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.