Il 0 x Mm <0 mM σ = mu © ra 0 rm ca Mm From the library of the late Very Rev. Dr. George C. Pidgeon SYNONYMS OF ΗΠ NEW THSrAMENS SYNONYMS OF THE NAY En SPA ΕΝ BY RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D. ARCHBISHOP WITH SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES BY A. L. MAYHEW, M.A. NEW EDITION LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER ἃ CO. Lr. PATERNOSTER HOUSE, CHARING CROSS ROAD 1901 | 50652 (The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved) PREFACE TO ἘΠΕ ΙΟΠΤΗ Pe a Ou THIS VOLUME, not any longer a little one, has grown out of a course of lectures on the Synonyms of the New Testament, which, in the fulfilment of my duties as Professor of Divinity at King’s College, London, I more than once delivered to the theological students there. The long, patient, and exact studies in language of our great Schools and Universities, which form so invaluable a portion of their mental, and of their moral discipline as well, could find no place during the two years or two years and a half of the theological course at King’s College. The time itself was too short to allow this, and it was in great part preoccupied by more pressing studies. Yet, feeling the immense value of these studies, and how unwise it would be, because we could not have all which we would desire, to forego what was possible and within our reach, I two or three times dedicated a course of lectures to the comparative value of words in the New Testament—and these lectures, with many subsequent additions and some defalcations, have supplied the materials of the, present volume. I have never doubted that (setting vi PREFACE ΤΟ JHE aside those higher and more solemn lessons, which in a great measure are out of our reach to impart, being taught rather by God than men), there are few things which a theological teacher should have more at heart than to awaken in his scholars an enthusiasm for the grammar and the lexicon. We shall have done much for those who come to us for theological training and generally for mental guidance, if we can persuade them to have these continually in their hands ; if we can make them believe that with these, and out of these, they may be learning more, obtaining more real and lasting acquisitions, such as will stay by them, and form a part of the texture of their own minds for ever, that they shall from these be more effectually accomplishing them- selves for their future work, than from many a volume of divinity, studied before its time, even if it had been worth studying at all, crudely digested, and therefore turning to no true nourishment of the intellect or the spirit. Claiming for these lectures a wider audience than at first they had, I cannot forbear to add a few observations on the value of the study of synonyms, not any longer having in my eye the peculiar needs of any special body of students, but generally; and on that of the Synonyms of the New Testament in particular ; as also on the helps to the study of these which are at present in existence; with a few further remarks which my own experience has suggested. The value of this study as a discipline for training the mind into close and accurate habits of thought, the amount of instruction which may be drawn from it, the increase of intellectual wealth which it may yield, all this has been implicitly recognized by well-nigh all great writers—for well- nigh all from time to time have paused, themselves to play the dividers and discerners of words—explicitly by not a few, EIGHTH EDITION vil who have proclaimed the value which this study had in their eyes. And instructive as in any language it must be, it must be eminently so in the Greek—a language spoken by a people of the subtlest intellect; who saw distinctions, where others saw none; who divided out to different words what others often were content to huddle confusedly under a common term; who were themselves singularly alive to its value, diligently cultivating the art of synonymous distinc- tion (the ὀνόματα διαιρεῖν, Plato, Laches, 197 d); and who have bequeathed a multitude of fine and delicate observations on the right discrimination of their own words to the after- world. Many will no doubt remember the excellent sport which Socrates makes of Prodicus,' who was possest with this passion to an extravagant degree (Protag. 387 a ὃ ο). And while thus the characteristic excellences of the Greek language especially invite us to the investigation of the likenesses and differences between words, to the study of the words of the New Testament there are reasons additional inviting us. If by such investigations as these we become aware of delicate variations in an author’s meaning, which otherwise we might have missed, where is it so desirable that we should miss nothing, that we should lose no finer intention of the writer, as in those words which are the vehicles of the very mind of God Himself? If thus the intellectual riches of the student are increased, can this any- where be of so great importance as there, where the in- tellectual may, if rightly used, prove spiritual riches as well ? If it encourage thoughtful meditation on the exact forces of words, both as they are in themselves, and in their relation ! On Prodicus and Protagoras see Grote, History of Greece, vol. vi. p. 67; Sir A. Grant, Hthics of Aristotle, 3rd edit. Voli ΡῈ 125. 1ὴ Grifenham’s most instructive Gesch. der klassischen Philologie there are several chapters on this subject. viii PREFACE TO .7HE to other words, or in any way unveil to us their marvel and their mystery, this can nowhere else have a worth in the least approaching that which it acquires when the words with which we have to do are, to those who receive them aright, words of eternal life; while in the dead carcases of the same, if men suffer the spirit of life to depart from them, all manner of corruptions and heresies may be, as they often have been, bred. The words of the New Testament are eminently’ the στοιχεῖα Of Christian theology, and he who will not begin with a patient study of those, shall never make any consider- able, least of all any secure, advances in this: for here, as everywhere else, sure disappointment awaits him who thinks to possess the whole without first possessing the parts of which that whole is composed. The rhyming couplet of the Middle Ages contains a profound instruction : ‘Qui nescit partes in vanum tendit ad artes ; Artes per partes, non partes disce per artes.’ Now it is the very nature and necessity of the discrimination of synonyms to compel such patient investigation of the force of words, such accurate weighing of their precise value, abso- lute and relative, and in this its chief merits as a mental discipline consist. Yet when we look around us for assistance herein, neither concerning Greek synonyms in general, nor speci- ally concerning those of the New Testament, can it be affirmed that we are even tolerably furnished with books. Whatever there may be to provoke dissent in Déderlein’s Lateinische Synonyme und Etymologieen, and there could be scarcely an error more fatally misleading than his notion that Latin was derived from Greek, there is no book on Greek synonyms which for compass and completeness can FIGHTH EDITION ix bear comparison with it; and almost all the more important modern languages of Europe have better books devoted to their synonyms than any which have been devoted to the Greek. The works of the early grammarians, as of Ammonius and others, supply a certain amount of valu- able material, but cannot be said even remotely to meet the needs of the student at the present day. Vémel’s Synonymisches Worterbuch, Frankfurt, 1822, excellent as far as it goes, but at the same time a school-book and no more, and Pillon’s Synonymes Grecs, of which a translation into English was edited by the late T. K. Arnold, London, 1850, are the only modern attempts to supply the deficiency; at least 1 am not aware of any other. But neither of these writers has allowed himself space to enter on his subject with any fulness and completeness: not to say that references to the synonyms of the New Testament are exceedingly rare in Vomel; and, though somewhat more frequent in Pillon’s work, are capricious and uncertain there, and in general of a meagre and unsatisfactory description. The only book dedicated expressly and exclusively to these is one written in Latin by J. A. H. Tittmann, De Synonymis in Novo Testamento, Leipzig, 1829, 1832. It would ill become me, and I have certainly no intention, to speak slightingly of the work of a most estimable man, and a good scholar—above all, when that work is one from which I have derived some, if not a great deal of assistance, and such as I most willingly acknowledge. Yet the fact that we are offering a book on the same subject as a preceding author; and may thus lie under, or seem to others to lie under, the temptation of unduly claiming for the ground which we would occupy, that it is not solidly occupied already ; this must not wholly shut our mouths from pointing out what may appear to us deficiencies or shortcomings on his part. x PREFACE TO THE And this work of Tittmann’s seems to me still to leave room for another, even on the very subject to which it is specially devoted. It sometimes travels very slowly over its ground ; the synonyms which he selects for discrimination are not always the most interesting; nor are they always felicitously grouped for investigation; he often fails to bring out in sharp and clear antithesis the differences between them ; while here and there the investigations of later scholars have quite broken down distinctions which he has sought to establish; as for instance that between διαλλάσσειν and καταλλάσσειν, aS though the first were a mutual, the second only a one-sided, reconciliation ;' or again as that between ἄχρι and μέχρι. Indeed the fact that this book of Tittmann’s, despite the interest of its subject, and its standing alone upon it, to say nothing of its translation into English,’ has never obtained any considerable circulation among students of theology here, is itself an evidence of its insufficiency to meet our wants in this direction. Of the deficiencies of the work now offered, I am only too well aware; none can know them at all so well as myself. I know too that even were my part of the work much better accomplished than it is, I have left untouched an immense number of the Synonyms of the N. T., and among these many of the most interesting and instructive.2 I can only 1 See Fritzsche, On Rom. v. 10. 2 Biblical Cabinet, vols. iii. xviii. Edinburgh, 1833, 1837. The translation is very poorly performed. 3 The following list is very far from exhausting these: προσφορά, θυσία, δῶρον---παροιμία, παραβολή, duoiwois—vids Θεοῦ, παῖς Θεοῦ---δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις, δικαιοσύνη---ἐπίτροπος, οἰκονόμος- -κῆπος, παράδεισος--- χολή, πικρία. ὅρος, βουνός-- τάφος, μνημεῖον. μονή, οἰκία---κειρία, 60évia—vios, τέκνον---πύλη, θύρα-- -ἅλυσις, πέδη---- ἐλπίς, ἀποκαραδοκία---ἔνταλμα, διδασκα- λία--- χαρά, ἀγαλλίασις, εὐφροσύνη---δόξα, τιμή, ἔπαινος---βάρος, φορτίον, ὄγκος---ἀμνός, ἀρνίον----ὗς, χοῖρος-- ξύλον, σταυρός-- πηλός, BépBopos—ierds, ὄμβρος-- κτήματα, ὑπάρξεις-- ποταμός, χείμαῤῥος-- κόμη, θρίξ---ὀφθαλμός, HAGHITCEDITION xi hope and pray that this volume, the labour sometimes painful, but often delightful, of many days, may, notwith- standing its many faults and shortcomings, not wholly miss its aim. That aim has been to lead some into closer and more accurate investigation of Hzs Word, in Whom, and therefore in whose words, ‘all riches of wisdom and know- ledge are contained.’ I might here conclude, but having bestowed a certain amount of attention on this subject, I am tempted, before so doing, to offer a few hints on the rules and principles which must guide a labourer in this field, if the work is at all to prosper in his hands. They shall bear mainly on the proper selection of the passages by which he shall confirm and make ὄμμα---γλῶσσα, διάλεκτος---νέφος, νεφέλη-- πτόησις, θάμβος, ἔκστασι---- γάζα, θησαυρός, ἀποθήκη- ταμιεῖον, ὄρνεον, πετεινόν---κλίνη, κράββατο---- δεσμωτήριον, φυλακή---κυβεία, μεθοδεία, πανουργία-- παρηγορία, παρα- μυθία, παράκλησις---τύπος, ὑπόδειγμα, ὑπογραμωός, ὑποτύπωσις---μάχαιρα, ¢ / Μ > 7, > / , lt 3 / ᾿ς ὅταν, ῥομφαία. --ἔρις, ἐριθεία---ἐξουσία, δύναμις, κράτος, ἰσχύς, βία, ἐνέργεια--- ‘2 , “ “-“ A > 7 > / > , > «ς / κρέας, σάρξ---πνεῦμα, vous-—AvTN, ὀδύνη, ὠδίν.--- ἀντίδικος, ἐχθρός, ὑπεναντίος . διάβολος, δαίμων, δαιμόνιον, κατήγωρ---ἅὅδης, γέεννα, τάρταρος, pvdakh— λόγος, ῥῆμα--ἀσθένεια, νόσος. μαλακία, μάστιξ---λυτρωτής, σωτήρ--- ἐνθύ- μησις, ἔννοια, διαλογισμός---στίγμα, μώλωψ, πληγή---ὄλεθρος, ἀπώλεια--- - ἐντολή, δόγμα, παραγγελία--- βρέφος, παιδίον---ἄγνοια, ἀγνωσία.---σπυρίς, κόφινος- ἄνοια, ἀφροσύνη, μωρία.- ἀνάπαυσις, κατάπαυσις---ἁγιασμός, c / ς , > , > / Ves € > , ἁγιότης, ἁγιωσύνη---καλός, ἀγαθός- -ἀσθενής, ἄῤῥωστο----εὐμετάδοτος, κοι- νωνικός- -μέτοχος, κοινωνός. ἑδραῖος, ἀμετακίνητος---πρωτότοκος, μονογενής ats 5. ἤ a6 vA / / ὄπ πίδ x 7, - ἀΐδιος, aidvios—Hpewos, ἡσύχιος---ξένος, πάροικος, Tapemidnuos—okoA.s, διεστραμμένος. ἀπειθής, ἄπιστος- φροντίζω, μεριμνάω---πέμπω, ἀποστελλω pare 159 3 oe ἢ - κράζω, κραυγάζω, βοάω, ἀναβοάω---τρώγω, φάγομαι, ἐσθίω----συμπαθέω, μετριοπαθέω--- καλέω, ὀνομάζω---σιγάω, σιωπάω---τηρέω, φυλάσσω, φρουρέω - πλανάω, ἀπατάω, παραλογίζομαι---ὁράω, βλέπω, θεάομαι, θεωρέω, ὅπτομαι - γινώσκω, οἶδα, ἐπίσταμαι---εὐλογέω, εὐχαριστέω---ἰάομαι, θεραπεύω, Bov- λομαι, θέλω---καταρτίζω, τελειόω-- καταγινώσκω, κατακρίνω---ταράσσω, τυρ- βάζω. ἔρχομαι, ἥκω---συλλαμβάνω, βοηθέω---κοπιάω, ἀγωνίζομαι---βεβαιόω, , ἧς / > / vA / ῥιζόομαι, θεμελιόω, στηρίζω-- μυκάομαι, ὠρύομαι---διδάσκω, νουθετέω, σωφρονίζω---κλυδωνίζομαι, περιφέρω, ταράσσω- -ὀνειδίζω, λοιδορέω, μέμφο- μαι, κακολογέω---πληρόω, τελειόω---ἄνευ, χωρίς.---νῦν, ἄρτι. ΧΙ PREPACE 70 THE good, in his own sight and in the sight of others, the con- clusions at which he has arrived ; for it is indeed on the skill with which this selection is made that his success or failure will almost altogether depend. It is plain that when we affirm two or more words to be synonyms, that is alike, but also different, with resemblance in the main, but also with partial difference, we by no means deny that there may be a hundred passages where it would be quite as possible to use the one as the other. All that we certainly affirm is that, granting this, there is a hundred and first, where one would be appropriate and the other not, or where, at all events, one would be more appropriate than the other. To detect and cite this passage, to disengage it from the multitude of other passages, which would help little or nothing here, this is a chief business, we may say that it is the chief business, of one who, undertaking the task of the discrimination of words, would not willingly have laboured in vain. It is true that a word can hardly anywhere be used by one who is at all a master, either conscious or unconscious, of language, but that his employment of it shall assist in fixing, if there be any doubt ‘on the matter, the exact bounds and limitations of its meaning, in drawing an accurate line of demarcation between it and such other words as border upon it, and thus in defining the territory which it occupies as its own. Still it would plainly be an endless and impossible labour to quote or even refer to all, or a thousandth part of all, the places in which any much used word occurs; while, even supposing these all brought together, their very multitude would defeat the purpose for which they were assembled ; nor would the induction from them be ἃ whit more satisfactory and conclu- sive than that from select examples, got together with judgment and from sufficiently wide a field. He who would undertake this work must be able to recognize what these BIGHIA LZDITION ΧΙ passages are, which, carrying conviction to his own mind, he may trust will carry it also to those of others. A certain innate tact, a genius for the seizing of subtler and finer dis- tinctions, will here be of more profit than all rules which can beforehand be laid down; at least, no rules will compensate for the absence of this; and when all has been said, much ~ must be left to this tact. At the same time a few hints here need not be altogether unprofitable, seeing that there is no such help to finding as to know beforehand exactly what we should seek, and where we should seek it. It is hardly necessary to observe that the student in this field of labour will bestow especial attention on the bringing together, so far as they bear upon his subject, of those passages in good authors in which his work is, so to speak, done to his hand, and some writer of authority avowedly undertakes to draw out the distinction between certain words, either in a single phrase, or in a somewhat longer discussion, or in a complete treatise. To these he will pay diligent heed, even while he will claim the right of reconsidering, and it may be declining to accept, the distinctions drawn by the very chiefest among them. The distinguishing of synonyms comes so naturally to great writers, who are also of necessity more or less accurate thinkers, and who love to make sure of the materials with which they are building, of the weapons which they are wielding, that of these distince- tions traced by writers who are only word-dividers accident- ally and by the way, an immense multitude exists, a multitude far beyond the hope of any single student to bring together, scattered up and down as they are in volumes innumerable. I will enumerate a few, but only as illustrating the wide range of authors from whom they may be gathered. Thus they are met in Herodotus (εὐτυχής and ὄλβιος, 1. 832); in Plato (θαῤῥαλέος and ἀνδρεῖος, xiv PREPACE ΧΟ ΤΗΝ Protag. 849 6; θάρσος and ἀνδρεία, Ib. 861 b; ἰσχυρός and δυνατός, Ib. 860 ὁ ; πόλεμος and στάσις, Rep. v. 470 ὃ ; διάνοια and νοῦς, 10. vi. 511 d; μνήμη and ἀνάμνησις, Philebus, 84 δ: ef. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. i. 1.15); in Aristotle (εὐγενής and γενναῖος, Hist. Anim. 1. 1. 14; Fhet. ii. 15; ef. Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 15, in fine; ἔπαινος and ἐγκώμιον, Ethic. Nic. i. 12.6; Ehet. i. 9; ἁφή and σύμφυσις, Metaph. iv. 4; φρόνησις and σύνεσις, Hthic. Nic. vi. 11; ἀκόλαστος and ἀκρατής, Ib. vii. 7,10; πνεῦμα and ἄνεμος, De Mund. iv. 10; cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg.i. 14; ὄμβρος and terds, De Mund. iv. 6; εὔνοια and φιλία, Hthic. Nic. ix. 5); in Xenophon (οἰκία and οἶκος, Gicon. 1.5; βασιλεία and τυραννίς, Mem. iv. 6. 12) ; in Demosthenes (λοιδορία and κατηγορία, xvili. 123) ; in Philo (μίξις, κρᾶσις, and σύγχυσις, De Conf. Ling. 87; δῶρον and δόμα, Leg. Alleg. iii. 70; δωρεά and δόσις, De Cherub. 25; θρασύτης and θαῤῥαλεότης, Quis Ker. Div. Her. 5; πνοή and πνεῦμα, Leg. Alleg. i. 18; in Plutarch (ἀκολασία and ἀκρασία, De Virt. Mor. 6; ἐγκράτεια δα σωφροσύνη, ibid.) ; in Lucilius (‘poéma’ and ‘poésis,’ Sat. 9); in Cicero (‘ vitium,’ ‘morbus,’ and ‘ egrotatio,’ Tusc. iv. 18; ‘ gaudium,’ ‘ letitia,’ and ‘ voluptas,’ 10. iv. 6; οὗ Seneca, Hp. 59; Aulus Gellius, ll. 27; ‘cautio’ and ‘metus,’ Tusc. iv. 6; ‘labor’ and ‘dolor,’ 10. ii. 15; ‘ versutus’ and ‘ callidus,’ De Nat. Deor. 111.10 ; ‘doctus’ and ‘ peritus,’ De Off.1.41; ‘ perseverantia ’ and ‘ patientia,’ De Inv. ii. 34; ‘dignitas’ and ‘ venustas,’ De Off. i. 80. 17; ‘maledictum’ and ‘accusatio,’ Pro Cel. iii, 6; with others innumerable). They are found in Quintilian (‘salsus,’ ‘ urbanus,’ and ‘ facetus,’ Instit. vi. 8, 17; ‘fama’ and ‘rumor,’ 10. v. 8; ἤθη and πάθη, Ib. vi. 2, 8); in Seneca (‘ira’ and ‘iracundia,’ De I7rd, i. 4); in Aulus Gellius (‘matrona’ and ‘materfamilids,’ xviii. 6. 4 ; ‘fulvus ’ and ‘ flavus,’ ‘ruber’ and ‘rufus,’ Jd. ii. 26) ; in St. Jerome (‘pignus’ and ‘arrha,’ in H'phes. i. 14; ‘puteus’ and EIGHTH EDITION XV ‘cisterna,’ in Osee i. 1; ‘bonitas’ and ‘benignitas,’ in Gal. ν. 22: ‘modestia’ and ‘ continentia,’ zbid.) ; in St. Augustine (‘flagitium’ and ‘ facinus,’ Conf. iii. 8, 9; ‘volo’ and ‘cupio,’ De Civ. Dei, xiv. 8; ‘ fons’ and ‘ puteus,’ ὅν Joh. iv. 6; ‘senecta’ and ‘senium,’ Hnarr. im Ps. Ixx. 18; ‘ emu- latio’ and ‘invidia,’ Hap. in Gal. v. 20; ‘ curiosus’ and ¢gtudiosus,’ De Util. Cred. 9);'! in Hugh of St. Victor (‘cogitatio,’ ‘meditatio,’ ‘contemplatio,’ De Contemp. 1. 8, 4); in Muretus (‘ possessio ’ and ‘dominium,’ Hpist. iii. 80) ; and, not to draw this matter endlessly out, in South (‘ envy’ and ‘emulation,’ Sermons, 1787, vol. v. p. 403; compare Bishop Butler’s Sermons, 1836, p. 15); in Barrow (‘slander ’ and‘ detraction’); in Jeremy Taylor (‘mandatum’ and ‘jussio,’ Ductor Dubitantiwm, iv. 1. 2. 7); in Samuel Johnson (‘talk ’ and ‘conversation,’ Boswell’s Life, 1842, p. 719); in Géschel (‘ equitas ’ and ‘jus,’ Zerst. Blatter, part ii. p. 887); in Coleridge (‘ fanaticism’ and ‘ enthusiasm,’ Lt. Rem. vol. ii. p. 865 ; ‘ keenness’ and ‘subtlety,’ Table Talk, p. 140; ‘analogy’ and ‘metaphor,’ A7ds to Reflection, p. 198) ; and in De Quincey (‘ hypothesis,’ ‘theory,’ ‘system,’ Lit. Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 299, American Ed.). Indeed in every tongue the great masters of language would rarely fail to contribute their quota of these. There is a vast number of other passages also, in worth secondary to those which I have just adduced, inasmuch as they do not draw these accurate lines of demarcation between the domain of meaning occupied by one word and that occupied by others bordering upon it; but which yet, con- taining an accurate definition or pregnant description of some one, will prove most serviceable when it is sought to distinguish this from others which are cognate to it. All 1 For many more examples in Augustine see my St. Augustine on the Sermon on the Mount, 3rd edit. p. 27. XVI PREPACE. TO THE such definitions and descriptions he will note who has taken this subject in hand. Such, for example, is Plato’s definition of διάνοια (Sophist. 263 e): ὃ ἐντὸς τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς αὑτὴν διάλογος ἄνευ φωνῆς γιγνόμενος : οὗ νόμος (Legg. i. 644 4) : ὃς [λογισμὸς] γενόμενος δόγμα πόλεως κοινὸν νόμος ἐπωνόμασται: with which that of Aristotle may be compared: νόμος δέ ἐστιν ὁμολόγημα πόλεως κοινὸν διὰ γραμμάτων, προστάττον πῶς xen πράττειν ἕκαστα (het. ad Alex. ii.) ; or, again, Aristotle’s of εὐτραπελία that it is ὕβρις πεπαιδευμένη, or “ chastened insolence’ (het. ii. 12); of σεμνότης that it is μαλακὴ καὶ εὐσχήμων βαρύτης (LZhet. ii. 19); or Cicero’s of ‘ temperantia,’ that it is ‘moderatio cupiditatum rationi obtemperans’ (De Fin. ii. 17; or again of ‘beatitudo’ Tusc. v. 10): ‘ Secretis malis omnibus cumulata bonorum omnium possessio;’ or of ‘vultus,’ that it is ‘sermo quidam tacitus mentis;’ or of ‘divinatio,’ that it is ‘Harum rerum que fortuite putantur predictio atque preesensio’ (Divin. i. 5, 9) ; again, of ‘ gloria’ (Tusc. 111. 2), that it is ‘ consentiens laus bonorum, incorrupta vox bene judicantium de excellente virtute ;’ or once more (Inv. ii. 55, 156): * Est frequens de aliquo fama cum laude ;’ or South’s of the same, more subtle, and taken more from a subjective point of view (Sermons, 1737, vol. iv. p. 67): ‘Glory is the joy a man conceives from his own perfections considered with relation to the opinions of others, as observed and acknowledged by them.’! Or take another of Cicero’s, that namely of ‘jactatio,’ that it is ‘ voluptas 7 1 Compare George Eliot— ‘What is fame But the benignant strength of one, transformed To joy of many ?’ while Godet has a grand definition of ‘ glory,’ but this now the glory of God: ‘La gloire de Dieu est V’éclat que projettent dans le cceur de créatures intelligentes ses perfections manifestées.? LIGHT A LDITION XVIl gestiens, et se efferens violentius’ (Zwsc. iv. 9). All these, and the like of these, he will gather for the use which, as occasion arises, may be made of them; or, in any event, for the mental training in a special direction which their study will afford him. Another series of passages will claim especial attention ; - those namely which contain, as many do, ἃ pointed antithesis, and which thus tell their own tale. For in- stance, when Ovid says severally of the soldier and the lover, ‘hic portas frangit, at ille foves,’ the difference between the gates of a city and the doors of a house, as severally expressed by the one word and the other, can escape no reader. This from Cicero (Verr. v. 66), ‘facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelws verberari,’ gives us at once what was his relative estimate of ‘ facinus’ and ‘scelus.’ There are few distinctions more familiar than that existing ’ and ‘homo’; but were this otherwise, a passage like that well-known one in Cicero concerning Marius (Zusc. ii. 22) would bring the distinction to the consciousness of all. One less trite which Seneca affords will do the same (Hp. 104): ‘Quid est cur timeat laborem vir, mortem homo?’ while this at once lets us know what difference he puts between ‘delectare’ and ‘ placere’ (Hp. 39): ‘Malorum ultimum est mala sua amare, ubi turpia non solum delectant, sed etiam placent;’ and this what the difference is between ‘carere’ and ‘indigere’ (Vit. Beat. 7) : ‘ Voluptate virtus seepe caret, nunquam indiget.’ The dis- tinction between ‘secure’ and ‘ safe,’ between ‘ securely’ and ‘safely,’ is well-nigh obliterated in our modern English, but how admirably is it brought out in this line of Ben Jonson,— between ‘ vir ‘Men may securely sin, but safely never.’ Closely connected with these are passages in which words are used as in a climacteric, one rising above the other, each a XViil . PREFACE TO THE evidently intended by the writer to be stronger than the last. These passages will at all events make clear in what order of strength the several words so employed presented themselves to him who so used them. Thus, if there were any doubt about the relation of ‘ paupertas’ and ‘ egestas,’ a passage like the following from Seneca (Hp. 58) would be decisive, so far at least as concerns the silver age of Latinity: ‘ Quanta verborum nobis pawpertas, imo egestas sit, nunquam magis quam hodierno die intellexi;’ while for the relations be- tween ‘inopia’ and ‘egestas’ we may compare a similar passage from the younger Pliny (Hp. iv. 18). Another passage from Seneca (De Ird, ii. 86: ‘Ajacem in mortem egit furor, in furorem ira’) shows how he regarded ‘ira’ and ‘furor.’ When Juvenal describes the ignoble assenta- tion of the Greek sycophant, ever ready to fall in with and to exaggerate the mood of his patron, ‘si dixeris, “estuo,” sudat ’ (Sat. iii. 103), there can be no question in what rela- tion of strength the words ‘ estuo’ and ‘ sudo’ for him stand to one another. Nor in this way only, but in various others, a great writer, without directly intending any such thing, will give a most instructive lesson in synonyms and their distinction merely by the alternations and interchanges of one word with another, which out of an instinctive sense of fitness and pro- priety he will make. For instance, what profound instruc- tion on the distinction between βίος and ζωή lies in the two noble chapters with which the Gorgias of Plato concludes, while yet he was certainly very far from designing any such lesson. So, too, as all would own, Cicero is often far more instructive, and far more to be relied on as a guide and authority in his passionate shifting and changing of words than when in colder blood he proceeds to distinguish one from another. So much we may affirm without in the least LIGHTH EDITION X1X questioning the weight which ail judgments of his on his own language must possess. Once more, the habitual associates of a word will claim the special attention of one who is seeking to mark out the exact domain of meaning which it occupies. Remembering the proverb, ‘ Noscitur a sociis,’ he will note accurately the _ company which it uses to keep; above all, he will note if there be any one other word with which it stands in ever- recurring alliance. He will draw from this association two important conclusions: first, that it has not exactly the same meaning as these words with which it is thus con- stantly associated ; else one or the other, and not both, save only in a few exceptional cases of rhetorical accumulation, would be employed: the second, that it has a meaning nearly bordering upon theirs, else it would not be found in such frequent combination with them. Pape’s Greek Lexicon is good, and Rost and Palm’s still better, for the attention bestowed upon this point, which had been only very partially attended to by Passow. The helps are immense which may here be found for the exact fixing of the meaning of a word. Thus a careful reader of our old authors can scarcely fail to have been perplexed by the senses in which he finds the word ‘ peevish’ employed—so different from our modern, so difficult to reduce to that common point of depar- ture, which yet all the different meanings that a word in time comes to obtain must have once possessed. Let him weigh, however, its use in two or three such passages as the following, and the companionship in which he finds it will greatly help him to grasp the precise sense in which two hundred years since it was employed. The first is from Burton (Anatomy of Melancholy, part iii. ὃ 1): ‘We provoke, rail, scoff, calumniate, hate, abuse (hard-hearted, implacable, malicious, peevish, inexorable as we are), to satisfy our lust or fa 2 ΧΧ PREFACE TO THE private spleen.’ The second from Shakespeare (Two Gentle- men of Verona, Act III. Se. 1): Valentine. ‘Cannot your Grace win her to fancy him ?’ Duke. ‘No, trust me, she is peevish, sullen, froward, Proud, disobedient, stubborn, lacking duty.’ Surely in these quotations, and in others similar which could easily be adduced, there are assistances at once safe and effectual for arriving at aright appreciation of the force of ‘peevish.’ © Again, one who is considering and seeking to arrive at the exact value, both positive and relative, of words will diligently study the equivalents in other tongues which masters of language have put forward; especially where it is plain they have made the selection of the very fittest equiva- lent a matter of earnest consideration. I spoke just now of ‘peevish.’ Another passage from Burton—‘ Pertinax hominum genus, a peevish generation of men ’—is itself sufficient to confirm the notion, made probable by induction from passages cited already, that self-willedness (αὐθάδεια) was the leading notion which the word once possessed. Sometimes possessing no single word of their own precisely equivalent to that which they would render, they have sought to approach this last from different quarters, and what no single one would do, to effect by several, employing sometimes one and sometimes another. Cicero tells us that he.so dealt with the Greek, σωφροσύνη, for which he found no one word that was its adequate representative in Latin. © Each of these will probably tell us some part of that which we desire to learn. But then further, in seeking to form an exact estimate of ethical terms and their relation to, and their distinction BiG. DITION. XX1 from, one another, it will profit much to observe by what other names virtues and vices have been called, with what titles of dishonour virtues have been miscalled by those who wished to present them in an odious or a ridiculous light ; with what titles of honour vices have been adorned by those _ who would fain make the worse appear the better, who would put darkness for light and light for darkness; since, unjust as in every case these words must be, they must yet have retained some show and remote semblance of justice, else they would scarcely have imposed on the simplest and the most unwary ; and from their very lie a truth may be extorted by him who knows how to question them aright. Thus when Plato (Rep. viii. 560 6) characterizes some as ὕβριν μὲν εὐπαιδευσίαν καλοῦντες, ἀναρχίαν δὲ ἐλευθερίαν, ἀσωτίαν δὲ μεγαλοπρέπειαν, ἀναίδειαν δὲ ἀνδρείαν (ef. Aristotle, Rhet. i. 9); or when Plutarch (Anim. an Corp. Aff. Pej. 8) says, θυμὸν δὲ πολλοὶ καλοῦσιν ἀνδρείαν, καὶ ἔρωτα φιλίαν, καὶ φθόνον ἅμιλλαν, καὶ δειλίαν ἀσφάλειαν : or when he relates how the flatterers of Dionysius, not now giving good names to bad things, but bad names to good, called the σεμνότης of Dion ὑπεροψία, and his παῤῥησία αὐθάδεια (Dion, 8; οἵ. De Adul. et Am. 14); or, once more, when we have a passage before us like the following from Cicero (Part. Orat. 28): ‘Prudentiam malitia, et temperantiam immanitas in aspernandis voluptati- bus, et liberalitatem effusio, et fortitudinem audacia imitatur, et patientiam duritia immanis, et justitiam acerbitas, et religionem superstitio, et lenitatem mollitia animi, et vere- cundiam timiditas, et illam disputandi prudentiam concertatio captatiogue verborum ’—when, I say, we have such state- ments before us, these pairs of words mutually throw light each upon the other; and it is our own fault if these cari- catures are not helpful to us in understanding what are ΧΧΙῚ PREFACE TO THE exactly the true features misrepresented by them. Wytten- bach, Animadd. in Plutarch. vol. i. pp. 461, 462, has collected a large group of similar passages. He might have added, trite though it may be, the familiar passage from the Satires of Horace, i. 8. 41-66. Let me touch in conclusion on one other point upon which it will much turn whether a book on synonyms will satisfy just expectations or not ; I mean the skill with which the pairs, or, it may be, the larger groups of words, between which it is proposed to discriminate, are selected and matched. He must pair his words as carefully as the lanista in the Roman amphitheatre paired his men. Of course, no words can in their meaning be too near to one another ; since the nearer they are the more liable to be confounded, the more needing to be discriminated. But there may be some which are too remote, between which the difference is so patent that it is quite superfluous to define what it is. ‘Scarlet’ and ‘crimson’ may be confounded; it may be needful to point out the difference between them; but scarcely between ‘ scarlet’ and ‘ green.’ It may be useful to discriminate between ‘pride’ and ‘arrogance’; but who would care for a distinction drawn between ‘pride’ and ‘covetousness’? At the same time, one who does not look for his pairs at a certain remoteness from one another, will have very few on which to put forth his skill. It is difficult here to hit always the right mean; and we must be content to appear sometimes discriminating where the reader counts that no discrimination was required. No one will have taken up a work on synonyms without feeling that some words with which it deals are introduced without need, so broad and self-evident in his eyes does the distinction between them appear. Still, if the writer have in other EIGHTH BDITION XXIII cases shown a tolerable dexterity in the selection of the proper groups, it will be only fair toward him to suppose that what is thus sun-clear to one may not be equally mani- fest to all. With this deprecation of too hasty a criticism of works like the present, I bring these prefatory remarks to a Close. Dustin, March 13, 1876. PREFACE TO PRES NINT BR ΒΌΤΤΓΙΟΝ eee τὰ Wuat I wrote in the Preface to the eighth edition of this book about the want of any considerable work dealing with Greek synonyms needs a certain qualification now. Of J. H. H. Schmidt’s Synonymik der Griechischen Sprache, two volumes (1876, 1879) have appeared. How many more will follow it is impossible to guess. There would be much to say on this book of an accomplished scholar, who has evidently grudged no amount of toil in its preparation, if it became me to criticize it, or if this were the place to do so. This, however, I will observe—namely, that while much may be learned from this book, it altogether fails to satisfy the needs of the theological student. The writer’s whole interest is in Homeric and Attic Greek. Having had his book constantly in my hand while preparing a new edition of this present work, I have not lighted there upon more than two citations from the N. T., and not so much as one from the Septuagint. There may be more, but these cannot be very many. In Greek as one of the two great languages of Revelation, and in the various providential means by which it was formed and fashioned to be an adequate vehicle of this Revelation, in all this Schmidt has apparently no interest whatever ; does not so much as seem to perceive that there is a great subject before him. BroomFiELp, September 3, 1880. CONTENTS pane ταις τὴν PAGE PREFACE . : ¢ : : : : : Σ : : ore | §i. ᾿Ἐκκλησία, συναγωγή. πανήγυρις. ε ‘ ; : ad. ΧΩ: li. θειότης, θεότης : : / : : ; : . caren | 111. ἱερόν, ναός. 3 . : : : ᾿ ‘ ᾿ τῆν 0) iv. ἐπιτιμάω, ἐλέγχω (αἰτία, ἔλεγχος). : ; ; ; a vy. ἀνάθημα, ἀνάθεμα ξ : : : ὃ : : eae Vi. προφητεύω, μαντεύομαι. . . ; ; ; ae vil. τιμωρία, κόλασις. : , : : : ᾿ ; eae Vili. ἀληθής, ἀληθινός. : : : ; ξ ἢ ὑ ix. θεράπων, δοῦλος, διάκονος, οἰκέτης, ὑπηρέτης : ee ets x. δειλία, φόβος, εὐλάβεια. : : : : : aes) xi. κακία, κακοήθεια. ᾿ 5 : ͵ : ; : Pe ΧΙ, ἀγαπάω, φιλέω ; ; ; ; . ais) ΧΙ. θάλασσα, πέλαγος : ‘ ᾿ : : . . poy xiv. σκληρός, αὐστηρός. : ᾿ ᾿ ι . . i Al xv. εἰκών, ὁμοίωσις, ὁμοίωμα . : : : . . eee XVi. ἀσωτία, ἀσέλγεια. : : ; . ᾿ ; ; ὍΣ 5. ΧΥΙ. θιγγάνω, ἅπτομαι, ψηλαφάω. ; : : ; : ees ts 131 XVlii. παλιγγενεσία, ἀνακαίνωσις : : : : ; : Atay xix. αἰσχύνη, αἰδώς, éevtporn : . ‘ : } ‘ nae ap) XX. αἰδώς, σωφροσύνη. ‘ teat : : : 66700 xxi, σύρω, ἕλκω : Ἶ : ; ; nS XXli. ὁλόκληρος, τέλειος, ἄρτιος : : : ' ; : πα ἢ xxilil. στέφανος, διάδημα ᾿ : : Ξ : : ey xxiv. πλεονεξία, φιλαργυρία . . ᾿ ᾿ : : τ ἢ Xxv. βόσκω, ποιμαίνω. ᾿ ; : P : ene S() XXV1 § xxvi. XXVli. XXVIil. ih > bert A ἀγράμματος, ἰδιώτης δοκέω, φαίνομαι ζῶον, θηρίον « ΄ > ᾿ ὑπέρ, ἀντί, φονεύς, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, σικάριος κακός, πονηρός, φαῦλος εἰλικρινής, καθαρός. f , πόλεμος, μάχη πάθος, ἐπιθυμία, ὁρμή, ὄρεξις ic. [7 e c / ἱερός, datos, ἅγιος, ἁγνός φωνή, λόγος. λόγος, μῦθος τέρας, σημεῖον, δύναμις, μεγαλεῖον, θαυμάσιον κόσμιος, σεμνος, ἱεροπρεπής αὐθάδης, φίλαυτος ἀποκάλυψις, ἐπιφάνεια, φανέρωσις ἄλλος, ἕτερος ποιέω, πράσσω βωμός, θυσιαστήριον ἔνδοξον, παράδοξον, . 326 . 880 994 . 337 . 840 XXVIi1 CONTENTS R ὃ xevili. λαός, ἔθνος, δῆμος, ὄχλος xcix. βαπτισμός, βάπτισμα. 6. σκότος, γνόφος, ζόφος, ἀχλύς. οἱ. βέβηλος, κοινός. cil. μόχθος, πόνος, κόπος cili. ἄμωμος, ἄμεμπτος, ἀνέγκλητος, ἀνεπίληπτοξ. οἷν. βραδύς, νωθρός, ἀργός cv. δημιουργός, τεχνίτης. cvi. ἀστεῖος, ὡραῖος, καλός 1. ἐλπίς, πίστις. 2. πρεσβύτης, γέρων 8. φρέαρ, πηγή. 4. σχίσμα, αἵρεσις. 5. 6 { 8 9 μακροθυμία, πραότης . ἀνάμνησις, ὑπόμνησις . φόρος, τέλος. . τύπος, ἀλληγορούμενον . λοιδορέω, βλασφημέω 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1ὅ. 16. ive ὀφείλει, δεῖ mpais, ἡσύχιος τεθεμελιωμένος, ἑδραῖος θνητός, νεκρός ἔλεος, οἰκτιρμός ψιθυριστῆς, καταλάλος ἄχρηστος, ἀχρεῖος νομικὅς, νομοδιδάσκαλος, γραμματεύς Some ΕἸΤΥΜΟΙΟΘΊΟΑΙ, Notes INDEX OF SYNONYMS . INDEX OF OtHER Worps . 377 . 381 SYNONYMS THERE NEW TESTAMENT. S i. Ἔκκλησία, συναγωγή, πανήγυρις. THERE are words whose history it is peculiarly interesting to watch, as they obtain a deeper meaning, and receive a new consecration in the Christian Church; words which the Church did not invent, but has assumed into its service, and employed in a far loftier sense than any to which the world has ever put them before. The very word by which the Church is named is itself an example—a more illustrious one could scarcely be found—of this progressive ennobling of a word.' For we have ἐκκλησία in three distinct stages of meaning—the heathen, the Jewish, and the Christian. In respect of the first, ἡ ἐκκλησία (ΞΞἔκκλητοι, Euripides, Orestes, ‘ Zezschwitz, in his very interesting Lecture, Profangrdcitét und Biblischer Sprachgeist, Leipzig, 1859, p. 5, has said excellently well, ‘ Das Christenthum wiire nicht als was es siegend iiber Griechenthum und Romerthum sich ausgewiesen, hitte es zu reden vermocht, oder zu reden sich zwingen lassen miissen, nach den Grundbegriffen griechischen Geisteslebens, griechischer Weltanschauung. Nur sprachumbildend, ausstossend was entweiht war, hervorziehend was griechische Geistes- richtung ungebiihrlich zuriickgestellt hatte, verklirend endlich womit das aichtmenschliche, von Anfang an so sittlich gerichtete Griechenthum die Vorstufen der gittlichen Wahrheit erreicht hatte: nur so ein in seinen Grundbegriffen christianisirtes Griechisch sich anbildend ‘konnten die Apostel Christi der Welt, die damals der allgemeinen Bildung nach eine griechische war, die Sprache des Geistes, der durch sie zeugte, vermitteln.’ B 2 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 939) was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the right of citizenship, for the transaction of public affairs. That they were swmmoned is expressed in the latter part of the word; that they were summoned owt of the whole population, a select portion of it, including neither the populace, nor strangers, nor yet those who had forfeited their civic rights, this is expressed in the first. Both the calling (the κλῆσις, Phil. iii. 14; 2 Tim. i. 9), and the calling out (the ἐκλογή, Rom. xi. 7; 2 Pet. i. 10), are moments to be remembered, when the word is assumed into a higher Christian sense, for in them the chief part of its peculiar adaptation to its auguster uses lies.' It is interesting to observe how, on one occasion in the N. T., the word returns to this earlier significance (Acts xix. 32, 39, 41). Before, however, more fully considering that word, it will need to consider a little the anterior history of another with which I am about to compare it. Συναγωγή occurs two or three times in Plato (thus Theet. 150 a), but is by no means an old word in classical Greek, and in it altogether wants that technical signification which already in the Septuagint, and still more plainly in the Apocrypha, it gives promise of acquiring, and which it is found in the N. T. to have fully acquired.” But συναγωγή, while travelling in this ’ Both these points are well made by Flacius Illyricus, in his Clavis Scripture, 5. v. Ecclesia: ‘Quia Ecclesia a verbo καλεῖν venit, hoc obser- vetur primum; ideo conversionem hominum vocationem vocari, non tantum quia Deus eos per se suumque Verbum, quasi clamore, vocat ; sed etiam quia sicut herus ex turba famulorum certos aliquos ad aliqua singularia munia evocat, sic Deus quoque tum totum populum suum vocat ad cultum suum (Hos. xi. 1), tum etiam singulos homines ad certas singularesque functiones. (Act. xiii. 2.) Quoniam autem non tantum vocatur Populus Dei ad cultum Dei, sed etiam vocatur ex reliqua turbé aut confusione generis humani, ideo dicitur Ecclesia, quasi dicas, Evocata divinitus ex reliqu4é impiorum colluvie, ad cultum cele- brationemque Dei, et eternam felicitatem.’ Compare Witsius In Symbol. pp. 394-397. ? An American scholar (Church Review, July 1881) says well, ‘The Septuagint represents only a half-way step in this assignment of the Greek language to the expression of Hebrew ideas.’ §1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 3 direction, did not leave behind it the meaning which is the only one that in classical Greek it knew; and often denotes, as it would there, any gathering or bringing together of persons or things; thus we have there συναγωγὴ ἐθνῶν (Gen. xlviil. 4); συναγωγὴ ὕδατος (Isai. xix. 6); συναγωγὴ χρημάτων (Hcclus. xxxi. 8), and such like. It was during the time which intervened between the closing of the O. T. canon and the opening of that of the New that συναγωγή acquired that technical meaning of which we find it in full possession when the Gospel history begins; designating, as there it does, the places set apart for purposes of worship and the reading and expounding of the Word of God, the ‘ Synagogues,’ as we find them named; which, capable as they were of indefinite multiplication, were the necessary complement of the Temple, which according to the divine intention was and could be but one. But to return to ἐκκλησία. This did not, like some other words, pass immediately and ata single step from the heathen world to the Christian Church: but here, as so often, the Septuagint supplies the link of connexion, the point of transition, the word being there prepared for its highest meaning of all. When the Alexandrian translators undertook the rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures, they found in them two constantly recurring words, namely, ΠῚ and Dap. For these they employed generally, and as their most adequate Greek equivalents, συναγωγή and ἐκκλησίά. The rule which they seem to have prescribed to themselves is ag follows—to render ΠῚ for the most part by συναγωγή (Exod. mie; ley, ty. 13; Num. 1. 2. and altogether more than a hundred times), and, whatever other renderings of the word they may adopt, in no single case to render it by ἐκκλησία. It were to be wished that they had shown the same consistency in respect of Onp ; but they have not; for while ἐκκλησία 15 their more frequent rendering (Deut. xviii. 16; Judg. xx. 2; 1 Kin. viii. 14, and in all some seventy times), they too often render this also by συναγωγή (Lev. iv. 13; Num. xvi. a. Deut. v. 22, and in all some five and twenty times), thus B2 4 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 breaking down for the Greek reader the distinction which undoubtedly exists between the words. Our English Version has the same lack of a consistent rendering. Its two words are ‘ congregation ’ and ‘ assembly ;’ but instead of constantly assigning one to one, and one to the other, it renders 77 now by ‘congregation ’ (Lev. x. 17; Num. i. 16; Josh. ix. 27), and now by ‘assembly’ (Lev. iv. 23); and on the other hand, Sap sometimes by ‘assembly ’ (Judg. xxi. 8 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 23), but much oftener by ‘congregation’ (Judg. xxi. 5; Josh. vill. 35). There is an interesting discussion by Vitringa (De Synag. Vet. pp. 77-89) on the distinction between these two Hebrew synonyms; the result of which is summed up in the following statements: ‘Notat proprie bap universam alicujus populi multitudinem, vinculis societatis unitam et rempublicam sive civitatem quandam constituentem, cum vocabulum fy ex indole et vi significationis sue tantum dicat quemcunque hominum cetum et conventum, sive minorem sive majorem ’ (p. 80). And again: ‘ Swaywyy, ut et ΠΝ, semper significat cetum conjunctum et congregatum, etiamsi nullo forte vinculo ligatum, sed ἡ ἐκκλησία [ = ΠΡ] designat multitudi- nem aliquam, que populum constituit, per leges et vincula inter se junctam, etsi spe fiat ut non sit coacta vel cogi possit’ (p. 88). Accepting this as a true distinction, we shall see that it was not without due reason that our Lord (Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17) and his Apostles claimed this, as the nobler word, to designate the new society of which He was the Founder, being as it was a society knit together by the closest spiritual bonds, and altogether independent of space. Yet for all this we do not find the title ἐκκλησία wholly withdrawn from the Jewish congregation; that too was ‘the Church in the wilderness’ (Acts vii. 38); for Chris- tian and Jewish differed only in degree, and not in kind. Nor yet do we find συναγωγή wholly renounced by the Church; the latest honourable use of it in the N. T., indeed the only Christian use of it there, is by that Apostle to whom Siew VVONIVYS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 5 it was especially given to maintain unbroken to the latest possible moment the outward bonds connecting the Synagogue and the Church, namely, by St. James (ii. 2); ἐπισυναγωγή, Τ may add, on two occasions is honorably used, but in a more general sense (2 Thess. ii. 1 ; Heb. x. 25). Occasionally also in the early Fathers, in Ignatius for instance (Hp. ad Polyc. 4; for other examples see Suicer, s.v.), we find συναγωγή still employed as an honorable designation of the Church, or of her places of assembly. Still there were causes at work which led the faithful to have less and less pleasure in the appropriation of this name to themselves ; and in the end to leave it altogether to those, whom in the latest book of the canon the Lord had characterized for their fierce opposition to the truth even as ‘ the synagogue of Satan ’ (Rev. iii. 9; cf. John viii. 44). Thus the greater fitness and dignity of the title ἐκκλησία has been already noted. Add to this that the Church was ever rooting itself more predominantly in the soil of the heathen world, breaking off more entirely from its Jewish stock and stem. This of itself would have led the faithful to the letting fall of συναγωγή, a word with no such honorable history to look back on, and permanently asso- ciated with Jewish worship, and to the ever more exclusive appropriation to themselves of ἐκκλησία, so familiar already, and of so honorable a significance, in Greek ears. It is worthy of note that the Ebionites, in reality a Jewish sect, though they had found their way for a while into the Christian Church, should have acknowledged the rightfulness of this distribution of terms. Epiphanius (Heres. xxx. 18) reports of these, συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦσιν τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν. It will be perceived from what has been said that Augus- tine, by a piece of good fortune which he had no right to expect, was only half in the wrong when transferring his Latin etymologies to the Greek and Hebrew, and not pausing to enquire whether they would hold good there, as was improbable enough, he finds the reason for attributing συναγωγή to the Jewish, and ἐκκλησία to the Christian Church, 6 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 in the fact that ‘ convocatio’ (= ἐκκλησία) is a nobler term than ‘congregatio’ (= συναγωγή), the first being properly the calling together of men, the second the gathering to- gether (‘ congregatio,’ from ‘ congrego,’ and that from ‘ grex ἢ of cattle.! See Field, On the Church, i. 5. The πανήγυρις differs from the ἐκκλησία in this, that in the ἐκκλησία, aS has been noted already, there lay ever the sense of an assembly coming together for the transaction of busi- ness. The πανήγυρις, on the other hand, was a solemn assembly for purposes of festal rejoicing ; and on this account it is found joined continually with ἑορτή, as by Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. 7; Ezek. xlvi.11; cf. Hos. ii. 11; ix. 5; and Isai. Ixvi. 10, where πανηγυρίζειν = ἑορτάζειν : the word having given us ‘ panegyric,’ which is properly a set discourse pro- nounced at one of these great festal gatherings. Business might grow out of the fact that such multitudes were assembled, since many, and for various reasons, would be glad to avail themselves of the gathering; but only in the same way as a ‘fair’ grew out of a ‘ feria,’ a ‘ holiday’ out of a ‘holy-day.’ Strabo (x. 5) notices the business-like aspect which the πανηγύρεις commonly assumed (7 τε πανήγυρις ἐμπορικόν τι πρᾶγμα: cf. Pausanias, x. 32.9); which was in- deed to such an extent their prominent feature that the Latins rendered πανήγυρις by ‘ mercatus,’ and this even when the Olympic games were intended (Cicero, Twsc. v. 3; Justin, xiii, 5). These with the other solemn games were eminently, though not exclusively, the πανηγύρεις of the Greek nation (Thucydides, i. 25; Isocrates, Paneg.1). Keeping this festal 1 Enarr. in Ps. |xxxi. 1: ‘In synagog& populum Israél accipimus, quia et ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et Ecclesia dicta sit. Nostri vero Ecclesiam nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper Eccle- siam : sive discernendi causa, sive quod inter congregationem, unde syna- goga, et convocationem, unde Ecclesia nomen accepit, distet aliquid ; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie, quorum et greges proprie dicimus ; convocaré autem magis est utentium ratione, sicut sunt homines.’ Soalso the author of a Commentary on the Book of Proverbs formerly ascribed to Jerome (Opp. vol. v. p. 533); and by Vitringa (p. 91) cited as his. §u SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 7 character of the πανήγυρις in mind, we shall find a peculiar fitness in the word’s employment at Heb. xii. 23, where only in the N. T. it occurs. The Apostle is there setting forth the communion of the Church militant on earth with the Church triumphant in heaven,—of the Church toiling and suffering here with that Church from which all weariness and toil have for ever passed away (Rev. xxi. 4); and how could he better describe this last than as a πανήγυρις, than as the glad and festal assembly of heaven? Very beautifully Delitzsch (in loc.) : “Πανήγυρις ist die vollzihlige, zahlreiche und insbesondere festliche, festlich frdhliche und sich ergétzende Versammlung. Man denkt bei πανήγυρις an Festgesang, Festreigen und Festspiele, und das Leben vor Gottes Angesicht ist ja wirklich eine unaufhérliche Festfeier.’ S$ il. θειότης, θεότης. NEITHER of these words occurs more than once in the N. T.; θειότης only at Rom. 1. 20 (and once in the Apocrypha, Wisd. xviii. 9) ; θεότης at Col. ii. 9. We have rendered both by ‘ Godhead’; yet they must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; θεότης being from Θεός, and θειότης, not from τὸ θεῖον, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to Θεός, but from the adjective θεῖος. Comparing the two passages where they severally occur, we shall at once perceive the fitness of the employment of one word in one, of the other in the other. In the first (Rom. i. 20) St. Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may every- where trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these 8 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 aids: He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in his Son; but only his divine attributes, his majesty and glory. This Theophylact feels, who on Romans i. 20 gives μεγαλειότης aS equivalent to θειότης ; and it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word, just bacause he would affirm that men may know God’s power and majesty, his θεῖα δύναμις (2 Pet. 1. 8), from his works; but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or from anything short of the revelation of his Eternal Word.! Motives not dissimilar induce him to use τὸ θεῖον rather than 6 θεός in addressing the Athenians on Mars’ Hill (Acts xvii. 29). But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute God- head ; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person fora season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses θεότης to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son; in the words of Augustine (De Cw. Dei, vii. 1): ‘ Status ejus qui sit Deus.’ Thus Beza rightly: ‘Non dicit: τὴν θειότητα, i.e. divinitatem, sed τὴν θεότητα, 1.6. deitatem, ut magis etiam expresse loquatur; .. . ἡ θειότης attributa videtur potius quam naturam ipsam de- clarare.’ And Bengel: ‘Non modo divine virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura.’ De Wette has sought to express the dis- tinction in his German translation, rendering θειότης by ‘ Gottlichkeit,’ and θεότης by ‘ Gottheit.’ There have not been wanting those who have denied that any such distinction was intended by St. Paul; and they rest this denial on the assumption that no such difference between the forces of the two words can be satisfactorily made out. But, even supposing that such a difference could not be shown in classical Greek, this of itself would be in no way decisive on the matter. The Gospel of Christ might for all this put into words, and again draw out from them, new " Cicero (usc. i. 13): ‘Multi de Diis prava sentiunt; omnes tamen esse vim et naturam divinam arbitrantuy.’ §u SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 9 forces, evolve latent distinctions, which those who hitherto employed the words may not have required, but which had become necessary now. And that this distinction between ‘deity ’ and ‘ divinity,’ if I may use these words to represent severally θεότης and θειότης, is one which would be strongly felt, and which therefore would seek its utterance in Christian theology, of this we have signal proof in the fact that the Latin Christian writers were not satisfied with ‘ divinitas,’ which they found ready to their hand in the writings of Cicero and others; and which they sometimes were content to use (see Piper, Theol. Stud. ει. Krit. 1875, p. 79 sqq.); but themselves coined ‘ deitas’ as the only adequate Latin repre- sentative of the Greek θεότης. We have Augustine’s express testimony to'the fact (De Cw. Dei, vii. 1): ‘Hane divinita- tem, vel ut sic dixerim deitatem; nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Greco expressius transferant id quod illi θεότητα appellant, &c.;’ ef. x. 1,2. But not to urge this, nor yet the different etymologies of the words, that one is τὸ εἶναί τινα θεόν, the other τὸ εἶναί twa [or τι] θεῖον, which so clearly point to this difference in their meanings, examples, so far as they can be adduced, go to support the same. Both θεότης and θειότης, as In general the abstract words in every language, are of late introduction; and one of them, θεότης, is extremely rare. Indeed, only two examples of it from ᾿ς classical Greek have hitherto been brought forward, one from Lucian (Icarom. 9); the other from Plutarch (De Def. Orac. 10): οὕτως ἐκ μὲν ἀνθρώπων εἰς ἥρωας, ἐκ δὲ ἡρώων εἰς δαίμονας, αἱ βελτίονες ψυχαὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν λαμβάνουσιν. ἐκ δὲ δαιμόνων ὀλίγαι μὲν ἔτι χρόνῳ πολλῷ OV ἀρετῆς καθαρθεῖσαι παντάπασι θεότητος μετέσχον : but to these a third, that also from Plu- tarch (De Isid. et Osir. 22), may be added. In all of these it expresses, In agreement with the view here asserted, Godhead in the absolute sense, or at all events in as absolute a sense as the heathen could conceive it. Θειότης is a very much commoner word ; and its employment everywhere bears out the distinction here drawn. There is ever a manifestation of the divine, of some divine attributes, in that to which θειότης 10 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $11 is attributed, but never absolute essential Deity. Thus Lucian (De Cal. 17) attributes θειότης to Hephestion, when after his death Alexander would have raised him to the rank of a god; and Plutarch speaks of the θειότης τῆς ψυχῆς, De Plac. Phil. v.1; οἵ, De Is. et Os. 2; Sull. 6; with various other passages to the like effect. It may be observed, in conclusion, that whether this dis- tinction was intended, as I am fully persuaded it was, by St. Paul or not, it established itself firmly in the later theological language of the Church—the Greek Fathers using never θειότης, but always θεότης, as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of the Three several Persons in the Holy Trinity. δ᾽ lll. ἱερόν, ναός. WE have in our Version only the one word ‘ temple’ for both of these ; nor is it easy to perceive in what manner we could have marked the distinction between them; which is yet a very real one, and one the marking of which would often add much to the clearness and precision of the sacred narrative (see Fuller, 4 Pisgah Sight of Palestine, p. 427). Ἵερό (= templum) is the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, the τέμενος, including the outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and other buildings subordinated to the temple itself: ai οἰκοδομαὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ (Matt. xxiv.1). But ναός (= ‘ edes’) from ναίω, ‘habito,’ as the proper habitation of God (Acts vii. 48 ; xvii. 24; 1 Cor. vi. 19); the οἶκος τοῦ Θεοῦ (Matt. xii. 4; ef. Exod. xxiii. 19), the German ‘duom’ or ‘domus,’ is the temple itself, that by especial right so called, being the heart and centre of the whole; the Holy, and the Holy of Holies, called often ἁγίασμα (1 Mace. i. 87; iii. 45). This distinction, one that existed and was acknowledged in profane Greek and with reference to heathen temples, quite as much as in sacred Greek and with relation to the temple of the true God (see Herodotus, i. 181, 188; Thucydides, iv. 90 [τάφρον μὲν κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ τὸν νεὼν ἔσκαπτον] ; v.18; Acts xix. 24, 27), is, I believe, always assumed in all passages relating to the δ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT II temple at Jerusalem, alike by Josephus, by Philo, by the Septuagint translators, andin the N. T. Often indeed it is explicitly recognized, as by Josephus (Antt. viii. 8. 9), who, having described the building of the ναός by Solomon, goes on to say: ναοῦ δ᾽ ἔξωθεν ἱερὸν φκοδόμησεν ἐν τετραγώνῳ σχήματι. In another passage (Antt. xi. 4.3), he describes the - Samaritans as seeking permission of the Jews to be allowed to share in the rebuilding of God’s house (συγκατασκευάσαι τὸν ναόν), This is refused them (cf. Ezra iv. 2); but, according to his account, it was permitted to them ἀφικνουμένοις εἰς TO ἱερὸν σέβειν τὸν Ocov—a privilege denied to mere Gentiles, who might not, under penalty of death, pass beyond their own exterior court (Acts xxi. 29, 80; Philo, Leg. ad Cat. 81). The distinction may be brought to bear with advantage on several passages in the N.T. When Zacharias entered into “the tenple of the Lord’’ to burn incense, the people who waited his return, and who are described as standing “ with- out ’’ (Luke i. 10), were in one sense in the temple too, that is, in the ἱερόν, while he alone entered into the ναός, the ‘temple’ in its more limited and auguster sense. We read continually of Christ teaching ‘in the temple” (Matt. xxvi. 55; Luke xxi. 87; John viii. 20) ; and we sometimes fail to understand how long conversations could there have been maintained, without interrupting the service of God. But this ‘temple’ is ever the ἱερόν, the porches and porticoes of which were excellently adapted to such purposes, as they were intended for them. Into the ναός the Lord never entered during his ministry on earth; nor indeed, being ‘made under the law,’ could he have so done, the right of such entry being reserved for the priests alone. It need hardly be said that the money-changers, the buyers and sellers, with the sheep and oxen, whom the Lord drives out, He repels from the ἱερόν, and not from the ναός. Profane as was their intrusion, they yet had not dared to establish themselves in the temple more strictly so called (Matt. xxi. 12 ; John ii. 14). On the other hand, when we read of another 12 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $i1v Zacharias slain “between the temple and the altar” (Matt. xxiii. 85), we have only to remember that ‘temple’ is ναός here, at once to get rid of a difficulty, which may perhaps have presented itself to many—this namely, Was not the altar 7m the temple ? how then could any locality be described as between these two? In the ἱερόν, doubtless, was the brazen altar to which allusion is here made, but not in the ναός : “in the court of the house of the Lord” (cf. Josephus, Antt. viii. 4. 1), where the sacred historian (2 Chron. xxiv. 21) lays the scene of this murder, but not in the ναός itself. Again, how vividly does it set forth to us the despair and defiance of Judas, that he presses even into the ναός itself (Matt. xxvii. 5), into the‘ adytum’ which was set apart for the priests alone, and there casts down before them the accursed price of blood! Those expositors who affirm that here ναός stands for ἱερόν, should adduce some other passage in which the one is put for the other. δ iv. ἐπιτιμάω, ἐλέγχω (αἰτία, ἔλεγχος). OnE may ‘rebuke’ another without bringing the rebuked to a conviction of any fault on his part; and this, either because there was no fault, and the rebuke was therefore unneeded or unjust; or else because, though there was such a fault, the rebuke was ineffectual to bring the offender to own it; and in this possibility of ‘ rebuking’ for sin, without ‘ convincing ’ of sin, lies the distinction between these two words. In ἐπιτιμᾶν lies simply the notion of rebuking ; which word can therefore be used of one unjustly checking or blaming another; in this sense Peter ‘began to rebuke’ his Lord (ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾶν, Matt. xvi. 22; ef. xix. 13 ; Luke xviii. 39) :—or ineffectually, and without any profit to the person rebuked, who is not thereby brought to see his sin; as when the penitent robber ‘ rebuked’ (ἐπετίμα) his fellow malefactor (Luke xxiii. 40; cf. Mark ix. 25). But ἐλέγχειν 15. ἃ much more pregnant word; it is so to rebuke another, with such effectual wielding of the victorious arms of the truth, as to bring him, if not always to a confession, §iv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 13 yet at least to a conviction, of his sin (Job v. £7; Prov. xix. 25); just as, in juristic Greek, ἐλέγχειν is not merely to reply to, but to refute, an opponent. When we keep this distinction well in mind, what a light does it throw on a multitude of passages in the N. T.; and how much deeper a meaning does it give them. Thus our Lord could demand, “ Which of you convinceth (ἐλέγχει) Me of sin? ” (John viii. 46). Many ‘rebuked’ Him; many laid sin to his charge (Matt. ix. 3; John ix. 16); but none brought sin home to his conscience. Other passages also will gain from realizing the fulness of the meaning of ἐλέγχειν, as John 111. 20; vill. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25; Heb. xii. 5; but above all, the great passage, John xvi. 8: “ When He [the Comforter] is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment;”’ for so we have rendered the words, following in our ‘reprove’ the Latin ‘ arguet ;’ although few, I think, that have in any degree sought to sound the depth of our Lord's words, but will admit that ‘convince,’ which unfortunately our Translators have rele- gated to the margin, or ‘convict,’ would have been the pre- ferable rendering, giving a depth and fulness of meaning to this work of the Holy Ghost, which ‘ reprove’ in some part fails to express.! ‘‘He who shall come in my room, shall so bring home to the world its own ‘ sin,’ my perfect righteous- ness,’ God’s coming ‘judgment,’ shall so ‘convince’ the world of these, that it shall be obliged itself to acknowledge them; and in this acknowledgement may find, shall be in the right way to find, its own blessedness and salvation.” See more on ἐλέγχειν in Pott’s Wurzel-Worterbuch, vol. ii. p. 720. Between αἰτία and ἔλεγχος, which last in the N. T. is found only twice (Heb. xi. 1; 2 Tim. iii. 16), a difference of 1 Lampe gives excellently well the force of this ἐλέγξει : ‘ Opus Doc- toris, qui veritatem que hactenus non est agnita ita ad conscientiam etiam renitentis demonstrat, ut victas dare manus cogatur.’ See an admirable discussion on the word, especially as here used, in Archdeacon Hare’s Mission of the Comforter, 1st edit. pp. 528-544. 14 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃν a similar character exists. Αἰτία ig an accusation, but whether false or true the word does not attempt to antici- pate; and thus it could be applied, indeed it was applied, to the accusation made against the Lord of Glory Himself (Matt. xxvii. 87); but ἔλεγχος implies not merely the charge, but the truth of the charge, and further the manifestation of the truth of the charge; nay more than all this, very often also the acknowledgement, if not outward, yet inward, of its truth on the part of the accused ; it being the glorious prero- gative of the truth in its highest operation not merely to assert itself, and to silence the adversary, but to silence him by convincing him of his error. Thus Job can say of God, ἀλήθεια καὶ ἔλεγχος παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ (xxiii. 7);' and Demosthenes (Con. Androt. p. 600) : Πάμπολυ λοιδορία τε καὶ αἰτία κεχωρισμένον ἐστὶν ἐλέγχου" αἰτία μὲν γάρ ἐστιν, ὅταν τις ψιλῶ χρησάμενος λόγῳ μὴ παράσχηται πίστιν, ὧν λέγει" ἔλεγχος δέ, ὅταν ὧν ἄν εἴπῃ τις καὶ τἀληθὲς ὁμοῦ δείξῃ. Cf. Aristotle (Rhet. ad Alex. 18): "EXeyxos ἔστι μὲν ὃ μὴ δυνατὸν ἄλλως ἔχειν, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως, ὡς ἡμεῖς λέγομεν. By our serviceable distinction between ‘convict’ and ‘convince’ we maintain a difference between the judicial and the moral ἔλεγχος. Both indeed will flow together into one in the last day, when every condemned sinner will be at once ‘convicted’ and ‘con- vinced ;’ which all is implied in that “he was speechless ”’ of the guest found without a marriage garment (Matt. xxii. 12; cf. Rom. iii. 4). δ ν. ἀνάθημα, ἀνάθεμα. Some affirm that these are merely different spellings of the same word, and that they are used indifferently. Were the fact so, their fitness for a place in a book of synonyms would of course disappear; difference as well as likeness being * Therefore Milton could say (P. L. x. 84) ; ‘ Conviction to the serpent none belongs :’ this was a grace reserved for Adam and Eve, as indeed they only were capable of it. §v SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 15 necessary for this. Thus far indeed these have right—namely, that ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα, like εὕρημα and εὕρεμα, ἐπίθημα and ἐπίθεμα, must severally be regarded as having been once no more than different pronunciations, which issued in different spellings, of one and the same word. Nothing, however, is more common than for slightly diverse pronunciations of the same word finally to settle and resolve themselves into different words, with different orthographies, and different domains of meaning which they have severally appropriated to themselves; and which henceforth they maintain in perfect independence one of the other. I have elsewhere given numerous examples of the kind (English Past and Present, 10th edit. pp. 157-164); and a very few may here suffice: θράσος and Oapoos,! ‘ Thrax’ and‘ Threx,’ ‘ rechtlich ’ and ‘redlich,’ ‘fray’ and ‘frey,’ ‘harnais ’ and ‘harnois,’ ‘mettle’ and ‘metal.’ That which may be affirmed of all these may also be affirmed of ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα. Whether indeed these words had secured each a domain of meaning of its own was debated with no little heat by some of the chief early Hellenists. Foremost names among these are ranged on either side; Salmasius among them who maintained the existence of a distinction, at least in Hellenistic Greek; Beza among those who denied it. Perhaps here, as in so many cases, the truth did not absolutely lie with the combatants on either part, but lay rather between them, though much nearer to one part than the other; the most reasonable conclusion, after weighing all the evidence on either side, being this—that such a distinction of meaning did exist, and was allowed by many, but was by no means recognized or observed by all. In classical Greek ἀνάθημα is quite the predominant form, the only one which Attic writers allow (Lobeck, Phrynichus, pp. 249, 445; Paralip. p. 891). It is there the technical word by which all such costly offerings as were presented to the gods, and then suspended or otherwise exposed to view in their temples, all by the Romans termed ‘ donaria,’ as tripods, 1 Gregory Nazianzene (Carmi. 11. 34, 35) : θράσος δέ, θάρσος πρὸς τὰ μὴ τολμητέα. 16 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $v “ erowns, vases of silver or gold, and the like, were called ; these being in this way separated for ever from all common and profane uses, and openly dedicated to the honour of that deity, to whom they were presented at the first (Xenophon, Anab. v. 8, 5; Pausanias, x. 9). But with the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek a new thought demanded to find utterance. Those Scriptures spoke of two ways in which objects might be holy, set apart for God, devoted to Him. The children of Israel were devoted to Him ; God was glorified 7 them: the wicked Canaanites were devoted to Him ; God was glorified on them. This awful fact that in more ways than one things and persons might be ὉΠ (Lev. xxvii. 28, 29)—that they might be devoted to God for good and for evil; that there was such a thing as being “accursed to the Lord” (Josh. vi. 17 ; οἵ. Deut. xiii. 16; Num. xxi. 1-3); that of the spoil of the same city a part might be consecrated to the Lord in his treasury, and a part utterly destroyed, and yet this part and that be alike dedicated to Him (Josh. vi. 19, 21), ‘sacred and devote ’’ (Milton) ;—this claimed its expression and utterance now, and found it in the two uses of one word ; which, while it remained the same, just differenced itself enough to indicate in which of the two senses it was employed. And here let it be observed that they who find separation from God as the central idea of ἀνάθεμα (Theodoret, for instance, on Rom. ix. 3: τὸ ἀνάθεμα διπλῆν ἔχει τὴν διάνοιαν " Kal yap TO ἀφιερώμενον τῷ Θεῷ ἀνάθημα ὀνομάζεται, καὶ τὸ τούτου ἀλλότριον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει πρσεηγορίαν), are quite unable to trace a common bond of meaning between it and ἀνάθημα, which last is plainly separation to God ; or to show the point at which they diverge from one another; while there is no difficulty of the kind when it is seen that separation to God is in both cases implied.! 1 Flacius Illyricus (Clavis Script. 5. ν. Anathema) excellently explains the manner in which the two apparently opposed meanings unfold them- selves from a single root: ‘Anathema igitur est res aut persona Deo obligata aut addicta; sive quia Hi ab hominibus est pietatis causa oblata : §v SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 17 Already in the Septuagint and in the Apocryphal books — we find ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα beginning to disengage them- selves from one another, and from a confused and promiscuous use. How far, indeed, the distinction is observed there, and whether universally, it is hard to determine, from the variety of readings in various editions ; but in one of the later critical _ editions (that of Tischendorf, 1850), many passages (such for instance as Judith xvi. 19; Lev. xxvii. 28, 29; 2 Mace. ii. 13), which appear in some earlier editions negligent of the dis- tinction, are found observant of it. In the N. T. the distinction that ἀνάθημα is used to express the ‘sacrum ’ ina better sense, ἀνάθεμα in ἃ worse, is invariably maintained. It must be allowed, indeed, that the passages there are not numerous enough to convince a gainsayer; he may attribute to hazard the fact that they fall in with this distinction ; ἀνάθημα occurring only once: ‘‘ Some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts” (ἀναθήμασι, Luke xxi. 5; even here Codd. A and D and Lachmann read ἀναθέμασι) ; and ἀνάθεμα no more than six times (Acts xxiii. 14; Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 3; xvi. 22; Gal. i. 8,9). So far however ag these uses reach, they confirm this view of the matter; while if we turn to the Greek Fathers, we shall find some of them indeed neglecting the distinction ; but others, and these of the greatest among them, not merely implicitly allowing it, as does Clement of Alexandria (Coh. ad Gen. iv. 59: ἀνάθημα γεγόναμεν τῷ Θεῷ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ: where the context plainly shows the meaning to be, “ we have become a costly offering to God”); but explicitly recognizing the distinction, and tracing it with accuracy and precision; see, for instance, Chrysostom, Hom. xvi. in Rom., as quoted by Suicer (Thes. 8. V. ἀνάθεμα). And thus, putting all which has been urged together,— sive quia justitia Dei tales, ob singularia aliqua piacula veluti in suos carceres pcenasque abripuit, comprobante et declarante id etiam hominum sententid. . . . Duplici enim de causé Deus vult aliquid habere ; vel tan- quam gratum acceptumque ac sibi oblatum; vel tanquam sibi exosum suseque ire ac castigationi subjectum ac debitum.’ Cc 18 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § νι the anterior probability, drawn from the existence of similar phenomena in all languages, that the two forms of a word would gradually have two different meanings attached to them ; the wondrous way in which the two aspects of dedica- tion to God, for good and for evil, are thus set out by slightly different forms of the same word ; the fact that every passage in the N. T., where the words occur, falls in with this scheme ; the usage, though not perfectly consistent, of later ecclesi- astical books,—I cannot but conclude that ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα are employed not accidentally by the sacred writers of the New Covenant in different senses; but that St. Luke uses ἀνάθημα (xxi. 5) because he intends to express that which is dedicated to God for its own honour as well as for God’s glory; St. Paul uses ἀνάθεμα because he intends that which is devoted to God, but devoted, as were the Canaanites of old, to his honour indeed, but its own utter loss; even as in the end every intelligent being, capable of knowing and loving God, and called to this knowledge, must be either ἀνάθημα or ἀνάθεμα to Him (see Witsius, Mase. Sac. vol. 11. p. 54, sqq.; Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. 11. p. 495, sq. ; Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3; Hengstenberg, Christologie, 2nd ed. vol. lil. p. 655; Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch, 2nd ed. p. 550). § vi. προφητεύω, μαντεύομαι. Προφητεύω is a word of constant occurrence in the N. T.; μαντεύομαι occurs but once, namely at Acts xvi. 16; where, of the girl possessed with the “ spirit of divination,” or “spirit of Apollo,” it is said that she ‘“ brought her masters much gain by soothsaying” (μαντευομένη). The abstinence from the use of this word on all other occasions, and the use of it on this one, is very observable, furnishing a notable example of that religious instinct wherewith the inspired writers abstain from words, whose employment would tend to break down the distinction between heathenism and revealed religion. Thus εὐδαιμονία, although from a heathen point of view a religious word, for it ascribes happiness to the favour §vi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 19 of some deity, is yet never employed to express Christian blessedness ; nor could it fitly have been thus employed, δαίμων, which supplies its base, involving polytheistic error. In like manner ἀρετή, the standing word in heathen ethics for ‘virtue,’ is of very rarest occurrence in the N. T.; it is found but once in all the writings of St. Paul (Phil. iv. 8); and where else (which is only in the Epistles of St. Peter), it ig in quite different uses from those in which Aristotle employs it.! In the same way 76, which gives us ‘ ethics,’ occurs only on a single occasion, and, which indicates that its absence elsewhere is not accidental, this once is in a quotation from a heathen poet (1 Cor. xv. 38). In conformity with this same law of moral fitness in the admission and exclusion of words, we meet with zpody- tevey aS the constant word in the N. T. to express the prophesying by the Spirit of God: while directly a sacred writer has need to make mention of the lying art of heathen divination, he employs this word no longer, but μαντεύεσθαι in preference (cf. 1 Sam. xxviii. 8; Deut. xviii. 10). What the essential difference between the two things, ‘ prophesying ’ and ‘soothsaying,’ ‘weissagen’ (from ‘wizan’ = ‘ wissen’) and ‘ wahrsagen,’ is, and why it was necessary to keep them distinct and apart by different terms used to designate the one and the other, we shall best understand when we have con- sidered the etymology of one, at least, of the words. But first, it is almost needless at this day to warn against what was once a very common error, one in which many of the Fathers shared (see Suicer, 5. v. προφήτης), namely a taking of the προ in προφητεύειν and προφήτης as temporal, which it is not any more than in πρόφασις, and finding as the primary meaning of the word, he who declares things before they come to pass. This foretelling or foreannouncing may be, and often is, of the office of the prophet, but is not of the essence of that office; and this as little in sacred as in ι ¢Verbum nimium humile,’—as Beza, accounting for its absence says,—‘ si cum donis Spiritas Sancti comparatur.’ eZ 20 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT δ νι classical Greek. The προφήτης is the owtspeaker ; he who speaks owt the counsel of God with the clearness, energy and authority which spring from the consciousness of speaking in God’s name, and having received a direct message from Him to deliver. Ofcourse all this appears in weaker and indis- tincter form in classical Greek, the word never coming to its full rights until used of the prophets of the true God. But there too the προφήτης is the ‘interpres Deorum ;’ thus Buripides (Ion, 872, 413; Bacch. 211): ἐπεὶ ov φέγγος, Τειρεσία, τόδ᾽ οὐχ ὁρᾷς, ἐγὼ προφήτης σοι λόγων γενήσομαι : and Pindar (Fragm. 15), μαντευέο, Μοῖσα, προφατεύσω δ᾽ ἐγώ : while in Philo (Quis Rer. Div. Her. 52) he is defined as ἑρμηνεὺς Θεοῦ, and again as ὄργανον Θεοῦ Hxovv, κρουόμενον Kat πληττόμενον ἀοράτως ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. From signifying thus the interpreter of the gods, or of God, the word abated a little of the dignity of its meaning, and προφήτης was no more than as interpreter in a more general sense; but still of the good and true; thus compare Plato, Phedr. 262 d; and the fine answer which Lucian puts into the mouth of Diogenes, when it is demanded of him what trade he followed (Vit. Auct. 8 d). But it needs not to follow further the history of the word, as it moves outside the circle of Revelation. Neither indeed does it fare otherwise within this circle. Of the προφήτης alike of the Old Testament and of the New we may with the same confidence affirm that he is not primarily, but only accidentally, one who foretells things future; being rather one who, having been taught of God, speaks out his will (Deut. xviii. 18 ; Isai. i.; Jer. 10: Ezek. 1.; 1 Cor. xiv. 8). In μαντεύομαι we are introduced into quite a different sphere of things. The word, connected with μάντις, is through it connected, as Plato has taught us, with μανία and μαίνομαι. Tt will follow from this, that it contains a reference to the tumult of the mind, the fury, the temporary madness, under which those were, who were supposed to be possessed by the god, during the time that they delivered their oracles; this mantic fury of theirs displaying itself in the eyes rolling, the lips foaming, the hair flying, as in other tokens of a more §vi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 21 than natural agitation. It is quite possible that these symptoms were sometimes produced, as no doubt they were often aggravated, in the seers, Pythonesses, Sibyls, and the like, by the inhalation of earth-vapours, or by other artificial excitements (Plutarch, De Def. Orac. 48). Yet no one who believes that real spiritual forces underlie all forms of idolatry, but will acknowledge that there was often much more in these manifestations than mere trickeries and frauds; no one with any insight into the awful mystery of the false religions of the world, but will see in these symptoms the result of an actual relation in which these persons stood to a spiritual world—a spiritual world, it is true, which was not above them, but beneath. Revelation, on the other hand, knows nothing of this mantic fury, except to condemn it. “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. xiv. 32; ef. Chrysostom, In Hp. 1 ad Cor. Hom. 29, ad init.). The true prophet, indeed, speaks not of himself; προφήτης yap ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἀποφθέγγεται, ἀλλότρια δὲ πάντα, ὑπηχοῦντος ἑτέρου (Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Her. 52; cf. Plutarch, Amat. 16) ; he is rapt out of himself; he is ἐν Πνεύματι (Rev. i. 10) ; ἐν ἐκστάσει (Acts xi. 5); ὑπὸ Πνεύματος “Αγίου φερόμενος (2 Pet. i. 21), which is much more than ‘moved by the Holy Ghost,’ as we have rendered it; rather ‘ getrieben,’ as De Wette (cf. Knapp, Script. Var. Argum. p. 88); he is θεόληπτος (Cyril of Alexandria); and we must not go so far in our opposition to heathen and Montanist error as to deny this, which some, above all those engaged in controversy with the Montanists, St. Jerome for example, have done (see ' Cicero, who loves to bring out, where he can, superiorities of the Latin language over the Greek, claims, and I think with reason, such a superiority here, in that the Latin had ‘ divinatio,’ a word embodying the divine character of prophecy, and the fact that it was a gift of the gods, where the Greek had only μαντική, which, seizing not the thing itself at any central point, did no more than set forth one of the external signs which accompanied its giving (De Divin.i. 1) : ‘ Ut alia nos melius multa quam Greci, sic huic prestantissime rei nomen nostri a divis; Greci, ut Plato interpretatur, a fwrore duxerunt.’ 22 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT σι the masterly discussion on this subject in Hengstenberg’s Christologie, 2nd ed., vol. iii. part 2, pp. 158-188). But then he is lifted above, not set beside, his every-day self. 10 is not discord and disorder, but a higher harmony and a diviner order, which are introduced into his soul; so that he is not as one overborne in the region of his lower life by forces stronger than his own, by an insurrection from beneath : but his spirit is lifted out of that region into a clearer atmosphere, a diviner day, than any in which at other times it is permitted him to breathe. All that he before had still remains his, only purged, exalted, quickened by a power higher than his own, but yet not alien to his own; for man is most truly man when he is most filled with the fulness of God.! Even within the sphere of heathenism itself, the superior dignity of the προφήτης to the μάντις was recognized ; and recognized on those very grounds. Thus there is a well-known passage in the Timeus of Plato (71 6, 72 a, b), where exactly for this reason, that the μάντις is one in whom all discourse of reason is suspended, who, as the word itself implies, more or less rages, the line is drawn broadly and distinctly between him and the προφήτης, the former being subordinated to the latter, and his utterances only allowed to pass after they have received the seal and approbation of the other. Often as it has been cited, it may be yet worth while to cite it, at least in part, once more: τὸ τῶν προφητῶν γένος ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐνθέοις μαντείαις κριτὰς ἐπικαθιστάναι νόμος " ods μάντεις ἐπονομάζουσί τινες, τὸ πᾶν ἠγνοηκότες ὅτι τῆς δι αἰνιγμῶν οὗτοι φήμης καὶ φαντάσεως ὑποκριταὶ καὶ οὔτι μάντεις, προφῆται δὲ τῶν μαντευομένων δικαιότατα ὀνομάζοιντ᾽ ἄν. The truth which the best heathen philosophy had a glimpse of here, was permanently embodied by the Christian Church in the fact that, while it assumed the προφητεύειν to itself, it relegated the μαντεύεσθαι to that heathenism which it was about to displace and overthrow. δ See John Smith, the Cambridge Platonist, On Prophecy: ch. 4. The Difference of the true prophetical Spirit from all Enthusiastical Imposture. §vil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 23 δ᾽ Vil. τιμωρία, κόλασις. Or these words the former occurs but once in the N. T. (Heb. x. 29), and the latter only twice (Matt. xxv. 46; 1 John iv. 18): but the verb τιμωρεῖν twice (Acts xxii. 5; xxvi. 11) ; and κολάζειν as often (Acts iv. 21; 2 Pet. ii. 9). In τιμωρία, according to its classical use, the vindicative character of the punishment is the predominant thought; it is the Latin ‘ yindicatio,’ by Cicero (Inv. ii. 22) explained as that act ‘ per quam vim et contumeliam defendendo aut ulciscendo propul- samus a nobis, et a nostris ; et per quam peccata punimus ;’ punishment as satisfying the inflicter’s sense of outraged justice, as defending his own honour, or that of the violated law. Herein its meaning agrees with its etymology, being from τιμή, and οὖρος, δὁράω, the guardianship or protector- ate of honour; ‘ Ehrenstrafe’ it has been rendered in German, or better, ‘ Khrenrettung, die der Ehre der verletzten Ordnung geleistete Genugthuung’ (Delitzsch). In κόλασις, on the other hand, is more the notion of punishment as it has reference to the correction and bettering of the offender (see Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 1; Josephus, Anti. ii. 6. 8); it is ‘castigatio,’ and naturally has for the most part a milder use than τιμωρία. Thus Plato (Protag. 323 6) joins κολάσεις and νουθετήσεις together ; and the whole passage to the end of the chapter is eminently instructive as to the distinction between the words: οὐδεὶς κολάζει τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ὅτι ἠδίκησεν, ὅστις μὴ ὥσπερ θηρίον ἀλογίστως τιμωρεῖται, ... ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέλ- λοντος χάριν ἵνα μὴ αὖθις ἀδικήσῃ; the same change in the words which he employs occurring again twice or thrice in the sentence; with all which may be compared what Clement of Alexandria has said, Pedag.i. 8.70; and again Strom. vil. 16, where he defines κολάσεις aS μερικαὶ παιδεῖαι, and τιμωρία aS κακοῦ ἀνταπόδοσις. And this is Aristotle’s dis- tinction (Phet. 1. 10): διαφέρει δὲ τιμωρία καὶ κόλασις" ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόλασις τοῦ πάσχοντος ἕνεκά ἐστιν * ἡ δὲ τιμωρία, τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ἵνα ἀποπληρωθῃ : οἵ, Hthic. Nic. iv. 5. 10, 11: τιμωρία παύει τῆς ὀργῆς, ἡδονὴν ἀντὶ τῆς λύπης ἐμποιοῦσα. It is to these and 24. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § vit similar definitions that Aulus Gellius refers when he says (Noct. Att. vi. 14): ‘Puniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est que νουθεσία, vel κόλασις, vel παραίνεσις dicitur; cum pena adhibetur castigandi atque emendandi gratia ; ut is qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera est quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, τιμωρίαν appellant. Ha causa animadvertendi est, cum dignitas auctoritasque ejus, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne pretermissa animadversio contemtum ejus pariat, et honorem levet: idcircoque id ei vocabulum a conservatione honoris factum putant.’ There is a profound commentary on these words in Géschel’s Zerstreute Bidtter, part 2, p. 848-860; compare too an instructive note in Wyttenbach’s Anmadd. in Plutarch. vol. xii. p. 776. It would be a very serious error, however, to attempt to transfer this distinction in its entireness to the words as employed in the N. T. The κόλασις αἰώνιος of Matt. xxv. 46, as it is plain, is no merely corrective, and therefore tempo- rary, discipline ; cannot be any other than the ἀδιάλειπτος τιμωρία (Josephus, Β. J. 11. 8.11; of. Antt. xviii. 1. 3. εἰργμὸς ἀΐδιος), the ἀΐδιοι τιμωρίαι (Plato, Ax. 872 a), with which the Lord elsewhere threatens finally impenitent men (Mark ix. 48-48) : for in proof that κόλασις with κολάζεσθαι had acquired in Hellenistic Greek this severer sense, and was used simply as ‘punishment’ or ‘torment,’ with no necessary under- thought of the bettering through it of him who endured it, we have only to refer to such passages as the following: Josephus, Anti. xv. 2.2; Mart. Polycar. 2; 2 Mace. iv. 38 ; Wisd. xix. 4; and indeed to the words of St. Peter himself (2 Ep. ii. 9). This much, indeed, of Aristotle’s distinction still remains, and may be recognized in the scriptural usage of the words, that in κόλασις the relation of the punishment to the punished, in τιμωρία to the punisher, is predominant. §vir SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 25 § vill. ἀληθής, ἀληθινός. Tue Latin ‘verax’ and ‘verus’ would severally represent ἀληθής and ἀληθινός, and in the main reproduce the distinc- tions existing between them; indeed, the Vulgate does com- monly by aid of these indicate whether of the two stands in the original; but we having lost, or nearly lost, ‘ very ᾿ (vrai) as an adjective, retaining it only as an adverb, have ‘true’ alone whereby to render them both. It follows that the difference between the two disappears in our Version: and this by no fault of our Translators—unless, indeed, they erred in not recovering ‘very,’ which was Wiclif’s common translation of ‘verus’ (thus John xv. 1, “I am the verrz vine ’’), and which to recover would have been easy in their time (indeed they actually so use it at Gen. xxvii. 21, 24); as it would not be impossible in ours. We in fact do retain it in the Nicene Creed, where it does excellent service— very God of very God’ (Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ). It would have been worth while to make the attempt, for the differences which we now efface are most real. Thus God is ἀληθής, and He is also ἀληθινός : but very different attributes are ascribed to Him by the one epithet, and by the other. He is ἀληθής (John iii. 83; Rom. 111. 4; =‘ verax’), inas- much as He cannot lie, as He is ἀψευδής (Tit. i. 2), the truth- speaking, and the truth-loving God (cf. Euripides, Jon, 1554). But He is ἀληθινός (1 Thess. i.9; John xvii.3; Isai. Ixv. 16; = ‘verus’), very God, as distinguished from idols and all other false gods, the dreams of the diseased fancy of man, with no substantial existence in the world of realities (cf. Athenseus, vi. 62, where one records how the Athenians received Demetrius with divine honours: ὡς εἴη μόνος θεὸς ἀληθινός, οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι καθεύδουσιν, ἢ ἀποδημοῦσιν, ἢ οὐκ εἰσῶ). “The adjectives in τ-ἰτνος express the material out of which anything is made, or rather they imply a mixed relation, of quality and origin, to the object denoted by the substantive from which they are derived. Thus &v’A-.-vos means ‘of wood,’ ‘ wooden ;’ [ὀστράκ-ι-νος, “ of earth,’ ‘earthen ;’ tad- 26 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § vii t-vos, ‘of glass,’ ‘ glassen ; ᾽ and ἀληθ-ι-νός signifies ‘ genuine,’ made up of that which is true [that which, in chemical language, has truth for its stuff and base]. This last adjective is particularly applied to express that which is all that it pretends to be; for instance, pure gold as opposed to adulterated metal ’’ (Donaldson, New Cratylus, Ὁ. 426). It will be seen from this last remark that it does not of necessity follow, that whatever may be contrasted with the ἀληθινός oust thereby be concluded to have no actual exist- ence, to be altogether false and fraudulent. Inferior and subordinate realizations, partial and imperfect anticipations, of the truth, may be set over against the truth in its highest form, in its ripest and completest development; and then to this last alone the title ἀληθινός will be vouchsafed. Kahnis has said well (Abendmahl, p. 119): ““᾿Αληθής schliesst das Unwahre und Unwirkliche, ἀληθινός das seiner Idee nicht Entsprechende auf. Das Mass des ἀληθής ist die Wirklichkeit, das des ἀληθινός die Idee. Bei ἀληθής entspricht die Idee der Sache, bei ἀληθινός die Sache der Idee.’’ Thus Xenophon affirms of Cyrus (Anab. 1. 9. 17), that he commanded ἀληθινὸν στράτευμα, an army imdeed,an army deserving the name; but he would not have altogether refused this name of ‘army’ to inferior hosts; and Plato (Tim. 25 a), calling the sea beyond the Straits of Hercules, πέλαγος ὄντως, ἀληθινὸς πόντος, would imply that it alone realized to the full the idea of the great ocean deep; cf. Rep.i.3847 d: ὃ τῷ ὄντι ἀληθινὸς ἄρχων ; and again vi. 499 ὁ: ἀληθινῆς φιλοσοφίας ἀληθινός ἔρως. We should frequently miss the exact force of the word, we might find ourselves entangled in serious embarrassments, if we understood ἀληθινός as necessarily the trwe opposed to the false. Rather it is very often the substantial as opposed to the shadowy and outlinear; as Origen (in Joan. tom. ii. ὃ 4) has well expressed it: ἀληθινός, πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν σκιᾶς Kai τύπου καὶ εἰκόνος. Thus at Heb. viii. 2, mention is made of the σκηνὴ ἀληθινή into which our great High Priest entered ; which, of course, does not imply that the tabernacle in the wilderness was not also most truly pitched at God’s bidding, νι SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 27 and according to the pattern which He had shown (Exod. xxv.); but only that it, and all things in it, were weak earthly copies of heavenly realities (ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν) ; the passing of the Jewish High Priest into the Holy of Holies, with all else pertaining to the worldly sanctuary, being but the σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, while the σῶμα, the so filling _ up of these outlines that they should be bulk and body, and not shadow any more, was of Christ (Col. ii. 17).! So, too, when the Baptist announces, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ ”’ (John i. 17), the antithesis cannot lie between the false and the true, but only between the imperfect and the perfect, the shadowy and the substantial. In like manner, the Eternal Word is declared to be τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν (John i. 9), not denying thereby that the Baptist was also “ a burning and a shining light”’ (John v.35), or that the faithful are “lights in the world”’ (Phil. ii. 15; Matt. v. 14), but only claiming for a greater than all to be “the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” ! Christ proclaims Himself 6 ἄρτος ὁ ἀληθινός (John vi. 82), not suggesting thereby that ' This F. Spanheim (Dub. Evang. 106) has well put: ““᾿Αλήθεια in Scripturé Sacra interdum sumitur ethice, et opponitur falsitati et men- dacio; interdum mystice, et opponitur typis et umbris, ut εἰκών illis re- spondens, que veritas alio modo etiam σῶμα vocatur a Spiritu S. opposita Th ox.’ Cf. Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. iii. p. 317; vol. iv. pp. 548, 627; and Delitzsch: ‘ Es ist Beiname dessen was seinem Namen und Begriffe im vollsten, tiefsten, uneingeschrinktesten Sinne entspricht, dessen was das was es heisst nicht blos relativ ist, sondern absolut ; nicht blos mate- riell, sondern geistig und geistlich; nicht blos zeitlich, sondern ewig; nicht blos bildlich, d. h. vorbildlich, abbildlich, nachbildlich, sondern gegenbildlich und urbildlich.’ ‘ Lampe (im loc.): ‘Innuitur ergo hic oppositio tum luminarium naturalium, qualia fuere lux creationis, lux Israélitarum in Aigypto, lux columne in deserto, lux gemmarum in pectorali, que non nisi umbre fuere hujus vere lucis; tum eorum, qui falso se esse lumen hominum gloriantur, quales sigillatim fuere Sol et Luna Ecclesie Judaice, qui cum ortu hujus Lucis obscurandi, Joel ii. 31; tum denique verorum quoque luminarium, sed in minore gradu, queque omne suum lumen ab hoc Lumine mutuantur, qualia sunt omnes Sancti, Doctores, Angeli lucis, ipse denique Joannes Baptista.’ 28 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §1X the bread which Moses gave was not also ““ bread of heaven ” (Ps. cv. 40), but only that it was such in a secondary inferior degree ; it was not food in the highest sense, inasmuch as it did not nourish up unto eternal life those that ate it (John vi. 49). He is ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή (John xv. 1), not thereby denying that Israel also was God’s vine (Ps. Ixxx. 8; Jer. ii. 21), but affirming that none except Himself realized this name, and all which this name implied, to the full (Hos. x. 1; Deut. xxxii. 82).! It would be easy to follow this up further ; but these examples, which the thoughtful student will observe are drawn chiefly from St. John, may suffice. The fact that in the writings of this Evangelist ἀληθινός is used two and twenty times as against five times in all the rest of the N. T., he will scarcely esteem accidental. To sum up then, as briefly as possible, the differences between these two words, we may affirm of the ἀληθής, that he fulfils the promise of his lips, but the ἀληθινός the wider promise of his name. Whatever that name imports, taken in its highest, deepest, widest sense, whatever according to that he ought to be, that he is to the full. This, let me further add, holds equally good of things as of persons; πιστοί and ἀληθινοί are therefore at Rev. xxi. 5 justly found together. § ix. θεράπων, δοῦλος, διάκονος, οἰκέτης, ὑπηρέτης. THE only passage in the N. T. in which θεράπων occurs is Heb. iii. 5: ‘‘ And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant” (ὡς θεράπων). The allusion here to Num. xii. 7 is manifest, where the Septuagint has given θεράπων as its rendering of 12; it has done the same elsewhere (Exod. iv. 10; Deut. iii. 24; Josh. i. 2), yet has not made this its constant rule, frequently rendering it not by θεράπων, but by δοῦλος, out of which latter rendering, no doubt, we have at Rev. xv. 8, the phrase, Μωῦσῆς ὃ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ. It will 1 Lampe: ‘Christus est Vitis vera, ... et qua talis preponi, quin et opponi, potest omnibus aliis qui etiam sub hoe symbolo in scriptis propheticis pinguntur.’ Six) SYNONYUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 20 not follow that there is no difference between δοῦλος and θεράπων ; nor yet that there may not be occasions when the one word would be far more fitly employed than the other; but only that there are frequent occasions which do not require the bringing out into prominence of that which constitutes the difference between them. And such real difference there _ is. The δοῦλος, opposed to ἐλεύθερος (1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Rev. xiii. 16; xix. 18; Plato, Gorg. 502 d), having δεσπότης (Tit. 11. 9), or in the N. T. more commonly κύριος (Luke xii. 46), as its antithesis, is properly the ‘ bond-man,’ from δέω, ‘ ligo,’ one that isin a permanent relation of servitude to another, his will altogether swallowed up in the will of the other ; Xenophon (Cyrop. viii. 1.4): of μὲν δοῦλοι ἄκοντες τοῖς δεσπόταις ὑπηρετοῦσι. He is this, altogether apart from any ministra- tion to that other at any one moment rendered; the θεράπων, on the other hand, is the performer of present services, with no respect to the fact whether as a freeman or slave he renders them; as bound by duty, or impelled by love; and thus, as will necessarily follow, there goes habitually with the word the sense of one whose services are tenderer, nobler, freer than those of the δοῦλος. Thus Achilles styles Patroclus his θεράπων (Homer, 11. xvi. 244), one whose service was not constrained, but the officious ministration of love; very much like that of the squire or page of the Middle Ages. Meriones is θεράπων to Idomeneus (xxiii. 113), Sthenelus to Diomed, while all the Greeks are θεράποντες "Apyos (ii. 110 and often ; οἵ. Nigelsbach, Homer. Theologie, p. 280). Hesiod in like manner claims to be Μουσάων θεράπων: not otherwise in Plato (Symp. 208 c) Eros is styled the ἀκόλουθος καὶ θεράπων of Aphrodite ; cf. Pindar, Pyth. iv. 287, where the θεράπων is contrasted with the Spacrys. With all which agrees the definition of Hesychius (οἱ ἐν δευτέρᾳ τάξει φίλοι), of Ammonius (οἱ ὑποτεταγμένοι φίλοι), and of Hustathius (τῶν φίλων ot δραστι- κώτεροι). In the verb θεραπεύειν (=* curare ’), as distinguished from δουλεύειν, and connected with ‘faveo,’ ‘foveo,’ θάλπω, the nobler and tenderer character of the service comes still more strongly out. It may be used of the physician’s 30 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ix watchful tendance of the sick, man’s service of God, and is beautifully applied by Xenophon (Mem. iv. 8. 9), to the care which the gods have of men. It will follow that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, calling Moses a θεράπων in the house of God (iii. δ), implies that he occupied a more confidential position, that a freer service, a higher dignity was his, than that merely of a δοῦλος, approaching more closely to that of an οἰκονόμος in God’s house; and, referring to Num. xii. 6-8, we find, con- firming this view, that an exceptional dignity is there ascribed to Moses, lifting him above other δοῦλοι of God; ‘ egregius domesticus fidei tue’ Augustine (Conf. xii. 28) calls him; ef. Deut. xxxiv. 5, where he is οἰκέτης κυρίου. In agreement with this we find the title θεράπων κυρίου given to Moses (Wisd. x. 16), but to no other of the worthies of the Old Covenant men- tioned in the chapter; to Aaron indeed at xviii. 21. It would have been well if our Translators had seen some way to indicate the exceptional and more honourable title here given to him who “ was faithful in all God’s house.’”’ The Vulgate, which has ‘famulus,’ has at least made the attempt (so Cicero, ‘ famule Idee matris’) ; Tyndal, too, and Cranmer, who have ‘ minister,’ perhaps as adequate a word as the language affords. Neither ought the distinction between διάκονος and δοῦλος to be suffered to escape in an English Version of the N. T. There is no difficulty in preserving it. Διάκονος, not from διά and κόνις, one who in his haste runs through the dust—a mere fanciful derivation, and forbidden by the quantity of the antepenultima in d:axovos—is probably from the same root as has given us διώκω, ‘to hasten after,’ or ‘ pursue,’ and thus indeed means ‘ a runner’ still (so Buttmann, Lezil. i. 219; but see Déderlein, Lat. Syn. vol. v. p. 185). The difference between διάκονος on one side, and δοῦλος and θεράπων on the other, is this—that διάκονος represents the servant more in his activity for the work (διάκονος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Col. 1. 23: 2 Cor. iii. 6; Eph. iii. 7); rather in his relation, either servile, as that of the δοῦλος, or more voluntary, as in the case ΙΧ ONY MS OF THE NEW. TESTAMENT 33 of the θεράπων, to a person. The attendants at a feast, and this with no respect to their condition as free or servile, are διάκονοι (John ii. 5; Matt. xxii. 18). The importance of preserving the distinction between δοῦλος and διάκονος may be illustrated from the parable of the Marriage Supper (Matt. xxii, 2-14). In our Version the king’s “ servants ”’ bring in _ the invited guests (ver. 3, 4, 8, 10), and his ‘servants’ are bidden to thrust out that guest who was without a wedding garment (ver. 13): but in the Greek, those, the bringers-in of the guests, are δοῦλοι: these, the fulfillers of the king’s sen- tence, are duaxovo.—this distinction being a most real one, and belonging to the essentials of the parable; the δοῦλοι being men, the ambassadors of Christ, who invite their fellow-men into his kingdom now, the διάκονοι angels, who in all the judgment acts at the end of the world evermore appear as the executors of the Lord’s will. The parable, it is true, does not turn on this distinction, yet these ought not any more to be confounded than the δοῦλοι and θερισταί of Matt. xiii. 27, 80; cf. Luke xix. 24. Οἰκέτης is often used as equivalent to δοῦλος. It certainly is so at 1 Pet. 11. 18; and hardly otherwise on the three remaining occasions on which it occursin the N. T. (Luke xvi. 18; Acts x. 7: Rom. xiv. 4); nor does the Septuagint (Exod. xxi. 27; Deut. vi. 21; Prov. xvii. 2) appear to recog- nize any distinction between them ; the Apocrypha as little (Keclus. x. 25). At the same time οἰκέτης (=‘ domesticus ’) fails to bring out and emphasize the servile relation so strongly as δοῦλος does; rather contemplates that relation from a point of view calculated to mitigate, and which actually went far to mitigate, its extreme severity. He is one of the household, of the ‘ family,’ in the older sense of this word ; not indeed necessarily one born in the house ; οἰκογενής is the word for this in the Septuagint (Gen. xiv. 14; Hecles. 11. 7); ‘verna,’ identical with the Gothic ‘bairn,’ in the Latin; compare ‘criado’ in the Spanish ; but one, as I have said, of the family; οἰκέτης ἐστὶν ὁ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν διατρίβων, κἂν ἐλεύθερος 7, κοινόν (Athenzeus, vi. 93); the word being used 32 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τ 1x in the best times of the language with so wide a reach as to include wife and children; so in Herodotus (vii. 106, and often) ; while in Sophocles (Trach. 894) by the οἰκέται the children of Deianira can alone be intended. On the different names given to slaves and servants of various classes and degrees see Athenzus, as quoted above. “Ὑπηρέτης, Which only remains to be considered, is a word drawn from military matters; he was originally the rower (from ἐρέσσω, ‘remigo’), as distinguished from the soldier, on board a war-galley; then the performer of any strong and hard labour; then the subordinate official who waited to accomplish the behests of his superior, as the orderly who attends a commander in war (Xenophon, Cyrop. vi. 2. 18) ; the herald who carries solemn messages (Euripides, Hec. 508). Prometheus intends a taunt when he characterizes Hermes a8 Θεῶν ὑπηρέτης (AXschylus, Prom. Vinct. 990), one who runs on the errands of superior gods. In this sense, as an inferior minister to perform certain defined functions for Paul and Barnabas, Mark was their ὑπηρέτης (Acts xiii. 5) ; and in this official sense of lictor, apparitor, and the like, we find the word constantly, indeed predominantly used in the N. Τὶ, (Matt. v. 25: Luke iv. 20; John vii. 82; xviii. 18; Acts v. 22). The mention by St. John of δοῦλοι and ὑπηρέται together (xviii. 18) is alone sufficient to indicate that a difference is by him observed between them; from which difference it will follow that he who struck the Lord on the face (John xviii. 22) could not be, as some suggest, the same whose ear the Lord had just healed (Luke xxii. 51), seeing that this was a δοῦλος, that profane and petulant striker a ὑπηρέτης, of the High Priest. The meanings of διάκονος and ὑπηρέτης are much more nearly allied ; they do in fact continually run into one another, and there are innumer- able occasions on which the words might be indifferently used; the more official character and functions of the ὑπηρέτης is the point in which the distinction between them resides. See Vitringa, De Synagogd Vetere, pp. 916-919, the Dictionary of the Bible, article Minister. SO PLNONIMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - 33 § x. δειλία, φόβος, εὐλάβεια. Or these three words the first, δειλία, is used always in a bad sense ; the second, φόβος, is a middle term, capable of a good interpretation, capable of an evil, and lying indifferently between the two; the third, εὐλάβεια, is quite predominantly used in a good sense, though it too has not altogether escaped being employed in an evil. Δειλία, equivalent to the Latin ‘ timor,’ and having θρασύτης (‘foolhardiness’) for its contrary extreme (Plato, Tim. 87 a), is our ‘cowardice.’ It occurs only once in the N. T., 2 Tim. i. 7; where Bengel says, exactly on what authority I know not, ‘ Est timor cujus cause potius in animo sunt quam foris;’ but δειλιάω at John xiv. 27; and δειλός at Matt. vil. 26; Mark iv. 40; Rev. xxi. 8: the δειλοί in this last passage being those who in time of persecution have under fear of suffering denied the faith; cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. viii. 8. It is joined to ἀνανδρεία (Plato, Phedr. 254 c; Legg. ii. 659 a), to λειποταξία (Lysias, Orat. in Alcib. p. 140), to ψυχρότης (Plutarch, Fab. Max. 17), to ἔκλυσις (2 Mace. iii. 24); is ascribed by Josephus to the spies who brought an ill report of the Promised Land (Anit. 111. 15. 1); being con- stantly set over against ἀνδρεία, as δειλός over against ἀνδρεῖος : for example, in the long discussion on valour and cowardice in Plato’s Protagoras, 360 d; see too the lively description of the δειλός in the Characters (27) of Theophrastus. Δειλία seeks to shelter its timidity under the more honorable title of edAaBea (Philo, De Fort. 5); pleads for itself that it is indeed ἀσφάλεια (Plutarch, Anim. an Corp. Aff. Pej. 3; Philo, Quod Det. Pot. Insid. 11). Φόβος, very often united with τρόμος (as at Gen. ix. 2; Deut. xi. 25; Exod. xv. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 3; Phil. ii. 12), and answering to the Latin ‘metus,’ is a middle term, and as such used in the N. T’.. sometimes in a bad sense, but oftener ina good. Thus in a bad sense, Rom. vill. 15; 1 John iv. 18; cf. Wisd. xvii. 11; but ina good, Acts ix. 81; Rom. iii. 1 «And calls that providence, which we call flight.’—Drypxn. D 34 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §x 18; Ephes. vi. 5; Phil. 11. 12; 1 Pet. i. 17. Being this μέσον, Plato, in the Protagoras as referred to above, adds αἰσχρός to it, as often as he would indicate the timidity which misbecomes a man. On the distinction between ‘ timor,’ ‘metus,’ and “ formido’ see Donaldson, Complete Latin Grammar, p. 489. Εὐλάβεια only occurs twice in the N. T. (Heb. v. 7 [where see Bleek] ; and xii. 28), and on each occasion signifies piety contemplated as a fear of God ; la vigilance al’égard du mal (Godel). The image on which it rests is that of the careful taking hold and wary handling, the εὖ λαμβάνεσθαι, of some precious yet fragile vessel, which with ruder or less anxious handling might easily be broken ( yap εὐλάβεια σώζει πάντα, Aristophanes, Aves, 77), as in Balde’s sublime funeral hymn on the young German Empress— ‘Quam manibus osseis tangit, Crystallinam phialam frangit. O inepta et rustica Mors, O caduca juvencule sors!’ But such a cautious care in the conducting of affairs (the word is joined by Plutarch to πρόνοια, Marcell. 9; χρησιμω- τάτη θεῶν it is declared by Euripides, Phen. 794); springing as in part it will from a fear of miscarriage, easily lies open to the charge of timidity. Thus Demosthenes, who opposes εὐλάβεια to θράσος (517), claims for himself that he was only εὐλαβής, where his enemies charged him with being δειλός and ἄτολμος : while in Plutarch (Fab. 17) εὐλαβής and δυσέλπιστος are joined together. It is not wonderful then that fear should have come to be regarded as an essential element of εὐλάβεια, sometimes so occupies the word as to leave no room for any other sense (Josephus, Antt. xi. 6.9), though for the most part no dishonorable fear (see, however, a remarkable ex- ception, Wisd. xvii. 8) is intended, but one which a wise and good man might fitly entertain. Cicero (Twusc. iv. 6): ‘ De- clinatio [a malis] si cum ratione fiet, cawtio appelletur, eaque intelligatur in solo esse sapiente ; que autem sine ratione et Sxl SIVONIMS ΟΣ THE NEW. TESTAMENT 3t cum exanimatione humili atque fracta, nominetur metus.’ He has probably the definition of the Stoics in his eyes. These, while they disallowed φόβος as a πάθος, admitted εὐλάβεια, which they defined as ἔκκλισις σὺν λόγῳ (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ii. 18), into the circle of virtues; thus Diogenes Laertius (vii. 1. 116): τὴν δὲ εὐλάβειαν [ἐναντίαν ᾿ φασὶν εἶναι] τῷ φόβῳ, οὖσαν εὔλογον ἔκκλισιν: φοβήθήσεσθαι μὲν γὰρ τὸν σοφὸν οὐδαμῶς, εὐλαβηθήσεσθαι δέ: and Plutarch (De Repugn. Stoic. 11) quotes their maxim: τὸ γὰρ εὐλαβεῖσθαι σοφῶν ἴδιον. Yet after all, these distinctions whereby they sought to escape the embarrassments of their ethical position, the admission for instance that the wise man might feel ‘suspiciones quasdam et umbras affectuum,’ but not the ‘affectus’ themselves (Seneca, De Ird, i. 16; ef. Plutarch, De Virt. Mor. 9), were nothing worth; they had admitted the thing, and were now only fighting about words, with which to cover and conceal the virtual abandonment of their position, being ὀνοματομάχοι, as a Peripatetic adversary lays to their charge. See on this matter the full discussion in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ii. 7-9; and compare Augustine, De Civ. Dei, ix. 4. On the more distinctly religious aspect of εὐλάβεια there will be opportunity to speak here- after (δ xlviii.). e = , , δ᾽ ΧΙ]. κακία, κακοήθεια. It would be a mistake to regard κακία in the N. T. as embracing the whole complex of moral evil. In this latitude no doubt it is often used; thus ἀρετή and κακία are virtue and vice (Plato, Rep. iv. 444 d) ; ἀρεταὶ καὶ κακίαι virtues and vices (Aristotle, Rhet. 11. 12; Ethic. Nic. vii. 1; Plutarch, Cony. Prec. 25, and often) ; while Cicero (Tusc. iv. 15) refuses to translate κακία by ‘ malitia,’ choosing rather to coin ‘ vitio- sitas’ for his need, and giving this as his reason: ‘Nam malitia certi cujusdam vitii nomen est, vitiositas omnium ;’ showing plainly hereby that in his eye κακία was the name, not of one vice, but of the viciousness out of which all vices spring. In the N. T., however, κακία is not so much D2 36 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § x1 viciousness as a special form of vice. Were it viciousness, other evil habits of the mind would be subordinated to it, as to a larger term including the lesser; whereas in fact they are coordinated with it (Rom. i. 29; Col. 111. 8; 1 Pet.ii.1). We must therefore seek for it a more special meaning ; and, com- paring it with πονηρία, we shall not err in saying that κακία is more the evil habit of mind, the ‘ malitia,’ by which Cicero declined to render it, or, as he elsewhere explains it, ‘ versuta et fallax nocendi ratio’ (Nat. Deor. 111. 830; De Fin. 111. 11 in fine); while πονηρία is the active outcoming of the same- Thus Calvin says of κακία (Eph. iv. 81): ‘Significat hoc verbo [Apostolus] animi pravitatem que humanitati et - equitati est opposita, et malignitas vulgo nuncupatur,’ or as Cicero defines ‘ malevolentia’ (Tusc. Quest. iv. 9): ‘ voluptas ex malo alterius sine emolumento suo.’ Our English Trans- lators, rendering κακία so often by ‘malice’ (Ephes. iv. 31; 1 Cor. v. 8; xiv. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 1), show that they regarded it very much in this light. With this agrees the explanation of it by Theodoret on Rom. i.: κακίαν καλεῖ τὴν ψυχῆς ἐπὶ τὰ χείρω ῥοπήν, καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τοῦ πέλας γινόμενον λογισμόν. Not exactly but nearly thus the author of what long passed as a Second Epistle of Clement’s, but which now is known not to be an Epistle at all, warns against κακία as the forerunner (προοδοίπορος) of all other sins ($10). Compare the art. Bosheit in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopddie. While κακία occurs several times in the N. T., κακοήθεια occurs but once, namely in St. Paul’s long and terrible catalogue of the wickednesses with which the heathen world was filled (Rom. i. 29); but some four or five times in the Books of the Maccabees (8 Mace. iii. 22; vii. 3; 4 Mace. i. 4 ; iii. 4); κακοήθης there as well (4 Mace. i. 25; ii. 16); never in the Septuagint. We have translated it ‘malignity.’ When, however, we take it in this wider meaning, which none would deny that it very often has (Plato, Rep. 1. 348 d; Xenophon, De Ven. xiii. 16), or in that wider still which Basil the Great gives it (Reg. Brev. Int. T7: κακοήθεια μέν > ε ΄ Rd my ε Uh Ν Ἦ ,ὔ ἮΝ εστιν. WS λογίζομαι, αὐτῆ ἢ πρωτη και κεκρυμμενῇ KQKLO TOU ἤθους), Sxi po VNOVY US OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. --37 making it, as he thus does, exactly to correspond to the ‘ ill nature’ of our early divines (see my Select Glossary, 8. v.), just as the author of the Third Maccabees (iii. 22) speaks of some τῇ συμφύτῳ κακοηθείᾳ τὸ καλὸν ἀπωσάμενοι, διηνεκῶς δὲ εἰς τὸ φαῦλον ἐκνεύοντες, when, I say, its meaning is so far enlarged, it is very difficult to assign to it any domain which will not have been already preoccupied either by κακία or πονηρία. I prefer therefore to understand κακοήθεια here in the more restricted meaning which it sometimes possesses. The Geneva Version has so done, rendering it by a peri- phrasis, ‘‘ taking all things in the evil part;’’ which is exactly Aristotle’s definition, to whose ethical terminology the word belongs (het. 11. 18): ἔστι yap κακοήθεια τὸ ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ὑπολαμβάνειν ἅπαντα : or, as Jeremy Taylor calls it, ‘a baseness of nature by which we take things by the wrong handle, and expound things always in the worst sense ;’ ! the ‘malignitas interpretantium ’ of Pliny (Hp. v. 7);? being exactly opposed to what Seneca (De Ird, ii. 24) so happily calls the ‘ benigna rerum estimatio.’ For precisely such a use of κακοήθως see Josephus, Anti. vii. 6.1; cf. 2 Sam. x. 3. This giving to all words and actions of others their most unfavorable interpretation Aristotle marks as one of the vices of the old, in that mournful, yet for the Christian most instructive, passage, which has been referred to just now ; they are κακοήθεις and καχύποπτοι. We shall scarcely err then, taking κακοήθεια, at Rom. i. 29, in this narrower mean- ing; the position which it occupies in that dread catalogue of sins entirely justifying us in treating it as that peculiar form of evil which manifests itself in a malignant interpretation of the actions of others, a constant attribution of them to the worst imaginable motives. Nor should we take leave of κακοήθεια without noticing 1 Grotius: ‘Cum que possumus in bonam partem interpretari, in pejorem rapimus, contra quam exigit officium dilectionis.’ 2 How striking, by the way, this use of ‘ interpretor,’ as ‘to interpret awry,’ in Tacitus (himself not wholly untouched with the vice), Pliny, and the other writers of their age. 38 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xu the deep psychological truth attested in this secondary mean- ing which it has obtained, namely, that the evil which we trace in ourselves makes us ready to suspect and believe evil in others. The κακοήθης, being himself of an evil moral habit, projects himself, and the motives which actuate him, into others round him, sees himself in them; for, according to our profound English proverb, ‘ ΠῚ doers are ill deemers; ’ or, as it runs in the monkish line, ‘Autumat hoc in me quod novit perfidus in se;’ and just as Love on the one side, in those glorious words of Schiller, ‘ delightedly believes Divinities, being itself diwine ;’ so that which is itself thoroughly evil finds it impossible to believe anything but evil in others (Job i. 9-11; 11. 4, δ). Thus the suitors in the Odyssey, at the very time when they are laying plots for the life of Telemachus, are persuaded that he intends at a banquet to mingle poison with their wine, and so to make an end of them all (Odyss. ii. 829, 3380). Iago evidently believes the world to be peopled with Iagces, can conceive of no other type of humanity but his own. Well worthy of notice here is that remarkable passage in the Republic of Plato (iii. 409 a, 2), where Socrates, showing how well it is for physicians to have been mainly conversant with the sick, but not for teachers and rulers with the bad, explains how it comes to pass that young men, as yet uncor- rupted, are εὐήθεις rather than κακοήθεις, ἅτε οὐκ ἔχοντες ἐν ἑαυτοῖς παραδείγματα ὁμοιοπαθῆ τοῖς πονηροῖς. δ᾽ ΧΙ], ἀγαπάω, φιλέω. We have made no attempt to discriminate between these words in our English Version. And yet there is often a difference between them, well worthy to have been noted and reproduced, ;if this had lain within the compass of our language; being very nearly equivalent to that between ‘ diligo’ and‘amo’ in the Latin. To understand the exact §xu SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 39 distinction between these, will help us to understand that between those other which are the more immediate object of our inquiry. For this we possess abundant material in Cicero, who often sets the words in instructive antithesis to one another. Thus, writing to one friend of the affection in which he holds another (Hp. Fam. xiii. 47) : ‘ Ut scires illum ἃ me non diligi solum, verum etiam amari;’ and again (Ad Brut. 1) : ‘Li. Clodius valde me diligit, vel, ut ἐμφατικώτερον dicam, valde me amat.’ From these and other like passages (there is an ample collection of them in Déderlein’s Latein. Synon. vol. iv. pp. 98 seq.), we might conclude that ‘ amare,’ which answers to φιλεῖν, is stronger than ‘ diligere,’ which, as we shall see, corresponds to ἀγαπᾶν. This is true, but not all the truth. Ernesti has successfully seized the law of their several uses, when he says: ‘ Diligere magis ad judicium, amare vero ad intimum animi sensum pertinet.’ So that, in fact, Cicero in the passage first quoted is saying,—‘I do not esteem the man merely, but I love him; there is something of the passionate warmth of affection in the feeling with which I regard him.’ It will follow, that while a friend may desire rather ‘amari’ than ‘ diligi’ by his friend, there are aspects in which the ‘ diligi’ is more than the ‘ amayri,’ the ἀγαπᾶσθαι than the φιλεῖσθαι. The first expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice and selection (‘ diligere ’=‘ deligere ’), from a seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard ; or else from a sense that such is due toward the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or the like; while the second, without being necessarily an unreasoning attach- ment, does yet give less account of itself to itself; is more instinctive, is more of the feelings or natural affections, implies more passion ; thus Antonius, in the funeral discourse addressed to the Roman people over the body of Cesar : ἐφιλήσατε αὐτὸν ὡς πατέρα, καὶ NyaTHTATE ὡς εὐεργέτην (Dion Cassius, xliv. 48). And see in Xenophon (Mem. ii. 7. 9, 12) two passages throwing much light on the relation beween the words, and showing how the notions of respect 40 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $§ xu and reverence are continually implied in the ἀγαπᾶν, which, though not excluded by, are still not involved in, the φιλεῖν, Thus in the second of these, ai μὲν ὡς κηδεμόνα ἐφίλουν, ὃ δὲ ὡς ὠφελίμους ἠγάπα. Out of this it may be explained, that while men are continually bidden ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Θεόν (Matt. xxii. 87; Luke x. 27; 1 Cor. viil. 8), and good men declared so to do (Rom. viii. 28; 1 Pet. 1. 8; 1 John iv. 21), the φιλεῖν τὸν Θεόν is commanded to them never. The Father, indeed, both ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Yiov (John iii. 85), and also φιλεῖ τὸν Υἱόν (John v. 20) ; with the first of which statements such passages as Matt. iii. 17, with the second such as John i. 18; Prov. viii. 22, 80, may be brought into connexion. In almost all these passages of the N. T., the Vulgate, by the help of ‘diligo’ and ‘amo,’ has preserved a distinction which we have let go. This is especially to be regretted at John xxi. 15-17; for the passing there of the original from one word to the other is singularly instructive, and should by no means escape us unnoticed. In that threefold ‘‘ Lovest thou Me ?”’ which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, ἀγαπᾷς με; At this moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with a passionate affection toward his Lord, this word on that Lord’s lips sounds far too cold; to very imperfectly express the warmth of his affection toward Him. The question in any form would have been grievous enough (ver. 17); the language in which it is clothed makes it more grievous still.! He therefore in his answer substitutes for the ἀγαπᾷς of Christ the word of a more personal love, φιλῶ σε (ver. 15). And this he does not on the first occasion only, but again upon a second. And now at length he has triumphed; for when his Lord puts the question to him a third time, it is not ἀγαπᾷς any more, but φιλεῖς. All this subtle and delicate play of feeling disappears perforce, in a translation which 1 Bengel generally has the honour ‘rem acu tetigisse ;’ here he has singularly missed the point, and is wholly astray: ‘ ἀγαπᾶν, amare, est necessitudinis et affectfis ; φιλεῖν, diligere, judicii.’ SX = SVNONVVS OF DHE NEW TESTAMENT A either does not care, or is not able, to reproduce the variation in the words as it exists in the original. I observe in conclusion that ἔρως, ἐρᾶν, ἐραστής, never occur in the N.T., but the two latter occasionally in the Septuagint; thus ἐρᾶν, Esth. ii. 17; Prov. iv. 6; ἐραστής generally in a dishonorable sense as ‘ paramour’ (Hzek. xvi. 33; Hos. ii. 5); yet once or twice (as Wisd. viii. 2) more honorably, not as =‘amasius,’ but ‘amator.’ Their absence is significant. Itis in part no doubt to be explained from the fact that, by the corrupt use of the world, they had become so steeped in sensual passion, carried such an atmo- sphere of unholiness about them (see Origen, Prol. i Cant. Opp. tom. 111. pp. 28-30), that the truth of God abstained from the defiling contact with them; yea, devised a new word rather than betake itself to one of these. For it should not be forgotten that ἀγάπη is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion: it occurs in the Septuagint (2 Sam. xiii. 15 ; Cant. ii. 4; Jer. ii.2), and in the Apocrypha (Wisd. iii. 9) : but there is no trace of it in any heathen writer whatever, and as little in Philo or Josephus; the utmost they attain to here is φιλανθρωπία and φιλαδελφία, and the last never in any sense but as the love between brethren in blood (cf. Cremer, Worterbuch ἃ. N. T. Grdcitdt, p. 12). But the reason may lie deeper still. "Epws might have fared as so many other words have fared, might have been consecrated anew, despite of the deep degradation of its past history;' and there were tendencies already working for this in the Platonist use of it, namely, as the longing and yearning desire after that unseen but eternal Beauty, the faint vestiges of which may here be 1 On the attempt which some Christian writers had made to dis- tinguish between ‘amor’ and ‘dilectio’ or ‘ caritas,’ see Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xiv. 7: ‘Nonnulli arbitrantur aliud esse dilectionem sive caritatem, aliud amorem. Dicunt enim dilectionem accipiendam esse in bono, amorem in malo.’ He shows, by many examples of ‘dilectio’ and ‘diligo’ used in an ill sense in the Latin Scriptures, of ‘amor’ and ‘amo’ in a good, the impossibility of maintaining any such distinction. 42 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ἃ x1 everywhere traced ;! οὐράνιος ἔρως, Philo in this sense hag called it (De Vit. Cont.2; De Vit. Mos. iii. 1). But in the very fact that ἔρως (=6 δεινὸς ἵμερος, Sophocles, Trach. 476), did express this yearning desire (Euripides, Jon, 67; Alcestis, 1101) ; this longing after the unpossessed (in Plato’s exquisite mythus, Symp. 208 ὁ, Ἔρως is the offspring of Πενία), lay its deeper unfitness to set forth that Christian love, which is not merely the sense of need, of emptiness, of poverty, with the longing after fulness, not the yearning after an un- attained and in this world unattainable Beauty; but a love to God and to man, which is the consequence of God’s love already shed abroad in the hearts of his people. The mere longing and yearning, and ἔρως at the best is no more, has given place, since the Incarnation, to the love which is not in desire only, but also in possession. That ἔρως is no more is well expressed in the lines of Gregory Nazianzene (Carm. ii. 84, 150, 151): Il 660s δ᾽ ὄρεξις ἢ καλῶν ἢ μὴ καλῶν, Ἔρως δὲ θερμὸς δυσκαθεκτός τε πόθος." § xill. θάλασσα, πέλαγος. THE connexion of θάλασσα with the verb ταράσσειν, that it means properly the agitated or disturbed, finds favour with 1 I cannot regard as an evidence of such reconsecration the well- known words of Ignatius, Ad Rom. 7: ὃ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται. It is far more consistent with the genius of these Ignatian Epistles to take épws subjectively here, ‘ My love of the world is crucified,’ .6. with Christ ; rather than objectively, ‘ Christ, the object of my love, is crucified.’ 2 Consult on ἔρως the noble fragment from Sophocles, preserved by Stobeeus : Νόσημ᾽ ἔρωτος τοῦτ᾽ ἐφίμερον κακόν. ἔχοιμ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸ μὴ κακῶς ἀπεικάσαι, ὅταν πάγου φανέντος αἰθρίου χεροῖν κρύσταλλον ἁρπάσωσι παῖδες ἀσταγῆ. τὰ πρῶτ᾽ ἔχουσιν ἡδονὰς ποταινίους, τέλος δ᾽ ὃ χυμὸς οὔθ᾽ ὅπως ἀφῇ θέλει οὔτ᾽ ἐν χεροῖν τὸ κτῆμα σύμφορον μένειν. οὕτω γε τοὺς ἐρῶντας αὑτὸς ἵμερος δρᾶν καὶ τὸ μὴ δρᾶν πολλάκις προΐεται. §xul1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 43 Curtius (p. 596) and with Pott (Htym. Forsch. vol. ii. p. 56). Schmidt dissents (vol. i. p. 642); and urges that the pre- dominant impression which the sea makes on the beholder is not of unrest but of rest, of quietude and not of agitation ; that we must look for the word’s primary meaning in quite another direction : θάλασσα, he says, ‘ ist das Meer nach seiner natiir- lichen Beschaffenheit, als grosse Salzflut, und dem Sinne nach von dem poetischen ἄλς durch nichts unterschieden.’ It is according to him ‘the great salt flood.’ But not enter- ing further into this question, it will be enough to say that, like the Latin ‘mare,’ it is the sea as contrasted with the land (Gen. i. 10; Matt. xxiii. 15; Acts iv. 24); or perhaps more strictly as contrasted with the shore (see Hay- man’s Odyssey, vol. i. p. xxxiii, Appendix). Πέλαγος is the vast uninterrupted level and expanse of open water, the ‘altum mare,’! as distinguished from those portions of it broken by islands, shut in by coasts and headlands (Thucy- dides, vi. 104; vii. 49; Plutarch, Zimol. 8).2 The suggestion of breadth, and not depth, except as an accessory notion, and as that which will probably find place in this open sea, lies in the word; thus Sophocles (id. Col. 659) : μακρὸν τὸ δεῦρο πέλαγος, οὐδὲ TAHT ov : 50 too the murmuring Israelites (Philo, Vit. Mos. i. 85) liken to a πέλαγος the far-reaching sand-flats of the desert ; and in Herodotus (ii. 92) the Nile overflowing Egypt is said πελαγίζειν τὰ πεδία, which yet it only covers to the depth of a few feet; cf. 11. 97. A passage in the Timeus of Plato (25 a, δ) illustrates well the distinction 1 It need hardly be observed that, adopted into Latin, it has the same meaning : ‘Ut pelagus tenuere rates, nec jam amplius ulla Occurrit tellus, maria undique et undique cxlum.’ Virgil, An. v. 8. 2. Hippias, in the Protagoras of Plato (338 a), charges the eloquent sophist with a φεύγειν εἰς πέλαγος τῶν λόγων, ἀποκρύψαντα γῆν. This last idiom reappears in the French ‘noyer la terre,’ applied to a ship sailing out of sight of land ; as indeed in Virgil’s ‘ Phaacum abscondimus arces.’ 44 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xiv between the words, where the title of πέλαγος is refused to the Mediterranean Sea: which is but a harbour, with the narrow entrance between the Pillars of Hercules for its mouth ; while only the great Atlantic Ocean beyond can be acknowledged as ἀληθινὸς πόντος, πέλαγος ὄντως. Compare Aristotle, De Mun.3; Meteorol. ii. 1: ῥέουσα δ᾽ ἡ θάλαττα φαίνεται κατὰ τὰς στενότητας [the Straits of Gibraltar], εἴπου διὰ περιέχουσαν γῆν εἰς μικρὸν ἐκ μεγάλου συνάγεται πέλαγος. It might seem as if this distinction did not hold good on one of the two occasions wpon which πέλαγος occurs in the N. T., namely Matt. xviii. 6: “ It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (καὶ καταποντισθῇ ἐν τῷ πελάγει τῆς θαλάσσης). But the sense of depth, which un- doubtedly the passage requires, is here to be looked for in the καταποντισθῇ :--πόντος (not in the N. T.) being connected with βάθος, βυθός (Exod. xv. 5), βένθος, perhaps the same word as this last, and implying the sea in its perpendicular depth, as πέλαγος (=‘ maris equor,’ Virgil, Ain. ii. 780), the same in its horizontal dimensions and extent. Compare Déderlein, Lat. Syn. vol. iv. p. 75. § xiv. σκληρός, αὐστηρός. In the parable of the Talents (Matt. xxv.), the slothful servant charges his master with being σκληρός, “an hard man’’ (ver. 24); while in the corresponding parable of St. Luke it is αὐστηρός, ‘an austere man” (xix. 21), which he accuses him of being. It follows that the words must be nearly allied in meaning ; but not that they are identical in this. Σκληρός, derived from σκέλλω, σκλῆναι (= ‘ arefacio’), is properly an epithet applied to that which through lack of moisture is hard and dry, and thus rough and disagreeable to the touch ; or more than this, warped and intractable, the ‘asper’ and ‘durus’ in one. It is then transferred to the Sxl SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 4, region of ethics, in which it chiefly moves, expressing there roughness, harshness, and intractability in the moral nature of a man. Thus Nabal (1 Sam. xxv. 3) is σκληρός, and no epithet could better express the evil conditions of the churl. For other company which the word keeps, we find it asso- ciated with αὐχμηρός (Plato, Symp. 195 d) ; ἀντίτυπος (Theat. 155 a; Plutarch, De Pyth. Orac. 26) ; ἀμετάστροφος (Plato, Crat. 407 d) ; ἄγριος (Aristotle, Hth. Nic. iv. 8.8; Plutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. 3); ἀνήδυντος (Prac. Ger. Reip. 8); ἀπηνής (De Vit. Pud.) ; avépaatos (De Adul. et Am. 19) ; τραχύς (De Lib. Ed. 18); ἀπαίδευτος (Alex. Virt. sew Fort. Or. i. 5); ἄτρεπτος (Diogenes Laértius, vii. 1. 64, 117); ἀφηνιαστής (Philo, De Septen. 1); αὐθάδης (Gen. xlix. 8) ; πονηρός (1 Sam. xxv. 8). It is set over against εὐηθικός (Plato, Charm. 175 d) ; μαλακός (Protag. 881 d); μαλθακός (Symp. 195 d; Sophocles, (idip. Col. 771). Αὐστηρός, which in the N. T. appears but once (Luke xix. 21), and never in the Septuagint, is in its primary mean- ing applied to such things as draw together and contract the tongue, are harsh and stringent to the palate, as new wine not yet mellowed by age, unripe fruit, and the like. Thus Cowper, describing himself, when a boy, as gathering from the hedgerows ‘sloes austere,’ uses ‘austere’ with exactest propriety. But just as we have transferred ‘strict’ (from ‘stringo’) to the region of ethics, so the Greeks transferred αὐστηρός, with an image borrowed from the taste, as in σκληρός from the touch. Neither does this word set out any- thing amiable or attractive in him to whom it is applied. It keeps company with ἀηδής (Plato, Rep. 111. 898 a); ἄκρατος and. ἀνήδυντος (Plutarch, Prec. Cony. 29) ; ἀνήδυστος (Phoc. 5) ; αὐθέκαστος | (De Adul. et Am. 14) ; πικρός (aid. 2) ; ἀγέλαστος and ἀνέντευκτος (De Cup. Div. 7); αὐχμηρός (Philo, De Prem. 1 In Plutarch this word is used in an ill sense, as self-willed, joined by him to ἄτεγκτος, that is, not to be moulded and fashioned like moist clay, in the hands of another, ‘ eigensinnig ;’ being one of the many which, in all languages, beginning with a good sense (Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. iv. 7. 4), have ended with a bad. 46 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ξ χιν et Pen. 5); while Kudemus (Ethic. Eudem. vii. 5) contrasts the αὐστηρός with the εὐτράπελος, using the latter word in a good sense. At the same time none of the epithets with which αὐστηρός is associated imply that deep moral perversity which lies in many with which σκληρός is linked; and, moreover, it is met not seldom in more honorable company; thus it is joined with σώφρων continually (Plutarch, Prec. Conj.7, 29; Quest. Gr. 40); with μουσικός (Symp. v. 2); with σωφρονικός (Cle- ment of Alexandria, Pedag. ii. 4); one, otherwise γενναῖος καὶ μέγας, is αὐστηρός as not sacrificing to the Graces (Plutarch, Amat. 28); while the Stoics affirmed all good men to be ‘austere’ (Diogenes Laértius, vii. 1. 64,117): καὶ αὐστηροὺς δέ φασιν εἶναι πάντας τοὺς σπουδαίους, TO μήτε αὐτοὺς πρὸς ἡδονὴν ὁμιλεῖν, μήτε παρ᾽ ἄλλων τὰ πρὸς ἡδονὴν προσδέχεσθαι : οἷ. Plu- tarch, Prec. Conj. 27. In Latin, ‘austerus ’ is predominantly an epithet of honour (Déderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. iii. p. 232) ; he to whom it is applied is earnest and severe, opposed to all levity ; needing, it may very well be, to watch against harsh- ness, rigour, or moroseness, into which he might easily lapse —(‘non austeritas ejus tristis, non dissoluta sit comitas,’ Quintilian, ii. 2. 5)—but as yet not chargeable with these. We may distinguish, then, between them thus: σκληρός conveys always a reproach and a grave one, indicates a character harsh, inhuman, and in the earlier use of that word) uncivil; in the words of Hesiod, ἀδάμαντος ἔχων κρατερόφρονα θυμόν. It is not so with αὐστηρός. This epithet does not of necessity convey a reproach at all, any more than the German ‘streng,’ which is very different from ‘hart ;’ and even where it does convey a reproof, it is one of far less opprobrious a kind; rather the exaggeration of a virtue pushed too far, than an absolute vice. SV SY VON YES OF Tie NEW TESTAMENT ἢ tA «ε lA § Xv. εἰκών, ὁμοίωσις, ὁμοίωμα. THERE is a twofold theological interest attending the distinc- tion between εἰκών and the two words which are here brought into comparison with it; the first belonging to the Arian controversy, and turning on the fitness or unfitness of the words before us to set forth the relation of the Son to the Father ; while the other is an interest that, seeming at first sight remote from any controversy, has yet contrived to insinuate itself into more than one, namely, whether there be a distinction, and if so, what it is, between the ‘image’ (εἰκών) of God, 7m which, and the ‘ likeness’ (ὁμοίωσις) of God, after which, man was created at the beginning (Gen. i. 26). I need hardly remind those who will care to read this volume of the distinction drawn between the words during the course of the long Arian debate. Some there may be who are not acquainted with Lightfoot’s note on Col. i. 15 in his Commentary on the Colossians. ThemI must refer to his discussion on the words εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ. It is evident that εἰκών (from εἴκω, ἔοικα) and ὁμοίωμα might often be used as equivalent, and in many positions it would be indifferent whether one or the other were employed. Thus they are convertibly used by Plato (Phedr. 250 2), ὁμοιώματα and εἰκόνες alike, to set forth the carthly copies and resemblances of the archetypal things in the heavens. When, however, the Church found it necessary to raise up bulwarks against Arian error and equivocation, it drew a strong distinction between these two, one not arbitrary, but having essential difference in the words themselves for its ground. Ἐἰκών (=‘ imago’ =‘imitago ᾿Ξεἀπεικόνισμα, and used in the same intention of the Logos by Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 31), always assumes a prototype, that which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn, a παράδειγμα (Philo, zbid.); it is the German ‘Abbild,’ which invariably presumes a ‘Vorbild;’ thus Gregory Nazianzene (Orat. 36) : αὕτη yap εἰκόνος φύσις, μίμημα εἶναι τοῦ ἀρχετύπουις Thus, the monarch’s head on the coin is εἰκών (Matt. xxii. 20) ; the reflection of the sun in the water 48 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xv is εἰκών (Plato, Phedo, 99 d); the statue in stone or other material is εἰκών (Rev. xiii. 14); and, coming nearer to the heart of the matter than by any of these illustrations we have done, the child is ἔμψυχος εἰκών of his parents. But in the ὁμοίωμα or ὁμοίωσις, while there is resemblance, it by no means follows that it has been acquired in this way, that it is derived: it may be accidental, as one egg is like another, as there may exist a resemblance between two men in no way akin to one another. Thus, as Augustine in an instructive passage brings out (Quest. lxxxiii. 74), the ‘imago’ (=eixwy) includes and involves the ‘ similitudo,’ but the ‘ similitudo ’ (=éo/wors) does not involve the ‘imago.’ The reason will at once be manifest why εἰκών is ascribed to the Son, as representing his relation to the Father (2 Cor. iv.4; Col. i. 15; ef. Wisd. vii. 26); while among all the words of the family of ὄμοιος, not merely none are so employed in the Scripture, but they have all been expressly forbidden and condemned by the Church ; that is, so soon as ever this has had reason to suspect that they were not used in good faith. Thus Hilary, addressing an Arian, says, “‘I may use them, to exclude Sabellian error; but I will not suffer you to do so, whose intention is altogether different ’’ (Con. Constant. Imp. 17-21). Εἰκών, in this its augustest application, like χαρακτήρ and ἀπαύγασμα (Heb. i. 8), with which theologically it is nearly allied, like ἔσοπτρον, ἀτμίς, ἀπόρροια (Wisd. vii. 25, 26), like σκιά (Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 31; but not Heb. x. 1), which are all remoter approximations to the same truth, is indeed inadequate; but, at the same time, it is true as far as it goes; and in human language, employed for the setting forth of truths which transcend the limits of human thought, we must be content with approximate statements, seeking for the complement of their inadequacy, for that which shall redress their insufficiency, from some other quarter. Hach has its weak side, which must be supported by strength derived from elsewhere. Eixdév is weak; for what image is of equal worth and dignity with the prototype from which it is imaged? But it has also its strong side; it implies an §xv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 49 archetype from which it has been derived and drawn ; while ὁμοιότης, ὁμοίωσις, and words of this family, expressing mere similarity, if they did not actually imply, might yet suggest, and if they suggested, would seem to justify, error, and that with no compensating advantage. Hixactly the same con- siderations were at work here, which, in respect of the verbs _ γεννᾶν and κτίζειν, did in this same controversy lead the Church to allow the former and to condemn the latter. The student who would completely acquaint himself with all the aspects of the great controversy to which these words, in their relation to one another, gave rise, above all, as to the exact force of εἰκών as applied to the Son, will find the materials admirably prepared to his hand by Petavius, De Trin. ii. 11; iv. 6; vi. 5,6; while Gfrérer (Philo, vol. i. p. 261 sqq.) will give him the very interesting, but wholly inadequate, speculations of the Alexandrian theosophists on the same subject. The second interest in the discrimination of these words lies in the question, which has often been discussed, whether in that great fiat announcing man’s original constitution, “Let us make man in our image (κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, 1X, Doy Heb.), after our likeness’? (καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν, LXX., niin Heb.), anything different was intended by the second from the first, or whether the second is merely to be regarded as consequent upon the first, ‘in our image,” and therefore “after our likeness” Both the εἰκών and ὁμοίωσις are claimed for man in the N. T.: the εἰκών, 1 Cor. xi. 7; the ὁμοίωσις, Jam. 111. 9. The whole subject is discussed at large by Gregory of Nyssa in a treatise which he has devoted exclusively to the question (Opp. 1638, vol ii. p. 22-34), but mainly in its bearing on controversies of his own day. He with many of the early Fathers, as also of the Schoolmen, affirmed a real distinction. Thus, the great Alexandrian theologians taught that the εἰκών was something im which men were created, being common to all, and continuing to man as much after the Fall as before (Gen. ix. 6), while the ὁμοίωσις was something toward which man was created, that he might strive after and 19 50 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xv attain it; Origen (De Prin. iii. 6) : ‘ Imaginis dignitatem in prima conditione percepit, similitudinis vero perfectio in consummatione servata est;’ cf. ὧν Joan. tom. xx. 20; Irenexus, v. 16. 2; Tertullian, De Bapt.5. Doubtless the Platonist studies and predilections of the illustrious theo- logians of Alexandria had some influence upon them here, and on this distinction which they drew. It is well known that Plato presented the ὁμοιοῦσθαι τῷ Θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν (Theat. 176 a) as the highest scope of man’s life ; and indeed Clement (Strom. ii. 22) brings the great passage of Plato to bear upon this very discussion. The Schoolmen, in like manner, drew a distinction, although it was not this one, between ‘ these two divine stamps upon man.’ Thus Anselm, Medit. 1™*; Peter Lombard, Sent. ii. dist. 16; H. de 5. Victore, De Animd, ii. 25; De Sac. i. 6. 2: ‘Imago secundum cognitionem veritatis, similitudo secundum amorem virtutis ;’ the first declaring the intellectual, as the second the moral, preéminence in which man was created. Many, however, have refused to acknowledge these, or any other distinctions, between the two declarations; as Baxter, for instance, who, in his interesting reply to Elliott the Indian Missionary’s inquiries on the subject, rejects them all as groundless conceits, though himself in general only too anxious for distinction and division (Life and Times, by Sylvester, vol. ii. p. 296). They were scarcely justified in this rejection. The Alexandrians, I believe, were very near the truth, if they did not grasp it altogether. There are portions of Scripture, in respect of which the words of Jerome, originally applied to the Apocalypse, ‘ quot verba tot sacramenta,’ hardly contain an exaggeration. Such an eminently significant part is the history of man’s creation and his fall, all which in the first three chapters of Genesis is contained. We may expect to find mysteries there; pro- phetic intimations of truths which it might require ages upon ages to develop. And, without attempting to draw any very strict line between εἰκών and ὁμοίωσις, or their Hebrew counterparts, we may be bold to say that the whole history §xvl SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 51 of man, not only in his original creation, but also in his after restoration and reconstitution in the Son, is significantly wrapped up in this double statement; which is double for this very cause, that the Divine Mind did not stop at the contemplation of his first creation, but looked on to him as ““ renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Col. iii. 10, on which see Bishop Lightfoot in loco) ; because it knew that only as partaker of this double benefit would he attain the true end for which he was ordained. δ᾽ ΧΥΪ. ἀσωτία, ἀσέλγεια. Ir is little likely that one ἄσωτος will not be ἀσελγής 8180: but for all this ἀσωτία and ἀσέλγεια are not identical in mean- ing ; they will express different aspects of his sin, or at any rate contemplate it from different points of view. ᾿Ασωτία, a word in which heathen ethics said much more than they intended or knew, occurs thrice in the N. T. (Ephes. v.18; Tit. i.6; 1 Pet. iv. 4); once in the Septua- gint (Prov. xxviii. 7) and once in the Apocrypha, being there joined with κῶμοι (2 Macc. vi. 4). We have further the adverb ἀσώτως, at Luke xv. 13; and ἄσωτος once in the Septuagint (Prov. vii. 11). At Ephes. v. 18 we translate it ‘excess;’ in the other two places, ‘riot,’ as ζῶν ἀσώτως, ‘in riotous living;’’ the Vulgate always by ‘luxuria’ and ‘luxuriose,’ words implying in medieval Latin a loose and profligate habit of living which is strange to our ‘luxury ’ and ‘luxuriously’ at the present; see my Select Glossary, 8. vv. in proof. ἴλσωτος is sometimes taken in a passive sense, aS = ἄσωστος (Plutarch, Alcib. 8); one who cannot be saved, σώζεσθαι μὴ δυνάμενος, aS Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. ii. 1.7) explains it, ‘ perditus’ (Horace, Sat. i. 2. 15), ‘heillos,’ or as we used to say, a ‘losel,’ a ‘hopelost’ (this noticeable word is in Grimeston’s Polybius) ; Grotius: ‘Genus hominum ita immersorum vitiis, ut eorum salus deplorata sit;’ the word being, so to speak, prophetic of E 2 52 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xv1 their doom to whom it was applied.!. This, however, was quite the rarer use ; more commonly the ἄσωτος is one who himself cannot save, or spare,=‘ prodigus ;’ or, again to use a good old English word more than once employed by Spenser, but which we have now let go, a ‘ scatterling.’” This extra- vagant squandering of means Aristotle notes as the proper definition of ἀσωτία (Ethic. Nic. iv. 1. 8): ἀσωτία ἐστὶν ὑπερβολὴ περὶ χρήματα. The word forms part of his ethical terminology ; the ἐλευθέριος, or the truly liberal man, keeps the golden mean between the two ἄκρα, namely, dowria (= ‘effusio’) on one side, and ἀνελευθερία, or ignoble stingi- ness (= ‘tenacitas,’ Augustine, Hp. 167. 2), on the other. It is in this view of ἀσωτία that Plato (Rep. viii. 560 6), when he names the various catachrestic terms, according to which men call their vices by the names of the virtues which they caricature, makes them style their dowria, μεγαλοπρέπεια : compare Quintilian (Inst. viii. 36): ‘Pro luxuria liberalitas dicitur.’ But it is easy to see that one who is dowros in this sense of spending too much, of laying out his expenditure on a more magnificent scheme than his means will warrant, slides easily, under the fatal influence of flatterers, and of all those temptations with which he has surrounded himself, into a spending on his own lusts and appetites of that with which he parts so freely, laying it out for the gratification of his own sensual desires. Thus the word takes a new colour, and indicates now not only one of a too expensive, but also, and chiefly, of a dissolute, debauched, profligate manner of living; the German ‘liederlich.’ Aristotle has noted this (Ethic. Nic. iv. 1. 85): διὸ καὶ ἀκόλαστοι αὐτῶν [τῶν ἀσώτων] 1 Thus in the Adelphi of Terence (vi. 7), one having spoken οὗ a youth ‘luxu perditum,’ proceeds : ‘ipsa si cupiat Salus, Servare prorsus non potest hance familiam.’ No doubt in the Greek original there was a threefold play here on ἄσωτος. σωτηρία and σώζειν, which the absence of a corresponding group of words in Latin has hindered Terence from preserving. §xvi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 53 εἰσιν οἱ πολλοί" εὐχερῶς γὰρ ἀναλίσκοντες καὶ εἰς τὰς ἀκολασίας δαπανηροί εἰσι, καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ πρὸς τὸ καλὸν ζῆν, πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς ἀποκλίνουσι. Here he explains a prior statement: τοὺς. ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανηροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν (tid. ὃ 8). In this sense ἀσωτία is used in the N. T.; as we find ἀσωτίαι and κραιπάλαι joined elsewhere together (Herodian, ii. 5). The two meanings will of course run often into one another, nor will it be possible to keep them strictly asunder. Thus the several examples of the ἄσωτος, and of ἀσωτία, which Athenzus (iv. 59-67) gives, are sometimes rather of one kind, sometimes of the other. The waster of his goods will be very often a waster of everything besides, will lay waste himself—his time, his faculties, his powers; and, we may add, uniting the active and passive meanings of the word, will be himself laid waste; he at once loses himself, and is lost. In the Tabula of Cebes, ᾿Ασωτία, one of the courtesans, the temptresses of Hercules, keeps company with ᾿Ακρασία, ᾿Απληστία and Κολακεία. The etymology of ἀσέλγεια is wrapped in obscurity ; some going so far to look for it as to Selge, a city of Pisidia, whose inhabitants were infamous for their vices; while others derive it from θέλγειν, probably the same word as the German ‘ schwelgen:’ see, however, Donaldson, Cratylus, 8rd edit. p. 692. Of more frequent use than ἀσωτία in the N. T., it is in our Version generally rendered ‘lasciviousness’ (Mark vii. 22; 2 Cor. xii, 21; Gal. v. 19; Ephes. iv. 19: 1 Pet. iv. 3; Jude 4); though sometimes ‘ wantonness’ (Rom. xiii. 13; 2 Pet. 11. 18) ; as in the Vulgate now ‘impudicitia,’ and now ‘luxuria;’ even as it is defined in the Htymologicon Magnum as ἑτοιμότης πρὸς πᾶσαν ἡδονήν. If our Translators or the Latin had impurities and lusts of the flesh exclusively in their eye, they have certainly given to the word too narrow a meaning. ᾿Ασέλγεια, which, it will be observed, is not grouped with such in the catalogue of sins at Mark vii. 21, 22, is best described as wanton lawless insolence ; being somewhat stronger than the Latin ‘ protervitas,’ though of the same quality, more nearly ‘ petulantia,’ Chrysostom 54 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xvi (Hom. 87 in Matt.) joining ἰταμότης with it. It is defined by Basil the Great (Reg. Brev. Int. 67) as διάθεσις ψυχῆς μὴ - ἔχουσα ἢ μὴ φέρουσα ἄλγος ἀθλητικόν. The ἀσελγής, as Passow observes, is very closely allied to the ὑβριστικός and ἀκόλαστος, being one who acknowledges no restraints, who dares what- soever his caprice and wanton petulance may suggest. None would deny that ἀσέλγεια may display itself in acts of what we call ‘lasciviousness;’ for there are no worse displays of ὕβρις than in these; but still it is their petulance, their insolence, which this word, linked by Polybius (v. 111) with Bia, expresses. Of its two renderings in our Version, ‘ wan- tonness’ is the best, standing as it does in a remarkable ethical connexion with ἀσέλγεια, and having the same duplicity of meaning. In numerous passages the notion of lasciviousness is altogether absent from the word. In classical Greek it is defined (Bekker’s Anecdota, p. 451) 7 per’ ἐπηρεασμοῦ καὶ θρασύτητος Bia. Thus, too, Demosthenes in his rst Philippic, 42, denounces the ἀσέλγεια of Philip; while else- where he characterizes the blow which Meidias had given him, as in keeping with the known ἀσέλγεια of the man, joining this and ὕβρις together (Cont. Meid. 514); linking elsewhere ἀσελγῶς with δεσποτικῶς (Or. xvii. 21), and with προπετῶς (Or. lix. 46). As ἀσέλγεια Plutarch characterizes a similar outrage on the part of Alcibiades, committed against an honorable citizen of Athens (Alcib. 8) ; indeed, the whole picture which he draws of Alcibiades is the full-length portrait of an ἀσελγής. Aristotle notices δημαγωγῶν ἀσέλγειαν as a frequent cause of revolutions (Pol. v. 4). Josephus ascribes ἀσέλγεια and μανία to Jezebel, daring, as she did, to build a temple of Baal in the Holy City itself (Antt. viii. 13. 1); and the same to a Roman soldier, who, being on 1 Thus Witsius (Melet. Leid. p. 465) observes: " ἀσέλγειαν dici posse omnem tam ingenii, quam morum proterviam, petulantiam, lasciviam, que ab Aischine opponitur τῇ μετριότητι καὶ σώὠφροσύνῃ.᾽ There is a capital note, but too long to quote, on.all that ἀσέλγεια includes by Cocceius on Gal. v. 19. § XVII “SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 55 guard at the Temple during the Passover, provoked by an act of grossest indecency a tumult, in which many lives were lost (xx. 5. 3). Other passages, helpful to a fixing of the true meaning of the word, are 3 Macc. ii. 26; Polybius, viii. 14. 1; Eusebius, Hist. Hecl. vi. 1. 26; and see the quotations in Wetstein, vol. i. p. 588. ᾿Ασέλγεια, then, and ἀσωτία are clearly distinguishable ; the fundamental notion of ἀσωτία being wastefulness and riotous excess; of ἀσέλγεια, lawless insolence and wanton caprice. § xvii. θιγγάνω, ἅπτομαι, ψηλαφάω. AN accurate synonymous distinction will sometimes cause us at once to reject as untenable some interpretation of Scripture, which might, but for this, have won a certain amount of allowance. Thus, many interpreters have explained Heb. xii. 18: “ For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched” (ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει), by Ps. civ. 82: “ He towcheth the hills, and they smoke; ”’ and call in aid the fact that, at the giving of the Law, God came down upon mount Sinai, which ‘“‘ was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it” (Exod. xix. 18). But decisively forbidding this is the fact that ψηλαφάω never expresses the so handling of an object as to exercise a moulding, modifying influence upon it, but at most a feeling of its surface (Luke xxiv. 39: 1 John i. 1); this, it may be, with the intention of learning its composition (Gen. xxvii. 12, 21, 22); while not seldom it signifies no more than a feeling for or after an object, without any actual coming in contact with it at all. It continually expresses a groping in the dark (Job v. 14); or of the blind (Isai. lix. 10; Gen. xxvii. 12 ; Deut. xxviii. 29; Judg. xvi. 26); tropically sometimes (Acts xvii. 27) ; compare Plato (Phedo, 99 δ), ψηλαφῶντες ὥσπερ ἐν σκότει; Aristophanes, Pax, 691; Eccles. 81δ, and Philo, Quis Rer. Dw. Her. 51. Nor does the ψηλαφώμενον ὄρος, to which refer- ence was just made, the ‘mons palpabilis,’ or ‘ tractabilis,’ as 56 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xvit the Vulgate has it, mean anything else: ‘Ye are not come,’ the writer to the Hebrews would say, ‘to any material mountain, like Sinai, capable of being touched and handled ; not, in this sense, to the mountain that might be felt, but to the heavenly Jerusalem, to a νοητόν, not to an αἰσθητόν, ὄρος. Thus Knapp (Script. Var. Argum. p. 264: ‘ Videlicet τὸ ψηλαφώμενον idem est, quod αἰσθητόν, vel quidquid sensu percipitur aut investigatur quovis modo; plane ut Tacitus (Ann. 111. 12) oculus contrectare dixit, nec dissimili ratione Cicero (Tusc. 111. 15) mente contrectare. Et Sina quidem mons ideo αἰσθητός appellatur, quia Szonc opponitur, quo in monte, que sub sensus cadunt, non spectantur; sed ea tantum, que mente atque animo percipi possunt, νοητά, πνευματικά, ἠθικά. Apposite ad ἢ. 1. Chrysostomus (Hom. 82 in Hp. ad Hebr.): πάντα τοίνυν τότε αἰσθητά, καὶ ὄψεις, καὶ φωναί" πάντα νοητὰ καὶ ἀόρατα viv.’ The so handling of any object as to exert a modifying influence upon it, the French ‘ manier,’ as distinguished from ‘toucher,’ the German ‘ betasten,’ as distinguished from ‘bertthren,’ would be either dmrecOar' or θιγγάνειν. These words may be sometimes exchanged the one for the other, as at Exod. xix. 12 they are; and compare Aristotle, De Gen. et Corrupt. 1. 8, quoted by Lightfoot with other passages at Coloss. ii. 21 ; but in the main the first is stronger than the second; ἅπτεσθαι (=‘ contrectare’) than θιγγάνειν (Ps. civ. 15; 1 John v. 18), as appears plainly in a passage of Xenophon (Cyr. i. 8. 5), where the child Cyrus, rebuking his grand- father’s delicacies, says : ὅτι σε ὁρῶ, ὅταν μὲν τοῦ ἄρτου ἅψῃ, εἰς οὐδὲν τὴν χεῖρα ἀποψώμενον, ὅταν δὲ τούτων τινὸς θίγῃς, εὐθὺς ἀποκαθαίρῃ τὴν χεῖρα εἰς τὰ χειρόμακτρα, ὡς πάνυ ἀχθόμενος. It is, indeed, so much stronger that it can be used, which certainly θιγγάνειν could not, of the statuary’s shaping of his materials (Plutarch, Phil. cum Prin. 1); the self-conscious effort, which is sometimes present to this, being always absent from the other. Our Version, then, has exactly 1 In the passage alluded to already, Ps. civ. 32, the words of the Septuagint are, 6 ἁπτόμ εν ο 5 τῶν ὀρέων καὶ καπνίζονται. §xvut SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 57 reversed the true order of the words, when, at Col. ii. yA a he translates μὴ ἅψῃ, μηδὲ γεύσῃ, μηδὲ θίγῃς, ““ Touch not, taste not, handle ποῖ. The first and last prohibitions should change places, and the passage read, “ Handle not, taste not, touch not:’’ just as in the Latin Versions ‘ tangere,’ which now stands for ἅπτεσθαι, and ‘attaminare,’ or ‘contrectare,’ for θιγεῖν, should be transposed. How much more vividly will then come out the ever ascending scale of superstitious pro- hibition among the false teachers at Colosse. To abstain from ‘handling’ is not sufficient; they forbid to ‘taste,’ and, lastly, even to ‘ touch,’ those things from which, according to their notions, uncleanness might be contracted. Beza has noted this well: ‘ Verbum θιγεῖν a verbo ἅπτεσθαι sic est dis- tinguendum, ut decrescente semper oratione intelligatur crescere superstitio.’ The verb ψαύειν does not once occur in the N. T., nor in the Septuagint. There is, I observe in con- clusion, a very careful study on this group of words in Schmidt’s Synonymik, vol. i., pp. 224-243. ὃ xviii. παλιγγενεσία, ἀνακαίνωσις. Παλιγγενεσία is one among the many words which the Gospel found, and, so to speak, glorified; enlarged the borders of its meaning ; lifted it up into a higher sphere; made it the ex- pression of far deeper thoughts, of far mightier truths, than any of which it had been the vehicle before. It was, indeed, already in use; but as the Christian new-birth was not till after Christ’s birth ; as men were not new-born, till Christ was born (John i. 12) ; as their regeneration did not precede, but only followed his generation ; so the word could not be used in this its highest, most mysterious sense, till that great mystery of the birth of the Son of God into our world had actually found place. And yet it is exceedingly interesting to trace these its subordinate, and, as they proved, preparatory uses. There are passages (as, for instance, in Lucian, Musce Encom. 7) in which -it means revivification, and nothing more. In the Pythagorean doctrine of the trans- 58 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xvii migration of souls, their reappearance in new bodies was called their παλιγγενεσία (Plutarch, De Hsu Car.i. 7; uu. 6; De Isid. et Osir. 85 : ᾽Οσίριδος αἱ ἀναβιώσεις Kat παλιγγενεσίαι : De Hi ap. Delph. 9: ἀποβιώσεις καὶ παλιγγενεσίαι : De Def. Orac. 51, μεταβολαὶ καὶ παλιγγενεσίαι). For the Stoics the word set forth the periodic renovation of the earth, when, budding and blossoming in the spring-time, it woke up from its winter sleep, and, so to speak, revived from its winter death : which revival therefore Marcus Antoninus calls (ii. 1) τὴν περιοδικὴν παλιγγενεσίαν τῶν ὅλων. Philo also con- stantly sets forth by aid of παλιγγενεσία the phcenix-like resurrection of the material world out of fire, which the Stoies taught (De Incorr. Mun. 17, 21; De Mun. 15) ; while in another place, of Noah and those in the Ark with him, he says (De Vit. Mos. 11. 12: παλιγγενεσίας ἐγένοντο ἡγεμόνες, καὶ δευτέρας ἀρχηγέται περιόδου. Basil the Great (Hexaém. Hom. 8) notes some heretics, who, bringing old heathen speculations into the Christian Church, ἀπείρους φθορὰς κόσμου καὶ παλιγγενεσίας εἰσάγουσιν. Cicero (Ad Attic. vi. 6) calls his restoration to his dignities and honours, after his return from exile, ‘ hance παλιγγενεσίαν nostram,’ with which compare Philo, Leg. ad Cat. 41. Josephus (Anit. xi. 3. 9) characterizes the restoration of the Jewish nation after the Captivity, as τὴν ἀνάκτησιν καὶ παλιγγενεσίαν τῆς πατρίδος (Ξε ζωοποίησιν, Εἰ στα, ix. 8, 9). And, to cite one passage more, Olympiodorus, a later Platonist, styles recollection or remi- niscence, which must be carefully distinguished from memory,! the παλιγγενεσία of knowledge (Journal des 1 The very purpose of the passage in Olympiodorus is to bring out the old Aristotelian and Platonic distinction between ‘memory’ (μνήμη, Gedichtniss) and ‘ recollection’ or ‘ reminiscence’ (ἀνάμνησις, Heb. x. 3 ; Wiedererinnerung), the first being instinctive, and common to beasts with men, the second being the reviving of faded impressions by a distinct act of the will, the reflux, at the bidding of the mind, of know- ledge which has once ebbed (Plato, Philebus, 34 ὃ; Legg. v. 732 ὃ: ἀνάμνησις δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐπιῤῥοὴ φρονήσεως ἀπολιπούσης : cf. Philo, Cong. Erud. Grat. 8), and as such proper only to man (Aristotle, De Hist. Anim. i. 1.15; Brandis, Aristoteles, pp. 1148-53). It will at once be seen that of this latter only Olympiodorus could say, that it is maAryyevecia τῆς γνώσεως. ἐν SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τὸ Savans, 1884, p. 488); παλιγγενεσία τῆς γνώσεώς ἐστιν ἡ ἀνάμνησις. : Παλιγγενεσία, which has thus in heathen and Jewish Greek the meaning of a recovery, a restoration, a revival, yet never reaches, or even approaches, there the depth of meaning which it has acquired in Christian language. The word does “not once occur in the O. T. (but πάλιν γίνεσθαι at Job xiv. 14 ; cf. Josephus, Con. Apion. 11. 30), and only twice in the New (Matt. xix. 28; Tit. iii. 5); but on these two occasions (as is most remarkable), with meanings apparently different. In our Lord’s own words there is evident reference to the new- birth of the whole creation, the ἀποκατάστασις πάντων (Acts ili, 21), which shall be when the Son of Man hereafter comes in his glory; while ‘‘ the washing of regeneration ” whereof St. Paul speaks has to do with that new-birth, not of the whole travailing creation, but of the single soul, which is now evermore finding place. Is then παλιγγενεσία used in two different senses, with no common bond binding the diverse uses of it together ? By no means: all laws of language are violated by any such supposition. The fact is, rather, that the word by our Lord is used in a wider, by his Apostle in a narrower, meaning. They are two circles of meaning, one comprehending more than the other, but their centre is the same. The παλιγγενεσία which Scripture proclaims begins with the μικρόκοσμος of single souls ; but it does not end with this, nor cease its effectual working till it has embraced the whole μακρόκοσμος of the universe. The primary seat of the παλιγγενεσία is the soul of man; it is of this that St. Paul speaks ; but, having established its centre there, it extends in ever-widening circles; and, first, to his body; the day of resurrection being the day of παλιγγενεσία for it. It follows that those Fathers had a certain, though only a partial, right, who at Matt. xix. 28 made παλιγγενεσία equivalent to ἀνάστασις, and themselves continually used the words as synonymous (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 1. 58; iii. 28; Kuthymius: παλιγ- γενεσίαν λέγει τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν ὡς παλινζωΐαν ; see Suicer, 5. v.). Doubtless our Lord there implies, or pre- 60 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xvur supposes, the resurrection, but He also includes much more. Beyond the day of resurrection, or, it may be, contempora- neous with it, a day will come when all nature shall put off its soiled work-day garments, and clothe itself in its holy-day attire, ‘‘ the time of restitution of all things’”’ (Acts iii. 21) ; of what Plutarch, reaching out after this glorious truth, calls the μετακόσμησις (De Fac. im Orb. Lun. 18); of “the new heaven and the new earth’’ (Rev. xxi. 1; Isai. xv. 17; Ixvi. 22; 2 Pet. 111. 13); a day by St. Paul regarded as one in the labour-pangs of which all creation is groaning and travailing until now (Rom. viii. 21—-23).! Man is the present subject of the παλιγγενεσία, and of the wondrous change which it implies; but in that day it will have included within its limits that whole world of which man is the central figure: and here is the reconciliation of the two passages, in one of which it is contemplated as pertaining to the single soul, in the other to the whole redeemed creation. These refer both to the same event, but at different epochs and stages of its development. ‘Palingenesia,’ as Delitzsch says concisely and well (Apologetik, p. 213), ‘ist ein kurzer Ausdruck fir die Wiedergeburt oder Verklairung der menschlichen Leib- lichkeit und der aussermenschlichen Gesammtnatur.’ Com- pare Engelhardt, Weltverklarung und Welterneuerung in the Zeitschrift fiir Luther. Theol. 1871, p. 48, sqq. ᾿Αναγέννησις, ἃ word common enough with the Greek Fathers (see Suicer, 5. v.), nowhere occurs in the N. T., although the verb avayevvdw twice (1 Pet. i. 3, 23). Did we 1 Parallels from heathen writers are very often deceptive, none are more likely to prove so than those which Seneca offers; on which see Bishop Lightfoot in an Appendix to his Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 268, sqq.; and Aubertin, Sur les Rapports supposés entre Sénéque et S. Paul. And yet, with the fullest admission of this, the words which follow must be acknowledged as remarkable (Ep. 102) : ‘Quemadmodum novem mensibus nos tenet maternus uterus, et preparat non sibi sed illi loco in quem videmur emitti, jam idonei spiritum trahere, et in aperto durare, sic per hoc spatium quod ab infantia patet in senectutem, in alium nature sumimur partum, alia origo expectat, alius rerum status.’ §xvit SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 61 meet it there, it would constitute a closer synonym to παλιγγενεσία than dvaxaivwors can do; ἀναγέννησις ( = re- generatio) bringing out the active operation of Him who is the author of the new-birth ; while παλιγγενεσία (= renas- centia) is that same new-birth itself. But not urging this further, we have now to speak of ἀνακαίνωσις (= renovatio), of the relations in which it stands to παλιγγενεσία, and the exact limits to the meaning of-each. And first it is worth observing that while the word παλιγ- yeveoia is drawn from the realm of nature, ἀνακαίνωσις is derived from that of art. A word peculiar to the Greek of the N. T., it occurs there only twice—once in connexion with παλιγγενεσία (Tit. iii. 5), and again at Rom. xii. 2; but we have the verb dvaxawow, which also is exclusively a N. T. form, at 2 Cor. iv. 16; Col. 111. 10; and the more classical dvaxawilw, Heb. vi. 6, from which the nouns, frequent in the Greek Fathers, ἀνακαινισμός and dvaxaivors,! are more imme- diately drawn ; we have also avavedw at Ephes. iv. 23; all in similar uses. More on these words will be found in § lx. Our Collect for Christmas day expresses excellently well the relation in which the παλιγγενεσία and the ἀνακαίνωσις stand to each other; we there pray, ‘ that we being regenerate,’ in other words, having been already made the subjects of the παλιγγενεσία, ‘may daily be renewed by the Holy Spirit,’ may continually know the ἀνακαίνωσις Πνεύματος “Ayiov. In this Collect, uttering, as do so many, profound theological truth in forms at once the simplest and the most accurate, the new- birth is contemplated as already past, as having found place once for all, while the ‘renewal’ or ‘ renovation ’ is daily proceeding—being as it is that gradual restoration of the Divine image, which is ever going forward in him who, through the new-birth, has come under the transforming ” ' Thus Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. 10): ἀναμένω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μετα- σχηματισμόν, τῆς γῆς μεταποίησιν, Thy τῶν στοιχείων ἐλευθερίαν, τοῦ κόσμου παντὸς ἀνακαίνισιν. 2 Μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός (Rom. ΧΙ]. 2). The striking words of Seneca (Hp. 6): ‘Intelligo me emendari non tantum, sed 62 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xvii powers of the world to come. It is called ‘ the renewal of the Holy Ghost,’ inasmuch as He is the efficient cause, by whom alone this putting on of the new man, and putting off the old, is brought about. These two then are bound by closest ties to one another ; the second the following up, the consequence, the consum- mation of the first. The παλιγγενεσία is that free act of God’s mercy and power, whereby He causes the sinner to pass out of the kingdom of darkness into that of light, out of death into life; it is the ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι of John iii. 8; the γεννηθῆναι ἐκ Θεοῦ of 1 John v. 4; the θεογενεσία of Dionysius the Areopagite and other Greek theologians ; the ἀναγεννηθῆναι ἐκ σπορᾶς ἀφθάρτου of 1 Pet. 1. 23; in it that glorious word begins to be fulfilled, ἰδοὺ καινὰ ποιῶ τὰ πάντα (Rev. xxi. 5). In it,—not in the preparations for it, but in the act itself,— the subject of it is passive, even as the child has nothing to do with its own birth. With the dvaxaivwors it is otherwise. This is the gradual conforming of the man more and more to that new spiritual world into which he has been introduced, and in which he now lives and moves; the restoration of the Divine image; and in all this, so far from being passive, he must be a fellow-worker with God. That was ‘regeneratio,’ this is ‘renovatio;’ which two must not be separated, but as little may be confounded, as Gerhard (Loc. Theoll. xxi. 7. 113) has well declared: ‘ Renovatio, licet a regeneratione proprie et specialiter accepta distinguatur, individuo tamen et perpetuo nexu cum ea est conjuncta.’ What infinite per- plexities, conflicts, scandals, obscurations of God’s truth on this side and on that, have arisen now from the confusion, and now from the separating, of these two! transfigurari,’ are far too big to express any benefits which he could have indeed gotten from his books and schools of philosophy; they reach out after blessings to be obtained, not in the schools of men, but only in the Church of the living God. $xix SYWONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 63 ὃ xix. αἰσχύνη, αἰδώς, ἐντροπή. THERE was a time when αἰδώς occupied that whole domain of meaning afterwards divided between it and αἰσχύνη. It had then the same duplicity of meaning which is latent in the Latin ‘ pudor,’ in our own ‘shame;’ and indeed retained a certain duplicity of meaning till the last (Huripides, Hippol. . 887-389). Thus Homer, who does not know αἰσχύνη, some- times, as at Il. v. 787, uses αἰδώς, where αἰσχύνη would, in later Greek, have certainly been employed; but elsewhere in that sense which, at a later period, it vindicated as exclusively its own (Il. xiii. 122; cf. Hesiod, Op. 202). And even Thucydides, in a difficult and doubtful passage where both words occur (i. 84), is by many considered to have employed them as equipollent and convertible (Donaldson, Cratylus, 8rd ed. p. 545). So tooin a passage of Sophocles, where they occur close together, αἰδώς joined with φόβος, and αἰσχύνη with δέος (Ajax, 1049, 1052), it is very difficult, if not im- possible, to draw any distinction between them. Generally, however, in the Attic period of the language, they were not accounted synonymous. Ammonius formally distinguishes them in a philological, as the Stoics (see Plutarch, De Vit. Pud. 2) in an ethical, interest; and almost every passage in which either occurs attests the sense of a real difference existing between them. This.distinction has not always been seized with a perfect success. Thus it has been sometimes said that αἰδώς is the shame, or sense of honour, which hinders one from doing an unworthy act; αἰσχύνη is the disgrace, outward or inward, which follows on having done it (Luke xiv. 9). This distine- tion, while it has its truth, yet is not exhaustive ; and, if we were thereupon to assume that αἰσχύνη was thus only retro- spective, the conscious result of things unworthily done, it would be an erroneous one:! seeing that αἰσχύνη continually 1 There is the same onesidedness, though exactly on the other side, in Cicero’s definition of ‘ pudor,’ which he makes merely prospective : ‘Pudor, metus rerum turpium, et ingenua quedam timiditas, dedecus fugiens, laudemque consectans:’ but Ovid writes, ‘Trruit, et nostrum vulgat clamore pudorem.’ 64 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §x1x expresses that feeling which leads to shun what is unworthy out of a prospective anticipation of dishonour. Thus in the Definitions ascribed to Plato (416) it is φόβος ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ ἀδοξίας : Aristotle including also the future in his comprehen- sive definition (het. 11. 6): ἔστω δὴ αἰσχύνη, λύπη τις καὶ ταραχὴ περὶ τὰ εἰς ἀδοξίαν φαινόμενα φέρειν τῶν κακῶν, ἢ παρόντων, ἢ γεγονότων, ἢ μελλόντων : cf. Hthic. Nic. iv. 9. 1. In this sense, as ‘ fuga dedecoris,’ it is used Ecclus. iv. 21; by Plato (Gorg. 492 a); and by Xenophon (Anab. iii. 1.10) : φοβούμε- vou δὲ τὴν ὁδὸν καὶ ἄκοντες ὅμως οἱ πολλοὶ Oi αἰσχύνην καὶ ἀλλήλων καὶ Κύρου συνηκολούθησαν : Xenophon implying here that while he and others, for more reasons than one, were disinclined to go forward with Cyrus to assail his brother’s throne, they yet were now ashamed to draw back. This much of truth the distinction drawn above possesses, that αἰδώς (=‘verecundia,’ which is defined by Cicero, Rep. vi. 4: ‘quidam vituperationis non injuste timor’!) is the nobler word, and implies the nobler motive: in it is involved an innate moral repugnance to the doing of the dishonorable act, which moral repugnance scarcely or not at all exists in the αἰσχύνη. Let the man who is restrained by it alone be insured against the outward disgrace which he fears his act will entail, and he will refrain from it no longer. It is only, as Aristotle teaches, περὶ ἀδοξίας φαντασία (Rhet. ii. 6): or as South, ‘The grief a man conceives from his own imperfections considered with relation to the world taking notice of them ; and in one word may be defined, grief wpon the sense of dis- esteem ;’ thus at Jer. 11. 26 we have αἰσχύνη κλέπτου ὅταν ἁλῷ. Neither does the definition of ‘shame’ which Locke gives (Of Human Understanding, ii. 20) rise higher than this. Its seat, therefore, as Aristotle proceeds to show, is not pro- perly in the moral sense of him that entertains it, in his con- sciousness of a right which has been, or would be, violated ' In the Latin of the silver age, ‘ verecundia’ had acquired a sense of false shame ; thus Quintilian, xii. 5.2: ‘ Verecundia est timor quidam reducens animum ab eis que facienda sunt.’ It is the δυσωπία, on the mischiefs of which Plutarch has written so graceful an essay. §xix SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 65 by his act, but only in his apprehension of other persons who are, or who might be, privy to its violation. Let this appre- hension be removed, and the αἰσχύνη ceases; while αἰδώς finds its motive in itself, implies reverence for the good ag good (see Aristophanes, Nubes, 994), and not merely as that to which honour and reputation are attached; on which matter _ see some admirable remarks in Gladstone’s Studies on Homer, vol. ii. p. 481; and again in his Primer on Homer, p. 112. Thus it is often connected with εὐλάβεια (Heb. xii. 28; if indeed this reading may stand); the reverence before God, before his majesty, his holiness, which will induce a careful- ness not to offend, the German ‘ Scheu’ (Plutarch, Ces. 14; Prac. Conj. 47; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 44); often also with δέος (Plato, Huthyphro, 12 b,c); with εὐκοσμία (Xenophon, Cyrop. vill. 1. 88; with εὐταξία and κοσμιότης (Plutarch, Ces. 4); with σεμνότης (Prec. Conj. 26). To sum up all, we may say that αἰδώς would always restrain a good man from an unworthy act, while αἰσχύνη might sometimes restrain a bad one. ‘Evrpory, occurring only twice in the N. T. (1 Cor. vi. 5; xv. 84), is elsewhere found in connexion now with αἰσχύνη, and now with αἰδώς, with the first, Ps. xxxiv. 26, cf. Ps. lxix. 8; Ezek. xxxvi. 82; with the second in Iamblichus (quoted by Rost and Palm). It too must be rendered ‘ shame,’ but has something in it which neither αἰδώς nor αἰσχύνη has. Nearly related to ἐντρέπω, ἐντρέπομαι, it conveys at least a hint of that change of conduct, that return of a man upon himself, which a wholesome shame brings with it in him who is its subject. This speaks out in such phrases as παιδεία ἐντροπῆς (Job xx. 3); and assuredly it is only to such shame that St. Paul seeks to bring his Corinthian converts in the two passages referred to already; cf. Tit. ii. 8; and 2 Thess. 111. 14, ἵνα ἐντραπῇ, which Grotius paraphrases rightly, ‘ut pudore tactus ad mentem meliorem redeat.’ Pott (Htym. Forsch. vol. v. p. 188) traces well the successive meanings of the words: ἐντρέπω, umwenden, umkehren, umdrehen. Uebertr. einen in sich kehren, zu sich bringen, machen, dass F 66 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xx er in sich geht . . . ἐντροπή das Umkehren ; 2. das in sich Gehen, Beschimung, Scham, Scheu, Riicksicht, Achtung, wie aidws.” § xx. αἰδώς, σωφροσύνη. THESE two are named together by St. Paul (1 Tim. ii. 9; ef. Plato, Phedrus, 258 d) as constituting the truest adornment of a Christian woman; σωφροσύνη occurs only on two other occasions (Acts xxvi. 25:1 Tim. ii. 15). If the distinction which has been drawn in § xix. be correct, then that which Xenophon (Cyrop. viii. 1. 81) puts into the mouth of Cyrus cannot stand: diype δὲ αἰδῶ καὶ σωφροσύνην τῇδε, ὡς τοὺς μὲν αἰδουμένους τὰ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ αἰσχρὰ φεύγοντας, τοὺς δὲ σώφρονας καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀφανεῖ. It is faulty on both sides ; on the one hand αἰδώς does not merely shun open and mani- fest basenesses, however αἰσχύνη may do this; on the other a mere accident of σωφροσύνη is urged as constituting its essence. The etymology of σωφροσύνη, aS σώζουσα τὴν φρόνησιν (Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. vi. 5. 5), or σωτηρία τῆς φρονήσεως (Plato, Crat. 411 e; ef. Philo, De Fort. 8), must not be taken as seriously intended ; Chrysostom has given it rightly : σωφροσύνη λέγεται ἀπὸ τοῦ Twas τὰς φρένας ἔχειν. Set over against ἀκολασία (Thucydides, i. 37; Aristotle, Rhet.i.9; Philo, Mund. Opif. 21), and ἀκρασία (Xenophon, Mem. iv. 5. 7), the mean between dowria and φειδωλία (Philo, De Prem. et Pen. 9), it is properly the condition of an entire command over the passions and desires, so that they receive no further allowance than that which the law and right reason admit and approve (ἐπικράτεια τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, 4 Mace. 1. 81; cf. Tit.ii.12) ; cf. Plato (Symp.196 c) : εἶναι yap ὁμολογεῖται σωφροσύνη τὸ κρατεῖν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν : his Charmides being dedicated throughout to the investigation of the exact force of the word. Aristotle (Rhet. i. 9): ἀρετὴ δι’ ἣν τρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς TOD σώματος οὕτως ἔχουσιν, ὡς ὃ νόμος κελεύει : Plutarch (De Curios. 141: De Virt. Mor, 2; and Gryll. 6); βραχύτης τίς ἐστιν ἐπιθυμιῶν καὶ τάξις, ἀναιροῦσα μὲν τὰς ἐπεισάκτους καὶ “a N 4 a Ψ ‘a περιττὰς, καιρῷ δὲ καὶ μετριότητι κοσμοῦσα τὰς ἀναγκαίας: §xx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 67 Philo (De Immut. Det, 35): μέση ῥᾳθυμίας ἐκκεχυμένης καὶ φειδωλίας ἀνελευθέρου, σωφροσύνη : cf. Diogenes Laértius, iii. 57. 91; and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ii.18. In Jeremy Taylor’s words (The House of Feasting): ‘It is reason’s girdle, and passion’s bridle, ... it is ῥώμη ψυχῆς, as Pythagoras calls it; κόσμος ἀγαθῶν πάντων, so Plato; ἀσφάλεια τῶν καλλίστων ἕξεων, SO Iamblichus.’ We find it often joined to κοσμιότης, Aristophanes, Plut. 568, 564) ; to εὐταξία (2 Mace. iv. 87) ; to καρτερία (Philo, De Agric. 22); to ἁγνεία (Clement of Rome, Cor. 64). No single Latin word exactly represents it; Cicero, as he himself avows (Tusc. iii. 8; cf. v. 14), rendering it now by ‘temperantia,’ now by ‘moderatio,’ now by ‘modestia ;’ and giving this account of it: ‘ejus enim videtur esse proprium motus animi appetentes regere et sedare, semperque adversantem libidini, moderatam in omni re servare constantiam.’ Σωφροσύνη was a virtue which assumed more marked prominence in heathen ethics than it does in Christian (δώρημα κάλλιστον θεῶν, as Euri- pides, Med. 632, has called it); not because more value was attached to it than with us; but partly because there it was one of a much smaller company of virtues, each of which therefore would singly attract more attention; but also in part because for as many as are “led by the Spirit,’ this condition of self-command is taken up and transformed into a condition yet higher still, in which a man does not order and command himself, which, so far as it reaches, is well, but, which is better still, is ordered and commanded by - God. At 1 Tim. ii. 9 we shall best distinguish between αἰδώς and σωφροσύνη, and the distinction will be capable of further application, if we affirm of αἰδώς that it is that ‘ shamefast- ness,’! or pudency, which shrinks from overpassing the ' It is a pity that ‘shamefast ’ (Ecclus. xli. 16), and ‘ shamefastness ’ by which our Translators rendered σωφροσύνη here, should have been corrupted in modern use to ‘shamefaced,’ and ‘ shamefacedness.’ The words are properly of the same formation as ‘ steadfast,’ ‘ steadfastness,’ ‘ soothfast,’ ‘ soothfastness,’ and those good old English words, now lost F2 68 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxi limits of womanly reserve and modesty, as well as from the dishonour which would justly attach thereto; of σωφροσύνη that it is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to this from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as should overbear the checks and barriers which αἰδώς opposed to it. ὁ § xxl. σύρω, ἕλκω. THESE words differ, and the difference between them is not theologically unimportant. We best represent this difference in English, when we render σύρειν, ‘to drag,’ ἕλκειν, ‘to draw.’ In ovpev, as in our ‘drag,’ there lies always the notion of force, as when Plutarch (De Lib. Ed. 8) speaks of the headlong course of a river, πάντα σύρων Kai πάντα παραφέρων : and it will follow, that where persons, and not merely things, are in question, σύρειν will involve the notion of violence (Acts viii. 3; xiv. 19; xvil. 6; cf. κατασύρειν, Luke xii. 58). But in ἕλκειν this notion of force or violence does not of necessity le. It may be there (Acts xvi. 19; xxi. 80; Jam. ii. 6; cf. Homer, Ji. xi. 258; xxiv. 52, 417; Aristophanes, Hquit. 710; Euripides, Troad. 70: Aids εἷλκε Κασάνδραν Bia); but not of necessity (thus Plato, Rep. vi. to us, ‘ rootfast,’ and ‘ rootfastness:’ to which add ‘ masterfast,’ engaged to a master; ‘footfast,’ captive; ‘bedfast,’ ‘bedridden; handfast,’ affianced ; ‘ weatherfast,’ weatherbound. As by ‘rootfast’ our fathers understood that which was firm and fast by its root, so by ‘ shamefast’ that which was established and made fast by (an honorable) shame. To change this into ‘ shamefaced’ is to allow all the meaning and force of the word to run to the surface, to leave us ethically a far poorer word. It is inexcusable that all modern reprints of the Authorized Version should have given in to this corruption. So long as the spelling does not affect the life of a word, this may very well fall in with modern use; we do not want ‘ sonne’ or ‘ marveile,’ when everybody now spells ‘son’ and ‘marvel.’ But where this life is assailed by later alterations, cor- ruptions in fact of the spelling, and the word in fact changed into another, there the edition of 1611 should be exactly adhered to, and considered authoritative and exemplary for all that followed. §xx1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 69 494 6: ἐὰν ἕλκηται πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν : cf. vii. 588 d), any more than in our ‘draw,’ which we use of a mental and moral attraction, or in the Latin ‘traho’ (‘trahit sua quemque voluptas ’). Only by keeping in mind the difference which thus exists between these, can we vindicate from erroneous interpreta- tion two doctrinally important passages in the Gospel of St. John. The first is xii. 82: “1, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men [πάντας ἑλκύσω] unto Me.” But how does a crucified, and thus an exalted, Saviour draw all men unto Him? Not by force, for the will is incapable of force, but by the- divine attractions of his love. Again (vi. 44) : “ No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν). Now as many as feel bound to deny any such ‘gratia irresistibilis ’ as turns man into a machine, and by which, willing or unwilling, he is dragged to God, must at once allow, must indeed assert, that this ἑλκύσῃ can mean no more than the potent allure- ments, the allective force of love, the attracting of men by the Father to the Son; compare Jer. xxxi. 3, “ With loving- kindness have I drawn thee” (εἵλκυσά oe), and Cant. i. 3, 4. Did we find cvpev on either of these occasions (not that this would be possible), the assertors of a ‘gratia irresistibilis’ ! might then urge the declarations of our Lord as leaving no room for any other meaning but theirs ; but not as they now stand. ' The excellent words of Augustine on this last passage, himself sometimes adduced as an upholder of this, may be here quoted (In Ev. Joh. Tract. xxvi. 4): ‘Nemo venit ad me, nisi quem Pater adtraxerit. Noli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et amore. Nec timere debemus ne ab hominibus qui verba perpendunt, et a rebus maxime divinis intelligendis longe remoti sunt, in hoc Scripturarum sanctarum evangelico verbo forsitan reprehendamur, et dicatur nobis, Quomodo voluntate credo, si trahor? Ego dico: Parum est voluntate, etiam voluptate traheris. Porro si poéte dicere licuit, Trahit sua quemque voluptas ; non necessitas, sed voluptas; non obligatio, sed delectatio ; quanto fortius nos dicere debemus, trahi hominem ad Christum, qui delectatur veritate, delectatur beatitudine, delectatur justitid, delec- tatur sempiternd vité, quod totum Christus est?’ 70 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxi In agreement with all this, in ἕλκειν is predominantly the sense of a drawing to a certain point, in ovpev merely of dragging after one; thus Lucian (De Merc. Cond. 3), likening a man to a fish already hooked and dragged through the water, describes him as συρόμενον καὶ πρὸς ἀνάγκην ἀγόμενον. Not seldom there will lie in σύρειν the notion of this dragging being upon the ground, inasmuch as that will trail upon the ground (cf. σύρμα, σύρδην, and Isai. iii. 16), which is forcibly dragged along with no will of its own; a dead body, for example (Philo, In Flac. 21). We may compare John xxi. 6, 11 with ver. 8 of the same chapter, in confirmation of what has just been affirmed. At ver.6 and 11 ἕλκειν is used; for there a drawing of the net to a certain point is intended ; by the disciples to themselves in the ship, by Peter to himself upon the shore. But at ver.8 ἕλκειν gives place to σύρειν: for nothing is there intended but the dragging of the net, which had been fastened to the ship, after it through the water. Our Version has maintained the distinction; so too the German of De Wette, by aid of ‘ ziehen’ (ξξξλκειν) and ‘nachschleppen’ (=ovpew); but neither the Vulgate, nor Beza, both employing ‘ traho’ throughout. δ xxii. ὁλόκληρος, τέλειος, ἄρτιος. “Ὁλόκληρος and τέλειος occur together, though their order is reversed, at Jam. i. 4,—‘‘perfect and entire’’ (cf. Philo, De Sac. Ab. et Cain. 88: ἔμπλεα καὶ ὁλόκληρα καὶ τέλεια : Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 12, p. 203); ὁλόκληρος only once besides in the N. T. (1 Thess. v. 28) ; ὁλοκληρία also, but in a physi- cal not an ethical sense, once (Acts iii. 16; cf. Isai. 1. 6). ὋὉλόκληρος signifies first, as its etymology declares, that which retains all which was allotted to it at the first (Hzek. xv. δ), being thus whole and entire in all its parts (ὁλόκληρος καὶ παντελής, Philo, De Merc. Meret. 1); with nothing neces- sary for its completeness wanting. Thus Darius would have been well pleased not to have taken Babylon if only Zopyrus, who had maimed himself to carry out the stratagem by which δ ΧΟ IS OF THE NEW TESTAMENVT. 71 it fell, were ὁλόκληρος still (Plutarch, Reg. et Imper. Apoph.). Again, unhewn stones, as having lost nothing in the process of shaping and polishing, are ὁλόκληροι (Deut. xxvil. 6; 1 Macc. iv. 47); perfect weeks are ἑβδομάδες ὁλόκληροι (Lev. xxii. 15); and a man ἐν ὁλοκλήρῳ δέρματι is ‘in a whole skin’ (Lucian, Philops. 8). We next find ὁλόκληρος express- ing that integrity of body, with nothing redundant, nothing deficient (cf. Lev. xxi. 17-23), which was required of the Levitical priests as a condition of their ministering at the altar, which also might not be wanting in the sacrifices they offered. In both these senses Josephus uses it (Antt. 111. 12. 2); as does Philo continually. It is with him the standing word for this integrity of the priests and of the sacrifice, to the necessity of which he often recurs, seeing in it, and rightly, a mystical significance, and that these are ὁλόκληροι θυσίαι ὁλοκλήρῳ Θεῷ (De Vict. 2; De Vict. Off. 1, ὁλόκληρον καὶ παντελῶς μώμων ἀμέτοχον : De Agricul. 29; De Cherub. 28; οὗ, Plato, Legg. vi. 759 c). Τέλειος is used by Homer (Il. 1. 66) in the same sense. It is not long before ὁλόκληρος and ὁλοκληρία, like the Latin ‘integer’ and ‘ integritas,’ are transferred from bodily to mental and moral completeness (Suetonius, Claud. 4). The only approach to this in the Apocrypha is Wisd. xv. 38, ὁλόκληρος δικαιοσύνη: but in an interesting and important passage in the Phedrus of Plato (250c; cf. Tum. 44 ο), ὁλόκληρος expresses the perfection of man before the Fall; I mean, of course, the Fall as Plato contemplated it; when to men, as yet ὁλόκληροι καὶ ἀπαθεῖς κακῶν, were vouchsafed ὁλόκληρα φάσματα, as contrasted with those weak partial glimpses of the Eternal Beauty, which are all that to most men are now vouchsafed. That person then or thing is ὁλόκληρος, Which is ‘omnibus numeris absolutus,’ or ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενος, aS St. James himself (i. 4) explains the word. The various applications of τέλειος are all referable to the τέλος, which is its ground. In a natural sense the τέλειοι are the adult, who, having attained the full limits of stature, strength, and mental power within their reach, have in these 72 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxu respects attained their τέλος, as distinguished from the νέοι or παῖδες, young men or boys (Plato, Legg. xi. 929 6; Xenophon, Cyr. viii. 7.6; Polybius, v. 29.2). This image of full com- pleted growth, as contrasted with infancy and childhood, underlies the ethical use of τέλειοι by St. Paul, he setting these over against the νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ (1 Cor. ii. 6; xiv. 20; Ephes. iv. 18, 14; Phil. ii. 15; Heb. v. 14; cf. Philo, De Agricul. 2) ; they correspond in fact to the zarépes of 1 John ii. 18, 14, as distinct from the νεανίσκοι and παιδία. Nor is this ethical use of τέλειος confined to Scripture. The Stoics distinguished the τέλειος in philosophy from the προκόπτων, just as at 1 Chron. xxv. 8 the τέλειοι are set over against the μανθάνοντες. With the heathen, those also were τέλειοι who had been initiated into the mysteries ; for just as the Lord’s Supper was called τὸ τέλειον (Bingham, Christ. Antiquities, i. 4. 3), because there was nothing beyond it, no privilege into which the Christian has not entered, so these τέλειοι of heathen initiation obtained their name as having been now introduced into the latest and crowning mysteries of all. It will be seen that there is a certain ambiguity in our word ‘ perfect,’ which, indeed, it shares with τέλειος itself ; this, namely, that they are both employed now in a relative, now in an absolute sense; for only so could our Lord have said, ‘“‘Be ye therefore perfect (τέλειοι), as your Heavenly Father is perfect”’ (τέλειος), Matt. v. 48; cf. xix. 21. The Christian shall be ‘ perfect,’ yet not in the sense in which some of the sects preach the doctrine of perfection, who, as soon as their words are looked into, are found either to mean nothing which they could not have expressed by a word less liable to misunderstanding ; or to mean something which no man in this life shall attain, and which he who affirms he has attained is deceiving himself, or others, or both. The faithful man shall be ‘ perfect,’ that is, aiming by the grace of God to be fully furnished and firmly established in the knowledge and practice of the things of God (Jam. iii. 2; Col. iv. 12: τέλειος καὶ πεπληροφορημένος); not a babe in Christ to the end, ‘not always employed in the elements, and §xxu SYWMONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 73 infant propositions and practices of religion, but doing noble actions, well skilled in the deepest mysteries of faith and holiness.’! In this sense St. Paul claimed to be τέλειος, even while almost in the same breath he disclaimed the being τετελειωμένος (Phil. ii. 12, 15). The distinction then is plain. The ὁλόκληρος is one who has preserved, or who, having once lost, has now regained, his completeness: the τέλειος is one who has attained his moral end, that for which he was intended, namely, to be a man in Christ; however it may be true that, having reached this, other and higher ends will open out before him, to have Christ formed in him more and more.” In the ὁλόκληρος no grace which ought to be in a Christian man is deficient; in the τέλειος no grace is merely in its weak imperfect beginnings, but all have reached a certain ripe- ness and maturity. “OdoreAys, occurring once in the N. T. (1 Thess. v. 28; cf. Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. v. 21), forms a connecting link between the two, holding on to ὁλόκληρος in its first half, to τέλειος in its second. ἔΑρτιος, occurring only once in the N. T. (2 Tim. 111. 17), and there presently explained more fully as ἐξηρτισμένος, approximates in meaning more closely to ὁλόκληρος, with which we find it joined by Philo (De Plant. 29), than to τέλειος. It is explained by Calvin, ‘in quo nihil est mutilum,’ —see further the quotation from Theodoret in Suicer, s.v.,— and is found opposed to χωλός (Chrysostom), to κολοβός (Olympiodorus), to ἀνάπηρος (Theodoret). Vulcan in Lucian (Sacrif. 6) is οὐκ ἄρτιος τὼ πόδε. If we ask ourselves under what special aspects completeness is contemplated in ἄρτιος, it would be safe to answer that it is not as the presence only of all the parts which are necessary for that completeness, but involves further the adaptation and aptitude of these 1 On the sense in which ‘ perfection ’ is demanded of the Christian, there is a discussion at large by Jeremy Taylor, Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, i. 3. 40-56, from which this quotation is drawn. 2 Seneca (Hp. 120) says of one, ‘Habebat perfectum animum, ad summam sui adductus.’ 74 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxi parts for the ends which they were designed to serve. The man of God, St. Paul would say (2 Tim. iii. 17), should be furnished and accomplished with all which is necessary for the carrying out of the work to which he is appointed. § xxlll. στέφανος, διάδημα. We must not confound these words because our English ‘crown’ stands for them both. I greatly doubt whether anywhere in classical literature στέφανος is used of the kingly, - or imperial, crown. It is the crown of victory in the games, of civic worth, of military valour, of nuptial joy, of festal gladness—woven of oak, of ivy, of parsley, of myrtle, of olive, or imitating in gold these leaves or others—of flowers, as of violets or roses (see Athenzeus, xv. 9-33); the ‘wreath,’ in fact, or the ‘ garland,’ the German ‘ Kranz’ as distinguished from ‘ Krone ;’ but never, any more than ‘corona’ in Latin, the emblem and sign of royalty. The διάδημα was this βασιλείας γνώρισμα, as Lucian calls it (Pisc. 35 ; cf. Xenophon, Cyr. vill. 3.13; Plutarch, De Frat. Am. 18); being properly a white linen band or fillet, ‘tenia’ or ‘ fascia’ (Curtius, iii. 8), encircling the brow; so that no language is more common than περιτιθέναι διάδημα to indicate the assumption of royal dignity (Polybius, v. 57.4; 1 Macc. 1.9; xi. 13; xiii. 82; Josephus, Anti. xii. 10. 1), even as in Latin in like manner the ‘ diadema’ alone is the ‘insigne regium ’ (Tacitus, Annal. xv. 29). With this agree Selden’s opening words in his learned discussion on the distinction between ‘crowns’ and ‘diadems’ (Titles of Honour, c. 8, ὃ 2): ‘However those names have been from ancient time confounded, yet the diadem strictly was a very different thing from what a crown now is or was; being, indeed, no more than a fillet of silk, linen, or some such thing. Nor does it appear that any other kind of crown was used for a royal ensign, except only in some kingdoms of Asia, until the beginning of Christianity in the Roman Empire.’ A passage in Plutarch brings out very clearly the §xxit SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 75 distinction here affirmed. The kingly crown which Antonius offers to Cesar the biographer describes as διάδημα στεφάνῳ δάφνης περιπεπλεγμένον (Ces. 61). Here the στέφανος is the garland or laureate wreath, with which the diadem proper was enwoven; indeed, according to Cicero (Phil. ii. 84), Cesar was already ‘coronatus’ (=éoredavwpé- vos), this he would have been as Consul, when the offer was made. It is by keeping this distinction in mind that we explain a version in Suetonius (Ces. 79) of the same incident. One places on Cesar’s statue ‘ coronam lauream candida fascia preligatam’ (his statues, Plutarch also informs us, were diadjpacw ἀναδεδεμένοι βασιλικοῖς) ; on which the tribunes command to be removed, not the ‘corona,’ but the ‘fascia ;’ this being the diadem, in which alone the traitorous suggestion that he should suffer himself to be proclaimed king was contained. Compare Diodorus Siculus, xx. 54, where of one he says, διάδημα μὲν οὐκ ἔκρινεν ἔχειν, ἐφόρει γὰρ ἀεὶ στέφανον. How accurately the words are discriminated in the Septuagint and in the Apocrypha may be seen by com- paring in the First Maccabees the passages in which διάδημα is employed (such as i.9; vi. 15; viii. 14; xi. 18, 54; xii. 89; xiii. 82), and those where στέφανος appears (iv. 57; x. 29; Xi. 35; xill. 89; cf. 2 Macc. xiv. 4). Compare Isai. Ixii. 8, where of Israel it is said that it shall be στέφανος κάλλους, but, as it is added, διάδημα βασιλείας. In the N. T. it is plain that the στέφανος whereof St. Paul speaks is always the conqueror’s, and not the king’s (1 Cor. ix. 24-26; 2 Tim. ii. 5); it is the same in what passes for the Second Epistle of Clement, ὃ 7. If St. Peter’s allusion (1 Pet. v. 4) is not so directly to the Greek games, yet he too is silently contrasting the wreaths of heaven which never fade, the ἀμαράντινος στέφανος τῆς δόξης, with the garlands of earth which lose their beauty and freshness eosnoon.. At gam. 1. 12> Nev. ΠΤ} iol) iy. 4, 1 1g little probable that a reference, either near or remote, is in- tended to these Greek games; the alienation from which, as 76 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxu idolatrous and profane, reached so far back, was so deep on the part of the Jews (Josephus, Antt. xv. 8.1-4; 1 Mace. i. 14; 2 Macc. iv. 9,12), and no doubt also of the Jewish members of the Church, that imagery drawn from the prizes of these games would have rather repelled than attracted them. Yet there also the στέφανος, or the στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς, is the emblem, not of royalty, but of highest joy and gladness (cf. στέφανος ἀγαλλιάματος, Ecclus. vi. 31), of glory and immortality. We may the more confidently conclude that with St. John it was so, from the fact that on three occa- sions, where beyond a doubt he does intend kingly crowns, he employs διάδημα (Rev. xii. 8 ; xiii. 1 [οὗ xvii. 9, 10, ai ἑπτὰ κεφαλαὶ. .. βασιλεῖς ἑπτά εἶσιν]; xix. 12). In this last verse it is sublimely said of Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, that “on his head were many crowns” (διαδήματα πολλά) ; an expression, with all its magnificence, difficult to realize, so long as we picture to our mind’s eye such crowns as at the present monarchs wear, but intelligible at once, when we contemplate them as ‘ diadems,’ that is, narrow fillets encircling the brow. These “many diadems’”’ will then be the tokens of the many royalties—of earth, of heaven, and of hell (Phil. 11. 10)—which are his; royalties once usurped or assailed by the Great Red Dragon, the usurper of Christ’s dignities and honours, who has therefore his own seven diadems as well (xiii. 1), but now openly and for ever assumed by Him whose rightfully they are; just as, to compare earthly things with heavenly, when Ptolemy, king of Egypt, entered Antioch in triumph, he set two ‘crowns,’ or ‘diadems’ rather (διαδήματα), on his head, the ‘diadem’ of Asia, and the ‘diadem’ of Egypt (1 Mace. xi. 13) ; or as in Diodorus Siculus (i. 47) we read of one ἔχουσαν τρεῖς βασιλείας ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, the context plainly showing that these are three diadems, the symbols of a triple royalty, which she wore. The only occasion on .which στέφανος might seem to be used of a kingly crown is Matt. xxvii. 29; cf. Mark xv. 17; John xix. 2; where the weaving of the crown of thorns §xxiv_ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 77 ἜΣ (στέφανος ἀκάνθινος), and placing it on the Saviour’s head, is evidently a part of that blasphemous masquerade of royalty which the Roman soldiers would fain compel Him to enact. But woven of such materials as it was, probably of the juncus marinus, or of the lyciwm spinosum, it is evident that διάδημα could not be applied to it; and the word, therefore, which - was fittest in respect of the material whereof it was composed, takes the place of that which would have been the fittest in respect of the purpose for which it was intended. On the whole subject of this § see The Dictionary of the Bible, 5. vv. Crown and Diadem; and Dictionary of Chnstian Antiquities, art. Coronation, p. 464. § Χχῖν. πλεονεξία, φιλαργυρία. BETWEEN these words the same distinction exists as between our ‘covetousness’ and ‘avarice,’ as between the German ‘Habsucht’ and ‘Geiz.’ Πλεονεξία, primarily the having more, and then in a secondary and more usual sense, the desire after the having more, is the more active sin, φιλαργυρία the more passive: the first, the ‘amor sceleratus habendi,’ seeks rather to grasp what it has not; the second, to retain, and, by accumulating, to multiply that which it already has. The first, in its methods of acquiring, will be often bold and aggressive; even as it may, and often will, be as free in scattering and squandering, as it was eager and unscrupulous in getting: the πλεονέκτης will be often ‘ rapti largitor,’ as was Catiline; characterizing whom Cicero demands (Pyro Cel. 6): ‘Quis in rapacitate avarior? quis in largitione effusior ?’ even as the same idea is very boldly conceived in the Sir Giles Overreach of Massinger. Consistently with this, we find πλεονέκτης joined with ἅρπαξ (1 Cor. v. 10); πλεονεξία With βαρύτης (Plutarch, Arist. 3); πλεονεξίαι with κλοπαί (Mark vii. 22): with ἀδικίαι (Strabo, vil. 4. 6); with φιλονεικίαι (Plato, Legg. iii. 677 ὃ); and the sin defined by Theodoret (in Hp. ad Rom. i. 80): ἡ τοῦ πλείονος ἔφεσις, καὶ TOV οὐ προσηκόντων ἡ ἁρπαγή: With which compare the 78 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT xxiv definition, whosesoever it may be, of ‘avaritia’ as ‘ injuriosa appetitio alienorum’ (ad Herenn. iv. 25) ; and compare further Bengel’s note (on Mark vii. 22): ‘ πλεονεξία, comparativum involvens, denotat medium quiddam inter furtum et rapinam ; ubi per varias artes id agitur ut alter per se, sed cum lesione sul, inscius vel invitus, offerat, concedat et tribuat, quod indigne accipias.’ It is therefore fitly joined with αἰσχροκερδεία (Polybius, vi. 46. 8). But, while it is thus with πλεονεξία, φιλαργυρία, on the other hand, the miser’s sin (it is joined with puxporoyia, Plutarch, Quom. Am. ab Adul. 36) will be often cautious and timid, and will not necessarily have cast off the outward shows of uprightness. The Pharisees, for example, were φιλάργυροι (Luke xvi. 14): this was not irre- concilable with the maintenance of a religious profession, which the πλεονεξία would have manifestly been. Cowley, in the delightful prose which he has interspersed among his verse, draws this distinction strongly and well (Essay 7, Of Avarice), though Chaucer had done the same before him (see his Persones Tale; and his description severally of Covetise and Avarice in The Romaunt of the fiose, 183-246). ‘There are,’ Cowley says, ‘two sorts of avarice; the one is but of a bastard kind, and that is the rapacious appetite for gain ; not for its own sake, but for the pleasure of refunding it immediately through all the channels of pride and luxury; the other is the true kind, and properly so called, which is a restless and unsatiable desire of riches, not for any further end or use, but only to hoard and preserve, and perpetually increase them. The covetous man of the first kind is like a greedy ostrich, which devours any metal, but it is with an intent to feed upon it, and, in effect, it makes a shift to digest and excern it. The second is like the foolish chough, which loves to steal money only to hide it.’ There is another point of view in which πλεονεξία may be regarded as the larger term, the genus, of which φιλαργυρία is the species; this last being the love of money, while πλεονεξία is the drawing and snatching by the sinner to him- self of the creature in every form and kind, as it lies out of ν᾿ §xxiv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 79 and beyond himself; the ‘indigentia’ of Cicero (‘ indigentia est libido inexplebilis;’ Tusc. iv. 9. 21); compare Dio Chrysostom, De Avarit. Orat. 17; Augustine, Hnarr. in Ps. exviii. 35, 36; and Bengel’s profound explanation of the fact, that, in the enumeration of sins, St. Paul so often associates πλεονεξία With sins of the flesh ; as at 1 Cor.v. 11; Ephes. v. 8, 5; Col. 111. 5: ‘Solet autem jungere cum impuritate πλεονεξίαν, nam homo extra Deum querit pabulum in creaturaé materiali, vel per voluptatem, vel per avaritiam: bonum alienum ad se redigit.’ But, expressing much, Bengel has not expressed all. The connexion between these two provinces of sin is deeper and more intimate still; and this is witnessed in the fact, that not merely is πλεονεξία, as signifying covetousness, joined to sins of impurity, but the word is sometimes used, as at Hphes. v. 3 (see Jerome, in loc.), and often by the Greek Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. s. v.: and Hammond’s excellent note on Rom. i. 29), to designate these sins themselves; even as the root oat of which they alike grow, namely, the fiercer and ever fiercer longing of the creature which has forsaken God, to fill itself with the lower objects of sense, is one and the same. The monsters of lust among the Roman emperors were monsters of covetousness as well (Suetonius, Calig. 88-41). Contemplated under this aspect, πλεονεξία has a much wider and deeper sense than φιλαργυρία. Plato (Gorg. 493), likening the desire of man to the sieve or pierced vessel of the Danaids, which they were ever filling, but might never fill,' has implicitly a sublime commentary on the word ; nor is it too much to say, that in it is summed up that ever defeated longing of the creature, as it has despised the children’s bread, to stay its hunger with the husks of the swine. i It is evident that the same comparison had occurred to Shake- speare ; ‘The cloyed will, That satiate yet unsatisfied desire, That tub both filled and running.’ Cymbeline, Act i. Se. 7. 80 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxv ὃ xxv. Bock, ποιμαίνω. WHILE βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν are both often employed in a figurative and spiritual sense in the O. T. (1 Chron. xi. 2; Fizek. xxxiv. 3; Ps. Ixxvii. 72; Jer. xxiii. 2), and ποιμαίνειν in the New; the only occasions in the latter, on which βόσκειν is so used, are John xxi. 15,17. There our Lord, giving to St. Peter that thrice-repeated commission to feed his “lambs ”’ (ver. 15), his “sheep”’ (ver. 16), and again his ‘“‘sheep’’ (ver. 17), uses first βόσκε, then secondly ποίμαινε, returning to βόσκε at the last. This return, on the third and last repetition of the charge, to the word employed on the first, has been a strong argument with some for an absolute identity in the meaning of the words. They have urged, with some show of reason, that Christ could not have had progresswe aspects of the pastoral work in his intention here, else He would not have come back in the end to the βόσκε, with which He began. Yet I cannot ascribe to accident the variation of the words, any more than the changes, in the same verses, from ἀγαπᾶν to φιλεῖν (see p. 40), from ἀρνία to πρόβατα. It is true that our Version, rendering βόσκε and ποίμαινε alike by “ Feed,’’ as the Vulgate by ““ Pasce,”’ has not attempted to follow the changes of the original text, nor can I perceive any resources of language by which either our own Version or the Latin could have helped itself here. ‘Tend’ for ποίμαινε is the best suggestion which I could make. The German, by aid of ‘ weiden’ (= βόσκειν) and ‘ htten’ (=zopaivev), might do it; but De Wette has ‘ weiden’ throughout. The distinction, notwithstanding, is very far from fanciful. Βόσκειν, the Latin ‘ pascere,’ is simply ‘ to feed:’ but ποιμαίνειν involves much more; the whole office of the shepherd, the suiding, guarding, folding of the flock, as well as the finding of nourishment for it. Thus Lampe: ‘Hoc symbolum totum - regimen ecclesiasticum comprehendit ;’ and Bengel : ‘ βόσκειν est pars τοῦ ποιμαίνειν. The wider reach and larger meaning of ποιμαίνειν makes itself felt at Rev. ii. 27; xix. 15; where §xxv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 81 at once we are conscious how impossible it would be to substitute βόσκειν ; and compare Philo, Quod Det. Pot. Insid. 8. _ There is a fitness in the shepherd’s work for the setting forth of the highest ministries of men for the weal of their fellows, out of which the name, shepherds of their people, has been continually transferred to those who are, or should be, _ the faithful guides and guardians of others committed to their charge. Thus kings in Homer are ποιμένες λαῶν : ef. 2 Sam. Wee Vil. (Es xvi. 71} 75: Nay more, in Scripture God Himself is a Shepherd (Isai. xl. 11; Ezek. xxxivy. 11-81 ; Ps, xxiii.) ; and God manifest in the flesh avouches Himself as ὃ ποιμὴν 6 καλός (John x. 11); He is the ἀρχιποιμήν (1 Pet. v. 4); 6 μέγας ποιμὴν τῶν προβάτων (Heb. xiii. 20); as such fulfilling the prophecy of Micah (v. 4). Compare a sublime passage in Philo, De Agricul. 12, beginning: οὕτω μέντοι τὸ ποιμαίνειν ἐστὶν ἀγαθόν, ὥστε οὐ βασιλεῦσι μόνον καὶ σοφοῖς ἀνδράσι, καὶ ψυχαῖς τέλεια κεκαθαρμέναις, ἀλλὰ καὶ Θεῷ τῷ πανηγεμόνι δικαίως ἀνατίθεται, with the three §$ preceding. But it may very naturally be asked, if ποιμαίνειν be thug so much the more significant and comprehensive word, and if on this account the ποίμαινε was added to the βόσκε in the Lord’s latest instruction to his Apostle, how account for his going back to βόσκε again, and concluding thus, not as we should expect with the wider, but with the narrower charge, and weaker admonition? In Dean Stanley’s Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, p. 138, the answer is suggested. The lesson, in fact, which we learn from this is a most important one, and one which the Church, and all that bear rule in the Church, have need diligently to lay to heart ; this, namely, that whatever else of discipline and rule may be superadded thereto, still, the feeding of the flock, the finding for them of spiritual food, is the first and last; nothing else will supply the room of this, nor may be allowed to put this out of that foremost place which by right it should occupy. How often, in a false ecclesiastical system, the preaching of the Word loses its preeminence; the βόσκειν falls into the background, is swallowed up in the ποιμαίνειν, which presently G 82 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxvi becomes no true ποιμαίνειν, because it is not a βόσκειν as well, but such a ‘shepherding’ rather as God’s Word by the prophet Ezekiel has denounced (xxxiy. 2, 8, 8, 10; ef. Zech. xi, 15-17; Matt. xxiii.). § xxvi. Gros, φθόνος. Turse words are often joined together; they are so by St. Paul (Gal. v. 20, 21); by Clement of Rome (Cor. 3, 4, 5) ; and virtually by Cyprian in his little treatise, De Zelo et Livore : by classical writers as well; by Plato (Philed. 47 6; Legg. iti. 679 c; Menex. 242 a); by Plutarch, Coriol. 19 ; and by others. Still, there are differences between them ; and this first, that ζῆλος is a μέσον, being used sometimes in a good (as John ii. 17; Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. ix. 2), sometimes, and in Scripture oftener, in an evil sense (as Acts v. 17; Rom. xiii. 18; Gal. v. 20; Jam. iii. 14, in which last place, to make quite clear what ζῆλος is meant, it is qualified by the addition of πικρός, and is linked with ἐρίθεια) : while φθόνος, incapable of good, is used always and only in an evil, signifi- cation. When ζῆλος is taken in good part, it signifies the honorable emulation,! with the consequent imitation, of that which presents itself to the mind’s eye as excellent: ζῆλος τῶν ἀρίστων (Lucian, Adv. Indoct. 17): ζῆλος τοῦ βελτίονος (Philo, de Prem. et Pen. 8); φιλοτιμία καὶ ζῆλος (Plutarch, De Alex. Fort. Or. iti. 6; An Seni Resp. Ger. 25); ζῆλος καὶ μίμησις (Herodian, ii. 4) ; ζηλωτὴς Kat μιμητής (vi. 8). It is the Latin ‘ emulatio,’ in which nothing of envy is of necessity included, however such in it, as in our ‘ emulation,’ may find place; the German ‘Nacheiferung,’ as distinguished from ‘Bifersucht.’ The verb ‘e#mulor,’ I need hardly observe, finely expresses the difference between worthy and unworthy emulation, governing an accusative in cases where the first, a ! “Epis, which often in the Odyssey, and in the later Greek, very nearly resembled (ζῆλος in this its meaning of emulation, was capable in like manner of a nobler application; thus Basil the Great defines it (Reg. Brev. Tract, 66): ἔρις μέν ἐστιν, ὅταν τις, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἐλάττων φανῆναί τινος, σπουδα(ῃ ποιεῖν τι. §xxvi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 83 dative where the second, is intended. South here, as always, expresses himself well: ‘ We ought by all means to note the difference between envy and emulation; which latter is a brave and a noble thing, and quite of another nature, as consisting only in a generous imitation of something excellent ; and that such an imitation as scorns to fall short of its copy, but strives, if possible, to outdo it. The emulator is im- patient of a superior, not by depressing or maligning another, but by perfecting himself. So that while that sottish thing envy sometimes fills the whole soul, as a great dull fog does the air; this, on the contrary, inspires it with a new life and vigour, whets and stirs up all the powers of it to action. And surely that which does so (if we also abstract it from those heats and sharpnesses that sometimes by accident may attend it), must needs be in the same degree lawful and laudable too, that it is for a man to make himself as useful and accom- plished as he can’ (Works, London, 1787, vol. v. p. 403; and compare Bishop Butler, Works, 1836, vol. i. p. 15). By Aristotle GjAos is employed exclusively in this nobler sense, as that active emulation which grieves, not that another has the good, but that itself has it not; and which, not pausing here, seeks to supply the deficiencies which it finds in itself. From this point of view he contrasts it with envy (Bhet. ii. 11): ἔστι ζῆλος λύπη τις ἐπὶ φαινομένῃ παρουσίᾳ ἀγαθῶν ἐντίμων... . οὐχ ὅτι ἄλλῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐχὶ καὶ αὑτῷ ἐστι" διὸ καὶ ἐπιεικές ἐστιν ὃ ζῆλος, καὶ ἐπιεικῶν " τὸ δὲ φθονεῖν, φαῦλον, καὶ φαύλων. The Church Fathers follow in his footsteps. Jerome (Παρ. in Gal. v. 20): (ζῆλος et in bonam partem accipi potest, quum quis nititur ea que bona sunt emulari. Invidia vero alien felicitate torquetur;’ and again (i Gal. iv. 17): ‘Aimulantur bene, qui cum videant in aliquibus esse eratias, dona, virtutes, ipsi tales esse desiderant.’ Cicu- menius: ἔστι ζῆλος κίνησις ψυχῆς ἐνθουσιώδης ἐπί τι, μετά τινος ἀφομοιώσεως τοῦ πρὸς ὃ ἡ σπουδή ἐστι: cf. Plutarch, Pericles, 2. Compare the words of our English poet : ‘ Envy, to which the ignoble mind’s a slave, Is emulation in the learned and brave.’ a2 δὴ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxvi But it is only too easy for this zeal and honorable rivalry to degenerate into a meaner passion; the Latin ‘simultas,’. connected (see Déderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. iii. p. 72), not with ‘simulare,’ but with ‘simul,’ attests the fact: those who together aim at the same object, who are thus competitors, being in danger of being enemies as well; just as ἅμιλλα (which, however, has kept its more honorable use, see Plutarch, Anim. an Corp. Aff. Pej. 3), is connected with dua; and ‘rivales’ meant no more at first than occupants of the banks of the same river (Pott, Htym. Forsch. ti. 2.191). These degeneracies which wait so near upon emulation, and which sometimes cause the word itself to be used for that into which it degenerates (‘pale and bloodless emulation,’ Shakespeare), may assume two shapes : either that of a desire to make war upon the good which it beholds in another, and thus to trouble that good, and make it less; therefore we find ζῆλος and ἔρις continually joined together (Rom. xiii. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20; Clement of Rome, Cor. 8, 6): ζῆλος and φιλονεικία (Plutarch, De Cap. Inim. Util. 1): or, where there is not vigour and energy enough to attempt the making of it less, there may be at least the wishing of it less; with such petty carping and fault-finding as it may dare to indulge in—dOodves and μῶμος being joined, as in Plutarch, Prec. Reg. Rew. 27. And here in this last fact is the point of contact which ζῆλος has with φθόνος (thus Plato, Menex. 242 a: πρῶτον μὲν ζῆλος, ἀπὸ ζήλου δὲ φθόνος : and Adschylus, Agamem. 989 : ὃ δ᾽ ἀφθόνητος οὐκ ἐπίζηλος πέλει) ; the latter being essentially passive, as the former is active and energic. We do not find φθόνος in the comprehensive catalogue of sins at Mark vii. 21, 22; but this envy, δύσφρων ids, as Auschylus (Agam. 755), σημεῖον φύσεως παντάπασι πονηρᾶς, aS Demosthenes (499, 21), πασῶν μεγίστη tov ἐν ἀνθρώποις νόσος, aS Euripides has called it, and of which Herodotus (iii. 80) has said, ἀρχῆθεν ἐμφύεται ἀνθρώπῳ, could not, in one shape or other, be absent; its place is sup- plied by a circumlocution, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός (cf. Eeclus. xiv. 8, 10), but on putting it in connexion with the Latin §xxvIl SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 85 ‘invidia,’ which is derived, as Cicero observes (Tuse. iii. 9), ‘a nimis intuendo fortunam alterius ;’ cf. Matt. xx. 15; and 1 Sam. xviii. 9: “Saul eyed,” 4. ὁ. envied “ David,” The ‘urentes oculi’ of Persius (Sut. ii. 84), the ‘mal’ occhio ’ of the Italians, must receive the same explanation. ®6dvos ig the meaner sin,—and therefore the beautiful Greek proverb, ὃ φθόνος ἔξω τοῦ θείου Xopov,—being merely displeasure at another’s good;! λύπη ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίοις ἀγαθοῖς, as the Stoieg defined it (Diogenes Laértius, vii. 63, 111), λύπη τῆς τοῦ πλησίον εὐπραγίας, as Basil (Hom. de Invid.), ‘ wgritudo suscepta propter alterius res secundas, que nihil noceant invidenti,’ as Cicero (Tusc. iv. 8; ef. Xenophon, Mem. iii. 9, 8), “ odium felicitatis alienw,? as Augustine (De Gen. ad Lit. 11-14),? with the desire that this good or this felicity should be less: and this, quite apart from any hope that thereby its own will be more (Aristotle, Rhet. ii. 10) ; so that it is no wonder that Solomon long ago could describe it as ‘the rottenness of the bones’ (Prov. xiv. 80). He that is conscious of it is conscious of no impulse or longing to raise himself to the level of him whom he envies, but only to depress the envied to his own. When the victories of Miltiades would not suffer the youth- ful Themistocles to sleep (Plutarch, Them. 3), here was ζῆλος in its nobler form, an emulation which would not let him rest, till he had set a Salamis of his own against the Marathon of his great predecessor. But it was φθόνος which made that Athenian citizen to be weary of hearing Aristides evermore styled ‘The Just’ (Plutarch, Arist. 7); an envy which contained no impulses moving him to strive for him- self after the justice which he envied in another. See on this subject further the beautiful remarks of Plutarch, De Prof. Virt. 14; and on the likenesses and differences between μῖσος ' Augustine’s definition of φθόνος (Hxp. in Gal. v. 21) introduces into it an ethical element which rarely if at all belongs to it: ‘ Invidia, dolor animi est, cum indignus videtur aliquis assequi etiam quod non appetebas.’ This would rather be νέμεσις and νεμεσᾶν in the ethical terminology of Aristotle (Hthic. Nic. ii. 7.15; Rhet. 11. 9). 2 «Sick of a strange disease, another’s health.’—Phineas Fletcher. 86 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxvit and φθόνος, his graceful essay, full of subtle analysis of the human heart, De Invidid et Odio. βασκανία, a word frequent enough in later Greek in this sense of envy, no- where occurs in the N. T.; βασκαίνειν only once (Gal. 111. 1). § xxvii. ζωή, Bios. Tur Latin language and the English as well are poorer than tle Greek, in having but one word, the Latin ‘ vita,’ the English ‘life,’ where the Greek has two. There would, indeed, be no comparative poverty here, if ζωή and βίος were merely duplicates. But, contemplating life as these do from very different points of view, it is inevitable that we, with our one word for both, must use this one in very diverse senses; and may possibly, through this equivocation, conceal real and important differences from ourselves or from others ; nothing being so effectual for this as the employment of equivocal words. The true antithesis of ζωή is θάνατος (Rom. vill. 38 ; 2 Cor. v. 4; Jer. viii. 3; Ecclus. xxx. 17; Plato, Legg. xii. 944 c), as of ζῆν, ἀποθνήσκειν (Luke xx. 88; 1 Tim. v. 6; Rey. i. 18; cf. IJ. xxiii. 70; Herodotus, i. 31 ; Plato, Phedo, 71d: οὐκ ἐναντίον dys τῷ ζῆν τὸ τεθνάναι εἶναι :) ; ζωή, as some will have it, being nearly connected with dw, ἄημι, to breathe the breath of life, which is the necessary condition of living, and, as such, is involved in like manner in πνεῦμα and ψυχή, in ‘ spiritus’ and ‘anima.’ But, while ζωή is thus life intensive (‘ vita qua vivimus oP Bios is life extensive (‘vita quam vivimus’), the period or duration of life; and then, in a secondary sense, the means by which that life is sustained; and thirdly, the manner in which that life is spent ; the ‘ line of life,’ ‘ profession,’ career. Examples of Bios in all these senses the N. T. supplies. Thus it is used as— a. The period or duration of life; thus, χρόνος τοῦ βίου (1 Pet. iv. 8): cf. βίος τοῦ χρόνου (Job x. 20): μῆκος βίου καὶ ἔτη ζωῆς (Prov. iii. 2): Plutarch (De Lib. Ed. 1Π), στιγμὴ §xxvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 87 χρόνου πᾶς ὁ βίος ἐστί : again, Bios τῆς ζωῆς (Cons. ad Apoll. 25 ; and ζωὴ καὶ Bios (De Plac. Phil. v. 18). β. The means of life, or ‘living,’ A. V.; Mark xii. 44; Luke vii. 48; xv. 12; 1 John 11]. 17, τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου: cf. Plato, Gorg. 486 d; Legg. xi. 986 c; Aristotle, Hist. An. ix. 23. 2; Euripides, fon, 329; and often, but not always, these means of life, with an under sense of largeness and abundance. y. The manner of life; or life in regard of its moral conduct, having such words as τρόπος, ἤθη, πρᾶξις for its equivalents, and not seldom such epithets as κόσμιος, χρηστός, σώφρων, joined to it; 1 Tim. ii. 2; so Plato (Rep. i. 344 e), βίου διαγωγή : Plutarch, δίαιτα καὶ Bios (De Virt. et Vit. 2): and very nobly (De Is. et Os. 1), rod δὲ γινώσκειν τὰ ὄντα Kat φρονεῖν ἀφαιρεθέντος, οὐ βίον ἀλλὰ χρόνον [οἶμαι] εἶναι τὴν ἀθανασίαν: and De Lib. Ed. 7, τεταγμένος Bios: Josephus, Antt. v. 10. 1; with which compare Augustine (De Trin. xl. 11): ‘Cujus vite sit quisque; id -est, quwomodo agat hec temporalia, quam vitam Greci non ζωήν sed βίον vocant.’ In Bios, thus used as manner of life, there is an ethical sense often inhering, which, in classical Greek at least, ζωή does not possess. Thus in Aristotle (Pol. i. 18. 18), it is said that the slave is κοινωνὸς ζωῆς, he lives with the family, but not κοινωνὸς βίου, he does not share in the career of his master ; cf. Hthic. Nic. x. 6. 8 ; and he draws, according to Ammonius, the following distinction: Bios ἐστὶ λογικὴ Coy: Ammonius himself affirming βίος to be never, except incorrectly, applied to the existence of plants or animals, but only to the lives of men.' I know not how he reconciled this statement with such passages as these from Aristotle, Hist. Anim.i.1.15; ἰχ. 8.1 ; unless, indeed, he included him in his censure. Still, the distinction which he somewhat too absolutely asserts (see Stallbaum’s note on the Timeus of Plato, 44 d), is a real one: it displays itself with singular clearness in our words ‘zoology ’ and ‘ biography ;’ but not in ‘ biology,’ which, as 1 See on these two synonyms, Vimel, Synon. Worterbuch, p. 168 sq. ; and Wyttenbach, Animadd. in Plutarchum, vol. iii. p. 166. 88 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxvu now used, is a manifest misnomer.'! We speak, on one side, of ‘ zoology,’ for animals (ζῶα) have the vital principle; they live, equally with men, and are capable of being classed and described according to the different workings of this natural life of theirs : but, on the other hand, we speak of ‘ biography ; ’ for men not merely live, but they lead lives, lives in which there is that moral distinction between one and another, which may make them worthy to be recorded. They are ἔτη ζωῆς, but ὃ ὃ ot βίου (Prov. iv. 10); cf. Philo, De Carit. 4, where of Moses he says that at a certain epoch of his mortal course, ἤρξατο μεταβάλλειν ἐκ θνητῆς ζωῆς εἰς ἀθάνατον Biov. From all this it will follow, that, while θάνατος and ζωή constitute, as observed already, the true antithesis, yet they do this only so long as life is physically contemplated; thus the son of Sirach (xxx. 17): κρείσσων θάνατος ὑπὲρ ζωὴν πικρὰν ἢ ἀῤῥώστημα ἔμμονον. But so soon as a moral element is introduced, and ‘life’ is regarded as the opportunity for living nobly or the contrary, the antithesis is not between θάνατος and ζωή, but θάνατος and Bios : thus compare Xenophon (De Rep. Lac. ix. 1): αἱρετώτερον εἶναι τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ βίου, with Plato (Legg. xii. 944 d): ζωὴν αἰσχρὰν ἀρνύμενος μετὰ τάχους, μᾶλλον ἢ μετ᾽ ἀνδρείας καλὸν καὶ εὐδαίμονα θάνατον. A‘reference to the two passages will show that in the latter it is the present boon of shameful life, (therefore ζωή,) which the craven soldier prefers to an honorable death; while in the former, Lycurgus teaches that an honorable death is to be chosen rather than a long and shameful existence, a Bios ἄβιος (Hmpedocles, 326); a Bios aBiwros (Xenophon, Mem. iv. 8.8; cf. Meineke, fragm. Com. Grac. p. 542); ἃ βίος οὐ βιωτός (Plato, Apol. 88a); a ‘vita non vitalis;’ from which all the ornament of life, all reasons for living, have departed. The two grand chapters 1 The word came to us from the French. Gottfried Reinhart Trevi- sanus, who died in 1837, was its probable inventor in his book, Biologie, ou la Philosophie de la Nature vivante, of which the first volume ap- peared in 1802. Some flying pages by Canon Field, of Norwich, ease and Social Science, deal well with this blunder. §xxvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 89 with which the Gorgias of Plato concludes (82, 83) consti- tute a fine exercise in the distinction between the words themselves, as between their derivatives no less; and Hero- dotus, vii. 46, the same, But all this being so, and βώς, not ζωή, the ethical word of classical Greek, a thoughtful reader of Scripture might not unnaturally be perplexed with the fact that all is. there reversed ; for no one will deny that ζωή is there the nobler word, expressing as it continually does all of highest and best which the saints possess in God; thus στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς (Rev. 11. 10) ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς (il. 7), βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς (iii. 5), ὕδωρ ζωῆς (xxi. 6), ζωὴ καὶ εὐσέβεια (2 Pet. i. 8), ζωὴ καὶ ἀφθαρσία (2 Tim. i. 10), ζωὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ (ΕΡΗΘ65. iv. 18), ζωὴ αἰώνιος (Matt. xix. 16; Rom. il. 7),! ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος (Heb. vii. 16); ἡ ὄντως ζωή (1 Tim. vi. 19); or sometimes ζωή with no further addition (Matt. vii. 14; Rom. v. 17, and often); all these setting forth, each from its own point of view, the highest blessedness of the creature. Contrast with them the following uses of Bios, ἡδοναὶ rod βίου (Luke viii. 14), πραγματεῖαι τοῦ βίου (2 Tim. li. 4), ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου (1 John 11. 16), Bios τοῦ κόσμου (111. 17), μερίμναι βιωτικαί (Luke xxi. 34). How shall we explain this ? A little reflection will supply the answer. Revealed re- ligion, and it alone, puts death and sin in closest connexion, declares them the necessary correlatives one of the other (Gen. 1.--111.; Rom. v. 12); and, as an involved consequence, in like manner, life and holiness. It is God’s word alone which proclaims that, wherever there is death, it is there because sin was there first ; wherever there is no death, that is, life, this is there, because sin has never been there, or having once been, is now cast out and expelled. In revealed religion, which thus makes death to have come into the world through sin, and only through sin, life is the correla- tive of holiness. Whatever truly lives, does so because sin has never found place in it, or, having found place for a time, 1 Ζωή αἰώνιος occurs once in the Septuagint (Dan. xii. 2; cf. ζωὴ &évaos, 2 Mace. vii. 36), and in Plutarch, De Is. e¢ Os. 1. 90 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xXxvill has since been overcome and expelled. So soon as ever this is felt and understood, ζωή at once assumes the profoundest moral significance ; it becomes the fittest expression for the very highest blessedness. Of that whereof we predicate abso- lute ζωή, we predicate absolute holiness of the same. Christ affirming of Himself, ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ζωή (John xiv. 6; cf. 1 John i. 2; Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 4: Χριστὸς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν ζῆν), implicitly affirmed of Himself that He was absolutely holy ; and in the creature, in like manner, that alone truly lives, or triumphs over death, death at once physical and spiritual, which has first triumphed over sin. No wonder, then, that Scripture should know of no higher word than ζωή to set forth the blessedness of God, and the blessedness of the creature in communion with God. It follows that those expositors of Ephes. iv. 18 are in error, who there take ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, as ‘alienated from a divine life, that is ‘from a life lived according to the will and commandments of God’ (‘remoti a vita ill4 que secundum Deum est:’ as Grotius has it), ζωή never signifying this. The fact of such alienation was only too true; but the Apostle is not affirming it here, but rather the miserable condition of the heathen, as men estranged from the one fountain of life (rapa Soi πηγὴ ζωῆς, Ps. xxxv. 10); as not having life, because separated from Him who only absolutely lives (John v. 26), the living God (Matt. xvi. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 15), in fellowship with whom alone any creature has life. Another passage, namely Gal. v. 25, will always seem to contain a tautology, until we give to ζωή (and to the verb ζῆν as well) the force which has been claimed for it here. § xxviii. κύριος, δεσπότης. A MAN, according to the later Greek grammarians, was δεσπότης in respect of his slaves (Plato, Legg. vi. 756 δ), therefore οἰκοδεσπότης, but κύριος in regard of his wife and children ; who in speaking either to him or of him, would give him this title of honour; “as Sara obeyed Abraham, §xxvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Οἱ calling him lord” (κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα, 1 Pet. 11]. 6; ef. Plutarch, De Virt. Mul. 5. vv. Μίκκα καὶ Μεγιστώ). There is a certain truth in this distinction. Undoubtedly there lies in κύριος the sense of an authority owning limitations—moral limitations it may be; it is implied too that the wielder of this authority will not exclude, in wielding it, a consideration of their good over whom it is exercised; while the δεσπότης exercises a more unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no such limitations or restraints. He who ad- dresses another as δέσποτα, puts an emphasis of submission into his speech, which κύριε would not have possessed ; there- fore it was that the Greeks, not yet grown slavish, refused this title of δεσπότης to any but the gods (Euripides, Hippol. 88 ; ἀναξ, θεοὺς yap δεσπότας καλεῖν χρεών) ; while our own use of ‘despot,’ ‘despotic,’ ‘despotism,’ as set over against that of ‘lord,’ ‘lordship,’ and the like, attests that these words are coloured for us, as they were for those from whom we have derived them. Still, there were influences at work tending to break down this distinction. Slavery, or the appropriating, without pay- ment, of other men’s toil, however legalized, is so abhorrent to men’s innate sense of right, that they seek to mitigate, in word at least, if not in fact, its atrocity; and thus, as no southern Planter in America willingly spoke of his ‘ slaves,’ but preferred some other term, so in antiquity, wherever any gentler or more humane view of slavery obtained, the anti- thesis of δεσπότης and δοῦλος would continually give place to that of κύριος and δοῦλος. The harsher antithesis might still survive, but the milder would prevail side by side with it. We need not look further than to the writings of St. Paul, to see how little, in popular speech, the distinction of the erammarians was observed. Masters are now κύριοι (Eiphes. vi. 9; Col. iv. 1), and now δεσπόται (1 Tim. vi. 1, 2; Tit. 11, 9; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 18), with him; and compare Philo, Quod Omn. Prob. Lib. 6. But, while all experience shows how little sinful man can be trusted with unrestricted power over his fellow, how 92 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxvii certainly he will abuse it—a moral fact attested in our use of ‘despot’ as equivalent with ‘tyrant,’ as well as in the history of ‘ tyrant’ itself—it can only be a blessedness for man to regard God as the absolute Lord, Ruler, and Disposer of his life; since with Him power is never disconnected from wisdom and from love: and, as we saw that the Greeks, not without a certain sense of this, were well pleased to style the gods δεσπόται, however they might refuse this title to any other ; so, within the limits of Revelation, δεσπότης, no less than κύριος, is applied to the true God. Thus in the Septuagint, at Josh. v. 14; Prov. xxix. 25; Jer. iv. 10; in the Apocrypha, at 2 Macc. v. 17, and elsewhere; while in the N. T. on these occasions: Luke ii. 29; Acts iv. 24; Rev. vi. 10; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4. In the last two it is to Christ, but to Christ as God, that the title is ascribed. Erasmus, indeed, out of that latent Arianism, of which, perhaps, he was scarcely conscious to himself, denies that, at Jude 4, δεσπότης is to be referred to Christ; attributing only κύριος to Him, and δεσπότης to the Father. The fact that in the Greek text, as he read it, Θεόν followed and was joined to δεσπότην, no doubt really lay at the root of his reluctance to ascribe the title of δεσπότης to Christ. It was for him not a philological, but a theological difficulty, however he may have sought to persuade himself otherwise. This δεσπότης did no doubt express on the lips of the faithful who used it, their sense of God’s absolute disposal of his creatures, of his autocratic power, who “doeth ac- cording to his willin the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth’? (Dan. iv. 35), more strongly than κύριος Would have done. So much is plain from some words of Philo (Quis Rer. Div. Her. 6), who finds evidence of Abraham’s εὐλάβεια, of his tempering, on one signal occasion (Gen. xv. 2), boldness with reverence and godly fear, in the fact that, addressing God, he is not content with the simple κύριε, but links with it the less usual δέσποτα ; for δεσπότης, as Philo proceeds to say, is not κύριος only, but φοβερὸς κύριος, and implies, on his part who uses it, a more entire §xxIx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 93 prostration of self before the might and majesty of God than κύριος would have done. § xxix. ἀλαζών, ὑπερήφανος, ὑβριστής. THESE words occur all of them together at Rom. i. 80, though in an order exactly the reverse from that in which I have found it convenient to take them. They constitute an interesting subject for synonymous discrimination. ᾿Αλαζών, occurring thrice in the Septuagint (Hab. ii. 5; Job xxviii. 8; Prov. xxi. 24), is found twice in the N. T. (here and at 2 Tim. iii. 2); while ἀλαζονεία, of which the Septuagint knows nothing, appears four times in the Apo- crypha (Wisd. v. 8; xvii. 7; 2 Macc. ix. 8; xv. 6), and in the N. T. twice (Jam. iv. 16: 1 John 11. 16). Derived from ἄλη, ‘a wandering about,’ it designated first the vagabond mountebanks (‘marktschreyer’), conjurors, quacksalvers, or exorcists (Acts xix. 18; 1 Tim. v. 13); being joined with γόης (Lucian, Revivisc. 29); with φέναξ (Aristophanes, Ran. 909); with κενός (Plutarch, De Prof. Virt. 10); full of empty and boastful professions of cures and other feats which they could accomplish ; such as Volpone in The Fox of Ben Jonson (Act ii. Sc. 1). It was from them transferred to any braggart or boaster (ἀλαζών καὶ ὑπέραυχος, Philo, Cong. Hrud. Grat. 8; while for other indifferent company which the word keeps, see Aristophanes, Nwb. 445-452); vaunting himself in the possession of skill (Wisd. xvii. 7), or knowledge, or courage, or virtue, or riches, or whatever else it might be, which were not truly his (Plutarch, De Seis. Laud. 4). He is thus the exact antithesis of the εἴρων, who makes less of himself and his belongings than the reality wouid warrant, in the same way as the ἀλαζών makes more (Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. ii. 7.12). In the Definitions which pass under Plato’s name, ἀλαζονεία is defined as ἕξις προσποιητικὴ ἀγαθῶν μὴ ὑπ- ἀρχόντων : while Xenophon (Cyr. ii. 2. 12) describes the ἀλαζών thus: ὃ μὲν yap ἀλαζὼν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ ὄνομα κεῖσθαι ἐπὶ a , εκ ” 5 \ > ° TOLS προσποιουμένοις καὶ πλουσιωτέροις ειναι 7) εισι, και ἀνδρειὸ- 94 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xx1x τέροις, Kal ποιήσειν ἃ μὴ ἱκανοί εἰσιν ὑπισχνουμένοις " καὶ ταῦτα, φανεροῖς γιγνομένοις, ὅτι τοῦ λαβεῖν τι ἕνεκα καὶ κερδᾶναι ποιοῦσιν: and Aristotle (Hihic. Nic. iv. 7. 2): δοκεῖ δὴ ὃ μὲν ἀλαζὼν προσποιητικὸς τῶν ἐνδόξων εἶναι, καὶ μὴ ὑπαρχόντων, καὶ μειζόνων ἢ ὑπάρχει: cf. Theodoret on Rom. i. 80: ἀλαζόνας καλεῖ τοὺς οὐδεμίαν μὲν ἔχοντας πρόφασιν eis φρονήματος ὄγκον, μάτην δὲ φυσιωμένους. As such he is likely to be a busybody and meddler, which may explain the juxtaposition of ἁλαζονεία and πολυπραγμοσύνη (Ep. ad Diognetwm, 4). Other words with which it is joined are βλακεία (Plutarch, De Rect. Aud. 18) ; τύφος (Clement of Rome, 13) ; ἀγερωχία (2 Mace. ix. 7) ; ἀπαιδευσία (Philo, Migrat. Abrah. 24): while in the passage from Xenophon, which was just now quoted in part, the ἀλαζόνες are distinguished from the ἀστεῖοι and εὐχαρίτες. It is not an accident, but of the essence of the ἀλαζών, that in his boastings he overpasses the limits of the truth (Wisd. ii. 16, 17); thus Aristotle sees in him not merely one making unseemly display of things which he actually possesses, but vaunting himself in those which he does not possess ; and sets over against him the ἀληθευτικὸς καὶ τῷ βίῳ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ: Cf. Khet. ii. 6: τὸ τὰ ἀλλότρια αὑτοῦ φάσκειν, ἀλαζονείας σημεῖον : and Xenophon, Mem. 1. 7; while Plato, (Rep. viii. 560 ὁ) joins ψευδεῖς with ἀλαζόνες λόγοι: and Plutarch (Pyrrh. 19) ἀλαζών with κόμπος. We have in the same sense a lively description of the ἀλαζών in the Characters (23) of Theophrastus; and, still better, of the shifts and evasions to which he has recourse, in the treatise Ad Herenn. iv. 50, 51. While, therefore, ‘boaster’ fairly represents ἀλαζών (Jebb suggests ‘swaggerer,’ Characters of Theo- phrastus, Ὁ. 198), ‘ostentation’ does not well give back ἀλαζονεία, seeing that a man can only be ostentatious in things which he really has to show. No word of ours, and certainly not ‘pride’ (1 John ii. 16, A. V.), renders it at all so adequately as the German ‘prahlerei.’ For the thing, Falstaff and Parolles, both of them ‘unscarred braggarts of the war,’ are excellent, though marvellously diverse, examples ; so too Bessus in Beaumont and Fletcher’s King and no King ; §xxix SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 95 while, on the other hand, Marlowe’s Tamburlaine, despite of all his big vaunting words, is no ἀλαζών, inasmuch as there are fearful realities of power by which these his μεγάλης γλώσσης κόμποι are sustained and borne out. This dealing in braggadocio is a vice sometimes ascribed to whole nations ; thus an ἔμφυτος ἀλαζονεία to the Aitolians (Polybius, iv. 8 ; οἵ. Livy, xxxiii. 11); and, in modern times, to the Gascons ; out of which these last have given us ‘gasconade.’ ‘The Vulgate, translating ἀλαζόνες, ‘elati’ (in the Rhemish, ‘haughty ἢ), has not seized the central meaning as success- fully as Beza, who has rendered it ‘ gloriosi.’ ἢ A distinction has been sometimes drawn between the ἀλαζών and the πέρπερος [ἣ ἀγάπη οὐ περπερεύεται, 1 Cor. xiii. 4], that the first vaunts of things which he has not, the second of things which, however little this his boasting and bravery about them may become him, he actually has. The distinction, however, cannot be maintained (see Polybius, xxxii. 6. 5; xl. 6. 2); both are liars alike. But this habitual boasting of our own will hardly fail to be accompanied with a contempt for that of others. If it did not find, it would rapidly generate, such a tendency ; and thus the ἀλαζών is often αὐθάδης as well (Prov. xxi. 24) ; ἀλαζονεία is nearly allied to ὑπεροψία : they are used as almost convertible terms (Philo, De Carit. 22-24). But from ὑπεροψία to ὑπερηφανία there is but a single step; we need not then wonder to meet ὑπερήφανος joined with ἀλαζών : cf. Clement of Rome, Cor. 16. The places in the N. T. where it occurs, besides those noted already, are Luke i. 51; Jam. iv. 6; 1 Pet. v.53; ὑπερηφανία at Mark vii. 22. A picturesque image serves for its basis: the ὑπερήφανος, from ὑπέρ and φαίνομαι, being one who shows Πἱηιδοί above his fellows, exactly as the 1 We formerly used ‘glorious’ in this sense. Thus in North’s Plutarch, p. 183: ‘Some took this for a glorious brag ; others thought he [Alcibiades] was like enough to have done it And Milton (Zhe Reason of Church Government, i. 5): ‘He [Anselm] little dreamt then that the weeding hook of Reformation would, after two ages, pluck up his glorious poppy [prelacy] from insulting over the good corn [presbytery].’ 96 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $§xXx1x Latin ‘superbus’ is from ‘super’; as our ‘stilts’ is con- nected with ‘Stolz,’ and with ‘ stout’ in its earlier sense of ‘proud,’ or ‘lifted up.’ Deyling (Obdss. Sac. vol. v. p. 219) : ‘Vox proprie notat hominem capite super alios eminentem, ita ut, quemadmodum Saul, pre ceteris sit conspicuus, 1 Sam. ix. 2.’ Compare Horace (Carm. i. 18. 15): ‘ Ht tollens vacuum plus nimio Gloria verticem.’ A man can show himself ἀλαζών only when in company with his fellow-men ; but the proper seat of the ὑπερηφανία, the German ‘hochmuth,’ is within. He that is sick of this sin compares himself, it may be secretly or openly, with others, and lifts himself above others, in honour preferring himself; his sin being, as Theophrastus (Charact. 34) de- scribes it, καταφρόνησίς tis πλὴν αὑτοῦ τῶν ἄλλων: joined therefore with ὑπεροψία (Demosthenes, Orat. xxi. 247); with ἐξουδένωσις (Ps. xxx. 19); ὑπερήφανος with αὐθάδης (Plutarch, Alcib. c. Cor. 4). The bearing of the ὑπερήφανος toward others is not of the essence, is only the consequence, of his sin. His ‘arrogance,’ as we say, his claiming to himself of honour and observance (ὑπερηφανία is joined with φιλοδοξία, Esth. iv. 10); his indignation, and, it may be, his cruelty | and revenge, if these are withheld (see Esth. 111. 5,6; and Appian, De Reb. Pun. villi. 118; ὠμὰ καὶ ὑπερήφανα), are only the outcomings of this false estimate of himself; it is thus that ὑπερήφανος and ἐπίφθονος (Plutarch, Pomp. 24), ὑπερή- avo. and βαρεῖς (Qu. Rom. 63), ὑπερηφανία and ἀγερωχία (2 Macc. ix. 7), are joined together. In the ὑπερήφανος we may have the perversion of a nobler character than in the ἀλαζών, the melancholic, as the ἀλαζών is the sanguine, the ὑβριστής the choleric, temperament ; but because nobler, therefore one which, if it falls, falls more deeply, sins more fearfully. He is one whose “heart is lifted up” (ὑψηλοκάρ- duos, Prov. xvi. 5); one of those τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες (Rom. xi. 16), as opposed to the ταπεινοὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ: he is τυφωθείς (1 Tim. 111. 6) or τετυφωμένος (2 Tim. 111. 4), besotted with pride, and far from all true wisdom (Ecclus. xv. 8); and this lifting up of his heart may be not merely against man, but §xxIx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 97 against God; he may assail the very prerogatives of Deity itself (1 Mace. i. 21, 24; Ecclus. x. 12, 18; Wisd. xiv. 6: ὑπερήφανοι γιγάντες). Theophylact therefore does not go too far, when he calls this sin ἀκρόπολις κακῶν: nor need we wonder to be thrice reminded, in the very same words, that ‘God resisteth the proud” (ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται: Jam. iv. 6; 1 Pet. v.5; Prov. iii. 34) ; sets Himself in battle array against them, as they themselves against Him. It remains to speak of ὑβριστής, which, by its derivation from ὕβρις, which is, again, from ὑπέρ (so at least Schneider and Pott; but Curtius, Grundziige, 2nd edit. p. 478, doubts), and as we should say, ‘ uppishness,’ stands in a certain etymo- logical relation with ὑπερήφανος (see Donaldson, New Cratylus, 8rd ed. p. 552). Ὕβρις is insolent wrongdoing to others, not out of revenge, or any other motive except the mere pleasure which the infliction of the injury imparts. So Aristotle (Lhet. ii. 2): ἔστι yap ὕβρις, τὸ βλάπτειν καὶ λυπεῖν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς αἰσχύνη ἐστὶ τῷ πάσχοντι, μὴ ἵνα τι γένηται αὐτῷ ἄλλο, ἢ ὅτι ἐγένετο, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως ἡσθῇ" οἱ γὰρ ἀντιποιοῦντες οὐχ ὑβρίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ τιμωροῦνται. What its flower and fruit and harvest shall be, the dread lines of Aischylus (Pers. 822: ef. Zid. Rex, 873- 883) have told us. Ὑβριστής occurs only twice in the N. T.; Rom. 1. 80 (‘despiteful,’ A. V.), and 1 Tim. i. 18 (‘injurious,’ A. and R. V.; a word seldom now applied except to things, but preferable to ‘insolent,’ which has recently been pro- posed); in the Septuagint often; being at Job. xl. 6, 7; Isai. 11. 12, associated with ὑπερήφανος (cf. Prov. viii. 18) ; as the two, in like manner, are connected by Aristotle (Rhet. li. 16). Other words whose company it keeps are ἄγριος (Homer, Od. vi. 120); ἀτάσθαλος (Ib. xxiv. 282); αἴθων Sophocles, Ajax, 1061); ἄνομος (Trachin. 1076); βίαιος (Demosthenes, Ovat. xxiv. 169); πάροινος, ἀγνώμων, πικρός (Orat. liv. 1261); ἄδικος (Plato, Legg. i. 680 b); ἀκόλαστος (Apol. Socr. 26 6) ; ἄφρων (Phileb. 45 e) ; ὑπερόπτης (Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. iv. 8, 21) ; θρασύς (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 11. 5) ; φαῦλος (Plutarch, Def. Orac. 45) ; φιλογέλως (Symp. 8. 5 ; but here in a far milder sense). In his Lucullus, 84, Plutarch H 98 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xx1x speaks of one as ἀνὴρ ὑβριστής Kai μεστὸς ὀλιγωρίας ἁπάσης καὶ θρασύτητος. Its exact antithesis is σώφρων (Xenophon, 4οΐ. Soc. 19; Ages. x. 2; cf. 'πρῳύθϑυμος, Prov. xvi. 19). The ὑβριστής is contumelious ; his insolence and contempt of others break forth in acts of wantonness and outrage. Menelaus is ὑβριστής When he would fain withhold the rites of sepulture from the dead body of Ajax (Sophocles, Ajax, 1065). So, too, when Hanun, king of Ammon, cut short the garments of king David’s ambassadors, and shaved off half their beards, and so sent them back to their master (2 Sam. x.), this was ὕβρις. St. Paul, when he persecuted the Church, was ὑβριστής (1 Tim. i. 18; ef. Acts viii. 3), but himself ὑβρισθείς (1 Thess. ii. 2) at Philippi (see Acts xvi. 22, 23). Our blessed Lord, prophesying the order of his Passion, declares that the Son of Man ὑβρισθήσεται (Luke xviii. 82); the whole blasphemous masquerade of royalty, in which it was sought that He should sustain the principal part (Matt. xxvii. 27-80), consti- tuting the fulfilment of this prophecy. ‘ Pereuntibus addita ludibria’ are the words of Tacitus (Annal. xv. 44), describing the martyrdoms of the Christians in Nero’s persecution ; they died, he would say, μεθ᾽ ὕβρεως. The same may be said of York, when, in Shakespeare’s Henry VI., the paper crown is set upon his head, in mockery of his kingly pretensions, before Margaret and Clifford stab him. In like manner the Spartans are not satisfied with throwing down the Long Walls of Athens, unless they do it to the sound of music (Plutarch, Lys. 15). It is ὕβρις, and is designated as such in the Hlectra of Euripides, when Atgisthus compels Electra to marry a hind on her father’s land (257). Prisoners in a Spanish civil war are shot in the back. And indeed all human story is full of examples of this demoniac element lying deep in the heart of man ; this evil for evil’s sake, and evermore begetting itself anew. Cruelty and lust are the two main shapes in which ὕβρις will display itself; or rather they are not two ;—for as the hideous records of human wickedness have too often attested, the trial, for example, of Gilles de Retz, Marshal of §xxx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 99 France, in the fifteenth century, they are not two sins but one; and Milton, when he wrote, “lust hard by hate,” saying much, yet did not say all. Out of a sense that in ὕβρις both are included, one quite as much as the other, Josephus (Antt. i. 11. 1) characterizes the men of Sodom as ὑβρισταί to men (cf. Gen. xix. 5), no less than ἀσεβεῖς to God. He uses the same language (Id. v. 10. 1) about the sons of Eli (cf. 1 Sam. 11, 22); on each occasion showing that by the ὕβρις which he ascribed to those and these, he intended an assault on the chastity of others (cf. Euripides, Hipp. 1086); Critias (quoted by Ailian, V. H. x. 18) calls Archilochus λάγνος καὶ ὑβριστής : and Plutarch, comparing Demetrius Poliorcetes and Antony, applies this title to them both (Com. Dem. cwm Anton. 3: οἵ. Demet. 24; Lucian, Dial. Deor. vi. 1; and the article Ὕβρεως δίκη in Pauly’s Encyclopédie). The three words, then, are clearly distinguishable, occupy- ing three different provinces of meaning: they present to us an ascending scale of guilt; and, as has been observed already, they severally designate the boastful in words, the proud and overbearing ὅν thoughts, the insolent and injurious m acts. ὃ xxx. ἀντίχριστος, ψευδόχριστος. THE word ἀντίχριστος is peculiar to the Epistles of St. John, occurring five times in them (1 Hp. ii. 18, bis; 11. 22; iv. 8; 2 Ep. 7), and nowhere else in the N. T. But if he alone has the word, St. Paul, in common with him, designates the person of this great adversary, and the marks by which he shall be recognized ; for all expositors of weight, Grotius alone excepted, are agreed that St. Paul’s ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, his vids τῆς ἀπωλείας, his ἄνομος (2 Thess. 11. 8, 8), is identical with St. John’s ἀντίχριστος (see Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xx. 19. 2); and, indeed, to St. Paul we are indebted for our fullest instruction concerning this arch-enemy of Christ and of God. Passing by, as not relevant to our purpose, many discussions to which the mysterious announcement of H 2 100 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Xxx such a coming foe has given rise, whether, for example, the Antichrist is a single person or a succession of persons, a person or a system, we occupy ourselves here with one ques- tion only ; namely, what the force is of ἀντί in this composi- tion. Is it such as to difference ἀντίχριστος from ψευδόχριστος ? does ἀντίχριστος imply one who sets himself up agaist Christ, or, like ψευδόχριστος, one who sets himself up i the stead of Christ? Does he proclaim that there is no Christ ὃ or that he is Christ ? There is no settling this matter off-hand, as some are so ready to do; seeing that ἀντί, in composition, has both these forces. For a subtle analysis of the mental processes by which it now means ‘instead of,’ and now ‘against,’ see Pott, Etymol. Forschungen, 2nd edit. p. 260. It often expresses substitution; thus, ἀντιβασιλεύς, he who is instead of the king, ‘ prorex,’ ‘ viceroy ;’ ἀνθύπατος, ‘ proconsul;’ ἀντίδειπνος, one who fills the place of an absent guest; ἀντίψυχος, one who lays down his life for others (Josephus, De Macc. 17; Igna- tius, Hphes. 21); ἀντίλυτρον, the ransom paid instead of a person. But often also it implies opposition, as in ἀντιλογία (‘ contradiction ’), ἀντίθεσις, ἀντικείμενος : and, still more to the point, as expressing not merely the fact of opposition, but the very object against which the opposition is directed, in ἀντινομία (see Suicer, Thes. s. v.), opposition to law ; ἀντίχειρ, the thumb, not so called, because equivalent in strength to the whole hand, but as set over against the hand; ἀντιφιλό- coos, one of opposite philosophical opinions ; ἀντικάτων, the title of a book which Cesar wrote against Cato; ἀντίθεος--- not indeed in Homer, where, applied to Mygdon (J. 111. 186), to Polyphemus (Od. i. 70), and to the Ithacan suitors (xiv. 18; cf. Pindar, Pyth. iii. 88), it means ‘ godlike,’ that is, in strength and power ;—but yet, in later use, as in Philo; with whom ἀντίθεος νοῦς (De Conf. Ling. 19; De Sonv. ii. 27) can be only the ‘adversa Deo mens;’ and so in the Christian Fathers ; while the jests about an Antipater who sought to murder his father, to the effect that he was φερώνυμος, would be utterly pointless, if ἀντί in composition did not bear this §xxx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ot meaning. I will not further cite “Avrépws, where the force of ἀντί is more questionable ; examples already adduced having sufficiently shown that ἀντί in composition implies sometimes substitution, sometimes opposition. There are words in which it has now this force, and now that, as these words are used by one writer or another. Thus ἀντιστράτηγος is for Thucydides (vii. 86) the commander of the hostile army, while for later Greek writers, such as Plutarch, who occupy them- selves with Roman affairs, it is the standing equivalent for ‘propretor. All this being so, they have equally erred, who, holding one view of Antichrist or the other, have claimed the name by which in Scripture he is named, as itself de- ciding the matter in their favour. It dces not so; but leaves the question to be settled by other considerations.! To me St. John’s words seem decisive that resistance to Christ, and defiance of Him, this, and not any treacherous assumption of his character and offices, is the essential mark | of the Antichrist; is that which, therefore, we should expect to find embodied in his name: thus see 1 John ii. 22; 2 John 7; and in the parallel passage, 2 Thess. 11. 4, he is ὁ ἀντικείμενος, or ‘the opposer ;’ and in this sense, if not all, yet many of the Fathers have understood the word. Thus Tertullian (De Presc. Her. 4): ‘Qui antichristi, nisi Christi rebelles?’ The Antichrist is, in Theophylact’s language, ἐναντίος τῷ Χριστῷ, or in Origen’s (Con. Cels. vi. 45), Χριστῷ κατὰ διάμετρον ἐναντίος, “ Widerchrist,’ as the Germans have rightly rendered it; one who shall not pay so much homage to God’s word as to assert its fulfilment in himself, for he shall deny that word altogether; hating even erroneous worship, because it is worship at all, and everything that is called ‘God’ (2 Thess. ii. 4), but hating most of all the Church’s worship in spirit and in truth (Dan. vii. 11) ; who, on the destruction of every religion, every acknowledgment that man is submitted to higher powers than his own, shall 1 Liicke (Comm. tiber die Briefe des Johannes, pp. 190-194) ex- cellently discusses the word. On the whole subject of Antichrist see Schneckenburger, Jahrbuch fiir Deutsche Theologie, vol. iv. p. 405 sqq. 102 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxx seek to establish his throne; and, for God’s great truth that in Christ God is man, to substitute his own lie, that in him man is God. The term ψευδόχριστος, with which we proceed to compare it, appears only twice in the N. T.; or, if we count, not how often it has been written, but how often it was spoken, only once ; for the two passages in which it occurs (Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Mark xiii. 22) are records of the same discourse. In form it resembles many others in which ψεῦδος is combined with almost any other nouns at will, Thus ψευδαπόστολος (2 Cor. xi. 13), ψευδάδελφος (2 Cor. xi. 26), ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (2 Pet. ii. 1), ψευδοπροφήτης (Matt. vii. 15; cf. Jer. xxxiii. 7), ψευδομάρτυρ (Matt. xxvi. 60; cf. Plato, Gorg. 472 δ). So, too, in ecclesiastical Greek, ψευδοποιμήν, ψευδολατρεία ; and in classical, ψευδάγγελος (Homer, Jl. xv. 159), ψευδόμαντις (Hero- dotus, iv. 69),andahundredmore. The ψευδόχριστος does not deny the being of a Christ ; on the contrary, he builds on the ‘world’s expectations of such a person; only he appropriates these to himself, blasphemously affirms that he is the foretold One, in whom God’s promises and men’s expectation’ are fulfilled. Thus Barchochab,—‘ Son of the Star,’ as, appro- priating the prophecy of Num. xxiv. 17, he called himself— who, in Hadrian’s reign, stirred up again the smouldering embers of Jewish insurrection into a flame so fierce that it consumed himself with more than a million of his fellow- countrymen,—was a Ψευδόχριστος : and such have been that long series of blasphemous pretenders and impostors, the false Messiahs, who, since the rejection of the true, have, in almost every age, fed and flattered and betrayed the expecta- tions of the Jews. The distinction, then, is plain. The ἀντίχριστος denies that there is a Christ; the ψευδόχριστος affirms himself to be the Christ. Both alike make war against the Christ of God, and would set themselves, though under different pretences, on the throne of his glory. And yet, while the words have this broad distinction between them, while they represent two different manifestations of the kingdom of wickedness, §xxx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 103 there is a sense in which the final ‘ Antichrist’ will be a ‘ Pseudochrist ’ as well; even as it will be the very character of that last revelation of hell to gather up into itself, and to reconcile for one last assault against the truth, all anterior and subordinate forms of error. He will not, it is true, call himself the Christ, for he will be filled with deadliest hate against the name and offices, as against the whole spirit and temper, of Jesus of Nazareth, the exalted King of Glory. But, inasmuch as no one can resist the truth by a mere negation, he must offer and oppose something positive, in the room of that faith which he will assail and endeavour utterly to abolish. And thus we may certainly conclude that the final Antichrist will reveal himself to the world,—for he too will have his ἀποκάλυψις (2 Thess. 11. 3, 8), his παρουσία (ver. 9),—as, in a sense, its Messiah; not, indeed, as the Messiah of prophecy, the Messiah of God, but still as the world’s saviour ; as one who will make the blessedness of as many as obey him, giving to them the full enjoyment of a present material earth, instead of a distant, shadowy, and uncertain heaven ; abolishing those troublesome distinctions, now the fruitful sources of so much disquietude, abridging men of so many enjoyments, between the Church and the world, between the spirit and the flesh, between holiness and sin, between good and evil. It will follow, therefore, that however he will not assume the name of Christ, and so will not, in the letter, be a ψευδόχριστος, yet, usurping to himself Christ’s offices, presenting himself to the world as the true centre of its hopes, as the satisfier of all its needs and healer of all its hurts, he, ‘the Red Christ,’ as his servants already call him, will in fact take up and absorb into himself all names and forms of blasphemy, will be the great ψευδό- χριστὸς and ἀντίχριστος in one. 104 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxx1 § χχχὶ. μολύνω, μιαίνω. WE have translated both these words, as often as they occur in the N. T. (μολύνω, at 1 Cor. viii. 7; Rev. iii. 4; xiv. 4; puaive, at John xviii. 28; Tit. i. 15; Heb. xii. 15; Jude 8), by a single word ‘defile,’ which doubtless covers them both. At the same time they differ in the images on which they severally repose ;—podvvew being properly to ‘besmear,’ or ‘besmirch,’ as with mud or filth, ‘to defoul ;’ which, indeed, is only another form of ‘defile ;’ thus Aristotle (Hist. An. vi. 17. 1) speaks of swine, τῷ πηλῷ μολύνοντες ἑαυτούς, that is, as the context shows, crusting themselves over with mud (cf. Plato, Rep. vii. 5385 6; Cant. v.38; Ecclus. xiii. 1): while μιαίνειν, in its primary usage, is not ‘to smear’ as with matter, but ‘to stain’ as with colour. The first corresponds to the Latin ‘inquinare’ (Horace, Sat. i. 8. 37), ‘spurcare’ (itself probably connected with ‘porcus’), the German ‘besudeln ;’ the second to the Latin ‘ maculare,’ and the German ‘ beflecken.’ It will follow, that while in a derived and ethical sense both words have an equally dishonorable signification, the μολυσμὸς σαρκός (2 Cor. vii. 1) being no other than the μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου (2 Pet. ii. 20), both being also used of the defiling of women (cf. Gen. xxxiv. 5; Zech. xiv. 2),—this will only hold good so long as they are figuratively and ethically regarded. So taken indeed, μιαίνειν is in classical Greek the standing word to express the profaning or unhal- lowing of aught (Plato, Legg. ix. 868 a; Tim. 69 d; Sophocles, Antig. 1031; cf. Lev. v.83; John xviii. 28). Ina literal sense, on the contrary, μιαίνειν may be used in good part, just as, in English, we speak of the staining of glass, the staining of ivory (Il. iv. 141; cf. Virgil. An. xii. 67); or as, in Latin, the ‘macula’ need not of necessity be also a ‘labes;’ nor yet in English the ‘spot’ be always a ‘blot.’ Modvvew, on the other hand, as little admits of such nobler employment in a literal as in a figurative sense.—The verb σπιλοῦν, a late word, and found only twice in the N. T. (Jam. ὃ ΚΧΧΤ SVIVONVIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τοῦ 11. 6; Jude 23), is in meaning nearer to μιαίνειν. On it see ee Phrynichus, p. 28. S$ Xxxll. παιδεία, νουθεσία. Ir is worth while to attempt a discrimination between these words, occurring as they do together at Ephes. vi. 4, and being often there either not distinguished at all, or distinguished erroneously. Παιδεία is one among the many words, into which re- vealed religion has put a deeper meaning than it knew of, till this took possession of it; the new wine by a wondrous process making new even the old vessel into which it was ‘poured. For the Greek, παιδεία was simply ‘ education ; ᾿ nor, in all the many definitions of it which Plato gives, is there the slightest prophetic anticipation of the new force which it one day should obtain. But the deeper apprehension of those who had learned that ‘‘ foolishness is bound in the heart ”’ alike “of a child’? and of a man, while yet “the rod of correction may drive it far from him” (Prov. xxii. 15), led them, in assuming the word, to bring into it a further thought. They felt and understood that all effectual instruc- tion for the sinful children of men, includes and implies chastening, or, as we are accustomed to say, out of a sense of the same truth, ‘ correction.’ There must be ἐπανόρθωσις, or ‘ rectification ’ in it; which last word, occurring but once in the N. T., is there found in closest connexion with παιδεία {2 fama, 16) Two definitions of zadeia—the one by a distinguished heathen philosopher, the other by an illustrious Christian theologian,—may be profitably compared. This is Plato’s 1 The Greek, indeed, acknowledged, to a certain extent, the same, in his secondary use of ἀκόλαστος, which, in its primary, meant any ‘the unchastised.’ Menander too has this confession : 6 μὴ dapels ἄνθρωπος οὐ παιδεύεται. (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Gr. p. 1055.) And in other uses of παιδεύειν in profane Greek there are slight hints of the same: thus see Xenophon, Mem. i. 3.5; Polybius, Hist. ii. 9. 6. 106 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ xxx (Legg. ii. 659 d) : παιδεία μὲν ἐσθ᾽ ἡ παίδων ὁλκή τε καὶ ἀγωγὴ. πρὸς τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου λόγον ὀρθὸν εἰρημένον. And this is that of Basil the Great (In Prov. 1): ἔστιν ἡ παιδεία ἀγωγή τις ὠφέλιμος τῇ ψυχῇ, ἐπιπόνως πολλάκις τῶν ἀπὸ κακίας κηλίδων αὐτὴν ἐκκαθαίρουσα. For as many as felt and acknowledged all which St. Basil here asserts, παιδεία signified, not simply ‘eruditio,’ but, as Augustine expresses it, who has noticed’ the changed use of the word (Enarr. in Ps. exviii. 66), ‘ per molestias eruditio.’ And this is quite the predominant use of παιδεία and παιδεύειν in the Septuagint, in the Apocrypha, and in the N. T. (Lev. xxvi. 18; Ps. vi. 1; Isai. 1111. 5; Kecelus. iv. 17; xxii. 6, μάστιγες καὶ παιδεία : 2 Mace. vi. 12; Luke xxiii. 16; Heb. xii. 5, 7, 8; Rev. iii. 19, and often). The only occasion in the N. T. upon which παιδεύειν occurs in the old Greek sense is Acts vii. 22. Instead of ‘nurture’ at Hphes. vi. 4, which is too weak a word, ‘ discipline’ might be substituted with advantage—the laws and ordinances of the Christian household, the transgression of which will induce correction, being indicated by παιδεία there. Νουθεσία (in Attic Greek νουθετία or νουθέτησις, Lobeck, Phrymchus, pp. 518, 520) is more successfully rendered, ‘admonition ;’ which, however, as we must not forget, has been defined by Cicero thus: ‘ Admonitio est quasi lenior objurgatio.’ And such is νουθεσία here ; it is the training by word—by the word of encouragement, when this is sufficient, but also by that of remonstrance, of reproof, of blame, where these may be required; as set over against the training by act and by discipline, which is παιδεία. Bengel, who so seldom misses, has yet missed the exact distinction here, having on ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ this note: ‘Harum altera occurrit ruditati; altera oblivioni et levitati. Utraque et sermonem et reliquam disciplinam includit.’ That the dis- tinctive feature of νουθεσία is the training by word of mouth is evidenced by such combinations as these: παραινέσεις Kai νουθεσίαι (Plutarch, De Coh. γᾶ, 2); νουθετικοὶ λόγοι (Xenophon, Mem. i. 2. 21); διδαχὴ καὶ νουθέτησις (Plato, Rep. lil. 899 δὴ) ; νουθετεῖν καὶ διδάσκειν (Protag. 323 d). §xxxll SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 107 Relatively, then, and by comparison with παιδεία, vov- θεσία 15. the milder term ; while yetits association with radela teaches us that this too is a most needful element of Christian education ; that the παιδεία without it would be very incom- plete; even as, when years advance, and there is no longer a child, but a young man, to deal with, it must give place to, - or rather be swallowed up in, the νουθεσία altogether. And yet the νουθεσία itself, where need is, will be earnest and severe enough; it is much more than a feeble Eli-remon- strance: ‘‘ Nay, my sons, for it is no good report that I hear ”’ (1 Sam. ii. 24); indeed, of Eli it is expressly recorded, in respect of those sons, οὐκ ἐνουθέτει αὐτούς (iii, 18). Plutarch unites it with μέμψις (Cony. Prec. 13); with ψόγος (De Virt. Mor. 12; De Adul. et Am. 17); Philo with σωφρονισμός (Lésner, Obss. ad, N. 1. ὁ Philone, p. 427); while νουθετεῖν had continually, if not always, the sense of admonishing with blame (Plutarch, De Prof. Virt. 11; Con. Prec. 22). Jerome, then, has only partial right, when he desires to get rid, at Ephes. vi. 4, and again at Tit. iii. 10, of ‘ correptio’ (still retained by the Vulgate), on the ground that in νουθεσία no rebuke or austerity is implied, as in ‘correptio’ there certainly is: ‘Quam correptionem nos legimus, melius in Greco dicitur νουθεσία, que admonitionem magis et eruditionem quam austeritatem sonat.’ Undoubtedly, in νουθεσία such is not of necessity involved, and therefore- ‘correptio’ is not its happiest rendering; but it does not exclude, nay implies this, whenever it may be required: the derivation, from νοῦς and τίθημι, affirms as much: whatever is needed to cause the monition to be taken home, to be laid to heart, is involved in the word. In claiming for it, as discriminated from παιδεία, that it is predominantly what our Translators understand it, namely, admonition by word, none would deny that both it and νουθετεῖν are employed to express correction by deed; only we affirm that the other—the appeal to the reasonable faculties —is the primary and prevailing use of both. It will follow that in such phrases as these, ῥάβδου νουθέτησις (Plato, Legg. 108 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxxul 111. 700 0), πληγαῖς νουθετεῖν (Legg. ix. 879 d; ef. Rep. viii. 560 a), the words are employed in a secondary and improper, but therefore more emphatic, sense. The same emphasis lies in the statement that Gideon “ took thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth ”’ (Judg. viii. 16). No one on the strength of this language would assert that the verb ‘to teach’ had not for its primary meaning the oral communicating of knowledge. On the re- lations between νουθετεῖν and διδάσκειν see Bishop Lightfoot, on Col i. 28. § Xxxili. ἄφεσις, πάρεσις. ἼΛφεσις is the standing word by which forgiveness, or remis- sion of sins, is expressed in the N. T. (see Vitringa, Obss. Sac. vol. i. pp. 909-983) ; though, remarkably enough, the LXX. — knows nothing of this use of the word, Gen. iv. 18 being the nearest approach to it. Derived from ἀφιέναι, the image which underlies it is that of a releasing, as of a prisoner (Isai. lxi. 1), or letting go, as of a debt (Deut. xv. 8). Probably the year of jubilee, called constantly ἔτος, or ἐνιαυτὸς, τῆς ἀφέσεως, Or simply ἄφεσις (Lev. xxv. 31, 40; xxvii. 24), the year in which all debts were forgiven, suggested the higher application of the word, which is frequent in the N. T., though more frequent in St. Luke than in all the other books of the New Covenant put together. On a single occasion, however, the term πάρεσις τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων occurs (Rom. iii. 25). Our Translators have noticed in the margin, but have not marked in their Version, the variation in the Apostle’s phrase, rendering πάρεσις here by ‘remission,’ as they have rendered ἄφεσις elsewhere; and many have since justified them in this; while others, as I cannot doubt, more rightly affirm that St. Paul of intention changed his word, wishing to say something which πάρεσις would express adequately and accurately, and which ἄφεσις would not; and that our Trans- lators should have reproduced this change which he has made. It is familiar to many, that Cocceius and those of his §xxxut SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 109 school found in this text one main support for a favourite doctrine of theirs, namely, that there was no remission of sins, in the fullest sense of these words, under the Old Covenant, no τελείωσις (Heb. x. 1-4), no entire abolition of sin even for the faithful themselves, but only a present pretermission (πάρεσις), a temporary dissimulation, upon God’s part, in con- sideration of the sacrifice which was one day to be; the ἀνάμνησις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν remaining the meanwhile. On this matter a violent controversy raged among the theologians of Holland towards the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the following century, which was carried on with strange acrimony ; and for a brief history of which see Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. v. p. 209 ; Vitringa, Obss. Sac. vol. iv.p.3; Venema, Diss. Sac. p. 72; while a full statement of what Cocceius did mean, and in his own words, may be found in his Commentary on the Romans, in loc. (Opp. vol. v. p. 62); and the same more at length defended and justified in his treatise, Utilitas Dis- tinctionis duorwm Vocabulorum Scripture, παρέσεως et ἀφέσεως (vol. ix. p. 121, sq.). Those who at that time opposed the Cocceian scheme denied that there was any distinction between ἄφεσις and πάρεσις ; thus see Witsius, Gicon. Pad. Dé. iv. 12. 36. But in this they erred; for while Cocceius and his followers were undoubtedly wrong, in saying that for the faithful, so long as the Old Covenant subsisted, there was only a πάρεσις, and no ἄφεσις ἁμαρτημάτων, in applying to them what was asserted by the Apostle im respect of the world ; they were right in maintaining that πάρεσις was not entirely equivalent to ἄφεσις. Beza, indeed, had already drawn attention to the distinction. Having in his Latin Version, as first published in 1556, taken no notice of it, he acknow- ledges at-a later period his omission, saying, ‘Hc duo plurimum inter se differunt ;’ and now rendering πάρεσις by ‘ dissimulatio.’ In the first place, the words themselves suggest a difference of meaning. If ἄφεσις is remission, ‘ Loslassung,’ πάρεσις, from παρίημι, will be naturally ‘pretermission,’ ‘ Vorbeilassung,’—the πάρεσις ἁμαρτημάτων, the pretermission το SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxxui or passing by of sins for the present, leaving it open in the future either entirely to remit, or else adequately to punish them, as may seem good to Him who has the power and right to do the one or the other. Fritzsche is not always to my mind, but here he speaks out plainly and to the point (Ad Lom. vol. i. p. 199): ‘Conveniunt in hoc [ἄφεσις et πάρεσις] quod sive illa, sive hee tibi obtigerit, nulla peccatorum tuorum ratio habetur; discrepant eo, quod, hac data, facinorum tuorum peenas nunquam pendes; illé concessa, non diutius nullas peccatorum tuorum poenas lues, quam ei in iis conni- vere placuerit, cui in delicta tua animadvertendi jus sit.’ And the classical usage both of παριέναι and of πάρεσις bears out this distinction. Thus Xenophon (Hipp. 7. 10) : ἁμαρτήματα ov χρὴ παριέναι ἀκόλαστα: while of Herod Josephus tells us, that being desirous to punish a certain offence, yet for other considerations he passed it by (Antt. xv. 8. 2): παρῆκε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. When the Son of Sirach (Kcclus. xxiii. 2) prays that God would not “’ pass by” his sins, he assuredly does not use οὐ μὴ παρῇ as = οὐ μὴ ἀφῇ, but only asks that he may not be without a wholesome chastisement following close on his transgressions. On the other side, and in proof that wdpeois=addeors, the following passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Antt. Rom. vii. 37), is adduced : τὴν μὲν ὁλοσχερῆ πάρεσιν oux εὕροντο, τὴν δὲ εἰς χρόνον ὅσον ἠξίουν ἀναβολὴν ἔλαβον. Not πάρεσις, however, here, but ὁλοσχερὴς πάρεσις, is equal to ἄφεσις, and no doubt the historian added that epithet, feeling that πάρεσις would have insufficiently expressed his meaning without it. Having seen, then, that there is a strong primd facie probability that St. Paul intends something different by the πάρεσις ἁμαρτημάτων, in the only place where he employs this phrase, from that which he intends in the many where he employs ἄφεσις, that passage itself, namely Rom. iii. 25, may now be considered more closely. It appears in our Version: ‘Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” I §xxx1l SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 11 would venture to render it thus; ‘Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation, through faith in his blood, for a manifesta- tion of his righteousness because of the pretermission [διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν, NOt διὰ τῆς παρέσεως], in the forbearance of God, of the sins done aforetime;’ and his exact meaning I take to be this—‘ There needed a signal manifestation or display of the righteousness of God, on account of the long prxtermission or passing over of sins, in his infinite forbearance, with no adequate expression of his wrath against them, during all those long ages which preceded the coming of Christ ; which manifestation of God’s righteousness found place, when He set forth no other and no less than his own Son to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin’ (Heb. ix. 15, 22). During long ages God’s extreme indignation against sin and sinners had not been pronounced ; during all the time, that is, which preceded the Incarnation. Of course, this conmivance of God, this his holding of his peace, was only partial; for St. Paul has himself just before declared that the wrath of God was revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men (Rom. i. 18) ; and has traced in a few fearful lines some ways in which this revelation of his wrath displayed itself (i. 24-32). Yet for all this, it was the time during which He suffered the nations to walk in their own ways (Acts xiv. 16) ; they were “the times of ignorance”? which ‘‘God winked at” (Acts xvi. 30), in other words, times of the ἀνοχὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, this dvoxy being the correlative of πάρεσις, as χάρις is of ἄφεσις : 50 that the finding ἀνοχή here is a strong confirmation of that view of the word which has been just maintained. But this position in regard of sin could, in the very nature of things, be only transient and provisional. With a man, the preetermission of offences, or ‘ preterition,’ as Hammond would render it (deducing the word, but wrongly, from πάρειμι, ‘preetereo’), will often be identical with the remission, the πάρεσις Will be one with the ἄφεσις. Man forgets ; he has not power to bring the long past into judgment, even if he would; or he has not righteous energy enough to undertake it. But with an absolutely righteous God, the πάρεσις can only be 112 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxxut temporary, and must always find place with a looking on toa final settlement ; forbearance is no acquittance; every sin must at last either be absolutely forgiven, or adequately avenged ; for, as the Russian proverb tells us, ‘God has no bad debts.’ But in the meanwhile, so long as these are still uncollected, the πάρεσις itself might seem to call in question the absolute righteousness of Him who was thus content to pass by and to connive. God held his peace, and it was only too near to the evil thought of men to think wickedly that He was such a one as themselves, morally indifferent to good and to evil. That such with too many was the consequence of the ἀνοχὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Psalmist himself declares (Ps. 1. 21; ef. Job xxii. 18; Mal. 11. 17; Ps. xxiii. 11). But now (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ) God, by the sacrifice of his Son, had rendered such a perverse misreading of his purpose in the past dissimulation of sin for ever impossible. Bengel: ‘Objectum pretermis- slonis [παρέσεως], peccata; tolerantiz [ἀνοχῆς], peccatores, contra quos non est persecutus Deusjus suum. Et hee et illa quamdiu fuit, non ita apparuit justitia Dei : non enim tam vehementer visus est irasci peccato, sed peccatorem 5101 relinquere, ἀμελεῖν, negligere, Heb. viii. 9. At in sanguine Christi et morte propitiatorid ostensa est Dei justitia, cum vindictaé adversus peccatum ipsum, ut esset ipse justus, et cum zelo pro peccatoris liberatione, ut esset ipse justificans.’ Compare Hammond (7m loc.), who has seized with accuracy and precision the true distinction between the words; and Godet, Comm. sur l’ Epitre aux Rom. iii. 25, 26, who deals admirably with the whole passage. He, then, that is partaker of the ἄφεσις, has his sins forgiven, so that, unless he bring them back upon himself by new and further disobedience (Matt. xviii. 82, 34; 2 Pet. i. 9; ii. 20), they shall not be imputed to him, or mentioned against him any more. The πάρεσις, differing from this, is a benefit, but a very subordinate one ; it is the present passing by of sin, the suspension of its punishment, the not shutting up of all ways of mercy against the sinner, the giving to him of space and helps for repentance, as it is said at Wisd xi. §xxxiv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 113 23: παρορᾷς ἁμαρτήματα ἀνθρώπων eis μετάνοιαν : cf. Rom. ii. 3-6. If such repentance follow, then the πάρεσις will lose itself in the ἄφεσις, but if not, then the punishment, suspended, but not averted, in due time will arrive (Luke ἘΠΙ| Ὁ); § XXXiv. μωρολογία, αἰσχρολογία, εὐτραπελία. Aut these designate sins of the tongue, but with a difference. Mwpodoyia, employed by Aristotle (Hist. Anim. i. 11), but of rare use till the later Greek, is rendered well in the Vulgate, on the one occasion of its occurrence (Ephes. v. 4), by ‘stultiloquium,’ a word which Plautus may have coined (Mil. Glor. 11. 8. 25) ; although one which did not find more favour and currency in the after language of Rome, than did the ‘ stultiloquy’ which Jeremy Taylor sought to introduce among ourselves. Not merely the πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργόν of our Lord (Matt. xii. 36), but in good part also the πᾶς λόγος campos of his Apostle (Ephes. iv. 29), will be included in it; discourse, as everything else in the Christian, needing to be seasoned with the salt of grace, and being in danger of growing first insipid, and then corrupt, without it. Those who stop short with the ἀργὰ ῥήματα, as though μωρολογία reached no further, fail to exhaust the fulness of its meaning. Thus Calvin too weakly : ‘ Sermones inepti ac inanes, nulliusque frugis ; ’ and even Jeremy Taylor (On the Good and Evil Tongue, Serm. xxxii. pt. 2) fails to reproduce the full force of the word. ‘That,’ he says, ‘which is here meant by stultiloquy or foolish speaking is the ‘‘ lubricum verbi,’’‘as St. Ambrose calls it, the ‘slipping with the tongue” which prating people often suffer, whose discourses betray the vanity of their spirit, and discover ‘the hidden man of the heart.’’’ In heathen writings pwpodoyia may very well pass as equivalent to ἀδο- λεσχία, ‘random talk,’ and μωρολογεῖν to ληρεῖν (Plutarch, De Garr. 4); but words obtain a new earnestness when assumed into the ethical terminology of Christ’s school. Nor, in seeking to enter fully into the meaning of this one, ought we to leave out of sight the greater emphasis which the words I 114 SVNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxxiv ‘fool,’ ‘foolish,’ ‘folly,’ obtain in Scripture, than elsewhere they have, or can have. There is the positive of folly as well as the negative to be taken account of, when we are weighing the force of pwpodoyia: it is that ‘talk of fools,’ which is foolishness and sin together. Αἰσχρολογία, which also is of solitary use in the N. T. (Col. ii. 8), must not be confounded with αἰσχρότης (Ephes. v. 4). By it the Greek Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. 5. v.), whom most expositors follow, have understood obscene dis- course, ‘turpilogium,’ ‘filthy communication’ (E.V.), such as ministers to wantonness, ὄχημα πορνείας, as Chrysostom explains it. Clement of Alexandria, in a chapter of his Pedagogus, περὶ αἰσχρολογίας (ii. 6), recognizes no other meaning but this. Now, beyond a doubt, αἰσχρολογία has sometimes this sense predominantly, or even exclusively (Xenophon, De Rep. Lac. v. 6; Aristotle, Pol. vii. 15; Epictetus, Man. xxxiii. 16; see, too, Becker, Charikles, 1st. ed. vol. 11. p. 264). But more often it indicates all foul- mouthed abusiveness of every kind, not excluding this, one of the most obvious kinds, readiest to hand, and most offensive, but including, as in the well-known phrase, αἰσχρολογία ἐφ᾽’ ἱεροῖς, Other kinds as well. Thus, too, Polybius (viii. 18. 8; xii. 18.3; xxxi. 10. 4): αἰσχρολογία καὶ λοιδορία κατὰ τοῦ βασιλέως : while the author of a treatise which passes under Plutarch’s name (De Lib. Ed. 14), de- nouncing all αἰσχρολογία as unbecoming to youth ingenuously brought up, includes therein every license of the ungoverned tongue employin® itself in the abuse of others, all the wicked condiments of saucy speech (ἡδύσματα πονηρὰ τῆς παῤῥησίας) ; nor can I doubt that St. Paul intends to forbid the same, the context and company in which the word is used by him going far to prove as much ; seeing that all other sins against which he is here warning are outbreaks of a loveless spirit toward our neighbour. Εὐτραπελία, a finely selected word of the world’s use, which, however, St. Paul uses not in the world’s sense, like its synonyms, occurs only once in the Ν, T. (Ephes. v. 4). §xxxIV SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 115 Derived from εὖ and τρέπεσθαι (εὐτράπελοι, οἷον εὔτροποι, Ari- stotle, Hthic. Nic. iv. 8. 8; ef. Pott, Etym. Forsch. vol. v. p. 186), that which easily twrns, and in this way adapts, itself to the shifting circumstances of the hour, to the moods and conditions of those with whom at the instant it may deal ;' it had very slightly and rarely, in classical use, that evil signification which, as used by St. Paul and the Greek Fathers, is the only one which it knows. That St. Paul could be himself εὐτράπελος in the better sense of the word, he has given illustrious proof (Acts xxvi. 29). Thucydides, in that panegyric of the Athenians which he puts into the mouth of Pericles, employs εὐτραπέλως (ii. 41) as = εὐκινήτως, to characterize the ‘ versatile ingenium’ of his countrymen ; while Plato (Lep. viii. 563 a) joins εὐτραπελία with χαριεντισμός, as does also Plutarch (De Adul. et Am. 7) ; Isocrates (Or. xv. 316) with φιλολογία; Philo (Leg. ad Cai. 45) with χάρις. For Aristotle, also, the εὐτράπελος or ἐπιδέξιος (Ethic. Nic. li. 7. 13; iv. 8.5; compare Brandis, Aristoteles, p. 1415) is one who keeps the happy mean between the βωμολόχος and the ἄγριος, ἀγροῖκος, or σκληρός. He is no mere γελωτοποιός or buffoon ; but, in whatever pleasantry or banter he may allow himself, still χαρίεις or refined, always restraining himself within the limits of becoming mirth (ἐμμελῶς παίζων), never ceasing to be the gentleman. Thus P. Volumnius, the friend or acquaintance of Cicero and of Atticus, bore the name ‘Kutrapelus,’ on the score of his festive wit and talent of society: though certainly there is nothing particularly pleasant in the story which Horace (Hpp. i. 18. 31-86) tells about him. With all this there were not wanting, even in classical usage, anticipations of that more unfavourable signification ’ Chrysostom, who, like most great teachers, often turns etymology into the materials of exhortation, does not fail to do so here. ΤῸ other reasons why Christians should renounce εὐτραπελία he adds this (Hom. 17 in Ephes.): “Opa καὶ αὐτὸ τοὔνομα ' εὐτράπελος λέγεται ὃ ποικίλος, 6 παντοδαπὺς, ὁ ἄστατος, 6 εὔκολος, 6 πάντα γινόμενος " τοῦτο δὲ πόῤῥω τῶν τῇ Πέτρᾳ δουλευόντων. Ταχέως τρέπεται ὃ τοιοῦτος καὶ μεθίσταται. τὸ Ὁ 116 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §XxxXIv which St. Paul should stamp upon the word, though they appear most plainly in the adjective εὐτράπελος : thus, see Isocrates, Orat. vii. 49; and Pindar, Pyth. 1. 92 (Diss., 178 Heyn.) ; iv. 104 (Diss., 186 Heyn.); where Jason, the model of a noble-hearted gentleman, affirms that during twenty years of fellowship in toil he has never spoken to his com- panions ἔπος εὐτράπελον, ‘verbum fucatum, fallax, simulatum :’ Dissen on this last passage traces well the downward progress of εὐτράπελος : ‘Primum est de facilitate in motu, tum ad mores transfertur, et indicat hominem temporibus inser- vientem, diciturque tum de sermone urbano, lepido, faceto, imprimis cum levitatis et assentationis, simulationis notatione.’ Εὐτραπελία, thus gradually sinking from a better meaning to a worse, has a history closely resembling that of ‘ urbanitas ’ (Quintilian, vi. 8. 17); which is its happiest Latin equivalent, and that by which Erasmus has rendered it, herein improving much on the ‘jocularitas’ of Jerome, still more on the ‘scurrilitas’ of the Vulgate, which last is wholly wide of the mark. That ‘urbanitas’ is the proper word, this quotation from Cicero attests (Pro Cel. 8): ‘ Contumelia, si petulantius jactatur, convicium; si facetius, urbanitas nominatur;’ which agrees with the striking phrase of Aristotle, that εὐτραπελία is ὕβρις πεπαιδευμένη : ‘ chastened insolence’ is Sir Alexander Grant’s happy rendering (het. ii. 12; cf. Plutarch, Cic. 50). Already in Cicero’s time (De Fin. ii. 81) ‘ urbanitas ’ was beginning to obtain that questionable significance which, in the usage of Tacitus (Hist. 11. 88) and Seneca (De Ird, i. 28), it, far more distinctly acquired. The history, in our own language, of ‘facetious’ and ‘ facetious- ness’ would supply a not uninstructive parallel. But the fineness of the form in which evil might array itself could not make a Paul more tolerant of the evil itself; he did not count that sin, by losing all its coarseness, lost half, or any part of, its malignity. So far from this, in the finer banter of the world, its ‘ persiflage, its ‘ badinage,’ there is that which would attract many, who would be in no danger of lending their tongue to speak, or their ears to SRM ὁ 7 5 OF THE VE IW. TESTAMENT 117 hear, foul-mouthed and filthy abuse ; whom scurrile buffoonery would only revolt and repel. A far subtler sin is noted in this word than in those which went before, as Bengel puts it well: ‘Hee subtilior quam turpitudo aut stultiloquium ; nam imgeno nititur;’ χάρις ἄχαρις, as Chrysostom has happily called it; and Jerome: ‘De prudenti mente descendit, et consulto appetit quedam vel urbana verba, vel rustica, vel turpia, vel faceta.’ I should only object, in this last citation, to the ‘turpia,’ which belong rather to the other forms in which men offend with the tongue than to this. The εὐτράπελος always, according to Chrysostom, ἀστεῖα λέγει : keeps ever in mind what Cicero has said (De Orat. ii. 58) : ‘Hee ridentur vel maxime, que notant et designant turpitu- dinem aliquam non turpiter.’ What he deals in are χάριτες, although, in the striking language of the Son of Sirach, χάριτες μωρῶν (icclus. xx. 13). Polish, refinement, knowledge of the world, presence of mind, wit, must all be his ;—these, it is true, enlisted in the service of sin, and not in that of the truth. The profligate old man in the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus (iii. 1. 42-52), who prides himself, and not without reason, on his festive wit, his elegance, and refinement (‘cavillator facetus,’ ‘ conviva commodus’), is exactly the εὐτράπελος : and, keeping in mind that εὐτραπελία, being only once expressly and by name forbidden in Scripture, is for- bidden to Ephesians, it is not a little noticeable to find him urging that all this was to be expected from him, being as he was an Hphesian by birth : ‘Post Hphest sum natus; non enim in Apulis, non Animule !’ See on this word’s history, and on the changes through which it has passed, an interesting and instructive article by Matthew Arnold in the Cornhill Magazine, May, 1879. While then by all these words are indicated sins of the tongue, it is yet with this difference,—that in pwpodoyia the foolishness, in αἰσχρολογία the foulness, in εὐτραπελία the false refinement, of discourse not seasoned with the salt of grace, are severally noted and condemned. 118 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxxv § xxxv. λατρεύω, λειτουργέω. In both these words the notion of service lies, but of service under certain special limitations in the second, as compared with the first. Aartpevew, allied to λάτρις, ‘a hired servant,’ Adtpov, ‘hire,’ and perhaps to λεία, Anis (so Curtius), is, properly, ‘ to serve for hire,’ and therefore not of compulsion, as does a slave, though the line of separation between λάτρις and δοῦλος is by no means always observed. Already in classical Greek both it and λατρεία are occasionally transferred from the service of men to the service of the higher powers; as by Plato, Apol. 23 c: ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ λατρεία: cf. Phedr. 244 e; and Euripides, Troad. 450, where Cassandra is ἡ ᾿Απόλλωνος λάτρις : and a meaning, which in Scripture is the only one, is anticipated in part. In the Septuagint, λατρεύειν never expresses any other service but either that of the true God, or of the false gods of heathenism ; for Deut. xxviii. 48, a seeming exception, is not such in fact; and Augustine has perfect right when he says (De Cw. Dei, x. 1, 2): ‘ Λατρεία secundum consuetudinem qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper, aut tam frequenter ut pene semper, ea dicitur servitus que pertinet ad colendum Deum ;’ and again (con. Faust. xx. 21): ‘Cultus qui grece latria dicitur, latine uno verbo dici non potest, cum sit quedam proprie divinitati debita servitus.’ Λειτουργεῖν boasts a somewhat nobler beginning; from λεῖτος (Ξεδημόσιος), and ἔργον: and thus εἰς τὸ δημόσιον ἐργάζεσθαι, to serve the State in a public office or function. Like λατρεύειν, it was occasionally transferred to the highest ministry of all, the ministry to the gods (Diodorus Siculus, i. 21). When the Christian Church was forming its termino- logy, which it did partly by shaping new words, but partly by elevating old ones to higher than their previous uses, of the latter kind it more readily adopted those before employed in civil and political life, than such as had already played their part in religious matters; and this, even when §xxxv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 119 it was seeking for the adequate expression of religious truth. The same motives were here at work which induced the Church more willingly to turn basilicas,—buildings, that is, which had been used in civil life.—than temples, into churches ; namely, because they were less haunted with the clinging associations of heathenism. Of the fact itself we have a notable example in the words λειτουργός, λειτουργία, λειτουργεῖν, and in the prominent place in ecclesiastical language which they assumed. At the same time the way for their adoption into a higher use had been prepared by the Septuagint, in which λειτουργεῖν (=n) is the constant word for the performing of priestly or ministerial functions (Exod. xxvill. 89; Ezek. xl. 46); and by Philo (De Prof. 17). Neither in the Septuagint, however, nor yet by the Christian writers who followed, were the words of this group so entirely alienated from their primary uses as λατρεία and λατρεύειν had been ; being still occasionally used for the ministry wnto men (2am. x, 15.5.1 Kin. x.6; 2 Kin, iy. 45; hom, xv. 21; Phil. ii. 25, 30). From the distinction already existing between the words, before the Church had anything to do with them, namely, that λατρεύειν was ‘to serve,’ λειτουργεῖν, ‘to serve in an office and ministry,’ are to be explained the different uses to which they are severally turned in the N. T., as previously in the Septuagint. To serve God is the duty of all men; λατρεύειν, therefore, and λατρεία, are demanded of the whole people (Exod. iv. 23; Deut. x. 12; Josh. xxiv. 31; Matt. iv. 10; Luke i. 74; Acts vii. 7; Rom. ix. 4; Heb. xii. 28); but to serve Him in special offices and ministries can be the duty and privilege only of some, who are specially set apart to the same; and thus in the O. T. the λειτουργεῖν and the λειτουργία are ascribed only to the priests and Levites who were separated to minister in holy things; they only are λειτουργοί (Num. iv. 24; 1 Sam. ii, 11; Nehem. x. 39; Ezek. xliv. 27); which language, mutatis mutandis, reappears in the New, where not merely is that old priesthood and ministry designated by this language (Luke i. 23; Heb. ix. 120 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxxvi 21; x. 11), but that of apostles, prophets, and teachers in the Church (Acts xiii. 2; Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17), as well as that of the great High Priest of our profession, τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός (Heb. viii. 2). In later ecclesiastical use it has been sometimes attempted to push the special application of λειτουργία still further, and to limit its use to those prayers and offices which stand in more immediate relation to the Holy Eucharist: but there is no warrant in the best ages of the Church for any such limitation; thus see Suicer, Thes. s. v.; Bingham, Christian Antiqq. xiii. 1. 8; Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. i. p. 285 ; Augusti, Christ. Archiiol. vol. ii. p. 587 ; Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, p. 11. It may be urged against the distinction here drawn that λατρεύειν and λατρεία are sometimes applied to official ministries, as at Heb. ix. 1. 6. This is, of course, true ; just as where two circles have the same centre, the greater will necessarily include the less. The notion of service is such a centre here ; in λειτουργεῖν this service finds a certain limitation, in that it is service in an office: it follows that every λειτουργία will of necessity be a λατρεία, but not the reverse, that every λατρεία will be a λειτουργία. No passage better brings out the distinction between these two words than Eeclus. iv. 14: of λατρεύοντες αὐτῇ [i.e. τῇ Σοφίᾳ] λειτουργήσουσιν “Αγίῳ. ‘They that serve her, shall minister to the Holy One.” δ᾽ ΧΧΧΥΪ. πένης, πτωχός. In both these words the sense of poverty, and of poverty in this world’s goods, is involved; and they continually occur together in the Septuagint, in the Psalms especially, with no rigid demarcation of their meanings (as at Ps. xxxix. 18; Ixxiii. 22; Ixxxi. 4; ef. Ezek. xviii. 12; xxii. 29); very much as ae “poor and needy; ” and whatever distinction may exist in the Hebrew between ἡ" 3 3ὲ and ‘2, the Alexandrian translators have either considered it not reproducible by the help of these words, or have not cared Sxxxvl SYVONVUMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 121 to reproduce it; for they have no fixed rule, translating the one and the other by πτωχός and πένης alike. Still there are passages which show that they were perfectly aware of a distinction between them, and would, where they thought good, maintain it; occasions upon which they employ πένης (as Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; 2 Sam. xii. 1, 3, 4), and where πτωχός. would have been manifestly unfit. Πένης occurs but once in the N. T., and on that one occasion in a quotation from the Old (2 Cor. ix. 9), while πτωχός between thirty and forty times. Derived from πένομαι, and connected with πόνος, πονέομαι, and the Latin ‘penuria,’ it properly signifies one so poor that he earns his daily bread by his labour; Hesychius calls him well αὐτοδιάκονος, one who by his own hands ministers to his own necessities. The word does not indicate extreme want, nor a condition verging upon it, any more than does the ‘pauper’ and ‘paupertas’ of the Latin; but only the ‘res angusta’ of one for whom πλούσιος would be an inappro- priate epithet. What was the popular definition of a πένης we learn from Xenophon (Mem. iv. 2. 87): τοὺς μὲν οἶμαι μὴ ἱκανὰ ἔχοντας εἰς ἃ δεῖ τελεῖν, TEevyTas* τοὺς δὲ πλείω τῶν ἱκανῶν, πλουσίους. It was an epithet commonly applied to Socrates, and πενία he claims more than once for himself (Plato, Apol. 93.c; 81 c). What his πενία was we know (Xenophon, Cicon. ii. 8), namely, that all which he had, if sold, would not bring five Attic minz. So, too, the Πενέσται in Thessaly (if, indeed, the derivation of the name from πένεσθαι is to stand), were a subject population, but not reduced to abject want ; on the contrary, retaining secondary rights as serfs or cultivators of the soil. But while the πένης is ‘pauper,’ the πτωχός is ‘men- dicus ;’ he is the ‘ beggar,’ and lives not by his own labour or industry, but on other men’s alms (Luke xvi. 20, 21); being one therefore whom Plato would not endure in his ideal State (Legg. xi. 986 c). If indeed we fall back on etymologies, προσαίτης (which ought to find place in the text at Jolin ix. 8), or ἐπαίτης, would be the more exactly 122 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ xxxvi ? equivalent to our ‘beggar ;’ while πτωχός is generally taken for one who in the sense of his abjectness and needs crouches (ἀπὸ τοῦ πτώσσειν) in the presence of his superiors ; though it may be safest to add here the words of Pott (Htym. Forsch. vol. iii. p. 933), ‘falls dieser wirklich nach scheum unter- wirfigem Wesen benannt worden, und nicht als petax.’ The derivation of πτωχός, as though he were one who had fallen from a better estate (ἐκπεπτωκὼς ἐκ τῶν ὄντων : see Herodotus, 111. 14), is merely fanciful: see Didymus, im Ps. xii. 5, in Mai’s Nov. Pat. Bibl. vol. vii. part 11. p. 165. The words then are clearly distinct. A far deeper depth of destitution is implied in πτωχεία than in πενία, to keep which in mind will add vividness to the contrasts drawn by St Paul, 2 Cor. vi. 10; viii. 9. The πένης may be so poor that he earns his bread by daily labour; but the πτωχός 18 so poor that he only obtains his living by begging. There is an evident climax intended by Plato, when he speaks of tyrannies (Rep. x. 618 a), εἰς πενίας τε καὶ φυγὰς καὶ εἰς πτωχείας τελευτώσας. The πένης has nothing superfluous, the πτωχός nothing at all (see Doderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. 111. Ὁ. 117). Tertullian long ago noted the dis- tinction (Adv. Mare. iv. 14), for, dealing with our Lord’s words, μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί (Luke vi. 20), he changes the ‘ Beati pauperes,’ Which still retains its place in the Vulgate, into ‘ Beati mendicz,’ and justifies the change, ‘Sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Greco est;’ and in another place (De Idol. 12) he renders it by ‘egeni.’ The two, πενία (=‘ paupertas,’ cf. Martial, ii. 32: ‘Non est paupertas, Nestor, habere nihil’) and πτωχεία (=‘ egestas’), may be sisters, as one in Aristophanes will have them (Plut. 549) ; but if such, yet the latter far barer of the world’s good than the former ; and indeed Πενία in that passage seems inclined wholly to disallow any such near relationship at all. The words of Aristophanes, in which he discriminates between them, have been often quoted : πτωχοῦ μὲν yap βίος, ὃν σὺ λέγεις, ζῆν ἐστιν μηδὲν ἔχοντα * τοῦ δὲ πένητος, ζῆν φειδόμενον, καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις προσέχοντα, περιγίγνεσθαι δ᾽ αὐτῷ μηδὲν, μὴ μέντοι μηδ᾽ ἐπιλείπειν, §xxxvi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 123 ὃ XXXvil. θυμός, ὀργή, παροργισμός. Θυμός and ὀργή are found several times together in the N. T. (as at Rom. ii. 8; Ephes. iv. 81; Col. iii. 8; Rev. xix. 15); often also in the Septuagint (Ps. Ixxvii. 49; Dan. 111. 13; Mic. v. 15), and often also in other Greek (Plato, Philebus, 47 e; Polybius, vi. 56. 11; Josephus, Antt. xx. 5. 8; Plutarch, De Coh. Ird, 2; Lucian, De Cal. 23); nor are they found only in the connexion of juxtaposi- tion, but one made dependent on the other; thus θυμὸς τῆς ὀργῆς. (Rev. xvi. 19; cf. Job iii. 17; Josh. vii. 26); while ὀργὴ θυμοῦ, not occurring in the N. T., is frequent in the Old 1 hron. xxix, 10 luam. 1, 124 1sai. xxx, 27 > ΤῸ. x1. 9), On one occasion in the Septuagint all the words of this group occur together (Jer. xxi. 5). When these words, after a considerable anterior his- tory, came to settle down on the passion of anger, as the strongest of all passions, impulses, and desires (see Donald- son, New Cratylus, 3rd ed. pp. 675-679; and Thompson, Phedrus of Plato, p. 165), the distinguishing of them occu- pied not a little the grammarians and philologers. These felt, and rightly, that the existence of a multitude of passages in which the two were indifferently used (as Plato, Legg. ix. 867), made nothing against the fact of such a distinction ; for, in seeking to discriminate between them, they assumed nothing more than that these could not be indifferently used on every occasion. The general result at which they arrived is this, that in θυμός, connected with the intransitive θύω, and derived, according to Plato (Crat. 419 e), ἀπὸ τῆς θύσεως καὶ ζέσεως τὴς ψυχῆς, ‘quasi exhalatio vehementior’ (Tittmann), compare the Latin ‘ fumus,’ is more of the turbulent commo- tion, the boiling agitation of the feelings,’ μέθη τῆς ψυχῆς. 1 It is commonly translated ‘furor’ in the Vulgate. Augustine (Enarr. in Ps. \xxxvii. 8) is dissatisfied with the application of this word to God, ‘furor’ being commonly attributed to those out of a sound mind, and proposes ‘indignatio’ in its room. For another distinction, ascrib- 124 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xXxxvil St. Basil calls it, either presently to subside and disappear— like the Latin ‘excandescentia,’ which Cicero defines (Z'usc. iv. 9), ‘ira nascens et modo desistens ’—or else to settle down into ὀργή, wherein is more of an abiding and settled habit of mind (‘ira inveterata’) with the purpose of revenge; ‘cupiditas doloris reponendi’ (Seneca, De Ird, i. 5); ὁρμὴ ψυχῆς, ἐν μελέτῃ κακώσεως κατὰ τοῦ παροξύναντος (Basil, Leg. Brev. Tract. 68);! the German ‘ Zorn,’ ‘der activ sich gegen Jemand oder etwas richtende Unwille, die Opposition des unwillig erregten Gemiithes’ (Cremer). Thus Plato (Huthyph. 7) joins ἐχθρά, and Plutarch δυσμένεια (Pericles, 39), with ὀργή. Compare Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 99 sqq. | This, the more passionate, and at the same time more temporary, character of θυμός (θυμοί, according to Jeremy Taylor, are ‘great but transient angers;’? cf. Luke iv. 28 ; Dan. iii. 19) may explain a distinction of Xenophon, namely that θυμός in a horse is what ὀργὴ is in a man (De Le Hques. ix. 2; cf. Wisd. vii. 20, θυμοὶ θηρίων : Plutarch, Gryll. 4, in fine; and Pyrrh. 16, πνεύματος μεστὸς καὶ θυμοῦ, full of ani- mosity and rage). Thus the Stoics, who dealt much in. definitions and distinctions, defined θυμός as ὀργὴ ἀρχομένη (Diogenes Laértius, vii. 1. 63. 114); and Ammonius: θυμὸς μέν ἐστι πρόσκαιρος " ὀργὴ δὲ πολυχρόνιος μνησικακία. Aristotle, too, in his wonderful comparison of old age and youth, thus characterizes the angers of old men (οί ii. 18): καὶ ot θυμοὶ, ὀξεῖς μέν εἰσιν, ἀσθενεῖς d€—like fire in straw, quickly ing ‘ira’ and ‘furor’ alike to God, see Bernard, Serm. im Cant. 69, § 3; a noticeable passage. 1 In ἀγανάκτησις St. Basil finds the further thought that this eager- ness to punish has the amendment of the offender for its scope. Cer- tainly the one passage in the N. T. where ἀγανάκτησις occurs (2 Cor. vii. 11) does not refuse this meaning. 2 Hampole in his great poem, The Pricke of Conscience, does not agree. In his vigorous, but most unlovely picture of an old man, this js one trait :— ‘He es lyghtly wrath, and waxes fraward, Bot to turne hym fra wrethe, it es hard.’ §xxxvil SVYWONMYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 125 blazing up, and as quickly extinguished (cf. Euripides, Androm. 728, 729). Origen (in Ps. ii. 5, Opp. vol. ii. p. 541) has a discussion on the words, and arrives at the same results: διαφέρει δὲ θυμὸς ὀργῆς, τῷ θυμὸν μὲν εἶναι ὀργὴν ἀναθυμιωμένην καὶ ἔτι ἐκκαιομένην ᾿" ὀργὴν δὲ ὄρεξιν ἀντιτιμωρή- σεως: cf. in Ep. ad Rom. ii. 8, which only exists in the Latin: ‘ut si, verbi gratia, vulnus aliquod pessimum zram ponamus, hujus autem tumor et distentio indignatio vulneris appelletur :’ so too Jerome (in Ephes. iv. 31): ‘ Furor [θυμός] incipiens ira est, et fervescens in animo indignatio. Ira [ὀργή] autem est, que furore extincto desiderat ultionem, et eum quem nocuisse putat vult ledere.’ This agrees with the Stoie definition of ὀργή, that it is τιμωρίας ἐπιθυμία τοῦ δοκοῦν- τος ἠδικηκέναι οὐ προσηκόντως (Diogenes Laértius, vu. 118). So Gregory Nazianzene (Cam. ii. 84. 48, 44) : θυμὺς μέν ἐστιν ἀθρόος ζέσις φρενός, ὀργὴ δὲ θυμὸς ἐμμένων. And so too Theodoret, in Ps. lxviii. 25 (Ixix. 24, E. V.), where the words occur together : διὰ τοῦ θυμοῦ τὸ ταχὺ δεδήλωκε, διὰ δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς τὸ ἐπίμονον. Josephus in like manner (8. J. ii. 8. 6) describes the Essenes as ὀργῆς ταμίαι δίκαιοι, θυμοῦ καθεκτικοί. So, too, Dion Cassius notes as one of the characteristic traits of Tiberius, ὠργίζετο ἐν οἷς ἥκιστα ἐθυμοῦτο (Vita 1 ι0.). Μῆνις (Isai. xvi. 6; Hcclus. XXvili. 5; ‘ira perdurans,’ Damm’s Lex. Hom.) and κότος, being successively ‘ira in- veterata’ and ‘ira inveteratissima’ (John of Damascus, De Fid. Orthod. 11. 16), nowhere occur in the N. Ἴ: Παροργισμός, ἃ word not found in classical Greek, but several times in the Septuagint (as at 1 Kin. xv. 80; 2 Kin. xix. 8), is not = ὀργή, though we have translated it ‘ wrath.’ This it cannot be; for the παροργισμός (Kphes. iv. 26, where only in the N. T. the word occurs; but παροργίζειν, Rom. x. 19: Ephes. vi. 4) is absolutely forbidden ; the sun shall not go down upon it; whereas under certain conditions ὀργή is a righteous passion to entertain. The Scripture has nothing in common with the Stoics’ absolute condemnation of anger. 126 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xxxvii It inculeates no ἀπάθεια, but only a μετριοπάθεια, a moderation, not an absolute suppression, of the passions, which were given to man as winds to fill the sails of his soul, as Plutarch excellently puts it (De Virt. Mor. 12). It takes no such love- less view of other men’s sins as his who said, σεαυτὸν μὴ τάρασσε" ἁμαρτάνει τις ; ἑαυτῷ ἁμαρτάνει (Marcus Antoninus, iv. 46). But even as Aristotle, in agreement with all deeper ethical writers of antiquity (thus see Plato, Legg. v. 731 ὃ ; θυμοειδῆ μὲν χρή πάντα ἄνδρα εἶναι, x. τ. A.; Thompson’s Phedrus of Plato, p. 166; and Cicero, 780. Quest. iv. 19), had affirmed (Hth. Nic. iv. 5. 3) that, when guided by reason, anger is a right affection, so the Scripture permits, and not only permits, but on fit occasions demands, it. This all the profounder teachers of the Church have allowed; thus Gregory of Nyssa: ἀγαθὸν κτῆνός ἐστιν ὃ θυμὸς, ὅταν τοῦ λογισ- μοῦ ὑποζύγιον γένηται : and Augustine (De Civ. Det, ix. 5): ‘In discipliné nostra non tam queritur wirwm pius animus irascatur, sed quare irascatur.’ There is a ‘wrath of God’ (Mat. πὶ. 7; Rom. xii. 19, and often), who would not love good, unless He hated evil, the two being so inseparable, that either He must do both or neither; !a wrath also of the merciful Son of Man (Mark ii. 5); and a wrath which righteous men not merely may, but, as they are righteous, must feel ; nor can there be a surer and sadder token of an utterly prostrate moral condition than the not being able to be angry with sin—and sinners. ‘ Anger,’ says Fuller (Holy State, iii. 8), ‘is one of the sinews of the soul; he that wants it hath a maimed mind, and with Jacob sinew-shrunk in the hollow of his thigh, must needs halt. Nor is it good to con- verse with such as cannot be angry.’ ‘The affections,’ as another English divine has said, ‘are not, like poisonous plants, to be eradicated ; but as wild, to be cultivated.’ St. 1 See on this anger of God, as the necessary complement of his love, the excellent words of Lactantius (De Ird Dei, c. 4): ‘Nam si Deus non irascitur impiis et injustis, nec pios utique justosque diligit. In rebus enim diversis aut in utramque partem moveri necesse est, aut in nullam, §xxxvil SYWVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 127 Paul is not therefore, as so many understand him, condescend- ing here to human infirmity, and saying, ‘ Your anger shall not be imputed to you as a sin, if you put it away before nightfall’ (see Suicer, T'hes. 5. v. ὀργή); but rather, ‘ Be ye angry, yet in this anger of yours sufter no sinful element to mingle ; there is that which may cleave even to a righteous . anger, the παροργισμός, the irritation, the exasperation, the embitterment (‘exacerbatio’), which must be dismissed at once ; that so, being defeated of this impurer element which mingled with it, that only may remain which has a right to remain.’ § XXXvill. ἔλαιον, μύρον (xpi, ἀλείφω). Some have denied that the O. T. knows of any distinction between ‘oil’ and ‘ointment;’ and this on the very in- sufficient grounds that the Septuagint renders }2W some- times by μύρον (Prov. xxvii. 9; Cant. i.3; Isai. xxxix. 2; Am. vi. 6); though more frequently, indeed times out of number, by ἔλαιον. But how often in a single word of one language are latent two of another; especially when that other abounds, as does Greek compared with Hebrew, in finer distinctions, in a more subtle notation of meanings ; παροιμία and παραβολή furnish a well-known example of this, both lying in the Hebrew Syn ; and this duplicity of meaning it is the part of a well-skilled translator to evoke. Nay the thing itself, the μύρον (=‘ unguentum’), so naturally grew out of the ἔλαιον (=‘oleum’), having oil for its base, with only the addition of spice or scent or other aromatic ingredients,—Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. ii. 8) calls it ‘adulterated oil’ (δεδολωμένον Ixxxv. 5: ὅτι σύ, Κύριε, χρηστὸς καὶ ἐπιεικὴς καὶ πολυέλεος : cf. Clement of Rome, Cor. 29: ἐπιεικὴς καὶ εὔσπλαγχνος Πατήρ: Plutarch, Coriol. 24; Peric. 89; Ces. 57); all his keeping in mind whereof we are made, and measuring his dealings with us thereby ; all of these we may contemplate as ἐπιείκεια upon — his part ; even as they demand in return the same, one to- ward another, upon ours. Peter, when himself restored, must strengthen his brethren (Luke xxii. 82). The greatly forgiven servant in the parable (Matt. xviii. 28), having known the ἐπιείκεια Of his lord and king, is justly expected to show the same to his fellow servant. The word is often joined with φιλανθρωπία (Polybius, v.10. 1; Philo, De Vit. Mos.i. 86; 2 Mace. ix. 27); with ἡμερότης (Philo, De Car. 18; Plutarch, De Vit. Pud. 2); with μακροθυμία (Clement of Rome, Cor. 18); with ἀνεξικακία (Wisd. ii. 19); often too with πραότης : thus, besides the passage in the N: T. (2 Cor. x. 1), by Plutarch (Peric. 89; Cas. 57; cf. Pyrrh. 28; De Prof. Virt. 9). It will be called ἀνανδρία by as many as seek to degrade a virtue through the calling it the name of the vice which is indeed only its caricature (Aristides, De Concord. i. p. 529). The distinction between πραότης and ἐπιείκεια Estius (on 2 Cor. x. 1) sets forth in part, although incompletely: ‘ Mansuetudo [πραότης] magis ad animum, ἐπιείκεια vero magis ad exteriorem conversationem pertinet;’ compare Bengel : « πραότης virtus magis absoluta, ἐπιείκεια magis refertur ad alios.’ Aquinas too has a fine and subtle discussion on the relations of likeness and difference between the graces which these words severally denote (Summ. Theol. 25 3%, qu..157: ‘Utrum Clementia et Mansuetudo sint penitus idem.’ Among ὁ Χμ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 147 other marks of difference he especially presses these two: the first that in ‘ clementia’ ΞΞ ἐπιείκεια) there is always the condescension of a superior to an inferior, while in ‘mansuetudo’ (πραότης) nothing of the kind is necessarily implied: ‘Clementia est lenitas superioris adversus ἴῃς feriorem : mansuetudo non solum est superioris ad inferiorem, sed cujuslibet ad quemlibet ;’ and the second, that which has been already urged, that the one grace is more passive, the other more active, or atleast that the seat of the mpadorys is in the inner spirit, while the ἐπιείκεια must needs embody itself in outward acts: ‘ Differunt ab invicem in quantum clementia est moderativa exterioris punitionis, mansuetudo proprie diminuit passionem ire.’ It is instructive to note how little of one mind our various Translators from Wiclif downward have been as to the words which should best reproduce ἐπιείκεια and ἐπιεικής for the English reader. The occasions on which ἐπιείκεια occur are two, or reckoning τὸ ἐπιεικές as an equivalent substantive, are three (Acts xxiv. 4; 2 Cor. x. 1; Phil. iv. 5). It has been rendered in all these ways: ‘ meekness,’ ‘ courtesy,’ ‘clemency,’ ‘softness,’ ‘modesty,’ ’ gentleness,’ ‘ patience,’ ‘patient mind,’ ‘moderation.’ Ἐπιεικής, not counting the one occasion already named, occurs four times Cintas 3 1 ill 23 Jam: ii, 17> 1. Pet, ii. 18), and appears in the several Versions of our Hexapla as ‘temperate,’ ‘soft,’ ‘gentle,’ ‘modest,’ ‘ patient,’ ‘ mild,’ ‘courteous.’ ‘Gentle’ and ‘ gentleness,’ on the whole, commend themselves as the best ; but the fact remains, which also in a great measure excuses so much vacillation here, namely, that we have no words in English which are full equivalents of the Greek. The sense of equity and fairness which is in them so strong is more or less wanting in all which we offer in exchange. L 2 148 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xuiv § xliv. κλέπτης, λῃστής. THESE words occur together John x. 1, 8; but do not con- stitute there! or elsewhere a tautology, or mere rhetorical amplification (cf. Obad. 5; Plato, Rep. i. 851 c). The κλέπτης and the λῃστής alike appropriate what is not theirs, but the κλέπτης by fraud and in secret (Matt. xxiv. 43; John xii. 6; ef. Exod. xxii. 2; Jer. 11. 26); the λῃστής by violence and openly (2 Cor. xi. 26 ; cf. Hos. vii. 1; Jer. vii. 11; Plutarch, De Superst. 8: οὐ φοβεῖται λῃστὰς 6 οἰκουρῶν) ; the one is the ‘thief’ and steals; the other is the ‘robber’ and plunders, as his name, from ληΐς or λεία (as our own ‘robber,’ from ‘Raub,’ booty), sufficiently declares. They are severally the ‘fur’ and ‘latro;’ ‘fures insidiantur et occulta fraude decipiunt ; datrones audacter aliena diripiunt’ (Jerome, In Osee, vii. 1). ‘Larron,’ however, in French, ‘voleur qui dérobe furtivement et par adresse,’ notwithstanding its con- nexion with ‘latro,’ has slipt into the meaning of ‘fur.’ Wiclif, who renders the words, ‘ night-thief’ and ‘ day-thief,’ has not very happily distinguished them. Our Translators have always rendered κλέπτης by ‘ thief ;’ they ought with a like consistency to have rendered λῃστής by ‘robber;’ but it also they have oftener rendered ‘ thief,’ effacing thus the distinction between the two. We cannot charge them with that carelessness here, of which those would be guilty who should now do the same. Passages out of number in our Elizabethan literature attest that in their day ‘thief’ and ‘robber’ had not those distinct meanings which they since have acquired. Thus Falstaff and his company, who with open violence rob the king’s treasure on the king’s highway, are ‘thieves’ throughout Shakspeare’s Henry IV. Still one must regret that on several occasions in our Version we do not find ‘robbers’ rather than ‘thieves.’ Thus at Matt. xxi. 18 we read: ‘“ My house shall be called the house 1 Grotius: ‘Fur [κλέπτης] quia venit ut rapiat alienum; Jairo [λῃστής] quia ut occidat, ver. 10.’ §xLtiv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 149 of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves;’’ but it is ‘robbers,’ and not ‘ thieves’ that have dens or caves; and it is rightly “den of robbers ” at Jer. vii. 11, whence this quota- tion is drawn. Again, Matt. xxvi. 55: ‘“ Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take Μ᾽"; but it would be against some bold and violent robber that a party armed with swords and clubs would issue forth, not against a lurking thief. The poor traveller in the parable (Luke x. 80) fell, not among ‘ thieves,’ but among ‘ robbers ; ’ violent and bloody men, as their treatment of him plainly declared. a No passage has suffered so seriously from this confounding of ‘thief’ and ‘robber’ as Luke xxiii. 39-48, taken with Matt. xxvii. 38 and Mark xv. 27. The whole anterior moral condition of him whom we call ‘the penitent thief’ is ob- scured for many by the associations which almost inevitably cling to his name. The two malefactors crucified with Jesus, the one obdurate, the other penitent, in all likelihood had belonged both to the band of Barabbas, who for murder and insurrection had been cast with his fellow insurgents into prison (Mark xv. 7). He too was himself a λῃστής (John xviii. 40), and yet no common malefactor, on the contrary ‘a notable prisoner’ (δέσμιος ἐπίσημος, Matt. xxvii. 16). Now considering the fierce enthusiasm of the Jewish populace on his behalf, and combining this with the fact that he was in prison for an unsuccessful insurrection ; keeping in mind too the moral estate of the Jews at this period, with false Christs, false deliverers, every day starting up, we can hardly doubt that Barabbas was one of those wild and stormy zealots, who were evermore raising anew the standard of resistance against the Roman domination ; flattering and feeding the insane hopes of their countrymen, that they should yet break the Roman yoke from off their necks. These men, when hard pressed, would betake themselves to the mountains, and from thence wage a petty war against their oppressors, living by plunder,—if possible, by that of their enemies, if not, by that of any within reach. The history of Dolcino’s ‘ Apostolicals,’ 1530 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ἔχιν as that of the Camisards in the Cevennes, illustrates only too well the downward progress by which such would not merely presently obtain, but deserve, the name of ‘robbers.’ By the Romans they would be called and dealt with as such (see Josephus, Antt. xx. 8. 6, in fine) ; just as in the great French Revolution the Vendean royalists were styled ‘the brigands of the Loire;’ nay, in that great perversion of all moral sentiment which would mark such a period as this was, the name of robber, like ‘klept’ among the modern Greeks, would probably have ceased to be dishonorable, would not have been refused by themselves. And yet of stamp and character how different would many of these men, these maintainers of a last protest against a foreign domination, probably be from the mean and cowardly purloiner, whom we call the ‘thief The bands of these λῃσταί, numbering in their ranks some of the worst, would probably include also some that were originally among the noblest, spirits of the nation—even though these had miserably mistaken the task which their time demanded, and had sought by the wrath of man to work out the righteousness of God. Such a one we may well imagine this penitent λῃστής to have been. Should there be any truth in this view of his former condition,—and certainly it would go far to explain his sudden conversion,—it is altogether obscured by the name ‘thief’ which we have given him ; nor can it under any cir- cumstances be doubtful that he would be more fitly called ‘the penitent robber.’ See my Studies in the Gospels, 4th edit. pp. 802 sqq.; Dean Stanley, The Jewish Church, vol. 111. p. 466. § xlv. πλύνω, νίπτω, ovo. THERE is a certain poverty in English, which has one only word, ‘to wash,’ with which to render these three Greek ; seeing that the three have each a propriety of its own, and one which the inspired writers always observe. Thus πλύνειν is always to wash inanimate things, as distinguished from living objects or persons ; oftenest garments (εἵματα, Homer, Il, xxii. Sxtv- SVVONVMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. τοὶ 155; ἱμάτιον, Plato, Charm. 161 e; and in the Septuagint ᾿ continually ; so στολάς, Rev. vii. 14); but not exclusively garments, as some affirm, for see Luke v. 2, where it ex- presses the washing or cleansing of nets (δίκτυα : cf. Polybius ix. 6, 8). When David exclaims Πλῦνόν pe ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνομίας Ps. 1. 8 [li. 2, A. V.]), this is no exception to the rule; for- the mention of hyssop, which follows, shows plainly that the royal penitent had the ceremonial aspersions of the Le- vitical law primarily in his eye, aspersions therefore upon the garments of the unclean person (Lev. xiv. 9; Num. xix. 6, 7); however he may have looked through these to another and better sprinkling beyond.! Nirrew and λούειν, on the other hand, express the washing of living persons; although with this difference, that νίπτειν (which displaced in the later period of the language the Attic view), and νίψασθαι, almost always express the washing of a part of the body—the hands (Mark vii. 8; Exod. xxx. 19), the feet (John xiii. 5; Plutarch, Thes. 10), the face (Matt. vi. 17), the eyes (John ix. 7), the back and shoulders (Homer, Od. vi. 224); while λούειν, which is not so much ‘ to wash’ as ‘to bathe,’ and λουέσθαι, ‘to bathe oneself,’ implies always, not the washing of a part of the body, but of the whole (thus λελουμένοι τὸ σῶμα, Heb. x. 22; ef. Exod. xxix. 4; Acts ix. 87; 2 Pet. ii. 22; Rev. i. 5; Plato, Phedo, 115 a). This limitation of νίπτειν to persons as contradistinguished from things, which is always observed in the N. T., is not without exceptions, although they are very unfrequent elsewhere ; thus, δέπας (Homer, Il. xvi. 229); τραπέζας (Od. 1. 112) ; σκεῦος (Lev. xv. 12). A single verse in the Septuagint (Lev. xv. 11) gives us all the three words, and all used in their exact propriety of meaning: καὶ ὅσων ἐὰν ἅψηται ὃ yovoppuys, καὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ οὐ νένιπται ὕδατι, πλυν εἴ τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ λούσεται τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι. The passage where it is most important to mark the dis- tinction between νίπτειν, to wash a part, and λούειν or λουέσθαι, [) Ezek. xvi. 9, however, should perhaps be quoted as an exception, where ἔπλυνα is used of the person of a new-born infant.] 152 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § χιν to wash the whole, of the body, and where certainly our English Version loses something in clearness from the absence of words which should note the passing from one word to the other in the original, is John xiii. 10: “ He that is washed [ὃ λελουμένος] needeth not save to wash [νίψασθαι] his feet, but is clean every whit.’’! The foot-washing was a symbolic act. St. Peter had not understood this at the first, and, not understanding, had exclaimed, ‘Thou shalt never wash my ἰδοὺ. But so soon as ever the true meaning of what his Lord was doing flashed upon him, he who had before refused to suffer his Lord to wash even his feet, now prayed to be washed altogether : ‘Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.’ Christ replies, that it needed not this: Peter had been already made partaker of the great washing, of that forgiveness which included the whole man: he was λελουμένος, and this great absolving, cleansing act did not need to be repeated, was indeed incapable of repetition : ‘Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you’ (John xy. 8). But while it fared thus with him in respect of the all-inclusive forgiveness, he did need to wash his feet (νίψασθαι τοὺς πόδας), evermore to cleanse himself, which could only be through suffering his Lord to cleanse him, from the defilements which even he, a justified and in part also a sanctified man, should gather as he moved through a sinful world. One might almost suppose, as it has been suggested, that there was allusion here to the Levitical ordinance, according to which Aaron and his successors in the priesthood were to be washed once for all from head to foot at their consecration to their office (Exod. xxix, 4; xl. 12); but were to wash their hands and thezr feet in the brazen laver as often as they afterwards ministered before the Lord (Exod. xxx. 19, 21; xl. 31). Yet this would commend itself more, if we did not find hands and feet in the same category there, 1 The Latin labours under the same defect; thus in the Vulgate it stands: ‘Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet.’ De Wette has sought to preserve the variation of word: ‘ Wer gebadet ist, der braucht sich nicht als an den Fiissen zu waschen.’ §xLvI SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 153 while here they are not merely disjoined, but set over against one another (John xiii. 9, 10). This much however to me is plain, that the whole mystery of our justification, which is once for all, reaching to every need, embracing our whole being, and of our sanctification. which must daily go forward, is wrapped up in the antithesis between the two words. This Augustine has expressed clearly and well (In Ev. Joh. xiii. 10): ‘Homo in sancto quidem baptismo totus ablwitur, non preter pedes, sed totus omnino: veruntamen cum in rebus humanis postea vivitur, utique terra calcatur. Ipsi igitur humani affectus, sine quibus in hac mortalitate non vivitur, quasi pedes sunt, ubi ex humanis rebus afficimur. Quotidie ergo pedes lavat nobis, qui interpellat pro nobis: et quotidie nos opus habere ut pedes lavemus in ipsé Oratione Dominica confitemur, cum dicimus, Dimitte nobis debita nostra.’ ὃ xlvi. φῶς, φέγγος, φωστήρ, λύχνος, λαμπάς. Au these words are rendered, some occasionally, some always, in our Version, by ‘light’; thus, φῶς at Matt. iv. 16 ; Rom. xiii. 12, and often; φέγγος at Matt. xxiv. 29; Mark xii. 24; Luke xi. 33 (it does not occur again); dworyp at Phil. ii. 15; Rev. xxi. 11 (where only it occurs); λύχνος at Matt. vi. 22; John v.35; 2 Pet. 1. 19, and elsewhere ; though this often by ‘candle’ (Matt. v. 15; Rev. xxii. 5); and λαμπὰς at Acts xx. 8, though elsewhere rendered ‘lamp’ (Matt. xxv. 1; Rev. viii. 10), and ‘torch’ (John xviii. 8). The old grammarians distinguish between φῶς and φέγγος (which are but different forms of one and the same word), that φῶς is the light of the sun or of the day, φέγγος the light or lustre of the moon. The Attic writers, to whom this dis- tinction must belong, if to any, themselves only imperfectly observe it. Thus, in Sophocles φέγγος is three or four times ascribed to the sun (Antig. 800; Ajax, 654, 840; Trachin. 597); while in Plato we meet φ ὦ ς σελήνης (Rep. vii. 516 b; ef. Isai. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7). This much right the grammarians have, that φέγγος is oftenest the light of the 1534 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ΚΥΝῚ moon or other luminaries of the night, φῶς that of the sun or of the day ; thus Plato (Rep. vi. 508 c) sets over against one another ἡμερινὸν φῶς and νυκτερινὰ φέγγη. This, like so many other finer distinctions of the Greek language, is so far observed in the N. T., that the light of the moon, on the only occasions that it is mentioned, is φέγγος (Matt. xxiv. 29; Mark xiii. 24; cf. Joel ii. 10; iii. 15), as φῶς is that of the sun (Rev. xxii. 5). It will follow that φῶς, rather than φέγγος, is the true antithesis to σκότος (Plato, Rep. vil. 518 a; Matt. vi. 283; 1 Pet. ii. 9); and generally that the former will be the more absolute designation of light; thus Hab. 11]. 4: καὶ φέγγος αὐτοῦ [rod Θεοῦ] ὡς φῶς ἔσται : compare HKuripides, Helen. 5380: φησὶ δ᾽ ἐν φάει πόσιν τὸν ἀμὸν ζῶντα φέγγος εἰσορᾶν. See Déderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. ii. p. 69. Φωστήρ is rendered ‘light’ in our Version; thus, at Phil. ii. 15: “ Among whom ye shine as lights in the world”’ (ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ). It would be difficult to improve on this, which yet fails to mark with entire precision what St. Paulintends. The φωστῆρες here are the heavenly bodies, ‘luminaria’ (Vulg.), ‘Himmelslichter’ (De Wette), and mainly the sun and moon, the ‘lights,’ or ‘ great lights’ (= ‘luces,’ Cicero, poet.), of which Moses speaks, Gen.i. 14, 16; where nj Nd is rendered φωστῆρες in the Septuagint. Compare Ecclus. xliii. 7, where the moon is φωστήρ: and Wisd. xiii. 2, where φωστῆρες οὐρανοῦ is exactly equivalent to φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ here, the κόσμος of this place being the material world, the στερέωμα or firmament, not the ethical world, which has been already designated by the γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη. Nor would it be easy to improve on our version of Rev. xxi. 11: ‘ Her light [ὃ φωστὴρ αὐτῆς] was like unto a stone most precious.’ Our Translators did well in going back to this, Wiclif’s rendering, and in displacing ‘ her shining,’ which had been admitted into the intermediate Versions, and which must have conveyed a wrong impression to the English reader. Not that the present rendering is altogether satis- factory, being itself not wholly unambiguous. Some may still be tempted to understand ‘ her light’ as the light which ξ ΧΙΝῚ SYVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τες the Heavenly City diffused; when, indeed, φωστήρ means, that which diffused light to the Heavenly City, her luminary or light-giver ; ‘lumen ejus,’ as in the Vulgate. What this light-giver was, we learn from ver. 23: “the Lamb is the light thereof;” 6 λύχνος αὐτῆς there being =6 φωστὴρ αὐτῆς - here. In rendering λύχνος and λαμπάς our Translators have scarcely made the most of the words at their command. Had they rendered λαμπάς by ‘torch, not once only (John xviii. 3), but always, this would have left ‘lamp,’ now wrongly appropriated by λαμπάς, disengaged. Altogether dismissing ‘candle,’ they might then have rendered λύχνος by ‘lamp’ wherever it occurs. At present there are so many occasions where ‘ candle ’ would manifestly be inappropriate, and where, therefore, they are obliged to fall back on ‘light,’ that the distinction between φῶς and λύχνος nearly, if not quite, dis- appears in our Version. The advantages of such a re-distribution of the words would be many. In the first place, it would be more accurate. Λύχνος is not a ‘candle’ (‘ candela,’ from ‘candeo,’ the white wax light, and then any kind of taper), but a hand-lamp, fed with oil. Neither is λαμπάς a ‘lamp,’ but a ‘torch,’ and this not only in the Attic, but in the later Hellenistic Greek as well (Polybius, 111. 98. 4; Herodian, iv. 2; Plutarch, Z%mol. 8; Alex. 88; Judg. vii. 16; xv. 4); and so, I believe, always in the N. T. In proof that at Rev. viii. 10, λαμπάς should be translated ‘torch’ (‘ Fackel,’ De Wette), see Aristotle, De Mund. 4. Our early translators, who rendered it ‘brand’ or ‘firebrand’ (John xviii. 3), showed that they understood the force of the word. It may be urged that in the parable of the Ten Virgins the λαμπάδες are nourished with oil, and must needs therefore be lamps. But this does not follow. In the Kast the torch, as well as the lamp, is fed in this manner: ‘The true Hindu way of lighting up is by torches held by men, who feed the flame with oil from a sort of bottle [the ἀγγεῖον of Matt. xxv. 4], constructed for the purpose’ (Elphin- stone, Hist. of India, vol. i. p. 333). 156 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xtvu More passages than one would gain in perspicuity by such a re-arrangement; and mainly through the clear distinction between φῶς and λύχνος, which would then be apparent. One of these is John v. 35: ‘He was a burning and a shining light,’—so our Translation; but in the original, ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὃ λύχνος 6 καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων ; or, as the Vulgate has it: ‘Tile erat lucerna ardens et lucens;’ not obliterating, as we have done, the whole antithesis between Christ, the φῶς ἀληθινόν (John 1. 9), φῶς ἐκ φωτός, that Kternal Light, which, as it was never kindled, so shall never be quenched, and the Baptist, a lamp kindled by the hands of Another, in whose brightness men might for a season rejoice, and which must then be extinguished again. In the use of Avxvos here and at 2 Pet. i. 19, tacitly contrasted here with φῶς, and there avowedly with dwoddpos, the same opposition is intended, only now transferred to the highest sphere of the spiritual world, which our poet had in his mind when he wrote those glorious lines: ‘Night’s candles are burnt out, and jocund Day Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain-tops.’ § xlvli. χάρις, ἔλεος THERE has often been occasion to observe the manner in which Greek words taken up into Christian use are glorified and transformed, seeming to have waited for this adoption of them, to come to their full rights, and to reveal all the depth and the riches of meaning which they contained, or might be made to contain. Xdpis is one of these. It is hardly too much to say that the Greek mind has in no word uttered itself and all that was at its heart more distinctly than in this ; so that it will abundantly repay our pains to trace briefly the steps by which it came to its highest honours. Χάρις, con- nected with χαίρειν, is first of all that property in a thing which causes it to give joy to the hearers or beholders of it, as Plutarch (Plil. cum Princ. 3) has rightly explained it, χαρᾶς yap οὐδὲν οὕτως γονιμόν ἐστιν ὡς χάρις (cf. Pott. Htym. §xtvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 157 Forsch. vol. ii. part 1, p. 217); and then, seeing that to a Greek there was nothing so joy-inspiring as grace or beauty, it implied the presence of this, the German ‘ Anmuth’; thus Homer, Od. ii. 12; vi. 287; Euripides, Troad. 1108, παρθένων χάριτες ; Lucian, Zeux. 2, χάρις ᾿Αττική. It has often this use in the Septuagint (Ps. xliv. 3; Prov. x. 82), the Hebrew jn being commonly rendered by it ; yet not invariably ; being translated by ἀρέσκεια (Prov. xxxi. 30); by ἔλεος (Gen. xix. 19); by ἐπίχαρις (Nah. ili. 4). Χάρις has the same use in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. xxiv. 16; xl. 22, χάρις καὶ κάλλος) : nor is this altogether strange to the N. T.; thus see Luke iv. 22, and perhaps Ephes. iv. 29. But χάρις after a while came to signify not necessarily the grace or beauty of a thing, as a quality appertaining to it; but the gracious or beautiful thing, act, thought, speech, or person it might be, itself—the grace embodying and uttering itself, where there was room or call for this, in gracious out- comings toward such as might be its objects; not any longer ‘favour’ in the sense of beauty, but ‘the favour’; for our word here a little helps us to trace the history of the Greek. So continually in classical Greek we have χάριν ἀπαιτεῖν, λαμβάνειν, δοῦναι : so in the Septuagint (Esth. vi. 3); and so also χάρις as a merely human grace and favour in the N. T. (thus Acts ii. 47; xxv. 8; 2Cor. viii.19). There is a further sense which the word obtained, namely the thankfulness which the favour calls outin return; this also frequent in the N. T. (Luke xvii. 9; Rom. vi. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 16); though with it, as we are only treating the word in its relations to ἔλεος, we have nothing to do. It is at that earlier point which we have just been fixing that χάρις waited for and ob- tained its highest consecration ; not indeed to have its mean- ing changed, but to have that meaning ennobled, glorified, lifted up from the setting forth of an earthly to the setting forth of a heavenly benefit, from signifying the favour and grace and goodness of man to man, to setting forth the favour, grace and goodness of God to man, and thus, of necessity, of the worthy to the unworthy, of the holy to the sinful, being 158 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xtvu now not merely the German ‘ Gunst’ or ‘ Huld,’ to which the word had corresponded hitherto, but ‘Gnade’ as well. Such was ἃ meaning to which it had never raised itself before, and this not even in the Greek Scriptures of the elder Covenant ; for the Hebrew word which most nearly approaches in mean- ing to the χάρις of the N. T., namely 79n, is not translated by χάρις, One occasion only excepted (Esth. ii. 9), but usually by ἔλεος (Gen. xxiv. 12; Job vi. 14; Dan. i. 9; and often). Already, it is true, if not there, yet in another quarter there were preparations for this glorification of meaning to which χάρις was destined. These lay in the fact that already in the ethical terminology of the Greek schools χάρις implied ever a favour freely done, without claim or expectation of return—the word being thus predisposed to receive its new emphasis, its religious, I may say its dogmatic, significance ; to set forth the entire and absolute freeness of the loving- kindness of God to men. Thus Aristotle, defining χάρις, lays the whole stress on this very point, that it is conferred freely, with no expectation of return, and finding its only motive in the bounty and free-heartedness of the giver (Rhet. ii. 7): ἔστω δὴ χάρις, καθ᾽ ἣν 6 ἔχων λέγεται χάριν ὑπουργεῖν τῷ δεομένῳ, μὴ ἀντὶ τινὸς, μηδ᾽ ἵνα τι αὐτῷ τῷ ὑπουργοῦντι, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἐκείνῳ τι. Agreeing with this we have χάρις καὶ δωρεά, Poly- bius, i. 81. 6 (cf. Rom. 111. 24, δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι; ν. 15,17; xii. 8, 6; xv. 15; Ephes. ii. 8; iv. 7); so too χάρις joined with εὔνοια (Plato, Legg. xi. 981 a; Plutarch, Quom. Adul. ab Amic. 84) ; with φιλία (Lyc. 4); with πραότης (Adv. Colot.2) ; opposed to μισθός (Lyc. 15); and compare Rom. xi. 6, where St. Paul sets χάρις and ἔργα over against one another in directest antithesis, showing that they mutually exclude one another, it being of the essence of whatever is owed to χάρις that it is unearned and unmerited,—as Augustine urges so often, ‘ gratia, nisi gratis sit, non est gratia;’—or indeed demerited, as the faithful man will most freely acknowledge. But while χάρις has thus reference to the sims of men, and is that glorious attribute of God which these sins call out and display, his free gift in their forgiveness, ἔλεος has special and § xLvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 159 immediate regard to the misery which is the consequence of these sins, being the tender sense of this misery displaying itself in the effort, which only the continued perverseness of man can hinder or defeat, to assuage and entirely remove it ; so Bengel well: ‘ Gratia tollit culpam, misericordia miseriam.’ - But here, as in other cases, it may be worth our while to con- sider the anterior uses of this word, before it was assumed into this its highest use as the mercy of Him, whose mercy is over all his works. Of ἔλεος we have this definition in Aristotle (het. il. 8): ἔστω δὴ ἔλεος, λύπη Tis ἐπὶ φαινομένῳ κακῷ φθαρτικῷ καὶ λυπηρῷ, τοῦ ἀναξίου τυγχάνειν, ὃ κἂν αὐτὸς προσδοκήσειεν ἂν παθεῖν, ἢ τῶν αὐτοῦ τινα. It will be at once perceived that much will have here to be modified, and something removed, when we come to speak of the ἔλεος of God. Grief does not and cannot touch Him, in whose pre- sence is fulness of joy ; He does not demand wnworthy suffer- ing (λύπη ὡς ἐπὶ ἀναξίως κακοπαθοῦντι, which is the Stoic defi- nition of ἔλεος, Diogenes Laértius, vil. 1. 638),! to move Him, seeing that absolutely unworthy suffering there is none - in a world of sinners; neither can He, who is lifted up above all chance and change, contemplate, in beholding misery, the possibility of being Himself involved in the same. It is nothing wonderful that the Manichzeans and others who desired a God as unlike man as possible, cried out against the attribution of ἔλεος to Him, and found here a weapon of their warfare against that Old Testament, whose God was not ashamed to proclaim Himself a God of pity and compassion (Ps. Ixxvili. 88; Ixxxvi. 15; andoften). They were favoured here in the Latin by the word ‘ misericordia,’ and did not fail to appeal to its etymology, and to demand whether the ‘miserum cor’ could find place in Him; compare Virgil, Georg. ii. 498, 499. Seneca too they had here for a fore- runner, who observes in respect of this ‘ vitium pusilli animi,’ as he calls it (De Clemen. ii. 6), ‘ Misericordia vicina est 1 So Cicero (Tusc. iv. 8. 18): ‘ Misericordia est egritudo ex miserid alterius injurid laborantis. Nemo enim parricide aut proditoris sup- plicio misericordiaé commovetur.’ 160 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ xiv miseries; habet enim aliquid trahitque ex ed.’ Augustine answered rightly that thisand all other words used to express human affections did require certain modifications, a clearing away from them of the infirmities of human passions, before they could be ascribed to the most High ; but that such for all this were only their accidents, the essentials remaining unchanged. Thus De Div. Quest. ii. 2: ‘Item de miseri- cordid, si auferas compassionem cum eo, quem miseraris, par- ticipate miserize, wt remaneat tranquilla bonitas subveniendi et a miserid liberandi, insinuatur divine misericordie qualis- cunque cognitio:’ cf. De Cw. Dei, ix. 5; Anselm, Pros- logiwm, 8; and Suicer, Thes.s.v. In man’s pity there will always be an element of grief, so that by John of Damascus ἔλεος is enumerated as one of the four forms of λύπη, the other three being ἄχος, ἄχθος, and φθόνος (De Fid. Orthod. ii. 14) ; but not so in God’s. We may say then that the χάρις of God, his free grace and gift, displayed in the forgiveness of sins, is extended to men, as they are gwilty, his ἔλεος, as they are miserable. The lower creation may be, and is, the object of God’s ἔλεος, inasmuch as the burden of man’s curse has redounded also upon it (Job xxxviil. 41; Ps. cxlvii.9; Jon. iv. 11; Rom. viii. 20-23), but of his χάρις man alone ; he only needs, he only is capable of receiving it. In the Divine mind, and in the order of our salvation as conceived therein, the ἔλεος precedes the χάρις. God so loved the world with a pitying love (herein was the ἔλεος), that He gave his only begotten Son (herein the χάρις), that the world through Him might be saved (cf. Ephes. 11. 4; Luke i. 78, 79). But in the order of the manifestation of God’s purposes of salva- tion the grace must go before the mercy, the χάρις must go before and make way for the ἔλεος. It is true that the same persons are the subjects of both, being at once the guilty and the miserable ; yet the righteousness of God, which it is quite as necessary should be maintained as his love, demands that the guilt should be done away, before the misery can be assuaged ; only the forgiven may be blessed. He must pardon, before He can heal; men must be justified before they can be §xtvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 161 sanctified. And as the righteousness of God absolutely and in itself requires this, so no less that righteousness as it has expressed itself in the moral constitution of man, linking as it there has done misery with guilt, and making the first the in- separable companion of the second. From this it follows that in each of the apostolic salutations where these words occur, xépis precedes ἔλεος (1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2; Tit. i. 4; 2 John 3; Zech. xii. 10; ef. Wisd. iii. 9); nor could this order have been reversed. Χάρις on the same grounds in the more usual Pauline salutations precedes εἰρήνη (1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. i. 2; and often). On the distinction between the words of this δ, see some excellent words in Delitzsch, An die Ebrier, p. 163. § xlvili. θεοσεβής, εὐσεβής, εὐλαβής, θρῆσκος, δεισιδαίμων. Θεοσεβής, an epithet three times applied to Job. i. 1, 8; ii. 8), occurs only once in the N. T. (John ix. 31) ; and θεοσέβεια no oftener (1 Tim. ii. 10; Gen. xx. 11; ef. Job xxviii. 28). Εὐσεβής, rare in the Septuagint (Isai. xxiv. 16; xxvi. 7; xxxil. 8), but common in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. xi. 22; xii. 2, 4), with the words dependent on it, is of more frequent occurrence (1 Tim. 11. 2; Acts x. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 9, and often). Before we proceed to consider the relation of these to the other words in this group, a subordinate distinction between themselves may fitly be noted; this, namely, that in θεοσεβής is implied, by its very derivation, piety toward God, or toward the gods ; while εὐσεβής, often as it means this, may also mean piety in the fulfilment of human relations, as toward parents or others (Euripides, Hlect. 258, 254), the word according to its etymology only implying ‘ worship’ (that is ‘worthship’) and reverence, well and rightly directed. It has in fact the same double meaning as the Latin ‘ pietas,’ which is not merely ‘justitia adverswm Deos,’ or ‘scientia colendorum Deorum ’ (Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 41) ; but a double meaning, which, deeply instructive as it is, yet proves occa- sionally embarrassing ; so that on several occasions Augustine, M 162 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ Xivill when he has need of accuracy and precision in his language, pauses to observe that by ‘ pietas’ he means what εὐσέβεια may mean, but θεοσέβεια alone must mean, namely, piety toward God ( Dei pietatem, quam Greci vel εὐσέβειαν, vel expressius et plenius θεοσέβειαν, vocant,’ Hp. elxvii. 8; De Trin. xiv. 1; Cw. Dei, x.1; Enchir.1). At the same time εὐσέβεια, explained in the Platonic Definitions (412 c) as δικαιοσύνη περὶ θεούς, by the Stoics as ἐπιστήμη θεῶν θεραπείας (Diogenes Laértius, vii. 1. 64, 119), and not therefore every reverencing of the gods, but a reverencing of them aright (ed), is the standing word to express this piety, both in itself (Xenophon, Ages. iii. 5; xi. 1), and as it is the right mean between ἀθεότης and δεισιδαιμονία (Plutarch, De Super. 14); ἀσέβεια and δεισιδαιμονία (Philo, Quod Deus Imm. 84); Josephus in like manner opposes it to εἰδωλολατρεία. The εὐσεβής is set over against the ἀνόσιος (Xenophon, Apol. Soc. 19); he is himself φιλόθεος (Lucian, De Calwm. 14); σώφρων περὶ τοὺς θεούς (Xenophon, Mem. iv. 8. 2). For some further beautiful remarks on εὐσέβεια in the Greek sense of the word see Nigelsbach, Nachhomerische Theologie, Ὁ. 191. Christian εὐσέβεια is well described by Eusebius (Prep. Evang. i. p. 8) aS ἡ πρὸς τὸν ἕνα Kal μόνον ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁμολογούμενόν τε καὶ ὄντα Θεὸν ἀνάνευσις, καὶ ἡ κατὰ τοῦτον ζωή. What would have needed to be said on εὐλαβής has been for the most part anticipated (see § x.) ; yet something further may be added here. I observed there how εὐλάβεια passed over from signifying caution and carefulness in the handling of human things to the same in respect of divine; the German ‘ Andacht’ had much the same history (see Grimm, Worterbuch, s. v.). The only places in the N. T. where εὐλαβής occurs are Luke ii. 25; Actsii. 5 ; viii. 2 ; ef. Mic. vii. 2. Our Εἰ. V. has uniformly translated it ‘ devout’ ; nor could this translation be bettered. It is the Latin ‘religiosus,’ but not our ‘religious.’ On all these occasions it expresses Jewish, and as one might say, Old Testament piety. On the first it is applied to Simeon ; on the second, to those Jews who came from distant parts to keep the commanded feasts at Jerusalem ; §xtvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 163 and, on the third, the ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς who carry Stephen to his burial, are in all likelihood not Christian brethren, but devout Jews, who avowed by this courageous act of theirs, as by their great lamentation over the slaughtered saint, that they separated themselves in spirit from this deed of blood, and thus, if it might be, from all the judgments which it would bring down on the city of those murderers. Whether it was further given them to believe on the Crucified, who had such witnesses as Stephen, we are not told; we may well presume that it was. If we keep in mind that, in that mingled fear and love which combined constitute the piety of man toward God, the Old Testament placed its emphasis on the fear, the New places it on the love (though there was love in the fear of God’s saints then, as there must be fear in their love now), it will at once be evident how fitly εὐλαβής was chosen to set forth their piety under the Old Covenant, who, like Zacharias and Hlizabeth, ‘were righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless’ (Luke i. 6), and leaving nothing willingly undone which pertained to the circle of their prescribed duties. For this sense of accurately and scrupulously performing that which is prescribed, with the consciousness of the danger of slipping into a careless negligent performance of God’s service, and of the need therefore of anxiously watching against the adding to or diminishing from, or in any other way altering, that which has been by Him commanded, lies ever in the words εὐλαβής, εὐλάβεια, When used in their religious significa- tion.’ Compare Pott, Htym. Forsch. vol. v. p. 869. Plutarch on more occasions than one exalts the εὐλάβεια of the Romans in the handling of divine things, as contrasted with the comparative carelessness of the Greeks. Thus, after other instances in proof (Coriol. 25), he goes on: ‘Of late * Cicero’s well-known words deducing ‘ religio ’ from ‘ relegere’ may be here fitly quoted (De Nat. Deor. ii. 28): ‘Qui omnia que ad cultum deorum pertinerent, diligenter retractarent, et tanquam relegerent, sunt dicti religiosi.’ M 2 1644 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ xXtuvul times also they did renew and begin a sacrifice thirty times one after another; because they thought still there fell out one fault or other in the same ; so holy and devout were they to the gods’ (τοιαύτη μὲν εὐλάβεια πρὸς τὸ θεῖον Ῥωμαίων). Elsewhere, he pourtrays ΖΦ γ 1115 Paulus (c. 3) as eminent for his εὐλάβεια. The passage is long, and I only quote a portion of it, availing myself again of Sir Thomas North’s hearty translation, which, though somewhat loose, is in essentials correct: ‘When he did anything belonging to his office of priesthood, he did it with great experience, judgment, and diligence; leaving all other thoughts, and without omitting any ancient ceremony, or adding to any new; contending oftentimes with his companions in things which seemed light and of small moment; declaring to them that though we do presume the gods are easy to be pacified, and that they © readily pardon all faults and scrapes committed by negligence, yet if it were no more but for respect of the commonwealth’s sake they should not slightly or carelessly dissemble or pass over faults committed in those matters’ (p. 206). Compare Aulus Gellius, ii. 28: ‘ Veteres Romani in constituendis religionibus atque in diis immortalibus animadvertendis castissimi cautissinique.’ Euripides in one passage con- templates εὐλάβεια as a person and a divine one, χρησιμωτάτη θεῶν (Phan. 794). But if in εὐλαβής we have the arixious and scrupulous worshipper, who makes a conscience of changing anything, of omitting anything, being above all things fearful to offend, we have in θρῆσκος (Jam. i. 26), which still more nearly corresponds to the Latin ‘ religiosus,’ the zealous and diligent performer of the divine offices, of the outward service of God. The word indeed nowhere else occurs in the whole circle of the profane literature of Greece; but working back from θρησκεία, We are in no difficulty about its exact meaning. Θρησκεία (= ‘cultus,’ or perhaps more strictly, ‘cultus exterior’) is predominantly the ceremonial service of religion of her whom Lord Brooke has so grandly named ‘mother of form and fear,—the external framework or body, of which §xtvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τὸς εὐσέβεια is the informing soul. The suggestion of Plutarch (Alex. 2), deriving θρῆσκος from Orpheus the Thracian, who brought in the celebration of religious mysteries, is etymo- logically worthless; but points, and no doubt truly, to the celebration of divine offices as the fundamental notion of the word. How delicate and fine then is St. James’s choice of θρῆσκος and θρησκεία (1. 26, 27). ‘If any man,’ the Apostle would say, ‘seem to himself to be θρῆσκος, a diligent observer of the offices of religion, if any man would render a pure and undefiled θρησκεία to God, let him know that this consists not in outward lustrations or ceremonial observances; nay, that there is a better θρησκεία than thousands of rams and rivers of oil, namely, to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with his God’ (Mic. vi. 7, 8); or, according to his own words, ‘to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world’ (ef. Matt. xxiii. 23). St. James is not herein affirming, as we sometimes hear, these offices to be the sum total, nor yet the great essentials, of true religion, but declares them to be the body, the θρησκεία, of which godliness, or the love of God, is the informing soul. His intention is somewhat obscured to the English reader from the fact that ‘religious’ and ‘religion,’ by which we have rendered θρῆσκος and θρησκεία, possessed a meaning once which they now possess no longer, and in that meaning are here employed. The Apostle claims for the new dispensation a superiority over the old, in that its very θρησκεία consists in acts of mercy, of love, of holiness, in that it has light for its garment, its very robe being righteousness ; herein how much nobler than that old, whose θρησκεία was at best merely ceremonial and formal, whatever inner truth it might embody. These observations are made by Coleridge (Azds to Reflection, 1825, p. 15), who at the same time complains of our rendering of θρῇῆσκος and θρησκεία as erroneous. But it is not so much erroneous as obsolete; an explanation indeed which he has himself suggested, though he was not aware of any such use of 166 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xtvi ‘religion’ at the time when our Version was made as would bear our Translators out. Milton offers more than one. Some heathen idolatries he characterizes as being ‘adorned With gay religions full of pomp and gold.’ Paradise Lost, b. i. And our Homilies will supply many more: thus, in that Against Peril of Idolatry: ‘Images used for no religion or superstition rather, we mean of none worshipped, nor in danger to be worshipped by any, may be suffered.’ A very instructive passage on the merely external character of θρησκεία, which same external character I am confident our Translators saw in ‘ religion,’ occurs in Philo (Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 7). Waving repelled such as would fain be counted among the εὐσεβεῖς on the score of divers washings, or costly offerings to the temple, he proceeds: πεπλάνηται yap καὶ οὗτος τῆς πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ὁδοῦ, θρησ κείαν ἀντὶ ὁσιότητος ἡγούμενος. The readiness with which θρησκεία declined into the meaning of superstition, service of false gods (Wisd. xiv. 18, 27; Col. ii. 18), of itself indicates that it had more to do with the form, than with the essence, of piety. Thus Gregory Nazianzene (Carm. ii. 84. 150, 151): Θρησκείαν οἶδα καὶ τὸ δαιμόνων σέβας, Ἡ δ᾽ εὐσέβεια προσκύνησις Τριάδος. Δεισιδαίμων, the concluding word of this group, and δεισιδαιμονία as well, had at first an honorable use; was =6eoceBns (Xenophon, Cyrop. iii. 8. 58). It is quite possible that ‘ superstitio’ and ‘ superstitiosus’ had the same. There seem traces of such a use of ‘superstitiosus’ by Plautus (Curcul. 111. 27; Amphit. i. 1. 169); although, as no one has yet solved the riddle of this word,! it is impossible absolutely to say whether this be so or not. In Cicero’s time it had certainly left its better meaning behind (De Nat. Deor. ii. ' Pott (Etym. Forsch. vol. ii. 921) resumes the latest investiga- tions on the derivation of ‘ superstitio.’ For the German ‘ Aberglaube’ =‘ Ueberglaube’) see Herzog, Real-Encyc. s. v. ΗΝ en a sae a § Σιν SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 167 28; Divin. ii. 72); and compare Seneca: ‘ Religio Deos colit, superstitio violat.’ The philosophers first gave an unfavour- able significance to δεισιδαιμονία. Ast indeed affirms that it first occurs in an ill sense in a passage of Polybius (vi. 56. 7) ; but Jebb (Characters of Theophrastus, p. 264) quotes a passage from Aristotle (Pol. v.11), showing that this meaning was not unknown to him. So soon as ever the philosophers began to account fear not as a right, but as a disturbing element in piety, one therefore to be carefully eliminated from the true idea of it (see Plutarch, De Aud. Poé?. 12; and Wyttenbach, Animadd. in Plutarchum, vol. i. p. 997), it was almost inevitable that they should lay hold of the word which by its very etymology implied and involved fear (δεισιδαιμονία, from δείδω), and should employ it to denote that which they disallowed and condemned, namely, the ‘ timor inanis Deorum’ (Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 41): in which phrase the emphasis must not be laid on ‘inanis,’ but on ‘ timor’ ; ef. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, vi. 9): ‘Varro religiosum a superstitioso ed distinctione discernit, ut a superstitioso dicat timeri Deos; a religioso autem vererz ut parentes; non ut hostes timert.’ Baxter does not place the emphasis exactly where these have done; but his definition of superstition is also a good one (Cathol. Theol. Preface): ‘A conceit that God is well pleased by overdoing in external things and observances and laws of men’s own making.’ But even after they had just turned δεισιδαιμονία to ignobler uses, defined it, as does Theophrastus δειλία περὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον, and Plutarch (De Suwperst. 6), more vaguely, πολυπάθεια κακὸν τὸ ἀγαθὸν ὑπονοοῦσα, it did not at once and altogether forfeit its higher signification. It remained indeed a middle term to the last, receiving its inclination to good or bad from the intention of the user. Thus we not only find δεισιδαίμων (Xenophon, Ages. xi. 8; Cyr. 11. 8. 58) and δεισιδαιμονία (Polybius, vi. ὅθ. 7; Josephus, Anté. x. 3. 2) in a good sense; but St. Paul himself employed it in no ill meaning in his ever memorable discourse upon Mars’ Hill. He there addresses the Athenians, ‘‘I perceive that in all 168 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xtuvui things ye are ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ᾿ (Acts xvii. 22), which is scarcely “too superstitious,” as we have rendered it, or ‘allzu aberglaubisch,’ as Luther; but rather ‘ religiosiores,’ as Beza, ‘sehr gottesfiirchtig,’ as De Wette, has given it. For indeed it was not St. Paul’s habit to affront, and by affronting to alienate his hearers, least of all at the outset of a discourse intended to win: them to the truth. Deeper reasons, too, than those of a mere calculating prudence, would have hindered him from expressing himself thus ; none was less disposed than he to overlook or deny the religious element in heathenism, however overlaid or obscured by falsehood or error this might be. Led by such considerations as these, some interpreters, Chrysostom for instance, make devowdatpoverrépovs=cirAaBeorepovs, taking it altogether as praise. Yet neither must we run into an extreme on this side. δ. Paul selects with finest tact and skill, and at the same time with most perfect truth, a word which almost imperceptibly shaded off from praise to blame. Bengel (in loc.) : ‘ δεισιδαίμων, verbum per se μέσον, ideoque ambiguitatem habet clementem, et exordio huic aptissimam.’ In it he gave to his Athenian hearers the honour which was confessedly their due as zealous worshippers of the superior powers, so far as their knowledge reached, being θεοσεβέστατοι, as Sophocles (Cidip. Col. 256), calls them, and εὐσεβέστατοι πάντων πῶν “Ἑλλήνων, as Josephus (c. Apion. ii. 12) says they were styled by all men; their land θεοφιλεστάτη, as Aischylus (Eumen. 867) names it ; compare the beautiful chorus in The Clouds of Aristophanes, 299-313. But for all this, the Apostle does not squander on them the words of very highest honour of all, reserving these for the true worshippers of the trueGod. And as itis thus in the one passage where δεισιδαίμων, so also in the one where δεισιδαιμονία, occurs (Acts xxv. 19). Festus may speak there with a certain covert slight of the δεισιδαιμονία, or overstrained way of worshipping God (‘ Gottesverehrung’ De Wette translates it), which, as he conceived, was common to St. Paul and his Jewish accusers ; but he would scarcely have called it a ‘superstition’ in § xLIx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 169 Agrippa’s face, for it was the same to which Agrippa himself was addicted (Acts xxvi. 8, 27), whom certainly he was very far from intending to insult. § xlix. κενός, μάταιος. THESE words nowhere in the N.T. occur together; but on several occasions in the Septuagint, as for instance at Job xx. Seen Xk es οὐ! 1%. Δ. clos ἐσ ie nC lemontaor Rome, Cor. 6; and not unfrequently in classical Greek; as in Sophocles (Hlec. 324); in Aristotle (Hthic. Nic. i. 2. 1); and in Plutarch (Adv. Colot. 17). We deal with them here solely in their ethical use; for seeing that μάταιος knows, at least in Scripture, no other use, it is only as ethically employed that κενός can be brought into comparison with it, or the words made the subject of discrimination. The first, κενός, is ‘ empty,’ ‘ leer,’ ‘ gehaltlos,’ ‘ inanis’ ; the second, μάταιος, ‘ vain,’ ‘ eitel ’ (‘idle’), ‘ erfolglos,’ ‘ vanus.’ In the first is characterized the hollowness, in the second the aimlessness, or, if we may use the word, the resultlessness, connected as it is with μάτην, of that to which this epithet is given. Thus κεναὶ ἐλπίδες (Aischylus, Pers. 104; ef. Job. vii. 6; Kcclus. xxxiv. 1, where they are joined with ψευδεῖς) are empty hopes, such as are built on no solid foundation; and in the N. T. κενοὶ λόγοι (Ephes. v. 6; cf. Deut. xxxii. 47; Exod. v. 9) are words which have no inner substance and kernel of truth, hollow sophistries and apologies for sin ; κόπος κενός, labour which yields no return (1 Cor. xv. 58) ; 80. κενοφωνίαι (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 16); cf. κενολογία (Plutarch, Adv. Stoic. 22), and κενοδοξία (Phil. ii. 8), by Suidas explained ματαία τις περὶ ἑαυτοῦ οἴησις. St. Paul reminds the Thessalonians (1 Thess. ii. 1) that his entrance to them was not κενή, not unaccompanied with the demonstration of Spirit and of power. When used not of things but of persons, κενός predicates not merely an absence and emptiness of good, but since the moral nature of man endures no vacuum, the pre- sence of evil. It is thus employed only once in the N. T., 170 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §Xt.1x namely at Jam. ii. 20, where the ἄνθρωπος κενός is one in whom the higher wisdom has found no entrance, but who is puffed up with a vain conceit of his own spiritual insight, ‘aufgeblasen,’ as Luther (on Coloss. ii. 18) has it. Compare the ἄνδρες κενοί of Judg. ix. 4; Plutarch De seips. Laud. 5): τοὺς ἐν TO περιπατεῖν ἐπαιρομένους καὶ ὑψαυχενοῦντας ἀνοήτους ἡγούμεθα καὶ κενούς : and compare further the Greek proverb, κενοὶ κενὰ φροντίζουσι (Gaisford, Param. Grect, p. 146). But if κενός thus expresses the emptiness of all which is not filled with God, μάταιος, as observed already, will express the aimlessness, the leading to no object or end, the vanity, of all which has not Him, who is the only true object and end of any intelligent creature, for its scope. In things natural it is μάταιον, as Gregory of Nyssa, in his first Homily on Ecclesiastes explains it, to build houses of sand on the sea- shore, to chase the wind, to shoot at the stars, to hunt one’s own shadow. Pindar (Pyth. iii. 87 Diss., 40-1 Heyn.) exactly describes the μάταιος as one μεταμώνια θηρεύων ἀκράντοις ἐλπίσιν. That toil is μάταιος which can issue in nothing (Plato, Legg. vy. 735 δ); that grief is μάταιος for which no ground exists (Axioch. 869 c); that is a μάταιος εὐχή Which in the very nature of things cannot obtain its fulfilment (Euripides, Iphig. in Tawr. 688) ; the prophecies of the false prophet, which God will not bring to pass, are μαντεῖαι μάταιαι (Ezek. xiii. 6, 7, 8; ef. Ecclus. xxxiv. 5); so in the N. T. μάταιοι καὶ ἀνωφελεῖς ζητήσεις (Tit. iii. 9) are idle and unprofitable questions whose discussion can lead to no advancement in true godliness; cf. ματαιολογία (1 Tim. i. 6; Plutarch, De Lib. Educ. 9), ματαιο- λόγοι (Tit. i. 10), vain talkers, the talk of whose lips can tend only to poverty, or to worse (Isai. xxxiil. 6: LXX.); ματαιο- πονία (Clement of Rome, Cor. 9), labour which in its very nature is in vain. Ματαιότης is a word altogether strange to profane Greek ; one too to which the old heathen world, had it possessed it, could never have imparted that depth of meaning which in Scripture it has obtained. For indeed that heathen world was itself too deeply and hopelessly sunken in ‘ vanity’ to be ΣΥΝ (SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τὴι fully alive to the fact that it was sunken in it at all; was committed so far as to have lost all power to pronounce that judgment upon itself which in this word is pronounced upon it. One must, in part at least, have been delivered from the ματαιότης, to be in a condition at all to esteem it for what it truly is. When the Preacher exclaimed ‘All is vanity’ (EKecles. i. 2), it is clear that something in him was not vanity, else he could never have arrived at this conclusion. Hugh of §. Victor: ‘ Aliquid ergo in ipso fuit quod vanitas non fuit, et id contra vanitatem non vane loqui potuit.’ Saying this I would not for an instant deny that some echoes of this cry of his reach us from the moral waste of the old heathen world. From none perhaps are they heard so often and so distinctly as from Lucretius. How many of the most pathetic passages in his poem do but draw out at greater length that confession which he has more briefly summed up in two lines, themselves of an infinite sadness : ‘ Ergo hominum genus incassum frustraque laborat Semper, et in curis consumit inanibus sevom.’ But if these confessions are comparatively rare elsewhere, they are frequent in Scripture. It is not too much to say that of one book in Scripture, I mean of course the book of The Preacher, it is the key-word. In that book ματαιότης, or its Hebrew equivalent >a, occurs nearly forty times; and this ‘ vanity,’ after the preacher has counted and cast up the total good of man’s life and labours apart from God, con- stitutes the zero at which the sum of all is rated by him. The false gods of heathendom are eminently τὰ μάταια (Acts xiv. ck. 2 Coton. σι 16: Jer, χΣ. 15. Jon... 9): ine ματαιοῦσθαι is ascribed to as many as become followers of these (Rom. i. 21; 2 Kin. xvii. 15; Jer. ii. 5; xxviii. 17, 18) ; inasmuch as they, following after vain things, become them- selves ματαιόφρονες (8 Mace. vi. 11), like the vain things which they follow (Wisd. xiii. 1 ; xiv. 21-81) ; their whole conversa- tion vain (1 Pet. i. 18), the ματαιότης having reached to the very centre and citadel of their moral being to the νοῦς itself 172 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $51. (Ephes. iv. 17). Nor is this all; this ματαιότης, or δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς (Rom. viii. 21), for the phrases are convertible, of which the end is death, reaches to that entire creation which was made dependent on man; and which with a certain blind consciousness of this is ever reaching out after a deliverance, such as it is never able to grasp, seeing that the restitution of all other things can only follow on the previous restitution of man. On this matter Olshausen (on Rom. viii. 20, 21) has some beautiful remarks, of which I can quote but a fragment : ‘ Jeder natiirliche Mensch, ja jedes Thier, jede Pflanze ringt uber sich hinaus zu kommen, eine Idee zu verwirklichen, in deren Verwirklichung sie ihre ἐλευθερία hat, ἃ. h. das der géttlichen Stimmung volkommen entsprechende Seyn; aber die ihr Wesen durchziehende Nichtigkeit (Ps. xxxix. 6; Pred. i. 2, 14), d. h. die mangelnde Lebensfiille, die darin begriindete Verginglichkeit und deren Ende, der Tod, lisst kein geschaffenes Ding sein Ziel erreichen ; jedes Individuum der Gattung fangt vielmehr den Kreislauf wieder von neuem an, und ringt trostlos wider die Unméoglichkeit, sich zu vollenden.’ There is much, too, excellently said on this ‘vanity of the creature’ in an article in the Zeitschrift fiir Luther. Theol. 1872, p. 50 sqq.; and in another by Koster in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 755 sqq. § 1. ἱμάτιον, χιτών, ἱματισμός, χλαμύς, στολή, ποδήρης. THE reader need not be alarmed here in prospect of a treatise de Re Vestiarid; although such, with the abundant materials ready to hand in the works of Ferrarius, Braun, and others, might very easily be written, and need cost little more trouble than that of transcription. I do not propose more than a brief discrimination of a few of the words by which garments are most frequently designated in the N.T. ἽἹμάτιον, properly a diminutive of tua (Ξε εῖμα), although like so many words of our own, as ‘ pocket,’ ‘latchet,’ it has quite lost the force of a diminutive, is the word of commonest §L SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 173 use, when there is no intention to designate one manner of garment more particularly than another (Matt. xi. 8; xxvi. 65). But ἱμάτιον is used also in a more restricted sense, of the large upper garment, so large that a man would some- times sleep in it (Exod. xxii. 26), the cloke as distinguished _ from the χιτών or close-fitting inner vest; and thus περι- βάλλειν ἱμάτιον (it is itself called περιβόλαιον, Exod. xxii. 9 ; περιβολή, Plutarch, Conj. Prac. 12), but ἐνδύειν χιτῶνα (Dio Chrysostom, Orat. vil. 111). “ἹἹμάτιον and χιτών, as the upper and the under garment, occur constantly together (Acts ix. 39; Matt. v. 40; Luke vi. 29; John xix. 23). Thus at Matt. v. 40 our Lord instructs his disciples: “If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat (χιτῶνα), let him have thy cloke (ἱμάτιον) also.’’ Here the spoiler is pre- sumed to begin with the less costly, the under garment, which we have rendered, not very happily, the ‘coat’ (Dic- tionary of the Buble, art. Dress), from which he proceeds to the more costly, or upper ; and the process of spoliation, being a legal one, there is nothing unnatural in such a sequence ; but at Luke vi. 29 the order is reversed: ‘ Him that taketh away thy cloke (ἱμάτιον) forbid not to take thy coat (χιτῶνα) also.’ As the whole context plainly shows, the Lord is here contemplating an act of violent outrage; and therefore the cloke or upper garment, as that which would be the first seized, is also the first named. In the Asopic fable (Plutarch, Prac. Conj. 12), the wind with all its violence only makes the traveller to wrap his ἱμάτιον more closely round him, while, when the sun begins to shine in its strength, he puts off first his ἱμάτιον, and then his χιτών. One was styled γυμνός, who had laid aside his ἱμάτιον, and was only in his χιτών; not ‘naked,’ as our Translators have it (John xxi. 7), which suggests an unseemliness that certainly did not find place; but stripped for toil (cf. Isai. xx. 2; lviii. 7; Job xxii. 6; Jam. 11. 15; and in the Latin, ‘sere nudus,’ Georg. i. 299). It is naturally his ἱμάτιον which Joseph leaves in the hands of his temptress (Gen. xxxix. 12; while at Jude 23 χιτών has its fitness. 174 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 651 Ἵματισμός, ἃ word of comparatively late appearance, and belonging to the κοινὴ διάλεκτος, is seldom, if ever, used except of garments more or less stately and costly. It is the ‘ vesture ’—this word expressing it very well—of kings; thus of Solomon in all his glory (1 Kin. x. 5; cf. xxii. 80); is associated with gold and silver, as part of a precious spoil (Exod. 111. 22; xii. 85; cf. Acts xx. 33); is found linked with such epithets as ἔνδοξος (Luke vii. 25 ; ef. Isai. iii. 18, δόξα τοῦ ἱματισμοῦ), ποικίλος (Hizek. xvi. 18), διάχρυσος (Ps. xliv. 10), πολυτελής (1 Tim. ii. 9; οὗ, Plutarch, Apoph. Lac. Archid. 7) ; is a name given (Matt. xxvii. 35; John xix. 24) to our Lord’s χιτών, which was woven all of a piece (ἄῤῥαφος, John xix. 23), and had that of cost and beauty about it which made even the rude Roman soldiers unwilling to rend, and so to destroy it. The purple robe with which our Lord was arrayed in scorn by the mockers in Pilate’s judgment-hall is a χλαμύς (Matt. xxvii. 28-31). Nor can we doubt that the word has its strictest fitness here. Χλαμύς so constantly signifies a garment of dignity and office, that χλαμύδα περιτιθέναι was a technical phrase for assuming a magistracy (Plutarch, An Sen. Ger. Resp. 26). This might bea civil magistracy ; but χλαμύς, like ‘paludamentum’ (which, and not ‘sagum,’ is the nearest Latin equivalent), far more commonly expresses the robe with ᾿ which military officers, captains, commanders or imperators, would be clothed (2 Mace. xii. 35); and the employment of χλαμύς in the record of the Passion leaves little doubt that these profane mockers obtained, as it would have been so easy for them in the pretorium to obtain, the cast-off cloke of some high Roman officer, and with this arrayed the sacred person of the Lord. We recognise a certain confirmation of this supposition in the epithet κόκκινος which St. Matthew gives it. It was ‘scarlet,’ the colour worn by Roman officers of rank; so ‘chlamys coccinea’ (Lampridius, Alex. Severus, 40) ; χλαμύς περιπόρφυρος (Plutarch, Prec. Ger. Ieip. 20). That the other Evangelists describe it as ‘purple’ (Mark xv. 17; John xix. 2) does not affect this statement; for the ‘ purple’ $= SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 175 of antiquity was a colour almost or altogether indefinite (Braun, De Vest. Sac. Heb. vol. i. p. 220; Gladstone, Studies on Homer, vol. iii. p. 457). Στολή, from στέλλω, our English ‘ stole,’ is any stately robe ; and as long sweeping garments would have eminently this _ stateliness about them, always, or almost always, a garment reaching to the feet, or trainlike sweeping the ground. The fact that such were oftenest worn by women (the Trojan women -are ἑλκεσίπεπλοι in Homer) explains the use which ‘ stola’ in Latin has predominantly acquired. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus tells us in his Meditations, that among the things which he learned from his tutor, the famous Stoic philosopher Rusticus, was, not to stalk about the house in a στολή (μὴ ἐν στολῇ Kat οἶκον περιπατεῖν, i. 7). It was, on the contrary, the custom and pleasure of the Scribes to ‘“‘ walk in long clothing ”’ (Mark xii. 38 ; cf. Luke xx. 46), making this solemn ostenta- tion of themselves in the eyes of men. στολή is in constant use for the holy garments of Aaron and his descendants (Exod. xxviii. 2; xxix. 21; στολὴ δόξης they are called, Ke- clus. 1. 11); or, indeed, for any garment of special solemnity, richness, or beauty ; thus στολὴ λειτουργική (Exod. xxxi. 10) ; and compare Mark xvi. 5; Luke xv. 22; Rev. vi. 11; vii. 9; Esth. vi. 8,11; Jon. iii. 6. Tlodjpys, naturalised in ecclesiastical Latin as ‘podéris’ (of which the second syllable is short), is properly an adjective, =‘talaris;’ thus ἀσπὶς ποδήρης, Xenophon, Cyrop. vi. 2. 10 (Ξε θυρεός, Ephes. vi. 16); ποδήρες ἔνδυμα, Wisd. xviii. 24; ποδήρης πώγων, Plutarch, Quom. Am. ab Adul. 7; being sever- ally a shield, a garment, a beard, reaching down to the feet. It differs very little from στολή. Indeed the same Hebrew word which is rendered zodypys at Ezek. ix. 2, 8, is rendered στολή, ibid. x. 2, and στολὴ ἁγία, ibid. 6, 7. At the same time, in the enumeration of the high-priestly garments, this στολή, Or στολὴ ἁγία, signifies the whole array of the high priest ; while the ποδήρης (χιτὼν ποδήρης Plutarch calls it in his curious and strangely inaccurate chapter about the Jewish festivals, Symp. iv. 6. 6) is distinguished from it, and signifies 176 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § 11 one portion only, namely, the robe or chetoneth (Exod. xxviii. 2,4; Ecclus. xlv. 7, 8). There are other words which might be included in this group, as ἐσθής (Luke xxiii. 11), ἔσθησις (Luke xxiv. 4), ἔνδυμα (Matt. xxii. 12) ; but it would not be very easy to assign sever- ally to each of these a domain of meaning peculiarly its own. On the whole subject see Marriott, Vestiarvwm Christianum, pp. vil. seq. ᾿ 5 tA 7 14 A 3 / Sli. εὐχή, προσευχή, δέησις, ἔντευξις, εὐχαριστία, αἴτημα, ἱκετηρία. Four of these words occur together at 1 Tim. 11. 1 ; on which Flacius Illyricus (Clavis, 5. v. Oratio) justly observes: ‘Quem vocum acervum procul dubio Paulus non temere congessit.’ I propose to consider not these only, but the larger group of which they form a portion. Εὐχή is found only once in the N. T. in the sense of a prayer (Jam. v. 15); twice besides in that of a vow (Acts XViii. 18; xxi. 23); compare Plato (Legg. vii. 801 a), εὐχαὶ παρὰ θεῶν αἰτήσεις εἰσί. On the distinction between it and προσευχή, between εὔχεσθαι and προσεύχεσθαι, there is a long discussion in Origen (De Orat. ὃ 2, 8, 4), but of no great value, and not bringing out more than the obvious fact that in εὐχή and εὔχεσθαι the notion of the vow, of the dedicated thing, is more commonly found than that of prayer. A more interesting treatment of the words, and the difference between them, may be found in Gregory of Nyssa, De Orat. Dom. Orat. 2, ad wit. Προσευχή and δέησις often in the N. T. occur together (Phil. iv. 6; Ephes. vi. 18; 1 Tim. Π|1 v. 5), and not un- frequently in the Septuagint (Ps. vi. 10; Dan. ix. 21, 28; cf. 1 Mace. vii. 87). There have been many, but for the most part not very successful, attempts to distinguish between them. Grotius, for instance, affirms that they are severally ‘ precatio ’ and ‘deprecatio’; that the first seeks to obtain good, the second to avert evil. Augustine, let me note by the way, in §tr SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 177 his treatment of the more important in this group of words (Ep. 149, ὃ 12-16; cf. Bishop Taylor, Pref. to Apology for Set Forms of Liturgy, ὃ 81), which, though interesting, yields few definite results of value, observes that in his time this distinction between ‘ precatio’ and ‘ deprecatio’ had prac- tically quite disappeared. Theodoret, who had anticipated Grotius here, explains προσευχή as αἴτησις ἀγαθῶν, and δέησις as ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς τινῶν λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία tpodepoperyn. He has here in this last definition the words of Aristotle (het. ii. 7) before him: δεήσεις εἰσὶν ai ὀρέξεις, καὶ τούτων μάλιστα αἱ μετὰ λύπης τοῦ μὴ γιγνομένου : Compare Gregory of Nazianzus: δέησιν οἴου τὴν αἴτησιν ἐνδεῶν. But this distinction is alto- gether arbitrary ; it neither lies in the words, nor is it borne out by usage. Better Calvin, who makes προσευχή (=‘pre- catio’), prayer in general, δέησις (=‘rogatio’), prayer for particular benefits: “ προσευχή omne genus orationis, δέησις ubi certum aliquid petitur; genus et species.’ Bengel’s dis- tinction amounts very nearly to the same thing: ‘ δέησις (a δεῖ) est imploratio gratiz in necessitate quidam speciali ; προσευχή, oratio, exercetur quilibet oblatione voluntatum et desideriorum erga Deum.’ But Calvin and Bengel, bringing out one important point of distinction, have yet failed to bring out another—namely, that προσευχή is ‘res sacra,’ the word being restricted to sacred uses; it is always prayer to God; δέησις has no such restriction. Fritzsche (on Rom. x. 1) has not failed to urge this : “ ἡ προσευχή et ἡ δέησις differunt ut precatio et rogatio. Προσεύχεσθαι et ἡ προσευχή Verba sacra sunt; precamur enim Deum: δεῖσθαι, τὸ δέημα (Aristophanes, Acharn. 1059) et ἡ δέησις tum in sacra tum in profané re usurpantur, nam et Deum rogare possumus et homines.’ It is the same distinc- tion as in our ‘prayer’ (though that has been too much brought down to mundane uses) and ‘petition,’ in the German ‘ Gebet’ and ‘ Bitte.’ "Evrevéts occurs in the N.T. only at 1 Tim. ii. 1; iv. 5 (but evrvyxavew four or five times), and once in the Apocrypha (2 Mace. iv. 8). ‘Intercession,’ by which the A. V. translates N 178 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $11 it, is not, as we now understand ‘ intercession,’ a satisfactory rendering. For évrevéis does not necessarily mean what inter- cession at present commonly does mean—namely, prayer in relation to others (at 1 Tim. iv. 5 such meaning is impos- sible); a pleading either for them or against them.' Least of all does it mean exclusively the latter, a pleading against our enemies, as Theodoret, on Rom. xi. 2, missing the fact that the ‘against’ lay there in the κατά, would imply, when he says: ἔντευξίς ἐστι κατηγορία τῶν ἀδικούντων : cf. Hesychius: δέησις εἰς ἐκδίκησιν ὑπέρ τινος (Rom. viii. 84), κατά τινος (Rom. xi. 9); but, as its connexion with ἐντυγχάνειν, to fall in with a person, to draw close to him so as to enter into familiar speech and communion with him (Plutarch, Conj. Prec. 18), implies, it is free familiar prayer, such as boldly draws near to God (Gen. xviii. 23 ; Wisd. viii. 21; cf. Philo, Quod Det. Pot. ΩΡ ; ἐντεύξεις καὶ ἐκβοήσεις ; Plutarch, Phoc. 17). In justice, however, to our Translators, it must be observed that ‘ inter- cession ’ had not in their time that limited meaning of prayer for others which we now ascribe to it; see Jer. xxvii. 18 ; xxxvi. 95. The Vulgate has ‘postulationes’; but Augustine, in a discussion on this group of words referred to already (Hp. 149, § 12-16), prefers ‘ interpellationes,’ as better bringing out the παῤῥησία, the freedom and _ boldness of access, which is involved in, and constitutes the fundamental idea of, the évrevéis—‘ interpellare,’ to interrupt another in speaking, ever implying forwardness and freedom. Origen (De Orat. 14) in © like manner makes the boldness of approach to God, asking, it may be, some great thing (he instances Josh. x. 12), the fundamental notion of the &revés. It might mean indeed more than this, Plato using it of a possible encounter with pirates (Politic. 298 d). E’yapucria, which our Translators have rendered ‘ thank- fulness’ (Acts xxiv. 8); ‘giving of thanks’ (1 Cor. Siy. 10), ‘thanks’ (Rev. iv. 9); ‘ thanksgiving’ (Phil. iv. 6), a some- 1 The rendering of δι᾽ ἐντεύξεως, 2 Mace. iv. 8, ‘ by intercession,’ can scarcely be correct. It expresses more probably the fact of a confidential interview face to face between Jason and Antiochus. ee ee ee δι SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 179 what rare word elsewhere, is frequent in sacred Greek. It would be out of place to dwell here on the special meaning which εὐχαριστία and ‘ eucharist’ have acquired from the fact that in the Holy Communion the Church embodies her highest act of thanksgiving for the highest benefits which she ᾿ς has received of God. Regarded as one manner of prayer, it expresses that which ought never to be absent from any of our devotions (Phil. iv. 6; Ephes. v. 20; 1 Thess. v. 18; 1 Tim. ii. 1); namely, the grateful acknowledgment of past mercies, as distinguished from the earnest seeking of future. As such it may, and will, subsist in heaven (Rev. iv. 9; vii. 12) ; will indeed be larger, deeper, fuller there than here: for only there will the redeemed know how much they owe to their Lord; and this it will do, while all other forms of prayer, in the very nature of things, will have ceased in the entire possession and present fruition of the things prayed for. Αἴτημα occurs twice in the N. T. in the sense of a petition of men to God, both times in the plural (Phil. iv. 6; 1 John v. 15); it is, however, by no means restricted to this meaning (Luke xxiii. 24; Esth. v. 7; Dan. vi. 7). In a προσευχή of any length there will probably be many αἰτήματα, these being indeed the several requests of which the προσευχή is composed. For instance, in the Lord’s Prayer it is generally reckoned that there are seven αἰτήματα, though some have regarded the first three as εὐχαί, and only the last four as αἰτήματα. Wit- sius (De Orat. Dom.): ‘ Petitio pars orationis; ut si totam Orationem Dominicam voces orationem aut precationem, singulas vero illius partes aut septem postulata petitiones.’ ‘Ikernpia, with ῥάβδος or ἐλαία, or some such word under- stood, like ἱλαστήριον, θυσιαστήριον, δικαστήριον, and other words of the same termination (see Lobeck, Pathol. Serm. Grec. p. 281), was originally an adjective, but little by little obtained substantival power, and learned to go alone. It is explained by Plutarch (Thes. 18): κλάδος ἀπὸ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐλαίας ἐρίῳ λευκῷ κατεστεμμένος (cf. Wyttenbach, Animadd in Plut- arch. vol. xiii. p. 89; and Wunder on Sophocles, (μα. fvex, 8), the olive-branch bound round with white wool, held N 2 180 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT δ ταὶ forth by the suppliant in token of the character which he bore (Aischylus, Hwmen. 48, 44; compare Virgil, An. vii. 116: ‘Pacifereque manu ramum pretendit olive’; and again ver. 128: ‘Et νἱ θῶ comtos voluit pratendere ramos’ ; and once more xi. 101). A deprecatory letter, which Antio- chus Epiphanes is said on his death-bed to have written to the Jews, is described (2 Mace. ix. 18) as ἱκετηρίας τάξιν ἔχουσα, and Agrippa designates one addressed to Caligula: γραφὴ ἣν ἀνθ᾽ ἱκετηρίας προτείνω (Philo, Leg. ad Car. 36). It is easy to trace the steps by which this, the symbol of supplication, came to signify the supplicationitself. It does so on the only occasion when it occurs in the N. T. (Heb. v. 7), being there joined to δέησις, as it often is elsewhere (Job xli. 8 [xl. 22 LXX.]; Polybius, ii. 112. 8). Thus much on the distinction between these words; although, when all has been said, it will still to a great extent remain true that they will often set forth, not different kinds of prayer, but prayer contemplated from different sides and under different aspects. Witsius (De Orat. Dom. § 4): ‘Mihi sic videtur, unam eandemque rem diversis nominibus designari pro diversis quos habet aspectibus. Preces nostree δεήσεις vocantur, quatenus iis nostram apud Deum testamur egestatem, nam δέεσθαι indigere est; προσευχαί, quatenus vota nostra continent; αἰτήματα, quatenus exponunt petitiones et desideria ; ἐντεύξεις, quatenus non timide et diffidenter, sed familiariter, Deus se a nobis adiri patitur ; ἔντευξις enim est colloquium et congressus familiaris : εὐχαριστίαν gratiarum actionem esse pro acceptis jam beneficiis, notius est quam ut moneri oporteat.’—On the Hebrew correlatives to the several words of this group, see Vitringa, De Synagogd, iil. 2. 18. δ 1. ἀσύνθετος, ἄσπονδος. ᾿Ασύνθετος occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Rom. i. 31; ef. Jer. iii. 8-11, where it is found several times, but not elsewhere in the Septuagint. There is the same solitary use of ἄσπονδος (2 Tim. iii. 3); for its right to a place in the text $in SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 181 at Rom. i. 81 is with good reason contested, and the best critical editions omit it there. It is nowhere found in the Septuagint. The distinction between the two words, as used in Serip- ture, is not hard to draw ;—I have said, as used in Scripture ; because there may be a question whether ἀσύνθετος hag any- where else exactly the meaning which it challenges there. Elsewhere often united with ἁπλοῦς, with ἄκρατος (Plutarch, Adv. Stoic. 48), it has the passive sense of ‘ not put together’ or ‘not made up of several parts’; and in this sense evidently the Vulgate, which renders it ‘incompositus,’ has taken it; we have here the explanation of the ‘ dissolute ’ of the Rheims Version. But the ἀσύνθετοι of St. Paul—the word with him has an active sense—are they who, being in covenant and treaty with others, refuse to abide by these covenants and treaties : μὴ ἐμμένοντες ταῖς συνθήκαις (Hesychius) ; ‘pactorum haudquaquam tenaces’ (Hrasmus) ; ‘bundbriichig’ (not ‘unvertriglich,’ as Tittmann maintains) ; ‘ covenant-breakers ’ (A. V.). The word is associated with ἀστάθμητος, Demo- sthenes, De Fals. Leg. 383. Worse than the δυσδιάλυτοι (Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. iv. 5. 10), who are only hard to be reconciled, the ἄσπονδοι are the absolutely irreconcileable (ἄσπονδοι καὶ ἀκατάλλακτοι, Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Her. 50); those who will not be atoned, or set at one, who being at war refuse to lay aside their enmity, or to listen to terms of accommodation; ‘ implacabiles, qui semel offensi reconciliationem non admittunt’ (Estius) ; ‘unverséhnlich,’ ‘implacable’ (A. V.); the word is by Philo (De Merc. Mer. 4) joined to dovpBaros and ἀκοινώνητος, opposed to εὐδιάλλακτος by Plutarch (De Alex. Virt. 4). The phrase, ἄσπονδος καὶ ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος is frequent, indeed proverbial, in Greek (Demosthenes, De Coron. 79; Philo, De Prem. et Pan. 15; Lucian, Pisc. 36); in this connexion ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος does not mean a war not duly announced by the fecial; but rather one in which what Virgil calls the ‘belli commercia’ are wholly suspended: no herald, no flag of truce, as we should now say, being allowed to pass 182 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ ταὶ between the parties, no terms of reconcilement listened to ; such a war, for example, as that which the Carthaginians in the interval between the first and second Punic Wars waged with their revolted mercenaries. In the same sense we have elsewhere ἄσπονδος μάχη Kat ἀδιάλλακτος ἔρις (Aristeenetus, 2, 14); οἵ. ἄσπειστος κότος (Nicander, Ther. 367; quoted by Blomfield, Agamemnon, Ὁ. 285); ἄσπονδος ἔχθρα (Plutarch, Pericles, 30) ; ἄσπονδος Θεός (Euripides, Alcestis, 481). ᾿Ασύνθετος then presumes a state of peace, which they who are such unrighteously interrupt; while ἄσπονδος presumes a state of war, which the ἄσπονδοι refuse to bring to an equitable close. It will follow that Calvin, who renders ἄσπονδοι ‘ foedifragi,’ and ἀσύνθετοι “ insociabiles,’ has exactly missed the force of both; Theodoret has done the same ; who on Rom. i. 31 writes: ἀσυνθέτους, τοὺς ἀκοινώνητον καὶ πονηρὸν βίον ἀσπαζομένους" ἀσπόνδους τοὺς ἀδεῶς τὰ συγκείμενα παρα- βαίνοντας. Only by ascribing to each word that meaning which these interpreters have ascribed to the other, will the right equivalents be obtained. In agreement with what has been just said, and in confirmation of it, is the distinction which Ammonius draws between συνθήκη and σπονδή. SvvOjxyn assumes peace ; being a further agreement, it may be a treaty of alliance, between those already on general terms of amity. Thus there was a συνθήκη between the several States which owned the leader- ship of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, that, with whatever territory any one of these began the war, with the same it should close it (Thucydides, v. 81). But σπονδή, oftener in the plural, assumes war, of which the σπονδή is the cessation ; a merely temporal cessation, an armistice it may be (Homer, Il. ii. 841). Ibis true that a συνθήκη may be attached to a σπονδή, terms of alliance consequent on terms of peace ; thus σπονδή and συνθήκη occur together in Thucydides, iv. 18: but they are different things ; in the σπονδή there is a cessation of the state of war, there is peace, or at all events truce; in the συνθήκη there is, superinduced on this, a further agreement or alliance.—EicvvOeros, 1 may observe, which would be the Simi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT “183 exact opposite of ἀσύνθετος, finds no place in our lexicons; and we may presume is not found in any Greek author; but εὐσυνθεσία in Philo (De Merc. Mer. 8); as ἀσυνθεσία in the Septuagint (Jer. 111. 7), and ἀθεσία in the same sense often in Polybius (ii. 32). § lili. μακροθυμία, ὑπομονή, ἀνοχή. BETWEEN μακροθυμία and ὑπομονή, which occur together at Col. i. 11, and in the same context 2 Cor. vi. 4,6 ; 2 Tim. iii. 10; Jam. v. 10, 11 (cf. Clement of Rome, 64 ; Ignatius, Hphes. 8), Chrysostom draws the following distinction ; that a man paxpo- θυμεῖ, who having power to revenge himself, yet refrains from the exercise of this power ; while he ὑπομένει, who having no choice but to bear, and only the alternative of a patient or impatient bearing, has grace to choose theformer. Thus the faithful, he concludes, would commonly be called to exercise the former grace among themselves (1 Cor. vi. 7), the latter in their commerce with those that were without: μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὑπομονὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω" μακροθυμεῖ γάρ τις πρὸς ἐκείνους οὺς δυνατὸν καὶ ἀμύνασθαι, ὑπομένει δὲ ods οὐ δύναται ἀμύνασθαι. This distinction, however, will not endure a closer examination ; for see decisively against it Heb. xii. 2, 8. He to whom ὑπομονή is there ascribed, bore, not certainly because He could not avoid bearing; for He might have summoned to his aid twelve legions of angels, if so He had willed (Matt. xxvi. 53). It may be well then to consider whether some more satisfactory distinction between these words cannot be drawn. MaxpoOvpia belongs to a later stage of the Greek language. It occurs in the Septuagint, though neither there nor elsewhere exactly in the sense which in the N. T. it bears ; thus at Isai. lvii. 15 it is rather a patient holding out under trial than long-suffering under provocation, more, that is, the ὑπομονή with which we have presently to do; and compare Jer. xv. 15, 1 Mace. viii. 4; in neither of which places is its use that of the N. T.; and as little is it that of 184 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Ul Plutarch (Lucull. 82); the long-suffering: of men he prefers to express by ἀνεξικακία (De Cap. ea Inim. Util. 9; οἵ. Epictetus, Znchir. 10), while for the grand long-suffering of God he has a noble word, one probably of his own coining, μεγαλοπάθεια (De Ser. Num. Vind. 5). The Church-Latin rendered it by ‘longanimitas,’ which ‘the Rheims Version sought to introduce into English in the shape of ‘ longani- mity.’ There is no reason why ‘longanimity’ should not have had the same success as ‘magnanimity’; but there is a fortune about words, as well as about books, and this failed, notwithstanding that Jeremy Taylor and Bishop Hall allowed and employedit. We have preferred ‘long-suifering,’ and understand by it a long holding out of the mind before it gives room to action or passion—generally to passion ; ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ, as St. Paul (Ephes. iv. 2) beauti- fully expounds the meaning which he attaches to the word. Anger usually, but not universally, is the passion thus long held aloof; the μακρόθυμος being one βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν, and the word exchanged for κρατῶν ὀργῆς (Prov. xvi. 82); and set over against θυμώδης (xv. 18). Still it is not necessarily anger which is thus excluded or set at a distance; for when the historian of the Maccabees describes how the Romans had won the world ‘by their policy and their patience’ (1 Mace. viii. 4), μακροθυμία expresses there that Roman persistency which would never make peace under defeat. The true antithesis to μακροθυμία in that sense is ὀξυθυμία, ἃ word belonging to the best times of the language, and employed by Euripides (Androm. 789), as ὀξύθυμος by Aristotle (Lihet. li. 12; cf. ὀξύχολος, Solon). But ὑπομονή, βασιλὶς τῶν ἀρετῶν Chrysostom calls it,—is that virtue which in heathen ethics would be called more often by the name of xaprepia! (the words are joined together, Plutarch, Apoph. Lac. Ages. 2), or καρτέρησις, and which Clement of Alexandria, following in the track of some heathen 1 If, however, we may accept the Definitions ascribed to Plato, there is a slight distinction: καρτερία ὑπομονὴ λύπης, ἕνεκα τοῦ καλοῦ * ὑπομονὴ πόνων, ἕνεκα τοῦ καλοῦ. τι SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 185 moralists, describes as the knowledge of what things are to be borne and what are not (ἐπιστήμη ἐμμενετέων καὶ οὐκ ἐμμενε- τέων, Strom. 11. 18; ef. Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. iv. 23), being the Latin ‘ perseverantia’ and ‘ patientia’! both in one, or, more accurately still, ‘tolerantia.’ ‘‘In this noble word ὑπομονή there always appears (in the N. T.) a background of ἀνδρεία (cf. Plato, Theet. 177 ὁ, where ἀνδρικῶς ὑπομεῖναι is opposed to ἀνάνδρως φεύγειν) ; it does not mark merely the endurance, the ‘sustinentia’ (Vulg.), or even the ‘ patientia’ (Clarom.), but the ‘ perseverantia,’ the brave patience with which the Christian contends against the various hindrances, persecutions, and temptations that befal him in his conflict with the inward and outward world”’ (Ellicott, on 1 Thess. i. 3). It is, only springing from a nobler root, the κρατερὰ τλημοσύνη of Archilochus, Fragm. 1. (Gaisf. Poett. Min. Gr.). Cocceius (on Jam. i. 12) describes it well: ‘ Ὑπομονή versatur in contemtu bonorum hujus mundi, et in forti susceptione afflictionum cum gratiarum actione; imprimis autem in constantia fidei et caritatis, ut neutro modo quassari aut labefactari se patiatur, aut impediri quominus opus suum efficiat.’ For some other definitions see the article ‘ Geduld ’ in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopddie. We may proceed now to distinguish between these; and this distinction, I believe, will hold good wherever the words occur; namely, that μακροθυμία will be found to express patience in respect of persons, ὑπομονή in respect of things. The man μακροθυμεῖ, who, having to do with injurious persons, does not suffer himself easily to be provoked by them, or to blaze up into anger (2 Tim. iv. 2). The man ὑπομένει, who, under a great siege of trials, bears up, and does not lose heart or courage (Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. i. 6; οἵ, Clement of Rome, ' These two Cicero (De Jnven. 11. 54) thus defines and distinguishes : ‘ Patientia est honestatis aut utilitatis causi rerum arduarum ac diffi- cilium voluntaria ac diuturna perpessio; perseverantia est in ratione bene considerata stabilis et perpetua permansio;’ compare T'usc. Disp. iv. 24, where he deals with ‘ fortitudo’; and Augustine, Quest. lxxxiii. qu. 31. 186 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ui Cor. 5). We should speak, therefore, of the μακροθυμία of David (2 Sam. xvi. 10-13), the ὑπομονή of Job (Jam. v. 11). Thus, while both graces are ascribed to the saints, only μακροθυμία is an attribute of God; and there is a beautiful account of his μακροθυμία at Wisd. xii. 20, however the word itself does not there appear. Men may tempt and provoke Him, and He may and does display an infinite μακροθυμία in regard of them (Exod. xxxiv. 6; Rom. ii. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 20); there may be a resistance to God in men, because He respects the wills which He has given them, even when those wills are fighting against Him. But there can be no resistance to God, nor burden upon Him, the Almighty, from things ; therefore ὑπομονή can find no place in Him, nor is it, as Chrysostom rightly observes, properly ascribed to Him (yet see Augustine, De Patientid, ὃ 1), for it need hardly be observed that when God is called Θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς (Rom. xv- 5), this does not mean, God whose own attribute ὑπομονή is, but God who gives ὑπομονή to his servants and saints (Titt- mann, Ὁ. 194: ‘ Θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς, Deus qui largitur ὑπομονήν :᾿ cf. Ps. xx. 5, LXX.); in the same way as Θεὸς χάριτος 1 Pet. v. 10) is God who is the author of grace; Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (Heb. xiii. 20), God who is the author of peace ; and compare Θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος (Rom. xv. 13), ‘ the God of hope.’ ᾿Ανοχή, used commonly in the plural in classical Greek, signifies, for the most part, a truce or suspension of arms, the Latin ‘indutie.’ It is excellently rendered ‘ forbearance ’ on the two occasions of its occurrence in the N. T. (Rom. ii. 4; ili. 26). Between it and μακροθυμία Origen draws the follow- ing distinction in his Commentary on the Romans (ii. 4)—the Greek original is lost : —‘ Sustentatio [ἀνοχή] a patientia [paxpo- θυμία)] hoe videtur differre, quod qui infirmitate magis quam proposito delinquunt swstentari dicuntur; qui vero pertinaci mente velut exsultant in delictis suis, ferri patienter dicendi sunt.’ This does not seize very successfully the distinction, which is not one merely of degree. Rather the dvoyy is tem- porary, transient: we may say that, like our ‘ truce,’ it asserts its own temporary, transient character; that after a certain αν SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 187 lapse of time, and unless other conditions intervene, it will pass away. This, it may be urged, is true of μακροθυμία no less; above all, of the divine μακροθυμία (Luke xiii. 9). But as much does not lie in the word; we may conceive of a μακροθυμία, though it would be worthy of little honour, which should never be exhausted; while ἀνοχή implies its own merely provisional character. Fritzsche (on Rom. ii. 4) distinguishes the words: ‘7 ἀνοχή indulgentiam notat qua jus tuum non continuo exequutus, ei qui te leserit spatium des ad resipiscendum ; ἡ μακροθυμία clementiam significat qua iree temperans delictum non statim vindices, sed ei qui pecca- verit poenitendi locum relinquas;’ elsewhere (Rom. 111. 26) he draws the matter still better to a point: ‘ Indulgentia [ἡ ἀνοχή] eo valet, ut in aliorum peccatis conniveas, non ut alicui pec- cata condones, quod clementie est.’ It is therefore most fitly used at Rom. iii. 26 in relation to the πάρεσις ἁμαρτίων which found place before the atoning death of Christ, as contrasted with the ἄφεσις ἁμαρτίων, which was the result of that death (see back, p. 108). It is that forbearance or suspense of wrath, that truce with the sinner, which by no means implies that the wrath will not be executed at the last; nay, involves that it certainly will, unless he be found under new conditions of repentance and obedience (Luke xiii. 9; Rom. 11. 3-6). The words are distinguished, but the difference ee them’ not very sharply defined, by Jeremy Taylor, in his first Sermon ‘ On the Mercy of the Divine Judgments,’ in wnt. S liv. στρηνιάω, τρυφάω, σπαταλάω. In all these words lies the notion of excess, of wanton, dis- solute, self-indulgent, prodigal living, but in each case with a difference. Srpyvidw occurs only twice in the N. T. (Rev. xviii. 7, 9), στρῆνος once (Rev. xviii. 3; cf. 2 Kin. xix. 28), and the com- pound καταστρηνιάω as often (1 Tim. v. 11). It is a word of the New or Middle Comedy, and is used by Lycophron, as quoted in Atheneus (x. 420 b); by Sophilus (zd. iii. 100 a) ; 188 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § τὰν and Antiphanes (ib. ili. 127 d); but rejected by the Greek purists—Phrynichus, indeed, affirming that none but a mad- man would employ it, having τρυφᾶν at his command (Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 381). This last, which is thus so greatly preferred, is a word of solitary occurrence in the N. T. (Jam, v. 5); ἐντρυφᾶν (2 Pet. ii. 13) of the same; but belongs with τρυφή (Luke vii. 25 ; 2 Pet. ii. 18) to the best age and most classical writers in the language. It will be found on closer inspection that the words do different work, but that often- times one could not be employed in room of the other. In στρηνιᾶν (=daraxretv, Suidas ; διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ὑβρίζειν, Hesychius), is properly the insolence of wealth, the wanton- ness and petulance springing from fulness of bread; some- thing of the Latin ‘lascivire.’ There is nothing of sybaritic effeminacy in it; so far from this that Pape connects στρῆνος with ‘strenuus’; see too Pott, Htymol. Forsch. ii. 2. 357 ; and there is ever the notion of strength, vigour, the German ‘Uebermuth,’ such as that displayed by the inhabitants of Sodom (Gen. xix. 4-9), implied in the word. On the other hand, effeminacy, brokenness of spirit through self-indulgence, is exactly the point from which τρυφή and τρυφᾶν (connected with θρύπτειν and θρύψις), start; thus τρυφή is linked with χλιδή (Philo, De Merc. Mer. 2); with πολυτέλεια (Plutarch, “Marcell. 8); with μαλακία (De Aud. Poét. 4); with ῥαθυμία (Marcellus, 21); cf. Suicer, Thes.s. v.; and note the company which it keeps elsewhere (Plato, 1 Alcib. 122 b); and the description of. it which Clement of Alexandria gives (Strom. li. 20) : τί γὰρ ἕτερον ἣ τρυφή, ἢ φιλήδονος λιχνεία, καὶ πλεονασμὸς περίεργος, πρὸς ἡδυπάθειαν ἀνειμένων ; It only runs into the notion of the insolent as a secondary and rarer meaning ; being then united with ὕβρις (Aristophanes, Rane, 21; Strabo, vi. 1); τρυφᾶν with ὑβρίζειν (Plutarch, Prec. Ger. Reip.8); and com- pare the line of Menander (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Gr. p. 984) : ὑπερήφανόν που γίνεθ᾽ ἡ λίαν τρυφή. It occasionally from thence passes forward into a good sense, and expresses the triumph and exultation of the saints of God (Chrysostom, in Matt. Hom. 67, 668 ; Isai. Ixvi. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 13; Ps. xxxv. 9); δὴν O27 NOV IMS OF THE NEW. TESTAMENT] f50 so, too, ἐντρυφᾶν (Isai. lv. 2) ; while the garden of Eden is παράδεισος τῆς τρυφῆς (Gen. ii. 15 ; Joel 1]. 8). Sraradav (occurring only 1 Tim. v. 6; Jam. v. 5; ef. Ececlus. xxi. 17; Ezek. xvi. 49; Amos vi. 4; the last two being instructive passages) is more nearly allied to τρυφᾶν, _ with which at Jam. v. 5 it is associated, than with στρηνιᾶν, but it brings in the further notion of wastefulness (=dva- λίσκειν, Hesychius), which, consistently with its derivation from σπάω, σπαθάω, is inherent in it. Thus Hottinger: “τρυφᾶν deliciarum est, et exquisite voluptatis, σπαταλᾶν luxurie atque prodigalitatis.’ Tittmann: ‘zpuvdav potius mollitiam vite luxuriose, σπαταλᾶν petulantiam et prodigali- tatem denotat.’ Theile, who takes them in the reverse order : ‘Componuntur tanquam antecedens et consequens; diffluere et dilapidare, luxuriare et lascivire.’ It will follow, if these distinctions have been rightly drawn, that the σπαταλᾶν might properly be laid to the charge of the Prodigal, scattering his substance in riotous living (ζῶν ἀσώτως, Luke xv. 13) ; the τρυφᾶν to the Rich Man faring sumptuously every day (εὐφραινόμενος καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λαμπρῶς, Luke xvi. 19) ; the στρηνιᾶν to Jeshurun, when, waxing fat, he kicked (Deut. χετη, 10). δ lv. θλῖψις, στενοχωρία. THESE words were often joined together. Thus στενοχωρία, occurring only four times in the N. T., is on three of these associated with θλῖψις (Rom. ii. 9; vili. 85; 2 Cor. vi. 4; ef. Deut. xxvill. 55; Isai. viii. 22; xxx. 6). So too the verbs θλίβειν and στενοχωρεῖν (2 Cor. iv. 8; ef. Lucian, Nigrin. 18 ; Artemidorus, 1. 79 ; 11. 87). From the antithesis at 2 Cor. iv. 8, θλιβόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ στενοχωρούμενοι, and from the fact that, wherever in the N. T. the words occur together, στενοχωρία always occurs last, we may conclude that, whatever be the difference of meaning, στενοχωρία is the stronger word. They indeed express very nearly the same thing, but not under the same image. Θλῖψις (joined with βάσανος at Ezek. 190 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $3 1v xii. 18, with ἀνάγκη, Zeph. i. 15, and for which we have the form θλιμμός, Exod. iii. 9 ; Deut. xxxvi. 7) is properly pressure, ‘pressura,’ ‘ tribulatio,—which last word in Church-Latin, whereto it belongs, had a metaphorical sense,—that which presses upon or burdens the spirit ; 1 should have said ‘ angor,’ the more that Cicero (Zwsc. iv. 8) explains this ‘ xgritudo premens, but that the connexion of ‘angor’ with ‘ angst,’ ‘enge’ (see Grimm, Worterbuch, s. v. Angst; and Max Miiller, On the Science of Language, 1861, vol. i. p. 366), makes it better to reserve this for στενοχωρία. The proper meaning of στενοχωρία is narrowness of room, confined space, ‘angustiz,’ and then the painfulness of which this is the occasion: ἀπορία στενή and στενοχωρία occurring together, Isai. viii. 22. It is used literally by Thucydides, vii. 70: being sometimes exchanged for dvcxwpia: by Plu- tarch (Symp. v. 6) set over against ἄνεσις ; while in the Sep- tuagint it expresses the straitness of a siege (Deut. xxviii. 58, 57). It is once employed in a secondary and metaphorical sense in the O. T. (στενοχωρία πνεύματος, Wisd. v. 8); this being the only sense which it knows in the New. The fitness of this image is attested by the frequency with which on the other hand a state of joy is expressed in the Psalms and else- where as a bringing into a large room (πλατυσμός, Ps. exvii. 