, CEPI CL ere a in SO baer CIENT | ὁ... 5“. τον) ee ee, ee APY x το δὺς ἐδ τὴ μέ νυ πριν eves. αι EE pee ψύτιυσι, ουςς aan ae an ea HR we ROT a ANE dee wernt ee οι ee Σ ᾿ς ἀπ τον ἐφ" εν να BC τύ νει ξευθσο εὐ. RS poate Bae Ge Me pes FORAY Sey νος RUE MIS ae SERS GRY RE Teg rng PRED Teron? Seer Eb δ bh ae tes “> ear 4 PSAs re a τῷ ς- πα RICA PECTIN IY TRON τι τ Re PPD PIG LTE Spe OMT Fe κῶν DREN F Dy FOES gym 2 Fr ιν εουκας weno =. ms phe res ge TSI es. > PT ON PT SERN py ange DP νος Wig eR = a as REX ναι 4 ν νῷ ne tee — DIS. epee Reeatign aha akan a ee ries eee ς- Sasi te SPS Rea EM Fee PEt pee TAN TNA ye eee = pet Warn. β tele as : Coa mm ett εκ άρκόςς cas POLO OETA ET OWN Tae ΕΥ̓ ᾿ > > HAL Ra Aen peg ayers Ne RS BS ee ee ed pial EEN SE ented EE Ryder poy meen ἡψιάῳ δ hye δι στ νον WD OTS a Sa Hr aK PIT eee ea pee A eae BEE NED Pacem ae HS Son OT eR Ng nl ag Se Ge eet τὰ νόσων 5 S05 oie be ae ee ee el res ada song ety By AR PORTO epee wed oo eee : ELIF Rhea cone wet oars ὡς Sea ro ean ead al reper Fe Pete acne paren r Aira πνοὴ ihrer: ek ree Apt μὴ _ ΣᾺΣ δε: κω - BN Angas Bla Y μένα κυ βιοῦν ~ ela eee oy, AERIS Se teksts an innate eamieiahle be Be i ἡ a πὶ te ee ae 7 γον RR OEE Hye EER TEM aceon τὲ ΤΣ 5 ΣΝ CY, Πρ, Η Anges, rn Ie gs lie oh eee . Sn ee we ede, BEATA VOL RAN NA ec χεηδενάρὶ αν τος ον A TRAE ETS μον eee 4 tea saa) Doren. 5S FHEES en RR PAPER VQ aon eer Ribvidhie ot eee Ea ἐς yt NTE yen eta a TBR a Mogg, BETTS BBN ID, Fe BEE vee HSE δ PE TB OR BOA τα, τὸ cong ame Ὁ ἐν A IN i WR ere gta HOB ce ts Sm er, MR om τσ oe a τα < litt : Prd PEE ONES, RATES δ owe Sek ene ins oh way rte siti Ns age BS a = 2.. Se Ννσπαδῳ φρηλρ πναρτενς, WMT NT Tee gh 9 Sai hen 2 pare Τὰς θη Tee, Py reales BP ORE Se nana a A ee ὰ 7. beat Mae . δὰ Ἢ ERS aan a aes "Ss 7 ag, eae a RO Tote ἧς δυο ρον ge a aoe CEN ED: μ μάζης. lee ἢν ee λοιαν τς Teck eA SFP > ~ ρος Se rayne ine AIA adie elas ΝΣ DF Peete rte Rese FA δ᾽ tent ν ὸ Ryd τ πὰς ρος el LT ee τς oe ΣΤῸΝ ὅν τὲ HT Ba στ on οι roy MARTA PRN TEN. LSAT LTS WISE ἰδ πον HSE TMM RI SAT hE ὦ MAAS pe, SSD a ee bios ng cette et Seige RET Se erags Rt mal - Sr AM en Pe, APD paphec Anny “ ree ie OT ἴτας ai! a Ων ἢ AP TSEEE pysee ail i oe ee " a 39 edge wy GSS Ba aysscgr σοφοὶ Pe, Sy Le oma mee CGT ERTT TS By = Se RA TEMINGINS Meaegs ΠΡ ie eet Seca settle οι το ρας ὅτ ρον ΩΝ, ρον on ODA Bae iG TS HE pgm crag δ πύσοςς, τοῖς ψικλίλυ,ο ae gee ἐδ ee eee A εν, a ee ἰὴ yee Petealane mean SRN Grom fhe Librarp of (Professor Wiffiam Henry Breen Bequeathed fp Bim fo the Zifbrarp of (princeton Theofoagica? Seminary SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. SYNONYMS OF oe NEW TESTAMENT. PART THE SECOND. BY RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D. DEAN OF WESTMINSTER AND OF THE ORDER OF THE BATH, Cambridge : MACMILLAN AND CO. LONDON : JOHN W. PARKER, SON, AND BOURN. 1863. LONDON : R. CLAY, SON, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS, BREAD STREET HILL, LONDON. PREFACE. In publishing a preceding volume on Synonyms of the New Testament, I took occasion to observe, that the synonyms dealt with in it might easily have been doubled or trebled, and that many of the most interesting had been left altogether untouched. The subject proves so inexhaustible that, after another considerable number dealt with here, the assertion seems to me just as true now’ as it was