
And to the south by thy direction fly”

Her migration is not conducted by the wisdom and prudence of man, but by the superintending and upholding providence of the only wise God.

HAY, . In the two places where this word occurs, Prov. xxvii, 25, and Isaiah xv, 16, our translators have very improperly rendered it “hay.” But in those countries they made no hay; and, if they did, it appears from inspection that hay could hardly be the meaning of the word in either of those texts. The author of “Fragments,” in continuation of Calmet, has the following remarks: “There is a gross impropriety in our version of Prov. xxvii, 25: ‘The hay appeareth, and the tender grass showeth itself, and the herbs of the mountains are gathered.’ Now, certainly, if the tender grass is but just beginning to show itself, the hay, which is grass cut and dried after it has arrived at maturity, ought by no means to be associated with it, still less ought it to be placed before it. And this leads me to observe, that none of the dictionaries which I have seen seem to me to give the accurate import of the word, which, I apprehend, means the first shoots, the rising, budding, spires of grass. So, in the present passage, , ‘the tender shoots of the grass rise up; and the buddings of grass,’ grass in its early state, as is the peculiar import of , ‘appear; and the tufts of grass,’ proceeding from the same root, ‘collect themselves together, and, by their union, begin to clothe the mountain tops with a pleasing verdure.’” Surely, the beautiful progress of vegetation, as described in this passage, must appear too poetical to be lost; but what must it be to an eastern beholder! to one who had lately witnessed all surrounding sterility, a grassless waste!

HAZAEL. Elisha coming to Damascus, the capital of Syria, Benhadad, the reigning monarch, being then indisposed, sent Hazael, who was one of his principal officers, to wait upon the prophet, and consult him as to the issue of his disorder, 2 Kings viii, 7–13. The prophet told Hazael that certainly his master might recover, because his complaint was not mortal; yet he was very well assured that he would not recover; and, looking him steadfastly in the face, Elisha burst into tears. Surprised at this conduct, Hazael inquired the cause. “Because I know,” said the prophet, “the evil that thou wilt do to the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their infants against the stones, and rip up their women with child.” Hazael indignantly exclaimed, “Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing” Elisha merely answered, “The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria,” 2 Kings viii, 7–13. On his return home, Hazael concealed from his master Benhadad the prophet’s answer, and inspired him with hopes of recovery; but on the following day, he took effectual means to prevent it, by stifling the king with a thick cloth dipped with water; and, as Benhadad had no son, and Hazael was a man much esteemed in the army, he was, without difficulty declared his successor, A. M. 3120. Hazael soon inflicted upon Israel all the cruelties which Elisha had foretold. For when Jehu broke up the siege of Ramoth-Gilead, and came with his army to Samaria, Hazael took advantage of his absence to fall upon his territories beyond Jordan, destroying all the land of Gilead, Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh, 437from Aroer to Bashan, 2 Kings x, 32. Some years passed after this before Hazael undertook any thing against the kingdom of Judah, it being remote from Damascus; but in the reign of Joash, the son of Jehoahaz, A. M. 3165, he besieged the city of Gath, and, having taken it, marched against Jerusalem, 2 Kings xii, 17, 18. But Joash, conscious of his inferiority, bribed him at the price of all the money he could raise, to evacuate Judea, with which he for the moment complied; yet, in the following year, the army of Hazael returned, entered the territories of Judah, and the city of Jerusalem, slew all the princes of the people, and sent a valuable booty to their royal master, 2 Kings xiii, 22; 2 Chron. xxiv, 23.

HEAD. This word has several significations, beside its natural one, which denotes the head of a man. It is sometimes used in Scripture for the whole man: “Blessings are upon the head of the just,” Prov. x, 6; that is, upon their persons. God says of the wicked, “I will recompense their way upon their head,” Ezek. ix, 10. It signifies a chief or capital city: “The head of Syria is Damascus,” Isaiah vii, 8. It denotes a chief or principal members in society: “The Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail. The ancient and honourable he is the head,” Isaiah ix, 14, 15. “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,” Gen. iii, 15; that is, Christ Jesus, the blessed seed of the woman, shall overthrow the power, policy, and works of the devil. The river in paradise was divided into four heads or branches. In times of grief, the mourners covered their heads: they cut and plucked off their hair. Amos, speaking of unhappy times, says, “I will bring baldness upon every head,” Amos viii, 10. In prosperity, they anointed their heads with sweet oils: “Let thy head lack no” perfumed “ointment,” Eccles. ix, 8. To shake the head at any one, expresses contempt: “The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee,” Isaiah xxxvii, 22.

Head is taken for one that hath rule and preëminence over others. Thus God is the head of Christ; as Mediator, from him he derives all his dignity and authority. Christ is the only spiritual head of the church, both in respect of eminence and influence; he communicates life, motion, and strength to every believer. Also the husband is the head of his wife, because by God’s ordinance he is to rule over her, Gen. iii, 16; also in regard to preëminence of sex, 1 Peter iii, 7, and excellency of knowledge, 1 Cor. xiv, 35. The Apostle mentions this subordination of persons in 1 Cor. xi, 3: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” “The stone which the builders rejected was made the head of the corner,” Psalm cxviii, 22. It was the first in the angle, whether it were disposed at the top of that angle to adorn and crown it, or at the bottom to support it. This, in the New Testament, is applied to Christ, who is the strength and beauty of the church, to unite the several parts of it, namely both Jews and Gentiles together.

HEAR, HEARING. This word is used in several senses in Scripture. In its obvious and literal acceptation, it denotes the exercise of that bodily sense of which the ear is the organ; and as hearing is a sense by which instruction is conveyed to the mind, and the mind is excited to attention and to obedience, so the ideas of attention and obedience are also grafted on the expression or sense of hearing. God is said, speaking after the manner of men, to hear prayer, that is, to attend to it, and comply with the requests it contains: “I love the Lord, because he hath heard,” hath attended to, hath complied with, “the voice of my supplication,” Psalm cxvi, 1. On the contrary, God is said not to hear, that is, not to comply with, the requests of sinners, John ix, 31. Men are said to hear, when they attend to, or comply with, the request of each other, or when they obey the commands of God: “He who is of God heareth,” obeyeth, practiseth, “God’s words,” John viii, 47. “My sheep hear my voice,” and show their attention to it, by following me, John x, 27. “This is my beloved Son: hear ye him,” Matt. xvii, 5. This seems to be an allusion to Deut. xviii, 15, 18, 19: “The Lord shall raise up unto you a prophet; him shall ye hear;” which is also expressly applied in Acts iii, 22. The other senses which may be attached to the word “hear,” seem to rise from the preceding, and may be referred to the same ideas.

HEART. The Hebrews regarded the heart as the source of wit, understanding, love, courage, grief, and pleasure. Hence are derived many modes of expression. “An honest and good heart,” Luke viii, 15, is a heart studious of holiness, being prepared by the Spirit of God to receive the word with due affections, dispositions, and resolutions. We read of a broken heart, a clean heart, an evil heart, a liberal heart. To “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,” Mal. iv, 6, signifies to cause them to be perfectly reconciled, and that they should be of the same mind. To want heart, sometimes denotes to want understanding and prudence: “Ephraim is like a silly dove, without heart,” Hosea vii, 11. “O fools, and slow of heart,” Luke xxiv, 25; that is, ignorant, and without understanding. “This people’s heart is waxed gross, lest they should understand with their heart,” Matt. xiii, 15; their heart is become incapable of understanding spiritual things; they resist the light, and are proof against all impressions of truth. “The prophets prophesy out of their own heart,” Ezekiel xiii, 2; that is, according to their own imagination, without any warrant from God.

The heart is said to be dilated by joy, contracted by sadness, broken by sorrow, to grow fat, and be hardened by prosperity. The heart melts under discouragement, forsakes one under terror, is desolate in affliction, and fluctuating 438in doubt. To speak to any one’s heart is to comfort him, to say pleasing and affecting things to him. The heart expresses also the middle part of any thing: “Tyre is in the heart of the seas,” Ezekiel xxvii, 4; in the midst of the seas. “We will not fear though the mountains be carried into the heart (middle) of the sea,” Psalm xlvi, 2.

The heart of man is naturally depraved and inclined to evil, Jer. xvii, 9. A divine power is requisite for its renovation, John iii, 1–11. When thus renewed, the effects will be seen in the temper, conversation, and conduct at large. Hardness of heart is that state in which a sinner is inclined to, and actually goes on in, rebellion against God.

HEATH, , Jer. xvii, 6; xlviii, 6. “He shall be like the heath in the desert. He shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, a salt land.” The LXX and Vulgate render oror, “the tamarisk;” and this is strengthened by the affinity of the Hebrew name of this tree with the Turkish œrœr. Taylor and Parkhurst render it, “a blasted tree stripped of its foliage.” If it be a particular tree, the tamarisk is as likely as any. Celsius thinks it to be the juniper; but from the mention of it as growing in a salt land, in parched places, the author of “Scripture Illustrated” is disposed to seek it among the lichens, a species of plants which are the last production of vegetation under the frozen zone, and under the glowing heat of equatorial deserts; so that it seems best qualified to endure parched places, and a salt land. Hasselquist mentions several kinds seen by him in Egypt, Arabia, and Syria. In Jer. xlviii, 6, the original word is , which the Septuagint translators have read , for they render it , wild ass; and, as this seems best to agree with the flight recommended in the passage, it is to be preferred. See Wild Ass.

HEAVEN, the place of the more immediate residence of the Most High, Gen. xiv, 19. The Jews enumerated three heavens: the first was the region of the air, where the birds fly, and which are therefore called “the fowls of heaven,” Job xxxv, 11. It is in this sense also that we read of the dew of heaven, the clouds of heaven, and the wind of heaven. The second is that part of space in which are fixed the heavenly luminaries, the sun, moon, and stars, and which Moses was instructed to call “the firmament or expanse of heaven,” Gen. i, 8. The third heaven is the seat of God and of the holy angels; the place into which Christ ascended after his resurrection, and into which St. Paul was caught up, though it is not like the other heavens perceptible to mortal view.

2. It is an opinion not destitute of probability, that the construction of the tabernacle, in which Jehovah dwelt by a visible symbol, termed “the cloud of glory,” was intended to be a type of heaven. In the holiest place of the tabernacle, “the glory of the Lord,” or visible emblem of his presence, rested between the cherubims; by the figures of which, the angelic host surrounding the throne of God in heaven was typified; and as that holiest part of the tabernacle was, by a thick vail, concealed from the sight of those who frequented it for the purposes of worship, so heaven, the habitation of God, is, by the vail of flesh, hidden from mortal eyes. Admitting the whole tabernacle, therefore, in which the worship of God was performed according to a ritual of divine appointment, to be a representation of the universe, we are taught by it this beautiful lesson, that the whole universe is the temple of God; but that in this vast temple there is “a most holy place,” where the Deity resides and manifests his presence to the angelic hosts and redeemed company who surround him. This view appears to be borne out by the clear and uniform testimony of Scripture; and it is an interesting circumstance, that heaven, as represented by “the holiest of all,” is heaven as it is presented to the eye of Christian faith, the place where our Lord ministers as priest, to which believers now come in spirit, and where, they are gathered together in the disembodied state. Thus, for instance, St. Paul tells the believing Hebrews, “Ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-bornthe first-born, which are written,” or are enrolled, “in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel,” Heb. xii, 22–24. Here we are presented with the antitype of almost every leading circumstance of the Mosaic dispensation. Instead of the land of Canaan, we have heaven; for the earthly Jerusalem, we have the heavenly, the city of the living God; in place of the congregation of Israel after the flesh, we have the general assembly and church of the first-born, that is, all true believers “made perfect;” for just men in the imperfect state of the old dispensation, we have just men made perfect in evangelical knowledge and holiness; instead of Moses, the mediator of the old covenant, we have Jesus the Mediator of the new and everlasting covenant; and instead of the blood of slaughtered animals, which was sprinkled upon the Israelites, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, to make a typicaltypical atonement, we have the blood of the Son of God, which was shed for the remission of the sins of the whole world; that blood which doth not, like the blood of Abel, call for vengeance but for mercy, which hath made peace between heaven and earth, effected the true and complete atonement for sin, and which therefore communicates peace to the conscience of every sinner that believes the Gospel.

3. Among the numerous refinements of modern times that is one of the most remarkable which goes to deny the locality of heaven. “It is a state,” say many, “not a place.” But if that be the case, the very language of the 439Scriptures, in regard to this point, is calculated to mislead us. For that God resides in a particular part of the universe, where he makes his presence known to his intelligent creatures by some transcendent, visible glory, is an opinion that has prevailed among Jews and Christians, Greeks and Romans, yea, in every nation, civilized or savage, and in every age; and, since it is confirmed by revelation, why should it be doubted Into this most holy place, the habitation of the Deity, Jesus, after his resurrection, ascended; and there, presenting his crucified body before the manifestation of the divine presence, which is called “the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,” he offered unto God the sacrifice of himself, and made atonement for the sins of his people. There he is sat down upon his throne, crowned with glory and honour, as king upon his holy hill of Zion, and continually officiates as our great High Priest, Advocate, and Intercessor, within the vail. There is his Father’s house, into which he is gone before, to prepare mansions of bliss for his disciples; it is the kingdom conferred upon him as the reward of his righteousness, and of which he has taken possession as their forerunner, Acts i, 11; Heb. vi, 19, 20.

4. Some of the ancients imagined that the habitation of good men, after the resurrection, would be the sun; grounding this fanciful opinion on a mistaken interpretation of Psalm xix, 4, which they rendered, with the LXX and Vulgate, “He has set his tabernacle in the sun.” Others, again, have thought it to lie beyond the starry firmament, a notion less improbable than the former. Mr. Whiston supposes the air to be the mansion of the blessed, at least for the present; and he imagines that Christ is at the top of the atmosphere, and other spirits nearer to or more remote from him according to the degree of their moral purity, to which he conceives the specific gravity of their inseparable vehicles to be proportionable. Mr. Hallet has endeavoured to prove that they will dwell upon earth, when it shall be restored to its paradisaical state. The passages of Scripture, however, on which he grounds his hypothesis, are capable of another and very different interpretation. After all, we may observe, that the place of the blessed is a question of comparatively little importance; and we may cheerfully expect and pursue it, though we cannot answer a multitude of curious questions, relating to various circumstances that pertain to it. We have reason to believe that heaven will be a social state, and that its happiness will, in some measure, arise from mutual communion and converse, and the expressions and exercises of mutual benevolence. All the views presented to us of this eternal residence of good men are pure and noble; and form a striking contrast to the low hopes, and the gross and sensual conceptions of a future state, which distinguish the Pagan and Mohammedan systems. The Christian heaven may be described to be a state of eternal communion with God, and consecration to hallowed devotional and active services; from which will result an uninterrupted increase of knowledge, holiness, and joy, to the glorified and immortalized assembly of the redeemed.

HEBER, or EBER, the father of Peleg, and the son of Salah, who was the grandson of Shem, one of Noah’s sons, was born A. M. 1723; B. C. 2281. From him some have supposed that Abraham and his descendants derived the appellation of Hebrews. But others have suggested, with greater probability, that Abraham and his family were thus called, because they came from the other side of the Euphrates into Canaan; Heber signifying in the Hebrew language one that passes, or, a passage, that is, of the river Euphrates. According to this opinion, Hebrew signifies much the same as foreigner among us, or one that comes from beyond sea. Such were Abraham and his family among the Canaanites; and his posterity, learning and using the language of the country, still retained the appellation originally given them, even when they became possessors and settled inhabitants.

2. Heber the Kenite, of Jethro’s family, husband to Jael, who killed Sisera, Judges iv, 17, &c.

HEBREW OF THE HEBREWS, an appellation which the Apostle Paul applies to himself, Phil. iii, 5, concerning the meaning of which there has been some difference of opinion. Godwin, in his “Moses and Aaron,” understands by this expression, a Hebrew both by father’s and mother’s side. But if it meant no more than this, there was little occasion for the Apostle’s using it immediately after having declared that he was “of the stock of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin,” which, on Godwin’s supposition, is the same as a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for the Jews were not allowed to marry out of their own nation. Beside, it is not likely that St. Paul would have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and honour, that his parents were not proselytes. It is more probable that a Hebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by nation and language, which many of Abraham’s posterity, in those days, were not; or one of the Hebrew Jews who performed their public worship in the Hebrew tongue; for such were reckoned more honourable than the Jews born out of Judea, and who spoke the Greek tongue. See Hellenists.

