HAG 
HAG 
159 
HA'GENBURG, a town of Germany, in the arch¬ 
duchy of Auflria : nine miles north-eaft of'Stey’regg. 
HA'GENBURG, a t»own of Germany, in the circle of 
Weftphalia, and county of Schauenbilrg: fifteen miles 
well of Hanover", and forty-fix fouth-fouth-eall of Bre¬ 
men. Lat. 52^ 30. N. Ion. 26. 53. E. Ferro. 
HAGE'NIA, ft. in botany, a genus of the clafs oftan- 
■ dria, order ntonogynia. Generic charafters—Calyx two- 
leayed ; corolla five-petalled, flat; neblary five leaflets, 
four times as fltort as the petals. 
Hagfenia Abyflinica, the only fpecies, defcribed by 
Mr. Bruce. It is a tree with annulate branches; leaves 
crowded at the tip of the branches, interruptedly pin¬ 
nate w ith an odd one ; leaflets ovate-lanceolate, lharply 
ferrate; panicle nodding, flexuotis. Inhabits AbyIfinia. 
HAG'EJMAU, a town of France, in the department 
of the Landes, and chief place of a canton, in the'diflrift 
of Sr. Sever : two leagues and a half fouth of St. Sever, 
and five fouth-eaft of Tartas. 
HAGGA'I, the tenth in order of the Hebrew minor 
prophets, fuppofed to haver been a defcendant from 
Aaron, and the firft perfon comrnilfioned to deliver a 
divine melfage to the Jews-after their return from the 
Babylonilh captivity. He began to prophefy in the 
lixth month of the fecond year of the. reign of Darius 
Hyflafpqs, or 520 years before Cliriff. The fublimeft 
part of his prophecies, and which bifhop Newcombe 
conliders as metrical, is that wherein he admonilhes 
Zertibbabel, the governor of Judah, of the approaching 
convulfions which flfould terminate in the deft.-uftion 
of Babylon ; during which lie and the Jewiih people 
ftiould be favoured with God’s fpecial protection. We 
have no information that can be depended upon refpeft- 
ing either the,place or time of this prophet’s death. 
It was this prophet who by command of God (Ezra v. 
x, 2, &c.) exhorted the Jews, after their return from 
the captivity, to finilh the rebuilding of the temple, 
which they had intermitted for fourteen years. His re- 
monltrances had their effect; and to. encourage them to 
proceed in the work, he allured them from God, that 
the glory of this latter houfe lhould be greater than the 
glory of the former houfe ; which was accordingly ful¬ 
filled, when Chrilt honoured it with-his prefence: for 
with refpeft to the building, phis latter temple was no¬ 
thing in coinparifon of the former. 
On the feeming inconlilfency or contradiftion between 
the hiilory given by Jofephusj and the prophecy of 
Haggai, relative to the latter and former temple, viz. 
“ The glory of this latter houle lha.ll be greater than of 
the former, faith the -Lord of Hofts ; and in this place 
will I give peace, faith the Lord of Holls.” Hag. ii. 9 ; 
number! efs cavils have been indulged by fceptical wri¬ 
ters. But happily for the caufe of religion, the Rev. 
Dr. Blayney, regius proleCTor of Hebrew in the univer- 
fity'of Oxford, has recently and fatisfaftorily proved, 
that there exifts no luch contradiftion as that infilled 
upon, nor any oppofition between the firlL and fecorid 
temple, as implk\s;the neceflity of falfehood on-the one 
fide or on the other. Feeling the importance • of the 
iubjeft, we think it right to Hate this explanation in 
the learned : profelibr’s own words : 
“ In the Hebrew (fays he) the words will beifoundto 
Hand precilely t.hus : — Great Jkdil be the glory of thishoufe, 
the latter morethan the former. —So that the words latter and 
former may as well be conftrufted with the glory, as with 
thishoufe. Accordingly the,Seventy have aftualLy; adopt¬ 
ed tins conftruCtion, -md render, the latter glory of this 
houfe flail be greater than the former ; and the context, teems, 
evidently to jult.ify the propriety of their . tranflation. 
