H ATTEMISTS, a Dutch denomination which arose in the seventeenth century. They derive their name from Pontium Van Hattem, a minister in the province of Zealand. He interpreted the Calvinistic doctrine concerning absolute decrees, so as to deduce from it the system of a fatal and uncontrollable necessity. Having laid down this principle to account for the origin of all events, he denied the difference between moral good and evil, and the cor It is asserted by Dallaway, in his account of Constantinople, ancient and modern, which was published in 1797, that all orders of the Greek clergy inferior to bishops are permitted to marry. Celibacy and the assumption of monastic habits, are indispensably requisite in those who are candidates for the mitre. The riches of some of the Greek churches and monasteries, in jewels, particularly pearls, in plate, and in the habits of the clergy, are very great, and reckoned not much inferior to those in Roman Catholic countries.* See Part the Second. ruption of human nature. Hence he concluded that mankind were under no sort of obligation to correct their manners, to improve their minds, or to endeavour after a regular obedience to the divine laws that the whole of religion consisted not in acting, but in suffering; and that all the precepts of Jesus Christ are reducible to this single one-that we bear with cheerfulness and patience the events that happen to us through the divine will, and Dallaway's History of Constantinople, pp. 378, 379. Ricaut's State of the Greek Church. King's History of the Greek Church, pp. 11–134. Father Simon's Religion of the Eastern Nations, pp. 5-8. Thevenot's Travels, p. 412. Broughton's Historical Library, vol. i. pp. 145-147. History of Religion, vol. vi. pp. 251-253. Encyclopædia, vol. viii. p. 127. make it our constant and only study to maintain a permanent tranquillity of mind. This denomination also affirmed, that Christ had not satisfied the divine justice, nor made an expiation for the sins of men by his death and sufferings; but had only signified to us, by his mediation, that there was nothing in us. that could offend the Deity. They maintained that this was Christ's manner of justifying his servants, and presenting them blameless before the tribunal of God. They also taught that God does not punish men for their sins, but by their sins.t HELSAITES, a denomination which arose in the second century. They denied some parts of the old and new testament; did not own Paul to be an apostle; and thought it an indifferent thing, if, in persecution, they denied the faith in words. They received a certain book, which they said came down from heaven, and contained their doctrine.‡ HENRICIANS, a denomination in the twelfth century, founded by Henry, a monk. He rejected the baptism of infants, censured with severity the licentious manners of the clergy, and treated the festivals and ceremonies of the church with the utmost contempt.§ a HERACLEONITES, branch of the Valentinians in the second century. They derived their name from Heracleon, who maintained that the world was not the immediate production of the Son of God; but that he was only the occasional cause of its being created by the Demiurgus. The Heracleonites denied the authority of the prophecies of the old testament, maintaining that they were mere random sounds in the air; and that John the baptist was the only true voice which directed to the Messiah. HERMOGENIANS, a denomination which arose towards the close of the second century; so denominated from Hermogenes, a painter by profession. He regarded matter as the fountain of all evil, and could not persuade himself that God had created it from nothing by an almighty act of his will. Therefore he maintained that the world, with whatever it contains, as also the souls of men and other spirits, were formed by * This opinion was peculiar to the Hattemists, and distinguished them from the Verschorists. Mosheim, vol. iv. pp. 553, 554. § Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 448. + Athenian Oracle, vol. ii, p. 128. Broughton, vol. i. p. 484, the Deity from an uncreated holy Ghost. His disciples and eternal mass of corrupt taught, that the Word, or Son matter.* of God, was contained in the HERRENHUTTERS. See Father, as a little vessel in a Moravians. HETEROUSIANS, a name given to one of the Arian divisions. See Arians. HIERACITES, a denomination in the third century; so called from their leader Hierax, a philosopher and magician of Egypt. Hierax maintained that the principal object of Christ's office and ministry, was the promulgation of a new law more severe and perfect than that of Moses. Hence he concluded that the use of flesh, wine, wedlock, and of other things agreeable to the outward senses, which had been permitted under the Mosaic dispensation, was absolutely prohibited and abrogated by Christ. He excluded from the kingdom of heaven children who died before they had arrived to the use of reason; and that upon the supposition that God was bound to administer the rewards of futurity to those only who had fairly finished their victorious conflict with the body and its lusts he maintained also that Melchisedec was the great one; whence they had the name of Metangismonites, from the greek word μεταγγισμονος, which signifes contained in a vessel. Hierax also denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.