5 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 20; Keclus. xlvii. 12; Clement of Rome, Cor. 3; Origen, De Orat. 80; εὐρυχωρία, Marcus Antoninus, ix. 82) ; so that whether Aquinas intended an etymology or not, and most probably he did, he certainly uttered a truth, when he said, ‘latitia est quasi latitia.’ When, according to the ancient law of England, those who wilfully refused to plead had heavy weights placed on their breasts, and were so pressed and crushed to death, this was literally θλῖψις. When Bajazet, vanquished by Tamerlane, was carried about by him in an iron cage, if indeed the story be true, this was στενοχωρία : or, as we do not know that any suffering there ensued from actual narrowness of room, we may more fitly adduce the owbliettes in which Louis XI. shut §tvi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τοι up his victims; or the ‘little-ease’! by which, according to Lingard, the Roman Catholics in Queen Elizabeth’s reign were tortured; ‘it was of so small dimensions and so con- structed, that the prisoners could neither stand, walk, sit, nor lie at full length in it.’ For some considerations on the awful sense in which θλῖψις and στενοχωρία shall both, according to St. Paul’s words (Rom. ii. 9), be the portion of the lost, see Gerhard, Loc. Theoll. xxxi. 6. 52. ‘ δ᾽ lvi. ἁπλοῦς, ἀκέραιος, ἄκακος, ἄδολος. In this group of words we have some of the rarest and most excellent graces of the Christian character set forth ; or per- haps, as it may rather prove, the same grace by aid of different images, and with only slightest shades of real difference. ᾿Απλοῦς occurs only twice in the N. T. (Matt. vi. 22; Luke xi. 34) ; but ἁπλότης. seven times, or perhaps eight, always in St. Paul’s Epistles; and ἁπλῶς once (Jam. i. 5). It would be quite impossible to improve on ‘ single’ * by which our Trans- lators have rendered it, being as it is from ἁπλόω, ‘ expando,’ ‘explico,’ that which is spread out, and thus without folds or wrinkles ; exactly opposed to the πολύπλοκος of Job v. 18; compare ‘simplex’ (not ‘without folds’; but ‘one-folded,’ ‘semel,’ not ‘sine,’ lying in its first syllable, ‘ einfaltig,’ see Donaldson, Varronianus, p. 390), which is its exact representa- tive in Latin, and a word, like it, in honorable use. This notion of singleness, simplicity, absence of folds, which thus lies according to its etymology in ἁπλοῦς, is also predominant in its use—‘ animus alienus a versutid, fraude, simulatione, dolo malo, et studio nocendialiis’ (Suicer) ; οἵ, Herzog, Real- Encyclop. art. Hinfalt, vol. 111. p. 723. ι The word ‘little-ease’ is not in our Dictionaries, but grew in our early English to a commonplace to express any place or condition of extreme discomfort. 2 See a good note in Fritzsche, Commentary on the Romans, vol. iii. p. 64, denying that ἁπλότης has ever the meaning of liberality, which our Translators have so often given to it. 192. SYNONYMS. OF THE. NEW TESTAMENT §1UvI That all this lies in the word is manifest from those with which we find it associated, as ἀληθής (Xenophon, Anab. ii. 6. 22; Plato, Legg. v. 188 6, and often); ἀπόνηρος (Theo- phrastus) ; γενναῖος (Plato, Rep. ii. 861 δ) ; ἄκρατος (Plutarch, Adv. Stoic. 48); μονοειδής (De Anim. Procr. 21); ἀσύνθετος (=‘ incompositus,’ not put together, 7b.; Basil, Adv. Hunom. i. 28) ; μονότροπος (Hom. in Prin. Prov. 7): σαφής (Alexis, in Meineke’s Fragm. Com. Grec. p. 750); ἄκακος (Diodorus Siculus, xiii. 76); ὑγιής (Demosthenes, Orat. xxxvii. 969). But it is still more apparent from those to which it is opposed; as ποικίλος (Plato, Theet. 146 d); πολυειδής (Phedrus, 270 d) ; πολύτροπος (Hipp. Min. 864 6) ; πεπλεγμένος (Aristotle, Poét. 18 ; διπλοῦς (6.) ; ἐπίβουλος (Xenophon, Mem. iii. 1. 6); παντοδαπός (Plutarch, Quom. Adul. ab Amic. 7). ‘ArAdrys (see 1 Mace. ii. 87; οἵ. Philo, de Vit. Contempt. 10: ἁπλούστατα καὶ εἰλικρινέστατα) 15. In this manner associated with εἰλικρίνεια (2 Cor. i. 12), with ἀκακία (Philo, Mund. Opif. 61); the two words being used indiscriminately in the Septuagint to render the Hebrew which we translate now ‘integrity’ (Ps. vii. 8; Prov. xix. 1), now ‘simplicity’ (2 Sam. xv. 11); again with μεγαλοψυχία (Josephus, Anit. vii. 18. 4), with ἀγαθότης (Wisd. i. 1). It is opposed to ποικιλία (Plato, Rep. iii. 404 e), to πολυτροπία, to κακουργία (Theophylact), to κακοήθεια (Theodoret, to δόλος (Aristophanes, Plut. 1158). It may further be observed that om (Gen. xxv. 27), which the Septuagint renders ἄπλαστος, Aquila has rendered ἁπλοῦς. As happens to at least one other word of this group, and to multitudes besides which express the same grace, ἁπλοῦς comes often to be used of a foolish simplicity, unworthy of the Christian, who with all his simplicity should be φρόνιμος as well (Matt. x. 16; Rom. xvi. 19). It is so used by Basil the Great (Hp. 58; but nowhere in biblical Greek. ᾿Ακέραιος (not in the Septuagint) occurs only three times in the N. T. (Matt. x. 16; Rom. xvi. 19; Phil. ui. 15). Α mistaken etymology, namely, that it was =dxéparos, and derived from ἀ and κέρας (cf. κεραΐζειν, ‘ledere’; κερατίζειν, §itv1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 193 LXX.), without horn to push or hurt,—one into which even Bengel falls, who at Matt. x. 16 has this note: "ἀκέραιοι : sine cornu, ungula, dente, aculeo,’—has led our Translators on two of these occasions to render it ‘harmless.’ In each case, however, they have put a more correct rendering, ‘ simple ’ . (Matt. x. 16), ‘sincere ’ (Phil. ii. 15), in the margin. At Rom. xvi. 19 all is reversed, and ‘ simple’ stands in the text, with ‘harmless’ in the margin. The fundamental notion of ἀκέραιος, aS Of ἀκήρατος, which has the same derivation from d and κεράννυμι, is the absence of foreign admixture: 6 μὴ κεκραμένος κακοῖς, αλλ’ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ἀποίκιλος (Kiym. Μαρ.). Thus Philo, speaking of a boon which Caligula granted to the Jews, but with harsh conditions annexed, styles it a χάρις οὐκ ἀκέραιος, With manifest reference to this its etymology (De Leg. ad Cat. 42): ὅμως, μέντοι καὶ τὴν χάριν διδούς, ἔδωκεν οὐκ ἀκέραιον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀναμίξας αὐτῇ δέος ἀργαλεώτερον. Wine un- mingled with water is ἀκέραιος (Αὐπθηεθαθ, ii. 45). To unalloyed metal the same epithet is applied. The word is joined by Plato with ἀβλαβής (Rep. i. 342 δ), and with ὀρθός (Polit. 268 b); by Plutarch with ὑγιής (Adv. Stoic. 81) ; set over against ταρακτικός (De Def. Orac. 51); by Clement of Rome (Cor. 2) with εἰλικρινής. That, we may say, is ἀκέραιος, which is in its true and natural condition (Polybius, ii. 100. 4; Josephus, Anit. i. 2. 2) ‘integer’; in this bordering on ὁλόκληρος, although completeness in all the parts is there the predominant idea, and not, as here, freedom from disturbing elements. The word which we have next to consider, ἄκακος, appears only twice in the N. T. (Heb. vii. 26; Rom. xvi. 18). There are three stages in its history, two of which are sufficiently marked by its use in these two places; for the third we must seek elsewhere. Thus at Heb. vii. 26 the epithet challenges for Christ the Lord that absence of all evil which implies the presence of all good; being associated there with other noblest epithets. The Septuagint, which knows all uses of ἄκακος, employs it sometimes in this highest sense ; thus Job is described as ἄνθρωπος ἄκακος, ἀληθινός, ἄμεμπτος, θεοσεβής, Ο 194 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT δινι ἀπεχόμενος κιτ.λ. (Job 11. 8); while at Job viii. 20, the ἄκακος is opposed to the ἀσεβής ; and at Ps. xxiv. 21 is joined to the εὐθής, as by Plutarch (De Prof. Virt. 7) to the σώφρων. The word at its next stage expresses the same absence of all harm, but now contemplated more negatively than positively : thus ἀρνίον ἄκακον (Jer. xi. 19); παιδίσκη νέα καὶ ἄκακος (Plutarch, Virt. Mul. 23); ἄκακος καὶ ἀπράγμων (Demosthenes, Orat. xlvii. 1164). The N. T. supplies no example of the word at this its second stage. The process by which it comes next to signify easily deceived, and then too easily deceived, and ἀκακία, simplicity running into an excess (Aristotle, Rhet. ii. 12), is not difficult to trace. He who himself means no evil to others, oftentimes fears no evil from others. Conscious of truth in his own heart, he believes truth in the hearts of all : a noble quality, yet in a world like ours capable of being pushed too far, where, if in malice we are to be children, yet in understanding to be men (1 Cor. xiv. 20) ; if ‘‘ simple con- cerning evil,’’ yet “ wise unto that which is good”’ (Rom. xvi. 19; cf. Jeremy Taylor’s sermon On Christian Simplicity, Works, Eiden’s edition, vol. iv. p. 609). The word, as employed Rom. xvi. 18, already indicates such a confidence as this beginning to degenerate into a credulous readi- ness to the being deceived and led away from the truth (θαυμαστικοὶ καὶ ἄκακοι, Plutarch, De Rect. Rat. Aud. 7; ef. Wisd. iv. 12; Prov. i. 4 [where Solomon declares the object with which his Proverbs were written, ἵνα δῷ ἀκάκοις πανουρ- yiav|; viii. 5; xiv. 15, ἄκακος πιστεύει παντὶ λόγῳ. For a somewhat contemptuous use of ἄκακος, see Plato, Timeus, 91 d, with Stallbaum’s note; and Plutarch (Dem. 1): τὴν ἀπειρίᾳ τῶν κακῶν καλλωπιζομένην ἀκακίαν οὐκ ἐπαινοῦσιν [οἱ σοφοί], ἀλλ᾽ ἀβελτερίαν ἡγοῦνται καὶ ἄγνοιαν ὧν μάλιστα γινώσκειν προσήκει: but above all, the words which the author of the Second Alcibiades puts into the mouth of Socrates (140 c) : τοὺς μὲν πλεῖστον αὐτῆς [ἀφροσύνης] μέρος ἔχοντας μαινομένους καλοῦμεν, τοὺς δ᾽ ὀλίγον ἔλαττον ἠλιθίους καὶ ἐμβροντήτους " οἵἱ δὲ ἐν εὐφημοτάτοις ὀνόμασι βουλόμενοι κατονομάζειν, of μὲν μεγαλοψύχους, οἱ δὲ εὐήθεις, ἕτεροι δὲ ἀκάκους, καὶ ἀπείρους, καὶ ξινι SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τὸς ἐνεού. But after all it is in the mouth of the rogue Autolycus that Shakespeare put the words, ‘What a fool Honesty is, and Trust, his sworn brother, a very simple gentleman’ (Winter’s Tale, act iv. sc. 8). The second and third among these meanings of ἄκακος are separated by so slight and vanishing a line, oftentimes so run into one another, that it is not wonderful if some find rather two stages in the word’s use than three ; Basil the Great, for example, whose words are worth quoting (Hom. in Princ. Prov. 11): διττῶς νοοῦμεν τὴν ἀκακίαν. Ἢ yap τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀλλοτρίωσιν λογισμῷ κατορθουμένην, καὶ διὰ μακρᾶς προσοχῆς καὶ μελέτης τῶν ἀγαθῶν οἷόν τινα ῥίζαν τῆς κακίας ἐκτεμόντες, κατὰ στέρησιν αὐτῆς παντελῆ, τὴν τοῦ ἀκάκου προσηγορίαν δεχόμεθα: ἢ ἀκακία ἐστὶν ἡ μή πω τοῦ κακοῦ ἐμπειρία διὰ νεότητα πολλάκις ἢ βίου τινὸς ἐπιτήδευσιν, ἀπείρων τινῶν πρός τινας κακίας διακειμένων. Οἷον εἰσί τινες τῶν τὴν ἀγροικίαν οἰκούντων, οὐκ εἰδότες τὰς ἐμπορικὰς κακουργίας οὐδὲ τὰς ἐν δικαστηρίῳ διαπλοκάς. Τοὺς τοιούτους ἀκάκους λέγομεν, οὐχ ὡς ἐκ προαιρέσεως τῆς κακίας κεχωρισμένους, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς μή πω εἰς πεῖραν τῆς πονηρᾶς ἕξεως ἀφιγμένους. From all this it will be seen that ἄκακος has in fact run the same course, and has the same moral history as χρηστός, ἁπλοῦς, εὐήθης, with which it is often joined (as by Diodorus Siculus, v. 66), ‘bon’ (thus Jean le Bon=l’étourdi), ‘bonhomie,’ ‘silly,’ ‘simple,’ ‘ daft,’ ‘einfaltig,’ ‘ giitig,’ and many more. The last word of this beautiful group, ἄδολος, occurs only once in the N. T. (1 Pet. ii. 2), and is there beautifully trans- lated ‘ sincere,’—‘“‘ the sincere milk of the word;’’ see the early English use of ‘sincere’ as unmixed, unadulterated ; and compare, for that ‘ milk of the word’ which would not be ‘sincere,’ 2 Cor. iv. 2. It does not appear in the Septuagint, nor in the Apocrypha, but ἀδόλως once in the latter (Wisd. vii. 13). Plato joins it with ὑγιής (Hp. viil. 855 e); Philo, with ἀμιγής and καθαρός (Mund. Opif. 47); Philemo with γνήσιος (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Grac. p. 848). It is difficult, indeed impossible, to vindicate an ethical province for this word, on which other of the group have not encroached, or, 02 196 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § tviu indeed, preoccupied already. We can only regard it as setting forth the same excellent grace under another image, or on another side. Thus if the ἄκακος has nothing of the serpent’s tooth, the ἄδολος has nothing of the serpent’s guile; if the absence of willingness to hurt, of the malice of our fallen nature, is predicated of the ἄκακος, the absence of its fraud and deceit is predicated of the ἄδολος, the Nathanael “in whom is no guile’ (John i. 48). And finally, to sum up all, we may say, that as the ἄκακος (=‘innocens’) has no harmful- ness in him, and the ἄδολος (=‘ sincerus’) no guile, so the ἀκέραιος (=‘ integer’) no foreign admixture, and the ἀπλοῦς (=‘ simplex ’) no folds. δ lvii. χρόνος, καιρός. SEVERAL times in the N. T., but always in the plural, χρόνοι καὶ καιροί are found together (Acts i. 7; 1 Thess. v. 1); and not unfrequently in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, Wisd. vii. 18; viii. 8 (both instructive passages) ; Dan. ii. 21; and in the singular, Eccles. iii. 1; Dan. vii. 12 (but in this last passage the reading is doubtful). Grotius (on Acts 1. 7) con- ceives the difference between them to consist merely in the greater length of the χρόνοι as compared with the καιροί, and writes : ‘ χρόνοι sunt majora temporum spatia, ut anni; καιροί minora, ut menses et dies.’ Compare Bengel: ‘ χρόνων partes καιροί. This distinction, if not inaccurate, is certainly insuf- ficient, and altogether fails to reach the heart of the matter. Χρόνος is time, contemplated simply as such ; the succes- sion of moments (Matt. xxv. 19; Rev. x. 6; Heb. iv. 7); αἰῶνος εἰκὼν κινητή, aS Plato calls it (Tim. 37 d; compare Hooker, Eccles. Pol. v. 69); διάστημα τῆς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κινήσεως, as Philo has it (De Mund. Op.7) It isthe German ‘ Zeitrawm,’ as distinguished from ‘ Zeitpwnkt;’ thus compare Demo- sthenes, 13857, where both the words occur; and Severianus (Suicer, Tes. 8. v.) : χρόνος μῆκός ἐστι, καιρὸς εὐκαιρία. Καιρός, derived from κείρω, a3 ‘tempus’ from ‘temno,’ is time as it brings forth its several births; thus καιρὸς θερισμοῦ (Matt. §tvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 197 ΧΙ]. 80) ; καιρὸς σύκων (Mark xi. 18) ; Christ died κατὰ καιρόν (Rom. v. 6); and above all compare, as constituting a minia- ture essay on the word, Hiccles. iii. 1-8: see Keil, im loco. Χρόνος, it will thus appear, embraces all possible καιροί, and, being the larger, more inclusive term, may be often used “where καιρός would have been equally suitable, though not the converse; thus χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν, the time of bringing forth (Luke i. 57); πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (Gal. iv. 4), the ful- ness, or the ripeness, of the time for the manifestation of the Son of God, where we should before have rather expected τοῦ καιροῦ, OY τῶν καιρῶν, this last phrase actually occurring at Ephes. i. 10. So, too, we may confidently say that the χρόνοι ἀποκαταστάσεως (Acts ili. 21) are identical with the καιροὶ ἀνα- ψύξεως Which had just been mentioned before (ver.19). Thus it is possible to speak of the καιρὸς χρόνου, and Sophocles (Elect. 1292) does so: χρόνου yap ἄν σοι καιρὸν ἐξείργοι λόγος, but not of the χρόνος καιροῦ. Compare Olympiodorus (Suicer, Thes. 8. V. χρόνος) : χρόνος μέν ἐστι τὸ διάστημα καθ᾽ ὃ πράττεταί τι" καιρὸς δὲ ὃ ἐπιτήδειος τῆς ἐργασίας χρόνος - ὥστε ὃ μὲν χρόνος καὶ καιρὸς εἶναι δύναται - ὃ δὲ καιρὸς οὐ χρόνος, ἀλλ᾽ εὐκαιρία τοῦ πραττομένου ἐν χρόνῳ γινομένη. Ammonius: ὃ μὲν καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποιότητα χρόνου, χρόνος δὲ ποσότητα. In a fragment of Sosi- pater, quoted by Athenzeus, ix. 22, εὔκαιρος χρόνος occurs. From what has been said, it will appear that when the Apostles ask the Lord, “ Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?’’ and He makes answer, “ It is not for you to know the times or the seasons”’ (Acts i. 6, 7), ‘ the times’ (χρόνοι) are, in Augustine’s words, ‘ipsa spatia tem- porum,’ and these contemplated merely under the aspect of their duration, over which the Church’s history should extend; but ‘ the seasons’ (καιροί) are the joints or articulations in these times, the critical epoch-making periods fore-ordained of God (καιροὶ προτεταγμένοι, Acts xvii. 26; cf. Augustine, Conf. xi. 13: ‘Deus operator temporum ’); when all that has been slowly, and often without observation, ripening through long \ 198 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § tvi1 ages, is mature and comes to the birth in grand decisive events, which constitute at once the close of one period and the commencement of another. Such, for example, was the passing away with a great noise of the old Jewish dispensa- tion ; such, again, the recognition of Christianity as the reli- gion of the Roman Empire ; such the conversion of the Ger- manic tribes settled within the limits of the Empire; and such again the conversion of those outside ; such the great revival which went along with the first institution of the Mendicant Orders; such, by still better right, the Reformation; such, above all others, the second coming of the Lord in glory (Dan. vii. 22). The Latin had no word by which adequately to render καιροί. Augustine complains of this (Hp. cxcviil. 2) ; ‘ Grace legitur χρόνους ἢ καιρούς. Nostri autem utrumque hoc verbum tempora appellant, sive χρόνους, sive καιρούς, cum habeant hee duo inter se non negligendam differentiam : καιρούς quippe appellant Greci tempora quedam, non tamen que in spati- orum voluminibus transeunt, sed que in rebus ad aliquid op- portunis vel importunis sentiuntur, sicut messis, vindemia, calor, frigus, pax, bellum, et si qua similia ; χρόνους autem ipsa spatia temporum vocant.’ It will be seen that he does not recognize ‘ tempestivitas,’ which, however, is used by Cicero. Bearing out this complaint of his, we find in the Vulgate the most various renderings of καιροί, as often as it occurs in com- bination with χρόνοι, and cannot therefore be rendered by ‘tempora,’ which χρόνοι has preoccupied. Thus ‘ tempora et momenta’ (Acts i. 7; 1 Thess. v. 1), ‘tempora et @tates’ (Dan. ii. 21), ‘tempora et s@cula’ (Wisd. viii. 8); while a modern Latin commentator on the N. T. has ‘tempora et articuli’; Bengel, ‘intervalla et tempora.’ It might be urged that ‘tempora et opportunitates’ would fulfil all neces- sary conditions. Augustine has anticipated this suggestion, but only to demonstrate its insufficiency, on the ground that ‘opportunitas’ (=‘opportunum tempus’) is a convenient, favourable season (εὐκαιρία) ; while the καιρός may be the most inconvenient, most unfavourable of all, the essential notion of §tvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 199 it being that it is the critical nick of time, the ἀκμή, Sophocles, Philoct. 12; Ajax, 822; but whether, as such, to make or to mar, effectually to help or effectually to hinder, the word determines not at all (‘sive opportuna, sive importuna sint tempora, καιροί dicuntur’). At the same time it is oftener the former : καιρὸς yap ὅσπερ ἀνδράσιν Μέγιστος ἔργου παντός ἐστ᾽ ἐπιστάτης (Sophocles, Hlectra, 75, 76). On the distinction between χρόνος, καιρός, and αἰών, see Schmidt, Synonymik, vol. 11. p. 54 sqq. δ᾽ lvl. φέῤω, φορέω. ΟΝ the distinction between these words Lobeck (Phrynichus, p. 585) has the following remarks: ‘Inter φέρω et φορέω hoc interesse constat, quod illud actionem simplicem et transi- toriam, hoc autem actionis ejusdem continuationem significat ; verbi causd ἀγγελίην φέρειν, est alicujus rei nuncium afferre, Herod. iii. 53 et 122; v.14; ἀγγελίην φορέειν, iii. 84, nuncii munere apud aliquem fungi. Hine et φορεῖν dicimur ea que nobiscuut circumferimus, quibus amicti indutique sumus, ut ἱμάτιον, τριβώνιον, δακτύλιον φορεῖν, tum que ad habitum cor- poris pertinent.’ He proceeds, however, to acknowledge that this distinction is by no means constantly observed even by the best Greek authors. It is, therefore, the more noticeable, as an example of that accuracy which so often takes us by surprise in the use of words by the writers of the N. T., that they are always true to this rule. On the six occasions upon which φορεῖν occurs (Matt. xi. 8; John xix. 5; Rom. xiii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 49, bis ; Jam. ii. 3), it invariably expresses, not an accidental and temporary, but an habitual and continuous, bearing. ‘Sic enim differt φορεῖν a φέρειν, ut hoe sit ferre, “illud ferre solere’ (Fritzsche, on Matt. xi. 8). A sentence in Plutarch (Apoph. Reg.), in which both words occur, illustrates very well their different uses. Of Xerxes he tells us: ὀργισθεὶς δὲ Βαβυλωνίοις ἀποστᾶσι, καὶ κρατήσας, προσέταξεν ὅπλα᾽ μὴ φέρειν, ἀλλὰ ψάλλειν καὶ αὐλεῖν καὶ πορνοβοσκεῖν καὶ καπη- λεύειν, καὶ φορεῖν κολπωτοὺς χιτῶνας. Arms would only be 200 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ΕἸΣ borne on special occasions, therefore φέρειν ; but garments are habitually worn, therefore this is in the second clause exchanged for φορεῖν. § lix. κόσμος, αἰών. Κόσμος our Translators have rendered ‘world’ in every in- stance but one (1 Pet. iii. 3); αἰών often, though by no means invariably so; for (not to speak of εἰς αἰῶνα) see Ephes. ii. 2, 7; Col. i. 26. It may be a question whether we might not have made more use of ‘age’ in our Version: we have em- ployed it but rarely,—only, indeed, in the two places which I have cited last. ‘Age’ may sound to us inadequate now: but it is quite possible that, so used, it would little by little have expanded and adapted itself to the larger meaning of the Greek word for which it stood. One must regret that, by this or some other like device, our Translators did not mark the difference between κόσμος (=mundus), the world contemplated under aspects of space, and αἰών (=seculum), the same contemplated under aspects of time; for the Latin, no less than the Greek, has two words, where we have, or have acted as though we had, but one. In all those passages (such as Matt. xiii. 89; 1 Cor. x. 11) which speak of the end or consummation of the αἰών (there are none which speak of the end of the κόσμος), as in others which speak of “the wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. ii. 6), “ the god of this world” (2 Cor. iv. 4), “the children of this world’ (Luke xvi. 8), it must be admitted that we are losers by the course which we have adopted. Κόσμος, connected with κόμειν, ‘ comere,’ ‘ comptus,’ has a history of much interest in more respects than one. Suidas traces four successive significations through which it passed: σημαίνει δὲ ὃ κόσμος τέσσαρα, εὐπρέπειαν, τόδε TO πᾶν, THY τάξιν, τὸ πλῆθος παρὰ τῇ Γραφῇ. Originally signifying ‘ ornament,’ and obtaining this meaning once in the N. T. (1 Pet. iii. 3), where we render it ‘adorning,’ and hardly obtaining any other in the Old (thus the stars are ὃ κόσμος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ΤΙΣ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 201 Deut. xvii. 8; Isai. xxiv. 21; ef. xlix. 18; Jer. iv. 830; Ezek. vil. 20; Ecclus. xliii. 9); from this it passed to that of order, or arrangement (‘ lucidus ordo ’), or beauty as springing out of these ; εὐπρέπεια and τάξις, as Suidas gives it above, or καλλω- πισμός, κατασκευή, τάξις, κατάστασις, κάλλος, as Hesychius. Pythagoras is recorded as the first who transferred κόσμος to the sum total of the material universe (for a history of this transfer see a note in Humboldt’s Cosmos, 1846, Engl. edit. p. 371), desiring thereby to express his sense of the beauty and order which are everywhere to be traced therein: so Plutarch (De Plac. Phil. i. 5) tells us; while others report that he called by this name not the whole material universe, but only the heaven ; claiming for it this name on the same ground, namely, on that of the well-ordered arrangement which was visible therein (Diogenes Laértius, viii. 48); and we often find the word so used; as by Xenophon, Mem. i. 1.11; by Isocrates, i. 179; by Plato (Tim. 28 b), who yet employs it also in the larger and what we might call more ideal sense, as embracing and including within itself, and in the bonds of one communion and fellowship, heaven and earth and gods and men (Gorg. 508 a); by Aristotle (De Mund.2; and see Bentley, Works, vol. i. p. 891; vol. ii. p. 117). ‘Mundus’ in Latin,—‘ digestio et ordinatio singularum quarumque rerum formatarum et distinctarum,’ as Augustine (De Gen. ad Lit. c. 8) calls it,—followed in nearly the same track as the Greek κόσμος ; giving occasion to profound plays of words, such as “Ὁ munde immunde,’ in which the same illustrious Church- teacher delights. Thus Pliny (H..N.3): Quem κόσμον Greci nomine ornamentis appellaverunt, eum nos a perfecta absolu- tique elegantid mundum;’ cf. Cicero (De Universo, 10): ‘Hunc hac varietate distinctum bene Greci κόσμον, nos lucentem mundum nominamus;’ cf. De Nat. Deor. ii. 22; but on the inferiority as a philosophical expression of ‘mundus’ to κόσμος, see Sayce, Principles of Comparative Philology, p. 98. From this signification of κόσμος as the material universe, which is frequent in Scripture (Matt. xiii. 835; John xvii. 5; 202 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ΣΥ͂Σ xxl. 25; Acts xviii. 24; Rom. i. 20), followed that of κόσμος as that external framework of things in which man lives and moves, which exists for him and of which he constitutes the moral centre (John xvi. 21; 1 Cor. xiv. 10; 1 John iii. 17) ; here very nearly equivalent to οἰκουμένη (Matt. xxiv. 14; Acts xix. 27); and then the men themselves, the sum total of persons living in the world (John i. 29; iv. 42; 2Cor.v. 19); and then upon this, and ethically, all not of the ἐκκλησία," alienated from the life of God and by wicked works enemies to Him (1 Cor. i. 20, 21; 2 Cor. vii. 10; Jam. iv. 4). I need hardly call attention here to the immense part which κόσμος thus understood plays in the theology of St. John; both in his record of his Master’s sayings, and in his own writings (John i. 10; vii. 7; xii. 81; 1 John ii. 16; v. 4); occurring in his Gospel and Epistles more than a hundred times, most often in this sense. On this last use of κόσμος, and on the fact that it should have been utterly strange to the entire heathen world, which had no sense of this opposition between God and man, the holy and unholy, and that the same should have been latent and not distinctly called out even in the O. T., on all this there are some admirable remarks by Zezschwitz, Profangrdcitat und Bibl. Sprachgeist, pp. 21-24: while on these various meanings of κόσμος, and on the serious con- fusions which, if not carefully watched against, may arise therefrom, Augustine (Con. Jul. Pelag. vi. 8, 4) may be con- sulted with advantage. We must reject the etymology of αἰών which Aristotle (De Cel. i.9) propounds: ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι εἰληφὼς τὴν ἐπω- νυμίαν. It is more probably connected with aw, ἄημι, to breathe. Like κόσμος it has a primary and physical, and then, super- induced on this, a secondary and ethical, sense. In its primary, it signifies time, short or long, in its unbroken dura- tion ; oftentimes in classical Greek the duration of a human life (= ios, for which it is exchanged, Xenophon, Cyrop. iii. 1 Origen indeed (in Joan. 38) mentions some one in his day who interpreted κόσμος as the Church, being as itis the ornament of the world (κόσμος οὖσα τοῦ κόσμου). § tix SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 203 8. 52; ef. Plato, Legg. iii. 701 c; Sophocles, Trachin. 2; Elect. 1085: πάγκλαυτον αἰῶνα εἵλου : Pindar, Olymp. 11. 120: ἄδακρυν νέμονται αἰῶνα) ; but essentially time as the condition under which all created things exist, and the measure of their existence; thus Theodoret: 6 αἰὼν οὐκ οὐσία τις ἐστίν, ἀλλ’ ἀνυπόστατον χρῆμα, συμπαρομαρτοῦν τοῖς γεννητὴν ἔχουσι φύσιν" καλεῖται γὰρ αἰὼν καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου συστάσεως μέχρι τῆς συντελείας διάστημα.---αἰὼν τοίνυν ἐστὶ τὸ τῇ κτιστῇ φύσει παρε- ζευγμένον διάστημα. Thus signifying time, it comes presently to signify all which exists in the world under conditions of time; ‘die Totalitit desjenigen, was sich in der Dauer der Zeit ausserlich darstellt, die Welt, sofern sie sich in der Zeit bewegt’ (C. L. W. Grimm; thus see Wisd. xiii. 9; xiv. 6; xviii. 4 ; Eccles. iii. 11) ; and then, more ethically, the course and current of this world’s affairs. But this course and current being full of sin, it is nothing wonderful that ὃ αἰὼν οὗτος, set over against ὃ αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος (Luke xx. 35), 6 αἰὼν 6 ἐρχομένος (Mark x. 80), 6 αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων (Matt. xii. 82), acquires presently, like κόσμος, an unfavourable meaning. The βασι- λεῖαι τοῦ κόσμου Of Matt. iv. 8 are βασιλεῖαι τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (Ignatius, Hp. ad Rom. 6); God has delivered us by his Son ἐξ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ (Gal. i. 4) ; Satan is θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (2 Cor. iv. 4 ; ef. Ignatius, Hp. ad Magn. 1: ὃ ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) ; sinners walk κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (Hphes. ii. 2), too weakly translated in our Version, as in those preceding, ‘‘ according to the cowrse of this world.” This last is a particularly instructive passage, for in it both words occur together; Bengel excellently remarking: ‘ αἰών et κόσμος differunt. Ile hune regit et quasi informat: κόσμος est quiddam exterius, αἰών subtilius. Tempus [Ξε αἰών] dicitur non solum physice, sed etiam moraliter, connotata qualitate hominum in eo viventium ; et sic αἰών dicit longam temporum geriem, ubi «tas mala malam etatem excipit.’ Compare Windischmann (on Gal. i. 4): ‘ αἰών darf aber durchaus nicht bloss als Zeit gefasst werden, sondern begreift alles in der Zeit befangene ; die Welt und ihre Herrlichkeit, die Menschen und ihr natiirliches unerléstes Thun und Treiben in sich, im 204 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ΤΙΣ Contraste zu dem hier nur beginnenden, seiner Sehnsucht und Vollendung nach aber jenseitigen und ewigen, Reiche des Messias.’ We speak of ‘ the times,’ attaching to the word an ethical signification ; or, still more to the point, ‘the age,’ ‘the spirit or genius of the age,’ ‘der Zeitgeist.’ All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world, which it may be impossible to seize and accurately define, being the moral, or immoral, atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale,—all this is included in the αἰών, which is, as Bengel has expressed it, the subtle informing spirit of the κόσμος, or world of men who are living alienated and apart from God. ‘Seculum,’ in Latin has acquired the same sense, as in the familiar epigram of Tacitus (Germ. 19), ‘Corrumpere et corrumpi seculum vocatur.’ It must be freely admitted that two passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews will not range themselves according to the distinction here drawn between αἰών and κόσμος, namely i. 2 and xi. 8. In both of these αἰῶνες are the worlds contemplated, if not entirely, yet beyond question mainly, under other aspects than those of time. Some indeed, especially modern Socinian expositors, though not without fore- runners who had no such motives as theirs, have attempted to explain αἰῶνες at Heb. i. 2, as the successive dispensa- tions, the χρόνοι καὶ καιροὶ of the divine economy. But however plausible this explanation might have been if this verse had stood alone, xi. 8 is decisive that the αἰῶνες in both passages can only be, as we have rendered it, ‘ the worlds,’ and not ‘the ages.’ I have called these the only exceptions, for I cannot accept 1 Tim. i. 17 as a third; where αἰῶνες must denote, not ‘ the worlds’ in the usual concrete meaning of the term, but, according to the more usual temporal meaning of αἰών in the N. T., ‘the ages,’ the temporal periods whose sum and aggregate adumbrate the conception of eternity. The βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων (cf. Clement of Rome, Cor. 85: ὃ δημιουργὸς καὶ πατὴρ τῶν αἰώνων) will thus be the ες SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 205 sovereign dispenser and disposer of the ages during which the mystery of God’s purpose with man is unfolding (see Ellicott, in loco).1_ For the Hebrew equivalents of the words expressing time and eternity, see Conrad von Orelli, Die Hebraischen Synonyma der Zeit und Ewigkeit, Leipzig, 1871; and for the Greek and Latin, so far as these seek to express them at all, see Pott, Hiym. Forsch. ii. 2. 444. § ix; νέος, καινός. Some have denied that any difference can in the Ν. T. be traced between these words. They derive a certain plausible support for this denial from the fact that manifestly νέος and καινός, both rendered ‘new’ in our Version, are often inter- changeably used; thus νέος ἄνθρωπος (Col. ili. 10), and καινὸς ἄνθρωπος (Eph. ii. 15), in both cases “the new man”; νέα διαθήκη (Heb. xii. 24) and καινὴ διαθήκη (Heb. ix. 15), both ‘a new covenant”; νέος οἶνος (Matt. ix. 17) and καινὸς οἶνος (Matt. xxvi. 29), both ‘new wine.’ The words, it is con- tended, are evidently of the same force and significance. This, however, by no means follows, and in fact is not the case. The same covenant may be qualified as νέα, or καινή, as it is contemplated from one point of view or another. So too the same man, or the same wine, may be νέος, καινός, OY may be both; but a different notion is predominant according as the one epithet is applied or the other. 1 Our English ‘ world,’ etymologically regarded, more nearly repre- sents αἰών than κόσμος. The old ‘ weralt’ (in modern German ‘ welt ’) is composed of two words, ‘wer,’ man, and ‘alt,’ age or generation. The ground-meaning, therefore, of ‘weralt’ is generation of men (Pott, Etym. Forsch.vol. ii. pt. i. p. 125). Out of this expression of time unfolds itself that of space, as αἰών passed into the meaning of κόσμος (Grimm, Deutsche Myth. p. 752) ; but in the earliest German records ‘ weralt’ is used, first as an expression of time, and only derivatively as one of space (Rudolf von Raumer, Die Hinwirkung des Christenthums auf die alt-hochdeutsche Sprache, 1845, p. 375). See, however, another deriva- tion altogether which Grimm seems disposed to favour (Klein. Schrift, vol. i. p. 305, and which comes very much to this, that ‘world’ = whirled. 206 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $§1x Contemplate the new under aspects of time, as that which has recently come into existence, and this is νέος (see Pott, Hiymol. Forschung. vol. i. pp. 290-292). Thus the young are οἱ νέοι, ΟΥ̓ οἱ νεῶτεροι, the generation which has lately Sprung up; 80, too, νέοι θεοί, the younger race of gods, Jupiter, Apollo, and the other Olympians (Aischylus, Prom. Vinct.991, 996), as set over against Saturn, Ops, and the dynasty of elder deities whom they had dethroned. But contemplate the new, not now under aspects of time, but of quality, the new, as set over against that which has seen service, the outworn, the effete or marred through age, and this is καινός : thus com- pare ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου (Matt. ix. 16) with ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ (Luke ν. 36), the latter “a new garment,” as contrasted with one threadbare and outworn; καινοὶ ἀσκοί, “new wine-skins’”’ (Matt. ix. 17; Luke v. 88), such as have not lost their strength and elasticity through age and use; and in this sense, καινὸς οὐρανός (2 Pet. 111. 18), “a new heaven,’”’ as set over against that which has waxen old, and shows signs of decay and dissolution (Heb. i. 11, 12). In like manner the phrase καιναὶ γλῶσσαι (Mark xvi. 17) does not suggest the recent commencement of this miraculous speaking with tongues, but the unlikeness of these tongues to any that went before; therefore called ἕτεραι γλῶσσαι elsewhere (Acts ii. 4), tongues unwonted and different from any hitherto known. ‘The sense of the unwonted as lying in καινός comes out very clearly in a passage of Xenophon (Cyrop. 111. 1. 80): καινῆς ἀρχομένης ἀρχῆς, ἢ τῆς εἰωθυίας καταμενούσης. So too that καινὸν μνημεῖον, in which Joseph of Arimathea laid the body of the Lord (Matt. xxvii. 60; John xix. 41), was not a tomb recently hewn from the rock, but one which had never yet been hanselled, in which hitherto no dead had lain, making the place ceremonially unclean (Matt. xxiii. 27: Num. xix. 16; Ezek. xxxix. 12, 16). It might have been hewn out a hundred years before, and could not therefore have been called véov: but, if never turned to use before, it would be καινόν still. That it should be thus was part of that divine decorum which ever attended the Lord in the midst of τσ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 207 the humiliations of his earthly life (cf. Luke xix. 80; 1 Sam. wie? ; 2 in, i. 90). It will follow from what has been said that καινός will often, as a secondary notion, imply praise; for the new is commonly better than the old; thus everything is new in the kingdom of glory, “the new Jerusalem ’’ (Rev. iii. 12; xxi. 2); the “new name” (ii. 17; iii. 12); “a new song”’ (v.9; xiv. 3); “ἂἃ new heaven and new earth” (xxi. 1; ef. 2 Pet. 111. 18); ‘all things new ”’ (xxi. 5). But this not of necessity ; for it is not always, and in every thing, that the new is better, but. sometimes the old; thus the old friend (Keclus. ix. 10), and the old wine (Luke v. 89), are better than the new. And in many other instances καινός may ex- press only the novel and strange, as contrasted, and that unfavourably, with the known and the familiar. Thus it was mentioned just now that νέοι θεοί was a title given to the younger generation of gods; but when it was brought as a charge against Socrates that he had sought to introduce και- vous θεούς or καινὰ δαιμόνια into Athens (Plato, Apol. 26 ὃ ; Luthyphro, 8 ὃ; cf. ξένα δαιμόνια, Acts xvii. 18), something quite different from this was meant—a novel pantheon, such gods as Athens had not hitherto been accustomed to worship ; so too in Plato (Rep. 111. 405 d): καινὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἄτοπα voon- μάτων ὀνόματα. In the same manner they who exclaimed of Christ’s teaching, “ What new doctrine [καινὴ διδαχή] is this ?”’ intended anything but praise (Mark i. 27). The καινόν is the ἕτερον, the qualitatively other; the νέον is the ἄλλο, the numerically distinct. Let us bring this difference to bear on the interpretation of Acts xvii. 21. St. Luke describes the Athenians there as spending their leisure, and all their life was leisure, ‘vacation,’ to adopt Fuller’s pun, ‘being their whole vocation,’ in the market-place, ἢ λέγειν ἢ ἀκούειν τι και- νότερον. We might perhaps have expected beforehand he would have written τι νεώτερον, and this expectation seems the more warranted when we find Demosthenes long before pour- traying these same Athenians as haunting the market-place with this same object and aim—he using this latter word, 208 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § 1.x πυνθανόμενοι κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν εἴ τι λέγεται νεώτερον. Elsewhere, however, he changes his word and describes them as St. Luke has done, demanding one of another (Philip. i. 48), λέγεταί τι καινόν; But the meaning of the two passages is not exactly identical. The νεώτερον of the first affirms that it is ever the latest news which they seek, ‘nova statim sordebant, noviora querebantur,’ as Bengel on Acts xvii. 21 has it; the καινὸν of the second implies that it is something not only new, but suf- ficiently diverse from what had gone before to stimulate a jaded and languid curiosity. If we pursue these words into their derivatives and com- pounds, the same distinction will come yet more clearly out. Thus νεότης (1 Tim. iv. 12; ef. Ps. cii. [LUXX.] 5: ἀνακαινισθή- σεται ws ἀετοῦ ἡ νεότης σοι) is youth: Kawdrys (Rom. vi. 4) is newness or novelty ; νεοειδής, of youthful appearance; καινο- ειδής, of novel unusual appearance; νεολογία (had such a word existed) would have been, a younger growth of words as distinguished from the old stock of the language, or, as we say, ‘neologies’; καινολογία, which does exist in the later Greek, a novel anomalous invention of words, constructed on different laws from those which the language had recognized hitherto ; φιλόνεος, a lover of youth (Lucian, Amor. 24); φιλόκαινος, a lover of novelty (Plutarch, De Mus. 12). There is a passage in Polybius (v. 75. 4), as there are many elsewhere (Aischylus, Pers. 665; Euripides, Med. 75, 78; and Clement of Alexandria, Pedag. i. 5. 14, 20, will furnish such), in which the words occur together, or in closest sequence ; but neither in this are they employed as a mere rhetorical accumulation: each has its own special significance. Relating a stratagem whereby the town of Selge was very nearly surprised and taken, Polybius remarks that, notwith- standing the many cities which have evidently been lost through a similar device, we are, in some way or other, still new and young in regard of such like deceits (καινοί τινες αἰεὶ καὶ νέοι πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ἀπάτας πεφύκαμεν), ready therefore to be deceived by them over again. Here καινοί is an epithet ap- plied to men on the ground of their rawness and inexperience, §Lx SVYMONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 209 νέοι on that of their youth. It is true that these two, in- experience and youth, go often hand and hand; thus νέος and ἄπειρος are joined by Plutarch (De Rect. Rat. Aud. 17): but this is not of necessity. An old man may be raw and unpractised in the affairs of the world, therefore καινός : there have been many young men, νέοι in respect of age, who were well skilled and exercised in these. Apply the distinction here drawn, and it will be manifest that the same man, the same wine, the same covenant, may have both these epithets applied to them, and yet different meanings may be, and will have been intended to be, con- veyed, as the one was used, or the other. Take, for example, the νέος ἄνθρωπος of Col. iii. 10, and the καινὸς ἄνθρωπος of Kphes. ii. 15. Contemplate under aspects of time that mighty transformation which hag found and is still finding place in the man who has become obedient to the truth, and you will call him subsequently to this change, véos ἄνθρωπος. The old man in him, and it well deserves this name, for it dates as far back as Adam, has died; a new man has been born, who therefore is fitly so called. But contemplate again, and not now under aspects of time, but of quality and condi- tion, the same mighty transformation ; behold the man who, through long commerce with the world, inveterate habits of sinning, had grown outworn and old, casting off the former conversation, as the snake its shrivelled skin, coming forth ‘a new creature” (καινὴ κτίσις), from his heavenly Maker’s hands, with a πνεῦμα καινόν given to him (Hzek. xi. 19), and you have here the καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, one prepared to walk ‘in newness of life’ (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς, Rom. vi. 4) through the ἀνακαίνωσις Of the Spirit (Tit. iii. 5); in the words of the Epistle of Barnabas, 16, ἐγενόμεθα καινοί, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτιζό- μενοι. Often as the words in this application would be inter- changeable, yet this is not always so. When, for example, Clement of Alexandria (Ped. i. 6) says of those that are Christ’s, χρὴ γὰρ εἶναι καινοὺς Λόγον καινοῦ μετειληφότας, all will feel how impossible it would be to substitute νέους or νέου here. Or take the verbs ἀνανεοῦν (Ephes. iv. 23), and ἀνα- Pp 210 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.x καινοῦν (Col. iii. 10). We all have need ἀνανεοῦσθαι, and we have need ἀνακαινοῦσθαι as well. It is, indeed, the same marvel- lous and mysterious process, to be brought about by the same almighty Agent; but the same regarded from different points of view; ἀνανεοῦσθαι, to be made young again ; ἀνακαινοῦσθαι, ἀνακαινίζεσθαι, to be made new again. That Chrysostom realized the distinction between the words, and indeed so realized it that he drew a separate exhortation from each, the following passages, placed side by side, will very remarkably prove. This first (in Hp. ad Ephes. Hom. 18): ἀνανεοῦσθε δέ, φησί, TO πνεύματι TOD νοὺς ὑμῶν . . -. τὸ δὲ ἀνανεοῦσθαί ἐστιν ὅταν αὐτὸ τὸ γεγηρακὸς ἀνανεῶται, ἄλλο ἐξ ἄλλου γινόμενον. .. Ὃ νέος ἰσχυρός ἐστιν, ὃ νέος ῥυτίδα οὐκ ἔχει, ὃ νέος οὐ περιφέρεται. The second is in Hp. ad Rom. Hom. 20: ὅπερ ἐπὶ TOV οἰκιῶν ποιοῦμεν, παλαιουμένας αὐτὰς ἀεὶ διορθοῦντες, τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ σαυτοῦ ποίει. ἭΜμαρτες σήμερον ; ἐπαλαίωσάς σου τὴν ψύχην ; μὴ ἀπο- γνῷς, μηδὲ ἀναπέσῃς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνακαίνισον αὐτὴν μετανοίᾳ. The same holds good in other instances quoted above. New wine may be characterized as νέος or καινός, but from different points of view. As véos, it is tacitly set over against the vintage of past years: as καινός, We May assume it austere ᾿ and strong, in contrast with that which is χρηστός, sweet and mellow through age (Luke v. 89). So, too, the Covenant of which Christ is the Mediator is a διαθήκη νέα, as compared with the Mosaic, confirmed nearly two thousand years before (Heb. xii. 24); it is a διαθήκη καινή, as compared with the game, effete with age, and with all vigour, energy, and quickening power gone from it (Heb. viii. 18; compare Marriott’s Εἰρηνικά, part ii. pp. 111-115, 170). A Latin grammarian, drawing the distinction between ‘recens’ and ‘novus,’ has said, ‘ Recens ad tempus, novum ad vem refertur;’ and compare Déderlein, Lat. Syn. vol. Iv. p. 64, Substituting νέος and καινός, we might say, ‘véos ad tempus, καινός ad rem refertur,’ and should thus grasp in a few words, easily remembered, the distinction between them at its central point.’ 1 Lafaye (Dict. des Synonymes, Ῥ. 798) claims the same distinction §Lx1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 211 δ ΙΧ]. μέθη, πότος, οἰνοφλυγία, κῶμος, κραιπάλη. Te notion of riot and excess in wine is common to all these : but this with differences, and offering for contemplation different points of view. Μέθη, occurring in the N. T. at Luke xxi. 84; Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 21; and πότος, found only at 1 Pet. iy. 3, are dis- tinguishable as an abstract and a concrete. Μέθη (stronger, and expressing a worse excess, than οἴνωσις, from which it is distinguished by Plutarch, De Garr. 4: Symp. ii, 1; ef, Philo, De Plant. 38), defined by Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. ii. 2. 26) ἀκράτου χρῆσις σφοδροτέρα, is drunkenness (Joel 1.5; Ezek. xxxix. 19); πότος (ξξεὐωχία, Hesychius ; cf. Polybius, ii. 4. 6), the drinking bout, the banquet, the sym- posium, not of necessity excessive (Gen. xix. 83; 2 Sam. iii. 20 ; sth. vi. 14), but giving opportunity for excess (1 Sam. xxv. 86; Xenophon, Anab. vii. 8. 26: ἐπεὶ προὐχώρει ὃ πότος). The next word in this group, οἰνοφλυγία ( “ excess of wine,”’ A. V.), occurs in the N. T. only at 1 Pet. iv. 3; and never in the Septuagint ; but οἰνοφλυγεῖν, Deut. xxi. 20; Isai. lvi. 22. It marks a step in advance of μέθη (Philo, De Ebrict. 8). The same writer (De Merc. Mer. 1) names οἰνοφλυγία among the ὕβρεις ἔσχαται : compare Xenophon (Zeon. i. 22): δοῦλοι λιχνειῶν, λαγνειῶν, oivopAvyov. In strict definition it is ἐπιθυμία οἴνου ἄπληστος (Andronicus of Rhodes), ἀπλήρωτος ἐπιθυμία, as Philo (Vit. Mos. iii. 22) calls it; the German ‘Trinksucht.’ Commonly, however, it is used for a debauch : no single word rendering it better than this; being as it is an extravagant indulgence in potations long drawn out (see Basil, Hom. im Hbrios, 7), such as may induce permanent mischiefs on the body (Aristotle, Eth. Nic. iii. 5. 15) ; as did, for instance, that fatal debauch to which, adopting one of the for ‘nouveau’ (=veds), and ‘neuf’ (=kawds): ‘Ce qui est nouveau vient de paraitre pour la premiére fois: ce qui est neuf vient.d’étre fait et n’a pas encore servi. Une invention est nouvelle, une expression neuve.’ P2 212 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.Ux\ reports current in antiquity, Arrian ascribes the death of Alexander the Great (vii. 24, 25). Κῶμος, in the N. T. found in the plural only, and rendered in our Version once ‘rioting’ (Rom. xiii. 18), and twice ‘revellings’ (Gal. v. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 3), may be said to unite in itself both those notions, namely, of riot and of revelry. It is the Latin ‘comissatio,’ which, as it hardly needs to observe, is connected with κωμάζειν, not with ‘comedo.’ Thus, κῶμος Kat ἀσωτία (2 Mace. vi. 4) ; ἐμμανεῖς κῶμοι (Wisd. xiv. 23) ; πότοι kal κῶμοι καὶ θαλίαι ἄκαιροι (Plutarch, Pyrrh. 16) ; cf. Philo, De Cher. 27, where we have a striking description of the other vices with which μέθη and κῶμοι are associated the most nearly. At the same time κῶμος is often used of the company of revellers themselves ; always a festal company, but not of necessity riotous and drunken ; thus see Euripides, Alces. 816, 959. Still the word generally implies as much, being applied in a special sense to the troop of drunken revellers, ‘ comissantium agmen’ (the troop of Furies in the Agamemnon, 1160, as drunk with blood, obtain this name), who at the late close of a revel, with garlands on their heads, and torches in their hands,' with shout and song? (κῶμος καὶ Bod, Plutarch, Alex. 88), pass to the harlots’ houses, or other- wise wander through the streets, with insult and wanton out- rage for every one whom they meet; cf. Meineke, Fragm. Com. Grec. p. 617; the graphic description of such in Juvenal’s third Satire, 278-301 ; and the indignant words of Milton : ‘ when night Darkens the streets, then wander forth the sons Of Belial, flown with insolence and wine.’ Plutarch (Alex. 87) characterizes as a κῶμος the mad drunken i ἔοικε δ᾽ ἐπὶ κῶμον βαδίζειν. φαίνεται. στέφανόν γέ τοι καὶ δᾷδ᾽ ἔχων πορεύεται. Aristophanes, Plut. 1040. 2 Theophylact makes these songs themselves the κῶμοι, defining the . word thus: τὰ μετὰ μέθης καὶ ὕβρεως ἄσματα. §ixi1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 213 march of Alexander and his army through Carmania, on the return from their Indian expedition. On possible, or rather on impossible etymologies of κῶμος, see Pott, Etym. Forsch. 2: ΟῚ. Κραιπάλη, the Latin ‘crapula,’ though with a more limited signification (ἢ χθεσινὴ μέθη, Ammonius; ἡ ἐπὶ τῇ μέθῃ δυσ- αρέστησις καὶ ἀηδία, Clement of Alexandria, Pedag. ii. ἃ. 26), is another word whose derivation remains in obscurity. We have rendered it ‘ surfeiting’ at Luke xxi. 34, the one occasion on which it occurs in the N. T. In the Septuagint it is never found, but the verb κραιπαλάω thrice (85. ᾿χχν ἡ δ: Isai. xxiv. 20; xxix. 9). ‘ Fulsomeness,’ in the early sense of that word (see my Select Glossary of English Words, s. v. ‘fulsome ’), would express it very well, with only the draw- back that by ‘ fulsomeness ’ is indicated the disgust and loath- ing from over-fulness of meat as well as of wine, while κραιπάλῃ expresses only the latter. [Aristophanes compounds these two synonyms into the word κραιπαλόκωμος (Ran. 217).| δ 1Χ]], καπηλεύω, δολόω. In two passages, standing very near to one another, St. Paul claims for himself that he is not “as many, which corrupt the word of God” (καπηλεύοντες, 2 Cor. ii. 17); and presently again he disclaims being of them who can be accused of “handling decertfully”’ the same (δολοῦντες, iv. 2); neither word appearing again in the N. T. It is evident, not less from the context than from the character of the words them- selves, that the notions which they express must lie very near to another ; oftentimes it is asserted or assumed that they are absolutely identical, as by all translators who have only one rendering for both; by the Vulgate, for instance, which has ‘adulterantes’ in both places; by Chrysostom, who explains καπηλεύειν aS = νοθεύειν. Yet this is a mistake. On nearer examination, it will be found that while καπηλεύειν covers all that δολοῦν does, it also covers something more; and this, whether in the literal sense, or in the transferred and 214 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Ux figurative, wherein it is used by St. Paul; even as it is evi- dent that our own Translators, whether with any very clear insight into the distinction between the words or not, did not acquiesce in the obliteration of all distinction between them. The history of καπηλεύειν is not difficult to follow. The κάπηλος is properly the huckster or petty retail trader, as set over against the ἔμπορος or merchant who sells his wares in the gross; the two occurring together, Heclus. xxvi. 29. But while the word would designate any such pedlar, the κάπηλος is predominantly the vendor in retail of wine (Lucian, Hermot. 58). Exposed to many and strong temptations, into which it was only too easy for such to fall (Keclus. xxvi. 29), as to mix their wine with water (Isai. i. 22), or otherwise to tamper with it, to sell it in short measure, these men so generally yielded to these temptations, that κάπηλος and καπηλεύειν, like ‘caupo’ and ‘cauponari,’ became words of contempt; καπηλεύειν being the making of any shameful traffic and gain as the κάπηλος does (Plato, Rep. vil. 525 d; Protag. 818 d; Becker, Charikles, 1840, p. 256). But it will at once be evident that the δολοῦν is only one part of the καπηλεύειν, namely, the tampering with or sophisticating the wine by the admixture of alien matter, and does not suggest the fact that this is done with the purpose of making a dis- graceful gain thereby. Nay, it might be urged that it only expresses partially the tampering itself, as the following extract from Lucian (Hermot. 59) would seem to say: ot φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται τὰ μαθήματα ὥσπερ ot κάπηλοι, κερασάμενοί γε οἱ πολλοί, καὶ δολώσαντες, καὶ κακομετροῦντες : for here the δολοῦν is only one part of the deceitful handling by the κάπηλος of the wares which he sells. . But whether this be worth urging or not, it is quite certain that, while in δολοῦν there is no more than the simple falsifying, there is in καπηλεύειν the doing of this with the intention of making an unworthy gain thereby. Surely here is a moment in the sin of the false teachers, which St. Paul, in disclaiming the καπηλεύειν, intended to disclaim for himself. He does in as many words most earnestly disclaim it in this a a Ὁ ΠΣ SYMONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 215 same Hpistle (xii. 14; cf. Acts xx. 88); and this the more earnestly, seeing that it is continually noted in Scripture as a mark of false prophets and false apostles (for so does the meanest cleave to the highest, and untruthfulness in highest things expose to lowest temptations), that they, through covetousness, make merchandise of souls; thus by St. Paul ΠΠΉΒΕΙ Vint. ΤΙ Phil. ai. 10. Ὁ 2 Pet: 1,. 8, 11:1»; Jude 11, 16; Ezek. xiii. 19; and see Ignatius (the longer recension), where, no doubt with a reference to this passage, and showing how the writer understood it, the false teachers are denounced as χρηματολαίλαπες, a8 χριστέμποροι, τὸν Ἰησοῦν πωλοῦντες, Kal καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Surely we have here a difference which it is well worth our while not to pass by unobserved. The Galatian false teachers might un- doubtedly have been charged as δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον, mingling, as they did, vain human traditions with the pure word of the Gospel : building in hay, straw, and stubble with its silver, gold, and precions stones; but there is nothing which would lead us to charge them as καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, as working this mischief which they did work for filthy lucre’s sake (see Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. iv. p. 686). Bentley, in his Sernuon on Popery (Works, vol. iii. p. 242), strongly maintains the distinction which I have endeavoured to trace. ‘Our English Translators,’ he says, “ have not been very happy in their version of this passage [2 Cor. ii. 17] We are not, says the Apostle, καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, which our Translators have rendered, ‘ we do not corrupt,’ or (as in the margin) ‘ dea] deceitfully with,’ ‘the word of God. They were led to this by the parallel place, ὁ. iv. of this Epistle, ver. 2, ‘not walking in craftiness,’ μηδὲ δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ‘nor handling the word of God deceitfully ; ’ they took καπηλεύοντες and δολοῦντες in the same adequate notion, as the vulgar Latin had done before them, which expresses both by the same word, adulterantes verbum Dei; and so, likewise, Hesychius makes them synonyms, ἐκκαπηλεύειν, δολοῦν. Δολοῦν, indeed, is fitly rendered ‘ adulterare ’ ; so δολοῦν Tov χρυσόν, τὸν οἶνον, to adulterate gold or wine, by mixing 216 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $§ .xi1 worse ingredients with the metal or liquor. And our Trans- lators had done well if they had rendered the latter passage, not adulterating, not sophisticating the word. But καπηλεύοντες in our text has a complex idea and a wider signification ; καπηλεύειν always comprehends δολοῦν, but δολοῦν never extends to καπηλεύειν, which, besides the sense of adulterating, has an additional notion of unjust lucre, gain, profit, ad- vantage. This is plain from the word κάπηλος, a calling always infamous for avarice and knavery: ‘ perfidus hic caupo,’ says the poet, as a general character. Thence καπηλεύειν, by an easy and natural metaphor, was diverted to other expressions where cheating and lucre were signified : καπηλεύειν τὸν λόγον, says the Apostle here, and the ancient Greeks, καπηλεύειν τὰς δίκας, τὴν εἰρήνην, τὴν σοφίαν, τὰ μαθήματα, to corrupt and sell justice, to barter a negociation of peace, to prostitute learning and philosophy for gain. Cheating, we see, and adulterating is part of the notion of καπηλεύειν, but the essential of it is sordid lucre. So ‘cauponari’ in the well- known passage of Ennius, where Pyrrhus refuses to treat for the ransom for his captives, and restores them gratis: ‘Non mi aurum posco, nec mi pretium dederitis, None auponanti bellum, sed belligeranti.’ And so the Fathers expound this place. . . . So that, in short, what St. Paul says, καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον, might be expressed in one classic word—)oyé7opor or Aoyorparat,' where the idea of gain and profit is the chief part of the signification. Wherefore, to do justice to our text, we must not stop lamely with our Translators, ‘corrupters of the word of God;’ but add to it as its plenary notion, ‘ corrupters of the word of God for filthy lucre.’”’ If what has been just said is correct, it will follow that ‘ deceitfully handling’ would be a more accurate, though itself not a perfectly adequate, rendering of καπηλεύοντες, and ‘who corrupt’ of δολοῦντες, than the converse of this, which our Version actually offers. 1 So Aoyor@Aa in Philo, Cong. Hrud. Grat. 10. ee ..............- STXIN SYVONVVS, OF JHE NEW - TESTAMENT 217 δ [ΙΧ]. ἀγαθωσύνη, χρηστότης. ᾿Αγαθωσύνη is one of many words with which revealed religion has enriched the later language of Greece. It occurs nowhere else but in the Greek translations of the O. T. (2 Chron. xxiv. 16; Nehem. ix. 25; Eccles. ix. 18), in the N. T., and in writings directly dependent upon these. The grammarians, indeed, at no time acknowledged, or gave to it or to ἀγαθότης the stamp of allowance, demanding that χρηστότης, which, as we shall see, is not absolutely identical with it, should be always employed in its stead (Lobeck, Pathol. Serm. Grac. p. 237). In the N. T. we meet with ἀγαθωσύνη four times, always in the writings of St. Paul (Rom. xv. 14; Gal. v. 22; Ephes. v. 9; 2 Thess. i. 11); being invariably rendered ‘goodness’ in our Version. We sometimes feel the want of some word more special and definite, as at Gal. v. 22, where ἀγαθωσύνη makes one of a long list of Christian virtues or graces, and must mean some single and separate grace, while ‘goodness’ seems to embrace all. To explain it there, as does Phavorinus, 7 ἀπηρτισμένη ἀρετή, is little satisfactory ; however true it may be that it is sometimes, as at Ps. h. [LXX] 5, set over against κακία, and obtains this larger meaning. With all this it is hard to suggest any other rendering ; even as, no doubt, it is harder to seize the central force of ἀγαθωσύνη than of χρηστότης, this difficulty mainly arising from the fact that we have no helping passages in the classical literature of Greece ; for, however these can never be admitted to give the absolute law to the meaning of words in Scripture, we at once feel a loss, when such are wanting altogether. It will be well, therefore, to consider χρηστότης first, and when it is seen what domain of meaning is occupied by it, we may then better judge what remains for ἀγαθωσύνη. Χρηστότης, ἃ beautiful word, as it is the expression of a beautiful grace (cf. χρηστοήθεια, Heclus. xxxvii. 11), like ἀγαθωσύνη, occurs in the N. T. only in the writings of St. Paul, being by him joined to φιλανθρωπία (Tit. iii. 4; ef. 218 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Υ ΣΠΙ Lucian, Timon, 8; Plutarch, Demet. 50); to μακροθυμία and ἀνοχή (Rom. ii. 4); and opposed to ἀποτομία (Rom. xi. 22). The A. V. renders it‘ good’ (Rom. iii. 12) ; ‘ kindness’ (2 Cor. vi. 6; Ephes. ii. 7; Col. iii. 12; Tit. iii. 4) ; ‘ gentleness’ (Gal. vy. 22). The Rheims, which has for it ‘ benignity,’ a great improvement on ‘ gentleness’ (Gal. v. 22), ‘sweetness’ (2 Cor. vi. 6), has seized more successfully the central notion of the word. It is explained in the Definitions which go under Plato’s name (412 6), ἤθους ἀπλαστία per εὐλογιστίας : by Phavorinus, εὐσπλαγχνία, ἡ πρὸς τοὺς πέλας συνδιάθεσις, τὰ αὐτοῦ ὡς οἰκεῖα ἰδιοποιουμένη. It is joined by Clement of Rome with ἔλεος (Cor.9); by Plutarch with εὐμένεια (De Cap. ex Inim. Util. 9); with γλυκυθυμία (De Soler, Anim. 83); with ἁπλότης and μεγαλοφῤῥοσύνη (Galba, 22) ; by Lucian with οἶκτος (Tumon, 8) ; as χρηστός with φιλάνθρωπος (Plutarch, Symp.i.1. 4). It is grouped by Philo with εὐθυμία, ἡμερότης, ἠπιότης (De Merc. Mer. 8). Josephus, speaking of the χρηστότης of Isaac (Anti. i. 18. 3), displays a fine insight into the ethical character of the patriarch ; see Gen. xxvi. 20-22. Calvin has quite too superficial a view of χρηστότης, when, commenting on Col. iii. 12, he writes : ‘ Comitatem—sic enim vertere libuit χρηστότητα qué nos reddimus amabiles. Man- suetudo [zpairns], que sequitur, latius patet quam comitas, nam illa precipue est in vultu ac sermone, hee etiam in affectu interiore.’ So far from being this mere grace of word and countenance, it is one pervading and penetrating the whole nature, mellowing there all which would have been harsh and austere; thus wine is χρηστός, which has been mellowed with age (Luke v. 39); Christ’s yoke is χρηστός, as having nothing harsh or galling about it (Matt. xi. 30). On the distinction between it and ἀγαθωσύνη Cocceius (on Gal. v. 22), quoting Tit. 111. 4, where χρηστότης occurs, goes on to say: ‘Ex quo exemplo patet per hance vocem significari quandam liberalitatem et studium benefaciendi. Per alteram autem [ἀγαθωσύνη] possumus intelligere comitatem, suavi- tatem morum, concinnitatem, gravitatem morum, et omnem amabilitatem cum decoro et dignitate conjunctam.’ Yet §uxmt SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 219 neither does this seem to me to have exactly hit the mark. If the words are at all set over against one another, the ‘ suavitas’ belongs to the χρηστότης rather than to the ἀγαθω- σύνη. More germane to the matter is what Jerome has said. Indeed I know nothing so well said elsewhere (in Hp. ad Gal. v. 22): ‘ Benignitas sive suavitas, quia apud Grecos χρηστό- τῆς utrumque sonat, virtus est lenis, blanda, tranquilla, et omnium bonorum apta consortio; invitans ad familiaritatem sui, dulcis alloquio, moribus temperata. Denique et hanc Stoici ita definiunt: Benignitas est virtus sponte ad bene- faciendum exposita. Non multum bonitas [ἀγαθωσύνη] a bemigmtate diversa est; quia et ipsa ad benefaciendum videtur exposita. Sed in eo differt; quia potest bonitas esse tristior, et fronte severis moribus irrugata, bene quidem facere et preestare quod poscitur: non tamen suavis esse con- sortio, et sua cunctos invitare dulcedine. Hance quoque sectatores Zenonis ita definiunt: Bonitas est virtus que prodest, sive, virtus ex qua oritur utilitas ; aut, virtus propter semetipsam ; aut, affectus qui fons sit utilitatum.’ With this agrees in the main the distinction which St. Basil draws (eg. Brev. Tract. 214) : πλατυτέραν οἶμαι εἶναι τὴν χρηστότητα, εἰς εὐεργεσίαν τῶν ὅπως δηποτοῦν ἐπιδεομένων ταύτης " συνηγμένην δὲ μᾶλλον τὴν ἀγαθωσύνην, καὶ τοῖς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λόγοις ἐν ταῖς εὐεργεσίαις συγχρωμένην. Lightfoot, on Gal. v. 22, finds more activity in the ἀγαθωσύνη than in the χρηστότης: “ they are distinguished from one another as the ἦθος from the ἐνέργεια : χρηστότης is potential ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαθωσύνη is energizing χρηστότης. A man might display his ἀγαθωσύνη, his zeal for goodness and truth, in rebuking, correcting, chastising. Christ was not working otherwise than in the spirit of this grace when He drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple (Matt. xxi. 18); or when He uttered all those terrible words against the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. xxiii.) ; but we could not say that his χρηστότης was shown in these acts of a righteous indignation. This was rather displayed in his reception of the penitent woman (Luke vii. 87-50; cf. Ps. xxiv. 7, 8) ; as 220 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ixiv in all other his gracious dealings with the children of men. Thus we might speak,—the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 22) do speak,—of the χρηστότης τῆς ἀγαθωσύνης of God, but scarcely of the converse. This χρηστότης was so predominantly the character of Christ’s ministry, that it is nothing wonderful to learn from Tertullian (Apol. 8), how ‘ Christus’ became ‘Chrestus,’ and ‘ Christiani’ ‘ Chrestiani’ on the lips of the heathen—with that undertone, it is true, of contempt, which the world feels, and soon learns to express in words, for a goodness which to it seems to have only the harmlessless of the dove, and nothing of the wisdom of the serpent. Such a contempt, indeed, it is justified in entertaining for a goodness which has no edge, no sharpness in it, no righteous indig- nation against sin, nor willingness to punish it. That what was called χρηστότης, still retaining this honourable name, did sometimes degenerate into this, and end with being no goodness at all, we have evidence in a striking fragment of Menander (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Grac. p. 982) : ἢ νῦν ὑπό τινων χρηστότηΞ καλουμένη μεθῆκε τὸν ὅλον εἰς πονηρίαν βίον" οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀδικῶν τυγχάνει τιμωρίας. § Ixiv. δίκτυον, ἀμφίβληστρον, σαγήνη. Our English word ‘net’ will, in a general way, cover all these three, which yet are capable of a more accurate dis- crimination one from the other. Aixrvov (=‘rete,’ ‘retia’), from the old δικεῖν, to cast, which appears again in δίσκος, a quoit, is the more general name for all nets, and would include the hunting net, and the net with which birds are taken (Prov. i. 17), as well as the fishing, although used only of the latter in the N. T. (Matt. iv. 20; John xxi. 6). It is often in the Septuagint employed in that figurative sense in which St. Paul uses παγίς (Rom. xi. 9; 1 Tim. iii. 7), and is indeed associated with it (Job xviii. 8; Proy. xxix. 5). Sixty SMVONYUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 22% ᾿Αμφίβληστρον and σαγήνη are varieties of fishing nets; they are named together, Hab. i. 15; and in Plutarch (De Soler. Anim. 26), who joins γρῖπος with σαγήνη, ὑποχή with ἀμφίβληστρον. *“AudiBAnotpov—found only in the N. T. at Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; cf. Eccl. ix. 12; Ps. exl. 10 (ἀμφιβολή, Oppian)—is the casting net, ‘jaculum,’ 1.6. ‘ rete jaculum’ (Ovid, Art. Am. i. 763), or ‘ funda’ (Virgil, Georg. i. 141), which, when skilfully cast from over the shoulder by one standing on the shore or in a boat, spreads out into a circle (ἀμφιβάλλεται) as it falls upon the water, and then sinking swiftly by the weight of the leads attached to it, encloses whatever is below it. Its circular, bell-like shape adapted it to the office of a mosquito net, to which, as Herodotus (ii. 95) tells us, the Egyptian fishermen turned it; but see Blakesley, Herodotus, in loc. The garment in whose deadly folds Clytemnestra entangles Agamemnon is called ἀμφίβληστρον (Auschylus, Agamem. 1353; Choéph. 490; cf. Euripides, Helen. 1088); so, too, the fetter with which Prometheus is fastened to his rock (Aischylus, Prom. Vinci. 81); andthe envenomed garment which Deianira gives to Hercules (Sophocles, Tvach. 1052). Saynvn—found in the N. T. only at Matt. xiii. 47; οἵ. Isai. xix. 8; Ezek. xxvi. 5 (from σάττω, σέσαγα, ‘ onero)—Is the long-drawn net, or sweep-net (‘ vasta sagena’ Manilius calls it), the ends of which being carried out in boats so as to include a large extent of open sea, are then drawn together, and all which they contain enclosed and taken. It is ren- dered ‘sagena’ in the Vulgate, whence ‘seine,’ or ‘sean,’ the name of this net in Cornwall, on whose coasts it 1s much in use. In classical Latin it is called ‘ everriculum’ (Cicero, playing upon Verres’ name, calls him, ‘everriculum in pyro- vincia’), from its sweeping the bottom of the sea. From the fact that it was thus a πάναγρον or take-all (Homer, J/. v. 487), the Greeks gave the name of caynvevew to a device by which the Persians were reported to have cleared a con- quered island of its inhabitants (Herodotus, 111. 149; vi. 31; Plato, Legg. iii. 698 d; curiously enough, the same device 222 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §1xv being actually tried, but with very indifferent success, in Tas- mania not many years ago; see Bonwick’s Last of the Tasmanians. Virgil in two lines describes the fishing by the aid first of the ἀμφίβληστρον and then of the σαγήνη (Georg. i, 141): ‘ Atque alius latum fundé jam verberat amnem Alta petens, pelagoque alius trahit humida lina.’ Tt will be seen that an evident fitness suggested the use of σαγήνη in a parable (Matt. xiii. 47) wherein our Lord is setting forth the wide reach, and all-embracing character, of his future kingdom. Neither ἀμφίβληστρον, nor yet δίκτυον which might have meant no more than ἀμφίβληστρον, would have suited at all so well. δ Ixv. λυπέομαι, πενθέω, θρηνέω, κόπτομαι. In all these words there is the sense of grief, or the utterance of grief ; but the sense of grief in different degrees of intensity, the utterance of it in different forms of manifestation. Λυπεῖσθαι (Matt. xiv. 9; 1 Pet. i. 6) is not a special but a most general word, embracing the most various forms of grief, being opposed to χαίρειν (Aristotle, Rhet. i. 2; Sophocles, Ajax, 555); as λύπη to χαρά (John xvi. 20; Xenophon, Hell. vil. 1. 82); or to ἡδονή (Plato, Legg. v. 738). This λύπη, un- like the grief which the three following words express, a man may so entertain in the deep of his heart, that there shall be no outward manifestation of it, unless he himself be pleased to reveal it (Rom. ix. 2). Not so the πενθεῖν, which is stronger, being not merely ‘dolere’ or ‘angi,’ but ‘lugere,’ and like this last, properly and primarily (Cicero, Twsc.i. 13; iv. 8: ‘luctus, egritudo ex ejus, qui carus fuerit, interitu acerbo’) to lament for the dead; πενθεῖν νέκυν (Homer, Il. xix. 225); τοὺς ἀπολωλότας (Xenophon, Hell. ii. 2. 3) ; then any other passionate lament- ing (Sophocles, Zid. Rex, 1296; Gen. xxxvii. 34; πένθος being in fact a form of πάθος (see Plutarch, Cons. ad Apol. 22); to grieve with a grief which so takes possession of the SKY SO VVONVYUS OF THE NEW TESIAMEN Ls 225 whole being that it cannot be hid ; cf. Spanheim (Dub. Evang. 81): “πενθεῖν enim apud Hellenistas respondit verbis 723 κλαίειν, θρηνεῖν, et Osby ὀλολύζειν, adeoque non tantum denotat luctum conceptum intus, sed et expressum foris.’ According to Chrysostom (in loco) the πενθοῦντες of Matt. v. 4 are of per’ ἐπιτάσεως λυπουμένοι, those,who so grieve that their grief manifests itself externally. Thus we find πενθεῖν often joined with κλαίειν (2 Sam. xix. 1; Mark xvi. 10; Jam. iv. 9; Rev. xviii. 15); so πενθῶν καὶ σκυθρωπάζων, Ps. xxxiv. 14. Gregory of Nyssa (Suicer, Thes. 5. v. πένθος) gives it more generally, πένθος ἐστὶ σκυθρωπὴ διάθεσις τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐπὶ στερήσει τινὸς τῶν καταθυμίων συνισταμέμη: but he was not distinguishing synonyms, and not therefore careful to draw out finer distinctions. Θρηνεῖν, joined with ὀδύρεσθαι (Plutarch, De Prof. Virt. 5), with κατοικτείρειν (Cons. ad Apoll. 11) is to bewail, to make a θρῆνος, a ‘nenia’ or dirge over the dead, which may be mere wailing or lamentation (θρῆνος καὶ κλαυθμός, Matt. ii. 18), breaking out in unstudied words—the Irish wake is such a θρῆνος---ΟΥἉ it may take the more elaborate form of a poem. That beautiful lamentation which David composed over Saul and Jonathan is introduced in the Septuagint with these words, ἐθρήνησε Δαβὶδ τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον, x.7.A. (2 Sam. 1. 17), and the sublime dirge over Tyre is called a θρῆνος (Ezek. xxvi. 17; cf. Rev. xviii. 11 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 25 ; Amos viii. 10). We have finally to deal with κόπτεσθαι (Matt. xxiv. 30; Luke xxiii. 27; Rev. i. 7). This being first to strike, is then that act which most commonly went along with the θρηνεῖν, to strike the bosom, or beat the breast, as an outward sign of inward grief (Luke xviii. 13) ; so κοπετός (Acts vili. 2) is θρῆνος μετὰ ψόφου χειρῶν (Hesychius), and, as is the case with πενθεῖν, oftenest in token of grief for the dead (Gen. xxiii. 2; 2 Kin. ili. 81). It is the Latin ‘plangere’ (‘laniataque pectora plangens,’ Ovid, Metam. vi. 248; cf. Sophocles, Ajax, 615- 617), which is connected with ‘plaga’ and πλήσσω. Plu- tarch (Cons. ad Ux. 4) joins ὀλοφύρσεις and κοπετοί (cf. Fab. Max. 17: κοπετοὶ γυναικεῖοι) as two of the more violent 224 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §1xv1 manifestations of grief, condemning both as faulty in their excess. § Ixvi. ἁμαρτία, ἁμάρτημα, παρακοή, ἀνομία, παρανομία, παρά- βάσις, παράπτωμα, ἀγνόημα, ἥττημα. A MOURNFULLY numerous group of words, and one which it would be only too easy to make larger still. Nor is it hard to see why. For sin, which we may define in the language of Augustine, as ‘factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra eternam legem’ (Con. Faust. xxii. 27; ef. the Stoic definition, ἁμάρτημα, νόμου ἀπαγόρευμα, Plutarch, De Rep. Stoic. 11); or again, ‘ voluntas admittendi vel retinendi quod justitia vetat, et unde liberum est abstinere’ (Con. Jul. i. 47), may be regarded under an infinite number of aspects, and in all languages has been so regarded; and as the diagnosis of it belongs most of all to the Scriptures, no- where else are we likely to find it contemplated on so many sides, set forth under such various images. It may be regarded as the missing of a mark or aim; it is then ἁμαρτία or ἁμάρτημα : the overpassing or transgressing of a line ; it is then παράβασις : the disobedience to a voice; in which case it is παρακοή : the falling where one should have stood up- right; this will be παράπτωμα : ignorance of what one ought to have known; this will be ἀγνόημα : diminishing of that which should have been rendered in full measure, which is ἥττημα : non-observance of a law, which is ἀνομία or παρα- νομία : ἃ discord in the harmonies of God’s universe, when it is πλημμέλεια : and in other ways almost out of number. To begin with the word of largest reach. In seeking accurately to define ἁμαρτία, and so better to distinguish it from other words of this group, no help can be derived from its etymology, seeing that it is quite uncertain. Suidas, as is well known, derives it from μάρπτω, ‘ ἁμαρτία quisi ἁμαρπτία;᾽ a failing to grasp. Buttmann’s conjecture (Lezilogus, p. 85, English ed.), that it belongs to the root μέρος, μείρομαι, on which a negative intransitive verb, to be without one’s share SUXVI ν᾽ OF THE NEW TESTAVENT. 225 of, to miss, was formed (see Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 6. 36), has found more favour (see a long note by Fritzsche, on Rom. v. 12, with excellent philology and execrable theology). Only this much is plain, that when sin is contemplated as ἁμαρτία, it is regarded as a failing and missing the true end and scope of our lives, which is God; 7 τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀπόπτωσις, as Cicumenius : ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀποτυχία, and ἁμαρτάνειν an ἄσκοπα τοξεύειν, aS Suidas ; 7 τοῦ καλοῦ ἐκτροπή, εἴτε τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, εἴτε τοῦ κατὰ νόμον, aS another. We may compare the German ‘ fehlen.’ It is a matter of course that with slighter apprehensions of sin, and of the evil of sin, there must go hand in hand a slighter ethical significance in the words used to express sin. It is therefore nothing wonderful that ἁμαρτία and ἁμαρτάνειν should nowhere in classical Greek obtain that depth of meaning which in revealed religion they have acquired. The words run the same course which all words ultimately taken up into ethical terminology seem inevitably to run. Employed first about things natural, they are then transferred to things moral or spiritual, according to that analogy between those and these, which the human mind so delights to trace. Thus ἁμαρτάνειν signifies, when we meet it first, to miss a mark, being exactly opposed to τυχεῖν. Soa hundred times in Homer the warrior is said ἁμαρτάνειν, who hurls his spear, but fails to strike his foe (eg. Jl. iv. 491); so τῶν ὁδῶν ἁμαρτάνειν (Thucydides, 111. 98. 2)is to miss one’s way. The next advance is the transfer of the word to things intellectual. The poet ἁμαρτάνει, who selects a subject which it is impossible to treat poetically, or who seeks to attain results which lie beyond the limits of his art (Aristotle, Poét. 8 and 25) ; so we have δόξης ἁμαρτία (Thucydides, i. 31); γνώμης ἁμάρτημα (ii. 65). It is constantly set over against ὀρθότης (Plato, Legg. i. 627 d; ii. 668 c; Aristotle, Poét. 25). So far from having any ethical significance of necessity attaching to it, Aristotle sometimes withdraws it, almost, if not altogether, from the region of right and wrong (th. Nic. v. 8. 7). The ayapriais a mistake, a fearful one it may be, like that of Gidipus, but nothing more Q 226 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xvi (Poét. 18; cf. Euripides, Hippolytus, 1426). Elsewhere, however, it has as much of the meaning of our ‘sin,’ as any word, employed in heathen ethics, could possess ; thus Plato, Phedo, 118 e; Rep. ii. 366 a; Xenophon, Cyrop. v. 4. 19. ‘Apdptynpo differs from ἁμαρτία, in that ἁμαρτία is sin in the abstract as well as the concrete; or again, the act of sinning no less than the sin which is actually sinned, ‘ peccatio’ (A. Gellius, xiii. 20. 19) no less than ‘peccatum’; while ἁμάρτημα (it only occurs Mark 111. 28; iv. 12; Rom. iii. 25; 1 Cor. vi. 18) is never sin regarded as sinfulness, or as the act of sinning, but only sin contemplated in its separate out- comings and deeds of disobedience to a divine law; being in the Greek schools opposed to κατόρθωμα. There is the same difference between ἀνομία and ἀνόμημα (which last is not in the N.T.; but 1 Sam. xxv. 28; Ezek. xvi. 49), ἀσέβεια and ἀσέβημα (not in the N. T.; but Lev. xvili. 17), ἀδικία and ἀδίκημα (Acts xviii. 14). This is brought out by Aristotle (Ethic. Nic. v. 7. 7), who sets over against one another ἄδικον (-- ἀδικία) and ἀδίκημα in these words: διαφέρει τὸ ἀδίκημα καὶ τὸ ἄδικον. ἔΑδικον μὲν γάρ ἐστι τῇ φύσει, ἢ τάξει: τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο, ὅταν πραχθῇ, ἀδίκημά ἐστι. Compare an instructive passage in Xenophon (Mem. 11. 2.8) : ai πόλεις ἐπὶ τοῖς μεγίστοις ἀδικήμασι ζημίαν θάνατον πεποιήκασιν, ὡς οὐκ ἂν μέίζονος κακοῦ φόβῳ τὴν ἀδικίαν παύσοντες. On the distinction between ἁμαρτία and ἁμάρτημα, ἀδικία and ἀδίκημα, and other words of this group, there is a long discussion by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 15), but one not yielding much profit. ᾿Ασέβεια, joined with ἀδικία (Xenophon, Apol. 24; Rom. i. 18); as ἀσεβής with ἄδικος, with ἀνόσιος (Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 8. 27), with ἁμαρτωλός (1 Tim. i. 9; 1 Pet. iv. 18), 1 When the Pelagians, in their controversy with the Catholic Church, claimed Chrysostom as siding with them on the subject of the moral condition of infants, Augustine (Con. Jul. Pelag. vi. 2) replied by quoting the exact words which Chrysostom had used, and showing that it was not. ἁμαρτία, or sin, but ἁμαρτήματα, the several acts and out- comings of sin, from which the Greek Father had pronounced infants to be free. Only in this sense were they partakers of the ἀναμαρτησία of Christ. δ ΧΙ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 227 is positive and active irreligion, and this contemplated as a deliberate withholding from God of his dues of prayer and of service, a standing, so to speak, in battle array against Him. We have always rendered it ‘ungodliness,’ while the Rheims as constantly ‘impiety,’ and ἀσεβής ‘ impious,’ neither of these words occurring anywhere in our English Bible. The ἀσεβής and the δίκαιος are constantly set over against one another (thus Gen. xviii. 23), as the two who wage the great warfare between light and darkness, right and wrong, of which God has willed that this earth of ours should be the stage. Παρακοή is in the N. T. found only at Rom. v. 19 (where it is opposed to ὑπακοή); 2 Cor. x.6; Heb. ii. 2. It 15 not in the Septuagint, but παρακούειν (in the N. T. only at Matt. xvili. 17) occurs several times there in the sense of to disobey (Esth. 111. 8, 8; Isai. lxv. 12). Παρακοή is in its strictest sense a failing to hear, or a hearing amiss; the notion of active disobedience, which follows on this inattentive or careless hearing, being superinduced upon the word ; or, it may be, the sin being regarded as already committed in the failing to listen when God is speaking. Bengel (on Rom. v. 19) has a good note: “παρά in παρακοή perquam apposite declarat rationem initli in lapsu Adami. Quseritur quomodo hominis recti intellectus aut voluntas potuit detrimentum capere aut noxamadmittere ? Resp. Intellectus et voluntas simul labavit per ἀμέλειαν : neque quicquam potest prius concipi, quam ἀμέλεια, incuria, sicut initium capiende urbis est vigiliarum remissio. Hane incuriam significat παρακοή, inobedientia.’ It need hardly be observed how continually in the O. T. dis- obedience is described as a refusing to hear (Jer. xi. 10; xxxv. 17); and it appears literally 1s such at Acts vii. 57. Joined with and following παράβασις at Heb. ii. 2, it would there imply, in the intention of the writer, that not merely every actual transgression, embodying itself in an outward act of disobedience, was punished, but every refusal to hear, even though it might not have asserted itself in such overt acts of disobedience. We have generally translated ἀνομία ‘iniquity’ (Matt. vii. ray} 228 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §$1xv1 23; Rom. vi. 19; Heb. x. 17); once‘ unrighteousness’ (2 Cor. vi. 14), and once “ transgression of the law” (1 John iii. 4). It is set over against δικαιοσύνη (2 Cor. vi. 14; οἵ. Xenophon, Mem. i. 2. 24); joined with ἀναρχία (Plato, Rep. ix. 575 a), with ἀντιλογία (Ps. liv. [ΧΧῚἠ 10). While ἄνομος is once at least in the N. T. used negatively of a person without law, or to whom a law has not been given (1 Cor. ix. 91 : cf. Plato, Politic. 8302 6, ἄνομος μοναρχία) ; though else- where of the greatest enemy of all law, the Man of Sin, the lawless one (2 Thess. ii. 8); ἀνομία is never there the condi- tion of one living without law, but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law: and so, of course, παρανομία, found only at 2 Pet. ii. 16; cf. Prov. x. 26, and παρανομεῖν, Acts xxiii. 8. It will follow that where there is no law (Rom. v. 18), there may be ἁμαρτία, ἀδικία, but not dvopia: being, as (icumenius defines it, ἡ περὶ τὸν θετὸν νόμον πλημμέλεια : as Fritzsche, ‘ legis contemtio aut morum licentia qua lex violatur.’ Thus the Gentiles, not having a law (Rom. ii. 14), might be charged with sin; but they, sinning without law (ἀνόμως -Ξ- χωρὶς νόμου, Rom. ii. 12; 111. 21), could not be charged with ἀνομία. It is true, indeed, that, behind that law of Moses which they never had, there is another law, the original law and revelation of the righteousness of God, written on the hearts of all (Rom. ii. 14, 15) ; and, as this in no human heart is obliterated quite, all sin, even that of the darkest and most ignorant savage, must still in a secondary sense remain as ἀνομία, a violation of this older, though partially obscured, law. Thus Origen (in Eom. iv. 5): ‘Iniquitas sane a peccato hanc habet differentiam, quod iniquitas in his dicitur que contra legem committuntur, unde et Grecus sermo ἀνομίαν appellat. Peccatum vero etiam illud dici potest, si contra quam natura docet, et conscientia arguit, delinguatur.’ Cf. Xenophon, Mem. iv. 4. 18, 19. It is the same with παράβασις. There must be something to transgress, before there can be a transgression. There was sin between Adam and Moses, as was attested by the fact that there was death; but those between the law given ᾿ ἀν SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 229 in Paradise (Gen. ii. 16,17) and the law given from Sinai, sinning indeed, yet did not sin ‘after the similitude of Adam’s transgression’ (παραβάσεως, Rom. v. 14). With law came for the first time the possibility of the transgression of law (Rom. iv. 15); and exactly this transgression, or tres- pass, is παράβασις, from παραβαίνειν, ‘ transilire lineam ;’ the French ‘ forfait’ (‘faire fors’ or ‘ hors’), some act which is excessive, enormous. Cicero (Parad. 3): ‘ Peccare est tan- quam transilire lineas;’ compare the Homeric ὑπερβασίη, 11. iii. 107, and often. In the constant language of St. Paul this παράβασις, as the transgression of a commandment dis- tinctly given, is more serious than ἁμαρτία (Rom. ii. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 14; cf. Heb. ii. 2; ix. 15). It is from this point of view, and indeed with reference to this very word, that Augustine draws often a distinction between the ‘ peccator " and the ‘prevaricator,’ between ‘ peccatum’ (ἁμαρτία) and ‘ prevaricatio’ (παράβασις). Thus Hnarr. in Ps. exviii.; Serm. 25: ‘Omnis quidem prevaricator peccator est, quia peccat in lege, sed non omnis peccator prevaricator est, quia peccant aliqui sine lege. Ubi autem non est lex, nec pre- varicatio.’ It will be seen that his Latin word introduces a new image, not now of overpassing a line, but of halting on unequal feet ; an image, however, which had quite faded from the word when he used it, his motive to employ it lying in the fact that the ‘prevaricator,’ or collusive prosecutor, dealt unjustly with a law. Ue who, being under no express law, sins, is, in Augustine’s language, ‘ peccator’; he who, having such a law, sins, is ‘ prevaricator’ (=zapaPdrns, Rom. ii. 25; Jam. 11. 9, a name constantly given by the Church Fathers to Julian the Apostate). Before the law came men might be the former; after the law they could only be the latter. In the first there is wmplicit, in the second explicit, disobedience. We now arrive at παράπτωμα, a word belonging altogether to the later Greek, and of rare occurrence there; it is em- ployed by Longinus of literary faults (De Suwbl. 86). Οοο- ceius : ‘Si originem verbi spectemus, significat ea facta pre 230 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § .x\v1 quibus quis cadit et prostratus jacet, ut stare coram Deo et surgere non potest.’ At Ephes. ii. 1, where παραπτώματα and ἁμαρτίαι are found together, Jerome records with apparent assent a distinction between them ; that the former are sins suggested to the mind and partially entertained and welcomed there, and the latter thesame embodied in actual deeds: ‘ Aiunt quod παραπτώματα quasi initia peccatorum sint, quum cogitatio tacita subrepit, et ex aliqua parte conniventibus nobis; necdum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam. Peccatum vero esse, quum quid opere consummatum pervenit ad finem.’ This distinc- tion has no warrant. Only this much truth it may be allowed to have; that, as sins of thought partake more of the nature of infirmity, and have less aggravation than the same sins consummated, embodied, that is, in act, so doubtless παρά- πτωμα 18 Sometimes used when it is intended to designate sins not of the deepest dye and the worst enormity. One may trace this very clearly at Gal. vi. 1, our Translators no doubt meaning to indicate as much when they rendered it by ‘fault’ ; and not obscurely, as it seems to me, at Rom. v. 15, 17, 18. Παράπτωμα is used in the same way, as an error, a mistake in judgment, a blunder, by Polybius (ix. 10. 6); compare Ps. xviii. 18, 14, where it is contrasted with the ἁμαρτία μεγάλη : and for other examples see Cremer, Biblisch-Theolog. Worterbuch, p. 501. To a certain feeling of this we may ascribe another inadequate distinction,—that, namely, of Augustine (Qu. ad Lev. 20), who will have παράπτωμα to be the negative omission of good (‘ desertio boni,’ or ‘ delictum ’), as contrasted with ἁμαρτία, the positive doing of evil (‘ perpe- tratio mali’). But this milder subaudition is very far from belonging always to the word (see Jeremy Taylor, Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, iii.3.21). There is nothing of it at Ephes.ii. 1, “dead in trespasses (παραπτώμασι) and sins.” Παράπτωμα is mortal sin, Kzek. xviii. 26; and the παραπεσεῖν of Heb. vi. 6 is equivalent to the ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτάνειν of x. 26, to the ἀπο- στῆναι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ζῶντος of iii. 12; while any such extenuation of the force of the word is expressly excluded in a fragment Sixvi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (231 of Philo (vol. ii. p. 648, ed. Mang.), which very closely re- sembles these two passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in which he distinctly calls it παράπτωμα, when a man, having reached an acknowledged pitch of godliness and virtue, falls back from, and out of this; ‘he was lifted up to the height of heaven, and is fallen down to the deep of hell.’ ᾿Αγνόημα occurs in the N. T. only at Heb. ix. 7 (see Tho- luck, On th Hebrews, Appendia, p. 92), but also at Judith vy. 20; 1 Mace. xiii. 89; Tob. 11]. 3; and ἄγνοια in the same sense of sin, Ps. xxiv. 7, and often; and ἀγνοεῖν, to sin, at Hos. iv. 15; Eeclus. v.15; Heb. v. 2. Sin is designated as an ἀγνόημα wher it is desired to make excuses for it, so far as there is room for such, to regard it in the mildest possible light (see Acts iii. 17). There is always an element of ignor- ance in every human transgression, which constitutes it human and not devilish ; and which, while it does not take away, yet so far mitigates the sinfulness of it, as to render its forgiveness not indeed necessary, but possible. Thus com- pare the words of the Lord, “ Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’ (Luke xxiii. 34), with those of St. Paul, “1 obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief ’’ (1 Tim. i. 13), where, as one has well said, ‘ Der Ausdruck fasst Schuld und Entschuldigung zusammen.’ No sin of man, except perhaps the sin against the Holy Ghost, which may for this reason be irremissible (Matt. x11. 32), is committed with a full and perfect recognition of the evil which is chosen as evil, and of the good which is forsaken as good. Compare the numerous passages in which Plato identifies vice with ignorance, and even pronounces that no man is voluntarily evil; οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν κακός, and what is said qualifying or guarding this statement in Archer Butler’s Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, vol. ii. p. 285. Whatever exaggerations this statement of Plato’s may contain, it still remains true that sin is always, in a greater or less degree, an ἀγνόημα, and the more the ἀγνοεῖν, as opposed to the ἑκου- ciws ἁμαρτάνειν (Heb. x. 26), predominates, the greater the 232 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §UxvVI = extenuation of the sinfulness of the sin. There is therefore an eminent fitness in the employment of the word on the one occasion, referred to already, where it appears in the N. T. The ἀγνοήματα, or ‘ errors’ of the people, for which the High Priest offered sacrifice on the great day of atonement, were not wilful transgressions, ‘presumptuous sins”’ (Ps. xix. 18), committed κατὰ προαίρεσιν, κατὰ πρόθεσιν, against conscience and with a high hand against God; those who committed such were cut off from the congregation ; no provision having been made in the Levitical constitution for the forgiveness of such (Num. xv. 30, 31); but they were sins growing out of the weakness of the flesh, out of an imperfect insight into God’s law, out of heedlessness and lack of due cireumspection (ἀκουσίως, Lev. iv. 18; cf. v. 15-19; Num. xv. 22-29), and afterwards looked back on with shame and regret. The same distinction exists between ἄγνοια and ἀγνόημα which has been already traced between ἁμαρτία and ἁμάρτημα, ἀδικία and ἀδίκημα : that the former is often the more abstract, the latter is always the concrete. "Hrrnua appears nowhere in classical Greek ; but ἧττα, a briefer form of the word, is opposed to νίκη, as discomfiture or worsting to victory. It has there passed very much through the same stages as the Latin ‘clades.’ It appears once in the Septuagint (Isai. xxxi. 8), and twice in the N. T., namely at Rom. xi. 12; 1 Cor. vi. 7; but only in the latter instance having an ethical sense, as a coming short of duty, a fault, the German ‘ Fehler,’ the Latin ‘delictum.’ Gerhard (Loc. Theoll. xl.) : “ἥττημα diminutio, defectus, ab ἡττᾶσθαι victum esse, quia peccatores succumbunt carnis et Satane tentationibus.’ Πλημμέλεια, a very frequent word in the O. T. (Lev. v. 15; Num. xviii. 9, and often), and not rare in later ecclesiastical Greek (thus see Clement of Rome, Cor. 41), does not occur in the New. Derived from πλημμελής, one who sings out of tune (πλὴν and pédos),—as ἐμμελής is one who is in tune, and ἐμμέλεια, the right modulation of the voice to the music; it is properly a discord or disharmony (πλημμέλειαι καὶ ἀμετρίαι, Plutarch, Symp. ix. 14. 7);—so that Augustine’s Greek is in §ixvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 233 fault when he finds in it μέλει, ‘cure est’ (Qu. in Lev. iii. 20), and makes 7AnppéAcca=dpeAca, carelessness. Rather it is sin regarded as a discord or disharmony in the great symphonies of the universe : ‘disproportioned sin Jarred against nature’s chime, and with harsh din Broke the fair music that all creatures made To their great Lord.’ Delitzsch, on Ps. xxxii. 1, with whom Hupfeld, on the same passage, may be compared, observes on the more important Hebrew words, which more or less correspond with these: ‘Die Siinde heisst vwp als Losreissung von Gott, Treubruch, Fall aus dem Gnadenstande [-ἀσέβεια], nNOT als Verfehlung des gottgewollten Zieles, Abirrung vom Gottgefilligen, Vollbringung des Gottwidrigen [=dépaprial, jv als Verkehrung des Geraden, Missethat, Verschuldung [=dvopia, ἀδικία].᾽ δ lxvil. ἀρχαῖος, παλαιός. WE should go astray, if we regarded one of these words as expressing a higher antiquity than the other, and at all sought in this the distinction between them. On the con- trary, this remoter antiquity will be expressed now by one, now by the other. ’Apxatos, expressing that which was from the beginning (ἀρχήν, ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), must, if we accept this as the first beginning of all, be older than person or thing that is merely παλαιός, as having existed a long time ago (πάλαι) ; while on the other hand there may be so many later beginnings, that it is quite possible to conceive the παλαιός as older than the ἀρχαῖος. Donaldson (New Cratylus, p. 19) writes: ‘As the word archeology is already appropriated to the discussion of those subjects of which the antiquity is only comparative, it would be consistent with the usual distinction between ἀρχαῖος and παλαιός to give the name of paleology to those sciences which aim at reproducing an absolutely primeval state or condition.’ I fail to trace in the 234 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xvu uses of παλαιός so strong a sense, or at all events at all so constant a sense, of a more primeval state or condition, as in this statement is implied. Thus compare Thucydides, ii. 15 : ξυμβέβηκε τοῦτο ἀπὸ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου, that is, from the pre- historic time of Cecrops, with 1. 18: Λακεδαίμων ἐκ παλαιτάτου εὐνομήθη, from very early times, but still within the historic period ; where the words are used in senses exactly reversed. The distinction between ἀρχαῖος and παλαιός, which is not to be looked for here, is on many cccasions not to be looked for at all. Often they occur together as merely cumulative synonyms, or at any rate with no higher antiquity predicated by the one than by the other (Plato, Legg. 865 d; Demosthenes, xxii. 597; Plutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. 27; Justin Martyr, Coh. ad Grec. 5). It lies in the etymology of the words that in cases out of number they may be quite indifferently used ; that which was from the beginning will have been generally from a long while since ; and that which was from a long while since will have been often from the beginning. Thus the ἀρχαία φωνή of one passage in Plato (Crat. 418 c) is exactly equivalent to the παλαιὰ φωνή of another (Ib. 898 d); the ἀρχαῖοι θεοί of one passage in the Euthyphro are the παλαιὰ δαιμόνια of another ; of παλαιοί and ot ἀρχαῖοι alike mean the ancients (Plutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. 14 and 33) ; there cannot be much difference between παλαιοὶ χρόνοι (2 Mace. vi. 21) and ἀρχαῖαι ἡμέραι (Ps. xiii. 2). At the same time it is evident that whenever an emphasis is desired to be laid on the reaching back to a beginning, whatever that beginning may be, ἀρχαῖος will be preferred ; thus we have ἀρχαῖα and πρῶτα joined together (Isai. xliii. 18). Satan is ὃ ὄφις ὃ ἀρχαῖος (Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2), his malignant counterworkings of God reaching back to the earliest epoch in the history of man. The world before the flood, that therefore which was indeed from the first, is ὁ ἀρχαῖος κόσμος (2 Pet. ii. ὅδ. Mnason was ἀρχαῖος μαθητής (Acts xxi. 16), ‘an old disciple,’ not in the sense in which English readers almost inevitably take the words, namely, ‘an aged disciple,’ but one who had been such from the commencement of the ΦΧ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 235 faith, from the day of Pentecost or before it; aged very probably he will have been; but it is not this which the word declares. The original founders of the Jewish Common- wealth, who, as such, gave with authority the law, are oi ἀρχαῖοι (Matt. v. 21, 27, 88 ; cf. 1 Sam. xxiv. 14; Isai. xxv. 1); πίστις ἀρχαία (Kusebius, H. H. v. 28, 9) is the faith which was from the beginning, “ once delivered to the saints.” The Timeus of Plato, 22 ὁ, offers an instructive passage in which both words occur, where it is not hard to trace the finer instincts of language which have determined their several employment. Sophocles (7’rachin. 546) has another, where Deianira speaks of the poisoned shirt, the gift to her of Nessus : ἦν μοι παλαιὸν δῶρον ἀρχαίου ποτὲ θηρὸς, λέβητι χαλκέῳ κεκρυμμένον. Aischylus (Hwmenides, 727, 728) furnishes a third. ᾿Αρχαῖος, like the Latin ‘ priscus,’ will often designate the ancient as also the venerable, as that to which the honour due to antiquity belongs; thus Κῦρος 6 ἀρχαῖος (Xenophon, Anab. 1. 9. 1; ef. Aristophanes, Nwb. 961); just as on the other side ‘modern’ is always used slightingly by Shake- speare; and it is here that we reach a point of marked divergence between it and παλαιός, each going off into a secondary meaning of its own, which it does not share with the other, but possesses exclusively as its proper domain. I have just observed that the honour of antiquity is sometimes expressed by ἀρχαῖος, nor indeed is it altogether strange to παλαιός. But there are other qualities that cleave to the ancient ; it is often old-fashioned, seems ill-adapted to the present, to be part and parcel of a world which has passed away. We have a witness for this in the fact that ‘antique’ and ‘antic’ are only different spellings of one and the same word. There lies often in ἀρχαῖος this sense superadded of old-world fashion ; not merely antique, but antiquated and out of date, not merely ‘alterthiimlich,’ but ‘altfrinkisch ’ (Aischylus, Prom. Vinct. 325; Aristophanes, Plut. 323, χαίρειν ἐστὶν ἀρχαῖον ἤδη καὶ σαπρόν (Nub. 915); and still 236 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1.xvit1 more strongly in ἀρχαιότης, which has no other meaning but this (Plato, Legg. ii. 657 δ). But while ἀρχαῖος goes off in this direction (we have, indeed, no example in the N. T.), παλαιός diverges in another, of which the N. T. usage will supply a large number of examples. That which has existed long has been exposed to, and in many cases will have suffered from, the wrongs and injuries of time; it will be old in the sense of more or less worn out; and this is always παλαιός. Thus ἱμάτιον παλαιόν (Matt. ix. 16) ; ἀσκοὶ παλαιοί (Matt. ix. 17); so ἀσκοὶ παλαιοὶ καὶ κατεῤῥωγότες (Josh. 1x. 10) ; παλαιὰ ῥάκη (Jer. xlv. 11). In the same way, while οἱ ἀρχαῖοι could never express the old men of a living generation as compared with the young of the same, oi παλαιοί continually bears this sense ; thus νέος ἠὲ παλαιός (Homer, Jl. xiv. 108, and often) ; πολυετεῖς καὶ παλαιοί (Philo, De Vit. Cont. 8; cf. Job xv. 10). It is the same with the words formed on παλαιός: thus Heb. viii. 13: τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ: cf. Heb. i. 11 ; Luke xii. 88 ; Ecclus. xiv. 17 ; while Plato joins παλαιότης and σαπρότης together (Rep. x. 609 ὁ ; cf. Aristophanes, Plut. 1086: τρὺξ παλαιὰ καὶ σαπρά). As often as παλαιός is employed to connote that which is worn out, or wearing out, by age, it will absolutely demand καινός as its opposite (Josh. ix. 18 ; Mark 11. 21; Heb. viii. 18), as it will also sometimes have it on other occasions (Herodotus, ix. 26, bis). When this does not lie in the word, there is nothing to prevent νέος being set over against it (Lev. xxvi. 10 ; Homer, Od. ii. 298 ; Plato, Cratylus, 418 6; Adschylus, Hwmenides, 778, 808) ; and καινός against ἀρχαῖος (2 Cor. v. 17; Aristophanes, Rane, 720; Isocrates, xv. 82; Plato, Huthyphro, 3 ὃ ; Philo, De Vit. Con. 10). 1 The same lies, or may lie, in ‘ vetus,’ as in Tertullian’s pregnant antithesis (Adv. Marc. i. 8): ‘ Deus si est vetus, non erit; si est novus, non fuit.’ νη SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 237 § Ixvill. ἄφθαρτος, ἀμάραντος, ἀμαράντινος. Ir is a remarkable testimony to the reign of sin, and there- fore of imperfection, of decay, of death, throughout this whole fallen world, that as often as we desire to set forth the glory, purity, and perfection of that other higher world towards which we strive, we are almost inevitably compelled to do this by the aid of negatives, by the denying to that higher order of things the leading features and characteristics of this. Such is signally the case in a passage wherein two of the words with which we are now dealing occur. St. Peter, magnifying the inheritance reserved in heaven for the faith- ful (1 Pet. 1 4), does this,—and he had hardly any choice in the matter,—by aid of three negatives; by affirming that it is ἄφθαρτος,, or without our corruption ; that it 15 ἀμίαντος, or without our defilement ; that it is ἀμάραντος, or without our withering and fading away. He can only set forth what it is by declaring what it is not. Of these three, however, I set one, namely ἀμίαντος, aside, the distinction between it and the others being too evident to leave them fair subjects of synonymous discrimination. ἔἜΛφθαρτος, a word of the later Greek, is not once found in the Septuagint, and only twice in the Apocrypha (Wisd. xii. 1; xviii. 