HEBREW LANGUAGE, called also absolutely Hebrew, is the language spoken by the Hebrews, and in which all the books of the Old Testament are written; whence it is also called the holy or sacred language. It is said to have been preserved in the midst of the confusion at Babel, in the family of Heber, or Eber, who, as it is alleged, was not concerned in the building of Babel, and, consequently, did not share in the punishment inflicted on the actual transgressors. The Jews, in general, have been of opinion, that the Hebrew was the language of Heber’s family, from whom Abraham sprung. On the other hand, it has been maintained that Heber’s family, in the fourth generation after the dispersion, lived in Chaldea, where Abraham was born, Gen. xi, 44027, 28, and that there is no reason to think they used a different language from their neighbours around them. It appears, moreover, that the Chaldee, and not the Hebrew, was the language of Abraham’s country, and of his kindred, Gen. xxiv, 4; xxxi, 46, 47; and it is probable that Abraham’s native language was Chaldee, and that the Hebrew was the language of the Canaanites, which Abraham and his posterity learned by travelling among them. It is surprising that this adoption of the Phenician language by the patriarchs should have escaped the notice of several intelligent readers of the Bible. Jacob and Laban, it is clear, by the names they gave to the cairn, or memorial of stones, spoke two different dialects; and it is nearly equally evident, that the language of Laban was the dialect of Ur of the Chaldees, the original speech of the Hebrew race. As the patriarchs disused the true Hebrew dialect, it is manifest that they had conformed to the speech of Canaan; and that this conformity was complete, is proved by the identity between all the remains of Canaanitish names. At the same time, it must be remarked, that the Phenician and the Chaldean were merely different dialects of the same primitive language which had been spoken by the first ancestors of mankind.

2. There is no work in all antiquity written in pure Hebrew, beside the books of the Old Testament; and even some parts of those are in Chaldee. The Hebrew appears to be the most ancient of all the languages in the world; at least it is so with regard to us, who know of no older. Dr. Sharpe adopts the opinion, that the Hebrew was the original language; not indeed that the Hebrew is the unvaried language of our first parents, but that it was the general language of men at the dispersion; and, however it might have been improved and altered from the first speech of our first parents, it was the original of all the languages, or almost all the languages, rather dialects, that have since arisen in the world. Arguments have also been deduced from the nature and genius of the Hebrew language, in order to prove that it was the original language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of which it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental circumstances, &c. The compounds are few, and inartificially conjoined; and it is less burdened with those artificial affixes which distinguish other cognate dialects, such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian, Phenician, &c.

The period, from the age of Moses to that of David, has been considered the golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several foreign words, particularly Aramean, from the commercial and political intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and Babylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the Babylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not inaptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years’ captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they had resided, that afterward, on their return from exile, they spoke a dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account it was, that, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret them to the people in the Chaldean language; as, when Ezra the scribe brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law, because “they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading,” Nehem. viii, 8. Some time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be spoken altogether; though it continued to be cultivated and studied by the priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be enabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it appears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general contents and tenor: this last mentioned period has been called the leaden age of the language.

The present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and of a square form; but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has been most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in Eusebius’s Chronicle, and another in St. Jerom, it was inferred by Joseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church, transcribed the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square letters of the Chaldeans; and that this was done for the use of those Jews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than that of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the old character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This opinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as from rabbinical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such characters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of this point is to be found in the ancient Hebrew coins, which were struck before the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten tribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same with the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their forms, occasioned by the depredations of time.

HEBREWS, sometimes called Israelites, from their progenitor, Jacob, surnamed Israel, and in modern times Jews, as the descendants of Judah, the name of this leading tribe being given to all. See Jews.

Hebrews, Epistle to the. Though the genuineness of this epistle has been disputed both in ancient and modern times, its antiquity 441has never been questioned. It is generally allowed that there are references to it, although the author is not mentioned, in the remaining works of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr; and that it contains, as was first noticed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, internal evidence of having been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, Heb. viii, 4; ix, 25; x, 11, 37; xiii, 10. The earliest writer now extant who quotes this epistle as the work of St. Paul is Clement of Alexandria, toward the end of the second century; but, as he ascribes it to St. Paul repeatedly and without hesitation, we may conclude that in his time no doubt had been entertained upon the subject, or, at least, that the common tradition of the church attributed it to St. Paul. Clement is followed by Origen, by Dionysius and Alexander, both bishops of Alexandria, by Ambrose, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerom, Chrysostom, and Cyril, all of whom consider this epistle as written by St. Paul; and it is also ascribed to him in the ancient Syriac version, supposed to have been made at the end of the first century. Eusebius says, “Of St. Paul there are fourteen epistles manifest and well known; but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, urging for their opinion that it is contradicted by the church of the Romans, as not being St. Paul’s.” In Dr. Lardner we find the following remark: “It is evident that this epistle was generally received in ancient times by those Christians who used the Greek language, and lived in the eastern parts of the Roman empire.” And in another place he says, “It was received as an epistle of St. Paul by many Latin writers in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries.” The earlier Latin writers take no notice of this epistle, except Tertullian, who ascribes it to Barnabas. It appears, indeed, from the following expression of Jerom, that this epistle was not generally received as canonical Scripture by the Latin church in his time: “Licet eam Latina consuetudo inter canonicas Scripturas non recipiat.” [Although the usage of the Latin church does not receive it among the canonical Scriptures.] The same thing is mentioned in other parts of his works. But many individuals of the Latin church acknowledged it to be written by St. Paul, as Jerom himself, Ambrose, Hilary, and Philaster; and the persons who doubted its genuineness were those the least likely to have been acquainted with the epistle at an early period, from the nature of its contents not being so interesting to the Latin churches, which consisted almost entirely of Gentile Christians, ignorant, probably, of the Mosaic law, and holding but little intercourse with Jews.

2. The moderns, who, upon grounds of internal evidence, contend against the genuineness of this epistle, rest principally upon the two following arguments, the omission of the writer’s name, and the superior elegance of the style in which it is written. It is indeed certain that all the acknowledged epistles of St. Paul begin with a salutation in his own name, and that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is nothing of that kind; but this omission can scarcely be considered as conclusive against positive testimony. St. Paul might have reasons for departing, upon this occasion, from his usual mode of salutation, which we at this distant period cannot discover. Some have imagined that he omitted his name, because he knew that it would not have much weight with the Hebrew Christians, to whom he was in general obnoxious, on account of his zeal in converting the Gentiles, and in maintaining that the observance of the Mosaic law was not essential to salvation: it is, however, clear, that the persons to whom this epistle was addressed knew from whom it came, as the writer refers to some acts of kindness which he had received from them, and also expresses a hope of seeing them soon, Hebrews x, 34; xiii, 18, 19, 23. As to the other argument, it must be owned that there does not appear to be such superiority in the style of this epistle, as should lead to the conclusion that it was not written by St. Paul. Those who have thought differently have mentioned Barnabas, St. Luke, and Clement, as authors or translators of this epistle. The opinion of Jerom was, that the sentiments are the Apostle’s, but the language and composition that of some one else, who committed to writing the Apostle’s sense, and, as it were, reduced into commentaries the things spoken by his master. Dr. Lardner says, “My conjecture is, that St. Paul dictated the epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the Apostle’s sentiments in his own elegant Greek; but who this assistant of the Apostle was, is altogether unknown.” But surely the writings of St. Paul, like those of other authors, may not all have the same precise degree of merit; and if, upon a careful perusal and comparison, it should be thought that the Epistle to the Hebrews is written with greater elegance than the acknowledged compositions of this Apostle; it should also be remembered that the apparent design and contents of this epistle suggest the idea of more studied composition, and yet, that there is nothing in it which amounts to a marked difference of style: on the other hand, there is the same concise, abrupt, and elliptical mode of expression, and it contains many phrases and sentiments which are found in no part of Scripture, except in St. Paul’s Epistles. We may farther observe, that the manner in which Timothy is mentioned in this epistle makes it probable that it was written by St. Paul. Compare Heb. xiii, 23, with 2 Cor. i, 1, and Col. i, 1. It was certainly written by a person who had suffered imprisonment in the cause of Christianity; and this is known to have been the case of St. Paul, but of no other person to whom this epistle has been attributed. Upon the whole, both the external and internal evidence appear to preponderate so greatly in favour of St. Paul’s being the author of this epistle, that it cannot but be considered as written by that Apostle.

3. “They of Italy salute you,” is the only expression in the epistle which can assist us 442in determining from whence it was written. The Greek words are, p t taa which should have been translated, “Those from Italy salute you;” and the only inference to be drawn from them seems to be, that St. Paul, when he wrote this epistle, was at a place where some Italian converts were. This inference is not incompatible with the common opinion, that this epistle was written from Rome, and therefore we consider it as written from that city. It is supposed to have been written toward the end of St. Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome, or immediately after it, because the Apostle expresses an intention of visiting the Hebrews shortly: we therefore place the date of this epistle in the year 63.

4. Clement, of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Jerom, thought that this epistle was originally written in the Hebrew language; but all the other ancient fathers who have mentioned this subject speak of the Greek as the original work; and as no one pretends to have seen this epistle in Hebrew, as there are no internal marks of the Greek being a translation, and as we know that the Greek language was at this time very generally understood at Jerusalem, we may accede to the more common opinion, both among the ancients and moderns, and consider the present Greek as the original text. It is no small satisfaction to reflect, that those who have denied either the genuineness or the originality of this epistle have always supposed it to have been written or translated by some fellow labourer or assistant of St. Paul, and that almost every one admits that it carries with it the sanction and authority of the inspired Apostle.

5. There has been some little doubt concerning the persons to whom this epistle was addressed; but by far the most general and most probable opinion is, that it was written to those Christians of Judea who had been converted to the Gospel from Judaism. That it was written, notwithstanding its general title, to the Christians of one certain place or country, is evident from the following passages: “I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner,” Heb. xiii, 19. “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you,” Heb. xiii, 23. And it appears from the following passage in the Acts, “When the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews,” Acts vi, 1, that certain persons were at this time known at Jerusalem by the name of Hebrews. They seem to have been native Jews, inhabitants of Judea, the language of which country was Hebrew, and therefore they were called Hebrews, in contradistinction to those Jews who, residing commonly in other countries, although they occasionally came to Jerusalem, used the Greek language, and were therefore called Grecians.

6. The general design of this epistle was to confirm the Jewish Christians in the faith and practice of the Gospel, which they might be in danger of deserting, either through the persuasion or persecution of the unbelieving Jews, who were very numerous and powerful in Judea. We may naturally suppose, that the zealous adherents to the law would insist upon the majesty and glory which attended its first promulgation, upon the distinguished character of their legislator, Moses, and upon the divine authority of the ancient Scriptures; and they might likewise urge the humiliation and death of Christ as an argument against the truth of his religion. To obviate the impression which any reasoning of this sort might make upon the converts to Christianity, the writer of this epistle begins with declaring to the Hebrews, that the same God who had formerly, upon a variety of occasions, spoken to their fathers by means of his prophets, had now sent his only Son for the purpose of revealing his will; he then describes, in most sublime language, the dignity of the person of Christ, Heb. i; and thence infers the duty of obeying his commands, the divine authority of which was established by the performance of miracles, and by the gifts of the Holy GhostGhost; he points out the necessity of Christ’s incarnation and passion, Heb. ii; he shows the superiority of Christ to Moses, and warns the Hebrews against the sin of unbelief, Heb. iii; he exhorts to steadfastness in the profession of the Gospel, and gives an animated description of Christ as our high priest, Heb. iv-vii; he shows that the Levitical priesthood and the old covenant were abolished by the priesthood of Christ, and by the new covenant, Heb. viii; he points out the efficacy of the ceremonies and sacrifices of the law, and the sufficiency of the atonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, Heb. ix, x; he fully explains the nature, merit, and effects of faith, Heb. xi; and in the last two chapters he gives a variety of exhortations and admonitions, all calculated to encourage the Hebrews to bear with patience and constancy any trials to which they might be exposed. He concludes with the valedictory benediction usual in St. Paul’s Epistles: “Grace be with you all. Amen.” The most important articles of our faith are explained, and the most material objections to the Gospel are answered with great force, in this celebrated epistle. The arguments used in it, as being addressed to persons who had been educated in the Jewish religion, are principally taken from the ancient Scriptures; and the connection between former revelations and the Gospel of Christ, is pointed out in the most perspicuous and satisfactory manner.

7. In addition, it may be observed, that Mr. Stuart, an American critic, has published an ample investigation of several of the points referred to in the above remarks, and the following are the results:--

(1.) As to the place in which the persons lived to whom the epistle is addressed, I have now examined all the objections against the opinion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was directed to Palestine, which I have met with, and which seem to be of sufficient magnitude to deserve attention. I am unable to perceive that they are very weighty; and surely they come quite short of being conclusive. On the 443other hand, the positive proof, I acknowledge, is only of a circumstantial nature, and falls short of the weight which direct and unequivocal testimony in the epistle itself would possess. But uniting the whole of it together; considering the intimate knowledge of Jewish rites, the strong attachment to their ritual, and the special danger of defection from Christianity in consequence of it, which the whole texture of the epistle necessarily supposes, and combining these things with the other circumstances above discussed, I cannot resist the impression, that the universal opinion of the ancient church respecting the persons to whom this epistle was addressed, was well founded, being built upon early tradition and the contents of the epistle; and that the doubts and difficulties thrown in the way by modern and recent critics, are not of sufficient importance to justify us in relinquishing the belief that Palestine Christians were addressed by the epistle to the Hebrews. Thousands of facts, pertaining to criticism and to history, are believed and treated as realities, which have less support than the opinion that has now been examined.

(2.) As to the author, we now come to the result of this investigation. In the Egyptian and eastern churches, there were, it is probable, at a pretty early period, some who had doubts whether St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews; but no considerable person or party is definitely known to us, who entertained these doubts; and it is manifest, from Origen and Eusebius, that there was not, in that quarter, any important opposition to the general and constant tradition of the church, that Paul did write it. Not a single witness of any considerable respectability is named, who has given his voice, in this part of the church, for the negative of the question which we are considering. What Jerom avers, appears to be strictly true, namely, Ab ecclesiis orientis et ab omnibus retrò ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus, quasi Apostoli Pauli suscipi. In the western churches a diversity of opinion prevailed; although the actual quantity of negative testimony, that can be adduced, is not great. Yet the concessions of Jerom and Augustine leave no room to doubt the fact, that the predominant opinion of the western churches, in their times, was in the negative. In early times, we have seen that the case was different, when Clement of Rome wrote his epistle, and when the old Latin version was brought into circulation. What produced a change of opinion in the west, we are left to conjecture. The scanty critical and literary records of those times afford us no means for tracing the history of it. But this is far from being a singular case. Many other changes in the opinions of the churches have taken place, which we are, for a similar reason, as little able to trace with any certainty or satisfaction. Storr has endeavoured to show, that Marcion occasioned this revolution, when he came from the east to Rome, and brought with him a collection of the sacred books, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was omitted. But it is very improbable, that an extravagant man, excommunicated by the Roman church itself, should have produced such a revolution there in sentiment. Others have with more probability, attributed it to the zealous disputes at Rome against the Montanist party, whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was supposed particularly to favour. The Montanists strenuously opposed the reception again into the bosom of the church of those persons who had so lapsed as to make defection from the Christian faith. The passages in Heb. vi, 4–8, and x, 26–31, at least seem strongly to favour the views which they maintained. The church at Rome carried the dispute against the Montanists very high; and Ernesti and many other critics have been led to believe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was ultimately rejected by them, because the Montanists relied on it as their main support. As a matter of fact, this cannot be established by direct historical evidence. But, in the absence of all testimony in respect to this subject, it must be allowed as not improbable, that the Epistle to the Hebrews may have, in this way, become obnoxious to the Roman church. Many such instances might be produced from the history of the church. The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Alogi, and many ancient and modern sects, have rejected some part of the canon of Scripture, because it stood opposed to their party views. The Apocalypse was rejected by many of the oriental churches, on account of their opposition to the Chiliasts, who made so much use of it. And who does not know, that Luther himself rejected the Epistle of James, because he viewed it as thwarting his favourite notions of justification; yea, that he went so far as to give it the appellation of epistola straminea [an epistle of straw.] It cannot be at all strange, then, that the Romish church, exceedingly imbittered by the dispute with the Montanists, should have gradually come to call in question the apostolic origin of the epistle; because it was to their adversaries a favourite source of appeal, and because, unlike St. Paul’s other epistles, it was anonymous. That all, even of the Montanists, however, admitted the apostolic origin of our epistle, does not seem to be true. Tertullian, who took a very active part in favour of this sect, had, as we have already seen, doubts of such an origin, or rather, he ascribed it to Barnabas. But whatever might have been the cause that the epistle in question was pretty generally rejected by the churches of the west, the fact that it was so cannot be reasonably disputed. A majority of these churches, from the latter half of the second century to the latter half of the fourth, seem to have been generally opposed to receiving this epistle as St. Paul’s; although there were some among them who did receive it. It remains, then, to balance the testimony thus collected together and compared. The early testimony is, of course, immeasurably the most important. And there seems to me sufficient evidence, that this was as general and as uniform for the first century after the apostolic age as in respect to many other books of the 444New Testament; and more so, than in respect to several. I cannot hesitate to believe, that the weight of evidence from tradition is altogether preponderant in favour of the opinion, that St. Paul was the author of our epistle.