then. That it is a subject of interest to the student of theology, and that the little volume did, however partially and imperfectly, supply a want, I feel assured by the several editions through which it has past, and the requests which I have received to add a second part to that first. This I have at length done, and hope at some future day to vi PREFACE. fuse the two parts into a single volume. The book, though small in bulk, has been sufficiently laborious. It is my earnest prayer that, by God’s blessing, the labour may not have been altogether in vain. WESTMINSTER, July 27, 1863. CONTENTS § i—edyy, προσευχή, δέησις, ἔντευξις, airnpa, ἐκδτηρία τον τς ἡ 11.---ἀσύνθετος, ἄσπονδος. 4 Π].---μακροθυμία, ὗ ὑπομονή, ἀνοχή. .. 1γ.---στρηνιάω, τρύφπο, σπαταλάω . . γ.- θλίψις, στενοχωρία ‘san ΔῸΣ ΥἹ.---ἁπλοῦς, eee pars, ἄκακος, ἄδολος : Vil.— xpdves, καιρόν ss τ πο: Vil.— hepw, Pope. . . 2 2 we IxX.—Kkoopos, aiav. . . . X.—veos,kawds . . . . . . . . ΧΙ.--μέθη, πότος, οἰνοφλυγία, κῶμος, κραϊπάλη ΧΙ]. --οκαπηλεύω, δολύω. . . Xlll.—ayabwovrn, χρηστότης. ὲ χίν.- - δίκτυον, ἀμφίβληστρον, σαγήνη.. χγυ.-λυπέομαι, πενθέω, θρηνέω, κύπτω εὐχαριστία, . a XV1l.—dpapria, ἁμάρτημα, παρακοή, ἀνομία, παρανομία, παράβασις, παράπτωμα, ἀγνοήμα, ἥττημα. XVil.—dpyatos, παλαιός .. : XVlil.—Popds, θυσιαστήριον. . wl, ΧΙΧ.---μετανοέω, μεταμέλομαε . Χχ.---μορφή, σχῆμα, idea... XX1. ) 7 XXll.—oapkikés, σάρκινος . . XXlil— πνοή, πνεῦμα, ἄνεμος . . ΧΧΙΥ.---δοκιμάζω, meipafo . . . we XXV.— copia, φρόνησις, γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις ΧΧΥΪ.---λαλέω, λέγω (λαλιά, λόγος). : ae 3 ’ὕ Le , ΧΧΥΊ.---αἀπολύτρωσις, καταλλαγή, ihacpos . PAGE Vill CONTENTS. PAGE ὃ XXVill.—ahpos, ὕμμος, δή . . . . . el XXIX.—aypappatos, ἰδιώτης «. . . «ww ee 1}: KKX.—Ookew, Galvopa. . . . τ \.! πὸ ΧΕΙ. τ ζῶον, θηρίον ee eee ΧΧΧΙΙ.--ὑπέρ, Gr. . . ee ie a . .- ΧΧΧΠῚ - φονεύς, EP ssoter ΝΜ aikapios . . . » » dae χχχιν.- -πονηρός, MavAcs “τὸ τον ΠΥ χχχυ. εἰλικρινής, καθαρός ΤῊΝ: oe a! 1: ΧΧΧΥΪ.-- πόλεμος, μάχη . « i ee XXXVIL - πάθος, εἰτιθυμίά, ὁ ὁρμή, ὄρεξις ΤΥ ΤΡ ἢ XXXViil.—iepos, ὅσιος, ἅγιος, ayvds. .". . . « « . 168 XXx1x.—Qovyn, λύγος . . 2 we mete σ) xl.—oyos, μῦθος ἣν ΡΟ ΝΕ or es xli—répas, σημεῖον, δύναμις, oh ie, παρ ΣΝ θαυμάσιον oe he Pee 4 xlii—a, ύρος, τέλος, 4. “0... 0 ie » he eS B. καλός, @paios, . . «wns oe eee y- πρεσβύτης, γέρων , . . os «ὦ. ΠῚ ὃ, ὀφείλει, δεῖ... .. τς eo te oe ε. τεθεμελιωμένος, ἑδραῖος. . . . «. - - 185 ¢. «ψιθυριστής, καταλ 'λος «wee ee ΠῸῸ η. ἄχρηστος, ἀχρεῖος - .. «Ὁ ς ju του 160 ως SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. PART II. > / 7 / δ ᾽ ὃ 1.-παὀὰοχή, προσευχή, δέησις, ἔντευξις, εὐχα- ριστία, αἴτημα, ἱκετηρία. Four of these words occur together at 1 Tim. 11. 1; on which Flacius Illyricus (Clavis, s.v. Oratio) justly observes, ‘Quem vocum acervum procul dubio Paulus non temere congessit.’ It will be advisable to consider not these only, but the larger group of which they form a portion. Evy7 occurs only once in the N. T. in the sense of a prayer (Jam. v. 15). On the distinction between it and προσευχή, between εὔχεσθαι and προσ- evyeo au, there is a long discussion in Origen (De Orat. § 2, 3, 4), but not of any great value, nor 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. The two other occasions on which the word is found in the N. T. (Acts xviii. 