Chapter LVI: Part 56

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 is 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 Πνεῦμα, _Spirit_, and also by many distinct personal acts being ascribed to him, as, “to come,” “to go,” “to be sent,” “to teach,” “to guide,” “to comfort,” “to make intercession,” “to bear witness,” “to give gifts,” “dividing them to every man as 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 against, 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, μαρτυρία, 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,) by 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 a 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 our 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, דבש. It is probable, that it was in order to keep the Jews at a distance from the customs of the Heathen, who were used to offer honey in their sacrifices, that God forbade it to be offered to him, that is to say, burnt upon the altar, Lev. ii, 11; but at the same time he commanded that the first-fruits of it should be presented. These first-fruits and offerings were designed for the support and sustenance of the priests, and were not consumed upon the altar. In hot weather, the honey burst the comb, and ran down the hollow trees or rocks, where, in the land of Judea, the bees deposited great store of it. This, flowing spontaneously, was the best and most delicious, as it was quite pure, and clear from all dregs and wax. The Israelites called it יערה, _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_, μέλι ἄγριον, 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 it 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, the special influences of the Spirit of God in regeneration, justification by faith alone, the final perseverance of the saints, and the consistency between entire freedom and absolute dependence; and therefore claim it as their just due, since the world will make distinctions, to be called Hopkinsian Calvinists. Calvinists, however, have demurred against several of these propositions, and a long and warm controversy was occasioned by them in the United States; to a few points of which we shall advert.--(1.) Selfishness, as confining our affections and exertions to ourselves, is confessedly a vice; but that self is not to be excluded from our affections, is evident even from the terms of the divine law,--“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And the Scriptures teach us, that “no man hateth his own flesh.” Such a “disinterested benevolence,” therefore, as implies no peculiar anxiety for our personal salvation and happiness, can never be required of us. A good man may and must be convinced, that God would be just in his final condemnation, considered out of Christ; but it is impossible to acquiesce in such a prospect; it is making holiness to consist in being satisfied with remaining for ever unholy, which is as impious as it is contradictory; and the strong and strange things which some Hopkinsonians have said on this subject, can only be accounted for from the love of paradox. (2.) The other principal point on which Calvinists dissent, is the making God “the author and efficient cause of sin.” It is true that the Doctor says elsewhere, that “in causing or originating sin, there is no sin;” this, however, is a position so dangerous, so unsupported, and so contrary to the common sense of mankind, that we may well shrink from it; and should risk no speculation that can implicate the divine character, or furnish an excuse for sin. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” saith the Apostle. “God forbid! for how then shall God judge the world?” Rom. iii, 5, 6. Those who feel interested in the controversy, may be fully gratified in the “Contrast between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism,” by Ezra Styles Ely, A. M., (New-York, 1811,) and other American publications. In this country the controversy is but little known; but we may remark that the theory of Hopkins appears to be an attempt to unite some points of mystic theology with the Calvinism commonly received, and that where it differs from the latter system, it relieves no difficulty.

HOR. This mountain, in its general acceptation, is probably the same with Mount Seir, Hor being the name by which that mountainous tract was denominated before it was exchanged for Seir. But one particular mountain of this region retained the name of Hor long after; as it was a mountain of this name, “by the coast of the land of Edom,” that Aaron was commanded to ascend, in order to die there, Num. xx, 23. This mountain, or at least the one to which tradition assigns the tomb of Aaron, was visited by Burckhardt; from whose account it appears to form a conspicuous object in the chain of the Djebel Shera, or Mount Seir, rising abruptly from the valley of El Araba, or desert of Zin, about fifty miles north of Akaba, or Ezion-Geber.

HOREB, a mountain in Arabia Petræa, a part of which, or near to which, was Sinai. At Horeb God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Exod. iii, 1, &c. Hither Elijah retired to avoid the persecution of Jezebel, 1 Kings xix, 8. Sinai and Horeb seem to be two parts of the same mountain; hence the law is sometimes said to be given there.

HORN. By horns the Hebrews sometimes understood an eminence, or angle, a corner, or a rising. By horns of the altar of burnt offerings, many understand the angles of that altar; but there were also horns, or eminences, at the corners of that altar, Exod. xxvii, 2; xxx, 2. Horn also signifies glory, brightness, rays. God’s “brightness was as the light, he had horns coming out of his hand,” Hab. iii, 4; that is, refulgent beams issuing from the hollow of it. As the ancients frequently used horns to hold liquors, vessels containing oil and perfumes are often called horns, whether made of horn or not. “Fill thine horn with oil,” says the Lord to Samuel, “and anoint David,” 1 Sam. xvi, 1. Zadok took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon, 1 Kings i, 39. Job called one of his daughters Kerenhappuch, horn of antimony, or horn to put antimony (_stibium_) in, which the women of the east still use at this day, Job xliii, 14. The principal defence and strength of horned beasts consist in their horns; and hence the Scripture mentions the horn as a symbol of strength. The Lord exalted the horn of David, the horn of his people; he breaketh the horn of the ungodly; he cutteth off the horn of Moab; he cutteth off the horn of Israel; he promiseth to make the horn of Israel to bud forth; to reëstablish the honour of it, and restore its former vigour. Moses compares Joseph to a young bull, and says that he has horns like those of a unicorn. Kingdoms and great powers are often in Scripture described by the symbol of horns. In Daniel vii, viii, horns represent the power of the Persians, of the Greeks, of Syria, of Egypt, or of Pagan and Papal Rome. The prophet represents three animals as having many horns, one of which grew from the other. This emblem is a natural one, since in the east are rams which have many horns.

HORNET, הצרעה, Exod. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20; Joshua xxiv, 12. The hornet, in natural history, belongs to the 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 literal 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_; οἶστρον, _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.”
DRYDEN.

Dr. Hales is of opinion, that the Latin _asilus_ and Greek οιστρον, were probably only different pronunciations of the same oriental term, הצרעה, _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 being 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.