in too bare a light, and are ready to say, Far be it! that we should glory, save in the cross, where that work was finished. Whatever doctrine then teaches us to think, that our friendly correspondence, or acceptance with God, is begun by our own good endeavours, seconded by the divine aid, or even first prompted by the divine influence, leads us to look for acceptance with God by our own righteousness: for whatever I do, however assisted or prompted, is still my own work; otherwise the most common actions of life could not be called our own, seeing in all these we must still acknowledge our dependence on God in whom we live, move, and have our being. Agreeably to what is now said, we may find philosophers and Pharisees, both ancient and modern, in the height of their self-applause, acknowledging divine assistance, and ready to agree in using language like this, God, I thank thee for my excellency above other men. We must begin our religion, then, as we would end it. Our acceptance with God, first and last, must rest entirely on the work finished by Jesus Christ on the cross; or we must betake ourselves to what many call the religion of nature, and what God warrants us to call the religion of pride, as being no less opposite to the law of nature, than to the gospel. The gospel proposes nothing to be believed by us, but what is infallibly true, whether we believe it or not. For shall our own unbelief make the faith or veracity of God of none effect? Far be it! Heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one of his words shall fall to the ground. GRAIN. In order to render plain to the meanest capacity, the great and all-glorious truth, that the dead should rise again, the Lord Jesus Christ made the following statement: " Except," said he, "a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." And the apostle Paul, alluding to the same subject, observes, "that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain." 1 Cor. xv. 36, 37. It is very remarkable, that, in numerous instances, the actual profoundness and correctness of several philosophical statements in the Scriptures, have been the very cause of some would-be philosophers, asserting such statements to be unphilosophical. As we have advanced in philosophical knowledge, we have discovered the Scriptural statements to be essentially consistent with the deepest modern scientific researches: and consequently, we have been constrained to look with pity and contempt on men, whose arrogancy and boasting, were surpassed only by their ignorance. The vain sarcasm of Paine, (who was preeminently distinguished by the foregoing qualities, viz: arrogance and ignorance,) on these passages of sacred writ, has given rise to these remarks: need we marvel, when the very same, induced the learned and venerable bishop Watson, to tell him, (Paine) that "such smattering in philosophy, really moves one's indignation; and that a little learning is a dangerous thing." Are the above statements respecting the death of grain, strictly philosophical? They are: for a grain of seed is that which is cognizable to our senses: that is, that which can be seen, tasted, smelt and felt! But it contains within itself an invisible, minute, seminal principle. Now what is it which dies, or rots, before we see the blade above the ground? Is it the container, that is, what, in common language, is called, the seed? Or the thing contained, that is, the principle of reproduction? Why, not only the most ignorant person, but the profoundest philosopher, will immediately reply, it is the seed that dies. And yet Thomas Paine called Paul a fool for so saying. Hence we perceive that the sacred writers used language not only most easily understood by the generality of the people, but at the same time strictly philosophical. See Light. Sun. Creation. Stars. HATE. This word is often used in the Scriptures as in common conversation, to signify, an inferior degree of love, of attachment, or of liking; but not to detest or abhor. Thus it is written, "Jacob have I loved; but Esau have I hated;" that is, loved in an inferior degree to Jacob. Again, the Lord says, (Luke xiv. 26,) "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yea, his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." The four words in italics, evidently show the meaning attached by the Lord to the word “hate”—that is, he who so loves his father or mother, or his own flesh, so as to obey any of their impulses, orders or directions, in opposition to the commands of God, "cannot be my disciple." Did the Lord call upon a man actually to hate his own life, at the same time proclaiming to him the words to give him life? Absurd: yet this would be a natural inference, if the term "hate" meant any thing else, except an inferior degree of love. We must take this passage in unison with the whole tenor of Scripture, and with the fair and legitimate use of language; or we must give it that meaning which would be in direct opposition to the most positive commands of God, to honour and obey our parents to love our children-to love all men as ourselves! Common justice, and common honesty, forbid this interpretation. Finally, are there not cases where a child, a husband, a wife, &c., would be fully authorized to hate, that is, in this sense, to disobey the command or inducement of the parent, &c.? Should they not disobey (that is, hate,) any one attempting to seduce them from virtue, or induce them to do evil? If you tried to persuade your child, or your wife, to steal, commit murder, get drunk, &c., would they not then be fully justified in disobeying you? or in other words, "obeying God rather than man?" Then to all intents and purposes, they would prove, they love God more than you; that is, they hate you, in this respect, though they may ardently love you. See Language. HEAVEN. The original word translated heaven, signifies nothing more than space. It is written in Rev. xii. 7, that there was war in heaven; that is in space; that is, in existence; that is, war had existed. (See Devil.) It is written in 2 Pet. iii. 10, 11, 12, "The heavens shall pass away with a great noise; and the elements shall melt with fervent heat," &c. (Ver. 11.) "These things shall be dissolved;" i. e. the "heavens shall melt, be dissolved or decomposed." The eleventh verse tells us how the heavens shall melt: that is, the whole atmosphere. The elements of which it is composed, are oxygen and nitrogen; these shall be dissolved, i. e. decomposed, separated, not destroyed. This, even man can do! HEBRON. HILKIAH. HEBREW LANGUAGE. 211 HEBRON. The King of Hebron, was slain by the Israelitish general. (Josh. x. 23,) And his successor (not himself!) slain also by the same general, (ver. 37,) but not the same king slain twice, as infidels have pretended! HILKIAH. See Huldah. Of all the Oriental lan- HEBREW LANGUAGE. guages, (says Horne,) the of being the most ancient: In this language the Old Testament is written, with the exception of a few words and passages which are in the Chaldæan dialect. The origin of the Hebrew language must be dated farther back than the period to which we can trace the appellation, Hebrew. It is plain from the names of persons and places in Canaan, that, wherever Abraham sojourned, he found a language in which he could easily converse, viz: the Hebrew or Phonicain language. That this was originally the language of Palestine, is evident from the names of nations being appellative, and from other facts in respect to the formation of this dialect. Thus, the West is, in Hebrew (YUM) which means the sea, that is, towards the Mediterranean sea. As the Hebrew has no other proper name for west, so it must be evident that the language, in its distinctive and peculiar forms, must have been formed in Palestine. The Jewish Rabbins, Jonathan the author of the Chaldee Paraphrase, Solomon Jarchi, and Aben-Ezra, have affirmed, that Hebrew was the primitive language. spoken in Paradise, and their opinion has been adopted by Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and some other fathers, as well as by some modern critics and philologers. Various circumstances indeed, combine to prove, that Hebrew is the original language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idi |