18 ; xxi. 23), bear out this remark. Προσευχή and δέησις often in the N. T. occur B 2 SYNONYMS OF THE together (Phil. iv, 6; Ephes. vi 18; 1 Tim. i 1; vy. 5), and not unfrequently in the Septuagint (Ps. vi. 10; Dan. ix. 21, 23; 1 Mace. vii. 37). There have been a great 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, I may observe by the way, in his treat- ment of the more important of this group of words (Ep. 149, § 12—16), which, though interesting, does not yield any definite results of value, obseryes that in his time this distinction between ‘precatio’ and ‘ deprecatio’ had practically quite disappeared. Theodoret in like manner, who has anticipated Grotius here, explains προσευχή as αἴτησις aya- day, and δέησις as ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς τινῶν λυπηρῶν ἰκετεία προφερομένη : cf. Gregory of Nazianzum: f A \ 7 > a δεήσιν οἴου, τὴν αἴτησιν ἐνδεῶν. This distinction is arbitrary; neither lies in the words, nor is it borne out by usage. Better Calvin, who makes one (προσευχή = ‘ precatio’) prayer in general, the other (δέησις = ‘rogatio’) prayer for particular benefits: “προσευχή omne genus ora- tionis, δέησις ubi certum aliquid petitur; genus et species. Bengel’s distinction amounts very nearly to the same thing: ‘ δέησις (a δεῖ) est im- ploratio gratize in necessitate quéidam speciali; προσευχή, oratio, exercetur qualibet oblatione voluntatum et desideriorum erga Deum,’ All these passages, however, while they have NEW TESTAMENT. 3 brought out one important point of distinction, have failed to bring out another—namely, that προσευχή is “708 sacra, a word 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 diffe- runt ut precatio et rogatio. Προσεύχεσθαι et ἢ προσευχή verba sacra sunt; precamur enim Deum ; δεῖσθαι, τὸ δέημα (Aristophanes, Acharn. 1059) et ἡ δέησις tum in sacra tum in profana re usurpantur. Nam et Deum rogare possumus et homines.” It is the same distinction as in our ‘prayer’ (though that has been too much brought down to mundane uses) and ‘petition,’ in the German ‘ Gebet’ and ‘ Bitte.’ "Evrev&ss occurs only at 1 Tim. 11, 1; iv. 5, in the N. T. (but ἐντυγχάνειν four or five times) and once in the Septuagint (2 Mace. iv. 8). ‘Inter- cession, by which the E. V. renders it, is not, as we now understand ‘intercession, a satisfactory rendering. For ἔντευξις does not necessarily mean what ‘intercession’ at present exclusively does mean—namely, prayer in relation to others (at 1 Tim. iv. 5 such meaning is impossible); 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: ἐντεύξίς ἐστι κατη- yopia τῶν ἀδικούντων ; cf. Hesychius: δέησις εἰς ἐκδίκησῖν ὑπέρ τινος (Rom. viii. 84) κατά τινος (Rom. ii. 2); but, as its connexion with ἐντυγχά- B2 4 SYNONYMS OF THE νειν, to fall in with a person, to draw close to him so as to enter into familiar speech and communion with him,* implies, free familiar prayer, such as boldly draws near to God (Gen. xviil. 23; Wisd. vii. 21; cf. Philo, Quod Det. Pot. 25: ἐντεύξεις καὶ ἐκβοήσεις). In justice, however, to our Translators Ἐν must be observed that ‘ intercession’ had by no means once that limited meaning of prayer for others which we now ascribe to it; see Jer. xxvii. 18; xxxvi. 