(3.) As to the language in which the epistle was originally written, there has been a difference of opinion among critics, both in ancient and modern times. Clement of Alexandria says that St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that St. Luke carefully translated it into Greek. Eusebius in the same manner says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in his vernacular language, and that, according to report, either Luke or Clement translated it. So Jerom, also, scripserat ut Hebræus Hebræis Hebraicè; [as a Hebrew he had written to the Hebrews in Hebrew;] and then he adds that this epistle was translated into Greek, so that the colouring of the style was made diverse, in this way, from that of St. Paul’s. Of the same opinion, in respect to this, was Clement, of Alexandria; and Origen, as we have seen above, supposes that the thoughts contained in the epistle were St. Paul’s, while the diction or costume of it must be attributed to the person who wrote down the sentiments of the Apostle. By the Hebrew language, no one can reasonably doubt, that these fathers meant the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken in the days of the Apostles, and not the ancient Hebrew, which had long ceased to be a vernacular language. It is quite plain also, that these fathers were led to the conclusion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in the dialect of Palestine, from their belief, so universal in ancient times, of its having been addressed to some church, or to the churches, in that country. It was very natural to draw such a conclusion; for would not an epistle addressed to Hebrews in all probability be more acceptable, if written in their own vernacular language Moreover, St. Paul was well acquainted with that language, for he was brought up at Jerusalem, and “at the feet of Gamaliel;” and when he had visited that city, he had addressed the Jewish multitude, who were excited against him, in their native tongue, Acts xxii, 1, 2. Why should it not be supposed, that if, as is probable, this epistle was originally directed to Palestine, it was written in the dialect of that country So the fathers above quoted evidently thought and reasoned; although other fathers have said nothing on this point, and do not appear to have coincided in opinion with those to whom I have just referred. Among the moderns, also, several critics have undertaken to defend the same opinion; and particularly Michaëlis, who has discussed the subject quite at length, in his introduction to this epistle. I do not think it necessary minutely to examine his arguments. To my own mind they appear altogether unsatisfactory. Some of them are built on an exegesis most palpably erroneous, and which, if admitted, would deduce a very strange meaning from the words of the epistle. Yet, assuming such a meaning, he thence concludes, that the original writer must have expressed a different idea, and that the translator mistook his meaning. He then undertakes to conjecture what the original Hebrew must have been. In other cases, he deduces his arguments from considerations wholly à priori; as if these were admissible in a question of mere fact. He has not adduced a single instance of what he calls wrong translation, which wears the appearance of any considerable probability. On the other hand, Bolton, a sharp-sighted critic, and well acquainted with the Aramean language, who has gone through with the New Testament, and found almost every where marks, as he thinks, of translation from Aramean documents, confesses, that, in respect to this epistle, he finds not a single vestige of incorrect translation from an Aramean original, and no marks that there ever was such an original. This testimony is of considerable importance in respect to the question before us, as it comes from a critic who spent many years on the study of that which is most intimately connected with the very subject under consideration, namely, the detection of the Aramean originals of the various parts of the New Testament.

(4.) The principal arguments in favour of a Hebrew original are deduced from two sources: That Hebrews are addressed in our epistle, to whom the Hebrew language would have been more acceptable and intelligible, and many of whom, indeed, could not understand Greek, certainly could not read it: That the diversity of style in the Epistle to the Hebrews is so great, when compared with that of St. Paul’s epistles, that, unless we suppose the Greek costume did in fact come from another hand, we must be led to the conclusion that St. Paul did not write it. Both of these topics have been already discussed. I merely add here, therefore, that in case the writer of the epistle designed it should have a wide circulation among the Jews, to write in Greek was altogether the most feasible method of accomplishing this. Beside, if St. Paul did address it to the church at Cæsarea, it is altogether probable that he wrote in Greek, as Greek was the principal language of that city. Even if he did not, it was not necessary that he should write in Hebrew; for in every considerable place in Palestine, there were more or less who understood the Greek language. Whoever wishes to see this last position established beyond any reasonable doubt, may read Hug’s “Introduction to the New Testament,” vol. ii, pp. 32–50. When St. Paul wrote to the Romans, he did not write in Latin; yet there was no difficulty in making his epistle understood, for the knowledge of Greek was very common in Rome. If St. Paul understood the Latin language, which is no where affirmed, and he had not resided when he wrote this epistle, in any of the countries where it was commonly used, still he understood Greek so much better that he would of course prefer writing in it. For a similar reason, if no other could be given, one may regard it as more probable, that he would write the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Greek language. At the time of writing it, he had been abroad twenty-five years at least, in 445Greek countries, and had been in Palestine, during all that period, only a few days. The Jews abroad, whom he every where saw, spoke Greek, not Hebrew. In Greek he preached and conversed. Is it any wonder, then, that, after twenty-five years’ incessant labour or preaching, conversing, and writing, in this language, he should have preferred writing in it Indeed, can it be probable, that, under circumstances like these, he still possessed an equal facility of writing in his native dialect of Palestine I cannot think it strange, therefore, that although the Epistle to the Hebrews was in all probability directed to some part of Palestine, yet it was written by St. Paul in Greek, and not in Hebrew. But, whatever may be the estimation put upon arguments of this nature, there are internal marks of its having been originally composed in Greek, which cannot well be overlooked.

HEBRON, one of the most ancient cities in the world; for it was built seven years before Zoan, the capital of Lower Egypt, Numbers xiii, 22. Now, as the Egyptians gloried much in the antiquity of their cities, and their country was indeed one of the first that was peopled after the dispersion of Babel, it may be from hence concluded that it was one of the most ancient. Some think it was founded by Arba, one of the oldest giants in Palestine; for which reason it was called Kirjath-arba, or Arba’s city, Joshua xiv, 15; which name was afterward changed to that of Hebron, Joshua xv, 13. Arba was the father of Anak; and from Anak the giants, called Anakim, took their name, who were still dwelling at Hebron when Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. When it was first called Hebron, is uncertain; some think, not till it was conquered by Caleb, and that he called it so from his son of that name. But Calmet is of opinion that the name of Hebron is more ancient; and that Caleb, to do honour to his son, named him after this ancient and celebrated place. Hebron was situated upon an eminence, twenty miles southward from Jerusalem, and twenty miles north from Beersheba. Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac were buried near Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, or the double cave, which Abraham bought of Ephron, Genesis xxiii, 7–9. Hebron was the allotment of Judah. The Lord assigned it for the inheritance of Caleb, Joshua xiv, 13; x, 3, 23, 37. Joshua first took Hebron, and killed the king, whose name was Hoham. But afterward Caleb again made a conquest of it, assisted by the troops of his tribe, and the valour of Othniel, Judges i, 12, 13. It was appointed to be a dwelling for priests, and declared to be a city of refuge, Joshua xxi, 13. David, after the death of Saul, fixed the seat of his government there, 2 Sam. ii, 2–5. At Hebron, Absalom began his rebellion, 2 Sam. xv, 7, 8, &c. During the captivity of Babylon, the Edomites having invaded the southern parts of Judea, made themselves masters of Hebron; hence Josephus sometimes makes it a part of Edom. Here Zacharias and Elizabeth are believed to have dwelt; and it is supposed to have been the birth place of John the Baptist. Hebron is now called El KhalilEl Khalil; though not a town of large dimensions, it has a considerable population. According to Ali Bey, it contains about four hundred families of Arabs; but he does not notice either the Jews, who are numerous, or the Turks. He describes it as situated on the slope of a mountain, and having a strong castle. Provisions, he says, are abundant, and there is a considerable number of shops. The streets are winding, and the houses unusually high. The country is well cultivated, to a considerable extent. Hebron is computed to be twenty-seven miles south-west of Jerusalem.

HEIFER, a young cow, used in sacrifice at the temple, Num. xix, 1–10. Moses and Aaron were instructed to deliver the divine command to the children of Israel that they should procure “a red heifer, without spot,” that is, one that was entirely red, without one spot of any other colour; “free from blemish, and on which the yoke had never yet come,” that is, which had never yet been employed in ploughing the ground or in any other work; for according to the common sense of all mankind, those animals which had been made to serve other uses, became unfit to be offered to God,--a sentiment which we find in Homer and other Heathen writers. The animal was to be delivered to the priest, who was to lead her forth out of the camp, and there to slay her: the priest was then to take of the blood with his finger, and sprinkle it seven times before the tabernacle, and afterward to burn the carcass: then to take cedar wood and hyssop, and scarlet wood, and cast them into the flames. The ashes were to be gathered up, and preserved in a secure and clean place, for the use of the congregation, by the sprinkling of which ashes in water, it became a water of separation, by means of which a typical or ceremonial purification for sin was effected, Heb. ix, 13.


HELL. This is a Saxon word, which is derived from a verb which signifies to hide or conceal. A late eminent Biblical critic, Dr. Campbell, has investigated this subject with his usual accuracy; and the following is the substance of his remarks. In the Hebrew Scriptures the word sheol frequently occurs, and uniformly, he thinks, denotes the state of the dead in general, without regard to the virtuous or vicious characters of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating that word, the LXX have almost invariably used the Greek term d, hades, which means the receptacle of the dead, and ought rarely to have been translated hell, in the sense in which we now use it, namely, as the place of torment. To denote this latter object, the New Testament writers always make use of the Greek word ea, which is compounded of two Hebrew words, Ge Hinnom, that is, “The Valley of Hinnom,” a place near Jerusalem, in which children were cruelly sacrificed by fire to Moloch, the idol of the Ammonites, 2 Chron. xxxiii, 6. This place was also called Tophet, 2 Kings xxiii, 10, alluding, as is supposed, to the noise of drums, (toph signifying a drum,) 446there raised to drown the cries of helpless infants. As in process of time this place came to be considered an emblem of hell, or the place of torment reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the name Tophet came gradually to be used in this sense, and at length to be confined to it. In this sense, also, the word gehenna, a synonymous term, is always to be understood in the New Testament, where it occurs about a dozen times. The confusion that has arisen on this subject has been occasioned not only by our English translators having rendered the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek word gehenna frequently by the term hell; but the Greek word hades, which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, is, in every instance, except one, translated by the same English word, which it ought never to have been. In the following passages of the Old Testament it seems, however, that a future world of wo is expressed by sheol: “They,” the wicked, “spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to sheol,” Job xxi, 13. “The wicked shall be turned into sheol, and all the nations that forget God,” Psalm ix, 17, 18. “Her feet go down to death, her steps take hold on sheol,” Prov. v, 5. “But he knoweth not that the ghosts are there, and that her guests are in the depths of sheol,” Prov. ix, 18. “Thou shalt beat him with a rod, and shalt deliver his soul from sheol,” Prov. xxiii, 14. Thus, as Stuart observes, in his “Essay on Future Punishment,” while the Old Testament employs sheol, in most cases to designate the grave, the region of the dead, the place of departed spirits, it employs it also, in some cases, to designate along with this idea the adjunct one of the place of misery, place of punishment, region of wo]. In this respect it accords fully with the New Testament use of hades. For though hades signifies the grave, and often the invisible region of separate spirits, without reference to their condition, yet, in Luke xvi, 23, “In hades t d, he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,” it is clearly used for a place and condition of misery. The word hell is also used by our translators for gehenna, which means the world of future punishment, “How shall ye escape the damnation of hell, se t e“

Hell, Gates of. See Gates.

HELLENISTS. On this appellation, Dr. Jennings observes, There is a very remarkable appellation which the Apostle Paul, after glorying in his being “of the stock of Israel, and of the tribe of Benjamin,” applies to himself, namely, that he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” Phil. iii, 5. By this expression Godwin understands a Hebrew both by father’s and mother’s side. But if this be all that the phrase imports, there seems to be very little occasion for the Apostle’s using it immediately after having declared, that he was “of the stock of Israel, and the tribe of Benjamin;” which, on Godwin’s supposition, is the same as a Hebrew of the Hebrews; for the Jews were not allowed to marry out of their own nation; or if they sometimes married proselytes, yet their number was comparatively so small among them, especially while they were under oppression, as they were at that time by the Romans, that methinks Paul would hardly have mentioned it as a distinguishing privilege and honour, that neither of his parents were proselytes. It is therefore a much more probable sense, that a Hebrew of the Hebrews signifies a Hebrew both by nation and language, which multitudes of Abraham’s posterity, in those days, were not; or one of the Hebrew Jews, who performed their public worship in the Hebrew tongue; for such were reckoned more honourable than the Hellenistic Jews, who in their dispersion having, in a manner, lost the Hebrew, used the Greek language in sacris, and read the Scripture out of the Septuagint version. We meet with this distinction among the converted Jews, in the Acts of the Apostles: “In those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians or Hellenists against the Hebrews,” Acts vi, 1. This is what St. Paul probably meant by his being a Hebrew, as distinguished from an Israelite: “Are they Hebrews So am I. Are they Israelites So am I,” 2 Corinthians xi, 22. In one sense, these were convertible terms, both signifying Jews by nation and religion; but in the sense just mentioned, there were many, in those days, who were Israelites, but not Hebrews. St. Paul was both, not only an Israelite by birth, but a Hebrew, and not a Hellenistic Jew. Godwin expresses himself inaccurately, when he says that those who lived in Palestine, and who, as using the Hebrew text in their public worship, were opposed to the a, are called Hebrews, or Jews. For, though Hebrew and Jew are convertible terms, when opposed to Gentiles, as denoting the seed of Abraham, and professors of the Mosaic religion, see Jer. xxxiv, 9; yet, as opposed to the a, they are not convertible terms, there being Hebrew Jews and Hellenistic Jews; for it is said, that when “they, who were scattered by the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled into several countries, preaching the word to none but Jews only,” yet they spoke, t , to the Hellenists or Grecians, Acts xi, 19, 20. In order to confirm the sense which is here given of the word a, in opposition to the appellation Hebrews, it is proper we should take notice of the distinction between the e and a. The former were Greeks by nation, and as such distinguished from Jews, Acts xvi, 1; xix, 10; and the Greek empire having been rendered by Alexander in a manner universal, and their language being then the most common and general, the appellation Greeks is sometimes given to the whole Heathen world, or to all who were not Jews, Rom. i, 16; ii, 9. These Greeks, called by Josephus, are always styled ee in the New Testament. On which account Grotius, understanding by the a, or “Grecians, to whom some of those who were dispersed on the persecution which arose about Stephen, preached the Lord Jesus,” Acts xi, 19, 20, Greeks by nation, 447concludes there is a mistake in the text, and alters it according to the Syriac and Vulgate versions: “Certè legendum,” [it ought certainly to be read,] saith he, “ t a.” So indeed the Alexandrian manuscript reads, but it is supported by no other copy. And this is decisive against it--that from the words immediately preceding, it is evident that these Grecians were by nation Jews, and not Greeks; it being expressly said, that those who were scattered on the persecution “preached the Gospel to the Jews only.” As for the e, or Greeks mentioned in St. John’s Gospel, as being come to Jerusalem at the passover to worship in the temple, John xii, 20, and likewise those mentioned in the Acts, as worshipping along with the Jews in the synagogues, Acts xiv, 1; xviii, 4; they were doubtless Greeks by birth and nation, yet proselytes to the Jewish religion. There is a distinction made between Jews and proselytes, Acts ii, 10; but none between Hebrews and proselytes, because a proselyte might be either a Hebrew or a Hellenist, according to the language in which he performed public worship. That the Hellenists or Grecians, were Jews, is farther argued from the account we have, that when at Jerusalem St. Paul “disputed against the Grecians, they went about to slay him,” Acts ix, 29, as the Jews at Damascus had done before, Acts ix, 23. Now had these Grecians been strangers of a different nation, it cannot be imagined they durst have attempted to kill a Jew, among his own countrymen, in the capital, and without a formal accusation of him before any of their tribunals. Upon the whole, the a, or Grecians being Jews who used the Greek tongue in their sacred exercises, the Hebrew Jews and Grecian Jews were distinguished in those days, in like manner as the Portuguese and Dutch Jews are among us, not so much by the place of their birth, (many being born in England, others abroad,) as by the language they use in their public prayers and sermons.