† HOFFMANISTS, those who espoused the sentiments of Daniel Hoffman, professor in the university of Helmstadt, who in the year 1598 taught that the light of reason, even as it appears in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, is adverse to religion; and that the more the human understanding is cultivated by philosophical study, the more perfectly is the enemy supplied with weapons of defence.‡ HOMOIAUSIANS, a name given to a branch of the Arians. See Arians. HOPKINSIANS, so called from the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D. D., pastor of the first congregational church atNewport; who in his sermons and tracts has made several additions to the sentiments first advanced by the celebrated Jonathan Edwards, late presjdent of New Jersey college.§ * Mosheim, vol. i. p. 190. † Ibid. p. 246. Broughton, vol. i. p. 493. Enfield's History of Philosophy, vol. ii. p. 506. This denomination suppose that this eminent divine not only illustrated and confirmed the main doctrines of Calvinism, but brought the whole system to a greater degree of consistency and perfection than any who had gone before him; and they profess only to pursue the same design, of still further perfecting the same system. The following is a summary of the distinguishing tenets of this denomination, together with a few of the reasons of which they make use to support their sentiments :— 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 our neighbour as ourselves 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 serious person think what are the particular branches of true piety; when he has viewed each one by itself, he will find that disinterested, friendly affection, is its distinguishing characteristic. For instance: all the holiness in pious fear : which distinguishes it from 2. That all sin consists in selfishness. By this is meant an interested, selfish affection, by which a person sets himself up as supreme, and the only object of regard; and nothing is good or lovely in his view, *The law requires us to love God with all our hearts, because he is the Lord, because he is just such a Being as he is. On this account, primarily and antecedently to all other considerations, he is infinitely amiable; and therefore on this account, primarily and antecedently to all other conside zations, he ought to appear infinitely amiable in our eyes. unless suited to promote his own private interest. This selflove is in its whole nature, and every degree of it, enmity against God: it is not subject to the law of God, and is the only affection that can oppose it. It is the foundation of all spiritual blindness, and therefore the source of all the open idolatry in the heathen world, and false religion under the light of the gospel all this is agreeable to that self-love which opposes God's true character. Under the influence of this principle, men depart from truth; it being itself the greatest practical lie in nature, as it sets up that which is comparatively nothing above Universal Existence. Self-love is the source of all profaneness and impiety in the world, and of all pride and ambition among men, which is nothing but selfishness acted out in this particular way. This is the foundation of all covetousness and sensuality, as it blinds people's eyes, contracts their hearts, and sinks them down, so that they look upon earthly enjoyments as the greatest good. This is the source 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 all iniquity, selflove. 3. That there are no promises of regenerating grace made to the doings 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 do no duty when they attend on the externals of religion. And as the unregenerate act from a selfish principle, they do nothing which is commanded: their impenitent doings are wholly opposed to repentance and conversion; therefore not implied in the command to repent, &c.; so far from this, they are altogether disobedient to the command. Hence it appears that there are no promises of salvation to the doings of the unregenerate. The author of the Moral Disquisitions, while comparing Hopkinsian Calvinists with real Calvinists, has this inference. "It is evident that Hopkinsian sentiments are only the genuine, flourishing, and fruitful branches of the Calvinistic tree; for the Hopkinsians plead that there is no duty in the actions of sinners, because they are totally depraved. As total depravity, therefore, is the great pillar in the Calvinistic theory, there is no more difference between Calvinists and Hopkinsians, than there is between a tree and its branches, or between first principles and consequences. The broad foundation which supports our ample superstructure was long since deeply |