25. The Vulgate has ‘postulationes ;’ but Augustine, in a discussion on this group of words referred to already (Hp. 149. § 12—16), prefers ‘in- terpellationes,’ as better bringing out the παῤῥησία, the freedom and boldness of access which is in- volved in, and constitutes the fundamental idea of, the évrev&is—‘interpellare’ being, as need hardly be observed, to interrupt another in speaking, and therefore ever implying forwardness and freedom. Origen (De Orat. 14) in like manner makes the boldness of access to God, asking it may be some great. thing (he instances Josh. x. 12) the funda- mental notion of the ἔντευξις. Eiyapsoria (‘thankfulness, Acts xxiv. 3; ‘giving of thanks, 1 Cor. xiv. 16; ‘thanks, Rev. iv. 9; ‘thanksgiving, Phil. iv. 6, E. V.), a somewhat 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 1 The rendering of δ ἐντεύξεως, 2 Mace. iv. 8, ‘by inter- cession,’ can scarcely be correct. It refers more probably to the fact of a confidential interview between Jason and Antiochus. NEW TESTAMENT. 5 acquired from the fact that in the Holy Com- munion the Church embodies its highest act of thanksgiving for the highest benefits which it has received of God. Regarding it as one manner of prayer, it is manifest that it expresses that which ought never to be absent from any of our devotions (Phil. iv. 6), 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, while all other forms of prayer in the very nature of things will have ceased in the entire fruition of the things prayed for. Alrnwa occurs twice in the N. T. in the sense of petitions of men ἐο 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 αὐτή- ματα, being indeed the several requests of which it is composed. For instance, in the Lord’s Prayer it is generally reckoned that there are seven αὐτή- pata, though some have regarded the three first as εὐχαί, and only the last four as αἰτήματα. Witsius: ‘ Petitio pars orationis; ut si totam Orationem Dominicam voces orationem aut pre-_ cationem, singulas vero illius partes aut septem postulata petitiones.’ ‘Ixetnpia, with ῥάβδος or ἐλαία, or some such word understood, like ἱλαστήριον, θυσιαστήριον, 6 SYNONYMS OF THE and other words of the same termination (see Lobeck, Pathol. Serm. Gree. p. 281), was originally an adjective, but gradually obtained a substantive power and learned to go alone. It is explained by Plutarch (Thes. 18): κλάδος ἀπὸ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐλαίας ἐρίῳ λευκῷ κατεστεμμένος (cf. Wytten- bach’s Plutarch, vol. xiii. p. 89), the olive-branch bound round with wool, held forth by the sup- pliant in token of the character which he bore (Aischylus, Hwmenides, 43, 44). A deprecatory letter, which Antiochus Epiphanes is said on his death-bed to have written to the Jews, is described in 2 Mace. ix. 18 as ἱκετηρίας τάξιν ἔχουσαν, and Agrippa styles one addressed to Caligula: γραφὴ ἣν ἀνθ᾽ ἱκετηρίας προτείνω (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 36). It is easy to trace the steps by which this, the symbol of supplication, came to signify the supplication itself. It does so on the only occasion of the word’s occurrence in the N. T. (Heb. v. 7), being there joined to δέησις, as often elsewhere (Job xl. 3; Polybius, 111. 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 in different aspects. Witsius (De Orat. Dom. § 4): ‘Mihi sic videtur, unam eandemque rem diversis nominibus designari pro diversis quos habet aspec- tibus. Preces nostre δεήσεις vocantur, quatenus lis nostram apud Deum testamur egestatem, nam δέεσθαι indigere est; mpocevyai, quatenus vota NEW TESTAMENT. 