Among the wonderful dealings of God, says Dr. Neander, by which the coming of Christianity was prepared, must be placed the spreading of the Jews among the Greeks and Romans. Those among them who belonged to the Pharisees gave themselves much trouble to obtain proselytes; and the loss of respect for the old popular religion, and the unsatisfied religious wants of multitudes, farthered their views. Reverence for the national God of the Jews, as a mighty Being, and reverence for the secret sanctuary of the splendid temple of Jerusalem, had long gained admittance among the Heathen. Jewish goetæ (enchanters, jugglers, &c) permitted themselves to make use of a thousand acts of delusion, in which they were very skilful, to make an impression of astonishment on the minds of those around them. Confidence in Judaism had in consequence made such wide progress, especially in large capital towns, that the Roman writers in the time of the first emperors openly complain of it; and Seneca, in his book upon superstition, said of the Jews, “The conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” The Jewish proselyte-makers, “blind leaders of the blind,” who had themselves no conception of the real nature, of religion, could give to others no insight into it. They often allowed their converts to take up a kind of dead monotheism, and merely exchange one kind of superstition for another; they taught them, that, by the mere outward worship of one God, and outward ceremonials, they were sure of the grace of God, without requiring any change of life; and they gave to them only new means of silencing their conscience, and new support in the sins which they were unwilling to renounce: and hence our Saviour reproached these proselyte-makers, that they made their converts ten times more the children of hell, than they themselves were. But we must here accurately distinguish between the two classes of proselytes. The proselytes in the strict sense of the word, the proselytes of righteousness, who underwent circumcision and took upon themselves the whole of the ceremonial law, were very different from the proselytes of the gate, who only bound themselves to renounce idolatry, to the worship of the one God, and to abstinence from all Heathenish excess, as well as from every thing which appeared to have any connection with idolatry. The former often embraced all the fanaticism and superstition of the Jews, and allowed themselves to be blindly led by their Jewish teachers. The more difficult it had been to them to subject themselves to the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law, necessarily so irksome to a Greek or a Roman, the less could they find it in their hearts to believe, that all this had been in vain, that they had obtained no advantage by it, and that they must renounce their presumed holiness. What Justin Martyr says to the Jews, holds good of these proselytes: “The proselytes not only do not believe, but they calumniate the name of Christ twice as much as you, and they wish to murder and torture us who believe on him, because they are desirous to resemble you in every thing.” The proselytes of the gate, on the contrary, had taken many of the most admirable truths out of Judaism. Without becoming entirely Jews, they had become acquainted with the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, they had heard of the promised messenger from God, of the King armed with power from God, of whom a report had been spread, as Suetonius says in the life of Vespasian, over the whole of the east. Much of that which they had heard from their Jewish teachers, whose writings they had read, had remained dark to them, and they were still to seek in them. By the notions which they had received from the Jews, of one God, of the divine government of the world, of God’s judgment, and of the Messiah, they were more prepared for the Gospel than other Heathens; and because they still thought that they had too little, because they had no determined religious system, and were curious after more instruction in divine things, and because they had not received many of the prejudices which swayed the Jews, they were more fitted to 448receive the Gospel than many of the Jews. From the very beginning they must have been attentive to the preaching of the Gospel, which secured to them, without making them Jews, a full share in the fulfilment of those promises of which the Jews had spoken to them. To these proselytes of the gate, (the fßµe t Te, the eseße of the New Testament,) passed, therefore, according to the Acts, the preaching of the Gospel, when it had been rejected by the blinded Jews; and here the seed of the divine word found a fitting soil in hearts desirous of holiness. There were, however, doubtless, among the proselytes of the gate, some who, wanting in proper earnestness in their search after religious truth, only desired, in every case, an easy road to heaven, which did not require any self-denial; and who, in order to be sure of being on the safe side, whether power and truth lay with the Jews or the Heathens, sometimes worshipped in the synagogue of Jehovah, sometimes in the temples of the gods, and who, therefore, fluttered in suspense between Judaism and Heathenism.

HEMLOCK, and , Deut. xxix, 18; xxxii, 32; Psalm lxix, 21; Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; xxiii, 15; Lam. iii, 5, 19; Hosea x, 4; Amos vi, 12. In the two latter places our translators have rendered the word hemlock in the others, gall. Hiller supposes it the centaureum, described by Pliny; but Celsius shows it to be the hemlock. It is evident, from Deut. xxix, 18, that some herb or plant is meant of a malignant or nauseous kind, being there joined with wormwood, and in the margin of our Bibles explained to be “a poisonful herb.” In like manner see Jer. viii, 14; ix, 15; and xxiii, 15. In Hosea x, 4, the comparison is to a bitter herb, which, growing among grain, overpowers the useful vegetable, and substitutes a pernicious weed. “If,” says the author of “Scripture Illustrated,” “the comparison be to a plant growing in the furrows of the field, strictly speaking, then we are much restricted in our plants likely to answer this character; but if we may take the ditches around, or the moist or sunken places within the field also, which I partly suspect, then we may include other plants; and I do not see why hemlock may not be intended. Scheuchzer inclines to this rather than wormwood or agrostes, as the LXX have rendered it. The prophet appears to mean a vegetable which should appear wholesome, and resemble those known to be salutary, as judgment, when just, properly is; but experience would demonstrate its malignity, as unjust judgment is when enforced. Hemlock is poisonous, and water-hemlock especially; yet either of these may be mistaken, and some of their parts, the root particularly, may deceive but too fatally.”

HEN, , 2 Esdras i, 30; Matt. xxiii, 37; Luke xiii, 34. In these last two passages our Saviour exclaims, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” The metaphor here used is a very beautiful one. When the hen sees a bird of prey coming, she makes a noise to assemble her chickens, that she may cover them with her wings from the danger. The Roman eagle was about to fall upon the Jewish state; our Lord invited them to himself in order to guard them from threatened calamities: they disregarded his invitations and warnings, and fell a prey to their adversaries. The affection of the hen to her brood is so strong as to have become proverbial. There is a beautiful Greek epigram in the Anthologia, which affords a very fine illustration of the affection of this bird in another view. It has been thus translated:--

“Beneath her fostering wing the hen defends
Her darling offspring, while the snow descends;
And through the winter’s day unmoved defies
The chilling fleeces and inclement skies;
Till vanquish'd by the cold and piercing blast,
True to her charge she perishes at last.”

Plutarch, in his book De Philostorgiâ, represents this parental attachment and care in a very pleasing manner: “Do we not daily observe with what care the hen protects her chickens; giving some shelter under her wings, supporting others upon her back, calling them around her, and picking out their food; and if any animal approaches that terrifies them, driving it away with a courage and strength truly wonderful”

HENOTICON, a decree or edict of the Emperor Zeno, which was dated at Constantinople in the year 482, and by which he intended to unite all the parties in religion under one faith. For this reason the decree was called henoticon, which signifies “union” or “uniting.” It is generally agreed that it was published by the advice of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, who wished to reconcile the contending parties. This decree repeated and confirmed all that had been enacted in the councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, against the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, without particularly mentioning the council of Chalcedon. The henoticon was approved by all those of the two contending parties who were remarkable for their candour and moderation; but it was opposed by the violent and obstinate, who complained that it was injurious to the honour and authority of the most holy council of Chalcedon. Hence arose new contests and new divisions not less deplorable than those which this decree was intended to suppress. The Catholics opposed it with all their strength; and it was condemned in form by Pope Felix II.

HERESY, hæresis, aes, from a, I choose, signifies an error in some essential point of Christian faith, publicly avowed, and obstinately maintained; or, according to the legal definition, “Sententia rerum divinarum humano sensu excogitata, palam docta, et pertinaciter defensa.” [An opinion of divine things invented by human reason, openly taught, and obstinately defended.] Among the ancients, the word heresy appears to have had nothing of that odious signification which has been attached to it by ecclesiastical writers in later times. It only signified a peculiar opinion, dogma, or sect, without conveying any reproach; being indifferently used, either 449of a party approved, or of one disapproved, by the writer. In this sense they spoke of the heresy of the Stoics, of the Peripatetics, Epicureans, &c, meaning the sect or peculiar system of these philosophers. In the historical part of the New Testament, the word seems to bear very nearly the same signification, being employed indiscriminately to denote a sect or party, whether good or bad. Thus we read of the sect or heresy of the Sadducees, of the Pharisees, of the Nazarenes, &c. See Acts v, 17; xv, 5; xxiv, 5; xxvi, 5; xxviii, 22. In the two former of these passages, the term heresy seems to be adopted by the sacred historian merely for the sake of distinction, without the least appearance of any intention to convey either praise or blame. In Acts xxvi, 4, 5, St. Paul, in defending himself before King Agrippa, uses the same term, when it was manifestly his design to exalt the party to which he had belonged, and to give their system the preference over every other system of Judaism, both with regard to soundness of doctrine and purity of morals.

2. It has been suggested that the acceptation of the word aes in the epistles is different from what it has been observed to be in the historical books of the New Testament. In order to account for this difference, it may be observed that the word sect has always something relative in it; and therefore, although the general import of the term be the same, it will convey a favourable or an unfavourable idea, according to the particular relation which it bears in the application. When it is used along with the proper name, by way of distinguishing one party from another, it conveys neither praise nor reproach. If any thing reprehensible or commendable be meant, it is suggested, not by the word aes itself, but by the words with which it stands connected in construction. Thus we may speak of a strict sect, or a lax sect; or of a good sect, or a bad sect. Again: the term may be applied to a party formed in a community, when considered in reference to the whole. If the community be of such a nature as not to admit of such a subdivision, without impairing or corrupting its constitution, a charge of splitting into sects, or forming parties, is equivalent to a charge of corruption in that which is most essential to the existence and welfare of the society. Hence arises the whole difference in the word, as it is used in the historical part of the New Testament, and in the epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul; for these are the only Apostles who employ it. In the history, the reference is always of the first kind; in the epistles, it is always of the second. In these last, the Apostles address themselves only to Christians, and either reprehend them for, or warn them against, forming sects among themselves, to the prejudice of charity, to the production of much mischief within their community, and of great scandal to the unconverted world without. In both applications, however, the radical import of the word is the same; and even in the latter it has no necessary reference to doctrine, true or false. During the early ages of Christianity, the term heresy gradually lost the innocence of its original meaning, and came to be applied, in a reproachful sense, to any corruption of what was considered as the orthodox creed, or even to any departure from the established rites and ceremonies of the church.

3. The heresies chiefly alluded to in the apostolical epistles are, first, those of the Judaizers, or rigid adherents to the Mosaic rites, especially that of circumcision; second, those of converted Hellenists, or Grecian Jews, who held the Greek eloquence and philosophy in too high an estimation, and corrupted, by the speculations of the latter, the simplicity of the Gospel; and third, those who endeavoured to blend Christianity with a mixed philosophy of magic, demonology, and Platonism, which was then highly popular in the world. With respect to the latter, the remarks of Hug will tend to illustrate some passages in the writings of St. Paul:--Without being acquainted with the notions of those teachers who caused the Apostle so much anxiety and so much vexation, a considerable part of these treatises must necessarily remain dark and unintelligible. From the criteria by which the Apostle points them out, at one time some deemed that they recognised the Gnostics; others perceived none but the Essenes; and every one found arguments for his assertions from the similarity of the doctrines, opinions, and morals. It would, however, be as difficult to prove that the Gnostic school had at that time indeed perfectly developed itself, as it is unjust to charge the Essenes with that extreme of immorality of which St. Paul accused these seducers, since the contemporaries and acquaintances of this Jewish sect mention them with honour and respect, and extol its members as the most virtuous men of their age. The similarity of the principles and opinions, which will have been observed in both parties compared with St. Paul’s declarations, flows from a common source, from the philosophy of that age, whence both the one and the other have derived their share. We shall therefore go less astray, if we recede a step, and consider the philosophy itself, as the general modeller of these derivative theories. It found its followers among Judaism as well as among the Heathens; it both introduced its speculative preparations into Christianity, and endeavoured to unite them or to adjust them to it, as well as they were able, by which means Christianity would have become deformed and unlike to itself, and would have been merged in the ocean of philosophical reveries, unless the Apostles had on this occasion defended it against the follies of men. An oriental, or, as it is commonly called, a Babylonian or Chaldean, doctrinal system had already long become known to the Greeks, and even to the Romans, before Augustus, and still more so in the Augustan age, and was in the full progress of its extension over Asia and Europe. It set up different deities and intermediate spirits in explanation of certain phenomena of nature, for the office of 450governing the world, and for the solution of other metaphysical questions, which from time immemorial were reckoned among the difficult propositions of philosophy. The practical part of this system was occupied with the precepts by means of which a person might enter into communication with these spirits or demons. But the result which they promised to themselves from this union with the divine natures, was that of acquiring, by their assistance, superhuman knowledge, that of predicting future events, and of performing supernatural works. These philosophers were celebrated under the name of magi and Chaldeans; who, for the sake of better accommodating themselves to the western nations, modified their system after the Greek forms, and then, as it appears, knew how to unite it with the doctrine of Plato, from whence afterward arose the Neo-Platonic and in Christendom the Gnostical school. These men forced their way even to the throne. Tiberius had received instruction in their philosophy, and was very confident that by means of an intelligence with the demons, it was possible to learn and perform extraordinary things. Nero caused a great number of them to be brought over from Asia, not unfrequently at the expense of the provinces. The supernatural spirits would not always appear, yet he did not discard his belief of them. The magi and Chaldeans were the persons who were consulted on great undertakings, who, when conspiracies arose, predicted the issue; who invoked spirits, prepared offerings, and in love affairs were obliged to afford aid from their art. Even the force of the laws, to which recourse was frequently necessary to be had at Rome, tended to nothing but the augmentation of their authority. As they found access and favour with people of all classes in the capital, so did they also in the provinces. Paul found a magus at the court of the proconsul at Paphos, Acts xiii, 6. Such was that Simon in Samaria, Acts viii, 10, who was there considered as a higher being of the spiritual class. The expression is remarkable, as it is a part of the technical language of the Theurgists; they called him aµ t Te µe, “The great power of God.” So also Pliny calls some of the demons and intermediate spirits, by whose coöperation particular results were effected, potestates. [Powers.] Justin Martyr, the fellow countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some technical expressions of his followers. He says that they ascribed to him the high title pe s , a sa, a dµe. [Far above all principality, and power, and might.] Of these classes of spirits, which appear under such different appellations, the superior were those who ruled; but the inferior, who had more of a material substance, and who, on that account, were able to connect themselves immediately with matter, were those who executed the commands of the superior. By an intelligence with the superior spirits a person might have the subaltern at his service and assistance; for the more powerful demons thus commanded the inferior to execute certain commissions in the material world: t t t daµ, “By the prince of the devils,” Matt. xii, 24.