4). Properly speaking, God only is ἄφθαρτος, the heathen theology recognizing this not less clearly than the Biblical. Thus Plutarch (De Repugn. Stoic. 88) quotes the grand saying of the Stoic philosopher, Antipater of Tarsus, Θεὸν νοοῦμεν ζῶον μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον: ef. Diogenes Laértius, x. 1. 81.189. And in agreement with this we find the word by him associated with ἰσόθεος (Ne Suav. Viv. Posse, 7), with ἀίδιος (Adv. Colot. 18), with ἀνέκλειπτος (De Def. Orac. 51), with ἀγέννητος (De Repugn. Stoic. 88), with ἀγένητος (De Lr ap. Delph. 19), with ἀπαθής (De Def. Orac. 20) ; so, too, with ὀλύμπιος by Philo (quod Det. Pot. Ins. 23), and with other epithets corresponding. ‘Immortal’ we have rendered it on one occasion (1 Tim. i. 17); but there is a clear distinction 238 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxvil between it and ἀθάνατος or ὃ ἔχων ἀθανασίαν (1 Tim. vi. 16); and ‘ incorruptible,’ by which we have given it in other places (1 Cor. ix. 25; xv. 52; 1 Pet. i. 23), is to be preferred; the word predicating of God that He is exempt from that wear and waste and final perishing ; that φθορά, which time, and sin working in time, bring about in all which is outside of Him and to which He has not communicated of his own ἀφθαρσία (1 Cor. xv. 52; cf. Isai. li. 6; Heb. i. 10-12). ᾿Αμάραντος occurs only once in the N. T. (1 Pet. i. 4); once also in the Apocrypha, being joined there with λαμπρός (Wisd. vi. 12); and ἀμαράντινος not oftener (1 Pet. v. 4). There may well be a question whether ἀμαράντινος, an epithet given to a crown, should not be rendered ‘of amaranths.’ We, however, have made no distinction between the two, having rendered both by the same circumlocution, ‘that fadeth not away’; our Translators no doubt counting ‘ im- marcescible ’—a word which has found favour with Bishops Hall and Taylor and with other scholarly writers of the seventeenth century—too much of an ‘inkhorn term’ to be admitted into our English Bible. Even the Rheims Trans- lators, with ‘immarcescibilis’ in the Vulgate before them, have not ventured upon it. In this ἀμάραντος there is affirmed of the heavenly inheritance that it is exempt from that swift withering which is the portion of all the loveliness which springs out of an earthly root; the most exquisite beauty which the natural world can boast, that, namely, of the flower, being also the shortest-lived (‘breve lilium’), the quickest to fall away and fade and die (Job xiv. 2; Ps. MExvil: 2° Cli 1: isa. xl 6, ἡ: Matt. vi. 80- Jams 10. 11; 1 Pet. i. 24). All this is declared to find no place in that inheritance of unfading loveliness, reserved for the faithful in heaven. If, indeed, it be asked wherein ἄφθαρτος and ἀμάραντος differ, what the latter predicates concerning this heavenly inheritance which the former had not claimed already, the answer must be that essentially it claims nothing; yet with all this in ἀμάραντος is contained so to speak, a pledge that §LxIx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 239 the more delicate grace, beauty, and bloom which it owns will as little wither and wane as will its solid and substantial worth depart. Not merely decay and corruption cannot touch it; but it shall wear its freshness, brightness, and beauty for ever. Hstius: ‘ Immarcescibilis est, quia vigorem suum et eratiam, instar amaranti floris, semper retinet, ut nullo un- quam tempore possessori fastidium tediumve subrepat.’ S lxix. peravoéw, μεταμέλομαι. Ir is often stated by theologians of the Reformation period that μετάνοια and μεταμέλεια, with their several verbs, μετα- νοεῖν and μεταμέλεσθαι, are so far distinct, that where it is intended to express the mere desire that the done might be undone, accompanied with regrets or even with remorse, but with no effective change of heart, there the latter words are employed; but where a true change of heart toward God, there the former. It was Beza, I believe, who first strongly urged this. He was followed by many; thus see Spanheim, Dub. Evang. vol. iii. dub. 9; and Chillingworth (Sermons before Charles I. p. 11): ‘To this purpose it is worth the observing, that when the Scripture speaks of that kind of repentance, which is only sorrow for something done, and wishing it undone, it constantly useth the word μεταμέλεια, to which forgiveness of sins is nowhere promised. So it is written of Judas the son of perdition (Matt. xxvii. 8), wera- μεληθεὶς ἀπέστρεψε, he repented and went out and hanged himself; and so constantly in other places. But that repentance to which remission of sins and salvation is pro- mised, is perpetually expressed by the word μετάνοια, which signifieth a thorough change of the heart and soul, of the life and actions.’ Let me, before proceeding further, correct a slight in- accuracy in this statement. Μεταμέλεια nowhere occurs in the N. T.; only once in the Old (Hos. xi. 8). So far as we are dealing with N. T. synonyms, it is properly between the verbs alone that the comparison can be instituted, and a 240 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ix1x distinction drawn ; though, indeed, what stands good of them will stand good of their conjugates as well. But even after this correction made, the statement will itself need a certain qualification. Jeremy Taylor allows as much ; whose words —they occur in his great treatise, On the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, ch. ii. 1, 2——are as follows: ‘The Greeks use two words to express this duty, μεταμέλεια and μετάνοια. Μεταμέλεια is from μεταμελεῖσθαι, post factum angi et cruciari, to be afflicted in mind, to be troubled for our former folly ; it 15 δυσαρέστησις ἐπὶ πεπραγμένοις, saith Phavo- rinus, a being displeased for what we have done, and it is generally used for all sorts of repentance ; but more properly to signify either the beginning of a good, or the whole state of an ineffective, repentance. In the first sense we find it in St. Matthew, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες οὐ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ, ‘and ye, seeing, did not repent that ye might believe Him.’ Of the second sense we have an example in Judas, μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπέστρεψε, he “repented’’ too, but the end of it was he died with anguish and despair. . . . There is in this repentance a sorrow for what is done, a disliking of the thing with its consequents and effect, and so far also it is a change of mind. But it goes no further than so far to change the mind that it brings trouble and sorrow, and such things as are the natural events of it. . . . When there was a difference made, μετάνοια was the better word, which does not properly signify the sorrow for having done amiss, but something that is nobler than it, but brought in at the gate of sorrow. For ἡ κατὰ Θεὸν λύπη, a godly sorrow, that is μεταμέλεια, or the first beginning of repentance, μετάνοιαν κατεργάζεται, Worketh this better repentance, μετάνοιαν ἀμεταμέ- λητον and εἰς σωτηρίαν. Thus far Jeremy Taylor. Presently, however, he admits that ‘however the grammarians may distinguish them, yet the words are used promiscuously,’ and that no rigid line of discrimination can be drawn between them as some have attempted to draw. This in its measure is true, yet not so true but that a predominant use of one and of the other can very clearly be traced. There was, as is well §LxIx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 241 known, a conflict between the early Reformers and the Roman Catholic divines whether ‘ peenitentia,’ as the latter affirmed, or ‘resipiscentia,’ as Beza and the others, was the better Latin rendering of μετάνοια. There was much to be said on both sides; but it is clear that if the standing word had been μεταμέλεια, and not μετάνοια, this would have told to a certain degree in favour of the Roman Catholic view. ‘ Poeni- tentia,’ says Augustine (De Ver. et Fals. Pan. 6. viii.) ‘ est quedam dolentis vindicta, semper puniens in se quod dolet commisisse.’ Meravoety is properly to know after, as προνοεῖν to know before, and μετάνοια afterknowledge, as πρόνοια foreknowledge ; which is well brought out by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. il. 6): εἰ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥμαρτεν μετενόησεν, εἰ σύνεσιν ἔλαβεν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔπταισεν, καὶ μετέγνω, ὅπερ ἑστὶ, μετὰ ταῦτα ἔγνω " βραδεῖα γὰρ γνῶσις, μετάνοια. So in the Florilegiwm of Stobeus, i. 14: οὐ μετανοεῖν ἀλλὰ προνοεῖν χρὴ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σοφόν At its next step μετάνοια signifies the change of mind consequent on this after-knowledge ; thus Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. ii. 24): ‘In Greco sermone peenitentie nomen non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demutatione, compositum est,’ At its third, it is regret for the course pursued; resulting from the change of mind consequent on this after-knowledge; with a δυσ- αρέστησις, or displeasure with oneself thereupon ; ‘ passio que- dam animi qui veniat de offensa sententix prioris,’ which, as Tertullian asserts (De Ponit. 1) affirms, was all that the heathen understood by it. At this stage of its meaning it is found associated with δηγμός (Plutarch, Quom. Am. ab Adul. 12); with αἰσχύνη (De Virt. Mor. 12); with πόθος (Pericles, 10; cf. Lucian, De Saliat. 84). Last of all it signifies change of conduct for the future, springing from all this. At the same time this change of mind, and of action upon this fol- lowing, may be quite as well a change for the worse as for the better ; there is no need that it should be a ‘ resipiscentia ’ as well; this is quite a Christian superaddition to the word. Thus A. Gellius (xvii. 1. 6): ‘Pcenitere tum dicere solemus, cum que ipsi fecimus, aut que de nostra voluntate nostroque R 242 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § αχιχ consilio facta sunt, ea nobis post incipiunt displicere, senten- tiamque in iis nostram demutamus.’ In like manner Plu- tarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. 21) tells us of two murderers, who, having spared a child, afterwards ‘repented’ (μετενόησαν), and sought to slay it (cf. his Timoleon, § 6); μεταμέλεια is used by him in the same sense of a repenting of good (De Ser. Num. Vind. 11); so that here also Tertullian had right in his complaint (De Penit. 1): ‘Quam autem in penitentix actu irrationaliter deversentur [ethnicij, vel uno isto satis erit expedire, cum illam etiam in bonis actis suis adhibent. Poe- nitet fidei, amoris, simplicitatis, patientiz, misericordie, prout quid in ingratiam cecidit.’ The regret may be, and often is, quite unconnected with the sense of any wrong done, of the violation of any moral law, may be simply what our fathers were wont to call ‘hadiwist’ (had-I-wist better, I should have acted otherwise); thus see Plutarch, De Lib. Hd. 14; Sept. Sap. Conv. 12; De Soler. Anim. 3; λύπη δι’ ἀλγηδόνος, ἣν μετάνοιαν ὀνομάζομεν, ‘displeasure with oneself, proceeding from pain, which we call repentance’ (Holland). That it had sometimes, though rarely, an ethical meaning, none would deny, in which sense Plutarch (De Ser. Num. Vind. 6) has a passage in wonderful harmony with Rom. ii. 4; and another (De Trang. Anim, 19), in which μεταμέλεια and μετάνοια are interchangeably used. It is only after μετάνοια has been taken up into the uses of Scripture, or of writers dependent on Scripture, that it comes predominantly to mean a change of mind, taking a wiser view of the past, συναίσθησις ψυχῆς ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔπραξεν ἀτόποις (Phavorinus), a regret for the ill done in that past, and out of all this a change of life for the better; ἐπιστροφὴ τοῦ βίου (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ii. 245 a), or as Plato already had, in part at least, described it, μεταστροφὴ ἀπὸ τῶν σκιῶν ἐπὶ τὸ φῶς (Rep. vii. ὅ82 δ): περιστροφή, ψυχῆς περιαγωγή (διά. 591 ο). This is all imported into, does not etymologically nor yet by primary usage lie in, the word. Not very frequent in the Septuagint or the Apocrypha (yet see Keclus. xliv. 16 ; Wisd. xi. 23; xii. 10, 19; and for the verb, Jer. viii. 6), it is ! §LxIX SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 243 common in Philo, who joins perdvovawith βελτίωσις (De Abrah. 3), explaining it as πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον ἡ μεταβολή (ibid.; ef. De Pent. 8); while in the N. T. μετανοεῖν ἃ ἃ μετάνοια, whenever they are used in the N. T.., and it is singular how rarely this in the writings of St. Paul is the case, μετανοεῖν but once (2 Cor. xii. 21), and μετάνοια only four times (Rom. ii. 4; 2 Cor. vii. 9,10; 2. Tim. ii. 25), are never employed in other than an ethical sense; ‘die unter Schmerz der Reue sich im Person- leben des Menschen vollziehende radicale Umstimmung,’ Delitzsch has finely described it. But while thus μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια gradually advanced in depth and fulness of meaning, till they became the fixed and recognized.words to express that mighty change in mind, heart, and life wrought by the Spirit of God (‘ such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice,’ Kettlewell), which we call repentance ; the like honour was very partially vouchsafed to μεταμέλεια and μεταμέλεσθαι. The first, styled by Plutarch σώτειρα δαίμων, and by him explained as ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἡδοναῖς, ὅσαι παράνομοι καὶ ἀκρατεῖς, αἰσχύνη (De Gen. Socr. 22), asso- ciated by him with βαρυθυμία (An Vit. ad Inf. 2), by Plato with ταραχή (Π 6}. ix. 577 ¢; ef. Plutarch, De Cohib. Ird, 16), has been noted as never occurring in the N. T.; the second only five times; and designating on one of these the sorrow of this world which worketh death, of Judas Iscariot (Matt. xxvii. 3), and on another expressing, not the repentance of men, but the change of mind of God (Heb. vii. 21); and this while μετάνοια occurs some five and twenty, and μετανοεῖν some five and thirty times. Those who deny that either in profane or sacred Greek any traceable difference existed between the words are able, in the former, to point to passages where μεταμέλεια is used in all those senses which have been here claimed for μετάνοια, to others where the two are employed as convertible terms, and both to express remorse (Plutarch, De Trang. Anim. 19); in the latter, to passages in the N. T. where μεταμέλεσθαι implies all that μετανοεῖν Would have implied (Matt. xxi. 29, 82). But all this R2 244 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xx freely admitted, there does remain, both in sacred and profane use, a very distinct preference for μετάνοια as the expression of the nobler repentance. This we might, indeed, have expected beforehand, from the relative etymological force of the words. He who has changed his mind about the past is in the way to change everything; he who has an after care may have little or nothing more than a selfish dread of the consequences of what he has done (Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. ix. 4. 10: μεταμελείας of φαῦλοι γέμουσιν) ; 850 that the long dispute on the relation of these words with one another may be summed up in the statement of Bengel, which seems to me to express the exact truth of the matter ; allowing a difference, but not urging it too far (Gnomon N. T.; 2 Cor. vii. 10) : ‘Vi etymi μετάνοια proprie est mentis, μεταμέλεια Voluntatis ; quod illa sententiam, hic solicitudimem vel potius studium mutatum dicat. ... Utrumque ergo dicitur de eo, quem facti consiliive peenitet, sive penitentia bona sit sive mala, sive male rei sive bone, sive cum muta- tione actionum in posterum, sive citra eam. Veruntamen si usum spectes, μεταμέλεια plerunque est μέσον vocabulum, et refertur potissimum ad actiones singulares: μετάνοια vero, in N. T. presertim, in bonam partem sumitur, quo notatur penitentia totius vite ipsorumque nostri quoddammodo: sive tota illa beata mentis post errorem et peccata reminiscentia, cum omnibus affectibus eam ingredientibus, quam fructus digni sequuntur. Hine fit ut μετανοεῖν sepe in imperativo ponatur, μεταμελεῖσθαι nunquam : ceteris autem locis, ubi- cunque μετάνοια legitur, μεταμέλειαν possis substituere: sed non contra.’ Compare Witsius, De Gicon. Fad. Dei, ii. 12. 130-136 ; Girdlestone, Old Testament Synonyms, Ὁ. 158 sqq. δ Ilxx. μορφή, σχῆμα, ἰδέα. THESE words are none of them of frequent recurrence in the N. T., μορφή occurring there only thrice (Mark xvi. 12; Phil. ii. 6, 7); but compare μόρφωσις (Rom. ii. 20; 2 Tim. iii. 5): σχῆμα twice (1 Cor. vii. 31; Phil. 11. 8); and idea §~Lxx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 245 only once (Mat. xxviii. 3). Mopdy is ‘form,’ ‘ forma,’ ‘gestalt’; σχῆμα is ‘fashion,’ ‘ habitus,’ ‘figur’; ἰδέα, ‘ap- pearance,’ ‘species,’ ‘erscheinung.’ The first two, which occur not unfrequently together (Plutarch, Symp. viii. 2. 8), are objective; for the ‘form’ and the ‘fashion’ of a thing would exist, were it alone in the universe, and whether there were any to behold it or no. The other (ἰδέα-- εἶδος, John v. 37) is subjective, the appearance of a thing implying some to whom this appearance is made; there must needs be a seer before there can be a seen. We may best study the distinction between μορφή and σχῆμα, and at the same time estimate its importance, by aid of that great doctrinal passage (Phil. ii. 6-8), in which St. Paul speaks of the Eternal Word before his Incarnation as subsisting “in the form of God”’ (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων), as assuming at his Incarnation ‘the form of a servant” (μορφὴν δούλου λαβών), and after his Incarnation and during his walk upon earth as ‘‘ being found in fashion as a man” (σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος). The Fathers were wont to urge the first phrase, ἐν poppy Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, against the Arians (thus Hilary, De Trin. viii. 45; Ambrose, Hp. 46; Gregory of Nyssa, Con. Hunom. 4); and the Lutherans did the same against the Socinians, as a ‘ dictum probans’ of the absolute divinity of the Son of God ; that is, μορφή for them was here equivalent to οὐσία or φύσις. This cannot, however, as is now generally acknowledged, be maintained. Doubtless there does lie in the words a proof of the divinity of Christ, but this implicitly and not explicitly. Μορφή is ποὐΞξεοὐσίώα : at the same time none could be ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ who was not God: as is well put by Bengel: ‘ Forma Dei non est natura divina, sed tamen is qui in forma Dei extabat, Deus est;’ and this because μορφή, like the Latin ‘forma,’ the German ‘ gestalt,’ signifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner life; not ‘being,’ but ‘mode of being,’ or better, ‘ mode of existence’ ; and only God could have the mode of existence of God. But He who had thus been from eternity ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ (John xvil. 5), took at his Incarnation μορφὴν δούλου. The verity 246 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xx of his Incarnation is herein implied; there was nothing docetic, nothing phantastic about it. His manner of exist- ence was now that of a δοῦλος, that is, of a δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ : for in the midst of all our Lord’s humiliations He was never a δοῦλος ἀνθρώπων. Their διάκονος He may have been, and from time to time eminently was (John xiii. 4, 5; Matt. xx. 28); this was part of his ταπείνωσις mentioned in the next verse ; but their δοῦλος never; they, on the contrary, his. It was with respect of God He so emptied Himself of his glory, that, from that manner of existence in which He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, He became his servant. The next clause, “and being found in fashion (σχήματι) as a man,” is very instructive for the distinguishing of σχῆμα from μορφή. The verity of the Son’s Incarnation was ex- pressed, as we have seen, in the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. These words which follow do but declare the outward facts which came under the knowledge of his fellow-men, with therefore an emphasis on εὑρεθείς : He was by men fownd in fashion as a man, the σχῆμα here signifying his whole outward presenta- tion, as Bengel puts it well: ‘ σχῆμα, habitus, cultus, vestitus, victus, gestus, sermones et actiones.’ In none of these did there appear any difference between Him and the other children of men. This swperficial character of σχῆμα appears in its association with such words as χρῶμα (Plato, Gorg. 465 ὃ; Theatet. 168 b) and ὑπογραφή (Legg. v. 737 d) ; as in the definition of it which Plutarch gives (De Plac. Phil. 14): ἐστὶν ἐπιφάνεια καὶ περιγραφὴ καὶ πέρας σώματος. The two words are used in an instructive antithesis by Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 9). The distinction between them comes out very clearly in the compound verbs μετασχηματίζειν and μεταμορφοῦν. Thus if I were to change a Dutch garden into an Italian, this would be μετασχηματισμός: but if I were to transform a garden into something wholly different, as into a city, this would be μεταμόρφωσις. It is possible for Satan μετασχηματί- few himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 14); he can take the whole outward semblance of such. But to any such §~uxx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 247 change of his it would be impossible to apply the μεταμορ- φοῦσθαι: for this would imply a change not external but internal, not of accidents but of essence, which lies quite beyond his power. How fine and subtle is the variation of words at Rom. xii. 2; though ‘conformed’ and ‘trans- formed’ in our Translation have failed adequately to repre- sent it. ‘Do not fall in,’ says the Apostle, ‘ with the fleeting fashions of this world, nor be yourselves fashioned to them (μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε), but undergo a deep abiding change (ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε) by the renewing of your mind, such as the Spirit of God alone can work in you’ (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18). Theodoret, commenting on this verse, calls particular atten- tion to this variation of the word used, a variation which it would task the highest skill of the English scholar adequately to reproduce in his own language. Among much else which is interesting, he says: ἐδίδασκεν ὅσον πρὸς τὰ παρόντα τῆς ἀρετῆς τὸ διάφορον: ταῦτα γὰρ ἐκάλεσε σχῆμα, τὴν ἀρετὴν δὲ μορφήν" ἡ μορφὴ δὲ ἀληθῶν πραγμάτων σημαντική, τὸ δὲ σχῆμα εὐδιάλυτον χρῆμα. Meyer perversely enough rejects all this, and has this note: ‘Beide Worte stehen im Gegensatze nur durch die Priipositionen, ohne Sinnverschiedenheit der Stamm-Verba;’ with whom Fritzsche agrees (i loc.). One can understand a commentator overlooking, but scarcely one denying, the significance of this change. [or the very dif- ferent uses of one word and the other, see Plutarch, Quom. Adul. ab Anuc. 7, where both occur. At the resurrection Christ shall transfigure (μετασχη- ματίσει) the bodies of his saints (Phil. ii. 21; ef. 1 Cor. xv. 58); on which statement Calov remarks, “1116 μετασχη- ματισμός non substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, non ratione quidditatis corporis nostri, sed ratione quali- tatwm, salva quidditate, importat:’ but the changes of ' The Authorized Version is the first which uses ‘ transformed ’ here; Wiclif and the Rheims, both following closely the Vulgate, ‘transfigured,’ and the intermediate Reformed Versions, ‘changed into the fashion of.’ If the distinctions here drawn are correct, and if they stand good in English as well as Greek, ‘ transformed’ is not the word. 248 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xx heathen deities into wholly other shapes were μεταμορφώσεις. In the μετασχηματισμός there is a transition, but no absolute solution of continuity. The butterfly, prophetic type of man’s resurrection, is immeasurably more beautiful than the grub, yet has been duly unfolded from it; but when Proteus trans- forms himself into a flame, a wild beast, a running stream (Virgil, Georg. iv. 442), each of these disconnected with all that went before, there is here a change not of the σχῆμα merely, but of the μορφή (cf. Euripides, Hec. 1266; Plato, Locr. 104 e). When the Evangelist records that after the resurrection Christ appeared to his disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ (Mark xvi. 12), the words intimate to us how vast the mysterious change to which his body had been submitted, even as they are in keeping with the μετεμορφώθη of Matt. xvii. 2; Mark ix. 2; the transformation upon the Mount being a prophetic anticipation of that which hereafter should be; compare Dan. iv. 88, where Nebuchadnezzar says of himself, 7 μορφή μου ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς ἐμέ. The μορφή then, it may be assumed, is of the essence of a thing.! We cannot conceive the thing as apart from this its formality, to use ‘formality’ in the old logical sense; the σχῆμα is its accident, having to do, not with the ‘ quidditas,’ but the ‘ qualitas,’ and, whatever changes it may undergo, leaving the ‘ quidditas’ untouched, the thing itself essentially, or formally, the same as it was before; as one has said, μορφὴ φύσεως σχῆμα ἕξεως. Thus σχῆμα βασιλικόν (Lucian, Pisc. 85; οἵ. Sophocles, Antig. 1148) is the whole outward array and adornment of a monarch—diadem, tiara, sceptre, robe (cf. Lucian, Hermot. 86)—all which he might lay aside, and remain king notwithstanding. It in no sort belongs or adheres to the man as a part of himself. Thus Menander (Meineke, Pragm. Com. Gr. p. 985) : πρᾶον se asc had σχῆμ᾽ ὑπεισελθὼν ἀνὴρ ἐεκου παν κεῖται πεν τοῖς iad La forme est nécessairement en rapport avec la matiére ou avec lefond. La figure au contraire est plus indépendante des objets ; se concoit ἃ part’ (Lafaye, Syn. Fran. Ὁ. 617). §uxx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 249 Thus, too, the σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου passes away (1 Cor. vii. 81), the image being here probably drawn from the shifting scenes of a theatre, but the κόσμος itself abides; there is no τέλος τοῦ κόσμου, but only τοῦ αἰῶνος, or τῶν αἰώνων. For some valuable remarks on the distinction between μορφή and σχῆμα see The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, No. 7, pp. 113, 116, 121; and the same drawn out more fully by Bishop Lightfoot, their author, in his Commentary on the Philippians, pp. 125-181. The use in Latin of ‘forma’ and ‘figura’ so far corre- sponds with those severally of μορφή and σχῆμα, that while ‘figura forme’ occurs not rarely (‘veterem form@ servare figuram’ ; ef. Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 32), forma figure’ never (see Doderlein, Latein. Syn. vol. iii. p. 87). Contrast too in English ‘deformed’ and ‘disfigured.’ A hunchback is ‘de- formed,’ a man that has been beaten about the face may be ‘disfigured ’ ; the deformity is bound up in the very existence of the one ; the disfigurement of the other may in a few days have quite passed away. In ‘transformed’ and ‘ transfigured ’ it is easy to recognize the same distinction. Ἰδέα on the one occasion of its use in the N. T. (Matt. XXvill. 3) is rendered ‘countenance,’ as at 2 Macc. iii. 16 ‘face.’ It is not a happy translation ; ‘appearance’ would be better ; ‘species sub oculos cadens,’ not the thing itself, but the thing as beholden ; thus Plato (Rep. ix. 588 c), πλάττε ἰδέαν θηρίου ποικίλου, ‘ Fashion to thyself the image of a manifold beast’ ; 80 ἰδέα τοῦ προσώπου, the look of the countenance (Plutarch, Pyrrh. 3, and often); ἰδέᾳ xados, fair to look on (Pindar, Olymp. x. 122); χιόνος ἰδέα, the appearance of snow (Philo, Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 48). Plutarch defines it, the last clause of his definition alone concerning us here (De Plac. Phil.i. 9) : ἰδέα ἐστὶν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτὴ μὲν μὴ ὑφεστῶσα καθ᾽ αὑτήν, εἰκονίζουσα δὲ τὰς ἀμόρφους ὕλας, καὶ αἰτία γινομένη τῆς τούτων δείξεως. The word is constant to this definition, and to the ἰδεῖν lying at its own base ; oftentimes it is manifestly so, as in the following quotation from Philo, which is further instruc- tive as showing how fundamentally his doctrine of the Logos 250 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT δ ΊΧΧΙ differed from St. John’s, was in fact a denial of it in its most important element: ὃ δὲ ὑπεράνω τούτων [τῶν χερουβίμ) Λόγος θεῖος εἰς ὁρατὴν οὐκ ἦλθεν ἰδέαν (De Prof. 19).—On the distine- tion between εἶδος and ἰδέα, and how far the Platonic philo- sophy admits a distinction between them at all, see Stallbaum’s note on Plato’s Republic, x. 596 b; Donaldson’s Cratylus, 8rd ed. p. 105; and Thompson’s note on Archer Butler’s Lectures, vol. 11. p. 127. § Ιχχὶ. ψυχικός, σαρκικός. Ψυχικός occurs six times in the Ν. T. On three of these it cannot be said to have a distinctly ethical employment; seeing that in them itis only the meanness of the σῶμα ψυχικόν which the faithful now bear about that is contrasted with the glory of the σῶμα πνευματικόν which they shall bear (1 Cor. xv. 44 bis, 46). On the other three occasions a moral emphasis rests on the word, and in every instance a most depreciatory. Thus St. Paul declares that the ψυχικός receives not and can- not receive, as having no organ for their reception, the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. ii. 14) ; St. James (iii. 15) charac- terizes the wisdom which is ψυχική, as also ἐπίγειος, ‘ earthly,’ and δαιμονιώδης, ‘ devilish ;’ St. Jude explains the ψυχικοί as those πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες (ver. 19). The word nowhere appears in the Septuagint ; but ψυχικῶς in the sense of ‘heartily’ (Ξε ἐκ ψυχῆς, Col. iii. 23) twice in the Apocrypha (2 Mace. iv. 37; xiv. 24). It is at first with something of surprise that we find ψυχικός thus employed, and keeping this company ; and the modern fashion of talking about the soul, as though it were the highest part of man, does not diminish this surprise ; would rather lead us to expect to find it associated with πνευματικός, aS though there were only light shades of distinction between them. But, indeed, this (which thus takes us by surprise) is characteristic of the inner differences between Christian and heathen, and indicative of those better gifts and graces which the Dispensation of the Spirit has brought into the world. SEXXT SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 251 Ψυχικός, continually used as the highest in later classical Greek literature—the word appears first in Aristotle—being there opposed to σαρκικός (Plutarch, Ne Suwav. Vivi Posse, 14), or, where there is no ethical antithesis, to σωματικός (Aristotle, Hth. Nie. iii. 10. 2; Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 9; Polybius, vi. 5. 7), and constantly employed in praise, must come down from its high estate, another so much greater than it being installed in the highest place of all. That old philosophy knew of nothing higher than the soul of man ; but Revelation knows of the Spirit of God, and of Him making his habitation with men, and calling out an answering spirit in them. There was indeed a certain reaching out after this higher in the distinction which Lucretius and others drew between the ‘anima’ and the ‘animus,’ giving, as they did, the nobler place to the last. According to Scripture the ψυχή, no less than the σάρξ, belongs to the lower region of man’s being; and if a double employment of ψυχή there (as at Matt. xvi. 26 ; Mark viii. 35), requires a certain caution in this statement, it is at any rate plain that ψυχικός is not a word of honour ! any more than σαρκικός, being an epithet quite as freely applied to this lower. The ψυχικός of Seripture is one for whom the ψυχή is the highest motive power of lifeand action ; in whom the πνεῦμα, as the organ of the divine Πνεῦμα, is suppressed, ' Hilary has not quite, however nearly, extricated himself from this notion, and in the following passage certainly ascribes more to the ψυχικός than the Scriptures do, however plainly he sets him in opposi- tion to the πνευματικός (Tract. in Ps. xiv. 3): ‘Apostolus et carnalem [σαρκικόν] hominem posuit, et animalem [ψυχικόν), et spiritalem [πνευματικόν] ; carnalem, bellue modo divina et humana negligentem, cujus vita corporis famula sit, negotiosa cibo, somno, libidine. Animalis autem, qui ex judicio senstis humani quid decens honestumque sit, sentiat, atque ab omnibus vitiis animo suo auctore se referat, suo proprio sensu utilia et honesta dijudicans; ut pecuniam spernat, ut jejuniis parcus sit, ut ambitione careat, ut voluptatibus resistat. Spiri- talis autem est, cui superiora illa ad Dominum studia sint, et hoe quod agit, per scientiam Dei agat, intelligens et cognoscens que sit voluntas Kjus, et sciens que ratio sit a Deo carnis assumpte, qui crucis triumphus, que mortis potestas, que in virtute resurrectionis operatio.’ Compare Treneus, v. 6. 252 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xx! dormant, for the time as good as extinct; whom the opera- tions of this divine Spirit have never lifted into the region of spiritual things (Rom. vii. 14; viii. 1; Jude19). Fora good collection of passages from the Greek Fathers in which ψυχικός is thus employed see Suicer, T’hes. s. v. It may be affirmed that the σαρκικός and the ψυχικός alike, in the language of Scripture, are set in opposition to the πνευματικός. Both epithets ascribe to him of whom they are predicated a ruling principle antagonistic to the πνεῦμα, though they do not ascribe the same. When St. Paul reminds the Ephesians how they lived once, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Ephes. ii. 3), he describes them first as σαρκικοί and then as wvyixot. For, indeed, in men unre- generate there are two forms of the life lived apart from God ; and, though every unregenerate man partakes of both, yet in some one is more predominant, and in some the other. There are σαρκικοί, in whom the σάρξ is more the ruling principle, as there are ψυχικοί, in whom the ψυχή. It is quite true that σάρξ is often used in the N. T. as covering that entire domain of our nature fallen and made subject to vanity in which sin springs up, and in which it moves (Rom. vii. 18; viii. 5). Thus the ya τῆς σαῤκός (Gal. v. 19-21) are not merely those sinful works that are wrought in and through the body, but those which move in the sphere and region of the mind as well; more than one half of those enumerated there belonging to the latter class. But for all this the word, covering at times the whole region of that in man which is alienated from God and from the life in God, must accept its limitation when the ψυχή is brought in to claim that which is peculiarly its own. There is an admirable discussion on the difference between the words, in Bishop Reynolds’ Latin sermon on 1 Cor. ii. 14, preached before the University of Oxford, with the title Animalis Homo (Works, Lond. 1826, vol. iv. p.349). 1 quote the most important paragraph bearing on the matter in hand : ‘Verum cum homo ex carne et anima constet, sitque anima pars hominis prestantior, quamvis sepius irregenitos, propter ἜΝΙ SYNONYMS OF JHE NEW TESTAMENT. 253 appetitum in vitia pronum, atque precipites concupiscentize motus, σάρκα et σαρκικούς Apostolus noster appellet ; hic tamen hujusmodi homines a prestantiore parte denominat, ut eos se intelligere ostendat, non qui libidinis mancipia sunt, et crassis concupiscentiis vel nativum lumen obruunt (hujusmodi enim homines ἄλογα ζῶα vocat Apostolus, 2 Pet. 11. 12), sed homines sapientie studio deditos, et qui ea sola, que stulta et absurda sunt, rejicere solent. Hic itaque ψυχικοί sunt quotquot τὸ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔχουσι (Jud. 19), utcunque alias exquisitissimis nature dotibus prefulgeant, utcunque potissimam partem, nempe animam, omnigena eruditione excolant, et rectissime ad prescriptum rationis vitam dirigant. Denique eos hic ψυχικούς vocat, quos supra Sapientes, Scribas, Disquisitores, et istius seculi principes appellaverat, ut excludatur quidquid est native aut acquisite perfectionis, quo nature viribus assur- gere possit ratio humana. Ψυχικός, ὁ τὸ πᾶν τοῖς λογισμοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς διδούς, καὶ μὴ νομίζων ἄνωθεν δεῖσθαι βοηθείας, ut recte Chrysostomus: qui denique nihil in se eximium habet, preter animam rationalem, cujus solius lucem ductumque sequitur.’ I add a few words of Grotius to the same effect (Annott. in Wat Cor. 1: 14): ‘Non idem est ψυχικὸς ἀνθρωῆος et σαρκικός. Ψυχικός est qui humane tantum rationis luce ducitur, σαρκικός qui corporis affectibus gubernatur; sed plerunque ψυχικοί aliqua in parte sunt σαρκικοί, ut Greecorum philosophi scortatores, puerorum corruptores, gloriz aucupes, maledici, invidi. Verum hic [1 Cor. 11. 14] nihil aliud desig- natur quam homo humana tantum ratione nitens, quales erant Judxorum plerique et philosophi Greecorum.’ The question, how to translate ψυχικός, is one not very easy to answer. ‘Soulish,’ which some have proposed, has the advantage of standing in the same relation to ‘soul’ that ψυχικός does to ψυχή and ‘animalis’ to ‘anima’; but the word is hardly English, and would certainly convey no meaning at all to ordinary English readers. Wiclif rendered it ‘beastly,’ which, it need hardly be said, had nothing for him of the meaning of our ‘ bestial’ (see my Select Glossary, s. v.); but was simply=‘ animal’ (he found ‘animalis’ in 264 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Uxxit his Vulgate) ; the Rhemish ‘ sensual,’ which, at Jam. iii. 15 ; Jude 19, our Translators have adopted, substituting this for ‘fleshly,’ which was in Cranmer’s and the Geneva Version. On the other three occasions they have rendered it ‘ natural.’ These are both unsatisfactory renderings, and ‘ sensual’ more so now than at the time when our Version was made, ‘sensual’ and ‘sensuality’ having considerably modified their meaning since that time; and now implying a deeper. degradation than once they did. On the whole subject of the relations of the ψυχή to the σάρξ and the πνεῦμα, there is much very interesting, though not very easy to master, in Delitzsch’s Psychology, English Version, pp. 109-128. § Ixxii. σαρκικός, σάρκινος. A piscussion on the relations between ψυχικός and σαρκικός naturally draws after it one on the relations between σαρκικός and another form of the same, σάρκινος, which occurs three, or perhaps four, times in the N. T.; only once indeed in the received text (2 Cor. 111. 3); but the evidence is overwhelming for the right it has to a place at Rom. vii. 14; Heb. vii. 16, as well, while a preponderance of evidence is in favour of allowing σάρκινος to stand also at 1 Cor. iii. 1. Words with the termination in -wos, μετουσιαστικά as they are called, designating, as they most frequently do, the stuff of which anything is made (see Donaldson, Cratylus, 8rd ed. p. 458; Winer, Grammatik, ὃ xvi. 3; Fritzsche, Ep. ad Rom. vol. ii. p. 46), are common in the N. T.; thus Ovivos, of thyine wood (Rev. xviil. 12), ὑάλινος, of glass, glassen (Rev. iv. 6), ὑακίνθινος (Rev. ix. 17), δερμάτινος (Matt. iii. 4), ἀκάνθινος (Mark xv. 17). One of these is σάρκινος, the only form of the word which classical antiquity recognized (σαρκικός, like the Latin ‘ carnalis,’ having been evoked by the ethical necessities of the Church), and at 2 Cor. ill. ὃ. well rendered ‘fleshy’; that is, having flesh for the sub- stance and material of which it is composed. I am unable to affirm that the word ‘ fleshen’ ever existed in the English §uxxi1 SVNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 255 language. If it had done so, and still survived, it would be better still; for ‘fleshy’ may be ‘ carnosus,’ as undoubtedly may σάρκινος as well (Plato, Legg. x. 906 ὁ; Aristotle, Hihic. Nic. iii. 9. 8), while ‘fleshen’ must mean what σάρκινος means here, namely ‘carneus,’ or having flesh for its material. The former existence of such a word is not im- probable, many of a like form having once been current, which have now passed away; as, for example, ‘stonen,’ ‘hornen,’ ‘ hairen,’ ‘ clayen ’ (all in Wiclif’s Bible), ‘ threaden ’ (Shakespeare), ‘tinnen’ (Sylvester), ‘ milken,’ ‘ breaden,’ ‘reeden,’ with many more (see my English Past and Pre- sent, 10th edit. p. 256). Their perishing is to be regretted, for they were often very far from superfluous. The German has ‘ steinig’ and ‘steinern,’ and finds use for both; as the Latin does for ‘lapidosus’ and ‘lapideus,’ for ‘saxosus’ and ‘gaxeus.’ We might have done the same for ‘stony’ and ‘stonen’; a ‘stony’ place is one where the stones are many, a ‘stonen’ vessel would be a vessel made of stone (see John ii. 6; Rev. ix. 20, Wiclif’s Version, where the word is found). Or again, a ‘ glassy ᾿ sea is a sea resembling glass, a ‘glassen’ sea is a sea made of glass. And thus too ‘ fleshly,’ ‘ fleshy,’ and ‘fleshen,’ would have been none too many ; as little as are ‘ earthly,’ ‘earthy,’ and ‘ earthen,’ for each of which we are able to find its own proper employment. ‘Fleshly’ lusts (‘carnal ’ is the word oftener employed in our Translation, but in fixing the relations between σαρκικός and σάρκινος, it will be more convenient to employ ‘ fleshly ’ and ‘ fleshy’) are lusts which move and stir in the ethical domain of the flesh, which have in that rebellious region of man’s corrupt and fallen nature their source and spring. Such are the σαρκικαὶ ἐπιθυμίαι (1 Pet. 11. 11), and the man is σαρκικός who allows to the σάρξ a place which does not belong to it of right. It isin its place so long as it is under the dominion of the πνεῦμα, and receives a law from it; but becomes the source of all sin and all opposition to God so soon as the true positions of these are reversed, and that rules which should have been ruled. When indeed St. Paul says 256 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ΣΈ ΧΕΙ of the Corinthians (1 Cor. iii. 1) that they were σάρκινοι, he finds serious fault indeed with them; but the accusation is far less grave than if he had written capxixoc instead. He does not hereby charge them with positive active opposition to the Spirit of God—this is evident from the ὡς νήπιοι with which he proceeds to explain it—but only that they were intellectually as well as spiritually tarrying at the threshold of the faith (cf. Heb. v. 11, 12); making no progress, and content to remain where they were, when they might have been carried far onward by the mighty transforming powers of that Spirit freely given to them of God. He does not charge them in this word with being antv-spiritual, but only with being wnspiritual, with being flesh and little more, when they might have been much more. He goes on indeed, at ver. 3, 4, to charge them with the graver guilt of allowing the σάρξ to work actively, as a ruling principle in them ; and he consequently changes his word. ‘They were not σάρκινοι only, for no man and no Church can long tarry at this point, but capxixoi as well, and, as such, full of ‘envying and strife and divisions.’ In what way our Translators should have marked the dis- tinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός here it is not so easy to suggest. It is most likely, indeed, that the difficulty did not so much as present itself to them, accepting, as they probably did, the received text, in which there is no variation of the words. At 2 Cor. 111. 3 all was plain before them: the σάρκιναι πλάκες are, aS they have given it well, the ‘‘ fleshy tables ’’ ; Erasmus observing to the point there, that σάρκινος, not σαρκικός, is used, ‘ ut materiam intelligas, non qualitatem.’ St. Paul is drawing a contrast between the tables of stone on which the law of Moses was written and the tables of flesh on which Christ’s law is written, and exalting the last over the first ; and so far from ‘ fleshy’ there being a dishonourable epithet, it is a most honourable, serving as it does to set forth the superiority of the new Law over the old—the one graven on dead tables of stone, the other on the hearts of living men (cf. Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 26; Jer. xxxi. 88; Heb. viii, 10; +16). §”Lxxil SYVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 257 § Ixxill. πνοή, πνεῦμα, ἄνεμος, λαῖλαψ, θύελλα. From the words into comparison with which πνεῦμα is here brought, it will be evident that it is proposed to deal with it in its natural and earthly, not in its supernatural and heavenly, meaning. Only I will observe, that on the rela- tions between πνοή and πνεῦμα in this its highest sense there is a discussion in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xiii. 22: ef. De Anim. et huj. Orig. i. 14,19. The first three words of this group, aS they designate not things heavenly but things earthly, differ from one another exactly as, according to Seneca, do in the Latin ‘aér,’ ‘spiritus,’ ‘ ventus’ (Nat. Qu. v.18): ‘Spiritum a vento motus! separat; vehementior enim Spiritus ventus est; invicem spiritus leviter fluens aér.’ Πνοή and πνεῦμα occur not seldom together, as at Isai. xl. 5; lvii. 16; πνοή conveying the impression of a lighter, gentler, motion of the air than πνεῦμα, as ‘aura’ than ‘ventus.’ Compare Aristotle (De Mundo, iv. 10): τὰ ἐν ἀέρι πνέοντα πνεύματα καλοῦμεν ἀνέμους, αὔρας δὲ τὰς ἐξ ὑγροῦ φερομένας ἐκπνοάς. Pliny (Hp. v. 6) recognizes a similar dis- tinction: ‘Semper aér spiritu aliquo movetur ; frequentius tamen auras quam ventos habet’; Philo no less (Leg. Alleg. i. 18) : πνοὴν δέ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πνεῦμα εἴρηκεν, ὡς διαφορᾶς οὔσης τὸ μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα νενόηται κατὰ τὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ εὐτονίαν καὶ δύναμιν" ἡ δὲ πνοὴ ὡς ἂν αὖρά τίς ἐστι καὶ ἀναθυμίασις ἠρεμαία καὶ πραεῖα. Against this may be urged, that in one of the two places where πνοὴ occurs in the N. T., namely Acts ii. 2, the epithet βιαία is attached to it, and it plainly is used of a strong and vehe- ment wind (cf. Job xxxvii. 9). But, as De Wette has observed, this may be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that on that occasion it was necessary to reserve πνεῦμα for the higher spiritual gift, whereof this πνοὴ was the sign and symbol; and it would have introduced a perplexing repetition to have already employed πνεῦμα here. ’ So quoted by Déderlein ; but the edition of Seneca before me reads ‘modus.’ 5 258 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxxill Πνεῦμα is seldom used in the N. T.—indeed only at John iii. 8 ; Heb. i. 7 (in this last place not certainly)—for -wind; but in the Septuagint often, as at Gen. viii. 1; Ezek. xxxvii. 9; Eecles. xi. 5. The rendering of ΠΡ in this last passage by ‘spirit,’ and not, as so often, by ‘ wind’ (Job i. 19; Ps. exlviii. 8), in our English Version is to be regretted, obscuring as it does the remarkable connexion between this saying of the Preacher and.our Lord’s words to Nicodemus (John iii. 8). He, who ever loves to move in the sphere and region of the O. T., in those words of his “The wind bloweth where it listeth,” takes up words of Ecclesi- astes, “ Thou knowest not what is the way of the wind;”’ the Preacher having thus already indicated of what higher mysteries these courses of the winds, not to be traced by man, were the symbol. Πνεῦμα is found often in the Septuagint in connexion with πνοή, but generally in a figurative sense (Job xxxiii. 4; Isai. xlii. 5; lvii. 16; and at 2 Sam. xxii. 16: πνοὴ πνεύματος). Of ἄνεμος Aristotle (De Mund. 4) gives this account : οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἄνεμος πλὴν ἀὴρ πολὺς ῥέων καὶ ἄθροος, ὅστις ἅμα Kat πνεῦμα λέγεται: We may compare Hippocrates: ἄνεμος γάρ ἐστι ἠέρος ῥεῦμα καὶ χεῦμα. Like ‘ventus’ and ‘wind,’ ἄνεμος is usually the strong, oftentimes the tempestuous, wind (1 Kin. xix. 11; Job i. 19; Matt. vii. 25. John vi. 18; Acts xxvil. 14: Jam. ili. 4; Plutarch, Prec. Conj. 12). Itis interesting and instructive to observe that our Lord, or rather the inspired reporter of his conversation with Nicodemus, which itself no doubt took place in Aramaic, uses not ἄνεμος, but πνεῦμα, as has been noted already, when he would seek analogies in the natural world for the mysterious movements, not to be traced by human eye, of the Holy Spirit; and this, doubtless, because there is nothing fierce or violent, but all measured in his operation; while on the other hand, when St. Paul would describe men violently blown about and tem- pested on a sea of error, he speaks of them as κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας (Kiphes. iv. 14; cf. Jude 12 with 2 Pet. ii. 17). §Lxxi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 259 Λαῖλαψ is a word of uncertain derivation. It is probably formed by reduplication, and is meant to be imitative in sound of that which it designates. We meet it three times in the N. T. (Mark iv. 37; Luke viii. 23; 2 Pet.ii. 17); oftener, but not often, in the Septuagint. It is our ‘squall’; but with something more formidable about it than we commonly ascribe to the squall. Thus J. H. H. Schmidt, who, in his Synonymek, vol. 11. p. 218 sqq., has a very careful and full discussion on the whole group of words having to do with wind and weather, and the phenomena which these present, words in which the Greek language, as might be expected, is singularly rich, writes on λαῖλαψ thus: ‘ Die Alten verstanden darunter ganz allgemein den unstiiten, aus finisterem Gewélk hervorbrechenden mit Regengiissen verbundenen hin und her tobenden Sturm.’ And examples which he gives quite bear out this statement; it is, as Hesychius explains it, ἀνέμου συστροφὴ μεθ᾽ ὑετοῦ : or as Suidas, who brings in the further notion of darkness, per ἀνέμων ὄμβρος καὶ σκότος: the con- stant association in Homer of the epithets κελαινή and ἐρεμνή with λαΐλαψ' certainly implying that this feature of it, namely the darkness which goes along with it, should not be passed over (Il. xi. 747; xvi. 8384; xx. 51). Θύελλα, joined with γνόφος whenever it occurs in the Sep- tuagint, namely at Deut. iv. 11; v. 22; Exod. x. 22, is found in the N. T. only at Heb. xii. 18, and sounds there rather as a reminiscence from the Septuagint, than a word which the writer would have otherwise employed. Schmidt is at much pains to distinguish it from the Homeric ἄελλα, but with the difference between these we have nothing todo. It is suffi- cient to say that in the θύελλα, which is often a natural phenomenon wilder and fiercer, as it would seem, than the λαῖλαψ, itself, there is not seldom the mingling in conflict of many opposing winds (Homer, Od. v. 817; xii. 288-9), some- thing of the turbulent cyclone. SZ 260 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxxiv § Ixxiv. δοκιμάζω, πειράζω. THESE words occur not seldom together, as at 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Ps. xciv. 10 (at Heb. iii. 9 the better reading is ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ) ; but notwithstanding that they are both in our English Ver- sion rendered ‘ prove’ (Luke xiv. 19; John vi. 6), both ‘try’ (1 Cor. iii. 18; Rev. ii. 2), both ‘examine’ (1 Cor. xi. 28 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), they are not perfectly synonymous. In δοκι- patew, which has four other renderings in our Version,— namely, ‘discern’ (Luke xii. 56); ‘like’ (Rom. i. 28); ‘ap- prove’ (Rom. ii. 18); ‘allow’ (Rom. xiv. 22),—lies ever the notion of proving a thing whether it be worthy to be received or not, being, as it is, nearly connected with δέχεσθαι. In classical Greek it is the technical word for putting money to the δοκιμή or proof, by aid of the δοκίμιον or test (Plato, Timeus, 65 c; Plutarch, Def. Orac. 21) ; that which endures this proof being δόκιμος, that which fails ἀδόκιμος, which words it will be well to recollect are not, at least immediately, connected with δοκιμάζειν, but with δέχεσθαι. Resting on the fact that this proving is through fire (1 Cor. ili. 13), dox- μάζειν and πυροῦν are often found together (Ps. lxv. 9; Jer. ix. 7). As employed in the N. T. δοκιμάζειν almost always implies that the proof is victoriously surmounted, the proved is also approved (2 Cor. vill. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 10), just as in English we speak of tried men (= δεδοκιμασμένοι), meaning not merely those who have been tested, but who have stood the test. It is then very nearly equivalent to ἀξιοῦν (2 Thess. i. 11; cf. Plutarch, Thes. 12). Sometimes the word will advance even a step further, and signify not merely to approve the proved, but to select or choose the approved (Xenophon, Anab. iii. 8. 20; ef. Rom. 1. 28). But on the δοκιμασία there follows for the most part not merely a victorious coming out of the trial, but it is further implied that the trial was itself made in the expectation and hope that the issue would be such ; at all events, with no contrary hope or expectation. The ore is not thrown into the g§~xxiv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 261 fining pot—and this is the image which continually underlies the use of the word in the O. T. (Zech. xiii. 9; Prov. viii. 10; os ovine Ιχνν LO, Jer. νι 7 ΠΡΟΙΠΒ. do: Wisd. iii. 6; cf. 1 Pet. i. 7)—except in the expectation and belief that, whatever of dross may be found mingled with it, yet it is not all dross, but that some good metal, and better now than before, will come forth from the fiery trial (Heb. xii. 5-11; 2 Mace. vi. 12-16). It is ever so with the proofs to which He who sits as a Refiner in his Church submits his own ; his intention in these being ever, not indeed to find his saints pure gold (for that He knows they are not), but to make them such; to purge out their dross, never to make evident that they are all dross. As such, He is δοκιμαστὴς τῶν καρδιῶν (1 Thess. ii. 4; Jer. xi. 20; Ps. xvi. 4); as such, Job could say of Him, using another equivalent word, διέκρινέ με ὥσπερ τὸ χρυσίον (xxiii. 10). To Him, as such, his people pray, in words like those of Abelard, expounding the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Da ut per tentationem pro- bemur, non reprobemur.’ And here is the point of divergence between δοκιμάζειν and πειράζειν, as will be plain when the latter word has been a little considered. This putting to the proof may have quite another inten- tion, as it may have quite another issue and end, than such as have been just described; nay, it certainly will have such in the case of the false-hearted, and those who belong to God only in semblance and in show. Being ‘ proved’ or tempted, they will appear to be what they have always been ; and this fact, though not overruling all the uses of πειράζειν, does yet predominantly affect them. Nothing in the word itself required that it should oftenest signify a making -trial with the intention and hope of entangling the person tried in sin. Πειράζειν, connected with ‘perior,’ ‘experior,’ πείρω, means properly no more than to make an experience of (πεῖραν λαμ- Bévew, Heb. xi. 29, 36); to pierce or search into (thus of the wicked it is said, πειράζουσι θάνατον, Wisd. 11. 25 } Che ΣΧ: 26 ; Ecelus. xxxix. 4); or to attempt (Acts xvi. 7; xxiv. 6). It came next to signify the trying intentionally, and with the 262 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Uxxiv purpose of discovering what of good or evil, of power or weakness, was in a person or thing (Matt. xvi. 1; xix. 3; xxii. 18; 1 Kin. x. 1); or, where this was already known to the trier, revealing the same to the tried themselves ; as when St. Paul addresses the Corinthians, ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε, “ try,” or, as we have it, ‘‘ examine yourselves” (2 Cor. xiii. 5). It is thus that sinners are said to tempt God (Matt. iv. 7 [ἐκπειράζειν] ; Acts v.9; 1 Cor.x. 9; Wisd.i. 2), putting Him to the proof, refusing to believe Him on his own word, or till He has manifested his power. At this stage, too, of the word’s history and successive usages we must arrest it, when we affirm of God that He ‘tempts’ men (Heb. xi. 17: οἵ. Gen. xxii. 1; Exod. xv. 25; Deut. xiii. 3); in no other sense or intention can He do this (Jam. i. 18); but because He does tempt in this sense (γυμνασίας χάριν καὶ avappyoews, (σα- menius), and because of the self-knowledge which may be won through these temptations,—so that men may, and often do, come out of them holier, humbler, stronger than they were when they entered in,!—St. James is able to say, “ Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations” (i. 2; ef. ver 12). But the word itself enters on another stage of meaning. The melancholy fact that men so often break down under temptation gives to πειράζειν a predominant sense of putting to the proof with the intention and the hope that the ‘ proved’ may not turn out ‘approved,’ but ‘reprobate’; may break down under the proof; and thus the word is constantly applied to the solicitations and suggestions of Satan (Matt. iv. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 5; Rev. ii. 10), which are always made with such a malicious hope, he himself bearing the name of ‘ The 1 Augustine (Serm. Ixxi. c. 10): ‘In eo quod dictum est, Deus ne- minem tentat, non omni sed quodam tentationis modo Deus neminem tentare intelligendus est; ne falsum sit illud quod scriptum est, Tentat vos Dominus Deus vester [Deut. xiii. 3]; et ne Christum negemus Deum, vel dicamus falsum Evangelium, ubi legimus quia interrogabat discipulum, tentans eum [Joh. vi. 6]. Est enim tentatio adducens peccatum, qua Deus neminem tentat : et est tentatio probans fidem, qua et Deus tentare dignatur.’ Cf. Serm. lvii. 6. 9; Enarr. in Ps. lv. 1; Serm. ii. ¢. ὃ: ‘Deus tentat, ut doceat: diabolus tentat, ut decipiat.’ §Lxxv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 263 Tempter ’ (Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. 111. 5), and evermore reveal- ing himself as such (Gen. ili. 1, 4, 5; 1 Chron. xxi. 1). We may say then in conclusion, that while πειράζειν may be used, but exceptionally, of God, δοκιμάζειν could not be used of Satan, seeing that he never proves that he may approve, nor tests that he may accept. δ lxxv. σοφία, φρόνησις, γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις. Σοφία, φρόνησις, and γνῶσις occur together, Dan. i. 4, 17. They are all ascribed to God (φρόνησις not in the N. T., for Ephes. i. 8 is not in point); σοφία and γνῶσις, Rom. xi. 33; φρόνησις and σοφία, Prov. 111. 19; Jer. x. 12. There have been various attempts to divide to each its own proper sphere of meaning. These, not always running in exactly the same lines, have this in common, that in all σοφία is recognized as expressing the highest and noblest; being, as Clement of Alexandria has it (Pedag. 11. ἃ. 25), θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων ἐπιστήμη ; adding, however, elsewhere, as the Stoics had done before him, καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτίων (Strom. i. 5. 30).! Angustine distinguishes between it and γνῶσις as follows (De Div. Quest. ii. qu. 2) : ‘ Hee ita discerni solent, ut sapientia |copta] pertineat ad intellectum «ternorum, scientia [γνῶσις] vero ad ea que sensibus corporis experimur ;’ and for a much fuller discussion to the same effect see De Tin. xii. 22-24 ; Xv. 3. Very much the same distinction has been drawn between σοφία and φρόνησις : as by Philo, who defining φρόνησις as the mean between craftiness and folly, μέση πανουργίας καὶ μωρίας φρόνησις (Quod Deus Inum. 35), gives elsewhere this distinction between it and σοφία (De Prem. et Pan. 14): 1 On the relation of φιλοσοφία (τῆς τῶν ὄντων ἀεὶ ἐπιστήμης ὄρεξις, Plato, Def. 414; ὄρεξις τῆς θείας σοφίας, Id., quoted by Diogenes Laértius, 111. 63; ἐπιτήδευσις σοφιας, Philo, De Cong. Hrud. Grat. 14; ‘studium virtutis, sed per ipsam virtutem,’ Seneca, Hp. 89. 7) to copia see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. i. 5. The word first appears in Herodotus, i. 30; for a sketch of its history, see Ueberweg, Hist. of Pil. p. 1. 264 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.Uxxv σοφία μὲν yap πρὸς θεραπείαν Θεοῦ, φρόνησις δὲ πρὸς ἀνθρωπίνου βίου διοίκησιν. This was indeed the familiar and recognized distinction, as witness the words of Cicero (De Off. ii. 48): ‘Princeps omnium virtutum est illa sapientia quam σοφίαν Greci vocant. Prudentiam enim, quam Greci φρόνησιν dicunt, aliam quandam intelligimus, que est rerum ex- petendarum fugiendarumque scientia ; illa autem sapientia, quam principem dixi, rerum est divinarum atque humanarum scientia’ (cf. Tusc. iv. 26; Seneca, Hp. 85). In allthis he is following in the steps of Aristotle, who is careful above all to bring out the practical character of φρόνησις, and to put it in sharp contrast with σύνεσις, which, asinas many words he teaches, is the critical faculty. One acts, the other judges. This is his account of φρόνησις (Ethic. Nic. vi. 5. 4): ἕξις ἀληθὴς μετὰ λόγου πρακτικὴ περὶ TA ἀνθρώπῳ ἀγαθὰ Kal κακά : and again (ΠΠοέ. 1. 9): ἔστιν ἀρετὴ διανοίας, καθ᾽ ἣν εὖ βουλεύ- εσθαι δύνανται περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν τῶν εἰρημένων εἰς εὐδαιμονίαν. Not otherwise Aristo the Peripatetic (see Plutarch, De Vizrt. Mor. 2): ἡ ἀρετὴ ποιητέα ἐπισκοποῦσα καὶ μὴ ποιητέα κέκληται φρόνησις : and see too ch. 5, where he has some excellent words, discriminating between these. It is plain from the references and quotations just made that the Christian Fathers have drawn their distinctions here from the schools of heathen philosophy, with only such widening and deepening of meaning as must necessarily follow when the ethical and philosophical terms of a lower are assumed into the service of a higher ; thus compare Zeller, Philos. ἃ. Griechen, iii. 1. 222. We may affirm with confidence that σοφία is never in Scripture ascribed to other than God or good men, except in an ironical sense, and with the express addition, or subaudi- tion, of τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (1 Cor. i. 20), τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (1 Cor. 11. 6), or some such words (2 Cor. i. 12); nor are any of the children of this world called σοφοί except with this tacit or expressed irony (Luke x. 21); being never more than the φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί of Rom. i. 22. For, indeed, if σοφία in- cludes the striving after the best ends as well as the using of §uxxv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 265 the best means, is mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense (cf. Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. vi. 7. 3), there can be no wisdom disjoined from goodness, even as Plato had said long ago (Menex. 247 a): πᾶσα ἐπιστήμη χωριζομένη δικαιοσύνης Kat τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς, πανουργία οὐ σοφία φαίνεται : to which Ececlus. xix. 20, 22, offers a fine parallel. So, too, the Socrates of Xenophon (Mem. iii. 9. 4, 5) refuses to separate, or even by a definition to distinguish, σοφία from σωφροσύνη, from δικαιοσύνη, or indeed from any other virtue. It will follow that the true antithesis to σοφός is rather ἀνόητος (Rom. i. 14} than écvveros; for, while the ἀσύνετος need not be more than intellectually deficient, in the ἀνόητος there is always a moral fault lying behind the intellectual; the νοῦς, the highest knowing power in man, the organ by which divine things are apprehended and known, being the ultimate seat of the error (Luke xxiv. 25, ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ : Gal. iii. 1, 3; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Tit. iii. 3). Ανο (Luke vi. 11; 2 Tim. iu. 9) is ever the foolishness which is akin to and derived from wickedness, even as σοφία is the wisdom which is akin to goodness, or rather is goodness itself contemplated from one particular point of view; as indeed the wisdom which only the good can possess. Ammon, a modern German rationalist, gives not badly a definition of the codds or ‘ sapiens’; 1.6. ‘cognitione optimi, et adminiculorum ad id efficiendum idoneorum instructus.’ But φρόνησις, being aright use and application of the φρήν, is a middle term. It may be akin to σοφία (Prov. x. 23),— they are interchangeably used by Plato (Symp. 202 a),—but it may also be akin to πανουργία (Job v. 13; Wisd. xvii. 7). It skilfully adapts its means to the attainment of the ends which it desires; but whether the ends themselves which are proposed are good, of this it affirms nothing. On the different kinds of φρόνησις, and the very different senses in which φρόνησις is employed, see Basil the Great, Hom. in Prine. Prov. § 6. It is true that as often as φρόνησις occurs in the N. T. (ἐν φρονήσει δικαίων, Luke 1. 17; σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει, Ephes. i. 8), it is used of a laudable prudence, but for all this 266 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxxv φρόνησις is not wisdom, nor the φρόνιμος the wise; and Augustine (De Gen. ad Lit. xi. 2) has perfect right when he objects to the ‘ sapientissimus,’ with which his Latin Version had rendered φρονιμώτατος at Gen. iii. 1, saying, ‘ Abusione nominis sapientia dicitur in malo ;’ cf. Con. Guad. i. 5.. And the same objection, as has been often urged, holds good against the ‘ wise as serpents’ (Matt. x. 16), ‘ wiser than the children of light’ (Luke xvi. 8), of our own Version. On the distinction between σοφία and γνῶσις Bengel has the following note (Gnomon, in 1 Cor. xii. 8): ‘Tllud certum, quod, ubi Deo ascribuntur, in solis objectis differunt ; vid. Rom. xi. 88. Ubi fidelibus tribuuntur, sapientia [σοφία] magis in longum, latum, profundum et altum penetrat, quam cognitio [γνῶσις]. Cognitio est quasi visus; sapientia visus cum sapore; cognitio, rerum agendarum ; sapientia, rerum «ternarum; quare etiam sapientia non dicitur abro- ganda, 1 Cor. xiii. 8.’ Of ἐπίγνωσις, as compared with γνῶσις, it will be sufficient to say that ἐπί must be regarded as intensive, giving to the compound word a greater strength than the simple possessed ; thus ἐπιποθέω (2 Cor. v. 2), ἐπιμελέομαι: and, by the same rule, if γνῶσις is ‘ cognitio,’ ‘ Kenntniss,’ ἐπίγνωσις is ‘ major exactiorque cognitio’ (Grotius), ‘ Erkenntniss,’a deeper and more intimate knowledge and acquaintance. This we take to be its meaning, and not ‘ recognition,’ in the Platonic sense of reminiscence, as distinguished from cognition, if we might use that word; which Jerome (on Ephes. iv. 13), with some moderns, has affirmed. St. Paul, it will be remembered, exchanges the γινώσκω, which expresses his present and fragmentary knowledge, for ἐπιγνώσομαι, when he would ex- press his future intuitive and perfect knowledge (1 Cor. xiii. 12). It is difficult to see how this should have been preserved in the English Version; our Translators have made no 1 The Old Italic runs perhaps into the opposite extreme, rendering φρόνιμοι here by ‘ astuti’ ; which, however, had not in the later Latin at all so evil a subaudition as it had in the classical; so Augustine (Hp. 167. 6) assures us. §~xxv1I SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 267 attempt to preserve it; Bengel does so by aid of ‘nosco’ and ‘pernoscam,’ and Culverwell (Spiritual Optics, p. 180) has the following note: ‘’Extyvwos and γνῶσις differ. ᾿Ἐπίγνωσις iS ἡ μετὰ τὴν πρώτην γνῶσιν τοῦ πράγματος παντελὴς κατὰ δύναμιν κατανόησις. It is bringing me better acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off. That little portion of knowledge which we had here shall be much improved, our eye shall be raised to see the same things more strongly and clearly.’ All the uses of ἐπίγνωσις Which St. Paul makes, justify and bear out this distinction (Rom. i. 28; iii. 20; x. 2; Ephes. iv. 13; Phil. i.9; 1 Tom. u.4; 2 Tim. i. 25; cf. Heb. x. 26); this same intensive use of ἐπίγνωσις is borne out by other similar passages in the N. T. (2 Pet. i. 2, 8; 11. 20) and in the Sep- tuagint (Prov. 11. 5; Hos. iv. 1; vi. 6); and is recognized by the Greek Fathers; thus Chrysostom on Col. i. 9: ἔγνωτε, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τι Kal ἐπιγνῶναι. On the whole subject of this ὃ see Lightfoot on Col. i. 9. § Ixxvi. λαλέω, λέγω (λαλιά, λόγος). In dealing with synonyms of the N. T. we plainly need not concern ourselves with such earlier, or even contemporary, uses of the words which we are discriminating, as lie altogether outside of the N. T. sphere, when these uses do not illustrate, and have not affected, their Scriptural employ- ment. It follows from this that all those contemptuous uses of λαλεῖν as to talk at random, as one ἀθυρόστομος, or with no door to his lips, might do; of λαλιά, as chatter («Kpacia λόγου ἄλογος, Plato, Defin. 416)—for I cannot believe that we are to find this at John iv. 42—may be dismissed and set aside. The antithesis in the line of Eupolis (Meineke, /ragm. Com. Gr. p. 174), Λαλεῖν ἄριστος, ἀδυνατώτατος λέγειν, does little or nothing to illustrate the matter in hand. The distinction which indeed exists between the words may in this way be made clear. There are two leading aspects under which speech may be regarded. It may, first, 268 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xxvi be contemplated as the articulate utterance of human lan- cuage, in contrast with the absence of this, from whatever cause springing ; whether from choice, as in those who hold their peace, when they might speak; or from the present undeveloped condition of the organs and faculties, as in the case of infants (νήπιοι) ; or from natural defects, as in the case of those born dumb; or from the fact of speech lying beyond the sphere of the faculties with which as creatures they have been endowed, as in the lower animals. This is one aspect of speech, namely articulated words, as contrasted with silence, with mere sounds or animal cries. But, secondly, speech (‘oratio’ or ‘oris ratio’) may be regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected discourse of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind, ‘ verba legere et lecta ac selecta apte conglutinare’ (Valcknaer ; cf. Donaldson, Cratylus, 453). The first is λαλεῖνξε 134, the German ‘lallen,’ ‘loqui,’ ‘ sprechen,’ ‘ to speak’; the second =x, ‘dicere,’ ‘reden,’ ‘to say,’ ‘to discourse. Am- monius: λαλεῖν καὶ λέγειν διαφέρει" λέγειν μὲν τὸ τεταγμένως προσφέρειν τὸν λόγον" λαλεῖν δὲ, τὸ ἀτάκτως ἐκφέρειν τὰ ὑποπίπτοντα ῥήματα. Thus the dumb man (ἄλαλος, Mark, vii. 87), restored to human speech, ἐλάλησε (Matt. ix. 83; Luke, ix. 14), the Evan- gelists fitly using this word, for they are not concerned to report what the man said, but only the fact that he who before was dumb, was now able to employ his organs of speech, So too, it is always λαλεῖν γλώσσαις (Mark xvi. 17; Acts 1]. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 30), for it is not what those in an ecstatic condi- tion utter, but the fact of this new utterance itself, and quite irrespective of the matter of it, to which the sacred narrators would call our attention; even as λαλεῖν may be ascribed to God Himself (it is so more than once in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as at i. 1, 2), where the point is rather that He should have spoken at all to men than what it was that He spoke. But if in λαλεῖν (=‘ loqui’) the fact of uttering articulated speech is the prominent notion, in λέγειν (=< dicere’) it is the ΦΧ SYWONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 269 words uttered, and that these correspond to reasonable thoughts within the breast of the utterer. Thus while the parrot or talking automaton (Rev. xiii. 15) may be said, though even they not without a certain impropriety, λαλεῖν, seeing they produce sounds imitative of human speech ; and in poetry, though by a still stronger figure, a λαλεῖν may be ascribed to grasshoppers (Theocritus, /dyl. v. 34), and to pipes and flutes (Idyl. xx. 28, 29) ; yet inasmuch as there is nothing behind these sounds, they could never be said λέγειν : for in the λέγειν lies ever the ἔννοια, or thought of the mind (Heb. iv. 12), as the correlative to the words on the lips, and as the necessary condition of them ; it is colligere verba in senten- tiam’ ; even as λόγος is by Aristotle defined (Poét. 20), φωνὴ συνθετὴ, σημαντικὴ (see Malan, Notes on the Gospel of St. John, p. 8). Of φράζειν in like manner (it only occurs twice in the N. T., Matt. xiii. 86; xv. 15), Plutarch affirms that 2 could not, but λαλεῖν could, be predicated of monkeys and dogs (λαλοῦσι yap, od φράζουσι δέ, De Plac. Phat. vy. 20). Often as the words occur together, in such phrases as ἐλάλησε λέγων (Mark vi. 50; Luke xxiv. 6), λαληθεὶς λόγος (Heb. ii. 2), and the like, each remains true to its own mean- ing, as just laid down. ‘Thus in the first of these passages ἐλάλησε will express the opening of the mouth to speak, as opposed to the remaining silent (Acts xviii. 9); while λέγων proceeds to declare what the speaker actually said. Nor is there, I believe, any passage in the N. T. where the distinction between them has not been observed. Thus at Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 17; 1 Thess. i. 8, there is no difficulty in giving to λαλεῖν its proper meaning; indeed all these passages gain rather than lose when this is done ; while at Rom. ii. 19 there is an instructive interchange of the words. Λαλιά and λόγος in the N. T. are true to the distinction here traced. How completely λαλιά, no less than λαλεῖν, has put off every slighting sense, is abundantly evident from the fact that on one occasion our Lord claims λαλιά as well as λόγος for Himself: ‘Why do ye not understand my speech (λαλιάν) ? even because ye cannot hear my word ’’ (λόγον 270 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxxvil John viii. 43). Λαλιά and λόγος are set in a certain antithesis to one another here, and in the seizing of the point of this must lie the right understanding of the verse. What the Lord intended by varying λαλιά and λόγος has been very differently understood. Some, as Augustine, though com- menting on the passage, have omitted to notice the variation. Others, like Olshausen, have noticed, only to deny that it had any significance. Others again, admitting the significance, have failed to draw it rightly out. It is clear that, as the inability to understand his ‘ speech’ (AaAua) is traced up as a consequence to a refusing to hear his ‘ word’ (λόγος), this last, as the root and ground of the mischief, must be the deeper and anterior thing. ΤῸ hear his ‘ word’ can be nothing else than to give room to his truth in the heart. They who will not do this must fail to understand his ‘speech,’ the outward form and utterance which his ‘ word’ assumes. They that are of God hear God’s word, his ῥήματα as else- where (John iii. 384; viii. 47), his λαλιά as here, it is called ; } which they that are not of God do not and cannot hear. Melanchthon: ‘Qui veri sunt Dei filii et domestici non possunt paterne domts ignorare linguam.’ § Ixxvil. ἀπολύτρωσις, καταλλαγή, ἱλασμός. THERE are three grand circles of images, by aid of which are set forth to us in the Scriptures of the N. T. the inestimable benefits of Christ’s death and passion. Transcending, as these benefits do, all human thought, and failing to find anywhere a perfectly adequate expression in human language, they must still be set forth by the help of language, and - through the means of human relations. Here, as in other similar cases, what the Scripture does is to approach the ' Philo makes the distinction of the λόγος and the ῥῆμα to be that of the whole and of its parts (Leg. Alleg. iii. 61): τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα μέρος λόγου, On the distinction between ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ and λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ there are some important remarks by Archdeacon Lee, On Inspiration, pp. 135, 539. §Lxxvil SYWONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 271 central truth from different quarters; to exhibit it not on one side but on many, that so these may severally supply the deficiencies of one another, and that moment of the truth which one does not express, another may. The words here grouped together, ἀπολύτρωσις or ‘redemption,’ καταλλαγή ΟΥ̓ ‘reconciliation,’ ἱλασμός or ‘ propitiation,’ are the capital words summing up three such families of images; to one or other of which almost every word and phrase directly bearing on this work of our salvation through Christ may be more or less nearly referred. ᾿Απολύτρωσις is the form of the word which St. Paul invariably prefers, λύτρωσις occurring in the N. T. only at Luke i. 68; ii. 38; Heb. ix. 12. Chrysostom (upon Rom. iii. 24), drawing attention to this, observes that by this ἀπό the Apostle would express the completeness of our redemption in Christ Jesus, a redemption which no later bondage should follow: καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἶπε, λυτρώσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ὡς μηκέτι ἡμᾶς ἐπανελθεῖν πάλιν ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν δουλείαν. In this he has right, and there is the same force in the ἀπό of ἀποκαταλλάσσειν (Ephes. ii. 16; Col. i. 20, 22), which is ‘prorsus reconciliare’ (see Fritzsche on Rom. v. 10), of azo- καραδοκία and ἀπεκδέχεσθαι. (Rom. viii. 19). Both ἀπολύτρωσις (not in the Septuagint, but ἀπολυτρόω twice, Exod. xxi. 8; Zeph. iii. 1) and λύτρωσις are late words in the Greek language, Rost and Palm (Lexicon) giving no earlier autho- rity for them than Plutarch (Arat. 11; Pomp. 24); while λυτρωτής Seems peculiar to the Greek Scriptures (Lev. xxv. 31; Ps. xvill. [UXX] 15; Acts vii. 35). When Theophylact defines ἀπολύτρωσις as 7 ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐπανάκλησις, he overlooks one most important element in the word; for ἀπολύτρωσις is not recall from captivity merely, as he would imply, but recall of captives from captivity through the payment of a ransom for them ; cf. Origen on Rom. iii. 934. The idea of deliverance through a λύτρον or ἀντάλλαγμα (Matt. xvi. 26; cf. Keclus. vi. 15; xxvi. 14), a price paid, though in actual use it may often disappear from words of this family (thus see Isai. xxxv. 9), 272 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxvii is yet central to them (1 Pet. 18, 19; Isai. li. 3). Keeping this in mind, we shall find connect themselves with ἀπολύτρωσις a whole group of most significant words; not only λύτρον (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45), ἀντίλυτρον (1 Tim. 11. 6), Avtpoty (Tit. ἢ. 14; 1 Pet. i. 18), λύτρωσις (Heb. ix. 12), but also ἀγοράζειν (1 Cor. vi. 20) and ἐξαγοράζειν (Gal. ili. 18; iv. 5). Here indeed is a point of contact with ἱλασμός, for the λύτρον paid in this ἀπολύτρωσις is identical with the προσφορά ΟΥ̓ θυσία by which that ἱλασμός is effected. There also link themselves with ἀπολύτρωσις all those statements of Scripture which speak of sin as slavery, and of sinners as slaves (Rom. vi. 17, 20; John viii. 84; 2 Pet. ii. 19); of deliverance from sin as freedom, or cessation of bondage (John vill. 33, 36; Rom. viii. 21; Gal. v. 1). KaraAAayy, occurring four times in the N. T., only occurs once in the Septuagint, and once in the Apocrypha. On one of these occasions, namely at Isai. ix. 5, it is simply ex- change; on the other (2 Mace. v. 20) it is employed in the N. T. sense, being opposed to the ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and express- ing the reconciliation, the εὐμένεια of God to his people. There can be no question that συναλλαγή (Ezek. xvi. 8, Aquila) and συναλλάσσειν (Acts vii. 26, Lachmann), διαλλαγή (Ecclus. xxii. 22; xxvii. 21; cf. Aristophanes, Acharn. 988) and διαλλάσσειν (in the N. T. only at Matt.v. 24; cf. Judg. xix. 3; 1 Esdr. iv. 31; Euripides, Hel. 1235), are more usual words in the earlier and classical periods of the language ;' but for all this the grammarians are wrong who denounce καταλλαγή and καταλλάσσειν aS words avoided by all who wrote the language in its highest purity. None need be ashamed of words which found favour with Aischylus (Sept. Con. Thebd. 767), with Xenophon (Anad. i. 6. 2), and with Plato (Phed. 69a). Fritzsche (on Rom. ν. 10) has effectually disposed of Tittmann’s fanciful distinction between - καταλλάσσειν and διαλλάσσειν. The Christian καταλλαγή has two sides. It is first a 1 Christ, according to Clement of Alexandria (Coh. ad Gen. 10) is διαλλακτὴς Kal σωτὴρ ἡμῶν. §Lxxvil SYVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 273 reconciliation, ‘quai Deus nos 510] reconciliavit,’ laid aside his holy anger against our sins, and received us into favour, a reconciliation effected for us once for all by Christ upon his cross; so 2 Cor. v. 18,19; Rom.v. 10; where καταλλάσσεσθαι is a pure passive, ‘ab eo in gratiam recipi apud quem in odio fueras. But καταλλαγή is secondly and subordinately the reconciliation, ‘qua nos Deo reconciliamur,’ the daily deposi- tion, under the operation of the Holy Spirit, of the enmity of the old man toward God. In this passive middle sense — καταλλάσσεσθαι ig used, 2 Cor. v. 20; ef. 1 Cor. vii. 11. All attempts to make this secondary to be indeed the primary meaning and intention of the word, rest not on an unpre- judiced exegesis, but on a foregone determination to get rid of the reality of God’s anger against the sinner. With καταλλαγή is connected all that language of Scripture which describes sin as a state of enmity (ἔχθρα) with God (Rom. viii. 7; Ephes. 11. 15; Jam. iv. 4), and sinners as enemies to Him and alienated from Him (Rom. v. 10; Col. i. 21); which sets forth Christ on the cross as the Peace, and the maker of peace between God and man (Ephes. ii. 14; Col. i. 20); all such invitations as this, ‘Be ye reconciled with God” (2 Cor. v. 20). Before leaving καταλλαγή we observe that the exact re- lations between it and ἱλασμός, which will have to be con- sidered next, are somewhat confused for the English reader, from the fact that the word ‘atonement,’ by which our Translators have once rendered καταλλαγή (Rom. v. 11), has little by little shifted its meaning. It has done this so effectually, that were the translation now for the first time to be made, and words to be employed in their present sense and not in their past, ‘atonement’ would plainly be a much fitter rendering of ἱλασμός, the notion of propitiation, which we shall find the central one of ἱλασμός, always lying in ‘atonement,’ as we use it now. It was not so once. When our Translation was made, it signified, as innumerable examples prove, reconciliation, or the making up of a fore- going enmity; all its uses in our early literature justifying τ 274 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §1xxvul the etymology now sometimes called into question, that ‘atonement’ is ‘at-one-ment,’ and therefore=‘ reconcilia- tion’; and that consequently it was then, although not now, the proper rendering of καταλλαγή (see my Select Glossary, 5, vv. ‘atone,’ ‘atonement’; and, dealing with these words at full, Skeat, Hiym. Dict. of the English Language, s. V., an article which leaves no doubt as to their history). Ἵλασμός is found twice in the First Epistle of St. John (ii. 2; iv. 10) ; nowhere else in the N. T.; for other examples of its use see Plutarch, Sol. 12; Fab. Max. 18; Camill. 7 ; θεῶν μῆνις ἱλασμοῦ καὶ χαριστηρίων δεομένη. I am inclined to think that the excellent word ‘propitiation,’ by which our Translators have rendered it, did not exist in the language when the earlier Reformed Versions were made. Tyndale, the Geneva, and Cranmer have ‘‘ to make agreement,” in- stead of “to be the propitiation,”’ at the first of these places ; “He that obtaineth grace” at the second. In the same way ἱλαστήριον, which we, though I think wrongly (see Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1842, p. 314), have also rendered ‘ propitia- tion’ (Rom. iii. 25), is rendered in translations which share in our error, ‘the obtainer of mercy ’ (Cranmer), ‘a pacifica- tion’ (Geneva) ; and first ‘ propitiation ᾿ in the Rheims—the Latin tendencies of this translation giving it boldness to transfer this word from the Vulgate. Neither is ἱλασμός of frequent use in the Septuagint; yet in such passages as Num. v. 8; Ezek. xliv. 27; cf. 2 Mace. iii, 88, it is being prepared for the more solemn use which it should obtain in the N. T. Connected with ἵλεως, ‘ propitius,’ ἱλάσκεσθαι, ‘placare,’ ‘iram avertere,’ ‘ ex irato mitem reddere,’ it is by Hesychius explained, not incorrectly (for see Dan. ix. 9; Ps. exxix. 4), but inadequately, by the following synonyms, εὐμένεια, συγχώρησις, διαλλαγή, καταλλαγή, πραότης. I say in- adequately, because in none of these words thus offered as equivalents, does there lie what is inherent in iAacpds and ἱλάσκεσθαι, namely, that the εὐμένεια or goodwill has been gained by means of some offering, or other ‘ placamen ’ (cf. Herodotus, vi. 105; viii. 112; Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 2. 19 ; §Lxxvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 275 and Nigelsbach, Nachhomer. Theol. vol. i. p. 87). The word is more comprehensive than ἱλάστης, which Grotius proposes as covering the same ground. Christ does not pro- pitiate only, as ἱλάστης would say, but at once propitiates, and is Himself the propitiation. To speak in the language of the Kpistle to the Hebrews, in the offering of Himself He is both at once, ἀρχιερεύς and θυσία or προσφορά (for the difference between these latter see Mede, Works, 1672, p. 860), the two functions of priest and sacrifice, which were divided, and of necessity divided, in the typical sacrifices of the law, meet- ing and being united in Him, the sin-offering by and through whom the just anger of God against our sins was appeased, and God, without compromising his righteousness, enabled to show Himself propitious to us once more. All this the word ἱλασμός, used of Christ, declares. Cocceius: ‘Est enim ἱλασμός mors sponsoris obita ad sanctificationem Dei, volentis peccata condonare ; atque ita tollendam condemna- tionem.’ | It will be seen that with ἱλασμός connect themselves a larger group of words and images than with either of the words preceding—all, namely, which set forth the benefits of Christ’s death as a propitiation of God, even as all which speak of Him as a sacrifice, an offering (Ephes. ν. 2; Heb. x. 14; 1 Cor. v. 7), as the Lamb of God (John i. 29, 36; 1 Pet. i. 19), as the Lamb slain (Rev. v. 6, 8), and a little more remotely, but still in a lineal consequence from these last, all which describe Him as washing us in his blood (Rev. i. 5). As compared with καταλλαγή (=the German ‘Versohnung’), ἱλασμός (ΞΞ Versithnung’) is the deeper word, goes nearer to the innermost heart of the matter. If we had only καταλλαγή and the group of words and images which cluster round it, to set forth the benefits of the death of Christ, these would indeed set forth that we were enemies, and by that death were made friends: but how made friends καταλλαγή would not describe at all. It would not of itself necessarily imply satisfaction, propitiation, the Daysman, the Mediator, the High Priest ; all which in ἱλασμός are involved T2 276 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §UXxXvil (see two admirable articles, ‘ Hrlosung’ and ‘ Versoéhnung,’ by Schoeberlein, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopidie). conclude this discussion with Bengel’s excellent note on Rom. 11]. 24: εἵλασμός (expiatio sive propitiatio) et ἀπολύτρωσις (redemtio) est in fundo rei unicum beneficium, scilicet, restitutio pecca- toris perditi. ᾿Απολύτρωσις est respectu hostium, et καταλλαγή est respectu Dei. Atque hic voces ἱλασμός et καταλλαγή iterum differunt. ‘IAacpds (propitiatio) tollit offensam contra Deum ; καταλλαγή (reconciliatio) est δίπλευρος et tollit (a) in- dignationem Dei adversum nos, 2 Cor. v. 19, (b) nostramque abalienationem a Deo, 2 Cor. v. 20.’ § Ixxvili. ψαλμός, ὕμνος, ὠδή. Aut these words occur together at Ephes. v. 19, and again δ΄. Col. iii. 16; both times in the same order, and in passages which very nearly repeat one another ; cf. Ps. Ixvi. 1. When some expositors refuse even to attempt to distinguish between them, urging that St. Paul had certainly no intention of classifying the different forms of Christian poetry, this state- ment, no doubt, is quite true; but neither, on the other hand, would he have used, where there is evidently no temptation to rhetorical amplification, three words, if one would have equally served his turn. It may fairly be questioned whether we can trace very accurately the lines of demarcation between the ‘“ psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ of which the Apostle makes mention, or whether he traced these lines for himself with a perfect accuracy. Still each must have had a meaning which belonged to it more, and by a better right, than it belonged to either of the others ; and this it may be possible to seize, even while it is quite impossible with perfect strictness to distribute under these three heads Christian poetry as it existed in the Apostolic age. ἾΑσμα, it may be here observed, a word of not un- frequent occurrence in the Septuagint, does not occur in the 1s ed be The Psalms of the O. T. remarkably enough have no §Lxxvil SYWVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 277 single, well recognized, universally accepted name by which they are designated in the Hebrew Scriptures (Delitzsch, Comm. tb. den Psalter, vol. ii. p. 871; Herzog, Real- Lincyclop. vol. xii. p. 269). They first obtained such in the Septuagint. Wadyds, from Yaw, properly a touching, and then a touching of the harp or other stringed instruments with the finger or with the plectrum (ψαλμοὶ τόξων, Euripides, Ion, 174; cf. Bacch. 740, are the twangings of the bowstrings), was next the instrument itself, and last of all the song sung with this musical accompaniment. It is in this latest stage of its meaning that we find the word adopted in the Septuagint ; and to this agree the ecclesiastical definitions of it; thus in the Lexicon ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria : λόγος μουσικός, ὅταν εὐρύθμως κατὰ τοὺς ἁρμονικοὺς λόγους τό ὄργανον κρούηται : cf. Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. ii. 4): ὃ ψαλμός, ἐμμελής ἐστιν εὐλογία kat σώφρων : and Basil the Great, who brings out with still greater emphasis what differences the ‘psalm’ and the ode or ‘spiritual song’ (Hom. in Ps. 44): δὴ γάρ ἐστι, καὶ οὐχὶ ψαλμός * διότι γυμνῇ φωνῇ, μὴ συνηχοῦντος αὐτῇ τοῦ ὀργάνου, per’ ἐμμελοῦς τῆς ἐκφωνήσεως, παρεδίδοτο : compare in Psal. xxix.1; to which Gregory of Nyssa, in Psal. ο. ὃ, agrees. In all probability the ψαλμοί of Kphes. v. 19, Col. iii. 16, are the inspired psalms of the Hebrew Canon. The word certainly designates these on all other occasions when it is met in the N. T., with the one possible exception of 1 Cor. xiv. 26; and probably refers to them there; nor can I doubt that the ‘psalms’ which the Apostle would have the faithful to sing to one another, are psalms of David, of Asaph, or of some other of the sweet singers of Israel; above all, seeing that the word seems limited and restricted to its narrowest use by the nearly synonymous words with which it is grouped. But while the ‘psalm’ by the right of primogeniture, as being at once the oldest and most venerable, thus occupies the foremost place, the Church of Christ does not restrict herself to such, but claims the freedom of bringing new things as well as old out of her treasure-house. She will produce 278 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § LXXVill “hymns and spiritual songs” of her own, as well as inherit psalms bequeathed to her by the Jewish Church ; a new salvation demanding a new song (Rev. v. 9), as Augustine delights so often to remind us. It was of the essence of a Greek ὕμνος that it should be addressed to, or be otherwise in praise of, a god, or of a hero, that is, in the strictest sense of that word, of a deified man ; as Callisthenes reminded Alexander; who, claiming hymns for himself, or suffering them to be addressed to him, implicitly accepted not human honours but divine (ὕμνοι μὲν ἐς τοὺς θεοὺς ποιοῦνται, ἔπαινοι δὲ ἐς ἀνθρώπους, Arrian, iv. 11). In the gradual breaking down of the distinction between human and divine, which marked the fallen days of Greece and Rome, with the usurping on the part of men of divine honours, the ὕμνος came more and more to be applied to men ; although this not without observation and remonstrance (Athenzus, vi. 62; xv. 21, 22). When the word was assumed into the language of the Church, this essential distinction clung to it still. A ‘psalm’ might be a De profundis, the story of man’s deliverance, or a com- memoration of mercies which he had received; and of a “ spiritual song”? much the same could be said: a ‘hymn’ must always be more or less of a Magnificat, a direct address of praise and glory to God. Thus Jerome (in E'phes. v. 19) : ‘Breviter hymnos esse dicendum, qui fortitudinem et majes- tatem predicant Dei, et ejusdem semper vel beneficia, vel facta, mirantur.’ Compare Origen, Con. Cels. viil. 67 ; and a precious fragment, probably of the Presbyter Caius, pre- served by Eusebius (H. ΕἸ. v. 28): ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ δαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι, τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες. Compare further Gregory of Nyssa (in Psalm. 6. 8): ὕμνος, ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἡμῖν ἀγαθοῖς ἀνατιθεμένη τῷ Θεῷ εὐφημία: the whole chapter is interesting. Augustine in more places than one states the notes of what in his mind are the essentials of a hymn— which are three: 1. It must be sung; 2. It must be praise ; 3. It must be to God. Thus Enarr. in Ps. \xxii. 1: ‘Hymni §Lxxvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 279 laudes sunt Dei cum cantico: hymni cantus sunt continentes laudes Dei. Si sit laus, et non sit Dei, non est hymnus: si sit laus, et Dei laus, et non cantetur, non est hymnus. Oportet ergo ut, si sit hymnus, habeat hee tria, et laudem, et Dei, et canticum.’ So, too, Hnarr. in Ps. exlvi. 14: ‘Hymnus scitis quid est? Cantus est cum laude Dei. Si laudas Deum, et non cantas, non dicis hymnum ; si cantas, et non laudas Deum, non dicis hymnum; si laudas aliud quod non pertinet ad laudem Dei, etsi cantando laudes non dicis hymnum. Hymnus ergo tria ista habet, et cantum, et laudem, et Dei.’! Compare Gregory Nazianzene : ἔπαινός ἐστιν εὖ TL τῶν ἐμῶν φράσαι, αἶνος δ᾽ ἔπαινος εἰς Θεὸν σεβάσμιος, ὃ δ᾽ ὕμνος, αἶνος ἐμμελής, ws οἴομαι. But though, as appears from these quotations, ὕμνος in the fourth century was a word freely adopted in the Church, this was by no means the case at an earlier day. Notwithstand- ing the authority which St. Paul’s employment of it might seem to have lent it, ὕμνος nowhere occurs in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, nor in those of Justin Martyr, nor in the Apostolic Constitutions; and only once in Tertullian (ad Uxor. ii. 8). It is at least a plausible explanation of this that ὕμνος was for the early Christians so steeped in heathenism, 50 linked with profane associations, and desecrated by them, there were so many hymns to Zeus, to Hermes, to Aphrodite, and to the other deities of the heathen pantheon, that the early Christians shrunk instinctively from the word. If we ask ourselves of what character were the ‘hymns,’ which St. Paul desired that the faithful should sing among themselves, we may confidently assume that these observed the law to which other hymns were submitted, and were direct addresses of praise to God. Inspired specimens of the 1 It is not very easy to follow Augustine in his distinction between a ‘psalm’ and a ‘canticle.’ Indeed, he acknowledges himself that he has not arrived at any clearness on this matter; thus see Enarr. m Ps. lxvii, 1; where, however, these words occur, ‘in psalmo est sonoritas, in cantico letitia’: cf. in Ps.iv.1; and Hilary, Prol. in Lib. Psalm. $§ 19-21. 280 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xxvitl ὕμνος we meet at Luke i. 46-55; 68-79; Acts iv. 24; such also probably was that which Paul and Silas made to be heard from the depth of their Philippian dungeon (ὕμνουν τὸν Θεόν, Acts xvi. 25). How noble, how magnificent, uninspired hymns could prove we have signal evidence in the Te Deum, in the Veni Creator Spiritus, and in many a later possession for ever which the Church has acquired. That the Church, brought when St. Paul wrote into a new and marvellous world of heavenly realities, would be rich in these we might be sure, even if no evidence existed to this effect. Of sueh evidence, however, there is abundance, more than one frag- ment of a hymn being probably embedded in St. Paul’s own Epistles (Ephes. v. 14; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 11-14; οἵ. Rambach, Anthologie, vol. i. p. 88; and Neale, Hssays on Liturgiology, pp. 418, 424). And as it was quite impossible that the Christian Church, mightily releasing itself, though with no revolutionary violence, from the Jewish synagogue, should fall into that mistake into which some of the Reformed Churches afterwards fell, we may be sure that it adopted into liturgic use, not ‘psalms’ only, but also ‘ hymns,’ singing hymns to Christ as to God (Pliny, Hp. x. 96); though this, as we may conclude, more largely in Churches gathered out of the heathen world than in those wherein a strong Jewish element existed. On ὕμνος from an etymological point of view Pott, Etymol. Forsch. vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 612, may be consulted. δή (Ξεάοιδη) is the only word of this group which the Apocalypse knows (v. 9; xiv. 3; xv. 3). St. Paul, on the two occasions when he employs it, adds πνευματική to it; and this, no doubt, because δή by itself might mean any kind of song, as of battle, of harvest, or festal, or hymeneal, while ψαλμός, from its Hebrew use, and ὕμνος from its Greek, did not require any such qualifying adjective. This epithet thus applied to these ‘songs’ does not affirm that they were divinely inspired, any more than the ἀνὴρ πνευματικός is an inspired man (1 Cor. iii. 1; Gal. vi. 1); but only that they were such as were composed by spiritual men, and moved in the sphere of spiritual things. How, it may be asked, are §LxxIx SYMVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 281 we to distinguish these “ spiritual songs ᾽᾿ from the ‘ psalms ’ and ‘hymns’ with which they are associated by St. Paul? If the ‘psalms’ represent the heritage of sacred song which the Christian Church derived from the Jewish, the ‘hymns’ and “spiritual songs’’ will between them cover what further in the same kind it produced out of its bosom; but with a difference. What the hymns were, we have already seen ; but Christian thought and feeling will soon have expanded into a wider range of poetic utterances than those in which there is a direct address to the Deity. If we turn, for instance, to Herbert’s Temple, or Vaughan’s Silex Scintillans, or Keble’s Christian Year, in all of these there are many poems, which, as certainly they are not ‘psalms,’ so as little do they possess the characteristics of ‘hymns.’ “Spiritual songs” these might most fitly be called; even as in almost all our collections of so called ‘hymns’ at the present day, there are not a few which by much juster title would bear this name. Calvin, it will be seen, only agrees in part with the distinc- tions which I have here sought to trace: ‘ Sub his tribus nominibus complexus est [Paulus] omne genus canticorum ; que ita vulgo distinguuntur, ut psalmus sit in quo concinendo adhibetur musicum aliquod instrumentum preter linguam : hymnus proprie sit laudis canticum, sive assd voce, sive aliter canatur ; oda non laudes tantum contineat, sed parzneses, et alia argumenta.’ Compare in Vollbeding’s Thesaurus, vol. li. p. 27 sqq., a treatise by J. Z. Hillger, De Psalmorum, Hymnorum, et Odarum discrimine; Palmer in Herzog’s Real- lincyclopddie, vol. v. p. 100 sqq.; Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. iii. p. 480; Lightfoot, On Colossians, 111. 16 ; and the art. Hymns in Dr. Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. ὃ xxix. ἀγράμματος, ἰδιώτης. THESE words occur together Acts iv. 13; ἀγράμματος nowhere else in the N. T., but ἰδιώτης on four other occasions (1 Cor. xiv. 16, 28, 24; 2 Cor. xi. 6). Where found together we must conclude that, according to the natural rhetoric of 282 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxix human speech, the second word is stronger than, and adds something to, the first: thus our Translators have evidently understood them, rendering ἀγράμματος ‘unlearned,’ and ἰδιώτης ‘ignorant’; and so Bengel: “ἀγράμματος est rudis, ἰδιώτης rudior.’ When we seek more accurately to distinguish them, and to detect the exact notion which each conveys, ἀγράμματος need not occupy us long. It corresponds exactly to our ‘illiterate ’ (γράμματα μὴ μεμαθηκώς, John vii. 15; Acts xxvi. 24; 2 Tim. iii. 15) : being joined by Plato with ὄρειος, rugged as the mountaineer (Crit. 109 d), with ἄμουσος (Tim. 28 6); by Plutarch set over against the μεμουσωμένος (Adv. Colot. 26). But ἰδιώτης is a word of far wider range, of uses far more complex and subtle. Its primary idea, the point from which, so to speak, etymologically it starts, is that of the private man, occupying himself with his own things (τὰ ἴδια), as contrasted with the political ; the man unclothed with office, as set over against and distinguished from him who bears some office in the state. But lying as it did very deep in the Greek mind, being one of the strongest convictions there, that in public life the true education of the man and the citizen consisted, it could not fail that the word should presently be tinged with something of contempt and scorn. The ἰδιώτης, staying at home while others were facing honour- able toil, oixovpds, as Plutarch calls him Phil. cum Prince. 1), a ‘ house-dove,’ as our ancestors slightingly named him, un- exercised in business, unaccustomed to deal with his fellow- men, is unpractical; and thus the word is joined with ἀπράγμων by Plato (Rep. x. 620 ¢); ef. Plutarch, De Vort. et Vit. 4), with ἄπρακτος by Plutarch (Phil. cum Prine. 1), who sets him over against the πολιτικὸς καὶ πρακτικός. But more than this, he is often boorish, and thus ἰδιώτης is linked with ἄγροικος (Chrysostom in 1 Hp. Cor. Hom. 3), with ἀπαίδευτος (Plutarch, Arist. et Men. Comp. 1), and other words such as these.! 1 There is an excellent discussion on the successive meanings of ἰδιώτης in Bishop Horsley’s Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, SIXkie oS ΝΟΥ 5.5 OF THE NEW WESTAV ES. 285 The history of ἰδιώτης by no means stops here, though we have followed it as far as is absolutely necessary to explain its association (Acts iv. 13) with ἀγράμματος, and the points of likeness and difference between them. But to explain why St. Paul should employ it at 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 28, 24, and exactly in what sense, it may be well to pursue this history a little further. There is a singular feature in the use of ἰδιώτης which, though not very easy to describe, a few examples will at once make intelligible. There lies continually in it a negation of that particular skill, knowledge, profession, or standing, over against which it is antithetically set, and not of any other except that alone. For example, is the ἰδιώτης set over against the δημιουργός (as by Plato, Theag. 124 c), he is the unskilled man as set over against the skilled artificer ; any other dexterity he may possess, but that of the δημιουργός is denied him. Is he set over against the ἰατρός, he is one ignorant of the physician’s art (Plato, Rep. 111. 889 6; Philo, De Conf. Ling. 7); against the σοφιστής, he is one unac- quainted with the dialectic fence of the sophists (Xenophon, De Venat. 18; ef. Hiero, i. 2; Lucian, Pisc. 84; Plutarch, Symp. iv. 2, 3); against the φιλόλογος (Sextus Empiricus, adv. Grammat. § 285), he has no interest in the earnest studies which occupy the other; prose writers are ἰδιῶται as contrasted with poets. Those unpractised in gymnastic exer- cises are ἰδιῶται as contrasted with the ἀθληταί (Xenophon, Hero, iv. 6; Philo, De Sept. 6); subjects as contrasted with their prince (De Abrah. 38); the underlings in the harvest- field are ἰδιῶται καὶ ὑπηρέται as distinguished from the ἡγεμόνες (De Somn. ii. 4); the weak are ἰδιῶται, ἄποροι and adogor being qualitative adjectives, as contrasted with the strong Appendix, Disquisition Second, pp. 475-485. Our English ‘ idiot’ has also an instructive history. This quotation from Jeremy Taylor (Dis- suaswe from Popery, part ii. b. i. § 1) will show how it was used two hundred years ago: ‘8. Austin affirmed that the plain places of Scripture are sufficient to all laics, and all zdiots or private persons.’ See my Select Glossary s. v. for other examples of the same use of the word. 284. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.Uxxx (Philo, De Creat. Princ. 5; ef. Plutarch, De Imper. Apoph. 1); and lastly, the whole congregation of Israel are ἰδιῶται as set over against the priests (De Vit. Mos. 11. 29). With these examples of the word’s use to assist us, we can come to no other conclusion than that the ἰδιῶται of St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 24) are the plain believers, with no special spiritual gifts, as distinguished from such as were possessed of such; even as elsewhere they are the lay members of the Church as contrasted with those who minister in the Word and Sacraments; for it is ever the word with which ἰδιῶτης is at once combined and contrasted that determines its meaning. For the matter immediately before us it will be sufficient to say that when the Pharisees recognized Peter and John as Men ἀγράμματοι καὶ ἰδιῶται, in the first word they expressed more the absence in them of book-learning, and, confining as they would have done this to the Old Testament, the tepa γράμματα, and to the glosses of their own doctors upon these, their lack of acquaintance with such lore as St. Paul had learned at the feet of Gamaliel; in the second their want of that education which men insensibly acquire by mingling with those who have important affairs to transact, and by taking their own share in the transaction of such. Setting aside that higher training of the heart and the intellect which is obtained by direct communion with God and his truth, no doubt books and public life, literature and politics, are the two most effectual organs of mental and moral train- ing which the world has at its command—the second, as needs hardly be said, immeasurably more effectual than the first. He is ἀγράμματος who has not shared in the first, ἰδιώτης Who has had no part in the second. S$ Ixxx. δοκέω, φαίνομαι. Our Translators have not always observed the distinction which exists between δοκεῖν (=‘videri’) and φαίνεσθαι (=‘apparere’). δΔοκεῖν expresses the subjective mental Sixx ον δ OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Ὁ 285 estimate or opinion about a matter which men form, their δόξα concerning it, which may be right (Acts xv. 28; 1 Cor. iv. 9; vii. 40: ef. Plato, Tim. 51 d, δόξα ἀληθής), but which also may be wrong ; involving as it always must the possi- bility of error (2 Macc. ix. 10; Matt. vi. 7; Mark vi. 49; John xvi. 2; Acts xxvii. 13; cf. Plato, Rep. iv. 428 a; Gorg. 458 a, δόξα ψευδής ; Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 6. 22; Mem. 1. 7. 4, ἰσχυρόν, μὴ ὄντα, δοκεῖν, to have a false reputation for strength) ; φαίνεσθαι on the contrary expresses how a matter phenomenally shows and presents itself, with no necessary assumption of any beholder at all; suggesting an opposition, not to the ὄν, but to the νοούμενον. Thus, when Plato (Rep. iii. 408 a) says of certain heroes in the Trojan war, ἀγαθοὶ πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον ἐφάνησαν, he does not mean they seemed good for the war and were not, but they showed good, with the tacit assumption that what they showed, they also were. So too, when Xenophon writes ἐφαίνετο ἴχνια ἵππων (Anabd. i. 6. 1), he would imply that horses had been actually there, and left their footprints on the ground. Had he used δοκεῖν, he would have implied that Cyrus and his company took for the tracks of horses what indeed might have been such, but what also might not have been such at all; cf. Mem. 111. 10. 2. Zeune: “ δοκεῖν cernitur in opinione, que falsa esse potest et vana; sed φαίνεσθαι plerumque est in re extra mentem, quamvis nemo opinatur.’ Thus δοκεῖ φαίνεσθαι (Plato, Phedr. 269 ὦ; Legg. xii. 960 a). Even in passages where δοκεῖν may be exchanged with εἶναι, it does not lose the proper meaning which Zeune has ascribed to it here. There is ever a predominant reference to the public opinion and estimate, rather than to the actual being; however the former may be the faithful echo of the latter (Prov. xxvii. 14). Thus, while there is no touch of irony, no shadow of depreciation, in St. Paul’s use of οἱ δοκοῦντες at Gal. ii. 2, of οἱ δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι presently after (ver. 6)—exactly which same phrase occurs in Plato, Huthyd. 308 ὦ, where they are joined with ceyzvoi—and while mani- festly there could be no slight intended, seeing that he so 286 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxxx characterizes the chief of his fellow Apostles, the words for all this express rather the reputation in which these were held in the Church than the worth which in themselves they had, however that reputation of theirs was itself the true measure of this worth (=ézionwo, Rom. xvi. 7). Compare Kuripides, Troad. 608, where τὰ δοκοῦντα are set over against τὰ μηδὲν ὄντα, Hec. 295, and Porphyry, De Abst. ii. 40, where ot δοκοῦντες in like manner is put absolutely, and set over against τὰ πλήθη. In the same way the words of Christ, ot δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν (Mark x. 42)=—‘they who are acknowledged rulers of the Gentiles,’ cast no doubt on the reality of the rule of these, for gee Matt. xx. 25; though indeed there may be a slight hint, looking through the words, of the contrast between the worldly shows and the heavenly realities of greatness; but as little are they re- dundant (cf. Josephus, Ant. xix. 6.3; Susan. 5: and Winer, Gramm. ὃ Ixvii. 4). But as on one side the mental conception may have, but also may not have, a corresponding truth in the world of realities, so on the other the appearance may have a reality beneath it, and φαίνεσθαι is often synonymous with εἶναι and γίγνεσθαι (Matt. 11. 7; xiii. 26); but it may also have none ; φαινόμενα, for instance, are set off against τὰ ὄντα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ by Plato (Rep. x. 596 6), being the reflections of things, as seen in a mirror: or shows, it may be, which have no substance behind them, as the shows of goodness which the hypocrite makes (Matt. xxiii. 28). It must not be assumed that in this latter case φαίνεσθαι runs into the meaning of δοκεῖν, and that the distinction is broken down between them. That distinction still subsists in the objective character of the one, and the subjective character of the other. Thus, at Matt. xxiii. 27, 28, the contrast is not between what other men took the Pharisees to be, and what they really were, but between what they showed themselves to other men (φαίνεσθε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δίκαιοι), and what in very truth they were. | Δοκεῖν signifying ever, as we have seen, that subjective estimate which may be formed of a thing, not the objective SUxKk oO VINVOWV IIS OF THE NEW. TESTAMENT: 237 show and seeming which it actually possesses, it will follow that our rendering of Jam. i. 26 is not perfectly satisfactory : “Tf any man among you seem to be religious (δοκεῖ OpyoKos εἶναι), and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.’”’ This verse, as it here stands, must before now have perplexed many. How, they will have asked, can a man ‘“‘ seem to be religious,” that is, present himself to others as such, when his religious preten- sions are belied and refuted by the license of an unbridled tongue? But render the words “If any man among you thinketh himself religious”’ (cf. Gal. vi. 8, where δοκεῖ is rightly so translated ; as it is in the Vulgate here, ‘‘ se putat religiosum esse”’), “‘and bridleth not his tongue, &c.,’’ and all will then be plain. It is the man’s own mental estimate of his spiritual condition which δοκεῖ expresses, an estimate which the following words declare to be altogether erroneous. Compare Heb. iv. 1, where for δοκῇ the Vulgate has rightly ‘existimetur.’ If the Vulgate in dealing with δοκεῖν here is right, while our Translators are wrong, elsewhere in dealing with φαίνεσθαι it is wrong, while these are right. At Matt. vi. 18 (‘ that thou appear not unto men to fast’), it has ‘ne videaris,’ although at ver. 16 it had rightly ‘ut appareant’ ; but the disciples in this verse are warned, not against the hypocrisy of wishing to be supposed to fast when they did not, as this ‘ne videaris’ might imply, but against the osten- tation of wishing to be known to fast when they did; as lies plainly in the ὅπως μὴ φανῇς of the original. The force of φαίνεσθαι, attained here, is missed in another passage of our Version; although not through any confusion between it and δοκεῖν, but rather between it and φαίνειν. We render ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ (Phil. ii. 15), “among whom ye shine as lights in the world;” where, instead of ‘ye shine,’ it should stand, ‘ye are seen,’ or ‘ye appear.’ ‘To justify “ye shine’’ in this place, which is common to all the Versions of the English Hexapla, St. Paul should have written ¢aivere (cf. John i. 5; 2 Pet. i. 19; Rev. i. 16), and not, as he has written, φαίνεσθε. It is worthy of 288 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Xxx! note that, while the Vulgate, having ‘lucetis,’ shares and anticipates our error, an earlier Latin Version was free from it ; as is evident from the form in which the verse is quoted by Augustine (Enarr. in Ps. exlvi. 4): ‘In quibus apparetis tanquam luminaria in celo.’ § Ixxxi. ζῶον, θηρίον. In passages out of number one of these words might be employed quite as fitly as the other, even as there are many in which they are used interchangeably, as by Plutarch, De Cap. ex Inim. Util. ἃ. This does not however prove that there is no distinction between them, if other passages occur, however few, where one is fit and the other not; or where, though neither would be unfit, one would possess a greater fitness than the other. The distinction, latent in other cases, because there is nothing to evoke it, reveals itself in these. The difference between ζῶον (by Lachmann always more correctly accented ζῷον) and θηρίον is not that between two coordinate terms ; but one, the second, is wholly subordinate to the first, a less included in a greater. All creatures that live on earth, including man himself, λογικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζῶον, as Plutarch (De Am. Prol. 8) so grandly describes him, are Coa (Aristotle, Hist. Anim. i. 5.1); nay, God himself, according to the Definitions of Plato, is ζῶον ἀθάνατον, being indeed the only One to whom life by absolute right belongs (φαμὲν δὲ τὸν Θεὸν εἶναι ζῶον ἀΐδιον ἄριστον, Aristotle, Metaph. xii. 7). It is true that ζῶον is nowhere employed in the N. T. to designate man (but see Plato, Pol. 271 e; Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 1. 8; Wisd. xix. 21); still less to designate God; for whom, as not merely living, but as being absolute Life, the one fountain of life, the αὐτοζῶον, the πηγὴ ζωῆς, the fitter as the more reverent ζωή is retained (John i. 4; 1 John i. 2). In its ordinary use ζῶον covers the same extent of meaning as ‘animal’ with us, having generally, though by no means universally (Plutarch, De Garr. 22; Heb. xiii. 11), ἄλογον or some such epithet attached (2 Pet. 11, 12; Jude 10). §LXxxI SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 289 @npiov looks like a diminutive of 6yp, which in its Molic form φήρ reappears as the Latin ‘fera,’ and in its more usual shape in the German ‘ Thier’ and in our own ‘deer.’ Like χρυσίον, βιβλίον, φορτίον, ἀγγεῖον, and so many other words (see Fischer, Prol. de Vit. Lex. N. T. p. 256), it has quite left behind the force of a diminutive, if it ever possessed it. That it was already without this at the time when the Odyssey was composed is sufficiently attested by the μέγα θηρίον which there occurs (x. 180); compare Xenophon, Cyrop.i. 4.11. It would be a mistake to regard θηρία as exclusively mischievous and ravening beasts, for see Heb. ΧΙ. 20; Exod. xix. 18; however such by this word are generally intended (Mark i. 18; Acts xxviii. 4, 5); θηρία at Acts xi. 6 being distinguished from τετράποδα; while yet Schmidt says rightly: ‘In θηρίον liegt eine sehr starke Nebenbeziehung auf Wildheit und Grausamkeit.’ It is worthy of notice that, numerous as are the passages of the Septuagint where beasts of sacrifice are mentioned, it is never under this name. The reason is evident, namely, that the brutal, bestial element is in θηρίον brought prominently forward, not that wherein the inferior animals are akin to man, not that therefore which gives them a fitness to be offered as substitutes for man, and as his representatives. Here, too, we have an explanation of the frequent transfer of θηρίον and θηριώδης, as in Latin of ‘ bestia’ and “ bellua,’ to fierce and brutal men (Tit. i. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 82; Josephus, Antt. xvii. 5.5; Arrian, in Epict. ii. 9). All this makes us the more regret, and the regret has been often expressed—it was so by Broughton almost as soon as our Version was published—that in the Apocalypse our Translators should have rendered θηρίον and ζῶον by the same word, “ beast’’; and should thus for the English reader have obliterated the distinction between them. Both play import- ant parts in this book; both belong to its higher symbolism ; while at the same time they move in spheres as far removed from one another as heaven is fromhell. The ζῶα or “ living creatures,’ which stand before the throne, and in which dwells U 290 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.Lxxxu the fulness of all creaturely life, as it gives praise and glory to God (iv. 6-9; v. 6; vi. 1; and often), constitute a part of the heavenly symbolism; the θηρία, the first beast and the second, which rise up, one from the bottomless pit (xi. 7), the other from the sea (xiii. 1), of whom the one makes war upon the two Witnesses, the other opens his mouth in -blas- phemies, these form part of the hellish symbolism. To confound these and those under a common designation, to call those ‘ beasts’ and these ‘ beasts,’ would be an oversight, even granting the name to be suitable to both; it is a more serious one, when the word used, bringing out, as does θηρίον, the predominance of the lower animal life, is applied to glorious creatures in the very court and presence of Heaven. The error is common to all the English translations. That the Rheims should not have escaped it is strange; for the Vulgate renders ζῶα by ‘ animalia’ (‘ animantia’ would have been still better), and only θηρίον by ‘bestia.’ If ζῶα had always been rendered “living creatures,’ this would have had the additional advantage of setting these symbols of the Apocalypse, even for the English reader, in an unmistakeable connexion with Ezek. i. 5, 18, 14, and often ; where “ living creature” is the rendering in our English Version of ΠΡ, as ζῶον is in the Septuagint. § Ixxxil. ὑπέρ, ἀντί. Ir has been often claimed, and in the interests of an all- important truth, namely the vicarious character of the sacri- fice of the death of Christ, that in such passages as Heb. ii. 9; Tit. i.14; 1 Tim. 0.6; Gal. iii. 18; Luke xxii. 19, 20; 1 Pet. 11. 21; 11. 18; iv. 1; Rom. v. 8; John x. 15, in all of which Christ is said to have died ὑπὲρ πάντων, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων, and the like, ὑπέρ shall be accepted as equipollent with ἀντί. And then, it is further urged that, as ἀντί is the preposition first of equivalence (Homer, 12. ix. 116, 117) and then of exchange (1 Cor. xi. 15; Heb. xii. 2, 16; Matt. v. 88), ὑπέρ must in all those passages be regarded as §Lxxxll SYWONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 291 “~ having the same force. Each of these, it is evident, would thus become a dictwm probans for a truth, in itself most vital, namely that Christ suffered, not merely on owr behalf and for our good, but also in our stead, and bearing that penalty of our sins which we otherwise must ourselves have borne. Now, though some have denied, we must yet accept as certain that ὑπέρ has sometimes this meaning. Thus in the Gorgias of Plato, 515 ὁ, ἐγὼ ὑπὲρ σοῦ ἀποκρινοῦμαι, “ 1 will answer in your stead ;’ compare Xenophon, Anab. vii. 4. 9: ἐθέλοις ἂν ὑπὲρ τούτου ἀποθανεῖν ; ‘ Wouldst thou die instead of this lad?’ as the context and the words εἰ παίσειεν αὐτὸν ἀν τὶ ἐκείνου make abundantly manifest ; Thucydides, i. 141; Euripides, Alcestis, 712; Polybius, 111. 67.7; Philem. 13; and perhaps 1 Cor. xv. 29; but it is not less certain that in passages far more numerous ὑπέρ means no more than, on behalf of, for the good of ; thus Matt. v. 44; John xiii. 37; 1 Tim. ii. 1, and continually. It must be admitted to follow from this, that had we in the Scripture only statements to the effect that Christ died ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, that He tasted death ὑπὲρ παντός, it would be impossible to draw from these any irrefragable proof that his death was vicarious, He dying in our stead, and Himself bearing on His Cross our sins and the penalty of our sins; however we might find it, as no doubt we do, elsewhere (Isai. lil. 4-6). It is only as having other declarations, to the effect that Christ died avri πολλῶν (Matt. xx. 28), gave Him- self as an ἀντί λυτρον (1 Tim. ii. 6), and bringing those other to the interpretation of these, that we obtain a perfect right to claim such declarations of Christ’s death for us as also declarations of his death in our stead. And in them beyond doubt the preposition ὑπέρ is the rather employed, that it may embrace both these meanings, and express how Christ died at once for owr sakes (here it touches more nearly on the meaning of περί, Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24; 1 Pet. 111. 18 ; διά also once occurring in this connexion, 1 Cor. viii. 11), and 7 owr stead; while ἀντί would only have expressed the last of these. Tischendorf, in his little treatise, Doctrina Pauli de Vi u 2 292 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xXxxill Mortis Christi Satisfactorid, has some excellent remarks on this matter, which I will quote, though what has been just said has anticipated them in part: ‘Fuerunt, qui ex sold natura et usu prepositionis ὑπέρ demonstrare conarentur, Paulum docuisse satisfactionem Christi vicariam ; alii rursus negarunt prepositionem ὑπέρ a N. Test. auctoribus recte positam esse pro ἀντί, inde probaturi contrarium. Peccatum utrimque est. Sola prepositio utramque pariter adjuvat sententiarum partem ; pariter, inquam, utramque. Namque in promptu sunt, contra perplurium opinionem, desumta ex multis veterum Grecorum scriptoribus loca, que prepositioni ὑπέρ significatum, loco, vice, alicujus plane vindicant, atque ipsum Paulum eodem significatu eam usurpasse, et quidem in locis, que ad nostram rem non pertinent, nemini potest esse dubium (cf. Philem. 18: 2 Cor. v. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 29). Si autem queritur, cur hac potissimum prepositione incerti et fluctuantis significatis in re tam gravi usus sit Apostolus— inest in ipsa prepositione quo sit aptior reliquis ad de- secribendam Christi mortem pro nobis oppetitam. Etenim in hoc versari rei summam, quod Christus mortuus sit in com- modum hominum, nemo negat; atque id quidem factum est ‘ita, ut moreretur hominum loco. Pro conjuncta significatione et commodi et vicarii preclare ab Apostolo adhibita est pre- positio ὑπέρ. Itaque rectissime, ut solet, contendit Winerus noster, non licere nobis in gravibus locis, ubi de morte Christi agatur, preepositionem ὑπέρ simpliciter = ἀντί sumere. Est enim plane Latinorum pro, nostrum fiir. Quotiescunque Paulus Christum pro nobis mortuum esse docet, ab ipsa notione vicarii non disjunctam esse voluit notionem commodi, neque umquam ab hac, quamvis perquam aperta sit, excludi illam in ist4 formula, jure meo dico.’ § Ixxxill. φονεύς, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, σικάριος. Οὐκ Translators have rendered all these words by ‘murderer,’ which, apt enough in the case of the first (Matt. xxii. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 15; Rev. xxi. 8), is at the same time so general §LXxxul SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 293 that in the other two instances it keeps out of sight charac- teristic features which the words would bring forward. ᾿Ανθρωποκτόνος, exactly corresponding to our ‘ man-slayer,’ or ‘homicide,’ occurs in the N. T. only in the writings of St. John (viii. 44; Hp. iii. 15, bis); being found also in Euripides (Iphig. in Taur. 390). On our Lord’s lips, at the first of these places, ἀνθρωποκτόνος has its special fitness ; no other word would have suited at all so well; an allusion being here to that great, and in part only too successful, assault on the life natural and the life spiritual of all man- kind which Satan made, when, planting sin, and through sin death, in them who were ordained the authors of being to the whole race of mankind, he infected the stream of human existence at its fountain-head. Satan was thus ὁ ἀνθρωπο- xrovos indeed; for he would fain have slain not this man or that, but the whole race of mankind. Σικάριος, which only occurs once in the N. T., and then, noticeably enough, on the lips of a Roman officer (Acts xxi. 38), is one of many Latin words which had followed the Roman domination even into those Kastern provinces of the empire, which, unlike those of the West, had refused to be latinized, but still retained their own language. The ‘sicarius,’ having his name from the ‘sica,’ a short sword, poniard, or stiletto, which he wore and was prompt to use, was the hired bravo or swordsman, troops of whom in the long agony of the Republic the Antonies and the Clodiuses kept in their pay, and oftentimes about their persons to inspire a wholesome fear, and if needful to remove out of the way such as were obnoxious to them. The word had found its way into Palestine, and into the Greek which was spoken there: Josephus in two instructive passages (B. J. 11. 18. 8; Antt. xx. 8.10) giving us full details about those to whom this name was transferred. They were ‘assassins,’ which word would be to my mind the best rendering at Acts xxi. 88, of whom a rank growth sprang up in those latter days of the Jewish Commonwealth, when, in ominous token of the approaching doom, all ties of society were fast being dissolved. ι 294 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ Lxxxiv Concealing under their garments that short sword of theirs, and mingling with the multitude at the great feasts, they stabbed in the crowd whom of their enemies they would, and then taking part with the bystanders in exclamations of horror, effectually averted suspicion from themselves. It will appear from what has been said that φονεύς may be any murderer, the genus of which σικάριος is a species, this latter being an assassin, using a particular weapon, and following his trade of blood in a special manner. Again, ἀνθρωποκτόνος has a stress and emphasis of its own. He to whom this name is given is a murderer of men, a homicide. Φονεύς is capable of vaguer use; a wicked man might be characterized as φονεὺς τῆς εὐσεβείας, a destroyer of piety, though he made no direct attack on the lives of men, a traitor or tyrant as φονεὺς τῆς πατρίδος (Plutarch, Prec. Ger. Reip. 19); and such uses of the word are not unfrequent. § Ixxxiv. κακός, πονηρός, φαῦλος. ΤΉΛΤ' which is morally evil may be contemplated on various sides and from various points of view; the several epithets which it will thus obtain bringing out the several aspects under which it will have presented itself to us. Kaxés and πονηρός occur together, Rev. xvi. 2; as κακία and πονηρία at 1 Cor. v. 8; the διαλογισμοὶ κακοί of St. Mark vii. 21 are διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί in the parallel passage of St. Matthew (xv. 19). The distinction between these will best be considered when we come to deal with πονηρός. Κακός, the constant antithesis to ἀγαθός (Deut. xxx. 15; Ps. xxxiil. 15; Rom. xii. 21; 2 Cor. v. 10; cf. Plato, Rep. x. 608 e), and though not quite so frequently to καλός (Gen. xxiv. 50; xliv. 4; Heb. v. 14; Plutarch, Reg. et Imp. Apoph. Epam. 20), affirms of that which it characterizes that qualities and conditions are wanting there which would constitute it worthy of the name which it bears.! This first in a physical sense ; 1 Cremer : ‘ So characterisirt κακός dasjenige was nicht so beschaffen ist wie es, seiner Natur, Bestimmung und Idee nach, sein kénnte oder sollte.’ §LxxxIvV SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 295 thus κακὰ εἵματα (Homer, Od. xi. 191) are mean or tattered garments ; κακὸς ἰατρός (Aischylus, Prom. Vinet. 473), a physician wanting in the skill which physicians should possess ; κακὸς κριτής (Plutarch, Reg. et Imp. Apoph. Fabr. 4), an unskilful judge. So, too, in the Scripture it is often used without any ethical intention (Prov. xx. 14; Luke xvi. 26 ; Acts xxviii. 5; Rev. xvi. 2). Often, however, it assumes one; thus κακὸς δοῦλος (Matt. xxiv. 48) is ἃ servant wanting in that fidelity and diligence which are properly due from such ; cf. Prov. xii. 12; Jer. vii. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 33; Col. iii, 5; Phil. iii. 2. But the πονηρός is, as Ammonius calls him, ὁ δραστικὸς κακοῦ, the active worker out of evil; the German ‘ Bésewicht,’ or as Beza (Annott. in Matt. v. 37) has drawn the distinc- tion: ‘Significat πονηρός aliquid amplius quam κακός, nempe eum qui sit in omni scelere exercitatus, et ad injuriam cuivis inferendam totus comparatus.’ He is, according to the derivation of the word, 6 παρέχων πόνους, or one that, as we say, ‘puts others to trouble ;’! and πονηρία is the ‘cupiditas nocendi’; or as Jeremy Taylor explains it: ‘aptness to do shrewd turns, to delight in mischiefs and tragedies ; a loving to trouble our neighbour and to do him ill offices; crossness, perverseness, and peevishness of action in our intercourse’ (Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, iv.1). In πονηρός the positive activity of evil comes far more decidedly out than in κακός, the word therefore being constantly opposed to χρηστός, 1 J. H. H. Schmidt is of the mind that the connexion between πόνος and πονηρός is not this, but another; that we have here an illustration of what we may call the aristocratic tendencies of language, which meet us so often and in so many tongues. What, he asks, is the feature concerning their poorer neighbours’ manner of life which must most strike the leisured few—what but this, namely that they are always at work ; they are πονηροί or laborious, for their πόνοι never cease. It is not long, however, before a word constantly applied to the poor obtains an unfavourable subaudition ; it has done so in words out of number, as in our own ‘churl,’ ‘villain,’ and so many more; the poor it is sug- gested in thought are also the bad, and the word moves into a lower sphere in agreement with the thought. 296 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §1.xxxiv or the good contemplated as the useful (Isocrates, Or. i. 6 d ; vill. 184 a; Xenophon, Mem. ii. 6. 20; Jer. xxiv. 2,3; and in the same way associated with ἄχρηστος, Demosthenes, 1271). If κακός is ‘mauvais,’ ‘méchant,’ πονηρός is ‘nuisible,’ noxious, or ‘noisome’ in our elder sense of the word. The κακός may be content to perish in his own corrup- tion, but the πονηρός is not content unless he is corrupting others as well, and drawing them into the same destruction with himself. ‘They sleep not except they have done mischief, and their sleep is taken away except they cause some to fall’ (Prov. iv. 16). We know, or we are happier still if we do not know even by report, what in French is meant by ‘dépraver les femmes.’ Thus ὄψον πονηρόν (Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Conv. 2) is an unwholesome dish: ἄσματα πονηρά (De Aud. Poét. 4), wicked songs, such as by their wantonness corrupt the minds of the young ; γυνὴ πονηρά (De Virt. et Vit. 2), a wicked wife; ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός (Mark vii. 22), a mischief-working eye. Satan is emphatically ὁ πονηρός, as the first author of all the mischief in the world (Matt. vi. 18; Ephes. vi. 16; cf. Luke vii. 21; Acts xix. 12); ravening beasts are always θηρία πονηρά in the Septuagint (Gen. xxxvii. 88 ; Isai. xxxv. 9; cf. Josephus, Antt. vii. 5. 5) ; κακὰ θηρία, indeed, occurs once in the N. T. (Tit. i. 12), but the meaning is not precisely the same, as the context suffi- ciently shows. An instructive line in Euripides (Hecuba, 596), testifies to the Greek sense of a more inborn radical evil in the man who is πονηρός than in the κακός: Ὁ μὲν πονηρὸς οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν κακός. A reference to the context will show that what Euripides means is this, namely, that a man of an evil nature (πονηρός) will always show himself base in act (κακός). But there are words in most languages, and φαῦλος is one of them, which contemplate evil under another aspect, not so much that either of active or passive malignity, but that rather of its good-for-nothingness, the impossibility of any true gain ever coming forth fromit. Thus ‘nequam’ (in δ LxxxIV SYVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 297 strictness opposed to ‘frugi’), and ‘ nequitia’ in Latin (see Ramsay on the Mostellaria of Plautus, p. 229); ‘vaurien ’ in French; ‘naughty’ and ‘naughtiness’ in English; ‘Taugenichts,’ ‘schlecht,’ ‘Schlechtigkeit’ in German ;! while on the other hand ‘Tugend’ (= ‘taugend’) is virtue contemplated as usefulness, This notion of worthlessness is the central notion of φαῦλος (by some very questionably identified with ‘faul’ ‘foul’), which in Greek runs suc- cessively through the following meanings, light, unstable, blown about by every wind (see Donaldson, Cratylus, ὃ 152 ; ‘synonymum ex levitate permutatum,’ Matthai), small, slight (‘schlecht’ and ‘schlicht’ in German are only different spellings of the same word), mediocre, of no account, worth- less, bad ; but still bad predominantly in the sense of worth- less: thus φαύλη αὐλητρίς (Plato, Symp. 215 c), a bad flute- player; φαῦλος ζωγράφος (Plutarch, De Adul. et Am. 6), a bad painter. In agreement with this, the standing antithesis to φαῦλος 15 σπουδαῖος (Plato, Legg. vi. 757 a; vii. 814 e; Philo, De Merc. Mer. 1}; the Stoics ranging all men in two classes, either in that of σπουδαῖοι or φαῦλοι, and not recog- nizing any middle ethical position; so too it stands over against χρηστός (Plutarch, De Aud. Poét. 4); καλός (De Adul. et Am. 9); ἐπιεικής (Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. iii. 5. 3); ἀστεῖος (Plutarch, De Rep. Stoic. 12); while words with which it is commonly associated are ἄχρηστος (Plato, Lysis, 204 6); εὐτελής (Legg. vil. 806 a); μοχθηρός (Gorg. 486 δ) ; ἀσθενής (Kuripides, Med. 803); ἄτοπος (Plutarch, De Aud. Poét. 12; Conj. Prac. 48); ἐλαφρός (De Adul. et Amic. 82); βλαβερός (De Aud. Poét. 14); κοινός (Prec. San. 14); ἀκρατής (Gryll. 8); ἀνόητος (De Comm. Not. 11); ἄκαιρος (Cony. Prec. 14); ἀγεννής (De Adul. et Amic. 2); ἀγοραῖος (Chariton). addos, as used in the N. T., has reached the latest stage of its mean- ing; and τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες are set in direct opposition to τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες, and condemned as such to “the resurrection of damnation’”’ (John v. 29; cf. iii. 20; Tit. ii.8; Jam. iii. ' Graff (Alt-hochdeutscher Sprachschatz, p. 138) ascribes in like manner to ‘bose’ (‘bése’) an original sense of weak, small, nothing worth. 298 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Uxxxv 16; Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. 11. 6. 18; Philo, De Abrah. 3). We have the same antithesis of φαῦλα and ἀγαθά elsewhere (Phalaris, Hp. 144; Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 8); and for a good note upon the word see Schoemann, Agis et Cleomenes, ai. 2 § Ixxxv. εἰλικρινής, καθαρός. Tue difference between these words is hard to express, even while one may instinctively feel it. They are continually found in company with one another (Plato, Phileb. 52 d; Eusebius, Prep. Evan. xv. 15. 4), and words associated with the one are in constant association with the other. Εἰλικρινής occurs only twice in the N. T. (Phil. i. 10; 2 Pet. 111. 1); once also in the Apocrypha (Wisd. vii. 25) ; εἰλικρίνεια three times (1 Cor. v. 8; 2 Cor. i. 12; ii. 17). Its. etymology, like that of ‘ sincere,’ which is its best English rendering, is doubtful, uncertainty in this matter causing also uncertainty in the breathing. Some, as Stallbaum (Plato, Phedo, 66 a, note), connect with tos, ἴλη (εἴλειν, εἰλεῖν), that which is cleansed by much rolling and shaking to and fro in the sieve; ‘volubili agitatione secretum atque adeo cribro purgatum.’ Another more familiar and more beautiful etymology, if only one could feel sufficient confidence in it, Loésner indicates: ‘dicitur de iis rebus quarum puritas ad solis splendorem exigitur,’ ὃ ἐν τῇ εἵλῃ κεκριμένος, held up to the sunlight and in that proved and approved. Certainly the uses of εἰλικρινής, so far as they afford an argument, and there is an instinct and traditionary feeling which lead to the correct use of a word, long after the secret of its derivation has been altogether lost, are very much in favour of the former etymology. It is not so much the clear, the trans- parent, as the purged, the winnowed, the unmingled ; thus see Plato, Azioch. 870, and note the words with which it habitually associates, as ἀμιγής (Plato, Menez. 245 d; Plutarch, Quest. Rom. 26) ; ἄμικτος (De Def. Or. 34 ; cf. De Isid. et Os. 61) ; ἀπαθής (De Adul. et Amic. 33) ; ἄκρατος (De Anum. Procr. 27); ἀκραιφνής (Philo, Mund. Opif. 2); ἀκέραιος (Clement of Rome, Cor. 2; compare Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 5. 14; Philo,. § LXXxXv SYWONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 299 Mund. Opif.8; Plutarch, Adv. Colot.5: De Fac. wn Orb. Lun. 16: πάσχει τὸ μιγνύμενον ᾿ ἀποβάλλει γὰρ τὸ εἰλικρινές). In like manner the Etym. Mag. ; εἰλικρινὴς σημαίνει τὸν καθαρὸν καὶ ἀμιγῆ ἑτέρου: compare an interesting discussion in Plutarch, De Εἰ ap. Delph. 20. Various passages, it is quite true, might be adduced in which the notion of clearness and transparency predominates—thus in Philo (Quis Rer. Dw. Her. 61) εἰλικρινὲς πῦρ is contrasted with the κλίβανος καπνι- Couevos—but they are much the fewer, and may very well be secondary and superinduced. The ethical use of εἰλικρινής and εἰλικρίνεια first makes itself distinctly felt in the N. T.; there are only approxima- tions to it in classical Greek ; as ae Aristotle (Ethic. Nic. x. 6. 4) speaks of some who, ἄγευστοι ὄντες ἡδονῆς εἰλικρινοῦς καὶ ἐλευθερίου, ἐπὶ τὰς σωματικὰς καταφεύγουσιν. Theophylact defines εἰλικρίνεια Well as καθαριότης διανοίας καὶ ἀδολότης οὐδὲν ἔχουσαι συνεσκιασμένον καὶ ὕπουλον : and Basil the Great (i Reg. Brev. Int.) : εἰλικρινὲς εἶναι λογίζομαι τὸ ἀμιγές, καὶ ἄκρως κεκαθαρμένον ἀπὸ παντὸς ἐναντίου. It is true to this its central meaning as often as it is employed in the N. T. The Corinthians must purge out the old leaven, that they may keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity (εἰλικρινείας) and truth (1 Cor. v.8). St. Paul rejoices that in simplicity and in that sincerity which comes of God (év εἰλικρινείᾳ Θεοῦ), ποῦ in fleshly wisdom, he has his conversation in the world (2 Cor. i. 12) ; declares that he is not of those who tamper with and adulterate (καπηλεύοντες) the word of God, but that as of sz- cerity (ἐξ εἰλικρινείας) he speaks in Christ (2 Cor. 11. 17). Καθαρός, connected with the Latin ‘castus,’ with the German ‘heiter,’ in its earliest use (Homer does not know it in any other, Od. vi. 61; xvii. 48), is clean, and this in a physical or non-ethical sense, as opposed to ῥυπαρός. Thus καθαρὸν σῶμα (Xenophon, Cicon. x. 7) is the body not smeared with paint or ointment ; and in this sense it is often employed in the N. T. (Matt. xxvii. 59; Heb. x. 22; Rev. xv. ᾿ς 6). In another merely physical sense καθαρός is applied to that which is clear and transparent; thus we have καθαρός 300 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § txxxv and διαυγής (Plutarch, De Gen. Socr. 22). But already in Pindar (Pyth. v. 3, καθαρὰ ἀρετή), in Plato (Rep. vi. 496 ἃ, καθαρὸς ἀδικίας Te καὶ ἀνοσίων ἔργων), and in the tragic poets it had obtained an ethical meaning. The same is not un- common in the Septuagint, where it often designates clean- ness of heart (Job viii. 6; xxxiii.9; Ps. xxiii. 4), although far oftener a cleanness merely external or ceremonial (Gen. viii. 20; Lev. xiv. 7). That it frequently runs into the domain of meaning just claimed for εἰλικρινής must be freely admitted. It also is found associated with ἀληθινός (Job viii. 6); with ἀμιγής (Philo, Mund. Opzif. 8); with ἄκρατος (Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 7. 20; Plutarch, Aimil. Paul. 34) ; with dypavros (De Is. et Osir. 79); with ἀκήρατος (Plato, Crat. 396 δ); καθαρὸς σῖτος is wheat with the chaff winnowed away (Xenophon, Cicon. xviii. 8. 9); καθαρὸς στρατός, an army rid of its sick and ineffective (Herodotus, i. 211; ef. iv. 185), or, as the same phrase is used in Thucydides (v. 8), an army made up of the best materials, not lowered by an ad- mixture of mercenaries or cowards; the flower of the army, all ἄνδρες ἀχρεῖοι having been set aside (Appian, vili. 117). In the main, however, καθαρός is the pure contemplated under the aspect of the clean, the free from soil or stain; thus θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος (Jam. 1. 27), and compare the constant use of the phrases καθαρὸς φόνου, καθαρὸς ἀδικίας (Plato, Rep. vi. 496 d; Acts xviii. 6), and the like; and the standing antithesis in which the καθαρόν stands to the κοινόν, contemplated as also the ἀκάθαρτον (Heb. ix. 18; Rom. xiv. 14, 20). | It may then be affirmed in conclusion, that as the Christian is εἰλικρινής, this grace in him will exclude all double-mindednegs, the divided heart (Jam. i. 8; iv. 8), the eye not single (Matt. vi. 22), all hypocrisies (1 Pet. ii. 1) ; while, as he is καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, by this are excluded the μιάσματα (2 Pet. 11. 20; cf. Tit. 1.15), the μολυσμός (2 Cor. vii. 1), the ῥυπαρία (Jam. 1. 21; 1 Pet. 111. 21; Rev. xxii. 11) of sin. In the first is predicated his freedom from the false- - hoods, in the second from the.defilements, of the flesh and of SS ca a a rt RS § Lxxxvi SYMONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 301 the world. If freedom from foreign admixture belongs to both, yet is it a more primary notion in εἰλικρινής, being pro- bably wrapt up in the etymology of the word, a more secondary and superinduced notion in καθαρός. § Ixxxvi. πόλεμος, μάχη. Πόλεμος and μάχη occur often together (Homer, 10. 1. 177; y. 891; Plato, Tim. 19 6; Job xxxviii. 23; Jam. iv. 1); and in like manner πολεμεῖν and μάχεσθαι. There is the same difference between them as between our own ‘war’ and ‘battle’ ; 6 πόλεμος Πελοποννησιακός, the Peloponnesian War ; ἡ ἐν Μαραθῶνι μάχη, the battle of Marathon. Dealing with the words in this antithesis, namely that πόλεμος embraces the whole course of hostilities, μάχη the actual shock in arms of hostile armies, Pericles, dissuading the Athenians from yielding to the demands of the Spartans, admits that these with their allies were a match for all the other Greeks together in a single battle, but denies that they would retain the same superiority in a war, that is, against such as had their preparations of another kind (μάχῃ μὲν γὰρ μιᾷ πρὸς ἅπαντας Ἕλληνας δυνατοὶ Πελοποννήσιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἀντισχεῖν, πολεμεῖν δὲ μὴ πρὸς ὁμοίαν ἀντιπαρασκευὴν ἀδύνατοι, Thucydides, i. 141). We may compare Tacitus, Germ. 80 : ‘Alios ad prelium ire videas, Chattos ad bellum.’ But besides this, while πόλεμος and πολεμεῖν remain true to their primary meaning, and are not transferred to any secondary, it is altogether otherwise with μάχη and μάχεσθαι. Contentions which fall very short of the shock of arms are continually designated by these words. There are μάχαι of every kind: ἐρωτικαί (Xenophon, Hiero, i. 35); νομικαί (Tit. iii. 9; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 23) ; λογομαχίαι (1 Tim. vi. 4) ; σκιαμαχίαι : and compare John vi. 52; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Prov. xxvi. 20, 21. Eustathius (on Homer, Jl. i. 177) expresses these differences well: τὸ πόλεμοί τε μάχαι τε, ἢ ἐκ παραλλήλου δηλοῖ τὸ αὐτό, ἢ καὶ διαφορά τις ἔστι ταῖς λέξεσιν, εἴγε μάχεται μέν τις καὶ λόγοις, ὡς καὶ ἡ λογομαχία δηλοῖ. καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ποιητὴς μετ᾽ λίγα 302 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxxxvu φησί, μαχεσσαμένω ἐπέεσσι (ver. 304). Kai ἄλλως δὲ μάχη μέν, αὐτὴ ἡ τῶν ἀνδρῶν συνεισβολή 6 δὲ πόλεμος καὶ ἐπὶ παρατάξεων καὶ μαχίμου καιροῦ λέγεται. Tittmann (De Synon. in Ν. T. p. 66) : ‘Conveniunt igitur in eo quod dimicationem, conten- tionem, pugnam denotant, sed πόλεμος et πολεμεῖν de pugna que manibus fit proprie dicuntur, μάχη autem et μάχεσθαι de qudcunque contentione, etiam animorum, etiamsi non ad verbera et ceedes pervenerit. In illis igitur ipsa pugna cogi- tatur, in his sufficit cogitare de contentione, quam pugna plerumque sequitur.’ I may observe before quitting this subject that στάσις (Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii. 19; Acts xxiv. 5; cf. Sophocles, Gidip. Col. 1228), insurrection or sedition, is by Plato dis- tinguished from πόλεμος, in that the one is a civil and the other a foreign strife (Rep. v. 470 δ); ἐπὶ yap τῇ τοῦ οἰκείου ἐχθρᾷ στάσις κέκληται, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων πόλεμος. § Ixxxvil. πάθος, ἐπιθυμία, ὁρμή, ὄρεξις. Πάθος occurs three times in the N. T.; once coordinated with ἐπιθυμία (Col. 111. 5; for παθήματα and ἐπιθυμίαι in like manner joined together see Gal. v. 24) ; once subordinated to it (πάθος ἐπιθυμίας, 1 Thess. iv. 5); while on the other occasion of its use (Rom. i. 26), the πάθη ἀτιμίας (“ vile affections,” A. V.) are lusts that dishonour those who indulge in them. The word belongs to the terminology of the Greek Schools. Thus Cicero (Tusc. Quest. iv. 5): ‘Que Greci πάθη vocant, nobis perturbationes appellari magis placet quam morbos ;’ on this preference see iii. 10; and presently after he adopts Zeno’s definition, ‘aversa a recté ratione, contra naturam, animi commotio ;’ and elsewhere (Offic. ii. 5), ‘motus animi tur- batus.’ The exact definition of Zeno, as given by Diogenes Laértius, is as follows (vii. 1. 68): ἔστι δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πάθος ἡ ἄλογος καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ψυχῆς κίνησις, ἢ ὁρμὴ πλεονάζουσα. Clement of Alexandria has this in his mind when, distinguishing be- tween ὁρμή and πάθος, he writes (Strom. li. 18): ὁρμὴ μὲν οὖν φορὰ διανοίας ἐπί τι ἢ ἀπό του πάθος δέ, πλεονάζουσα ὁρμὴ, ἡ §Lxxxvul SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 303 ὑπερτείνουσα τὰ κατὰ τὸν λόγον μέτρα - ἢ ὁρμὴ ἐκφερομένη, καὶ ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ (see Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, iii. 1. 208). So far as the N. T. is concerned, πάθος nowhere obtains that wide sense which it thus obtained in the Schools; a sense so much wider than that ascribed to ἐπιθυμία, that this last was only regarded as one of the several πάθη of our nature, being coordinated with ὀργή, φόβος, and the rest (Aristotle, Hth. Nic. ii. 5,2; Diogenes Laértius, vii. 1. 67). ᾿Επιθυμία, on the contrary, in Scripture is the larger word, including the whole world of active lusts and desires, all to which the σάρξ, as the seat of desire and of the natural appetites, impels; while the πάθος is rather the ‘morosa delectatio,’ not so much the soul’s disease in its more active operations, as the diseased condition out of which these spring, the ‘morbus libidinis,’ as Bengel has put it well, rather than the ‘libido,’ the ‘lustfulness’ (‘ Leidenschaft’) as distinguished from the ‘Lust.’ Theophylact: πάθος ἡ λύσσα τοῦ σώματος, καὶ ὥσπερ πυρετός, ἢ τραῦμα, ἢ ἀλλὴ νόσος. Godet (on Rom. i. 26): ‘Le terme πάθη, passions, a quelque chose de plus ignoble encore que celui de ἐπιθυμίαι, convoitises, au ver. 24; car il renferme une notion plus prononcée de passivité morale, de honteux esclavage.’ ᾿Ἐπιθυμία, being τοῦ ἡδέος ὄρεξις, as Aristotle (Rhet. i. 11); ἄλογος ὄρεξις, as the Stoics, ‘immoderata appetitio opinati magni boni, rationi non obtemperans,’ as Cicero (Tusc. Quest. 111. 11) defined it, is rendered for the most part in our Translation ‘lust’ (Mark iv. 19, and often); but sometimes ‘concupiscence’ (Rom. vii. 8; Col. iii. 5), and sometimes ‘desire’ (Luke xxii. 15; Phil. i. 23). It appears now and then, though rarely, in the N. T. in a good sense (Luke xxii. 15; Phil. i. 28; 1 Thess. ii. 17; ef. Prov. x. 24: Ps. cii, 5) ; much oftener in a bad; not as ‘concupiscentia’ merely, but as ‘ prava concupiscentia,’ which Origen (i Joan. tom. x.) affirms to be the only sense which in the Greek Schools it knew (but see Aristotle, Rhet. i. 11); thus ἐπιθυμία κακή (Col. lil. 5); ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαί (1 Pet. 11. 11); νεωτερικαί (2 Tim. 11, 22); ἀνοήτοι καὶ βλαβεραί (1 Tim. vi. 9); κοσμικαί (Tit. ii. 304 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § LXXxVviI 12); φθορᾶς (2 Pet. 1. 4); μιασμοῦ (2 Pet. 11. 10); ἀνθρώπων (1 Pet. iv. 2); τοῦ σώματος (Rom. vi. 12) ; τοῦ διαβόλου (John Vili. 44): τῆς ἀπάτης (Ερ65. iv. 22) ; THS σαρκός (1 John ii. 16) ; τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν (ibid.) ; and without a qualifying epithet (Rom. vii. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Jude 16; cf. Gen. xlix. 6; Ps. cv. 14). It is then, as Vitringa, in a dissertation De Con- cupiscentid Vitioséd et Damnabili (Obss. Sac. p. 598 sqq.}, defines it, ‘ vitiosa illa voluntatis affectio, qua fertur ad appe- tendum que illicite usurpantur; aut que licite usurpantur, appetit ἀτάκτως ᾽ ; this same evil sense being ascribed to it in such definitions as that of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 20): ἔφεσις καὶ ὄρεξις ἄλογος τοῦ κεχαρισμένου αὐτῇ. Com- pare iv. 18: ὄρεξιν οὖν ἐπιθυμίας διακρίνουσιν οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοί" καὶ τὴν μέν, ἐπὶ ἡδοναῖς καὶ ἀκολασίᾳ τάττουσιν, ἄλογον οὖσαν" τὴν δὲ ὄρεξιν, ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἀναγκαίων, λογικὴν ὑπάρχουσαν κίνησιν. In these δεινοί he of course mainly points to Aristotle (thus see Rhet. i. 10). Our English word ‘lust,’ once harmless enough (thus see Deut. vii. 7, Coverdale’s Version, and my Select Glossary, s.v.), has had very much the same history. The relation in which ἐπιθυμία stands to πάθος it has been already sought to trace. ὋὉρμή, occurring twice in the N. T. (Acts xiv. 5; Jam. iii. 4), and ὄρεξις, occurring once (Rom. i. 27), are elsewhere often found together; thus in Plutarch (De Amor. Prol. 1; De Rect. Rat. Aud. 18; where see Wyttenbach’s note) ; and by Eusebius (Prep. Evang. xiv. 765 d). ὋὉρμή, rendered by Cicero on one occasion ‘appetitio’ (Off. ii. 5), ‘appetitus animi’ on another (fm. v. 7), is thus defined by the Stoics (Plutarch, De Repugn. Stoic. 11): ἡ ὁρμὴ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγος ἐστὶ προστακτικὸς αὐτῷ Tov ποιεῖν. They explain it further as this ‘motus animi,’ φορὰ ψυχῆς ἐπί τι (See Geller, Philos. d. Griechen, ili. 1. 206), which, if toward a thing, is ὄρεξις, if from it ἔκκλισις. When our Translators render ὁρμή ‘ assault’ (Acts xiv. 5), they ascribe to it more than it there implies. Manifestly there was no ‘assault’ actually made on the house where Paul and Barnabas abode; for in such a case it would have been very superfluous for St. Luke to tell us that §Lxxxvil SYMVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 305 they “were ware’ of it ; but only a purpose and intention of assault or onset, ‘Trieb,’ ‘Drang,’ as Meyer gives it. And in the same way at Jam. iii. 4, the ὁρμή of the pilot is not the ‘impetus brachiorum,’ but the ‘ studium et conatus voluntatis.’ Compare for this use of ὁρμή, Sophocles, Philoct. 237; Plutarch, De Rect. Rat. Aud. 1; Prov. iii. 25 ; and the many passages in which ὅρμή is joined with προαίρεσις (Josephus, Antt. xix. 6. 8). But while the ὁρμή is thus oftentimes the hostile motion and spring toward an object, with a purpose of propelling and repelling it still further from itself, as for example the ὁρμή of the spear, of the assaulting host, the ὄρεξις (from ὀρέγεσθαι) is always the reaching out after and toward an object, with a purpose of drawing that after which it reaches to itself, and making it itsown. Very commonly the word is used to express the appetite for food (Plutarch, De Frat. Am. 2; Synvp. vi. 2.1); so too ‘orexis’ in the Latin of the silver age (Juvenal, Sat. vi. 427; xi. 127); in the Platonic Definitions (414 6) philosophy is described as τῆς τῶν ὄντων ἀεὶ ἐπιστήμης ὄρεξις. After what vile enjoyments the heathen, as judged by St. Paul, are regarded as reaching out, and seeking to make these their own, is sufficiently manifest from the context of the one passage in the N.T. where ὄρεξις occurs (Rom. i. 27; ef. Plutarch, Quest. Nat. 21). δ Ixxxvill. ἱερός, ὅσιος, ἅγιος, ἁγνός. Ἵερός, probably the same word as the German ‘hehr’ (see Curtius, Grundziige, vol. v. p. 869), never in the N. T., and very seldom elsewhere, implies any moral excellence. It is singular how seldom the word is found there, indeed only twice (1 Cor. ix. 18 ; 2 Tim. 111. 15); and only once in the Septuagint (Josh. vi. 8: ἱεραὶ σάλπιγγες) ; four times in 2 Maccabees, but not else in the Apocrypha; being in none of these instances employed of persons, who only are moral agents, but always of things. To persons the word elsewhere also is of rarest application, though examples are not x ! 306 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § LXxxvill wanting. Thus ἱερὸς ἄνθρωπος is in Aristophanes (Rane, 652) a man initiated in the mysteries ; kings for Pindar (Pyth. v. 97 [Diss., 181 Heyn.]) are ἱεροί, as having their dignity from the gods; for Plutarch the Indian gymnosophists are ἄνδρες ἱεροὶ καὶ αὐτόνομοι (De Alex. Fort. i. 10); and again (De Gen. Socr. 20), ἱεροὶ καὶ δαιμόνιοι ἄνθρωποι: and compare De Def. Orac. 2. ‘lepds (τῷ θεῷ ἀνατεθειμένος, Suidas) answers very closely to the Latin ‘sacer’ (‘ quidquid destinatum est diis sacrum vocatur ’), to our ‘sacred.’ It is that which may not be violated, the word therefore being constantly linked with ἀβέβηλος (Plutarch, Quest. Rom. 27), with ἄβατος (Ibzd.), with ἄσυλος (De Gen. Socr. 24); this its inviolable character springing from its relations, nearer or remoter, to God; and θεῖος and ἱερός being often joined together (Plato, Tim. 45 a). At the same time the relation is contemplated merely as an external one; thus Pillon (Syn. Grecs): “ ἅγιος exprime Vidée de sainteté naturelle et intérieure ou morale; tandis ᾿ qu’ ἱερός, comme le latin sacer, n’exprime que l’idée de sainteté extérieure ou d’inviolabilité consacrée par les lois ou la coutume.’ See, however, Sophocles, Gidip. Col. 287, which appears an exception to the absolute universality of this rule. Tittmann : ‘In voce ἱερός proprie nihil aliud cogitatur, quam quod res quedam aut persona Deo sacra sit, nulla ingenii morumque ratione habita; imprimis quod sacris inservit.’ Thus the t ἱερεύς is a sacred person, as serving at God’s altar ; but it is not in the least implied that he is a holy one as well ; he may be a Hophni, a Caiaphas, an Alexander Borgia (Grinfield, Schol. in N. T., p. 397). The true antithesis to ἱερός is βέβηλος (Plutarch, Quest. Ron. 27), and, though not so perfectly antithetic, μιαρός (2 Mace. v. 16). Ὅσιος is oftener grouped with δίκαιος for purposes of dis- crimination, than with the words here associated with it; and undoubtedly the two constantly keep company together ; thus in Plato often (Theat. 176 ὃ; Rep. x. 615 b; Legg. ii. 663 δ); in Josephus (Anitt. viii. 9. 1), and in the N. T. (Tit. i. 8); and so also the derivatives from these; ὁσίως and δικαίως (1 Thess. ii. 10); ὁσιότης and δικαιοσύνη (Plato, §Lxxxvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 307 Prot. 329 c; Luke i. 75; Ephes. iv. 24; Wisd. ix. 3; Clement of Rome, Cor. 48). The distinction too has been often urged that the ὅσιος is one careful of his duties toward God, the δίκαιος toward men ; and in classical Greek no doubt we meet with many passages in which such a distinction is either openly asserted or implicitly involved: as in an often quoted passage from Plato (Gorg. 507 δ) : καὶ μὴν περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τὰ προσήκοντα πράττων, δίκαι᾽ ἂν πράττοι, περὶ δὲ θεοὺς ὅσια." Of Socrates, Marcus Antoninus says (vii. 66), that he was δίκαιος τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους, ὅσιος τὰ πρὸς θεούς : οἵ, Plutarch, Demet. 24; Charito, i. 10. 4; and a large collection of passages in Rost and Palm’s Lezicon, s.v. There is nothing, however, which warrants the transfer of this distinction to the N. T., nothing which would restrict δίκαιος to him who should fulfil accurately the precepts of the second table (thus see Luke i. 6; Rom. i. 17; 1 John ii. 1); or ὅσιος to him who should fulfil the demands of the first (thus see Acts li. 27; Heb. vii. 26). It is beforehand unlikely that such distinction should there find place. In fact the Scripture, which recognizes all righteousness as one, as growing out of a single root, and obedient to a single law, gives no room for such an antithesis as this. He who loves his brother, and fulfils his duties towards him, loves him in God and for God. The second great commandment is not coordinated with the first greatest, but subordinated to, and in fact included in, it (Mark xii. 30, 31). If ἱερός is ‘sacer,’ ὅσιος is ‘sanctus’ (=‘ sancitus’), ‘quod sanctione antiquid et precepto firmatum’ (cf. Augustine, De Frid. et Symb. 19), as opposed to ‘ pollutus.’ Some of the ancient grammarians derive it from decba, the Homeric synonym for σέβεσθαι, rightly as regards sense, but wrongly ' Not altogether so in the Huthyphro, where Plato regards τὸ δίκαιον, or δικαιοσύνη, as the sum total of all virtue, of which ὁσιότης or piety is a part. In this Dialogue, which is throughout a discussion on the ὅσιον, Plato makes Euthyphro to say (12 6): τοῦτο τοίνυν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, ὦ Σώ- κρατες, τὸ μέρος τοῦ δικαίου εἶναι εὐσεβές τε καὶ ὅσιον, τὸ περὶ τὴν τῶν θεῶν θεραπείαν" τὸ δὲ περὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ λοιπὸν εἶναι τοῦ δικαίου μέρος. Socrates admits and allows this; indeed, has himself forced him to it. > 308 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §LXxxvill as regards etymology; the derivation indeed of the word remains very doubtful (see Pott, Htym. Forschung. vol. 1. p. 126). In classical Greek it is far more frequently used of things than of persons ; ὁσία, with βουλή or δίκη understood, expressing the everlasting ordinances of right, which no law or custom of men has constituted, for they are anterior to all law and custom ; and rest on the divine constitution of the moral universe and man’s relation to this, on that eternal law which, in the noble words of Chrysippus, is πάντων βασιλεὺς θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων : οὗ. Euripides, Hecuba, 799-801. Thus Homer (Odyss. xvi. 428): οὐδ᾽ Soin κακὰ ῥάπτειν ἀλλήλοισιν. The ὅσιος, the German ‘ fromm,’ is one who reverences these everlasting sanctities, and owns their obligation ; the word being joined with εὐσεβής (2 Mace. xii. 45), with edopxos (Plato, Rep. ii. 868 d), with θεῖος (Plutarch, De Def. Orac. 40) ; more than once set over against ἐπίορκος (Xenophon, Anab. ii. 6. 25). Those things are ἀνοσία, which violate these everlasting ordinances; for instance, a Greek regarded the Egyptian custom of marriage between a brother and sister, still more the Persian between a mother and son, as ‘ incestum ’ (incastum), μηδαμῶς ὅσια as Plato (Legg. viii. 888 δὴ) calls them, mixtures which no human laws could ever render other than abominable. Such, too, would be the omission of the rites of sepulture by those from whom they were due, when it was possible to pay them ; if Antigone, for instance, in obedience to the edict of Creon, had suffered the body of her brother to remain unburied (Sophocles, Antig. 74). What the ὅσιον is, and what are its obligations, has never been more nobly declared than in the words which the poet puts into her mouth : οὐδὲ σθένειν τοσοῦτον φόμην τὰ σὰ κηρύγμαθ᾽, ὥστ᾽ ἄγραπτα κἀσφαλῇ θεῶν νόμιμα δύνασθαι θνητὸν ὄνθ᾽ ὑπερδραμεῖν (453-5). Compare an instructive passage in Thucydides, ii. 52, where ἱερά and ὅσια occur together, Plato in like manner (Legg. ix. 878 b) joining them with one another. This character of the §Lxxxvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 39 ὅσιον as anterior and superior to all human enactments, puts the same antithesis between ὅσια and νόμιμα as exists between the Latin ‘fas’ and ‘jus.’ When we follow ὅσιος to its uses in sacred Greek, we find it, as was inevitable, gaining in depth and intensity of meaning ; but otherwise true to the sense which it already had in the classical language. We have a striking testimony for the distinction which, in the minds of the Septuagint translators at least, existed between it and ἅγιος, in the very noticeable fact, that while ὅσιος is used some thirty times as the rendering cf tpn (Deut. xxxili. 8; 2 Sam. xxii. 26; Ps. iv. 4), and ἅγιος nearly a hundred times as that of wip (Exod. xix. 6; Num. vi. 5; Ps. xv. 3), in no single instance is ὅσιος used for this, or ἅγιος for that; and the same law holds good, I believe, universally in the conjugates of these ; and, which is perhaps more remarkable still, of the other Greek words which are rarely and exceptionally employed to render these two, none which is used for the one is ever used for the other; thus καθαρός, used for the second of these Hebrew words (Num. v. 17), is never employed for the first ; while, on the other hand, ἐλεήμων (Jer. 111. 12), πολυέλεος (Exod. xxxiv. 6), εὐλαβής (Mic. vii. 2), used for the former, are in no single instance employed for the latter. "Ayvos = WIP (on the etymology of which word see the article in Herzog’s Leal-Hncyclopddie, Heiligkeit Gottes) and ἅγνός have been often considered different forms of one and the same word. At all events, they have in common that root “AI, reappearing as the Latin ‘sac’ in ‘sacer,’ ‘sancio, and many other words. It will thus be only natural that they should have much in common, even while they separate off, and occupy provinces of meaning which are clearly distinguishable one from the other. ἽὝΑγιος is a word of rarest use in Attic Greek, though Porson is certainly in error when he says (on Kuripides, Med. 750; and compare Pott, Htymol. Forsch. vol. iii. p. 577) that it is never used by the tragic poets; for see Aischylus, Suppl. 851. Its fundamental idea is separation, and, so to speak, consecration 310 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § LXxxvul and devotion to the service of Deity; thus ἱερὸν μάλα ἅγιον, a very holy temple (Xenophon, Hell. iii. 2. 19) ; it ever lying in the word, as in the Latin ‘sacer,’ that this consecration may be as ἀνάθημα or ἀνάθεμα (see back, page 15). Note in this point of view its connéxion with ἁγής, dyos: which last it may be well to observe is recognized now not as another form of ἄγος, and as being indeed no more than the Ionic form of the same word, but fundamentally distinct (Curtius, Grundztige, p. 155 sqq.). But the thought lies very near, ἢ that what is set apart from the world and to God, should separate itself from the world’s defilements, and should share in God’s purity; and in this way ἅγιος speedily acquires a moral significance. The children of Israel must be an ἔθνος ἅγιον, not merely in the sense of being God’s inheritance, a λαὺς περιούσιος, but as separating themselves from the abominations of the heathen nations round (Lev. xix. 2; xi. 44); while God Himself, as the absolutely separate from evil, as repelling from Himself every possibility of sin or defilement, and as warring against these in every one of his creatures,! obtains this title of ἅγιος by highest right of all (Lev. x. 3; 1 Sam. ii. 2; Rev. iii. 7; iv. 8). It is somewhat different with ἅγνός. ‘“Ayveta (1 Tim. iv. 12; v. 2) in the Definitions which go by Plato’s name too vaguely and too superficially explained (414 a) εὐλάβεια τῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἁμαρτημάτων * τῆς θεοῦ τιμῆς κατὰ φύσιν θεραπεία : too vaguely also by Clement of Alexandria as τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀποχή, or again as φρονεῖν ὅσια (Strom. v. 1);° 15. better defined as ἐπίτασις σωφροσύνης by Suidas (it is twice joined 1 When Quenstedt defines the holiness of God as ‘summa omnis labis expers in Deo puritas,’ this, true as far as it goes, is not exhaustive. One side of this holiness, namely, its intolerance of unholiness and active war against it, is not brought out. 2 In the vestibule of the temple of sculapius at Epidaurus were inscribed these lines, which rank among the noblest utterances of the - ancient world. They are quoted by Theophrastus in a surviving frag- ment of his work, Περὶ EioeBeias : ἁγνὸν χρὴ ναιοῖο θυώδεος ἐντὸς ἰόντα ἔμμεναι - ἁγνείη δ᾽ ἔστι φρονεῖν ὅσια. §Lxxxvul SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 311 with σωφροσύνη in the Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, Cor. 64; Ignatius, Hphes. 20), as ἐλευθερία παντὸς μολυσμοῦ σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος by Phavorinus. ᾿Αγνός (joined with ἀμίαντος, Clement of Rome, Cor. 29) is the pure ;. sometimes only the externally or ceremonially pure, as in this line of Euripides, ἁγνὸς γάρ εἰμι χεῖρας, ἀλλ᾽ ov τὰς φρένας (Orestes, 1604; cf. Hippolytus, 316, 817, and ἁγνίζειν as = ‘ expiare,’ Sophocles, Ajax, 640). This last word never rises higher in the Septuagint than to signify a ceremonial purification (Josh. iii. 5; 2 Chron. xxix. 5; cf. 2 Mace. i. 33); neither does it rise higher in four out of the seven occasions on which it occurs in the N. T. (John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24, 26; xxiv. 16, which is also true of ἁγνισμός, Acts xxi. 26). ‘Ayvos however signifies often the pure in the highest sense. It is an epithet frequently applied to heathen gods and goddesses, to Ceres, to Proserpine, to Jove (Sophocles, Philoct. 1273); to the Muses (Aristophanes, Rane, 875; Pindar, Olymp. vii. 60 ‘[Diss., 109 Heyn.], and Dissen’s note); to the Sea-nymphs (Kuripides (Iphig. ὧν Aul. 982); above all in Homer to Artemis, the virgin goddess, and in Holy Seripture to God Himself (1 John iii. 8). For this nobler use of ἁγνός in the Septuagint, where, however, it is excessively rare as compared to ἅγιος, see Ps. xi. 7; Prov. xx. 9. As there are no impurities like those fleshly, which defile the body and the spirit alike (1 Cor. vi. 18, 19), so ἅγνός is an epithet pre- dominantly employed to express freedom from these (Plu- tarch, Prec. Con). 44; Quest. Rom. 20; Tit. 11. 5; ef. Herzog, Real-Encyclop. s. v. Keuschheit); while sometimes in a still more restricted sense it expresses, not chastity merely, but virginity ; as in the oath taken by the priestesses of Bacchus (Demosthenes, Adv. Ne@ram, 1871) : εἰμὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ἁγνὴ ἀπ’ ἀνδρὸς συνουσίας : with which compare ἀκήρατος γάμων τε ἁγνός (Plato, Legg. viii. 840 6; and Euripides, Hippolytus, 1016); ἁγνεία too sometimes owns a similar limitation (Ignatius, ad Polyc. 5). If what has been said is correct, Joseph, when tempted’ to sin by his Egyptian mistress (Gen. xxxix. 7-12), approved 312 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ LXxxix himself ὅσιος, in reverencing those everlasting sanctities of the marriage bond, which God had founded, and which man could not violate without sinning against Him: ‘“ How can 1 do this great wickedness and sin against God ?”’ he approved himself ἅγιος in that he separated himself from any unholy fellowship with his temptress ; he approved himself ἁγνός in that he kept his body pure and undefiled. § Ixxxix. φωνή, λόγος. On these words, and on their relation to one another, very much has been written by the Greek grammarians and natural philosophers (see Lersch, Sprachphilosophie der Alten, vol. iii. pp. 85, 45, and passim). Φωνή, from φάω, ds φωτίζουσα τὸ νοούμενον (Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. 19), rendered in our Version ‘ voice’ (Matt. ii. 18), ‘sound’ (John iii. 8), ‘noise’ (Rev. vi. 1), is distinguished from ψόφος, in that it is the cry of a living creature (ἡ δὲ φωνὴ ψόφος τίς ἐστιν ἐμψύχου, Aristotle, De Anima, 2. 8. 14), being sometimes ascribed to God (Matt. ui. 17), to men (Matt. iii. 3), to animals (Rev. ix. 9), and, though improperly, to inanimate objects as well (1 Cor. xiv. 7), as to the trumpet (Matt. xxiv. 31), to the wind (John iii. 8), to the thunder (Rev. vi. 1; οἵ. Ps. lxxvi. 19). But λόγος, a word, saying, or rational utterance of the νοῦς, whether spoken (προφορικός, and thus φωνὴ τῶν λόγων, Dan. vii. 11) or unspoken (ἐνδιάθετος), being, as it is, the correlative of reason, can only be predicated of men (λόγου κοινωνεῖ μόνον ἄνθρωπος, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα φωνῆς, Aris- totle, Probl. ii. 55), of angels, or of God. The φωνή may be a mere inarticulate cry, and this whether proceeding from man or from any other animal; and therefore the definition of the Stoics (Diogenes Laértius, vii. 1. 38. 55) will not stand : ζώου μέν ἐστι φωνὴ ἀὴρ ὑπὸ ὁρμῆς πεπληγμένος, ἀνθρώπου δέ ἐστιν ἔναρθρος καὶ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐκπεμπομένη. They transfer ‘here to the φωνή what can only be constantly affirmed of the λόγος ; indeed, whenever it sought to set the two in sharp antithesis with one another, this, that the φωνή is a πνεῦμα §LXxxIxX SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 313 ἀδιάρθρωτον, is the point particularly made. It is other- wise with the λόγος, of which the Stoics themselves say, λόγος δέ ἐστι φωνὴ σημαντική, ἀπὸ διανοίας ἐκπεμπομένη (ibid.), as of the λέγειν that is τὸ τήν νοουμένου πράγματος σημαντικὴν προφέρεσθαι φωνήν. Compare Plutarch (De Anim. Proc. 7) : φωνή tis ἐστιν ἄλογος Kat ἀσήμαντος, λόγος δὲ λέξις ἐν φωνῇ σημαντικῇ διανοίας. His treatise De Genio Socratis has much on the relations of φωνή and λόγος to one another, and on the superior functions of the latter. By such an unuttered ‘ word ’ he affirms the Demon of Socrates to have intimated his presence (c. 20): τὸ δὲ προσπίπτον, οὐ poyyov, ἀλλὰ λόγον ἄν τις εἰκάσειε δαίμονος, ἄνευ φωνῆς ἐφαπτόμενον αὐτῷ τῷ δηλουμένῳ τοῦ νοοῦντος. Πληγῇ γὰρ ἡ φωνὴ προσέοικε τῆς ψυχῆς, δι’ ὥτων βίᾳ τὸν λόγον εἰσδεχομένης, ὅταν ἀλλήλοις ἐντυγχάνωμεν. ‘O δὲ τοῦ κρείττονος νοῦς ἄγει τὴν εὐφυᾶ ψυχήν, ἐπιθιγγάνων τῷ νοηθέντι, πληγῆς μὴ δεομένην. The whole chapter is one of deepest theological interest ; the more so seeing that the great theologians of the early Church, above all Origen in the Greek (in Joan. tom. 1]. § 26), and Augustine in the Latin, loved to transfer this antithesis of the φωνή and the λόγος to John the Baptist and his Lord, the first claiming for himself no more than to be ‘‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness”’ (John i. 28), the other emphatically declared to be the Word which was with God, and was God (John i. 1). In drawing out the relations between John and his Lord as expressed by these titles, the Voice and the Word, ‘ Vox’ and ‘ Verbum,’ φωνή and λόγος, Augustine traces with a singular subtlety the manifold and profound fitnesses which lie in them for the setting forth of those relations. A word, he observes, is something even without a voice, for a word in the heart is as truly a word as after it is outspoken ; while a voice is nothing, a mere un- meaning sound, an empty cry, unless it be also the vehicle of a word. But when they are thus united, the voice in a 1 On the distinction between λόγος and λέξις, which last does not occur in the N. T., see Petavius, De Trin. vi.i. 6; and Lersch, Sprach- philosophie der Alten, vol. iii. p. 45. 314 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT καὶ ἸΧΧΧΙΧ manner goes before the word, for the word strikes the ear ΄ before the sense is conveyed to the mind; yet while it thus goes before it in this act of communication, it as not really before it, but the contrary. Thus, when we speak, the word in our hearts must precede the voice on our lips, which voice is yet the vehicle by which the word in us is transferred to, and becomes also a word in, another; but this being accom- plished, or rather in the very accomplishment of this, the voice has passed away, exists no more; but the word which is planted now in the other’s heart, no less than in our own, abides. All this Augustine transfers to the Lord and to his forerunner. John is nothing without Jesus: Jesus just what before He was without John: however to men the knowledge of Him may have come through John. John the first in time, and yet He who came after, most truly having been before, him. John, so soon as he had accomplished his mission, passing away, having no continual significance for the Church of God; but Jesus, of whom he had told, and to whom he had witnessed, abiding for ever (Sem. 298. ὃ 8): ‘Johannes vox ad tempus, Christus Verbum in principio sternum. ‘Tolle verbum, quid est vox? Ubi nullus est in- tellectus, inanis est strepitus. Vox sine verbo aurem pulsat, cor non edificat. Verumtamen in ipso corde nostro edifi- cando advertamus ordinem rerum. Sicogito quid dicam, jam verbum est in corde meo: sed loqui ad te volens, quero quem- admodum sit etiam in corde tuo, quod jam est in meo. Hoe querens quomodo ad te perveniat, et in corde tuo insideat verbum quod jam est in corde meo, assumo vocem, et assumta voce loquor tibi: sonus vocis ducit ad te intellectum verbi, et cum ad te duxit gonus vocis intellectum verbi, sonus quidem ipse pertransit, verbum autem quod ad te sonus perduxit, jam est in corde tuo, nec recessit a meo.’ Cf. Serm. 288. § 3; 289. ὃ 8. §xc SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 315 ὃ xe. λόγος, μῦθος. Λόγος is quite as often ‘ sermo ᾿ as ‘ verbum,’ a connected dis- course as a single word. Indeed, as is well known, there was once no little discussion whether Λόγος in its very highest application of all (John i. 1) should not rather be rendered by ‘Sermo’ than by ‘ Verbum’; on which controversy see Petavius, De Trin. vi. i. 4-6. And, not to dwell on this ex- ceptional and purely theological employment of Adyos, it is frequently in the N. T. employed to express that word which by supereminent right deserves the name, being, as it is, “‘ the word of God ”’ (Acts iv. 31), “ the word of the truth”’ (2 Tim. ii, 15); thus at Lukei.2; Jam. i. 22; Acts vi. 4. As employed in this sense, it may be brought into relations of likeness and unlikeness with μῦθος, between which and λόγος there was at one time but a very slight difference indeed, one however which grew ever wider, until in the end a great gulf has separated them each from the other. There are three distinctly marked stages through which μῦθος has passed ; although, as will often happen, in passing into later meanings it has not altogether renounced and left behind its earlier. At the first there is nothing of the fabulous, still less of the false, involved in it. It stands on the same footing with ῥῆμα, ἔπος, λόγος, and, as its connexion with pio, μυέω, μύζω sufficiently indicates, must have signified originally the word shut up in the mind, or muttered within the lips (see Creuzer, Symboltk, vol. iv. p. 517); although of this there is no actual trace ; for already in Homer it appears as the spoken word (71. xviii. 252), the tragic poets with such other as form their diction on Homer continuing so to employ it (thus Auschylus, Humen. 582; Euripides, Phen. 455), and this at a time when in Attic prose it had nearly or alto- gether exchanged this meaning for another. At the second stage of its history μῦθος is already in a certain antithesis to Adyos, although still employed in a respectful, often in a very honourable, sense. It is the mentally conceived as set over against the actually true. Not 316 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT %§xXc literal fact, it is often truer than the literal truth, involves a higher teaching; λόγος ψευδής, εἰκονίζων τὴν ἀλήθειαν (Suidas) ; λόγου μῦθος εἰκὼν καὶ εἴδωλόν ἐστι (Plutarch, Bell. an Pace clar. Athen. 4). There is a λόγος ἐν μύθῳ (‘veritas que in fabule involucro latet,’ as Wyttenbach, Annott. im Plutarch. vol. ii. part 1, p. 406, gives it), which may have infinitely more value than much which is actual fact, seeing that often- times, in Schiller’s words, ‘a deeper import Lurks in the legend told our infant years Than lies upon the truth we live to learn.’ Μῦθος had already obtained this significance in Herodotus. (ii. 45) and in Pindar (Olymp. i. 29 [Diss., 47 Heyn.]); and Attic prose, as has been observed, hardly knows any other (Plato, Gorg. 523 a; Phedo,61a; Legg.ix.872 d ; Plutarch,. _ De Ser. Num. Vind. 18; Symp. i. 1. 4). But in a world like ours the fable easily degenerates into the falsehood. ‘Tradition, Time’s suspected register, That wears out truth’s best stories into tales,’ is ever at work to bring such a result about; ‘story,’ ‘ tale,’ and other words not a few, attest this fact; and at its third stage μῦθος is the fable, but not any more the fable under- taking to be, and often being, the vehicle of some lofty truth; it is now the lying fable with all its falsehood and all its pretences to be what it is not: EKustathius: μῦθος ap: Ὁμήρῳ ὁ ἁπλῶς λόγος, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς ὕστερον, ὃ ψευδὴς καὶ πεπλασμένος, καὶ ἀληθείας ἔχων ἔμφασιν λόγος : this being the only sense of μῦθος which the N. T. knows (in the Apocrypha it occurs but once, Ecclus. xx. 19; in the Septuagint never).. Thus we have there μῦθοι βέβηλοι καὶ ypaddes (1 Tim. iv. 7) ; “ουδαϊκοί (Tit. 1. 14); σεσοφισμένοι (2 Pet. 1. 165 cf. μῦθοι πεπλασμένοι, Diodorus Siculus, i. 93); the other two occasions of the word’s use (1 Tim. i. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 4) being not less slighting and contemptuous. ‘Legend,’ a word of such honourable import at the beginning, meaning, as it does, Χο ΝΟΥ ΟΣ OF THE: NEW SESAME NF 317 that worthy to be read, but which has ended in designating ‘a heap of frivolous and scandalous vanities ’ (Hooker), has had much the same history as μῦθος ; very similar influences having been at work to degrade the one and the other. J. H. H. Schmidt (Synonymik, vol. i. p. 100) traces the history of μῦθος briefly and well : “Μῦθος ist zu der Bedeutung einer erdichteten Erziihlung gekommen, weil man den naiven Glauben an die alten Ueberlieferungen, die ihren herge- brachten Namen behielten, allmilig verloren hatte. So wird denn μῦθος wie λόγος der Wirklichkeit entgegengesetzt, jedoch so dass man zugleich auf die Albernheit und Unwahrschein- lichkeit der Erdichtung hindeutet.’ It will thus be seen that λόγος and μῦθος, which begin their journey together, or at all events separated by very slight spaces, gradually part company, the antagonism be- tween them becoming ever stronger, till in the end they stand in open opposition to one another, as words no less than men must do, when they come to belong, one to the kingdom of light and of truth, the other to that of darkness and of lies. S x¢l. τέρας, σημεῖον, δύναμις, μεγαλεῖον, ἔνδοξον, ; παράδοξον, θαυμάσιον. THESE words have this in common, that they are all used to characterize the supernatural works wrought by Christ in the days of his flesh ; thus σημεῖον, John 11. 11; Acts ii. 19; τέρας, Acts 11. 22; John iv. 48; δύναμις, Mark vi. 2; Acts ii. 22; μεγαλεῖον, Luke i. 49; ἔνδοξον, Luke xiii. 17 ; παράδοξον, Luke v. 26; θαυμάσιον, Matt. xxi. 15; while the first three and the most usual are in like manner employed of the same supernatural works wrought in the power of Christ by his Apostles (2 Cor. xii. 12); and of the lying miracles of Anti- christ no less (2 Thess. ii. 9). They will be found, on closer examination, not so much to represent different kinds of miracles, as miracles contemplated under different aspects and from different points of view. 318 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xci Tépas and σημεῖον are often linked together in the N. T. (John iv. 48; Acts ii. 22; iv. 830; 2 Cor. xii. 12); and times out of number in the Septuagint (Exod. vii. 3,9; Deut. iv. 84; Neh. ix. 10; Dan. vi. 27); the first = nin, and the second = nix; often also in profane Greek, in Josephus (Antt. xx. 8.6; Bell. Jud. Proém. 11); in Plutarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. 8); in Polybius (111. 112. 8); in Philo (De Vit. Mos. i. 16); and in others. The ancients were fond of drawing a distinction between them, which however will not bear a moment’s serious examination. It is sufficiently expressed in these words of Ammonius: τέρας σημείου διαφέρει" τὸ μὲν γὰρ τέρας παρὰ φύσιν γίνεται, TO δὲ σημεῖον παρὰ συνήθειαν; and again by Theophylact (# Lom. xv. 19): διαφέρει δὲ σημεῖον Kal τέρας TO TO μὲν σημεῖον ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν λέγεσθαι, καινοπρεπῶς μέντοι γινομένοις, οἷον ἐπὶ τοῦ τὴν πενθερὰν Πέτρου πυρέττουσαν εὐθέως ἰαθῆναι [Matt. vill. 15], τὸ δὲ τέρας ἐν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ φύσιν, οἷον τὸ τὸν ἐκ γενετῆς τυφλὸν ἰαθῆναι [John ix. 7]; compare Suicer, Thes. 5. v. σημεῖον. But in truth this distinction breaks down so entirely the instant it is examined, as Fritzsche, in a good note on Rom. xy. 19, has superabundantly shown, that it is difficult to understand how so many, by repeating, have given allowance to it. An earthquake, however rare, cannot be esteemed παρὰ φύσιν, cannot therefore, according to the distinction traced above, be called a τέρας, while yet Herodotus (vi. 98) gives this name to the single earthquake which in his experience had visited Delos. As little can a serpent snatched up in an eagle’s talons and dropped in the midst of the Trojan army be called beyond and beside nature, which yet Homer (Il. xii. 209) calls Διὸς τέρας αἰγιόχοιο. I notice here that the Homeric idea of the τέρας is carefully discussed by Niagelsbach, Homerische Theologie, p. 168 sqq. On the other hand, beyond and beside nature are the healing with a word of a man lame from his mother’s womb, the satisfying of many thousand men with a few loaves, the raising of a man four days dead from the grave, which all in Scripture go by the name of σημεῖα (Acts iv. 16; John vi. 14; xi. 47); compare ἄχει SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 319 Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Conv. 8, where a monstrous birth is styled both a τέρας and a σημεῖον. It is plain then that the distinction must be sought elsewhere. Origen has not seized it, who finds a prophetic element in the σημεῖον, which is wanting in the τέρας (im Rom. xv. 19): “ Signa [σημεῖα] appellantur in quibus cum sit aliquid mirabile, indicatur quoque aliquid futurum. Pro- digia [τέρατα] vero in quibus tantummodo aliquid mirabile ostenditur.’ Rather the same miracle is upon one side a τέρας, on another a σημεῖον, and the words most often refer, not to different classes of miracles, but to different qualities in the same miracles; in the words of Lampe (Comm. im Joh. vol. i. p. 518): ‘Hadem enim miracula dici possunt signa, quatenus aliquid seu occultum seu futurum docent; et prodigia, quatenus aliquid extraordinarium, quod stuporem excitat, sistunt. Hinc sequitur signorum notionem latius patere, quam prodigiorum. Omnia prodigia sunt signa, quia in illum usum ἃ Deo dispensata, ut arcanum indicent. Sed omnia signa non sunt prodigia, quia ad signandum res cxlestes aliquando etiam res communes adhibentuv.’ Tépas, certainly not derived from τρέω, the terrifying, but now put generally in connexion with τηρέω, as being that which for its extraordinary character is wont to be observed and kept in the memory, is always rendered ‘wonder’ in our Version. It is the miracle regarded as a startling, imposing, amazement-wakening portent or pro- digy ; being elsewhere frequently used for strange appear- ances in the heavens, and more frequently still for monstrous births on the earth (Herodotus, vii. 57; Plato, Crat. 393 6). It is thus used very much with the same meaning as the Latin ‘monstrum’!=monestrum (Virgil, din. 11. 171: ‘Nec dubiis ea signa dedit Tritonia monstris’), or the 1 On the similar group of synonymous words in the Latin, Augustine | writes (De Civ. Dei, xxi. 8): ‘ Monstra sane dicta perhibent a mon- strando, quod aliquid significando demonstrant, et ostenta ab ostendendo, et portenta a portendendo, id est, preeostendendo, et prodigia quod porro dicant, id est, futura preedicant.’ Compare Cicero, Divin. i. 42. 320 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ἜΧΟΙ Homeric σῆμα (Il. ii. 308): ἔνθ᾽ ἐφάνη μέγα σῆμα, δράκων). Origen (in Joh. tom. xiii. 8 60; im Rom. lib. x. ὃ 12) long ago called attention to the fact that the name répara is never in the N. T. applied to these words of wonder, except in association with some other name. They are often called σημεῖα, often δυνάμεις, often τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα, More than once τέρατα, σημεῖα, καὶ δυνάμεις, but never τέρατά alone. The observation was well worth the making; for the fact which we are thus bidden to note is indeed eminently characteristic of the miracles of the N. T.; namely, that a title, by which more than any other these might seem to hold on to the prodigies and portents of the heathen world, and to have something akin to them, should thus never be permitted to appear, except in the company of some other necessarily suggesting higher thoughts about them. But the miracles are also σημεῖα. The σημεῖον Basil the Great (in Hsaz. vil. ὃ 198) defines well: ἔστι σημεῖον πρᾶγμα φανερόν, κεκρυμμένου τινὸς Kal ἀφανοῦς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν δήλωσιν ἔχον : and presently after, ἡ μέντοι Τραφὴ τὰ παράδοξα,, καὶ παραστατικά τινος μυστικοῦ λόγου σημεῖα καλεῖ, Among all the names which the miracles bear, their ethical end and purpose comes out in σημεῖον with the most distinctness, as in τέρας with the least. It is involved and declared in the very word that the prime object and end of the miracle is to lead us to something out of and beyond itself; that, so to speak, it is a kind of finger-post of God (διοσημεία, a sign from Zeus, is no unfrequent word in later Greek), pointing for us to this (Isai. vii. 11; xxxvili. 7); valuable, not so much for what it is, as for what it indicates of the grace and power of the doer, or of his immediate connexion with a higher spiritual world (Mark xvi. 20; Acts xiv. 3; Heb. ii. 4; Exod. vii. 9, 10; 1 Kin. xiii. 8). Lampe has put this well: ‘ Designat sane σημεῖον naturad sud rem non tantum extraordinariam, sen- susque percellentem, sed etiam talem, que in rei alterius, absentis licet et future, significationem atque adumbrationem adhibetur, unde et prognostica {Matt. xvi. 3) et typi (Matt. xii. 89; Luc. xi. 29) nec non sacramenta, quale est illud excl DYNVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 321 circumeisionis (Rom. iv. 11), eodem nomine in N. T. exprimi solent. Aptissime ergo hec vox de miraculis usurpatur, ut indicet, quod non tantum admirabili modo fuerint perpetrata, sed etiam sapientissimo consilio Dei ita directa atque ordinata, ut fuerint simul characteres Messie, ex quibus cognoscendus erat, sigilla doctrine quam proferebat, et beneficiorum eratie per Messiam jam prestande, nec non typi viarum Deli, earumque circumstantiarum per quas talia beneficia erant applicanda.’ It is to be regretted that σημεῖον is not always rendered ‘sign’ in our Version; that in the Gospel of St. John, where it is of very frequent recurrence, ‘sign’ too often gives place to the vaguer ‘miracle’; and sometimes not without serious loss: thus see ili. 2; vil. 81; x. 41; and above all, vi. 26. But the miracles are also ‘ powers’ (δυνάμεις = ‘virtutes ’), outcomings of that mighty power of God, which was in- herent in Christ, Himself that “‘ great Power of God” which Simon blasphemously allowed himself to be named (Acts vill. 10) ; these powers being by Him lent to such as were his witnesses and ambassadors. One must regret that in our Version δυνάμεις is translated now “ wonderful works” (Matt. vil. 22) ; now “mighty works” (Matt. xi. 20; Luke x. 13); and still more frequently “ miracles” (Acts ii. 22; 1 Cor. xii. 10; Gal. 111. 5); in this last case giving such tautologies as ‘‘miracles and wonders” (Acts 11. 22; Heb. ii. 4); and always causing something to be lost of the true intention of the word—pointing as it does to new and higher forces (ἐνέργειαι, ἐνεργήματα, 1 Cor. xii. 6, 10), ‘powers of the world to come’ (Heb. vi. 5), which have entered and are working in this lower world of ours. Delitzsch: ‘ Jedes Wunder ist eine Machtiiusserung der in die Welt der Schépfung, welche dem 'Tode verfallen ist, eintretenden Welt der Erlisung.’ With this is closely connected the term μεγαλεῖα, only oceur- ring at Luke i. 49 (=‘magnalia’) and at Acts ii. 11, in which, as in δυνάμεις, the miracles are contemplated as out- comings of the greatness of God’s power and glory. They are further styled ἔνδοξα (Luke xiii. 17), as being. Yy 322 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xcu works in which the δόξα or glory of God and of the Son of God shone manifestly forth (John 11. 11; xi. 40; Luke v. 26 ; Acts iii. 18). They are παράδοξα (Luke v. 26), as being “new things’ (Num. xvi. 30), not hitherto seen (Mark 11. 12), and thus beside and beyond all opinion and expectation of men. The word, though finding place only this once in the N. T., is of very frequent occurrence in ecclesiastical Greek. They are θαυμάσια (Matt. xxi. 15), as provoking admiration and astonishment (viii. 27; ix. 8, 33; xv. 31; Mark v. 20; Acts 111. 11). @avpara they are never called in the N. T., though often in the writings of the Greek Fathers. A word which conjurers, magicians, and impostors of various kinds had so long made their own could only after a while be put to nobler uses again. δ᾽ χορ]. κόσμιος, σεμνός, ἱεροπρεπής. Κόσμιος and σεμνός are both epithets applied occasionally to things, but more frequently to persons. They are so nearly allied in meaning as to be often found together; but at the same time are very clearly distinguishable the one from the other. . Κόσμιος, related to κόσμος in its earlier sense as ‘ orna- ment,’ while κοσμικός (Tit. ii. 12; Heb. ix. 1) is related to it in its secondary sense as ‘ world,’ occurs twice in the N. T., being rendered in our Version on one occasion ‘modest’ (1 Tim. ii. 9), on the other, ‘ of good behaviour’ (1 Tim. iii. 2: marg. wodest); and corresponds very nearly to the ‘com- positus ’ of Seneca (Hp. 114), to the ‘ compositus et ordinatus’ (De Vit. Beat. 8), of the same. The ‘ ornatus,’ by which it is both times rendered in the Vulgate, is strangely at fault, though it is easy enough to see how the fault arose. It is a very favourite word with Plato, and is by him and others constantly applied to the citizen who is quiet in the land, who duly fulfils in his place and order the duties which are incumbent on him as such; and is in nothing ἄτακτος (1 Thess. v. 14; ef. 2 Thess. iii. 6, 7, 11); but τεταγμένος rather. It is §xcil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 323 associated by him, as by St. Paul, with σώφρων (Legg. vii. 802 ¢)—this indeed is everywhere its most constant companion (thus see Lysias, Orat. xxi. 163; Plutarch, Quom. Adul. ab Am. 36, and often); with ἥμερος (Plato, Rep. iii. 410 6) ; with νόμιμος (Gorg. 504 d); with ἐγκρατής (Phedr. 256 δ); with εὐσταλής (Meno, 90 a); with φρόνιμος (Phedo, 108 a); with στάσιμος (Lep. vii. 539d); with εὔκολος (16.1, 829d); with ἀνδρεῖος (Lb. iii. 899 6); with καλός (Ib. iii. 408 a) ; with εὔτακτος by Aristotle ; with αἰδήμων by Epictetus (Linchir. 40); and by Plutarch (De Garrul. 4); with γενναῖος (Ib.) ; with εὐάγωγος (Phil. cwm Prin. 2); opposed by Plato to ἀκόλαστος (Gorg. 494 a). Keeping company as κόσμιος does with epithets such as these, it must be admitted that an explanation of it like the following, ‘of well ordered demeanour, decorous, courteous’ (Webster), dwells too much on the outside of things; the same with still greater truth may be affirmed of Tyndale’s rendering, ‘ honestly apparelled ’ (1 Tim. 11. 2). No doubt the κόσμιος is all this; but he is much more than this. The well ordering is not of dress and demeanour only, but of the inner life; uttering indeed and expressing itself in the outward conversation. Even Bengel has taken a too superficial view of the word, when at 1 Tim. 111. 2 he says, ‘Quod σώφρων est intus, id κόσμιος est extra ;’ though I cannot refuse the pleasure of quoting what he says in one of his most characteristic notes, unfolding more fully his idea of what in these two epithets is implied: ‘Homo novus festum quiddam est, et abhorret ab omni eo quod pollutum, confusum, inconditum, immoderatum, vehemeng, . dissolutum, affectatum, tetricum, perperum, lacerum, sordidum est: ipsi necessitati nature materieque, que ingerendo, digerendo, egerendo agitatur, parce et dissimulanter paret, corporisque corruptibilis tecta habet vestigia.’ This, it must be confessed, goes a good deal deeper than does Philemon, the comic poet, in four lines preserved by Stobeus (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Gr. p. 822), describing who is κόσμιος, and who isnot. I hardly know whether they are worth quoting, but they follow here : x 2 F 324 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xcul οὐκ ἂν λαλῇ τις μικρόν, ἐστὶ κόσμιος " οὐδ᾽ ἂν πορεύηταί τις εἰς τὴν γῆν βλέπων" ὃ δ᾽ ἡλίκον μὲν ἣ φύσις φέρει λαλῶν, μηδὲν ποιῶν δ᾽ ἄσχημον οὗτος κόσμιο. But whatever may be implied in κόσμιος, and there is much, something more is involved in σεμνός. If the κόσμιος orders himself well in that earthly πολιτεία, of which he is a support and an ornament, the σεμνός has a grace and dignity not lent him from earth ; but which he owes to that higher citizenship which is also his; being one who inspires not respect only, but reverence and worship. In profane Greek σεμνός is a constant epithet of the gods—of the Kumenides, the σεμναὶ θεαὶ, above all. It is used also constantly to qualify such things as pertain to, or otherwise stand in any very near relation with, the heavenly world. All this will appear the more clearly, when we enumerate some of the epithets where- with it habitually is linked; which are these: ἅγιος (Plato, Sophist. 249 a; οἵ. Clement of Rome, Cor. 1, where it is joined to ἁγνός and ἄμωμος) ; ὀρθός (Defin. 412 e); μέγας (Theatet. 208 6) ; τίμιος (Crito, 51 α) ; μέτριος (Clement of Rome, Cor. 1); βασιλικός (Plutarch, Quom. Aud. Poét. 8); ἔντιμος (Prac. Ger. Reip. 81) ; μεγαλοπρεπής (De Def. Orac. 30); θεῖος and φοβερός. From all this it is plain that there lies something of majestic and awe-inspiring in σεμνός, Which does not at all lie in κόσμιος, although this has nothing about it to repel, but all rather to invite and to attract, μαλακὴ Kal εὐσχήμων βαρύτης being Avistotle’s happy definition of σεμνότης (het. ii. 17), making it as he does the golden mean between ἀρεσκεία, or unmanly assentation, at one extreme, and αὐθάδεια, or churlish bearishness, pleasing itself, and careless how much it displeases others, at the other; even as in Plutarch σεμνός is associated with φιλικός (Quom. Am. ab Adul. 26); with ἡδύς (Conviv. 4, Proém.) ; with φιλάνθρωπος, with ἐπιεικής, and other like words; so too with προσηνής in Josephus (Antt. xi. 6.9). But all this does not exclude the fact that the σεμνός is one who, without in as many words demanding, does yet challenge and inspire reverence and, in Vet oo VON YS OP el AE NEW GEE STAM eid © 325 our earlier use of the word, worship, the word remaining true to the σέβω with which it is related. How to render it in English is not very easy to determine. On the one occasion that it qualifies things rather than persons (Phil. iv. 8), we have translated it by ‘honest,’ an unsatisfactory rendering (marg. venerable); and this, even though we include in ‘honest’ all which was included in it at the time when our Translation was made. Alford has here changed ‘ honest ’ into ‘seemly’; if changed at all, I should prefer ‘ honorable.’ On the other three occasions it is rendered ‘ grave’ (1 Tim. 111. 8, 11 ; Tit. ii. 2) ; while σεμνότης is once ‘ honesty’ (1 Tim. 11. 2), and twice ‘ gravity’ (1 Tim. iii. 4 ; Tit. 11. 7). Here too it must be owned that ‘ grave’ and ‘gravity’ are renderings which fail to cover the full meaning of their original. Malvolio in Twelfth Night is “grave,’ but his very gravity is itself ridicu- lous ; and the word we want is one in which the sense of gravity and dignity, and of these as inviting reverence, is combined ; a word which I fear we may look for long without finding. ‘Ieporperns belongs to the best age of the Greek language, being used by Plato (Theag. 122 d) and by Xenophon (Conv. viii. 40), in this unlike ὁσιοπρεπής and ἁγιοπρεπής, which are of later ecclesiastical formation. Like κόσμιος it belongs to that large group of noticeable words, which, being found nowhere else in St. Paul’s Epistles, and indeed nowhere else in the N. T., are yet found in the Pastoral Epistles, some of them occurring several times over in these. The number and character of these words, the new vein of Greek which St. Paul in these later Epistles opens,’ constitute a very remarkable phenomenon, one for which no perfectly satis- factory explanation has hitherto been offered. Alford indeed ' For instance, take the adjectives alone which are an addition to, ox a variation from, his ethical terminology in all his other Epistles ; occur- ring as they do nowhere else but in these Epistles: αἱρετικός, ἀκρατής, ἄμαχος, ἀνεξίκακος, ἀνεπαίσχυντος, ἀνεπίληπτος, ἀνήμερος, ἀνόσιος, ἀπαί- δευτος, ἄρτιος, ἀφιλάγαθος, ἀψευδής, διάβολος, διδακτικός, δίλογος, ἐγκρατή 5, ἐπίορκος, εὐμετάδοτος, ἤρεμος, καλοδιδάσκαλος, κοινωνικός, ματαιολόγος, νηφάλιος, οἰκουρύς, ὀργίλος, πάροινος, σώφρων, φιλάγαθος, φίλανδρος, φίλαυτος, φιλήδονος, φιλόθεος, φιλότεκνος, φλύαρος. 326 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ΧΟΙῚ in his Prolegomena to these Epistles has made a valuable contribution to such an explanation ; but after all has been said, it remains perplexing still. It will follow from what has been already claimed for cepvos that ἱεροπρεπής is more nearly allied in meaning to it than to κόσμιος. It expresses that which beseems a sacred person, thing, or act. On the one occasion of its use in the N. T. (Tit. ii. 8-5), it is joined with σώφρων, being an epithet applied to women professing godliness, who shall be in their bearing or behaviour ἱεροπρεπεῖς, or ‘as becometh holiness ”’ (cf. 1 Tim. ii. 10), or ‘reverent in demeanour’ as it is ren- dered in our Revised Version. ‘That such behaviour will breed reverence and awe, we may reasonably expect, but this is not implied in ἱεροπρεπής as it is in σεμνός, and here we must find the distinction between them. δ᾽ xcill. αὐθάδης, φίλαυτος. THE etymology of these words holds out, perhaps, the ex- pectation of a greater nearness of meaning than in actual use is the case. Yet they sometimes occur together, as in Plutarch (De Rect. Rat. Aud. 6), nor can it be denied that ‘the pleaser of himself’ and ‘the lover of himself’ stand in sufficient moral proximity, and are sufficiently lable to be confounded, to justify an attempt to distinguish them one from the other. Αὐλάδης (= abroddys, or αὑτῷ ἁδῶν, as Aristotle informs us, Ethic. M. i. 28), ‘sibi placens,’ occurs twice in the N. T. (Tit. 1.7; 2 Pet.ii. 10), and three times in the Old (Gen. xlix, 8, 7; Prov, xxi. 24); αὐθάδεια never in the New, but once in the Old (Isai. xxiv. 8, Alez.). The αὐθάδης, who etymologically is hardly distinguishable from the atrépeocxos,—but the word is of earlier and more classical use,—is properly one who pleases himself, who is so pleased with his own that nothing pleases him besides: ‘qui nisi quod ipse facit nihil rectum putat’ (Terence, Adelph. iv. 2.18). He is one so far overvaluing any determination at ἌΧ ΟΠ SVNONYIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 357 which he has himself once arrived that he will not be removed from it; for this element of stubbornness or ob- stinacy which so often lies in αὐθάδεια see the Prometheus Vinctus of Auschylus, 1037: while Cicero translates it ‘ per- vicacia.” The man thus obstinately maintaining his own opinion, or asserting his own rights—ioyvpoyvwepnov Aristotle (Eth. Nic. vii. 9. 2) would call him— is reckless of the rights, feelings, and interests of others; one indeed who with no motive at all is prompt rather to run counter to these, than to fall in with them: ‘ selbstgefiillig, selbstsiichtig, anmas- send, frech, sich um keinen andern kiimmernd, riicksichtlos, erausam’ (Pott, Htym. Forsch. vol. iv. Ὁ. 815). Thus we find αὐθάδης associated with ἰδιογνώμων (Hippocrates, p. 295, 12. 29); with ἄγριος (Euripides, Med. 102); with πικρός (Ld. 223); with ἀμαθής (Plato); with χαλεπός (Id. Legg. x11. 950 δ) ; with ἀμείλικτος (Philo, Leg. ad Cat. 38); with σκληρός (Poly- bius, iv. 21; Plutarch, Symp. vu. 2. 1); with ἐπαχθής and αὐθέκαστος (Id. Prec. Ger. Feip. 81) ;—which last word does not necessarily bear an unfavourable meaning; thus see Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. iv. 7.4; and lines ascribed to the Stoic Cleanthes, to be found in Eusebius, Prep. Evang. xiii. ὃ ;--- with θράσυς (Plutarch, Marius, 40. 8; Prov. xxi. 24) ; with ἀκόλαστος (De Gen. Socr. 9); with ἰταμός (De Laud. Scup. 16); with φιλόνεικος (Quom. Am. ab Adul. 82) ; with σκυθρωπός (Isocrates, see Rost and Palm); with ἀλαζών (Prov. xxi. 24) ; with προπετής (Clement of Rome, Cor. 1); with τολμητής (2 Pet. 11. 10): αὐθάδεια with θράσος and τόλμα (Clement of Rome, Cor. 80); while the Greek grammarians give such words as ὑπερήφανος, θυμώδης, ὑπερόπτης as 105 nearest equiva- lents. Eudemus identifies him with the δύσκολος, and describes him as regulating his life with no respect to others (μηδὲν πρὸς ἔτερον ζῶν, Hthic. Hudem. iii. 7. 4; ef. thie. Nic. iv. 6.9), He is the ‘ prefractus,’ ‘ pertinax,’ ‘ morosus’ of the Latins, or, going nearer to the etymological heart of the word, the German ‘eigensinnig’; αὐθάδης is by Luther so translated; while our own ‘ peevish’ and ‘ humorous’ in their earlier uses both represent some traits and aspects of 328 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xeiu his character. He is opposed to the εὐπροσήγορος, the easy of access or affable (Plutarch, Prec. Reip. Ger. 81). In the unlovely gallery of portraits which Theophrastus has sketched for us, the αὐθάδης finds his place (Char. § 8); but this his rudeness of speech, his surliness, his bearishness as we should now say, is brought too exclusively out, as is evident from the very superficial and inadequate definition of αὐθάδεια by Theophrastus given, as being ἀπήνεια ὁμιλίας ἐν λόγοις. Αὐθάδεια, which thus cares to please nobody, is by Aristotle (Ethic. Magn. i. 29; Eth. Hudem. 11. 8. 7) set over against ἀρεσκεία, which is the ignoble seeking to please every- body, the endeavouring at all costs of dignity and truth to stand well with all the world; these two being in his ethical system the opposite extremes, between which σεμνότης con- stitutes the mean (see p. 824). There is always something to be learned from the hypocoristic phrases with which it is sought to give a fair show to an ugly thing; and it is worth therefore noticing that the αὐθάδης is called by his flatterers σεμνός and μεγαλοπρεπής (Aristotle, Rhet. i. 9. 8), while on the other hand a worthy freedom of speech (παῤῥησία) may be misnamed αὐθάδεια by those who resent, or would fain in- duce others to resent it. It was this hateful name which the sycophants of the younger Dionysius gave to the manly boldness of speech which Dion used, when they desired to work his ruin with the tyrant (Plutarch, Dion, 8). Bengel profoundly remarks, and all experience bears out the truth of his remark, that there are men who are ‘ simul et molles et duri’; at once soft and hard, soft to themselves, and hard to all the world besides; these two dispositions being in fact only two aspects and outcomings of the same sin, namely the wrong love of self. But if αὐθάδης expresses this sin on one side, φίλαυτος expresses it on the other. Having dealt with that, we may now proceed to treat a little of this. It need hardly be observed that when bad men are called φίλαυτοι, or ‘lovers of themselves,’ as by St. Paul they are on the one occasion when the word is employed in the N.'T. (2 Tim. iii. 2), the word can be only abusively Nee TE ee ee ΟΣ aL nae ee ee ee Ἢ τ τῶν, ὁ ΧΟ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 329 applied ; for, indeed, he is no true ‘lover of himself’ who loves himself overmuch, more than God’s law allows, or loves that in himself which he ought not to love but to hate, that which constitutes his sickness and may in the end be his death, and not his health. All this, when treating of this word, Aristotle brings out with admirable clearness and distinctness, and with an ethical feeling after, and in part at least anticipation of, that great word of Christ, ‘He that loveth his life shall lose it,’ which is profoundly interesting to note (Hthic. Nic. ix. 8). The φίλαυτος is exactly our ‘selfish’ (Plutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. 19; Quom. Am. ab Adul. 26), and φιλαυτία ‘selfishness’; but this contemplated rather as an undue sparing of self and providing things easy and pleasant for self, than as harshness and rigour toward others. Thus φίλαυτος iS joined with φιλόψυχος by Plutarch (Dion, 46), this last epithet indicating one loving his life overmuch. Before the English language had generated the word ‘ selfish- ness,’ which it did not until the middle of the seventeenth century, there was an attempt made to supply an evident want in our ethical terminology by aid of ‘ philauty’; thus see Beaumont’s Psyche, passim, and other similar poems. ‘Philauty,’ however, never succeeded in obtaining any firm footing among us, and ‘ suicism,’ which was a second attempt, as little; an appeal to the Latin proving as unsuccessful as that to the Greek. Nor was the deficiency effectually sup- plied till the Puritan divines, drawing upon our native stock of words, brought in ‘selfish’ and ‘selfishness’ (see my English Past and Present, 10th ed. p. 171). One of these same divines helps me to a comparison, by aid of which the matter of the likeness and difference between αὐθάδης and φίλαυτος may be brought not inaptly to a point. He likens the selfish man to the hedgehog, which, rolling itself up in a ball, presents only sharp spines to those without, keeping at the same time all the soft and warm wool for itself within. In some sinful men their αὐθάδεια, the ungracious bearing ‘towards others, the self-pleasing which is best pleased when 330 “SYNONYUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 8 xciv it displeases others, is the leading feature of their character ; in others the φιλαυτία, the undue providing of all which shall minister to their own ease, and keep hardness aloof from them. In each of these there is potentially wrapped up the other; but as the one sinful tendency predominates or the other, the man will merit the epithet of αὐθάδης or φίλαυτος. ἢ χοῖν. ἀποκάλυψις, ἐπιφάνεια, φανέρωσις. ᾿Αποκάλυψις is only once found in the books of the O. T. canon, namely at 1 Sam. xx. 30; and there in altogether a subordinate sense, as = ‘denudatio’; three times in the Apocrypha (Kcclus. xi. 27; xxii. 22; xh. 23); but as little in this as in the other does it obtain that grander meaning which it has acquired in the N. T. In this last it is pre- dominantly, though not exclusively, a Pauline word; and, occurring altogether some nineteen times, being rendered once ‘coming’ (1 Cor. i. 7), once ‘manifestation’ (Rom. vill. 19), once ‘ appearing ’ (1 Pet. i. 7), and once ‘to lighten’ (εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν, Luke ii. 82), has always that auguster sense of an unveiling by God of Himself to his creatures, to which we have given the more Latin term, revelation. The same auguster sense the verb ἀποκαλύπτειν in the N. T. commonly possesses; but not there for the first time, this sense having been anticipated in the great apocalyptic book of the Old Covenant (see Dan. ii. 19, 22, 28). Nor does it always possess this, sometimes simply meaning ‘to uncover’ or ‘ to lay bare’ (Luke xii. 2; Prov. xx. 19). ᾿Αποκάλυψις, as St. Jerome would fain persuade us, is” nowhere to be found outside of sacred Greek (Comm. in Gal. i, 12): ‘Verbum ἀποκαλύψεως proprie Scripturarum est; a nullo sapientum seculi apud Grecos usurpatum. Unde mihi videntur quemadmodum in aliis verbis, que de Hebreo in Grecum LXX Interpretes transtulerunt, ita et in hoc magno- pere esse conati ut proprietatem peregrini sermonis expri- merent, nova novis rebus verba fingentes, et sonare, quum quid tectum et velatum ablato desuper operimento ostenditur . ξχοιν SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 331 et profertur in lucem.’ In thus claiming the word as proper and peculiar to the Scriptures, and not found in any writings of the wise of this world, St. Jerome is in error; although the total absence in his time of exhaustive Lexicons or Con- cordances of the great writers of antiquity might well excuse his mistake. Not to speak of ἀποκαλύπτειν, which is used several times by Plato (Protag. 862 d; Gorg. 460 a), ἀπο- κάλυψις itself is far from unfrequent in the later Greek of Plutarch (see Paul. A’mil. 14; Cato Maj. 20, where it is = γύμνωσις ; Quom. Am. ab Adul. 32; and elsewhere). Thus far indeed Jerome has right, namely, that the religious use of the word was altogether strange to the heathen world, while the corresponding ‘revelatio’ was absolutely unknown to classical Latin, having first come to the birth in the Latin of the Church. Elsewhere (Hp. exxi. ad Algas.) he makes a somewhat similar mistake in respect of the verb κατα- βραβεύειν (Col. ii. 18), which he claims as a Cilicism of St. Paul’s. It occurs in a document cited hy Demosthenes, Mid. p. 544. The word in its highest Christian sense has been ex- plained by Arethas as 7 τῶν κρυπτῶν μυστηρίων δήλωσις, καταυγαζομένου τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς, εἴτε διὰ θείων ὀνειράτων, εἴτε καθ᾽ ὕπαρ, ἐκ θείας ἐλλάμψεως. Joined with ὀπτασία (2 Cor. xii. 1), it is by Theophylact (see Suicer, 5. v.) distinguished from it in this, that the ὀπτασία is no more than the thing shown or seen, the sight or vision, which might quite possibly be seen without being understood; while the ἀποκάλυψις includes not merely the thing shown and seen, but the inter- pretation or unveiling of the same. His words areas follows : ἡ ἀποκάλυψις πλέον τι ἔχει τῆς ὀπτασίας: ἡ μὲν yap μόνον βλέπειν δίδωσιν - αὕτη δὲ καίτι βαθύτερον τοῦ ὁρωμένου ἀπογυμνοῖ. Thus Daniel’s version of the four beasts was seen but not under- stood, until one that stood by made him know the interpreta- tion of the things (Dan. vii. 15, 16, 19, 23: ef. viii. 15, 19; Zech. i. 18-21), On this distinction see more in Liicke’s Hinleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, 2nd ed. p. 26. What holds good of the ὀπτασία will of course hold good of & 332 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xciv the ὅραμα (Matt. xvii. 9; Acts vii. 81; x. 19), and of the ὅρασις (Acts ii. 17) as well; between which and the ὁπτασία it would scarcely be possible to draw any distinction that would stand. Ἐπιφάνεια, which Tertullian renders ‘apparentia’ (Adv. Marc. i. 19), occurs only twice in the Septuagint (2 Sam. vii. 28, μεγαλωσύνη καὶ ἐπιφάνεια [ef. δόξα καὶ ἐπιφάνεια, Plutarch, De Trang. Anim. 11]; Amos v. 22): but often in the Second Maccabees; being always there used of God’s supernatural apparitions in aid of his people; thus 11. 21 (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπιφάνειαι) : il. 24; v. 4; ΧΙ 22; xv. 27. Already in heathen use this grand word was constantly employed to set forth these gracious appearances of the higher powers in aid of men; so Dionysius Hal. (ii. 68). The word is found only six times in the N. 1., always in the writings of St.Paul. On five occasions our Translators have rendered it ‘appearing’; on the sixth, however (2 Thess. ii. 8), they seem to have shrunk from what looked to them as a tautology, ‘appearance of his coming,’ as in the earlier Protestant Versions it stood; and have rendered ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας, ‘brightness of his coming,’ giving to the word a meaning not properly its own. It expresses on one occasion (2 Tim. 1. 10, and 50 ἐπιφαίνειν, Tit. 11. 11; iii. 4) our Lord’s first Epiphany, his εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἔνσαρκος ἐπιφάνεια : but on all the other his second appearing in glory, the ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ (2 Thess. ii. 8), τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ (Tit. 11. 18 ; 1 Tim. γι, 14... ὁ Timi iv 1,8, cl Acts il 20), If we bring these two into comparison, ἀποκάλυψις is the — more comprehensive, and, grand as is the other, the grander word. It sets forth nothing less than that progressive and immediate unveiling of Himself to his Church on the part of the otherwise unknown and unknowable God which has run through all ages; the body to which this revelation is vouch- safed being thereby designated or indeed constituted as his Church, the object of his more immediate care, and the ordained diffuser of this knowledge of Him to the rest of mankind. The world may know something of Him, of his §xciv SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 333 eternal power and Godhead, from the things which are seen ; which things except for the darkening of men’s hearts through sin would have told of Him much more clearly (Rom. i. 20); but there is no ἀποκάλυψις save to the Church. We may say of the ἐπιφάνειαι that they are contained in the ἀποκάλυψις, being separate points or moments therein. If God is to be immediately known to men, He must in some shape or other appear to them, to those among them whom He has chosen for this honour. Epiphanies must be Theo- phanies as well; and as such the Church has claimed not merely such communications made to men as are recorded at Gen. xviii. 1; xxviii. 13; but all in which the Angel of the Lord or of the Covenant appears; such as Gen. xvi. 7; Josh. v. 18-15; Judg. ii. 1; vi. 11; xiii. 3. All these it has regarded as preludings, on the part of the Son, of his Incarnation ; itself the most glorious Epiphany that as yet has been, even as his second coming is an Epiphany more glorious still which is yet in the future. Φανέρωσις is only twice used in the N. T. (1 Cor. xi. 7; 2, Cor. iv. 2). Reaching far on both these occasions, it does not reach to the very highest of all; it does not set forth, as do the words we have just been treating, either the first or the second appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ; although that it could have borne even this burden is sufficiently plain from the fact that the verb φανεροῦσθαι is continually employed of both; thus of the first coming at 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ix. 26; 1 John i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 20; and of the second at Col. iii. 4; 1 Pet. v. 4; 1 John iii. 2; and for other august uses of it see John ii. 11; xxi. 1; and φανέρωσις itself is not seldom so employed by the Fathers. Thus Athanasius (quoted by Suicer, s. v.) calls the Incar- nation ἡ ἐν σώματι φανέρωσις τοῦ πατρικοῦ Λόγου. It is hard to trace any reason why φανέρωσις should not have been claimed to set forth the same glorious facts which these other words, to which in meaning it is so nearly allied, have done ; but whether by accident or of intention this honour has not been vouchsafed. *EXevous, a far tamer word than any of the 334 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xcv others here, is used once in Acts (vii. 52) for the setting forth of the Lord’s coming. ἃ xev. ἄλλος, ἕτερος. ἔΑλλος, identical with the Latin ‘alius,’ is the numerically distinct; thus Christ spoke we are told ‘another’ parable, and still ‘another,’ but each succeeding one being of the same character as those which He had spoken before (Matt. xiii. 23, 24, 31, 88), ἄλλην therefore in every case. 3ut ἕτερος, equivalent to the Latin ‘alter,’ to the German ‘ander’ (on which last word see an instructive article in Grimm’s Worterbuch), superadds the notion of qualitative difference. One is ‘divers,’ the other is ‘diverse.’ There are not a few passages in the N. T. whose right interpre- tation, or at any rate their full understanding, will depend on an accurate seizing of the distinction between these words. Thus Christ promises to his disciples that He will send, not ἕτερον, but ἄλλον, Παράκλητον (John xiv. 16), ‘another’ Comforter therefore, similar to Himself. The dogmatic force of this ἄλλος has in controversy with various sects of πνευματομάχοι been often urged before now; thus by Petavius (De Trin. ii. 18. 5): ‘Kodem pertinet et Paracleti cognomen, maxime cum Christus aliwm Paracletum, hoc est, parem sibi, et equalem eum nominat. Quippe vox alius dignitate ac substantia’ prorsus eundem, et wqualem fore demonstrat, ut Gregorius Nazianzenus et Ambrosius ad- monent.’ But if in the ἄλλος there is a negation of identity, there is oftentimes much more in érepos, the negation namely up to a certain point, of resemblance; the assertion not merely of distinctness but of difference. A few examples will illustrate this. Thus St. Paul says, ‘I see another law’ [ἕτερον νόμον], a law quite different from the law of the spirit of life, even a law of sin and death, ‘working in my members’ (Rom. vii. 23). After Joseph’s death ‘another king arose’ in Egypt (βασιλεὺς ἕτερος, Acts vil. 18; οἵ, χουν ον 7.5 OF SAE NEW TE STAMEY {. 355 Exod. i. 8), one, it is generally supposed, of quite another dynasty, at all events of quite another spirit, from his who had invited the children of Israel into Egypt, and so hospitably en- tertained them there. The ὁδὸς ἑτέρα and καρδία ἑτέρα which God promises that He will give to his people are a new way and a new heart (Jer. xxxix. 89 ; cf. Deut. xxix. 22). It was not ‘another spirit’ only but a different (ἕτερον πνεῦμα) which was in Caleb, as distinguished from the other spies (Num. xiv. 24). Inthe parable of the Pounds the slothful servant is ἕτερος (Luke xix. 20). When Iphigenia about to die ex- claims, ἕτερον, ἕτερον αἰῶνα καὶ μοῖραν οἰκήσομεν, a different life with quite other surroundings is that to which she looks for- ward (Kuripides, Iphig. in Aul. 1516). The spirit that has been wandering through dry places, seeking rest in them in vain, takes ‘seven other spirits’ (ἕτερα πνεύματα), worse than himself, of a deeper malignity, with whose aid to repossess the house which he has quitted for a while (Matt. xii. 45). Those who are crucified with the Lord are ἕτεροι δύο, κακοῦργοι, ‘two other, malefactors,’ as it should be pointed (Luke xxii. 82; οὗ, Bornemann, Schol. in Lucam, p. 147; it would be inconceivable and revolting so to confound Him and them as to speak of them as ἄλλοι δύο. It is only too plain why St. Jude should speak of ἑτέρα σάρξ (ver. 7), as that which the wicked whom he is denouncing followed after (Gen. xix. 5). Christ appears to his disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ (Mark xvi, 12), the word indicating the mighty change which had passed upon Him at his resurrection, as by anticipation at his Transfiguration, and there expressed in the same way (Luke ix. 29). It is χείλεσιν ἑτέροις, with altogether other and different lips, that God will speak to his people in the New Covenant (1 Cor. xiv. 21); even as the tongues of Pentecost are ἕτεραι γλῶσσαι (Acts ii. 4), being quite different in kind from any other speech of men. It would be easy to multiply the passages where ἕτερος could not be exchanged at all, or could only be exchanged at a loss, for ἄλλος, as Matt. x1. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 40; Gal. i. 6. Others too there are where at first sight ἄλλος seems quite as fit or a fitter word; where 330 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ΣΟΥ yet ἕτερος retains its proper force. Thus at Luke xxii. 65 the ἕτερα πολλά are ‘multa diversi generis convicia,’ blasphemous speeches now of one kind, now of another ; the Roman soldiers taunting the Lord now from their own point of view,as a pretender to Ceesar’s throne; and now from the Jewish, as claiming to be Son of God. At the same time it would be idle to look for qualitative difference as intended in every case where érepos is used; thus see Heb. xi. 86, where it would be difficult to trace anything of the kind. What holds good of érepos, holds good also of the com- pounds into which it enters, of which the N. 'T. contains three ; namely, érepdyAwooos (1 Cor. xiv. 21), by which word the Apostle intends to bring out the non-intelligibility of the tongues to many in the Church; it is true indeed that we have also ἀλλόγλωσσος (Hizek. iil. 6); ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (1 Tim. i. 3), to teach other things, and things alien to the faith; ἑτεροζυγεῖν (2 Cor. vi. 14), to yoke with others, and those as little to be yoked with as the ox with the ass (Deut. xxii. 10) ; ef. ἑτεροκλινής (Clement of Rome, Cor. 11), swerving aside ; ἑτερογνώμων (cbid.), an epithet applied to Lot’s wife. So too we have in ecclesiastical Greek érepodogia, which is not merely another opinion, but one which, in so far as it is another, is a, worse, a departure from the faith. The same reappears in our own ‘ heterogeneous,’ which is not merely of another kind, but of another and a worse kind. For this point also de- serves attention, and is illustrated by several of the examples already adduced ; namely, that ἕτερος is very constantly, not this other and different, ἄλλο καὶ διάφορον, only, but such with the further subaudition, that whatever difference there is, it is for the worse. Thus Socrates is accused of introducing into Athens ἕτερα καινὰ δαιμόνια (Xenophon, Mem. i. 1.1); δαίμων ἕτερος (Pindar, Pyth. 111. 61) is an evil or hostile deity ; ἕτεραι θυσίαι (Aischylus, Agamemnon, 151), ill-omened sacri- fices, such as bring back to their offerer not a blessing but a curse ; δημαγωγοὶ ἕτεροι (Plutarch, Pericles, 3), are popular leaders not of a different only, but of a worse stamp and spirit than was Pericles. So too in the Septuagint other gods §xcvi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 537 than the true are invariably ἕτεροι θεοί (Deut. v. 7; Judg. x. 13; Hzek. xlii. 14; and often); compare Aristophanes _ (Zan, 889): ἕτεροι yap εἰσιν οἷσιν εὔχομαι θεοῖς. A barbarous tongue is ἑτέρα γλῶσσα (Isai. xxviii. 11), the phrase being linked with φαυλισμὸς χειλέων.. We may bring this distinction practically to bear on the interpretation of the N. T. There is only one way in which the fine distinction between ἕτερον and ἄλλο, and the point which St. Paul makes as he sets the one over against the other at Gal. i. 6, 7, can be reproduced for the English reader. ‘1 marvel,’ says the Apostle, ‘that ye are so soon removed from them that called you into the grace of Christ unto another (ἕτερον) Gospel, which is not another’ (ἄλλο). Dean Alford for the first ‘other’ has substituted ‘ different ’ : for indeed that is what St. Paul intends to express, namely, his wonder that they should have so soon accepted a Gospel different in character and kind from that which they had already received, which therefore had no right to be called another Gospel, to assume this name, being in fact no Gospel at all; since there could not be two Gospels, varying the one from the other. Cocceius: ‘Vos transferimini ad aliud Kvangelium quod aliud nec est, nec esse potest.’ There are other passages in the N. T. where the student may profitably exercise himself with the enquiry why one of these words is used in preference to the other, or rather why both are used, the one alternating with, or giving partial place to, the other. Such are 1 Cor. xii. 8-10; 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts iv. 12. See also Plato’s Politicus, 6a, and Stallbaum’s note thereupon. § ΧΟΥ͂. ποιέω, πράσσω. THERE is a long discussion in Rost and Palm’s Lewicon.s .v. πράσσω, On the distinction between these words; and the references there given sufficiently attest that this distinction has long and often occupied the attention of scholars; this occupation indeed dating as far back as Prodicus (see Plato, Charmides, 162 d). It is there rightly observed that ποιεῖν 7, 338 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xcvi brings out more the object and end of an act, πράσσειν the means by which this object is attained, as, for instance, hindrances moved out of the way, and the like; and also that the idea of continuity and repetition of action is inherent in zpdécocev=‘agere’ or ‘gerere,’ ‘handeln,’ ‘to practise’ ; but not necessarily in ποιεῖν τε" facere,’ ‘machen,’ which may very well be the doing once and for all; the producing and bringing forth something which being produced has an~ independent existence of its own; as ποιεῖν παιδίον, Of 8, woman, ποιεῖν καρπούς, of a tree; in the same way, ποιεῖν εἰρήνην, to make peace, while πράσσειν εἰρήνην is no more than to negotiate with the view to peace (see Pott, Htym. Forsch. vol. iii. p. 408); that attaining what this is only aiming to attain. Πράττειν and ποιεῖν are in this sense often joined together by Demosthenes, and with no tautology; thus of certain hostile designs which Philip entertained he assures the Athenians ὅτι πράξει ταῦτα καὶ ποιήσει (Orat. xix. 378), he will busy himself with the bringing about of these things, and he will effect them! (cf. Xenophon, Cyrop. 11. 2. 29; Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. vi. 5.8): πράσσειν, in the words of a recent German scholar, ist die geschiiftige, ποιεῖν die schaffende Thiitigkeit. ; How far can we trace the recognition of any such distine- tion in the Greek of the N. T.? There are two or three passages where it is difficult not to recognize an intention of the kind. It is hard, for example, to suppose that the change 1 These are some of Rost and Palm’s words: Auch Kriiger und Franke (Demosthenes, Olynth. iii. 15) unterscheiden πράσσειν als die geschiiftige, ποιεῖν als die schaffende Thitigkeit. Zulinglicher wird es indess sein, diesen Unterschied dahin festzustellen, dass bei ποιεῖν mehr die Vorstellung von dem Product der Thitigkeit, bei πράσσειν mehr die von dem Hinarbeiten auf ein Ziel mit Beseitigung entgegentretender Hindernisse, von den Mitteln und Wegen vorherrschend ist, wodurch dasselbe erreicht wird. Damit verbindet sich die Vorstellung einer wenigstens relativen Continuitit, wie aufgewandter Anstrengung. It may be added that in πράσσειν the action is always more or less con- scious of itself, so that, as was observed long ago, this could not be pre- dicated of animals (Ethic. Eudem. vi. 2.2); while the ποιεῖν is more free and spontaneous. 4xcvi SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 336 of words at John 111. 20, 21 is accidental; above all when the same reappears at chapter v. 29. In both places it is the φαῦλα πράσσειν, which is set, in the first instance, over against the ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, in the second against the ποιεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά, just as at Rom. vii. 19 we have ποιεῖν ἀγαθόν and πρᾶσσειν κακόν. It would of course be idle to assert that the ποιεῖν relates only to good things, for we have ποιεῖν ἀνομίαν (Matt. xiii. 41), ἁμαρτίαν (2 Cor. v. 21), τὰ κακὰ (Rom. iii. 8); not less idle to affirm that πράσσειν ig restricted to ill things ; for, to go no farther than the N.T., we have πράσσειν ἀγαθόν (Rom. ix. 11). Still it is not to be denied that very often where the words assume an ethical tinge, the inclination makes itself felt to use ποιεῖν in a good and πράσσειν in an evil sense ; the latter tendency appearing in a more marked way in the uses of πρᾶξις, which, occurring six times in the N. T. (namely at Matt. xvi. 27; Luke xxiii. 51; Acts xix. 18; Rom. vill. 18; xii. 4; Col. iii. 9), hag in all these places except the first an evil signification, very much like our ‘ practices’; cf. Polybius, iv. 8. 3 (πράξεις, ἀπάται, ἐπιβουλαῶ ; v. 96. 4. Bengel, at John iii. 20, gives the proper explanation of this change of words: “πράσσων. Malitia est irrequieta ; est quiddam operosius quam veritas. Hine verbis diversis notantur, uti cap. v. 29. There may be a busy activity in the working of evil, yet not the less it is true that ‘the wicked worketh a deceitful work,’ and has nothing to show for all his toil at the end, no fruit that remains. Then too evil is manifold, good is one ; they are ἔργα τῆς σαρκός (Gal. v. 22), for these works are many, not merely contradicting good, but often contradicting one another; but it is καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος (Gal. v. 19), for there is an inner consent, between all the parts of good, a ‘consensus virtutum,’ as Cicero calls it, knitting them into a perfect and harmonious whole, and inviting us to contemplate them as one. Those are of human art and device, this of Divine nature. Thus Jerome (in loco) : ‘In carne opera posuit [Paulus], et fructus in spiritu ; quia vitia in semetipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes frugibus yd ΖΦ BAO SV NON LIS OF THE .NE VW. TESTAMENT. §xXCvit pullulant et redundant.’ Here is enough to justify and explain the fact that the inspired reporter of our Lord's. words has on these two occasions (John iii. 20, 21) exchanged the φαῦλα πράσσειν for the ποιεῖν ἀλήθειαν, ποιεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά, the practising of evil for the doig of good. Let me add in conclusion a few excellent words of Bishop Andrewes: ‘There are two kinds of doers: 1. ποιηταί, and 2. πρακτικοί, which the Latin likewise expresseth in 1. ‘agere,’ and 2. ‘facere.’ ‘Agere,’ as in music, where, when we have done singing or playing, nothing remaineth : ‘facere,’ as in build- ing, where, after we have done, there is a thing permanent. And ποιηταί, ‘factores,’ they are St. James’ doers. But we have both the words in the English tongue: actors, as in a play ; factors, as in merchandise. When the play is done, all the actors do vanish : but of the factors’ doing, there is a gain, a real thing remaining.” On the distinction between πρᾶξις and ἔργον see Wyttenbach’s note on Plutarch’s Moraha, vol. vi. p. 601. § xeviil. βωμός, θυσιαστήριον. THERE was occasion to note, in dealing with the words προφητεύω and μαντεύομαι (ὃ vi.), the accuracy with which in several instances the lines of demarcation between the sacred and profane, between the true religion and the false, are maintained in the words which, reserved for the one, are not permitted to be used for the other, each retaining its proper and peculiar term. We have another example of this same precision here, in the fact of the constant use in the N. T. of θυσιαστήριον, occurring as it does more than twenty times, for the altar of the true God, while on the one occasion when a heathen altar needs to be named (Acts xvii. 23), βωμός is substituted in its stead. But, indeed, there was but a following here of the good example which the Septuagint Translators had shown, the maintenance of a distinction which these had drawn. So resolute were they to mark the difference between the altars of the true God and those on which abominable things were &xcvil SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 341 _ offered, that there is every reason to suppose they invented the word θυσιαστήριον for the purpose of maintaining this dis- tinction ; being indeed herein more nice than the inspired Hebrew Scriptures themselves ; for these, while they have a word which they use for heathen altars, and never for the altars of the true God, namely m3 (Isai. xv. 2; Amos vii. 9), make no scruple in using 31) now for the one (Lev. i. 9), and now for the other (Isai. xvii. 8). I need hardly observe that θυσιαστήριον, properly the neuter of θυσιαστήριος, as iXaorypiov (Iixod. xxv. 17; Heb. ix. 5) of ἱλαστήριος, nowhere occurs In classical Greek ; and it is this coining of it on the part of the Septuagint Translators which Philo must have had in mind when. he implied that Moses invented the word (De Vit. Mos. iii. 10). With all this the Greek of the O. T. does not invariably observe this distinction. I cannot indeed accept Num. xxii. 1, 2 as instances of a failure so to do; for what altars could be more truly heathen than those which Balaam reared? Still there are three occasions, one in Second Maccabees (xiii. 8), and two in Keclesiasticus (1. 12, 14), where βωμός designates an altar of the true God; these two Books, however, it must be remembered, hellenize very much. So too there are occasions on which θυσιαστήριον is used to designate an idol altar; for example, Judg. ii. 2; vi. 25; 2 Kin. xvi. 10. Still these are rarest exceptions, and some- times the antagonism between the words comes out with a most marked emphasis. It does so, for example, at 2 Mace. x. 2,3; but more remarkably still at 1 Mae. i. 59, where the historian recounts how the servants of Antiochus offered sacrifices to Olympian Jove on an altar which had been built over the altar of the God of Israel (θυσιάζοντες ἐπὶ τὸν βωμόν, ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. Our Translators are here put to their shifts, and are obliged to render βωμός ‘idol altar,’ and θυσιαστηρίον ‘altar.’ We may compare Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 4, where relating these same events he says, ἐποικοδομήσας καὶ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ βωμόν, σύας ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ κατέσφαξε. Still more notable, as marking how strong the feeling on this matter was, is the fact of the refusal of the Septuagint Translators 342 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xcvi to give the title of θυσιαστήριον (Josh. xxii.) to the altar which the Transjordanic tribes had reared—being as it was a piece of will-worship upon their parts, and no altar reared accord- ing to the will, or by the express command, of God. Throughout the chapter this altar is βωμός (ver. 10, 11, 16, 19, 28, 26, 34), the legitimate divinely ordained altar θυσια- στήριον (ver. 19, 28, 29), and this while the Hebrew text knows. no such distinction, but indiscriminately employs nat for both. ᾿ I mentioned just now an embarrassment, in which on.one occasion our Translators found themselves. In the Latin there 15 no such difficulty ; for at a very early day the Church adopted ‘altare’ to designate her altar, and assigned ‘ ara ’ exclusively to heathen uses. Thus see the Vulgate at Judg. vi. 28; 1 Mace. i. 59; 2 Macc. x. 2, 3; Acts xvii. 23. Cyprian in like manner expresses his wonder at the profane boldness of one of the ‘ turificati ’—those, that is, who in time of per- secution had consented to save their lives by burning incense before a heathen idol,—that he should afterwards have dared, without obtaining first the Church’s absolution, to continue his ministry —‘ quasi post aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei fas sit’ (Hp. 63). In profane Latin ‘ara’ is the genus, ‘altare ’ the specific kind of altar on which the victims were offered (Virgil, Hel. v. 65, 66; cf. Tacitus, Annal. xvi. 31, and Orelli thereupon). The distinction between βωμός and θυσιαστήριον, first established in the Septuagint, and recognized. in the N. T., was afterwards maintained in ecclesiastical Greek; for the Church has still her θυσία αἰνέσεως (Heb. xiii. 15), and that which is at once her θυσία ἀναμνήσεως and ἀνάμνησις θυσίας, and therefore her θυσιαστήριον still. We have clear testimony to this in the following passage of Chrysostom (i 1 Cor. Hom. 24), in which Christ is supposed to be speaking: ὥστε εἰ αἵματος ἐπιθυμεῖς, μὴ τὸν τῶν εἰδώλων βωμὸν τῷ τῶν ἀλόγων φόνῳ, ἀλλὰ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἐμὸν TH: ἐμῷ φοίνισσε αἵματι (compare Mede, Works, 1072, p. 391; Augusti, Christl. Archdol. vol. i. p. 412; and Smith, Dic- tionary of Christian Antiquities, s. v. ‘ Altar’). Ske SP NVONIMS OF TAL NEW Tho LAMEN 7 223 δ᾽ xcvlil. λαός, ἔθνος, δῆμος, ὄχλος. Λαός, a word of rarest use in Attic prose, but occurring between one and two thousand times in the Septuagint, is almost always there a title reserved for the elect people, the Israel of God. Still there are exceptions. The Philistines are a λαός (Gen. xxvi. 11), the Egyptians (Exod. ix. 15), and the Moabites (Ruth 1. 16) ; to others too the name is not refused. Then, too, occasionally in the plural οἱ λαοί are = 7a €Ovn; as for example at Neh. 1. 8; x. 80, 31; Ps. xevi. 6; Hos. x. 10; Mic. vi. 16. Or again we find λαοί joined with ἔθνη as ἃ sort of exhaustive enumeration of the whole race of mankind; thus Ps. evii. 4; Wisd. ii. 8; Rev. v. 9; vil. 9; Red τἰ 9 xl, ἡ: χἰῖν. ὃ; xyil. 15. Τὺ 16 truc indeed that in all these passages from the Book of Revelation the exhaus- tive enumeration is fowrfold; and to λαοί and ἔθνη are added φυλαί and γλῶσσαι, on one occasion φυλαί making way for βασιλεῖς (x. 11) and on another for ὄχλοι (xvii. 15). We may contrast with this a distributive use of λαός and ἔθνη, but λαός here in the singular, as at Luke 11, 82; Acts xxvi. 17, 28, where also, being used together, they between them take in the whole of mankind, but where λαός is claimed for and restricted to the chosen people, while ἔθνη includes all mankind outside of the covenant (Deut. xxx. 43; Isai. Ixv. 1, 2; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Acts xv. 14). And this is the general law of the words’ use, every other being exceptional ; λαός the chosen people, ἔθνη, or sometimes more fully τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ κόσμου (Luke xii. 30), or τῆς γῆς; but always in the plural and with the article, the residue of mankind (οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Acts xv. 17). At the same time ἔθνος in the singular has no such limitation; it is a name which, given to the Jews by others, is not intended to convey any slight, thus τὸ ἔθνος τῶν Ἰουδαίων (Acts x. 22); they freely take it as in no way a dishonorable title to themselves, τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν (Luke vii. 5; ef. xxili. 2; John x1. 18), τὸ εθνος τοῦτο (Acts xxiv. 3; ef. Exod. xxxiii. 18; Deut. iv.6; Wisd. xvii. 2); nay sometimes and with certain additions it is for them a title of highest 344 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ΧΟΥ͂ΠῚ honour; they are ἔθνος ἅγιον (Exod. xix.6; cf. 1 Pet. 11. 9); ἔθνος ἐκ μέσου ἐθνῶν (Clement of Rome, Cor. 29). If indeed the word be connected with ἔθος, and contemplates a body of people living according to one custom and rule, none could deserve the title better or so well as a nation which ordered their lives according to a more distinctive and rigidly defined custom and rule of their own than probably any other nation that ever lived. Δῆμος occurs only in St. Luke, and in him, as might be expected, only in the Acts, that is, after his narrative has left behind it the limitations of the Jewish Church, and has entered on and begun to move in the ampler spaces, and among the more varied conditions of the heathen world. The following are the four occasions of its use, xll. 22; xvil. 5 ; xix. 80, 88; they all exemplify well that fine and accurate use of technical terms, that choice of the fittest among them, which we so often observe in St. Luke, and which is so characteristic a mark of the highly educated man. The Greek δῆμος is the Latin ‘ populus,’ which Cicero (De Le Publ. i. 25; cf. Augustine, De Civ. Det, ii. 21) thus defines : ‘Populus autem non omnis hominum cetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus; ‘die Gemeinde,’ the free commonalty (Plutarch, Mul. Virt. 15, in fine), and these very often con- templated as assembled andin actual exercise of their rights as citizens. This idea indeed so dominates the word that ἐν τῷ δήμῳ is equivalent to, ‘in a popular assembly.’ It is invari- ably thus used by St. Luke. If we want the exact opposite to δήμος, it is ὄχλος, the disorganized, or rather the unorganized, multitude (Luke ix. 38; Matt. xxi. 8; Acts xiv. 14); this word in classic Greek having often a certain tinge of contempt, as designating those who share neither in the duties nor privileges of the free citizens. Such contempt, however, does not lie of necessity in the word (Rev. vil. 9; Acts 1. 15), and there is no hint of it in Scripture, where a man is held worthy of honour even though the only πολίτευμα in which he may claim a share is that which is eternal in the heavens (Phil. iii. 20). . g§xcix SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 345 δ xcix. βαπτισμός, βάπτισμα. ΤΉΞΒΕ are exclusively ecclesiastical terms, as are Παπτιστής and βαπτιστήριον ; none of them appearing in the Septuagint, nor in clagsical Greek, but only in the N. T., or in writings dependent on this, They are all in lineai descent from βαπτίζειν, a later form of βάπτειν, and to be found, though rarely, in classical Greek ; thus twice in Plato (Luthyd. 277 d ; Symp. 176 b), in which last place βεβαπτισμένος signifies well washed with wine; the ‘uvidus’ of Horace (Carm. 11. 19. 18); and often in later writers, as in Plutarch (De Superst. 3; Galba, 21), in Lucian (Bacch. 7), andin others. Before proceeding further, a word or two may fitly find place here on the relation between words of the same family, but divided from one another by their several terminations in pa and μος, as κήρυγμα and κηρυγμός, δίωγμα and διωγμός, δῆγμα and δηγμός, with others innumerable. It seldom happens that both forms are found in the N. T.; that in pa being of the most frequent occurrence; thus this has ἀπαύγασμα (Heb. i. 8), but not ἀπαυγασμός ; σέβασμα (Acts xvii. 23), but not σεβασμός : βδέλυγμα (Matt. xxiv. 15), but not βδελυγμός; ῥῆγμα (Luke vi. 49), but not ῥηγμός; περικάθαρμα (1 Cor. iv. 13), but not περικαθαρμός. Sometimes, but more rarely, it offers us the termination of μος ; thus _dpraypos (Phil. 11. 6), but not ἅρπαγμα; ἀπαρτισμός (Luke xiv. 28), but not ἀπάρτισμα;; καταρτισμός (Ephes. iv. 12), but not κατάρτισμα ; ἁγιασμός (Rom. vi. 19), but not ἁγίασμα. It will happen, but only in rare instances, that both forms occur in the N. T.; thus μίασμα (2 Pet. 11. 20) and μιασμός (2 Pet. ii. 10); and these with which we have at present to deal, βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός. There is occasionally, but not in the N. T., a third form ; thus besides σέβασμα and σεβασμός there is σέβασις ; besides ἀπάρτισμα and ἀπαρτισμός there is ἀπάρτισις; besides πλεόνασμα and πλεονασμός there is πλεόνασις ; besides ἅρπαγμα and dpraypds there is ἅρπασις ; and so too besides βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός we have βάπτισις 346 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xciy in Josephus (Anti. xviii. 5. 2) and in others. There is no difficulty in severally assigning to each of these forms the meaning which properly belongs to it; and this, even while we must own that in actual use the words are very far from abiding true to their proper significance, those with the active termination in pos continually drifting into a passive signifi- cation, as is the case with πλεονασμός, βασανισμός, and in the N. T. with ἁγιασμός and others; while the converse, if not quite so common, is yet of frequent occurrence ; ef. Tholuck, Disp. Christ. de loco Pauli Ep. ad Phil. ii. 6-9, 1848, p. 18. Thus, to take the words which now concern us the most nearly, Barrios is the act of baptism contemplated in the doing, a baptizing; βαπτισμός the same act contemplated not only as doing, but as done, a baptism; while βάπτισμα is not any more the act, but the abiding fact resulting there- from, baptism; the first embodying the transitive, the second the intransitive, notion of the verb ; while the third expresses the result of the transitive notion of the same—this last, therefore, as is evident, being the fittest word to designate the institution of baptism in the Church, as an abstract idea, or rather as an ever-existing fact, and not the same in its several concrete realizations. See on these passives in pa the ex- haustive essay on πλήρωμα in Bishop Lightfoot, On the Colossians, pp. 823-339, How far is this the usage of the N. T.? It can only be said to be approximately so; seeing that βαπτισμός has not there, as I am convinced, arrived at the dignity of setting forth Christian baptism at all. By βαπτισμός in the usage of the N. T. we must understand any ceremonial washing or lustration, such as either has been ordained of God (Heb. ix. 10), or invented by men (Mark vii. 4, 8) ; but in neither case as possessing any central significance: while by βάπτισμα we understand baptism in our Christian sense of the word (Rom. vi. 4; 1 Pet. ili. 21; Ephes. iv. 5); yet not so strictly as to exclude the baptism of John (Luke vii. 29; Acts x. 87; xix. 8). This distinction is in the main preserved by the Greek ecclesiastical writers. Josephus indeed calls the § Cc SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 347 baptism of John βαπτισμός (Antt. xviii. 5.2); but Augusti (Christl. Archiiol. vol. ii. p. 818) is strangely in error, affirm- ing as he does of the Greek Fathers that they habitually employ the same for Christian Baptism. So far from this, it would be difficult to adduce a single example of this from Chrysostom, or from any one of the great Cappadocian Fathers. In the Latin Church it is true that ‘ baptismus ’ and ‘baptisma’ are both employed to designate Christian baptism; by Tertullian one perhaps as frequently as the other ; while ‘ baptismus’ quite predominates in Augustine ; but it is altogether otherwise in ecclesiastical Greek, which remains faithful to the distinctions which the N. T. observes. These distinctions are there so constantly maintained, that all explanations of Heb. vi. 2 (βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς), which rest on the assumption that Christian Baptism is intended here, break down before this fact; not to urge the plural βαπτισμῶν, which, had the one baptism of the Church been intended, would be inexplicable. If, indeed, we take the βαπτισμοί of this place in its widest sense, as including all baptisms whatever with which the Christian had anything to do, either in the way of rejecting or making them his own, we can understand a ‘doctrine of baptisms,’ such as should teach the young convert the definitive abolition of the Jewish cere- monial lustrations, the merely preparatory and provisional character of the baptism of John, and the eternal validity of the baptism of Christ. We can understand too how these all should be gathered up under the one name of βαπτισμοί, being that they were ali washings; and this without in the least allowing that any other save βάπτισμα was the proper title of that λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας Which is the exclusive privilege of the Church of Christ. SG. σκότος, γνόφος, ζόφος, ἀχλύς. Or σκότος it needs hardly to speak. It is the largest and most inclusive word of this group; being of very frequent occurrence in the N. T., both in this its Attic form as also in 348 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃς that of σκοτία, which belongs to the common dialect. It is the exact opposite to φῶς; thus in the profoundly pathetic words of Ajax in Sophocles (4j. 894), iH: σκότος ἐμὸν φάος: compare Plato, Rep. vii. 518 a; Job xxii. 11; Luke xii. 3; Acts xxvi. 18. Τνόῴφος, which is rightly regarded as a later Doric form of δνόφος, occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Heb. xii. 18, and there in connexion with ζόφος ; in which same connexion it is found elsewhere (Deut. iv. 11; Exod. x. 22: Zeph. i. 16). There was evidently a feeling on the part of our early Translators, that an element of tempest was involved in the word, the renderings of it by them being these: ‘ mist’ (Wiclif and Tyndale); ‘storm’ (Cranmer); ‘blackness ’ (Geneva and Authorized Version) ; ‘ whirlwind’ (Rheims, as ‘turbo’ in the Vulgate). Our ordinary lexicons indicate very faintly, or not all, that such a force is to be found in γνόφος ; but it is very distinctly recognized by Pott (Etymol. Forsch. vol. v. page 346), who gives, as explanatory equivalents, ‘ Finsterniss,’ ‘ dunkel,’ ‘ Wirbelwind,’ and who with the best modern scholars sees in védas, νέφος, γνόφος and ζόφος, a group of words having much in common, perhaps only different shapes of what was once a single word. It is joined too, in the Septuagint, where it is of frequent use, with νεφέλη (Joel ii. 2; Ps. xcvi. 2; Ezek. xxxiv. 12), and with θύελλα (Deut. iv. 11; v. 22). Zogos, which occurs four times in the N. T. (2 Pet. ii. 4, 17; Jude 6, 13), or five times, if we make room for it at Heb. xii. 18, as it seems we should, is not found in the Septuagint; twice, however, namely at Ps. x. 2, (Ps.) xe. 6, in the Version of Symmachus. The o¢os may be contemplated as a kind of emanation of σκότος ; thus 6 ζόφος τοῦ σκότους (Jude 18) ; and signifies in its first meaning the twilight gloom which broods over the regions of the setting sun, and constitutes so strong a contrast to the life and light of that Orient where the sun may be said to be daily new-born. “Hepées, or the cloudy, is in Homer the standing epithet with which ζόφος, when used in this sense, is linked. But it means more than § Cc SVNONVUIS-OF JHE NEW TESTAMENT 329 this. There is a darkness darker still, that, namely, of the sunless underworld, the ‘nigra Tartara’ of Virgil (4. vi. 134); the ‘opaca Tartara’ of Ovid (Met. x. 20); the κνεφαῖα Ταρτάρου βάθη of Aischylus (Prom. Vinct. 1029). This, too, it further means, namely, that sunless world itself, though indeed this less often than the gloom which wraps it (Homer, Hymn. ad Cer. 888 ; Euripides, Hippolytus, 1484; ef. Job x. 21, 22). It is out of the ζόφος that Ahriman in the Persian mythology is born, as is Ormuzd out of the light (Plutarch, De Is. et Osir. 47). It will at once be perceived with what fitness the word in the N. T. is employed, being ever used to signify the darkness of that shadowy land where light is not, but only darkness visible. ᾿Αχλύς occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Acts xiii. 11; never in the Septuagint, although once in the Version of Symmachus (Job 11.5). It is by Galen defined as something more dense than ὀμίχλη, less dense than νέφος, In the single place of its N. T. use it attests the accuracy in the selection of words, and not least of medical words, which ‘the beloved physician’ so often displays. For him it expresses the mist of darkness, ἀχλὺς καὶ σκότος, which fell on the sorcerer Klymas, being the outward and visible sign of the inward spiritual darkness which should be his portion for a while in punishment for his resistance to the truth. It is by ‘ mist’ that all the translations of our English Hexapla render it, with the exception of the Rheims, which has ‘dimness’ ; while it is rendered well by ‘caligo’ in the Vulgate. St. Luke’s use of the word in the Acts is divided by nearly a thousand years from its employment by Homer; but the meaning has remained absolutely the same ; for indeed it is words with an ethical significance, and not those which express the pheno- mena of the outward world, that change with the changing years. Thus there is in the Odyssey a fine use of the verb ἀχλύειν (xii. 406), the poet describing there the responsive darkness which comes over the sea as it is overshadowed by a dark cloud (cf. ‘inhorruit unda tenebris’: Virgil, 4’. iii. 195). ᾿Αχλύς, too, is employed by Homer to express the mist 350 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT δ οι which clouds the eyes of the dying (JI. xvi. 344), or that in which the gods, for one cause or another, may envelope their favourites. δ᾽ 61. βέβηλος, κοινός. THE image which βέβηλος, derived from βηλός, a threshold, suggests, is that of a spot trodden and trampled on, lying open to the casual foot of every intruder or careless passer- by ;—and thus, in words of Thucydides, a χωρίον βέβηλον (iv. 97). Exactly opposite to this is the ἄδυτον, a spot, that is, fenced and reserved for sacred uses, as such not lightly to be approached, but in the language of the Canticles, ‘a garden enclosed, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed’ (Cant. iv. 12). It is possible indeed that the ‘ profaneness’ which is predi- cated of person or thing to whom this title is applied, may be rather negatively the absence of any higher consecration than positively the active presence of aught savouring of unholy or profane. Thus it is oftenjoined with ἀμύητος (as by Plutarch, De Def. Orac. 16), signifying no more than one uninitiated, the dvopyiacros, and, as such, arcendus a sacris; compare Plato, Symp. 218 ὁ, where it is joined with ἀγροῖκος. In like manner ἄρτοι βέβηλοι (1 Sam. xxi. 4) are simply unconsecrated common loaves, as contrasted with the shew-bread which the high priest declares to be holy. Not otherwise the Latin ‘ profanus ’ means no more than that which is left outside the τέμενος, that which is ‘ pro fano,’ and thus wanting the con- secration which the τέμενος, or sanctuary, has obtained. We, too, in English mean no more, when we distinguish between ‘sacred’ and ‘ profane’ history, setting the one over against the other. We do not imply thereby any profaneness, positive and properly so called, in the latter, but only that it is not what the former is, a history having in the first place to do with the kingdom of God, and the course of that kingdom. So too it fared at first with βέβηλος. It was only in later use that 1t came to be set over against ἅγιος (Ezek. xxii. 6) and ὅσιος, to be joined with ἀνόσιος (1 Tim.i. 9), with ypawdys (iv. 7), with ἄνομος (Hizek. 11. 25), that μιαραὶ χεῖρες (2 Mace. Nel re OVO So Of Ade NEW TEST AM LN eae ει v. 16) could within a few lines be changed for βέβηλοι, as an adequate equivalent. But in what relations, it may be asked, do βέβηλος and κοινός stand to one another? Before bringing the latter into such questionable company it may be observed that we have many pleasant and honourable uses of κοινός and its deriva- tives, κοινωνία and κοινωνικός, in the N. T.; thus Jude 3; 2 Cor. xiii. 18; 1 Tim. vi. 18; while in heathen Greek Socrates is by Dio Chrysostom happily characterized as κοινὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, giving himself, that is, no airs, and in nothing withdrawing himself from friendly and familiar intercourse with his fellow-men ; the word being capable of finding a yet higher application to Him, of whom some complained that He ate with publicans and sinners (Matt. ix. 10,11). He, too, in this sense, and in the noblest aspect of the word, was κοινός. ‘This, however, only by the way. The employment with which we have here to do of κοινός and κοινόω in sacred things, and as equivalent to βέβηλος and βεβηλόω, is exclusively Jewish Hellenistic. One might claim for it to be restricted to the N. T. alone, if it were not for two exceptional examples (1 Mace. i. 47, 62). Comparing Acts xxi. 28, and xxiv. 6, we have curious implicit evidence that such an employment of κοινός Was, at the time when the Acts were written, un- familiar, probably unknown, to the heathen. The Jewish adversaries of St. Paul, when addressing their Israelitish fellow-countrymen, make their charge against him, κεκοίνωκε τὸν ἅγιον τόπον (Acts xxi. 28); but when they are bringing against him the same accusation, not now to their Jewish fellow-countrymen, but to Felix, a heathen, they change their word, and the charge runs, ἐπείρασε βεβηλῶσαι τὸ ἱερόν (Acts xxiv. 6); the other language would have been here out of keeping, might very likely have been unintelligible. Very noticeable is the manner in which κοινός in the N. T. more and more encroaches on the province of meaning which, first belonging exclusively to βέβηλος, the two came afterwards to divide between them, but with the result that κοινός gradually assumed to itself the larger share, and was 352 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § cil used the most often (Mark vil. 2; Acts x. 14; Rom. xiv. 14, bis; Heb. x. 29). How this came to pass, how βέβηλος had, since the Septuagint was written, been gradually pushed from its place, is not difficult to see. Kovvdés, which stepped into its room, more commended itself to Jewish ears, as bringing out by contrast the ἐκλογή of the Jewish people as a λαὸς περιούσιος, having no fellowship with aught which was unclean. The less that there necessarily lay in κοινός of defilement, the more strongly the separation of Israel was brought out, that would endure no fellowship with things which had any commonness about them. The ceremonially unclean was in fact more and more breaking down the barrier which divided it from that which was morally un- clean ; and doing away with any distinction between them. § Gli. μόχθος, πόνος, κόπος. Μόχθος only occurs three times in the N. T., and always in closest sequence to κόπος (2 Cor. xi. 27; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8). There can scarcely be a doubt of its near connexion with μόγις, this last, as Curtius suggests, being a dative plural, μόγοις, which has let fall a letter, and subsided into an adverb. The word, which does not occur in Homer nor in Plato, is the homely everyday word for that labour which, in one shape or another, is the lot under the sun of all of the sinful children of Adam. It has been suggested by some that the infinitely laborious character of labour, the more or less of distress which is inextricably bound up with it, and cannot be escaped, is hardly brought out in μόχθος with the same emphasis as it is in the other words which are here grouped with it, and especially in πόνος, and that a point of difference may here be found between them; but this is hardly the case. Phrases like the πολύμοχθος ΓΑρης of Kuripides (Phen. 791), and they may be multiplied to any extent, do not bear out this view. Out of the four occasions on which πόνος occurs in the N. T., three are found in the Apocalypse (xvi. 10, 11; xxi. 4), δι SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT _ 353 and one in Colossians (iv. 13); for πόνος must there stand beyond all serious question, however there may be no fewer than four other readings, πόθος, κόπος, ζῆλος, ἀγών, which are competitors for the place that it occupies by a right better than them all. ovos is labour such as does not stop short of demanding the whole strength of a man; and this exerted to the uttermost, if he is to accomplish the task which is before him. Thus in Homer war is constantly regarded as the πόνος, not of mortal warriors only, but immortal, of Ares himself; πόνος ἀνδρῶν, as Theognis (985) calls it; being joined with δῆρις (Il. xvii. 158) and with πόλεμος (xvii. 718). Πόνος is the standing word by which the labours of Hercules are expressed ; μόχθοι too they are sometimes, but not nearly so often, called (Sophocles, Z’rach. 1080, 1150). Πόνος in Plato is joined with ἀγὼν ἔσχατος (Phedr. 247 δ), with νόσος (244 d), with κίνδυνος (2 Alcib. 142 b), with ζημία (Rep. ii. 865 δ), in the Septuagint with ὀδύνη (1 Kin. xv. 23), with μάστιξ (Jer. vi. 7), with πληγή (2 Chr. ix.28). The cruel bondage of the children of Israel in Kgypt is their πόνος (Exod. 11.11). It is nothing wonderful that, signifying this, πόνος should be expressly named as having no place in the Heavenly City (Rev. xxi. 4). Κόπος is of much more frequent recurrence. It is found some twenty times in the N. T., being not so much the actual exertion which a man makes, as the lassitude or weariness (see Pott, Htym. Forsch. vol. v. p. 10) which follows on this straining of all his powers to the utmost. It is well worth our while to note the frequent use which is made of κόπος and of the verb κοπιάω, for the designating what are or ought to be the labours of the Christian ministry, containing as they _ do a word of warning for all that are in it engaged (John iv. 38; Acts xx. 35; Col. i. 29; 2 Cor. vi. 5; 1 Thess. iii. 5, and often). It may be said in conclusion that ‘labour,’ ‘toil’ (or perhaps ‘ travail’) and ‘ weariness,’ are the three words which in English best reproduce the several Greek words, μόχθος, πόνος, κόπος, With which we here have to do. 354 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § ci δ 6111. ἄμωμος, ἄμεμπτος, ἀνέγκλητος, ἀνεπίληπτος. WorbDs expressing severally absence of blemish, and absence of blame, are very easily confounded, and the distinction between them lost sight of; not to say that those which bear one of these meanings easily acquire and make the other their own. ‘Take in proof the first in this group of words—of which all have to do with the Christian life, and what its character should be. We have in the rendering of this a singular illustration of a shortcoming on the part of our Translators of 1611, which has been often noted, the failure I mean upon their parts to render one Greek word by a fixed correspondent word in the English. It is quite true that this feat cannot always, or nearly always, be done; but what constraining motive was there for six variations such as these which are the lot of ἄμωμος on the six occasions of its occurrence? At Kiphes. i. 4 it appears as ‘ without blame’; at Col. i. 22, as ‘unblameable’; at Ephes. v. 27 as ‘without blemish’; at Heb. ix. 14, as ‘ without spot’; at Jude 24 as ‘faultless’; at Rev. xiv. 5 as ‘ without fault.’ Of these the first and second have failed to seize the exact force of the word. No such charge can be brought against the other four; one may be happier than another, but all are sufficiently correct. In- accurate it certainly is to render ἄμωμος ‘without blame,’ or ‘unblameable,’ seeing that μῶμος in later Hellenistic Greek has travelled from the signifying of blame to the signifying of that which is the subject of blame, a blot, that is, or spot, or blemish. ἤλμωμος, a rare word in classical Greek, but found in Herodotus (ii. 177), and in Adschylus (Perse, 185) in this way became the technical word to designate the absence of anything amiss in a sacrifice, of anything which would render it unworthy to be offered (Exod. xxix. 2; Num. vi. 14; Ezek. xliii. 22; Philo, De Profug. 8. 15); or the sacrificing priest unworthy to offer it (1 Mace. iv. 42). When joined with ἄσπιλος for the designation of this faultlessness, as it 7s joined at 1 Pet. i. 19, ἄμωμος would ea : ’ gcu1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 355 indicate the absence of internal blemish, ἄσπιλος that of external spot. Already in the Septuagint it has been trans- ferred to the region of ethics, being of constant use there to set forth the holy walking of the faithful (Ps. exviii. [exix. H. V.] 1; Prov. xi. 5), and even applied as a title of honour to God Himself (Ps. xvii. 38). We find it joined with ἀνέγκλητος (Col. 1. 22); and with ἅγιος (Ephes. i. 4; v. 27), and we may regard it as affirming a complete absence of all fault or blemish on the part of that whereof it is predicated. But if ἄμωμος is thus the ‘unblemished,’ ἄμεμπτος is the ‘unblamed.’ ‘There is a difference between the two statements. Christ was ἄμωμος in that there was in Him no spot or blemish, and He could say, ‘ Which of you con- vinceth Me of sin?’ but in strictness of speech He was not ἄμεμπτος, nor is this epithet ever given to Him in the N. T., seeing that He endured the contradiction of sinners against Himself, who slandered his footsteps and laid to his charge things that He knew not. Nor, however they may strive after this, can the saints of God lay to their account that they will certainly attain it, and that fault, just or unjust, will not be found with them. The ἄμωμος may be ἄμεμπτος (for see Luke i. 6; Phil. ii. 15), but he does not always prove so (1 Pet. 11. 12, 15). At the same time there is a constant tendency to regard the ‘inculpatus’ as also the ‘ inculpabilis,’ so that in actual usage there is a continual breaking down of the distinct and several use of these words. The O. T. uses of ἄμεμπτος, as Job xi. 4, sufficiently prove this. ᾿Ανέγκλητος, which, like ἀνεπίληπτος, is in the N. T. exclusively a word of St. Paul’s, occurring five times in his Hpistles, and nowhere else, is rendered ‘unreprovable ° (Col. 4-22), “blameless” (1 Corsi. 83°) Tim, ii, 10; Til: 1. 6, 7). [Ὁ 15 justly explained by Chrysostom as implying not acquittal merely, but absence of so much as a charge or accusation brought against him of whom it is affirmed. It moves, like ἄμωμος, not in the subjective world of the thoughts and estimates of men, but in the objective world of facts. It is an epithet by Plutarch (De Cap. ex In. Util. 5) accurately AGA? 356 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § civ joined with ἀλοιδόρητος. In a passage cited above, namely 1 Tim. iii. 10, there is a manifest allusion to a custom which still survives in our Ordinations, at the opening of which the ordaining Bishop demands of the faithful present whether they know any notable crime or charge for the which those who have been presented to him for Holy Orders ought not to be ordained; he demands, in other words, whether they be ἀνέγκλητοι, that is, not merely unaccusable, but unaccused ; not merely free from any just charge, for that question is reserved, if need be, for later investigation, but free from any charge at all—the intention of this citation being, that if any present has such a charge to bring, the ordination should not go forward until this had been duly sifted. ᾿Ανεπίληπτος, of somewhat rare use in classical Greek, occurring once in Thucydides (v. 17) and once in Plato (Phileb. 48 c), never in the Septuagint or the Apocrypha, 15 found in company with καθαρός (Lucian, Piscat. i. 8), with ἀνέγκλητος (ib. 46), with τέλειος (Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Conv. 9), with ἀδιάβλητος (De Lib. Hd. 7), is in our Version twice rendered ‘blameless’ (1 Tim. iii. 2; v. 7), but once ‘un- rebukeable’ (vi. 14); these three being the only occasions. on which it is found in the N. T. ‘Irreprehensible,’ a word not occurring in our Authorized Version, but as old as it and older; and on one of the above occasions, namely, at 1 Tim. iii. 2, employed by the Rhemish, which had gotten it from the ‘irreprehensibilis’ of the Vulgate, would be a nearer translation, resting as it does on the same image as the Greek ; that, namely, of affording nothing which an adversary could take hold of, on which he might ground a charge: μὴ παρέχων κατηγορίας ἀφορμήν, as the Scholiast on Thucydides has it. At the same time ‘ unreprehended,’ if such a word might pass, would be a nearer rendering still. § civ. βραδύς, νωθρός, ἀργός. In a careful article which treats of these words, Schmidt. expresses in German the ultimate conclusions about them §civ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT — 357 whereat he has arrived; which it may be worth while to repeat, as some instruction may be gotten from them. Bpadvs, he states, would best be represented in German by ‘langsam,’ with ταχύς, or else with ὠκύς (Homer, Odys. viii. 829), or with ἀγχίνους for its antithesis ; νωθρός by ‘ triage,’ with ὀξύς for its proper opposite; while he morally identifies apyos with the German ‘faul,’ or with ‘ unthitig,’ and finds in ἐνεργός the proper antithesis of this. Let us examine these words a little closer. Bpadvs differs from the words with which it is here brought into comparison, that no moral fault or blame is necessarily involved in it; so far indeed from this, that of the three occasions on which it is used in the N. T., two are in honour; for to be ‘slow’ to evil things, to rash speaking, or to anger (Jam. i. 19, bis), is a grace, and not the contrary. Elsewhere too βραδύς is honorably used, as when Isocrates (i. 84) advises to be ‘slow’ in planning and~ swift in performing. Neither is it in dispraise of the Spartans that Thucydides ascribes slowness of action (βραδύτης) to the Spartans and swiftness to the Athenians. Η is in this doing no more than weighing in equal scales, these against those, the more striking and more excellent qualities of each (viii. 96). Of νωθρός, only found twice in the Ν. T., and both times in the Epistle to the Hebrews (v. 11; vi. 12), the etymology is uncertain; that from vy and ὠθεῖν, which found favour once, failing to do sonow. We meet the word in good Attic Greek ; thus in Plato (Theetet. 144 b); the form νωθὴς being the favourite in the classical periods of the language, and νωθρός not coming into common use till the times of the κοινὴ διάλεκτος. It occurs but once in the Septuagint (Prov. xxii. 29), νωθροκάρδιος also once (Prov. xii. 8); twice in the Apo- crypha, at HKeclus. xi. 18, and again at iv. 34, where νωθρός and παρειμένος ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις stand in instructive juxta- position. There is a deeper, more inborn sluggishness implied in νωθρός, and this bound up as it were in the very life, than 358 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § civ in either of the other words of this group. The βραδύς of to-day might become the ὠκύς of to-morrow; the ἀργός might grow to ἐνεργός; but the very constitution of the νωθρός unfits him for activities of the mind or spirit; he is νωθρὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπινοίαις (Polybius, iv. 8. 5). The word is joined by Dionysius of Halicarnassus with ἀναίσθητος, ἀκίνητος, and ἀπαθής; by Hippocrates, cited by Schmidt, with βαρύς ; by — Plutarch (De Def. Orac.) with δυσκίνητος, this last epithet expressing clearly what in others just named is only sug- gested, namely, a certain awkwardness and unwieldliness of gait and demeanour, representing to the outward world a slowness and inaptitude for activities of the mind which is within. On its second appearance, Heb. vi. 12, the Vulgate happily renders it by ‘segnis’; ‘sluggish,’ in place of the ‘slothful,’ which now stands in our Version, would be an improvement. Delitzsch, upon Heb. v. 12, sums up the force of νωθρός : Schwer in Bewegung zu setzen, schwerfillig, triage, stumpf, matt, lissig; while Pollux makes νωθρεία a synonym of ἀμβλύτης. It is in its earlier form a standing epithet for the ass (Homer, JJ. ii. 559). ᾿Αργός (=depyds), used of persons (2 Pet. i. 8; Tit. 1. 12) and of things (Matt. xii. 36), is joined in the first of these places with ἄκαρπος. It is there rendered ‘barren,’ a not very happy rendering, for which ‘idle’ might be substituted with advantage, seeing that ‘barren and unfruitful,’ as we read it now, constitute a tautology which it would be well to get rid of. It is joined by Plato to ἀμελής (Rep. iv. 421 d), and to δειλός (Legg. x. 908) ; by Plutarch, as already had been done by St. Peter, to ἄκαρπος (Poplic. 8); the verb ἀργεῖν by Demosthenes to σχολάζειν and ἀπορεῖν. It is set over against ἐνεργός by Xenophon (Cyrop. iii. 2. 19), against ἐργάτις by Sophocles (Phil. 97). ‘Slow’ (or ‘ tardy’), ‘sluggish,’ and ‘idle’ would severally represent the words of this group. ; δον SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT — 359 δ cv. δημιουργός, τεχνίτης. ςΒΟΙΠΌΒΕΗ and maker’ cannot be regarded as a very satis- factory rendering of the τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργός of Heb. xi. 10 ; ‘maker ’ saying little more than ‘builder’ had said already. The words, as we have them, were brought into the text by Tyndale, and have kept their place in all the Protestant trans- lations since, while ‘craftyman and maker’ are in Wiclif, ‘artificer and builder’ in the Rheims. Delitzsch traces this distinction between them, namely that God, regarded as τεχνίτης, is contemplated as laying out the scheme and ground- plan, if we might so speak, of the Heavenly City. He is δημιουργός, as embodying in actual form and shape the divine idea or thought of his mind. This distribution of meaning to the several words, which is very much that of the Vulgate (‘artifex et conditor’), and in modern times of Meyer (Bau- kiinstler und Werkmeister), has its advantage, namely, that what 7s first, so far as a first and last exist in the order of the work of God, is named first, the divine intention before the divine realization of the same; but it labours under this serious defect, namely, that it assigns to τεχνίτης a meaning of which it is difficult, if not impossible, to find any example. Assuredly it is no unworthy conception of God to conceive of Him as the drawer of the ground-plan of the Heavenly City ; while the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its relations to Philo, and through him to Plato, is exactly where we might expect to meet it; but τεχνίτης in no other passage of its occurrence in the N. T. (they are three, Acts xix. 24, 38; Rev. xviii. 22), nor yet in the thirteen of the Septuagint and Apocrypha, gives the slightest countenance to the ascription to it of such a meaning ; the same being as little traceable in the Greek which lies outside-of and beyond the sacred writings. While therefore I believe that δημιουργός and τεχνίτης may and ought to be distinguished, I am unable to accept this distinction. But first let something be said concerning each of these words. Δημιουργός is one of those grand and for rhetorical 360 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τὸν purposes finely selected words, which constitute so remarkable and unique a feature of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and, in the matter of style, difference it so materially from all the other Epistles. Beside its single occurrence there (Heb. xi. 10), it is to be found once in the Apocrypha (2 Mace. iv. 1); in the Septuagint not at all. Its proper meaning, as it bears on its front, is ‘one whose works stand forth to the public gaze’ (‘cujus opificia publice prostant’). But this of the public character of the works has dropt out of the word; and ‘maker’ or ‘author ’—this on more or less of a grand scale— is all which remains to it. It is a very favourite word with Plato, and of very various employment by him. Thus rhetoric is the δημιουργός of persuasion (Gorg. 4538 a); the sun, by its presence or absence, is the δημιουργός of day or night (Tim. 40 a); God is the δημιουργός of mortal men (compare Jose- phus, Anti.i. 7.1). There is no hint in Holy Scripture of . the adoption of the word into the theosophic or philosophic speculations of the age, nor any presentiment of the prominent part which it should play in coming struggles, close at hand as were some of these. But if God, as He obtains the name of δημιουργός, is recog- nized as Maker of all things, πατὴρ καὶ ποιητής, as He is called by Plutarch (De Fac. in Orb. Lun. 18), πατὴρ καὶ δημιουργός by Clement of Rome (Cor. 35), τεχνίτης, which is often found in connexion with it (thus Lucian, Hipp. 8; Philo, Alleg. Leg. 111. 82), brings further out what we may venture to call the artistic side of creation, that which justifies Cicero in speaking of God as‘ artifex mundi,’ He moulding and fashion- ing, in many and marvellous ways, the materials which by a prior act of his will, prior, that is, in our conception of it, He has called into existence. If δημιουργός more brings out the power of the divine Creator, τεχνίτης expresses rather his manifold wisdom, the infinite variety and beauty of the works of his hand; ‘how manifold are thy works; in wisdom hast ‘Thou made them all!’ All the beauty of God’s world owns Him for its author, τοῦ κάλλους γενεσιάρχης, as a writer in the Apocrypha, whose further words I shall presently quote, ον TIVOIVVYIUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 201 names Him. Bleek therefore (on Heb. xi. 10) is, as I cannot doubt, nearer the mark when he says, Durch τεχνίτης wird hier gleichfalls der Schépfer bezeichnet, aber mit Beziehung auf das Kunstlerische in der Bereitung des Werkes: and he quotes Wisdom xiii. 1: οὔτε τοῖς ἔργοις προσχόντες ἐπέγνωσαν τὸν τεχνίτην. ‘There is a certain inconvenience in taking the words, not as they occur in the Epistle itself, but in a reverse order, δημιουργός first and τεχνίτης afterwards ; this, however, is not so great as in retaining the order as we find it, and allowing it to dominate our interpretation, as it appears to me that Delitzsch has done. S$ ΟΥ]. ἀστεῖος, ὡραῖος, καλός. ᾿Αστεῖος occurs twice in the N. T. (Acts vii. 20, and Heb. xi. 23), and on both occasions it is an epithet applied to Moses ; having been drawn from Exod. ii. 2, where the Septuagint uses this word as an equivalent to the Hebrew 150 ; compare Philo, De Vité Mos. i. 38. The τῷ Θεῷ, which at Acts vii. 20 is added to ἀστεῖος, has not a little perplexed interpreters, as is evident from the various renderings which the expression has found. I will enumerate a few: ‘gratus Deo’ (Vulg.) ; ‘loved of God’ (Wiclif) ; ‘a proper child in the sight of God’ (Tyndale) ; ‘acceptable unto God’ (Cranmer, Geneva, and Rheims) ; ‘ exceeding fair’ (A. V.) ; this last rendering, which makes the τῷ Θεῷ a heightening of the high quality of the thing which is thus extolled, being probably the nearest to the truth; see for a like idiom Jonah iii. 3: πόλις μεγάλη τῷ Θεῷ. At Heb. xi. 28, ‘a proper child’ is the rendering of all our Knglish Versions, nor would it be easy to improve upon it ; though ‘ proper,’ so used, is a little out of date. The ἄστυ which lies in ἀστεῖος, and which constitutes its base, declares at once what is the point from which it starts, and explains the successive changes through which it passes. He first of all is ἀστεῖος who has been born and bred, or at all events reared, in the city; who in this way is ‘urban.’ But the ‘ urban ’ may be assumed also to be ‘ urbane’ ; so testifying 362 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT καὶ ονι to the gracious civilizing influences of the life among men, and converse with men, which he has enjoyed; and thus ἀστεῖος obtains a certain ethical tinge, which is real, though it may not be very profound ; he who is such being implicitly | contrasted with the ἀγροῖκος, the churl, the boor, the villein. Thus in an instructive passage in Xenophon (Cyrop. 1. 2. 12) the ἀστεῖοι are described as also εὐχάριτες, obliging, that is, and gracious, according to the humbler uses of that word. It is next assumed that the higher culture which he that is bred in cities enjoys, will display itself in the very aspect that he wears, which will be fashioned and moulded under humaniz- ing influences ; and thus the ἀστεῖος may be assumed as fair to look on and comely, a suggestion of beauty, not indeed generally of a high character, finding its way very distinctly into the word; thus Plutarch, De Gen. Socr., contrasts the ἀστεῖος and the αἰσχρός, or positively ugly; and thus too Judith is ἀστεία (Judith xi. 23)=the εὐπρόσωπος applied to Sarah (Gen. xii. 11). ‘Qpatos is a word of constant recurrence in the Septuagint, representing there a large variety of Hebrew words. In the N. T. it appears only four times (Matt. xxiii. 27; Acts ui. 2, 10; Rom. x. 15). The steps by which it obtains the meaning of beautiful, such as in all these passages it possesses, are few and not difficult to trace. All which in this world lives submitted to the laws of growth and decay, has its ‘ hour’ or ὥρα, the period, that is, when it makes fairest show of what- ever of grace or beauty it may own. This ὥρα, being thus the turning point of its existence, the time when it is at its loveliest and best, yields ὡραῖος with the sense first of timely ; thus ὡραῖος θάνατος in Xenophon (Ages. x. 3) a timely because honourable death ; and then of beautiful (in voller Entwick- lung oder Blithe stehend,—Schmidt). It will be seen that ἀστεῖος and patos arrive at one and the same goal; so that ‘fair,’ or ‘proper,’ or ‘ beautiful,’ might be the rendering of either or of both; but that they arrive at it by paths wholly different, reposing as they do on wholly different images. One belongs to art: the other to §cv1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 363 nature. In ἀστεῖος the notions of neatness, symmetry, ele- gance, and so finally more or less of beauty, are bound up, It is indeed generally something small which ἀστεῖος implies, even when it is something proposed for our admiration. Thus Aristotle, while he admits (Hth. Nic. iv. 8. 5) that small persons (οἱ μικροί) may be ἀστεῖοι and σύμμετροι, dapper and well shaped, refuses them the title of καλοί. ‘Qpatos is different. There speaks out in it the sense that for all things which belong to this passing world, the grace of the fashion of them perishes, but that they have their ‘hour,’ however brief, the season of their highest perfection. The higher moral aspects and uses of καλός are most in- teresting to note, above all, the perfect freedom with which it moves alike in the world of beauty and in that of goodness, claiming both for its own; but of this we are not here to speak. It is only as designating physical aspects of beauty that it could be brought into comparison with ὡραῖος here. KaAds, affirmed to be of the same descent as the German ‘heil,’ as our own ‘ whole’ (Curtius, Grwndziige, 180), as we first know it, expresses beauty, and beauty contemplated from a point of view especially dear to the Greek mind, namely, as the harmonious completeness, the balance, proportion, and measure of all the parts one with another of that to which this epithet is given. Basil the Great brings this out excel- lently well as he draws the line between it and ὡραῖος (Hom. in Ps. xliv.) : Τὸ ὡραῖον, he says, τοῦ καλοῦ διαφέρει - OTL TO μὲν ὡραῖον λέγεται τὸ συμπεπληρωμένον εἰς τὸν ἐπιτήδειον καιρὸν πρὸς τὴν οἰκείαν ἀκμήν ᾿ ὡς ὡραῖος 6 καρπὸς τῆς ἀμπέλου, ὁ τὴν οἰκείαν πέψιν εἰς τελείωσιν ἑαυτοῦ διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἔτους ὥρας ἀπολαβών, καὶ ἐπιτήδειος εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν: καλὸν δέ ἐστι τὸ ἐν τῇ συνθέσει τῶν μελῶν εὐάρμοστον, ἐπανθοῦσαν αὐτῷ τὴν χάριν ἔχον. Compare Plato, Tim. 80 c; Rep. x. 601 ὁ, and Stallbaum’s note. 364 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $§cvu § evil. [This concluding article contains contributions toward the illustration of some other synonyms, for a fuller dealing with which I have not found place in this volume.] 1, ἐλπίς, rioris.—Augustine (Enchirid. 8): ‘Est itaque fides et malarum rerum et bonarum: quia et bona creduntur et mala; et hoc fide bona, non malé. Est etiam fides et preteritarum rerum, et presentium, et futurarum. Credimus enim Christum mortuum; quod jam preteriit: credimus sedere ad dexteram Patris; quod nunc est: credimus venturum ad judicandum; quod futurum est. Item fides ef suarum rerum est et alienarum. Nam et se quisque credit aliquando esse ccepisse, nec fuisse utique sempiternum; et alios, atque alia ; nec solum de aliis hominibus multa, que ad religionem pertinent, verum etiam de angelis credimus. Spes autem non nisi bonarum rerum est, nec nisi futurarum, et ad eum pertinentium qui earum spem gerere perhibetur. Que cum ita sint, propter has caussas distinguenda erit fides ab spe, sicut vocabulo, ita et rationabili differentia. Nam quod adtinet ad non videre sive que creduntur, sive que sperantur, fidei speique commune est.’ Compare Bishop O’Brien, Nature and Effects of Fatth, p. 804; and Zoéch, De Vi ac Notione Vocis ἐλπίς in Ν. 7. 2. πρεσβύτης, yépwv.—Augustine (Hnarr. in Ps. Ιχχ. 18): ‘Senecta et senium discernuntur a Grecis. Gravitas enim post juventutem aliud nomen habet apud Grecos, et post ipsam gravitatem veniens ultima «tas aliud nomen habet; nam πρεσβύτης dicitur gravis, et γέρων senex. Quia autem in Latina lingua duorum istorum nominum distinctio deficit, de senectute ambo sunt posite, senectaetsenium. Scitis autem esse duas eetates.’ Cf. Quest. in Gen. i. 70. 8. φρέαρ, πηγή. Αυαρυδίύϊηθ (in Joh. Evang. Tract. 15): Omnis puteus [φρέαρ], fons [πηγή]; non omnis fons puteus. §cvll SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 365 Ubi enim aqua de terra manat et usui preebetur haurientibus, fons dicitur ; sed si in promptu et superficie sit, fons tantum dicitur: si autem in alto et profundo sit, ita puteus vocatur, ut fontis nomen non amittat.’ 4. σχίσμα, aipeors.— Augustine (Con. Crescon. Don. ii. 7) : ‘Schisma est recens congregationis ex aliqué sententiarum diversitate dissensio: heresis autem schisma inveteratum.’ Cf. Jerome (in Hp. ad Tit. iii. 10) : ‘ Inter heresim et schisma hoc esse arbitrantur, quod heresis perversum dogma habeat ; schisma propter episcopalem dissensionem ab Kcclesia separetur ; quod quidem in principio aliquaé ex parte intelligi queat. Czterum nullum schisma non sibi aliquam confingit heresim, ut recte ab ecclesia recessisse videatur.’ And very admirably Nevin (Antichrist, or the Spirit of Sectarianism) : ‘Heresy and schism are not indeed the same, but yet they constitute merely the different manifestations of one and the same disease. Heresy is theoretic schism; schism is practical heresy. They continually run into one another, and mutually complete each other. very heresy is in principle schismatic ; every schism is in its innermost con- stitution heretical.’ 5. μακροθυμία, mpadtys.——Theophylact (in Gal. v. 22) : μακροθυμία πραότητος ἐν τούτῳ δοκεῖ παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ διαφέρειν, a SS Ν » A 4 3 ve SS 547 3 Ἂ τῷ τὸν μὲν μακρόθυμον πολὺν ὄντα ἐν φρονήσει, μὴ ὀξέως ἀλλὰ σχολῇ ἐπιτιθέναι τὴν προσήκουσαν δίκην τῷ πταίοντι " τὸν δὲ πρᾶον ἀφιέναι παντάπασιν. 6. ἀνάμνησις, tropvynots.—Ammonius:: ἀνάμνησις ὅταν ἔλθῃ εἰς μνήμην τῶν παρελθόντων" ὑπόμνησις δὲ ὅταν ὕφ᾽ ἑτέρου εἰς τοῦτοι πρύσχύῃ [2 11. 5; 2 Pet. i. 13; iii. 1). 7. φόρος, téXos.—Grotius: “ φόροι tributa sunt que ex agris solvebantur, atque in ipsis speciebus fere pendebantur, id est in tritico, ordeo, vino et similibus. Vectigalia vero sunt que Greece dicuntur τέλη, que a publicanis conducebantur et 366 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §cvu exigebantur, cum tributa a susceptoribus vel ab apparitoribus presidum ac prefectorum exigi solerent.’ 8. τύπος, dAAnyopovpevov.—Rivetus (Pref. ad Ps. xlv.): ‘Typus est cum factum aliquod a Vetere Testamento accersitur, idque extenditur presignificdsse atque adumbrasse aliquid gestum vel gerendum in Novo Testamento ; allegoria vero cum aliquid sive ex Vetere sive ex Novo Testamento expqnitur atque accommodatur novo sensu ad spiritualem doctrinam, sive vite institutionem.’ 9. λοιδορέω, BrAaopynuéew.—Calvin (Comm. in N. T.: 1 Cor. iv. 12): ‘Notandum est discrimen inter hee duo participia, λοιδορούμενοι καὶ βλασφημούμενο. Quoniam λοιδορία est asperior dicacitas, que non tantum perstringit hominem, sed acriter etiam mordet, famamque aperta contumelia sugillat, non dubium est quin λοιδορεῖν sit maledicto tanquam aculeo vulnerare hominem; proinde reddidi maledictis lacessite. Βλασφημία est apertius probrum, quum quispiam graviter et atrociter proscinditur.’ 10. ὀφείλει, de—Bengel (Gnomon, 1 Cor. xi. 10): “ὀφείλει notat obligationem, δεῖ necessitatem ; illud morale est, hoc quasi physicum ; ut in vernacula, wir sollen und miussen.’ 11. πραΐς, jovxv0s.—Bengel (1b. 1 Pet. 111. 4) : “ Manswetus [πραὔς], qui non turbat: tranquillus [ἡσύχιος], qui turbas aliorum, superiorum, inferiorum, equalium, fert placide. .. . Adde, mansuetus in affectibus: tranquillus in verbis, vultu, actu.’ 12. τεθεμελιωμένος, édpatos.—Bengel (10. Col. i. 28): «τεθεμελιωμένοι, affiar fundamento ; ἑδραῖοι, stabiles, firmi intus. TIllud metaphoricum est, hoc magis proprium : illud importat majorem respectum ad fundamentwm quo sustentantur fideles ; sed ἑδραῖοι, stabiles, dicit internum robur, quod fideles ipsi habent ; quemadmodum edificium primo quidem fundamento Sev SO VVNONVVS OF THE NEW. TESTAMENT 3267 recte solideque inniti, deinde vero sud etiam mole probei cohx- rere et firmiter consistere debet.’ 13. θνητός, vexpos.—Olshausen (Opusc. Theoll. p. 195) : ‘ νεκρός vocatur subjectum, in quo sejunctio corporis et anime facta est : θνητός, in quo fieri potest.’ 14. ἔλεος, oixtippos.—Fritzsche (in Rom. ix. 15): ‘Plus significari vocabulis ὃ οἰκτιρμός et οἰκτείρειν quam verbis ὁ ἔλεος et ἐλεεῖν recte veteres doctores vulgo statuunt. LIllis enim cum ἵλαος, ἱλάομαι et ἱλάσκομαι, his cum of et οἶκτος cognatio est. Ὃ ἔλεος egritudinem benevole ex miseria alterius haustam denotat, et commune vocabulum est 101. collocandum, ubi misericordiz notio in genere enuntianda est ; ὃ οἰκτιρμός wgritudinem ex alterius miserid susceptam, que fletum tibi et ejulatum excitet, h. e. magnam ex alterius miseria egritudinem, miserationem declarat.’ 15. ψιθυριστής,. καταλάλος.--- Fritzsche (in Eom. i. 80): ‘ ψιθυρισταί sunt susurrones, h. 6. clandestini delatores, qui ut inviso homini noceant qu ei probro sint crimina tanquam in aurem alicui insusurrant. Contra καταλάλοι omnes ii vocantur, qui que alicujus fam obsint narrant, sermonibus celebrant, divulgant maloque rumore aliquem differunt, sive id malo animo faciant, ut noceant, sive temere neque nisi garriendi libidine abrepti. Qui utrumque vocabulum ita dis- criminant, ut ψιθυριστάς clandestinos calumniatores, κατα- λάλους calumniatores qui propalam criminentur explicent, arctioribus quam par est limitibus voc. καταλάλος circum- seribunt, quum id vocabulum calumniatorem nocendi cupidum sua vi non declaret.’ 16. ἄχρηστος, dxpetos.—Tittmann: ‘Omnino in voce ἄ- xpyoros non inest tantum notio negativa quam vocant (οὐ χρήσιμον), sed adjecta ut plerumque contraria τοῦ πονηροῦ; quod non tantum nihil prodest, sed. etiam damnum aftert, molestum et damnosum est. Apud Xenophontem, Hiero, i. 368 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW. TESTAMENT §cvit 27, γάμος ἄχρηστος non est inutilis, sed molestissimus, et in (Econom. viii. 4. Sed in voce ἀχρεῖος per se nulla inest nota reprehensionis, tantum denotat rem aut hominem quo non opus est, quo supersedere possumus, unndthig, entbehrlich (Thucydides, i. 84; ii. 6], que ipsa tamen raro sine vitupera- tione dicuntur.’ 17. vopuxds, νομοδιδάσκαλος, ypappateis—Meyer (in Matt. xxii. 85) : “νομικός, ein Rechtskundiger, ἐπιστήμων τῶν νόμων (Photius, Lexicon; Plutarch, Swill. 36); ein Mosiischer Jurist ; νομοδιδάσκαλος bezeichnet einen solchen als Lehrer ; γραμματεύς ist ein weiterer Begriff als νομικός; Schrift- kundiger, dessen Beruf das Studium und die Auslegung der heiligen Schrift ist.’ SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES BY A. L. MAYHEW, M.A. ------ο.λ0--.-.. PacE 10, Line 97. The German ‘duom ’ or domus.’ The modern German form is Dom, which is used in the sense of a cathedral church, the church in which is placed the bishop’s throne. The ordinary Old High German form was tuom, which is not a native German word but a word borrowed from ecclesiastical Latin. Both G. Dom and OHG. twom represent the Latin domus used in the sense of ‘domus dei.’ See Kluge’s Htym. Dict. χ Pace 15, Line 15. The author, in dealing with ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα, gives some instances of a word separating into two forms in consequence of what was at first a mere variety of pronunciation, which two forms in course of time acquire distinctive meanings, and are looked upon as independent words. From these instances we must set aside ‘rechtlich’ and ‘ redlich,’ which are of course words of radically distinct origin. The two forms ‘fray ’ and ‘ frey’ never acquired a distinct meaning ; in fact the form “ frey ’ no longer exists. PacE 19, Lines 21, 22. ‘ Weissagen ᾿. and ‘ wahrsagen.’ These words are contrasted by the author, but it must not be supposed that the -sagen in both verbs is sagen (to say). German weissagen, Old High German wissagén, is derived from wizzago (a prophet) ; compare O.E. witga (a prophet). On the other hand, German wahrsagen is connected with Old Saxon war-sago (lit. sooth-sayer). BB 370 SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES Pace 29, Line 10. The δοῦλος. . . is properly the ‘ bond-man,’ from δέω, “ ligo.’ This derivation is now given up by comparative philologists. Gr- δέω represents *de-1w (compare Sanskrit dyati) from a root dé, to bind ; see Brugmann’s Gram. ii. § 707. It would be impossible to bring the dov- of δοῦλος into connexion with an original root ὧδ. The etymology of δοῦλος is unknown. See Prellwitz, Etym. Dict. (s. vv. δέω, δοῦλο»). Pace 29, Lines 34, 35. θεραπεύειν. . . connected with ‘ faveo,’ ‘ foveo,’ θάλπω. It is utterly impossible that any of these four words can have any etymological connexion with one another. They correspond neither in form nor in meaning. They are all four difficult words of very obscure derivation. Pace 30, Line 29. διάκονος... is probably from the same root as has given us διώκω, ‘to hasten after.’ No comparative philologist would now accept this etymology. The formation of διάκονος from διώκω is not supported by analogy, no instance occurring of the suffix -ovo- being added to a present verbal stem. The _ ἃ for ὦ is not accounted for. Besides this the senses of the two words do not agree—pursuit and service being very different things. The etymology of διάκονος is unknown. PaGE 31, Line 34. Latin verna dentical with the Gothic bairn. The Gothic form is barn (not bairn) and is quite distinct etymologi- cally from the Latin verna. Barn (a child) is derived from the root ber, appearing in O.E. beran, Goth. batran (to bear). Lat. verna (a slave born in the house) is derived from the root ves (Indo-European wes), to dwell; see Brugmann, ii. § 66. From the same root wes we find Lat. vesta, Gr. éstia, a hearth. Paces 34, Line 10. For (Godel) read (Godet). Pacer 44, Lines 16-18. πόντος. .. being connected with βάθος, βυθός, βένθος, perhaps the same word as this last. Of these four words the only two that are etymologically connected are βάθος and βένθος. These two have nothing in the world to do with βυθός, and the word πόντος stands quite apart from all these three. πόντος (the sea) is probably related to Sanskrit panthan, path, way cp. ὑγρὰ κέλευθα), Lat. pons (pont-), from an Indo-European root pont to come, to go); see Prellwitz, tym. Dict. SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES 371 Pace 45, Line 23. ‘ Sloes austere.’ These words occur in Cowper’s Task, i. 122. See New Eng. Dict. (s. v. austere). It may be noted that αὐστηρός is closely related to our word sear (O.E. séar), meaning properly “ dry.’ They are both derived from a root saws, ep. Lithuanian sausas, dry. ~ Pace 47, Lives 28, 29. ‘Imago ’ =‘ imitago.’ This equation may mislead the student; he may think that the author intends to say that ‘imago’ is a contraction of and identical with ‘*imitago ’ etymologically. Doubtless Dr. Trench merely intended to say that ‘imago’ and the verb ‘imitor’ were from the same root im. This 7m may perhaps be for mim; compare Gr. μιμ-εῖσθαι ; see Roby’s Lat. Gram. § 845. Pace 53, Line 19. The etymology of ἀσέλγεια (1) from Selge, a city of Pisidia ...; (2) from θέλγειν, probably the same word as the German ‘ schwelgen.’ There is no scientific value to be attached to any of these etymo- logical conjectures. The comparison of ἀσέλγεια with θέλγειν is phonetically impossible, as is that of θέλγειν with German ‘schwelgen.’ The etymology of ἀσέλγεια is really quite unknown. Some etymologists fancy that the element σελ is from a root swel (to swell); see Prellwitz, Etym. Dict. p. 278. Pace 80, Line 29. Βόσκειν, the Latin ‘ pascere,’ is simply ‘ to feed.’ The student must not suppose that this is an etymology; the two words are not related to one another. Gr. βόσκειν has been supposed to be for βόρσκειν, root Bop + suffix oxw, cp. βορά, food, Lat. vorare; see Brugmann, Gram. § 432. Lat. pasco is from a root pa, to protect, feed ; whence Eng. food. Pace 86, Line 21. Zwh, as some will have it, being nearly connected with &w, ἄημι, to breathe the breath of life. Greek (wf is now generally connected by comparative philologists with Bios, both words being derived from an Indo-European root σοῦ; see Brugmann, Gram. 11. ὃ 737, and Prellwitz, Hiym. Dict. pp. 46, 110. For the ¢ from a velar guttural, cp. νίζω from root neig. PaGE 87, LIne 35. The scientific term ‘ Biology’ was invented by Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus, born in Bremen, 1776. He studied in Géttingen, and his chief work was Biologie oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur, Gottingen, 6 vols. 1802-1822. See Pierers’ Conv. Lexikon. BB2 372 SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES Pace 93, Line 14. The derivation of ἀλαζών from &An (a wandering about) has nothing to recommend it; it fails to account for the latter part of the word, -αζων, and there is no connexion between ‘ bragging ° and ‘ wandering about.’ Pace 104, Livzs 8, 9. On the relation between the two verbs defowl and defile see New Eng. Dict. There has been confusion in the case of defile between the Old French defouler (to trample down) and Old English fylan (to befoul) from ful (foul). Pace 104, Line 15. ‘ Spurcare ’ (itself probably connected with ‘ porcus’). This suggestion has nothing to recommend it; the stem-vowels of the two words do not correspond. Pace 118, Linzs 4, 5. Aarpeve allied . . . perhaps to λεία, Anis. Gr. λεία, Doric Aaia for Aafia, should rather be placed with ἀπολαύω, cp. Latin luwcrum; see Bréal’s Lat. Dict., and Prellwitz, Etym. Dict. Pace 118, Τὰν 26. Λεῖτος -- δημόσιος. The Gr. λεῖτος does not mean ‘ public,’ but ‘an offering, a service:’: Λειτουργός means ‘ one who undertook for the State a public service.’ See the account of the word in Prellwitz, p. 182. Pace 121, Livzs 11, 12. Πένης connected with . . . the Latin ‘ penuria.’ These two words are probably of distinct origin. Πένης is probably (as stated in the text) connected with πόνος. M. Bréal says that we have in ‘penuria’ a substantive formed from an old desiderative *penwrio, to be in need of provisions, from penus, provisions ; penus is probably connected with penes, in the power of ; so Bréal, and Brugmann, Gram. ii. § 132. Pace 129, Line 28. Tay the same word as ὑπέρ. The author no doubt got this surprising equation from Gesenius. lt is hardly necessary nowadays to point out that it is quite impossible to connect Indo-European prepositions with Semitic ones. Pace 139, Line 34. ‘Demuth,’ born . . . in the heathen period of the language. . . and only under the influences of Christianity attained to its present position of honour. SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES 373 Kluge (s.v. Demut) says that neither the word nor the conception belonged to the heathen period of the language. Both the word and the idea came into the old German language with Christianity. PacE 148, Lives 11, 12. ‘Robber,’ from ‘ Raub,’ booty. Our word ‘robber’ is the Anglo-Norman robbere, cp. Old French robedr, a word derived from Old High German roub (mod. G. Raub), booty. See Kluge’s Etym. Dict. Pace 153, LIne 26, 27. Φῶς and φέγγος, which are different forms of one and the same word. These two words are quite distinct: φῶς is the same word as the Sanskrit bhds, light. Φέγγος may be derived from an Indo-European type (s)phengos. Prellwitz gives some Lithuanian forms in which the initial s- is retained. Pace 166, Nortr. The German ‘ Aberglaube ’ =‘ Ueberglaube.’ Kluge (s.v.) shows that the prefix in ‘ Aberglaube’ is quite distinct from the preposition ἰδοὺ. The same element occurs in M. H. G. aberlist ; Germ. Abergunst, Abername, Aberwille, Aberwandel, Aberwitz. The word occurs in Alberus in the year 1540; he distinguishes ‘ diffidentia ’ (Missglaub) from ‘ superstitio’ (Aberglaub). Pacer 196, Linzs 33, 34. Καιρός, derived from κείρω, as ‘ tempus’ from ‘ temno.’ These derivations are no longer believed in by Greek and Latin grammarians. The etymologies of καιρός and ‘tempus’ are unknown. Kluge (5. v. weil) with praiseworthy hesitation suggests that καιρός may be from the same root as while, Goth. hweila, time. Pace 200, Line 28. Κόσμος connected with κόμειν, ‘ comere,’ ‘ comptus.’ It is impossible to connect κόσμος with these words, because the o of xoo- is thus left without explanation. Prellwitz and Brugmann agree in connecting κόσμος with Sanskrit camsati (he praises), and Lat. censere (to pass judgment on). Pace 202, Lines 27-29. We must reject the etymology of αἰών which Aristotle propounds : ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι εἰληφὼς Thy ἐπωνυμίαν. The fact is that Aristotle’s etymology is accepted by comparative philologists ; see Prellwitz, Brugmann, i. § 96, Kluge (s.v. Ehe), Bréal (5.ν. @vum). 374 SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES Pace 205, Nore. ‘World’ = whirled. Itis a pity that this absurd guess should have found a place even in a foot-note. The etymology of ‘ world’ given by Dr. Trench from Pott is perfectly correct. Pace 212, Lines 3-8. Kaos ... is the Latin ‘comissatio,’ which, as it hardly needs to. observe, is connected with κωμάζειν. ‘ Comissor, mot emprunté au grec. Le primitif est κῶμος “ festin.” Les formations en issare, assez maladroitement imitées des verbes grecs. en ζω, étaient fréquentes dans le latin du temps d’Ennius et de Plaute. On avait, par exemple, badissare = βαδίζω, patrissare = rar pl(w, atticissare ΞΞ- ἀττικίζω, ke. Convissor est un des rares verbes qui ont survécu dans le latin classique; la forme grecque employée par les auteurs n’est pas. κωμίζω mais cwud w.’—Bréal. Pace 224, Line 29. Gr. ἁμαρτία is no doubt connected with the verb ἁμαρτάνω. Brugmann (see Gram ii. § 682) says that ἁμαρτάνω is probably from ἀ-μαρ-το-, ἀ-μβρα-το-, ‘ without a share of,’ connected with μέρος μόρος. He quotes. the gloss ἀμαρεῖν - ἁμαρτάνειν (Hesychius). Pace 277, Line 5. Ψαλμός, from paw. These words are quite unconnected etymologically, and are far apart from one another in meaning. See Prellwitz on the two words.. The verb ψάλλω is from an Indo-European root sphal, cp. Sanskrit sphalati. The verb ψάω, 1 rub,’ is supposed by Prellwitz to be from a root bhas. Pace 289, Linss 1-3. Θήρ, which in its Holic form ofp reappears as the Latin ‘ fera,’ and in its more usual shape in the German ‘ Thier’ and in our own ‘ deer.’ The older forms of ‘ Thier’ and ‘ deer’ prove conclusively that these words have no connexion whatever with the Greek @4p. The Germanic forms point to an Indo-European ground-form dheuso-, which shows a difference from θήρ (φήρ) both in stem-vowel and in the two radical consonants. See Kluge (s.v. Tier) and Prellwitz (s.v. Θήρ). Pace 297, Lines 7, 8. Φαύλος cannot possibly be connected with the German fawl, our foul.. Such an equation shows an utter disregard to Grimm’s law. ‘Schlecht’ and ‘schlicht’ in German are not merely different spellings of the same word. The difference in spelling goes back for its origin to the working of a phonetic law in primitive Germanic. The SOME ETYMOLOGICAL NOTES 375 fact is, ‘schlecht’ and ‘schlicht’ are not forms of precisely the same word. See Kluge. Pace 299, Lins 29, 30. Καθαρός, connected with the Latin ‘castus,’ with the German ‘ heiter.’ These words have absolutely no connexion with one another. The German heiter, Old English hddor, point to an Indo-European root katt-, which in Greek would be represented by καιτ- (not xa6-). Pace 305, Line 26. ‘Iepés, probably the same word as the German ‘ hehr.’ The German hehr goes back to a base haira, and is probably radically related to ‘heiter’ (see note to p. 299). This presupposes an Indo- European root kai-. German ‘hehr’ cannot, therefore, have anything to do with Greek ἱερός, which is related to Sanskrit ishira-; see Brugmann, Gram. ii. § 74. Pace 309, Lines 24-28. Ἅγιος, ayvds . . . have in common that root &y, reappearing as the Latin ‘ sac’ in ‘ sacer.’ Comparative philologists connect this Greek root ἀγ- with Sanskrit μα, ‘to honour a god’; see Brugmann, Gram. ii. § 140. If this com- parison holds good, there can, of course, be no connexion with the Latin ‘ sac.’ Pacer 348, Lines 20-22. vegas, νέφος, γνόφος, and ζόφος, a group of words . . . perhaps only different shapes of what was once a single word. This could no longer be held by the best modern scholars. Pace 363, Linzs 18, 19. KaAds, affirmed to be of the same descent as the German ‘heil,’ as our own ‘ whole.’ Their relationship is no longer held by modern scholars. The vocali- sation of the Germanic words renders any connexion with καλός impossible. See Kluge (s.v. heil.) A, Gi. M. OXFORD : May 28, 1895. ὡς ee eee > 2 Ε ᾿ ᾿Ξ . . j INDEX OF SYNONYMS. ee Gg geet PAGE | AGI ἀγαθωσύνη ὁ. : : . 217 | ἄνεσις ες. . : : aoe ἀγαπάω. : ν . . 88 | ἀνθρωποκτόνος. : . . 298 ἅγιος : : : . 309,375 | ἀνομία, . 5 ᾿ : Poe: ἀγνόημα . : : . . 224 | ἀνοχή ; : : 186 ἁγνός : : Ἢ . 809, 375 | ἀντί h : ; é . 290 ἀγράμματος ὃ : . . 281 ἀντίχριστος : : were.) ἄδολος. ᾿ : : . 196 | ἁπλοῦς. : : 101 αἰδώς. ᾿ . : . 63,65 ἀποκάλυψις. : : oo αἵρεσις. : : . 365 | ἀπολύτρωσις. : : Beye | αἰσχρολογία : Ald Garona. : : ΠΡΌ αἰσχύνη. : : : | 65 | Gpyos : : : . 358 αἰτέω. ; : : . . 1384 |! &prios : : Bet αἴτημα. : : : . 179 | dpxaios . : : : Reb αἰτία. : : : . . 13 | doépea ᾿ : . . 226 αἰών : . : . 200,373 ἀσέλγεια. : = 0a, 911 ἄκακος : : : . . 193 &omovdos . : : <5: 180 ἀκέραιος. : : : : 192 | doretos . : : : . 361 ἀλαζών ; : : 93,372 ] ἀσύνθετος. : : τ 190 ἀλείφω. . ἱ . 128 | dowtia . ᾿ : : 7 | ἀληθής : ~~ 25 αὐθάδης © : : ᾿ 990 ἀληθινός. : : : . 25 | abornpds : : ; . 44 GAANYopovmevoy . : . . 366 | ἄφεσις : : OS ἄλλος ; ; : . 884 ἄφθαρτος : . 237 ἀμαράντινος : : . . 288 | axaAds : : 2s, 349 ἀμάραντος . : : . 238 | axpetos . ᾿ : : . 367 ἁμάρτημα. ὃ : . . 224 | &xpnoros . . : ees iy ἁμαρτία. : ; . 224, 374 ἄμεμπτος. : . . 355 | Βαάπηίσμα Α : : . 345 ἀμφίβληστρον. ᾿ ᾿ . 22] βαπτισμός. ; . or AS ἄμωμος : : : . . 355 | BéBnargs . : : : . 350 ἀνάθεμα. . 3 : evel or. Pilsre, : ; 86, 371 ἀνάθημα. ᾿ . . . 15 Ρλασφημεω . : : . 366 avakalywois ὁ. : . . 61 βύσκω : . Ἵ 80, 371 ἀνάμνησις. : . . . B65 | βραδύς . : ᾿ . 557 ἀνάπαυσις ᾿ : : . 137 | βωμός : ᾿ : toes AU ἀνέγκλητος : ; doo ἄνεμος. . , : . 258 | γέρων. : : : . 364 ἀνεπίληπτος : . . B55 | μύρον : ᾿ : oo 346 378 γνῶσις γραμματεύς δέησις δεῖ δειλία δεισιδαίμων. δεσπότης δημιουργός. δῆμος διάδημα διάκονος. δίκτυον δοκέω δοκιμάζω δολόω δοῦλος δύναμις Ἑβραῖος ἑδραῖος Μ ἔθνος. > , εἰκών εἰλικρινῆς ἐκκλησία ἔλαιον ἔλεγχος. > 4 eAeyxXw ἔλεος EAKW . ἐλπίς ἔνδοξον Μ ἔντευξις. ἐντροπή ἐπίγνωσις ἐπιείκεια ἐπιθυμία. ἐπιτιμάω ἐπιφάνεια ἐρωτάω ἕτερος εὐλάβεια evAaBhs . εὐσεβής εὐτραπελία εὐχαριστία. εὐχή ζῆλος. ζόφος INDEX OF SYNONYMS PAGE . 263 . 368 . 176 . 366 : ἢ 28,: _ 157, (wn ζῶον ἡσύχιος ἥττημα θάλασσα θαυμάσιον θειότης θεοσεβής θεότης θεράπων. θηρίον θιγγάνω. θλίψις θνητός θρηνέω θρῆσκος. θύελλα θυμός θυσιαστήριον ἰδέα ἰδιώτης ἱερόν ἱεροπρεπής. ἱερός ἱκετηρία ἱλασμός. ἱμάτιον ἱματισμός Ἰουδαῖος Ἰσραηλίτης καθαρός καινός καιρός κακία κακοήθεια κακύς τ. καλός καπηλεύω καταλάλος. καταλλαγή κενός. κλέπτης. κοινός κόλασις κόπος. κόπτομαι. _ 305, _ 28, 299, "196, " 363, κόσμιος κόσμος κραιπάλη κύριος κῶμος λαῖλαψ λαλέω λαλιά λαμπάς λαός λατρεύω λέγω λειτουργέω. λῃστής λόγος. λοιδορέω Aovw . λυπέομαι λύχνος μακροθυμία μαντεύομαι. μάταιος μάχη . μεγαλειον μέθη μεταμέλομαι μετανοέω μιαίνω μολύνω μορφή μόχθος μῦθος μύρον. μωρολογία ναός νεκρός νέος νίπτω νομικός νομοδιδάσκαλος νουθεσία γωθρός οἰκέτης οἰκτιρμός οἰνοφλυγία.. ὁλόκληρος _ 969, 312, 315 INDEX OF PAGE . 322 | . 200, 373 288 τ ἢ 212, 374 . 259 . 267 . 269 . 153 : . 848 118, 372 ᾿ 118, 372 83, 365 SYNONYMS ὁμοίωμα ὁμοίωσις. ὀργή. ὀφείλει ὄχλος πάθος παιδεία ͵ παλαιὸς παλιγγενεσία. πανήγυρις παράβασις παράδοξον παρακοή. παρανομία παράπτωμα πάρεσις παροργισμός πειράζω πέλαγος. πένης. πενθέω πηγή : πίστις πλεονεξία πλύνω πνεῦμα πνοή ποδήρης ποιέω ποιμαίνω πόλεμος. πονηρός πόνος πότος πραότης. πράσσω mpaiis πρεσβύτης : προσευχή προφητεύω πτωχός σαγήνη σαρκικός. σάρκινος σεμνός . 211 141, 143, 365 . 337 . 366 . 364 Beg) 648 eee ey 2 . 251, 254 . 254 ΞΘ 380 σημεῖον σικάριος. σκληρός σκότος σοφία. σπαταλάω στενοχωρία στέφανος στολή στρηνιάω συναγωγή σύρω σχῆμα σχίσμα σωφροσύνη. ταπεινοφροσύνη τεθεμελιωμένος τέλειός τέλος. τέρας τεχνίτης τιμωρία τρυφάω τύπος ὑβριστής ὑπερήφανος ὑπηρέτης ὑπόμνησις ὑπομονή INDEX OF SYNONYMS PAGE . 317 . 293 _ 278 " 990, 97 372 φαίνομαι φανέρωσις φαῦλος φέγγος φέρω. φθόνος φιλαργυρία. φίλαυτος. φιλέω. φόβος φονεύς φορέω φόρος. φρέρ. φρόνησις φωνή φῶς φωστήρ. χάρις. χιτών χλαμύς χρηστότης χρίω. χρόνος ψαλμός ψευδόχριστος. ψηλαφάω ψιθυριστῆς ψυχικός φδή ὡραῖος PAGE . 284 . B33 296, 374 . 153, 373 + 199 82 aa . 329 39 . 33 . 294 ee . 365 . 364 . 263 . 312 " 153, 373 . 153 . 156 . 173 . 174 rey AW . 128 “100 277, 374 . 100 . 55 . 367 . 250 . 280 . 360 INDEX OF OTHER WORDS. Abbild . Aberglaube ἀδίκημα. ἀδικία. Admonitio ἄελλα. A#mulor . Aér ἀγάπη alvos . ἀκήρατος. ἀκήρυκτος. ἀκόλαστος Altare Amo ἀνάμγενησις ἀνακαινόω ἀνακαίνωσις ἀναμνησις ἀνανεόω Andacht . Angst Animal . ἀνόητος Antic ἀντικάτων Antipater ἀντιστράτηγος ἀντίθεος. Araneae . Archeology ἀρετή. Assassin Astutus ἀσύνετος. Atonement Aura Austerus Σεῖς ΤΟΥΣ ἘΣ PAGE | . 47 αὐθάδεια. 166, 373 αὐθέκαστος. . 226 | Avarice . 226 Avaritia 106 | 259 | Baptisma ἘΣ _ Baptismus. 257 Beflecken 41 Benignitas . 279 βένθος - 198. Beriihren - 181 Bestia ve ᾿ς Besudeln το | Betasten 38 Biography . 60. Biology . 210 | Bitte is | Bonitas . 209 Bose . 162 190 Candela. 288 Canticum . 265 Caritas . 235 , Castigatio . 100 Cautio 100 χρηστός 101 Clementia 100 Comissatio. 342 Congregatio 238 ~=Convict 19 Convince 293 Convocatio 266 Corona . 265 Correptio . 273 Covetousness . . 257 | Crapula 46,371 | Cultus _ 44,37 " 219, 374 PAGE . 327 45 77 78 . 347 . 347 . 104 . 219 56 . 289 . 104 56 . 88 reo ye | ey :. 219 . 297 . 155 "70 41 28 . 384 . 218 . 144 382 Deer . Defile Defoul Deitas Demuth Deprecatio Despot Diadema διαλλαγή δίκαιος Dilectio Diligo Discipline . Divinatio Divinitas δοκίμιον. Dom . Donarium Drag, Draw δυσωπία.. Egestas Eifersucht εἰλικρίνεια. > 2 ἐμμέλεια. Emulation ἔπαινος ἐπανόρθωσις ἐπίτασις. Equity ἔρως ΠΡΟ ΤΣ ἤθη. εὐδαιμονία. εὐγνωμοσύνη evpuxwpla . Kutrapelus Exacerbatio Excandescentia Facetious . Fair [subst.] . Fascia Feria Figura Figure [Fr] Fons . Forma Formality . Forme INDEX OF OTHER WORDS PAGE 289, 374 | Fulsomeness . 104,372 | Fur 104, 372 | Furor . eo 139, 372 | Gasconade 176 re 91 e1Z 'e 74 | Glassen 272 | Gloriosus 306 | Glorious 41 | Gratia 38 | Grecian 106 Habsucht g | Hadiwist 260 | ἁγνεία ἁγνί(ω ἊΣ ἅμιλλα 68 ἁπλότης 64 Ἑλληνιστής ἱλαστήριον. ὁλοτελής ve Hopelost 82 | Hiiten 298 H sp ie Gam hemes 82 | Idiot 278 | Til nature . “Ὁ Imago .° 37 Immarcescible . ΤΣ Indigentia Indignatio . 106 | Iniquitas 19 Inquino 18 | Integer, integritas ὃ 145 | Intercession 190 | Interpellatio . ae Interpretor Invidia . 124 Jaculum 116 6 καινόλογία 75 κἀπηλος ; 6 καταστρηνιάω. . 249 | Klept. . 248 κότος . 364 Kranz . 249 | Krone . 248 "248 | Labes Letitia . λατρεία Latro Legend Liederlich Life Little-ease Longanimity Losel Loslassung Luctus λυτρωτής INDEX OF OTHER WORDS PAGE . 190 Ὁ 110 . 148 Luxuria, luxuriose . μάχομαι Macula . Malitia Manier Mansuetus MayTiKn . μάντις ματαιότης μεγαλοπάθεια Mendicus μῆνις. Mercatus μετακόσμησις μεταμέλεια μεταμορφοῦμαι μετάνοια. peraaxnuartCw Metus Misericordia μνήμη Moderatio . Modestia Monstrum Mundus . Nacheiferung Nachschleppen > 67. νεμεσάω, νέμεσις. Neuf Nouveau Novus Nurture οἴνωσις ; Opportunitas Ostentation Paleology . Panegyric Pasco Patientia Pauper, paupertas Peccatio, peccatum Pelagus Tlevéorat Penuria Perditus TEpT Epos Perseverantia . Petitio Peto ; Petulantia . Philauty φιλοσοφία. φράζω Pietas πλατυσμύς πλημμέλεια Penitentia TOAEMEW πόντος Populus Preeterition Preetermission Prevaricatio . Prahlerei . Precatio . Prodigium . Prodigus Propitiation προσαίτης Protervitas Prudentia Pudor Puteus Recens Regeneratio Religio Religion, religious . Religiosus . Renascentia Renovatio . Reprove . Resipiscentia Revelatio Robber 44, ΤΣ . 331 373 384 INDEX OF OTHER WORDS : Rogo Rootfast, rootfastness Sacer Sagena Sapientia Scatterling Scheu Scurrilitas . Seculum σῆμα. σεμνότης. Senecta Senium . Sensual Shamefast, shametastness Sicarius Signum . Similitudo . Simplex. Simultas σώφρων. Spiritus σπονδή Spurco Stain στάσις Stilts Stolz . Stonen Stout . Strenuus Strict . . Stultiloquy Suicism συνθηκή. Superbus . Superstitio, superstitiosus συσχηματίζω : Susurro . Tenia Temperantia . Tempestivitas Tempus. Tento θάρσος θαῦμα. ΙΝ τας & Co. Ltd., βαίνει, Nee street Board, Toad. PAGE | . 136 "104, 372 θεογενεσία θράσος Tolerantia . Toucher . Traho Tranquillus Transfigure Transform τρυφή Tugend . Turpiloquium Uppishness Urban, urbane . Urbanitas Ventus Verax Verbum Verecundia Verna Verus Very . Vetus Vindicatio . Vita Vitiositas . Vorbeilassung Vorbild Vox Wahrsagen Wantonness Weiden Weissagen Welt . Weralt . : Widerchrist World , Worship Ziehen . Zoology Zorn PAGE ” 989, 37 . 148, 149 289, 374 ἔχυνε ἈΠΕ τὰς ἘΝ “ὦ ἀφ Ae, ἦν A> rs oY ᾿ ἢ μ ΕΓ tad tap ek aes ae at Ce δι BATA AY : Bitciog: . κα Σ ais We ἌΣ τως Hes ONL TRIE et pe pag Vig νς 4 pe Se Ste St ee Diag he OS +0 parites ἊΝ, Pg Ἢ Se a SE Sep Pa takx ἜΑ x ae ' Sa ἴ ἌΡ iit rae ay oe pater 5 : ν» ΚΑ Ὁ KO : λ 4 he, Ὄνος mpiel ay? νὰ Ἀν ba a τς ΚΝ τ᾿ Na NS a EN AR Me GI A ae aN) Sos ike Ne foes é Seon ς peers, ἣ : ea ae a het: me one . PUN ty PAS Nhe’ ngs pe, ae αν Loe f 2 Pyne nt TAs , Mah Se tt SAI Can a PON νυ ΣΝ αν DRI ERR ORO TE SR Se ΣΟ ΣΟ ΣΕ ΟΣ αν ον ΣΝ ae eS gaan PRN noes Aiea echoes CAS aaa te so PO Pye eee ey ot a Oe Aire Aad’ sPindlat aye eons : Fo ae ag es ays RST ag ἡ eee a ett eae SE Nai ae Υ Ἴ Ἰς le ὁ : ne Se See OR eG RICE NY He aS aes Mo Mog iia Tae i ny wig a NNT NE Ping: rata rye SSH Hee NN Eh NR Se Sn \ jeer ‘ . shal ee pe Ἄς SX. 4 ν ᾿ Ἵ Us ae Wa aye oh : ‘*. τὰν Ὄ 2 ὶ ‘tte Bynes ee sha yy ; ae ek SAE AS RO 4 wees ΝΑ "ὦ ΑΔ haw ἘΝ τς «φόνψε ο τῳ τς : β a 4 τε ὦ eae ἊΝ Ake “See eee Ὁ A 7 ᾿" δ ἮΝ oP ie Mi pyyh ge ee ἊΣ fo τὰ + er ae Υ ἊΨ Ἦν oe ν᾽ ape ? é eA NN. Sar Wht SOM Mea τας ἐν ele ch