ADVERTISEMENT TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. (continued 31)

3. Arius regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by Christ, κτίσμα κτίϛματος, the creature of a creature. Some time afterward, his personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was considered as 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 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 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, 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,) 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, 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 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, 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 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; 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 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, סוס. 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, עלוקה, 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.”

Darwin.

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 τὸ μέσον 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, אל-ארבתיהם, 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 חלון, 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, מעקה, 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 שבכה 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, חבל, 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, דגן, 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 כליל. Wheat, חטה, which, by way of eminence, is called דגן, 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, κεράτιον, Luke xv, 16; the husks of leguminous plants, so named from their resemblance to κέρας, a horn; but Bochart thinks that the κερατία 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.