4. The Syrian philosopher, Jamblichus, of Chalcis, has furnished us with a circumstantial representation of this system and its several varieties, in his book on the mysteries of the Chaldeans and Egyptians:--The nature of the gods is a pure, spiritual, and perfect unity. With this highest and perfect immateriality no influence on matter is conceivable, consequently, no creation and dominion of the world. Certain subordinate deities must therefore be admitted, which are more compounded in their nature, and can act upon gross matter. These are the “creators of the world,” dµ, and the “rulers of the world,” sµte. The superior deities are, however, the real cause of all that exists; and from their fulness, from their µa, it derives its existence. The succession from the highest deities down to the lowest is not by a sudden descent, but by a continually graduating decrease from the highest, pure, and spiritual natures, down to those which are more substantial and material, which are the nearest related to the gross matter of the creation, and which consequently possess the property of acting upon it. In proportion to their purer quality, or coarser composition, they occupy different places as their residence, either in a denser atmosphere, or in higher regions. The highest among these classes of spirits are called a, or, t. Others among the “divine natures,” ea sa, are “intermediate beings,” µsa. Those which occupy themselves with the laws of the world are also called te, and “the ministering spirits” are daµe and e. The archangels are not generally recognised in this theory; this class is said to have been of a later origin, and to have been first introduced by Porphyry. (See Archangel.) If we take here also into consideration the sa, of which Justin has before spoken, we shall have enumerated the greater part of the technical appellations of this demonology. But to arrive at a union with the higher orders of the spiritual world, in which alone the highest bliss of man consists, it is necessary, before all things, to become disengaged from the servitude of the body, which detains the soul from soaring up to the purely spiritual. Matrimony, therefore, and every inclination to sexual concupiscence, must be renounced before the attainment of this perfection. Hence, the offerings and initiations of the magi cannot, without great injury, be even communicated to those who have not as yet emancipated themselves from the libido procreandi, and the propensities to corporeal attachments. To eat meat, or to partake in general of any slain animal, nay, to even touch it, contaminates. Bodily exercises and purifications, though not productive of the gifts of prophecy, are nevertheless conducive to them. Though the gods only attend to the pure, they nevertheless sometimes mislead men to impure, 451actions. This may perhaps proceed from the totally different ideas of that which is good and righteous, which subsist between them and mankind.

5. This philosophy of which the elements had already existed a long time in the east, formed itself, in its progress to the west, into a doctrinal system, which found there far more approbation and celebrity than it ever had deserved. It was principally welcome in those countries, to which the epistles of the Apostle are directed. When St. Paul had preached at Ephesus, a quantity of magical and theurgical books were brought forward by their possessors and burned before his eyes, Acts xix, 19. This city had long since been celebrated for them, and the fsa efµaa, and fsa µµata, were spells highly extolled by the ancients for the purpose of procuring an authority over the demons. As late even as the fourth century, the synod at Laodicea was obliged to institute severe laws against the worship of angels, against magic, and against incantations. These opinions had taken such a deep root in the mind, that some centuries did not suffice for the extinction of the recollection of them. Now, there are passages in the Apostle which strikingly characterize this theory. He calls the doctrinal system of his opponents fsfa at , “a philosophy incompatible with Christianity,” Col. ii, 8; se t , “a worship of angels,” Col. ii, 18; ddasaa daµ, “a demonology,” 1 Tim. iv, 1. He calls it still farther tea, 2 Tim. iii, 13. This is the peculiar expression by which the ancients denoted magical arts and necromantic experiments; is, according to Hesychius, µ, a, ee, and tee, pat µaee, faµaee, de. . St. Paul compares these teachers to Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy iii, 8. These two persons are, according to the ancient tradition, the magicians who withstood Moses by their arts. They were from time immemorial names so notorious in the magical science, that they did not remain unknown even to the Neo-Platonics. When the Apostle enjoins the Ephesians to array themselves in the arms of faith, and courageously to endure the combat, Ephes. vi, 12, he says that it is the more necessary, because their combat is not against human force, [not against] µa a sa, “flesh and blood,” but against superhuman natures. Where he mentions these, he enumerates in order the names of this magico-spiritual world, , sa, particularly the sµta, “principalities,” “powers,” “rulers;” and likewise fixes their abode in the upper aërial regions, e t a t pa. In like manner, in the Epistle to the Colossians, for the sake of representing to them Christianity in an exalted and important light, and of praising the divine nature of Jesus, he says, that all that exists is his creation, and is subjected to him, not even the spiritual world excepted. He then selects the philosophic appellations to demonstrate that this supposititious demonocracy is wholly subservient to him; whether they be , or tte, a sa, [thrones, dominions, principalities, powers,] Col. i, 16. Finally, to destroy completely and decisively the whole doctrinal system, he demonstrates, that Christ, through the work of redemption, has obtained the victory over the entire spiritual creation, that he drags in triumph the [principalities] and sa [powers] as vanquished, and that henceforth their dominion and exercise of power have ceased, Col. ii, 15. But what he says respecting the seared consciences of these heretics, respecting their deceptions, their avarice, &c, is certainly more applicable to this class of men, than to any other. None throughout all antiquity are more accused of these immoralities, than those pretended confidents of the occult powers. If he speaks warmly against any distinction of meats, against abstinence from matrimony, this also applies to them; and if he rejects bodily exercises, it was because they recommended them, because they imposed baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparations, as the conditions by which alone the connection with the spirits became possible. These, then, are the persons who passed before the Apostle’s mind, and who, when they adopted Christianity, established that sect among the professors of Jesus, which gave to it the name of Gnostics, and which, together with the different varieties of this system, is accused by history of magical arts. Other adherents of this system among the Heathens, to which the Syrian philosophers, as well as some Egyptian, such as Plotinus and his scholars, belonged, formed the sect of Neo-Platonism.

6. But in the above remarks of this learned German, some considerations are wanting, necessary to the right understanding of several of the above passages quoted from St. Paul. The philosophic system above mentioned was built on the Scripture doctrine of good and evil angels, and so had a basis of truth, although abused to a gross superstition, and even idolatry. It was grounded, too, upon the notion of different orders among both good and evil spirits, with subordination and government; which also is a truth of which some intimation is given in Scripture. The Apostle then could use all these terms without giving any sanction to the errors of the day. He knew that the spiritual powers they had converted into subordinate deities, were either good or evil angels in their various ranks, and he uproots the whole superstition, by showing that the “thrones and dominions” of heaven are submissive created servants of Christ; and that the evil spirits, the rulers of “the darkness of this world,” are put under his feet.

HERMON, a celebrated mountain in the Holy Land, often spoken of in Scripture. It was in the northern boundary of the country, beyond Jordan, and in the territories which originally belonged to Og, king of Bashan, Joshua xii, 5; xiii, 5. The Psalmist connects Tabor and Hermon together, upon more than one occasion, Psalm lxxxix, 12; cxxxiii, 3; from which it may be inferred that they lay contiguous to each other. This is agreeable 452to the account that is given us by travellers. Mr. Maundrell, in his journey from Aleppo, says that in three hours and a half from the river Kishon, he came to a small brook near which was an old village and a good kane, called Legune; not far from which his company took up their quarters for the night, and from whence they had an extensive prospect of the plain of Esdraëlon. At about six or seven hours’ distance eastward, stood, within view, Nazareth, and the two mountains Tabor and Hermon. He adds that they were sufficiently instructed by experience what the holy Psalmist means by the dew of Hermon; their tents being as wet with it as if it had rained all night, Psalm cxxxiii, 3.

HEROD, surnamed the Great, king of the Jews, second son of Antipater the Idumean, born B. C. 71. At the age of twenty-five he was made by his father governor of Galilee, and distinguished himself by the suppression of a band of robbers, with the execution of their leader, Hezekiah, and several of his comrades. As he had performed this act of heroism by his own authority, and had executed the culprits without the form of trial, he was summoned before the sanhedrim, but, through the strength of his party and zeal of his friends, he escaped any censure. In the civil war between the republican and Cæsarian parties, Herod joined Cassius, and was made governor of Cœlo-Syria; and when Mark Antony arrived victorious in Syria, Herod and his brother found means to ingratiate themselves with him, and were appointed as tetrarchs in Judea; but in a short time an invasion of Antigonus, who was aided by the Jews, obliged Herod to make his escape from Jerusalem, and retire first to Idumea, and then to Egypt. He at length arrived at Rome, and obtained the crown of Judea upon occasion of a difference between the two branches of the Asmodean family. Hyrcanus had been for a considerable time prince and high priest of the Jewish nation; but while the Roman empire was in an unsettled state, after the death of Julius Cæsar, Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, brother of Hyrcanus, made himself master of the city and all Judea. In this state Herod found things when he came to Rome, and the most that he then aimed at was to obtain the kingdom for Aristobulus, his wife’s brother; but the senate of Rome, moved by the recommendations of Mark Antony, conferred the kingdom of Judea upon Herod himself. Having met with this unexpected success at Rome, he returned without delay to Judea, and in about three years got possession of the whole country. He had, however, to fight his way to the throne, which, as we have seen, was in the possession of Antigonus. Though aided by the Roman army, he was obliged to lay siege to Jerusalem, which held out for six months, when it was carried by assault, and a vast slaughter was made of the inhabitants, till the intercession and bribes of Herod put an end to it. Antigonus was taken prisoner and put to death, which opened the way to Herod’s quiet possession of the kingdom. His first cares were to replenish his coffers, and to repress the faction still attached to the Asmodean race, and which regarded him as a usurper. He was guilty of many extortions and cruelties in the pursuit of these objects. Shortly after this, an accusation was lodged against Herod before Mark Antony by Cleopatra, who had been influenced to the deed by his mother-in-law, Alexandra. He was summoned to answer to the charges exhibited against him before the triumvir; and on this occasion he gave a most remarkable display of the conflict of opposite passions in a ferocious heart. Doatingly fond of his wife, Mariamne, and not being able to bear the thought of her falling into the hands of another, he exacted a solemn promise from Joseph, whom he appointed to govern in his absence, that should the accusation prove fatal to him he would put the queen to death. Joseph disclosed the secret to Mariamne, who, abhorring such a savage proof of his love, from that moment conceived the deepest and most settled aversion to her husband. Herod, by great pecuniary sacrifices, made his peace with Antony, and returned in high credit. Some hints were thrown out respecting Joseph’s familiarity with Mariamne during his absence; he communicated his suspicions to his wife, who, recriminating, upbraided him with his cruel order concerning her. His rage was unbounded; he put Joseph to death for communicating the secret entrusted to him alone, and he threw his mother-in-law, Alexandra, into prison.

2. In the war between Antony and Octavius, Herod raised an army for the purpose of joining the former; but he was obliged first to engage Malchus, king of Arabia, whom he defeated and obliged to sue for peace. After the battle of Actium, his great object was to make terms with the conqueror; and, as a preliminary step, he put to death Hyrcanus, the only survivingsurviving male of the Asmodeans; and, having secured his family, he embarked for Rhodes, where Augustus at that time was. He appeared before the master of the Roman world in all the regal ornaments excepting his diadem, and with a noble confidence related the faithful services he had performed for his benefactor, Antony, concluding that he was ready to transfer the same gratitude to a new patron, from whom he should hold his crown and kingdom. Augustus was struck with the magnanimity of the defence, and replaced the diadem on the head of Herod, who remained the most favoured of the tributary sovereigns. When the emperor afterward travelled through Syria, in his way to and from Egypt, he was entertained with the utmost magnificence by Herod; in recompense for which he restored to him all his revenues and dominions, and even considerably augmented them. His good fortune as a prince, was poisoned by domestic broils, and especially by the insuperable aversion of Mariamne, whom at length he brought to trial, convicted, and executed. She submitted to her fate with all the intrepidity of innocence, and was sufficiently avenged by the remorse of her husband, who seems never after to have enjoyed a tranquil hour.

4533. His rage being quenched, Herod endeavoured to banish the memory of his evil acts from his mind by scenes of dissipation; but the charms of his once loved Mariamne haunted him wherever he went: he would frequently call aloud upon her name, and insist upon his attendants bringing her into his presence, as if willing to forget that she was no longer among the living. At times he would fly from the sight of men, and on his return from solitude, which was ill suited to a mind conscious of the most ferocious deeds, he became more brutal than ever, and in fits of fury spared neither foes nor friends. Alexandra, whose malignity toward her daughter has been noticed, was an unpitied victim to his rage. At length he recovered some portion of self-possession, and employed himself in projects of regal magnificence. He built at Jerusalem a stately theatre and amphitheatre, in which he celebrated games in honour of Augustus, to the great displeasure of the zealous Jews, who discovered an idolatrous profanation in the theatrical ornaments and spectacles. Nothing, it is said, gave them so much offence as some trophies which he had set round his theatre in honour of Augustus, and in commemoration of his victories, but which the Jews regarded as images devoted to the purposes of idol worship. For this and other acts of the king a most serious conspiracy was formed against him, which he, fortunately for himself, discovered; and he exercised the most brutal revenge on all the parties concerned in it. He next built Samaria, which he named Sebaste, and adorned it with the most sumptuous edifices; and for his security he built several fortresses throughout the whole of Judea, of which the principal was called Cæsarea, in honour of the emperor. In his own palace, near the temple of Jerusalem, he lavished the most costly materials and curious workmanship; and his palace Herodion, at some miles’ distance from the capital, by the beauty of its situation, and other appropriate advantages, drew round it the population of a considerable city.

4. To supply the place of his lost Mariamne, he married a new wife of the same name, the beautiful daughter of a priest, whom he raised to the high rank of the supreme pontificate. He sent his two sons, by the first Mariamne, to be educated at Rome, and so ingratiated himself with Augustus and his ministers, that he was appointed imperial procurator for Syria. To acquire popularity among the Jews, and to exhibit an attachment to their religion, he undertook the vast enterprise of rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem, which he finished in a noble style of magnificence in about a year and a half. During the progress of this work he visited Rome, and brought back his sons, who had attained to man’s estate. These at length conspired against their father’s person and government, and were tried, convicted, and executed. Another act deserving of notice, performed by Herod, was the dedication of his new city of Cæsarea, at which time he displayed such profuse magnificence, that Augustus said his soul was too great for his kingdom. Notwithstanding the execution of his sons, he was still a slave to conspiracies from his other near relations. In the thirty-third year of his reign, our Saviour was born. This event was followed, according to the Gospel of St. Matthew, by the massacre of the children of Bethlehem. About this time, Antipater, returning from Rome, was arrested by his father’s orders, charged with treasonable practices, and was found guilty of conspiring against the life of the king. This and other calamities, joined to a guilty conscience, preying upon a broken constitution, threw the wretched monarch into a mortal disease, which was doubtless a just judgment of Heaven on the many foul enormities and impieties of which he had been guilty. His disorder was attended with the most loathsome circumstances that can be imagined. A premature report of his death caused a tumult in Jerusalem, excited by the zealots, who were impatient to demolish a golden eagle which he had placed over the gate of the temple. The perpetrators of this rash act were seized, and by order of the dying king, put to death. He also caused his son Antipater to be slain in prison, and his remains to be treated with every species of ignominy. He bequeathed his kingdom to his son Archelaus, with tetrarchies to his two other sons. Herod, on his dying bed, had planned a scheme of horrible cruelty which was to take place at the instant of his own death. He had summoned the chief persons among the Jews to Jericho, and caused them to be shut up in the hippodrome, or circus, and gave strict orders to his sister Salome to have them all massacred as soon as he should have drawn his last breath: “for this,” said he, “will provide mourners for my funeral all over the land, and make the Jews and every family lament my death, who would otherwise exhibit no signs of concern.” Salome and her husband, Alexas, chose rather to break their oath extorted by the tyrant, than be implicated in so cruel a deed; and accordingly, as soon as Herod was dead, they opened the doors of the circus, and permitted every one to return to his own home. Herod died in the sixty-eighth year of his age. His memory has been consigned to merited detestation, while his great talents, and the active enterprise of his reign, have placed him high in the rank of sovereigns.

Herod Antipas. See Antipas.

HERODIANS, a sect among the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ, mentioned Matt. xxii, 16; Mark iii, 6; viii, 15; xii, 13; but passed over in silence both by Josephus and Philo. The critics and commentators on the New Testament are very much divided with regard to the Herodians; some making them to be a political party, and others a religious sect. The former opinion is favoured by the author of the Syriac version, who calls them the domestics of Herod; and also by Josephus’s having passed them over in silence, though he professes to give an account of the several religious sects of the Jews. The latter opinion is countenanced by our Lord’s caution against “the leaven of Herod,” which implies that the Herodians 454were distinguished from the other Jews by some doctrinal tenets. M. Basnage supposes, that one thing meant by the leaven of the Herodians might be a conformity to Roman customs in some points which were forbidden the Jews: if this was the case, it is not strange that they are not mentioned by Josephus among the Jewish sects. St. Jerom, in his Dialogue against the Luciferians, takes the name to have been given to such as owned Herod for the Messiah; and Tertullian, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, among the ancients; and Grotius, and other moderns, are of the same sentiment. But the same St. Jerom, in his Comment on St. Matthew, treats this opinion as ridiculous; and indeed it must be highly improbable. He maintains that the Pharisees gave this appellation, by way of derision, to Herod’s soldiers, who paid tribute to the Romans; agreeably to which the Syriac interpreters render the word by the domestics of Herod, that is, his courtiers. M. Simon, in his notes on the twenty-second chapter of St. Matthew, advances a more probable opinion. The name Herodian, he imagines to have been given to such as adhered to Herod’s party and interest, and were for preserving the government in his family, about which there were, at that time, great divisions among the Jews. F. Hardouin will have the Herodians and Sadducees to have been the same; nor is it at all improbable that the Herodians were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees; since that which is called by St. Mark “the leaven of Herod,” is by St. Matthew styled “the leaven of the Sadducees.”