For in the introductory part of this prophecy the word 
ftrft or foririer is inanifeftly appliedlfto glory , and not to 
this houfe.. ‘ Who is left among you, that law this houle 
in her firft glory? and how do you fee if now ? Is.it not 
in your eyes in companion of it as.nothing ?’ <■ It is ma- 
nifell too, that in this paflage the term this, houfe is not 
confined in its application to the houfe which the Jews 
were then building,, but is undeniably meant of Solo¬ 
mon’s temple. Nor indeed is it generally necefTary to 
render a houfe identically the fame, according to the 
•common acceptation of language, that it be built at one 
.and the fame time, and exaftly of the fame form and 
materials; it is fufficient, though it fhould have been 
rebuilt at different times fucceilively, if it be erefted 
ftill on the fame feite, and devoted to the feIf-fame pur- 
pofe. It is the houfe of God, the temple 'appropriated 
to divine worfliip at Jerusalem, which is intended by 
tAfaitm/e,- wjhether built by Solomon, by'thejews under 
Zerubbabel, or by Herod. In like manner as we tifually 
fpeak of what has been tranfafted in the church of St. 
Paul’s at London as well before its demolition, as fince 
it has been- rebuilt in its prefent fplendour, as done in 
one and the fame church. Were it otherwife, how could 
Solomon’s temple be called this houfe, as it is in the paf- 
fage juft now cited ? ' Or how are wie to underftand the 
words ( Ezra, v. 11, 12, 13.) which the Jews are faid to 
have fpoken in anfwer to the Perfian officers, who de¬ 
manded of them what authority they had for rebuilding ' 
the ten)ple? ‘We are,’ laid they, ‘ the fervants of the 
God of heaven ancf earth, and build the houfe that was 
builded t-hefe many years ago, which a great king of I frael 
builded and fet up. But after that our fathers had pro¬ 
voked the God of heaven unto wrath, he-gave them into 
the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, the 
Chaldean, who deftroyed this houfe, and carried the people 
away into Babylon. But in the firft year of.Cyrus the 
king of Babylon, the fame king Cyrus made a decree to 
build this houfe of God.’ Here it is plain, that the words 
thishoufe are alternately applied 10 tlie temple of Solo¬ 
mon, and that built under Zerubbabel, and may cer¬ 
tainly as well be extended to that of Herod. So that 
allowing the conftruftion now brought forward, there 
remains no longer a contradiftion between Jofephus’s 
liiftory and the prophecy in queftion, whether we choofe 
to Underftand by the glory the wealth and decorations in¬ 
troduced by Herod, and thofe that followed after him, 
or the manifeftation of the divine prefence in the fame 
tempLe by the Meflia'h’s coming. Which of thefe two is 
to be preferred, is a point that may now be determined 
upon without much hefitation.” 
Bilhop Newcome, however, prefers the Vulgate and 
Englifh verfions of this paflage to that of the Seventy. 
Profeftbr Blayney, though he does not mention the bi- 
fhop’s objection, invalidates it by producing Ruth, iii. 10. 
where the Englifh tranflato.rs have rendered-pirn nnu'n 
ptt’snnj jo fcrinkn “ Thou haft jhewn more kindnefs in the latter 
end than at the beginning —The profeffor alfo thinks that 
the perfonal appearance of Chrift in the temple, con- 
ftituted the glory of which the prophet Haggai fpeaks; 
contending, in oppofition to Dr. Heberden, that either 
tvjon or nnon may be applied to a Tingle perfon, though 
the latter, perhaps, with a fignification foinewhat more 
intenfe than the former. By tlie peace intimated in the 
prophecy, he underftands the Gofgel of Peace \ and by the 
“flaking,” which was 1 -to' affeft the “■'heavens, and [the 
earth, and theftea, and the dry landj and all nations,'’ Hag. ii. 
6, 7, he believes that nothing :elfe could: he intended, 
but the change and revolution produced in the reli¬ 
gious circumftances of the world at. the.cpming of the 
Mefliah. 
“ We are juftified (fays he) in applying,it, in the 
manner now mentioned, by no iefs authority than-that 
of the inf'pired writer of the Epiftlefo the Hebrews, who, 
■in comparing tjfie: gofpel covenant with that of thg law, 
which alfo was introduced by God himfelLamong.f,^ 
Jews with great folemnity, fays, ‘ Whofe voice then 
(hook the earth,’ namely, at the giving of the law; 
‘ but now he hath promifed, faying, Yet once more I 
.lhake not the earth only, but alfo heaven. Apd this 
word, Yet once more, .fignifieth the removing of thofe 
things that are fhaken, as of things. that are made,’ or 