2. Dr. Prideaux is of opinion that they derived their name from Herod the Great, and that they were distinguished from the other Jews by their concurrence with Herod’s scheme of subjecting himself and his dominions to the Romans, and likewise by complying with many of their Heathen usages and customs. In their zeal for the Roman authority they were diametrically opposite to the Pharisees, who esteemed it unlawful to submit or pay taxes to the Roman emperor; an opinion which they grounded on their being forbidden by the law to set a stranger over them, who was not one of their own nation, as their king. The conjunction of the Herodians, therefore, with the Pharisees, against Christ, is a memorable proof of the keenness of their resentment and malice against him; especially when we consider that they united together in proposing to him an ensnaring question, on a subject which was the ground of their mutual dissension; namely, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar. And provided he answered in the negative, the Herodians would accuse him of treason against the state; and should he reply in the affirmative, the Pharisees were as ready to excite the people against him, as an enemy of their civil liberties and privileges. Herod had introduced several Heathen idolatrous usages; for, as Josephus says, he built a temple to Cæsar, near the head of the river Jordan; he erected a magnificent theatre at Jerusalem, instituted Pagan games, and placed a golden eagle over the gate of the temple of Jehovah; and he furnished the temples, which he reared in several places out of Judea, with images for idolatrous worship, in order to ingratiate himself with the emperor and the people of Rome; though to the Jews he pretended that he did it against his will, and in obedience to the imperial command. The Herodians probably complied with, acquiesced in, or approved these idolatrous usages. This symbolizing with idolatry upon views of interest and worldly policy, was probably that leaven of Herod, against which our Saviour cautioned his disciples.

HERON, , Lev. xi, 19; Deut. xiv, 18. This word has been variously understood. Some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock, others the curlieu, some the peacock, others the parrot, and others the crane. The root, , signifies to breathe short through the nostrils, to snuff, as in anger; hence to be angry; and it is supposed that the word is sufficiently descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable disposition. Bochart, however, thinks it the mountain falcon; the same that the Greeks call paa, mentioned by Homer; and this bears a strong resemblance to the Hebrew name.

HESHBON, a celebrated city beyond Jordan, twenty miles eastward of that river, according to Eusebius. It was given to the tribe of Reuben, Josh. xiii, 17. It was probably made over to Gad, since we meet with it among the cities which were given to the Levites, Joshua xxi, 39.

HETERODOX, formed of the Greek ted, a compound of te, alter, and da, opinion, something that is contrary to the faith or doctrine established in the true church. Thus, we say, a heterodox opinion, a heterodox divine, &c. The word stands in opposition to orthodox.

HETEROUSH, HETEROUSIANS, composed of te, and sa, substance, a sect or branch of Arians, the followers of Aëtius, and from him denominated Aëtians. They were called Heterousii, because they held, not that the Son of God was of a substance like, or similar to, that of the Father, which was the doctrine of another branch of Arians, thence called Homoousians, Homoousii; but that he was of another substance different from that of the Father.

HETH, the father of the Hittites, was the eldest son of Canaan, Gen. x, 15, and dwelt southward of the promised land, probably about Hebron. Ephron, who was an inhabitant of that city, was of the race of Heth; and in the time of Abraham the whole city were of the family of Heth.

HEXAPLA, formed of , six, and p, I open, or unfold, a Bible disposed in six columns, containing the text, and divers versions of it, compiled and published by Origen, with a view of securing the sacred text from future corruptions, and to correct those that had been already introduced. Eusebius relates that Origen after his return from Rome under Caracalla, applied himself to learn 455Hebrew, and began to collect the several versions that had been made of the sacred writings, and of these to compose his Tetrapla, and Hexapla: others, however, will not allow him to have begun till the time of Alexander, after he had retired into Palestine, about the year 231. To conceive what this Hexapla was, it must be observed that, beside the translation of the sacred writings called the Septuagint, made under Ptolemy Philadelphus, above 280 years B. C., the Scripture had been since translated into Greek by other interpreters. The first of those versions, or, reckoning the Septuagint, the second, was that of Aquila, a proselyte Jew, the first edition of which he published in the twelfth year of the Emperor Adrian, or about A. D. 128; the third was that of Symmachus, published as is commonly supposed, under Marcus Aurelius, but, as some say, under Septimius Severus, about the year 200; the fourth was that of Theodotion, prior to that of Symmachus, under Commodus, or about the year 175: these Greek versions, says Dr. Kennicott, were made by the Jews from their corrupted copies of the Hebrew, and were designed to stand in the place of the LXX, against which they were prejudiced, because it seemed to favour the Christians. The fifth was found at Jericho, in the reign of Caracalla, about the year 217; and the sixth was discovered at Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander Severus, about the year 228: lastly, Origen himself recovered part of a seventh, containing only the Psalms. Now, Origen, who had held frequent disputations with the Jews in Egypt and Palestine, observing that they always objected against those passages of Scripture quoted against them, and appealed to the Hebrew text, the better to vindicate those passages and confound the Jews, by showing that the LXX had given the sense of the Hebrew, or rather, to show, by a number of different versions, what the real sense of the Hebrew was, undertook to reduce all these several versions into a body, along with the Hebrew text, so as they might be easily confronted, and afford a mutual light to each other. He made the Hebrew text his standard; and, allowing that corruptions might have happened, and that the old Hebrew copies might and did read differently, he contented himself with marking such words or sentences as were not in his Hebrew text, nor the later Greek versions, and to add such words or sentences as were omitted in the LXX, prefixing an asterisk to the additions, and an obelisk to the others. In order to this he made choice of eight columns: in the first he gave the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters; in the second, the same text in Greek characters: the rest were filled with the several versions above mentioned; all the columns answering verse for verse, and phrase for phrase; and in the Psalms there was a ninth column for the seventh version. This work Origen called apa, Hexapla, that is, sextuple, or a work of six columns, as only regarding the first six Greek versions. Indeed, St. Epiphanius, taking in likewise the two columns of the text, calls the work Octapla, as consisting of eight columns. This celebrated work, which Montfaucon imagines consisted of fifty large volumes, perished long ago, probably with the library at Cæsarea, where it was preserved, in the year 653; though several of the ancient writers have preserved us portions of it, particularly St. Chrysostom on the Psalms, Philoponus in his Hexameron, &c. Some modern writers have earnestly endeavoured to collect fragments of the Hexapla, Flaminius Nobilius, Drusius, and especially Montfaucon, in two folio volumes, printed at Paris in 1713. In his edition, Montfaucon has prefixed prolegomena, explaining the form and detailing the history of the Hexapla.

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 an obelus ÷ 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 asterisk asterisk with 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 an obelus :, he added the correct rendering from one of the other translators, with an asterisk subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the lemniscus and hypolemniscus, 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 stupendous 456work 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 the obelus and 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.


HIGH PLACES. The prophets reproach the Israelites for nothing with more zeal than for 457worshipping 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 the proseuchæ, 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 the proseuchæ had groves in or near them, in the same manner as the high places.

HIN, , a liquid measure, as of oil, or of wine, Exodus xxix, 40; xxx, 24; Lev. xxiii. According to Josephus, it contained two Attic congii, 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, , 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’ signifies noble, grand, majestic; and the noun translated ‘words’ radically signifies divergences, 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 , hinds, to have read , 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!”

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 Hebrew tuph, 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. See Hell.

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 crown 458Solomon 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.’”

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 eternal filiation, so the Spirit is God by procession from the Father and the Son. “And I believe in the Holy Ghost,” says the Nicene Creed, “the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from 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, but proceeding.” In the Articles of the English church it is thus expressed: “The Holy Ghost, proceeding from 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 term spiration, from spiro, “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, Wind or Breath, may, as to the Third Person, be designed, like the term Son applied 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, “He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” John xx, 22.

2. But, whatever we may think as to the doctrine of spiration, the procession of 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 Spirit 459of 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.”

3. Arius regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by Christ, tsµa tµat, the creature of a creature. Some time afterward, his personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was considered as the exerted energy of 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 the breath of 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, “the Breath of 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 a continued 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, is wind; 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, 460“sent forth from” God to “create and renew the face of the earth.”

5. The next association of the three Persons we find in the inspiration of 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 the influence of the Father; but the influence, according to the third passage, which was the source of their inspiration, was the Spirit, or the influence of “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,” 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 therefore 461is 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 one God, one creature, and one attribute 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 the one 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 the energy or power 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 prosopopœia as this passage would exhibit--the doctrine of the Gospel not speaking “of himself,” but speaking “whatsoever he shall hear!”--“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 eµa, 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 he will,” “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 sinned 462against, 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 is eternal: “The eternal Spirit,” Heb. ix, 14. Omnipresence is 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 is omniscient: “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 majesty is 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 Spirit of God, which is so often distinguished from the 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, µata, 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,) byby the ‘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 is 463a 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.”

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 unto 464our 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 be homousios, or consubstantial with the Father, that is, of the same nature and substance.

HONEY, . 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 it , 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.” The wild honey, µ , 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. See Eli.

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, and 465it 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.”

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.”

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, 466the 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, , Exod. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20; Joshua xxiv, 12. The hornet, in natural history, belongs to the species crabo, of the genus vespa or 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 proper 467literal 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, (Æneid viii, 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:--

Plurimus--volitans, (cui nomen Asilo
Romanum est; st, Graii vertere vocantes,)
Asper, acerba sonans, quo tota exterrita sylvis
Diffugiunt armenta.
Georg. iii, 145.
“About the Alburnian groves, with holly green,
Of winged insects mighty swarms are seen;
This flying plague, to mark its quality,
Œstros the Grecians call; ASYLUS, we:
A fierce loud buzzing breeze; their stings draw blood,
And drive the cattle gadding through the wood.
Seized with unusual pains, they loudly cry.”

Dr. Hales is of opinion, that the Latin asilus and Greek st, were probably only different pronunciations of the same oriental term, , hatsiraah, as this fly is called by Moses and Joshua. The vindictive power that presided over this dreadful scourge was worshipped at Ekron, in Palestine, through fear, the reigning motive of Pagan superstition, under the title of Baal-zebub, “master or lord of the hornet,” whence Beelzebub, in the New Testament, “the prince of demons,” Matt. xii, 24. Isaiah, denouncing a wo against Abyssinia, describes it as “the land of the winged cymbal,” (tsaltsal canaphim,) Isaiah xviii, 1; by the same analogy that tsaltsal signifies “a locust,” Deut. xxviii, 42; a streperâ voce sic dictam. [So called from its streperous sound.] Bruce, in his Travels in Abyssinia, has given an accurate description of this tremendous fly, which in Arabic is called zimb, and by the Abyssinians tsaltsal-ya, “the cymbal of the Lord,” from its sonorous buzzing. And in his Appendix he has given a drawing of it, magnified, for distinctness’ sake, something above twice the natural size: after which he observes, “He has no sting, though he seems to me to be rather of the bee kind; but his motion is more rapid and sudden than that of the bee, (volitans,) and resembles that of the gad-fly in England. There is something particular in the sound or buzzing of this insect; it is a jarring noise, together with a humming, (acerba sonans,) which induces me to believe it proceeds, in part at least, from a vibration made with the three hairs at his snout.” Bruce does not cite or refer to Virgil’s description, though his account furnishes the most critical and exact explanation of it. Such undesigned coincidences are most satisfactory and convincing; they show that the poet and the naturalist both copied from nature. And the terror impressed by this insect on all the cattle, quo tota exterrita sylvis diffugiunt, [affrighted at which the entire herds flee to the thickets,] according to Virgil, is thus illustrated by Bruce: “As soon as this plague appears, and their buzzing is heard, all the cattle forsake their food, and run wildly about the plain till they die, worn out with fatigue, fright, and hunger. No remedy remains but to leave the black earth, where they breed, and hasten down to the sands of Atbara; and there they remain while the periodical rains last, this cruel enemy (asper) never daring to pursue them farther. The camel, emphatically called by the Arabs the ship of the desert, though his size is immense as is his strength, and his body covered with a thick skin, defended with strong hair, still is not able to sustain the violent punctures the fly makes with his pointed proboscis. He must lose no time in removing to the sands of Atbara; for when once attacked by this fly, his body, head, and legs, break out into large bosses, which swell, break, and putrefy, to the certain destruction of the creature. I have found some of these tubercles upon almost every elephant and rhinoceros that I have seen, and attribute them to this cause. All the inhabitants of the sea coast are obliged to put themselves in motion, and remove to the next sand, in the beginning of the rainy season, to prevent all their stock of cattle from 468being destroyed. Nor is there any alternative, or means of avoiding this, though a hostile band was in the way, capable of spoiling them of half their substance, as was actually the case when we were at Sennaar. Of such consequence is the weakest instrument in the hand of Providence.” See Flies and Beelzebub.

HORSE, . Horses were very rare among the Hebrews in the early ages. The patriarchs had none; and after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, God expressly forbade their ruler to procure them: “He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way,” Deut. xvii, 16. As horses appear to have been generally furnished by Egypt, God prohibits these, 1. Lest there should be such commerce with Egypt as might lead to idolatry. 2. Lest the people might depend on a well appointed cavalry, as a means of security, and so cease from trusting in the promised aid and protection of Jehovah. 3. That they might not be tempted to extend their dominion by means of cavalry, and so get scattered among the surrounding idolatrous nations, and thus cease in process of time, to be that distinct and separate people which God intended they should be, and without which the prophecies relative to the Messiah could not be known to have their due and full accomplishment. In the time of the Judges we find horses and war chariots among the Canaanites, but still the Israelites had none; and hence they were generally too timid to venture down into the plains, confining their conquests to the mountainous parts of the country. In the reign of Saul, it would appear, that horse breeding had not yet been introduced into Arabia; for, in a war with some of the Arabian nations, the Israelites got plunder in camels, sheep, and asses, but no horses. David’s enemies brought against him a strong force of cavalry into the field; and in the book of Psalms the horse commonly appears only on the side of the enemies of the people of God; and so entirely unaccustomed to the management of this animal had the Israelites still continued, that, after a battle, in which they took a considerable body of cavalry prisoners, 2 Sam. viii, 4, David caused most of the horses to be cut down, because he did not know what use to make of them. Solomon was the first who established a cavalry force. Under these circumstances, it is not wonderful that the Mosaic law should take no notice of an animal which we hold in such high estimation. To Moses, educated as he was in Egypt, and, with his people, at last chased out by Pharaoh’s cavalry, the use of the horse for war and for travelling was well known; but as it was his object to establish a nation of husbandmen, and not of soldiers for the conquest of foreign lands, and as Palestine, from its situation, required not the defence of cavalry, he might very well decline introducing among his people the yet unusual art of horse breeding. Solomon, having married a daughter of Pharaoh, procured a breed of horses from Egypt; and so greatly did he multiply them, that he had four hundred stables, forty thousand stalls, and twelve thousand horsemen, 1 Kings iv, 26; 2 Chron. ix, 25. It seems that the Egyptian horses were in high repute, and were much used in war. When the Israelites were disposed to place too implicit confidence in the assistance of cavalry, the prophet remonstrated in these terms: “The Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh, not spirit,” Isaiah xxxi, 3.

HORSE-LEECH, , from a root which signifies to adhere, stick close, or hang fast, Prov. xxx, 15. A sort of worm that lives in water, of a black or brown colour, which fattens upon the flesh, and does not quit it till it is entirely full of blood. Solomon says, “The horse-leech hath two daughters, Give, give.” This is so apt an emblem of an insatiable rapacity and avarice, that it has been generally used by different writers to express it. Thus Plautus makes one say, speaking of the determination to get money, “I will turn myself into a horse-leech, and suck out their blood;” and Cicero, in one of his letters to Atticus, calls the common people of Rome horse-leeches of the treasury. Solomon, having mentioned those that devoured the property of the poor as the worst of all the generations which he had specified, proceeds to state the insatiable cupidity with which they prosecuted their schemes of rapine and plunder. As the horse-leech had two daughters, cruelty and thirst of blood, which cannot be satisfied, so the oppressor of the poor has two dispositions, rapacity and avarice, which never say they have enough, but continually demand additional gratifications.

HOSANNA, “Save, I beseech thee,” or, “Give salvation,” a well known form of blessing, Matthew xxi, 9, 15; Mark xi, 9, 10; John xii, 13.

HOSEA, son of Beeri, the first of the minor prophets. He is generally considered as a native and inhabitant of the kingdom of Israel, and is supposed to have begun to prophesy about B. C. 800. He exercised his office sixty years; but it is not known at what periods his different prophecies now remaining were delivered. Most of them are directed against the people of Israel, whom he reproves and threatens for their idolatry and wickedness, and exhorts to repentance, with the greatest earnestness, as the only means of averting the evils impending over their country. The principal predictions contained in this book, are the captivity and dispersion of the kingdom of Israel; the deliverance of Judah from Sennacherib; the present state of the Jews; their future restoration, and union with the Gentiles in the kingdom of the Messiah; the call of our Saviour out of Egypt, and his resurrection on the third day. The style of Hosea is peculiarly obscure; it is sententious, concise, and abrupt; the transitions of persons are sudden; and the connexive and adversative particles are frequently omitted. The 469prophecies are in one continued series, without any distinction as to the times when they were delivered, or the different subjects to which they relate. They are not so clear and detailed, as the predictions of those prophets who lived in succeeding ages. When, however, we have surmounted these difficulties, we shall see abundant reason to admire the force and energy with which this prophet writes, and the boldness of the figures and similitudes which he uses.

2. Hosea, or Hoshea, son of Elah, was the last king of Israel. Having conspired against Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, he killed him, A. M. 3265; B. C. 739. However, the elders of the land seem to have taken the government into their hands; for Hoshea was not in possession of the kingdom till nine years after, 2 Kings xv, 30; xvii, 1. Hoshea did evil in the sight of the Lord, but not equal to the kings of Israel who preceded him; that is, say the Jewish doctors, he did not restrain his subjects from going to Jerusalem to worship, if they would; whereas the kings of Israel, his predecessors, had forbidden it, and had placed guards on the road to prevent it. Salmaneser, king of Assyria, being informed that Hoshea meditated a revolt, and had concerted measures with So, king of Egypt, to shake off the Assyrian yoke, marched against him, and besieged Samaria. After a siege of three years, in the ninth year of Hoshea’s reign, the city was taken, and was reduced to a heap of ruins, A. M. 3282. The king of Assyria removed the Israelites of the ten tribes to countries beyond the Euphrates, and thus terminated the kingdom of the ten tribes.

HOSPITALITY. Instances of ancient hospitality occur frequently in the Old Testament. So in the case of Abraham, Gen. xviii, where he invites the angels who appeared in the form of men to rest and refreshment, “And he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.” “Nothing is more common in India,” says Mr. Ward, “than to see travellers and guests eating under the shade of trees. Even feasts are never held in houses. The house of a Hindoo serves for the purposes of sleeping and cooking, and of shutting up the women; but is never considered as a sitting or a dining room.” “On my return to the boat,” says Belzony, “I found the aga and all his retinue seated on a mat, under a cluster of palm trees, close to the water. The sun was then setting, and the shades of the western mountains had reached across the Nile, and covered the town. It is at this time the people recreate themselves in various scattered groups, drinking coffee, smoking their pipes, and talking of camels, horses, asses, dhourra, caravans, or boats.” “The aga having prepared a dinner for me,” says Mr. Light, “invited several of the natives to sit down. Water was brought in a skin by an attendant, to wash our hands. Two fowls roasted were served up on wheaten cakes, in a wooden bowl, covered with a small mat, and a number of the same cakes in another: in the centre of these were liquid butter, and preserved dates. These were divided, broken up, and mixed together by some of the party, while others pulled the fowls to pieces: which done, the party began to eat as fast as they could: getting up, one after the other, as soon as their hunger was satisfied.” “Hospitality to travellers,” says Mr. Forbes, “prevails throughout Guzerat: a person of any consideration passing through the province is presented, at the entrance of a village, with fruit, milk, butter, fire wood, and earthen pots for cookery; the women and children offer him wreaths of flowers. Small bowers are constructed on convenient spots, at a distance from a well or lake, where a person is maintained by the nearest villages, to take care of the water jars, and supply all travellers gratis. There are particular villages, where the inhabitants compel all travellers to accept of one day’s provisions: whether they be many or few, rich or poor, European or native, they must not refuse the offered bounty.”

“So when angelic forms to Syria sent
Sat in the cedar shade, by Abraham’s tent,
A spacious bowl th’th’ admiring patriarch fills
With dulcet water from the scanty rills;
Sweet fruits and kernels gathers from his hoard,
With milk and butter piles the plenteous board;
While on the heated hearth his consort bakes
Fine flour well kneaded in unleavened cakes,
The guests ethereal quaff the lucid flood,
Smile on their hosts, and taste terrestrial food;
And while from seraph lips sweet converse springs,
They lave their feet, and close their silver wings.”

HOURS. See Day.

HOUSES. The following description of oriental houses will serve to illustrate several passages of Scripture. From the gate of the porch, one is conducted into a quadrangular court, which, being exposed to the weather, is paved with stone, in order to carry off the water in the rainy season. The principal design of this quadrangle, is to give light to the house, and admit the fresh air into the apartments; it is also the place where the master of the house entertains his company, who are seldom or never honoured with admission into the inner apartments. This open space bears a striking resemblance to the impluvium, or cava ædium, of the Romans, which was also an uncovered area, from whence the chambers were lighted. For the accommodation of the guests, the pavement is covered with mats or carpets; and as it is secured against all interruption from the street, is well adapted to public entertainments. It is called, says Dr. Shaw, the middle of the house, and literally answers to t µs of the evangelist, into which the man afflicted with the palsy was let down through the ceiling, with his couch, before Jesus, Luke v, 19. Hence, he conjectures that our Lord was at this time instructing the people in the court of one of these houses; and it is by no means improbable, that the quadrangle was to him and his Apostles a favourite situation, while they were engaged in disclosing the mysteries of redemption. To defend the company from the scorching sun-beams, or “windy storm and tempest,” 470a veil was expanded upon ropes from one side of the parapet wall to the other, which might be unfolded or folded at pleasure. The court is for the most part surrounded with a cloister, over which, when the house has a number of stories, a gallery is erected of the same dimensions with the cloister, having a balustrade, or else a piece of carved or latticed work, going round about, to prevent people from falling from it into the court. The doors of the enclosure round the house are made very small; but the doors of the houses very large, for the purpose of admitting a copious stream of fresh air into their apartments. The windows which look into the street are very high and narrow, and defended by lattice work; as they are only intended to allow the cloistered inmate a peep of what is passing without, while he remains concealed behind the casement. This kind of window the ancient Hebrews called arubah, which is the same term that they used to express those small openings through which pigeons passed into the cavities of the rocks, or into those buildings which were raised for their reception. Thus the prophet asks: “Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves, -, to their small or narrow windows.” The word is derived from a root which signifies to lie in wait for the prey; and is very expressive of the concealed manner in which a person examines through that kind of window an external object. Irwin describes the windows in Upper Egypt as having the same form and dimensions; and says expressly, that one of the windows of the house in which they lodged, and through which they looked into the street, more resembled a pigeon hole than any thing else. But the sacred writers mention another kind of window, which was large and airy; it was called , and was large enough to admit a person of mature age being cast out of it; a punishment which that profligate woman Jezebel suffered by the command of Jehu, the authorized extirminator of her family. These large windows admit the light and the breeze into spacious apartments of the same length with the court, but which seldom or never communicate with one another. In the houses of the fashionable and the gay, the lower part of the walls is adorned with rich hangings of velvet or damask, tinged with the liveliest colours, suspended on hooks, or taken down at pleasure. A correct idea of their richness and splendour may be formed from the description, which the inspired writer has given of the hangings in the royal garden at Shushan, the ancient capital of Persia: “Where were white, green, and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple, to silver rings and pillars of marble,” Esther i, 6. The upper part of the walls is adorned with the most ingenious wreathings and devices, in stucco and fret-work. The ceiling is generally of wainscot, painted with great art, or else thrown into a variety of pannels with gilded mouldings. In the days of Jeremiah the prophet, when the profusion and luxury of all ranks in Judea were at their height, their chambers were ceiled with fragrant and costly wood, and painted with the richest colours. Of this extravagance the indignant seer loudly complains: “Wo unto him that saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth him out windows: and it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion,” Jer. xxii, 14. The floors of these splendid apartments were laid with painted tiles, or slabs of the most beautiful marble. A pavement of this kind is mentioned in the book of Esther; at the sumptuous entertainment which Ahasuerus made for the princes and nobles of his vast empire, “the beds,” or couches, upon which they reclined, “were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red and blue, and white and black marble.” Plaster of terrace is often vised for the same purpose; and the floor is always covered with carpets, which are for the most part of the richest materials. Upon these carpets, a range of narrow beds, or mattresses, is often placed along the sides of the wall, with velvet or damask bolsters, for the greater ease and convenience of the company. To these luxurious indulgences the prophets occasionally seem to allude: Ezekiel was commanded to pronounce a “wo to the women that sew pillows to all armholes,” Ezek. xiii, 18; and Amos denounces the judgments of his God against them “that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall,” Amos vi, 4. At one end of each chamber is a little gallery, raised three or four feet above the floor, with a balustrade in front, to which they go up by a few steps. Here they place their beds; a situation frequently alluded to in the Holy Scriptures. Thus Jacob addressed his undutiful son, in his last benediction: “Thou wentest up to thy father’s bed,--he went up to my couch,” Gen. xlix, 4. The allusion is again involved in the declaration of Elijah to the king of Samaria: “Now, therefore, thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die,” 2 Kings i, 4, 16. And the Psalmist sware unto the Lord, and vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob, “Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed, until I find out a place for the Lord,” Psalm cxxxii, 3. This arrangement may likewise illustrate the circumstance of Hezekiah’s “turning his face to the wall, when he prayed,” that the greatness of his sorrow, and the fervour of his devotion, might, as much as possible, be concealed from his attendants, 2 Kings xx.

The roof is always flat, and often composed of branches of wood laid across rude beams; and, to defend it from the injuries of the weather, to which it is peculiarly exposed in the rainy season, it is covered with a strong plaster of terrace. It is surrounded by a wall breast-high, which forms the partition with the contiguous houses, and prevents one from falling into the street on the one side, or into the court on the other. This answers to the battlements which Moses commanded the people of Israel to make for the roof of their 471houses, for the same reason. “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement, , for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence,” Deut. xxii, 8. Instead of the parapet wall, some terraces are guarded, like the galleries, with balustrades only, or latticed work. Of the same kind, probably, was the lattice or net, as the term seems to import, through which Ahaziah, the king of Samaria, fell down into the court, 2 Kings i, 2. This incident proves the necessity of the law which was graciously dictated from Sinai, and furnishes a beautiful example of God’s paternal care and goodness; for the terrace was a place where many offices of the family were performed, and business of no little importance was occasionally transacted. Rahab concealed the spies on the roof, with the stalks of flax which she had laid in order to dry, Joshua ii, 6; the king of Israel, according to the custom of his country, rose from his bed, and walked upon the roof of his house, to enjoy the refreshing breezes of the evening, 2 Sam. xi, 2; upon the top of the house the prophet conversed with Saul, about the gracious designs of God, respecting him and his family, 1 Sam. ix, 25; to the same place Peter retired to offer up his devotions, Acts x, 9; and in the feast of tabernacles, under the government of Nehemiah, booths were erected, as well upon the terraces of their houses, as in their courts, and in the streets of the city, Neh. viii, 16. In Judea, the inhabitants sleep upon the tops of their houses during the heats of summer, in arbours made of the branches of trees, or in tents of rushes. When Dr. Pococke was at Tiberias, in Galilee, he was entertained by the sheik’s steward, and with his company supped upon the top of the house for coolness, according to their custom, and lodged there likewise, in a sort of closet of about eight feet square, formed of wicker-work, plastered round toward the bottom, but without any door, each person having his cell. In like manner, the Persians take refuge during the day in subterraneous chambers, and pass the night on the flat roofs of their houses.

The expression, “to dig through houses,” occurs, Job xxiv, 16. “Thieves,” says Mr. Ward, “in Bengal very frequently dig through the mud walls, and under the clay floors of houses, and, entering unperceived, plunder them while the inhabitants are asleep.” Our Lord’s parable of the foolish man who built his house on the sand derives illustration from the following passages in Ward’s “View,” and Belzoni’s “Travels:” “The fishermen in Bengal build their huts in the dry season on the beds of sand, from which the river has retired. When the rains set in, which they often do very suddenly, accompanied by violent north-west winds, the water pours down in torrents from the mountains. In one night multitudes of these huts are frequently swept away, and the place where they stood is the next morning undiscoverable.” “It so happened, that we were to witness one of the greatest calamities that have occurred in Egypt in the recollection of any one living. The Nile rose this season three feet and a half above the highest mark left by the former inundation, with uncommon rapidity, and carried off several villages, and some hundreds of their inhabitants. I never saw any picture that could give a more correct idea of a deluge than the valley of the Nile in this season. The Arabs had expected an extraordinary inundation this year, in consequence of the scarcity of water the preceding season; but they did not apprehend it would rise to such a height. They generally erect fences of earth and reeds around their villages, to keep the water from their houses; but the force of this inundation baffled all their efforts. Their cottages, being built of earth, could not stand one instant against the current; and no sooner did the water reach them, than it levelled them with the ground. The rapid stream carried off all that was before it; men, women, children, cattle, corn, every thing was washed away in an instant, and left the place where the village stood without any thing to indicate that there had ever been a house on the spot.”

House is taken for family: “The Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house,” Gen. xii, 17. “What is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto” 2 Sam. vii, 18. So Joseph was of the house of David, Luke i, 27; ii, 4; but more especially he was of his royal lineage, or family; and, as we conceive, in the direct line or eldest branch of the family; so that he was next of kin to the throne, if the government had still continued in possession of the descendants of David. House is taken for kindred: it is a Christian’s duty to provide first for those of his own house, 1 Tim. v, 8, his family, his relatives.

HUSBANDRY. In the primitive ages of the world, agriculture, as well as the keeping of flocks, was a principal employment among men Gen. ii, 15; iii, 17–19; iv, 2. It is an art which has ever been a prominent source, both of the necessaries and the conveniences of life. Those states and nations, especially Babylon and Egypt, which made the cultivation of the soil their chief business, arose in a short period to wealth and power. To these communities just mentioned, which excelled in this particular all the others of antiquity, may be added that of the Hebrews, who learned the value of the art while remaining in Egypt, and ever after that time were famous for their industry in the cultivation of the earth. Moses, following the example of the Egyptians, made agriculture the basis of the state. He accordingly apportioned to every citizen a certain quantity of land, and gave him the right of tilling it himself, and of transmitting it to his heirs. The person who had thus come into possession could not alienate the property for any longer period than the year of the coming jubilee: a regulation which prevented the rich from coming into possession of large tracts of land, and then leasing them out in small parcels to the poor: a practice which anciently prevailed, and does to this day, in the east. It was another law of Moses, that the vender 472of a piece of land, or his nearest relative, had a right to redeem the land sold, whenever they chose, by paying the amount of profits up to the year of jubilee, Ruth iv, 4; Jer. xxxii, 7. Another law enacted by Moses on this subject was, that the Hebrews, as was the case among the Egyptians after the time of Joseph, should pay a tax of two-tenths of their income unto God, whose servants they were to consider themselves to be, and whom they were to obey as their King and Lord, Lev. xxvii, 30; Deut. xii, 17–19; xiv, 22–29; Gen. xxviii, 22. The custom of marking the boundaries of lands by stones, although it prevailed a long time before, Job xxiv, 2, was confirmed and perpetuated in the time of Moses by an express law; and a curse was pronounced against him who without authority removed them. These regulations having been made in respect to the tenure, incumbrances, &c, of landed property, Joshua divided the whole country which he had occupied, first among the respective tribes, and then among individual Hebrews, running it out with the aid of a measuring line, Joshua xvii, 5, 14; Amos vii, 17; Micah ii, 5; Psalm lxxviii, 55; Ezek. xl, 3. The word, , a line, is accordingly used by a figure of speech, for the heritage itself, Psalm xvi, 6: “The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places, yea I have a goodly heritage.” Though Moses was the friend of the agriculturist, he by no means discouraged the keeper of the flock.

The occupation of the husbandman was held in honour, not only for the profits which it brought, but from the circumstance that it was supported and protected by the fundamental laws of the state. All who were not set apart for religious duties, such as the priests and the Levites, whether inhabitants of the country, or of towns and cities, were considered by the laws, and were, in fact, agriculturists. The rich and the noble, it is true, in the cultivation of the soil, did not always put themselves on a level with their servants; but none were so rich or so noble as to disdain to put their hand to the plough, 1 Sam. xi, 7; 1 Kings xix, 19; 2 Chron. xxvi, 10. The priests and Levites were indeed engaged in other employments, yet they could not withhold their honour from an occupation which supplied them with their income. The esteem in which agriculture was held diminished as luxury increased; but it never wholly came to an end. Even after the captivity, when many of the Jews had become merchants and mechanics, the esteem and honour attached to this occupation still continued, especially under the dynasty of the Persians, who were agriculturists from motives of religion.

The soil of Palestine is very fruitful, if the dews and vernal and autumnal rains are not withheld. The country, in opposition to Egypt, is eulogized for its rains in Deut. xi, 10. The Hebrews, notwithstanding the richness of the soil, endeavoured to increase its fertility in various ways. They not only divested it of stones, but watered it by means of canals, communicating with the rivers or brooks; and thereby imparted to their fields the richness of gardens, Psalm i, 3; lxv, 10; Prov. xxi, 1; Isa. xxx, 25; xxxii, 2, 20. Springs, therefore, fountains, and rivulets, were held in as much honour and worth by husbandmen as by shepherds, Joshua xv, 9; Judges i, 15; and we accordingly find that the land of Canaan was extolled for those fountains of water of which Egypt was destitute. The soil was enriched, also, in addition to the method just mentioned, by means of ashes; to which the straw, the stubble, the husks, the brambles, and grass, that overspread the land during the sabbatical year, were reduced by fire. The burning over the surface of the land had also another good effect, namely, that of destroying the seeds of the noxious herbs, Isa. vii, 23; xxxii, 13; Prov. xxiv, 31. Finally, the soil was manured with dung.

The Hebrew word, , which is translated variously by the English words, grain, corn, &c, is of general signification, and comprehends in itself different kinds of grain and pulse, such as wheat, millet, spelt, wall-barley, barley, beans, lentils, meadow-cumin, pepperwort, flax, cotton; to these may be added various species of the cucumber, and perhaps rice. Rye and oats do not grow in the warmer climates; but their place is, in a manner, supplied by barley. Barley, mixed with broken straw, affords the fodder for beasts of burden, which is called . Wheat, , which, by way of eminence, is called , grew in Egypt in the time of Joseph, as it now does in Africa, on several branches from one stalk, each one of which produced an ear, Gen. xii, 47. This sort of wheat does not flourish in Palestine: the wheat of Palestine is of a much better kind.

HUSKS, et, Luke xv, 16; the husks of leguminous plants, so named from their resemblance to a, a horn; but Bochart thinks that the eata were the ceretonia, the husks or fruit of the carob tree, a tree very common in the Levant. We learn from Columella, that these pods afforded food for swine; and they are mentioned as what the prodigal desired to eat, when reduced to extreme hunger.

HUTCHINSONIANS, the followers of John Hutchinson, Esq., a learned and respectable layman, who was born at Spennythorn, in Yorkshire, in 1674. In 1724, he published the first part of that curious work, “Moses’s Principia,” in which he ridiculed Dr. Woodward’s “Natural History of the Earth,” and exploded the doctrine of gravitation established in Sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia.” In the second part of this work, published in 1727, he maintained, in opposition to the Newtonian system, that a plenum is the principle of the Scripture philosophy. In this work he also intimated that the idea of a Trinity is to be taken from the grand agents in the natural system, fire, light, and spirit. From this time he continued to publish a volume every year or two till his death; and a correct and elegant edition of his works, including the MSS. which he left was published in 1748, in 12 vols. 8vo. Mr. Hutchinson thought that the Hebrew Scriptures comprise a perfect system of natural philosophy, theology, and religion. He 473entertained so high an opinion of the Hebrew language, that he thought the Almighty must have employed it to communicate every species of knowledge, human and divine; and that, accordingly, every species of knowledge is to be found in the Old Testament. Both he and his followers laid a great stress on the evidence of Hebrew etymology. After Origen, and other eminent commentators, he asserted that the Scriptures are not to be understood and interpreted in a literal but in a typical sense, and according to the radical import of the Hebrew expressions; that even the historical parts, and particularly those relating to the Jewish ceremonies and Levitical law, are to be considered in this light; and he also asserted that, agreeably to this mode of interpretation, the Hebrew Scriptures would be found amply to testify concerning the nature and offices of Jesus Christ. His plan was to find natural philosophy in the Bible, where hitherto it had been thought no such thing was to be met with, or ever intended. His editors tell us, he found, upon examination, that the Hebrew Scriptures nowhere ascribe motion to the body of the sun, nor fixedness to the earth; that they describe the created system to be a plenum without any vacuum at all, and reject the assistance of gravitation, attraction, or any such occult qualities, for performing the stated operations of nature, which are carried on by the mechanism of the heavens, in their threefold condition of fire, light, and spirit, or air, the material agents set to work at the beginning; that the heavens, thus framed by almighty Wisdom, are an instituted emblem and visible substitute of Jehovah Aleim, the eternal Three, the coëqual and co-adorable Trinity in Unity; that the unity of substance in the heavens points out the unity of essence and the distinction of conditions, the personality in Deity, without confounding the persons or dividing the substance; and that, from their being made emblems, they are called in Hebrew shemim, the names, representatives, or substitutes, expressing by their names that they are emblems, and, by their conditions or offices, what it is they are emblems of. He also found that the Hebrew Scriptures have some capital words, which he has proved, or endeavoured to prove, contain, in their radical meaning, the greatest and most comfortable truths. Thus, the word Elohim, which we call God, or, as he reads it, Aleim, he refers to the oath or conditional execration, by which the eternal covenant of grace among the persons in Jehovah was and is confirmed. The word berith, which our translation renders “covenant,” signifies, “he or that which purifies” and so the Purifier or purification for, not with, man. The cherubim, which have been thought “angels placed as a guard to deter Adam from breaking into Eden again,” he explains to have been a hieroglyphic of divine construction, or a sacred image, to describe, as far as figures could go, the Aleim and man taken in, or humanity united to deity. In like manner, he treats several other words of similar, though not quite so solemn, import. Hence he drew this conclusion, “that all the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation were so many delineations of Christ, in what he was to be, to do, and to suffer; and that the early Jews knew them to be types of his actions and sufferings, and, by performing them as such, were in so far Christians, both in faith and practice.” His followers maintain, that the cherubim, and the glory around them, with the divine presence in them, were not only emblematical figures, representing the persons of the ever blessed Trinity, as engaged in covenant for the redemption of man, but also that they were intended “to keep or preserve the way of the tree of life, to show man the way to life eternal, and keep him from losing or departing from it.” That Melchizedec was an eminent type of Christ, there can be little doubt; but that he was actually the second person of the Trinity, in a human form, is a tenet of the Hutchinsonians, though not entirely peculiar to them. Mr. Hutchinson supposes that “the air exists in three conditions, fire, light, and spirit; the two latter are the finer and grosser parts of the air in motion: from the earth to the sun, the air is finer and finer till it becomes pure light near the confines of the sun, and fire in the orb of the sun, or solar focus.” From the earth toward the circumference of this system, in which he includes the fixed stars, the air becomes grosser and grosser till it becomes stagnant, in which condition it is at the utmost verge of this system; from whence, in his opinion, the expression of “outer darkness,” and “blackness of darkness,” used in the New Testament, seems to be taken. These are some of the principal outlines of this author’s doctrines, which have been patronized by several eminent divines, both of the church and among the Dissenters.

2. The followers of Mr. Hutchinson have not erected themselves into a sect or separate community. Among them may be reckoned some eminent and respectable divines, both in England and Scotland; but their numbers seem at present to be rather on the decrease. Of those who, in their day, were ranked in the list of Hutchinsonians, perhaps the most eminent were the following: Mr. Julius Bate, and Mr. Parkhurst, the lexicographers; Mr. Holloway, author of “Originals,” and “Letter and Spirit;” Dr. Hodges, provost of Oriel College, Oxford; Mr. Henry Lee, author of “Sophron, or Nature’s Characteristics of the Truth;” Dr. Wetherell, late master of University College, Oxford; Mr. Romaine; Bishop Horne; and Mr. William Jones, the bishop’s learned friend and biographer.

HYMN, a song, or ode, composed in honour of God. The Jewish hymns were accompanied with trumpets, drums, and cymbals, to assist the voices of the Levites and people. The word is used as synonymous with canticle, song, or psalm, which the Hebrews scarcely distinguish, having no particular term for a hymn, as distinct from a psalm or canticle. St. Paul requires Christians to edify one another with “psalms, and hymns, and spiritual 474songs.” St. Matthew says, that Christ, having supped, sung a hymn, and went out. He recited the hymns or psalms which the Jews were used to sing after the passover; which they called the Halal; that is, the Hallelujah Psalms.

HYPERBOLE. This figure, in its representation of things or objects, either magnifies or diminishes them beyond or below their proper limits: it is common in all languages, and is of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. Thus, things which are lofty are said to reach up to heaven, Deut. i, 28; ix, 1; Psalm cvii, 26. So things which are beyond the reach or capacity of man are said to be in “heaven,” in the “deep,” or “beyond the sea,” Deut. xxx, 12; Rom. x, 6, 7. So a great quantity or number is commonly expressed by the “sand of the sea,” the “dust of the earth,” and the “stars of heaven,” Genesis xiii, 16; xli, 49; Judges vii, 12; 1 Sam. xiii, 5; 1 Kings iv, 29; 2 Chron. i, 9; Jer. xv, 8; Heb. xi, 12. In like manner we meet with “smaller than grasshoppers,” Num. xiii, 33, to denote extreme diminutiveness; “swifter than eagles,” 2 Sam. i, 23, to intimate extreme celerity; the “earth trembled,” the “mountains melted,” Judges v, 4, 5; the “earth rent,” 1 Kings i, 40. “I make my bed to swim;” “rivers of tears run down mine eyes.” So we read of “angels' food,” Psalm vi, 6; cxix, 136; lxxviii, 25; the “face of an angel,” Acts vi, 15; and the “tongue of an angel,” 1 Cor. xiii, 1. See also Gal. i, 8; iv, 14. We read “sigh with the breaking of thy loins,” Ezek. xxi, 6, that is, most deeply. So we read that “the stones would cry out,” and “they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another,” Luke xix, 40, 44; that is, there shall be a total desolation.

HYPOCRITE, a word from the Greek, which signifies one who feigns to be what he is not; who puts on a masque or character, like actors in tragedies and comedies. It is generally applied to those who assume appearances of a virtue, without possessing it in reality. Our Saviour accused the Pharisees of hypocrisy. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word caneph, which is rendered “hypocrite,” “counterfeit,” signifiessignifies also a profane wicked man, a man polluted, corrupted, a man of impiety, a deceiver. It was ingeniously said by Basil, that the hypocrite did not put off the old man, but put the new man upon it.

HYPOSTATICAL UNION; the union of the divine and human natures of Christ in one person. This is the doctrine generally received in the church of Christ; but there have been some who have denied this, who yet acknowledge our Lord’s divinity. Nestorius, who had been taught to distinguish accurately between the divine and human nature of Christ, was offended with some expressions commonly used by Christians in the beginning of the fifth century, which seemed to destroy that distinction, and particularly with their calling the Virgin Mary et, as if it were possible for the Godhead to be born. His zeal provoked opposition; in the eagerness of controversy he was led to use unguarded expressions; and he was condemned by the third of the general councils, the council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It is a matter of doubt whether the opinions of Nestorius, if he had been allowed by his adversaries fairly to explain them, would have appeared inconsistent with the doctrine established by the council of Ephesus, that Christ is one person, in whom two natures were most closely united. But whatever was the extent of the error of Nestorius, from him is derived that system concerning the incarnation of Christ, which is held by a large body of Christians in Chaldea, Assyria, and other regions of the east, and which is known in the ecclesiastical history of the west by the name of the Nestorian heresy. The object of the Nestorians is to avoid every appearance of ascribing to the divinity of Christ the weakness of humanity; and therefore they distinguish between Christ, and God who dwelt in Christ as in a temple. They say, that from the moment of the virgin’s conception, there commenced an intimate and indissoluble union between Christ and God, that these two persons presented in Jesus Christ one sp, or aspect, but that the union between them is merely a union of will and affection, such in kind as that which subsists between two friends, although much closer in degree. Opposite to the Nestorian opinion is the Eutychian, which derives its name from Eutyches, an abbot of Constantinople, who, about the middle of the fifth century, in his zeal to avoid the errors of Nestorius, was carried to the other extreme. Those who did not hold the Nestorian opinions had been accustomed to speak of the “one incarnate nature” of Christ. But Eutyches used this phrase in such a manner as to appear to teach that the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine, and that his body had no real existence. This opinion was condemned in the year 451, by the council of Chalcedon, the fourth general council, which declared, as the faith of the catholic church, that Christ is one person; that in this unity of person there are two natures, the divine and the human; and that there is no change, or mixture, or confusion of these two natures, but that each retains its distinguishing properties. The decree of Chalcedon was not universally submitted to. But many of the successors of Eutyches, wishing to avoid the palpable absurdity which was ascribed to him, of supposing that one nature was absorbed by another, and anxious at the same time to preserve that unity which the Nestorians divided, declared their faith to be, that in Christ there is one nature, but that this nature is twofold or compounded. From this tenet the successors of Eutyches derive the name of Monophysites; and from Jacob Baradæus, who in the following century was a zealous and successful preacher, of the system of the Monophysites, they are more commonly known by the name of Jacobites. The Monophysites, or Jacobites, are found chiefly near the Euphrates and Tigris; they are much less numerous than the Nestorians; and, although they profess to have corrected the errors which were supposed to adhere to the Eutychian 475heresy, they may be considered as having formed their peculiar opinions upon the general principles of that system. The Monothelites, an ancient sect, of whom a remnant is found in the neighbourhood of Mount Libanus, disclaim any connection with Eutyches, and agree with the Catholics in ascribing two natures to Christ; but they have received their name from their conceiving that Christ, being one person, can only have one will: whereas the Catholics, considering both natures as complete, think it essential to each to have a will, and say that every inconvenience which can be supposed to arise from two wills in one person, is removed by the perfect harmony between that will which belongs to the divine, and that which belongs to the human nature of Christ.

HYSSOP, , Exod. xii, 22; Lev. xiv, 4, 6, 49, 51, 52; Num. xix, 6, 18; 1 Kings iv, 33; Psalm li, 7; Matt, xxvii, 48; Mark xv, 36; ssp, John xix, 29; Heb. ix, 19. It grows plentifully on the mountains near Jerusalem. It is of a bitter taste; and, from being considered as possessing detersive and cleansing qualities, derived probably its Hebrew name. The original word has been variously translated; and Celsius has devoted forty-two pages to remove difficulties, occasioned by the discordant opinions of the Talmudical writers, and to ascertain the plant intended. That it is the hyssop seems most probable: the passage in Heb. ix, 19, sufficiently identifies it. Under the law, it was commonly used in purifications as a sprinkler. When the children of Israel came out of Egypt, they were commanded to take a bunch of hyssop, to dip it in the blood of the paschal lamb, and sprinkle it on the lintel and the two side-posts of the door. It was also used in sprinkling the leper. The hyssop is extremely well adapted to such purposes, as it grows in bunches, and puts out many suckers from a single root.