7 nostra continent; αἰτήματα, quatenus exponunt petitiones et desideria; ἐντεύξεις, quatenus non timide et diffidenter, sed familiariter Deus se a nobis adiri patitur; ἐντεύξις enim est colloquium et congressus familiaris; ἐυχαριστίαν gratiarum actionem esse pro acceptis jam beneficiis, notius est quam ut moneri oportuit.—On the Hebrew correlatives to the several words just considered, see Vitringa, De Synagogd, 111, 2. 13. ----- § 11.--ὠΟΛᾷἬσύνθετος, ἄσπονδος. ᾿Ασύνθετος occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Rom. i. 31; cf. Jer. iii. 8—11, where it is found several times, but not elsewhere in the Septuagint. Ἄσπονδος occurs twice, Rom. 1. 31; 2 Tim. iii. 3; but in the former of these passages its right to a place in the text is contested, as many important authorities omit it. It is nowhere found in the Septuagint. The distinction between the two words, as used in the Scripture, is not hard to draw ;—I say, as used in the Scripture; because there may be a question whether ἀσύνθετος has anywhere else exactly the meaning which it has there. LElse- where often united with ἁπλοῦς, it has the sense of the Latin ‘incompositus.’ But the ἀσύνθετον of St. Paul are they who, being in covenant and treaty with others, refuse to abide by these cove- nants and treaties; μὴ ἐμμένοντες ταῖς συνθήκαις (Hesychius) ; ‘pactorum haudquaquam tenaces’ 8 SYNONYMS OF THE (Erasmus), ‘ bundbriichig’ (not ‘unvertriiglich, as Tittmann maintains) ; ‘covenant-breakers,’ E. V. It is associated with ἀστάθμητος, Demosthenes, De Fails. Leg. 383. The ἄσπονδοι (the word is joined with ἀσύμβατος and ἀκοινώνητος, Philo, De Mere. Mer. 4), worse than the δυσδιάλυτοι (Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. iv. 5. 10), who are only hard to be reconciled, are the absolutely irrecon- cileable (ἄσπονδον καὶ ἀκατάλλακτοι, Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Her. 50); those who will not be atoned (using this word in its earlier sense), who being at war refuse to lay aside their enmity, or to hear of terms of accommodation; ‘implacabiles, qui semel offensi reconciliationem non admittunt’ (Estius) ; ‘unversohnlich, ‘implacable, E.V. The phrase, ἄσπονδος καὶ ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος is fre- quent, indeed proverbial, in Greek (Demosthenes, De Coron. 79: Philo, De Prem. et Pan. 15; Lucian, Pisce. 36); in this connexion ἀκήρυκτος does not mean, which was not duly announced by the fecial ; but these epithets describe the war as one in which no herald, no flag of truce, as we should say, is allowed to pass between the parties, no terms of reconcilement listened to ; such a war as that of the Carthaginians with their revolted mercenaries. In the same sense we have else- where ἄσπονδος μάχη καὶ ἀδιώλλακτος ἔρις (Aristeenetus, 2. 14); οἵ, ἄσπειστος κότος (Nican- der, Ther. 367); these two quotations are from Blomfield’s Agamemnon, Ὁ. 285; ἄσπονδος ἔχθρα (Plutarch, Pericles, 30); ἄσπονδος Θεός (Euri- pides, Alcestis, 431). NEW TESTAMENT. 9 Where ἀσύνθετος is employed, a peace is pre- sumed, which the σύνθετοι refuse to continue, but unrighteously interrupt; while ἄσπονδος pre- sumes a state of war, which the ἄσπονδοι refuse to bring to a righteous close. It will be seen then that Calvin, who renders ἄσπονδοι “ foedi- fragi, and ἀσύνθετοι ‘insociabiles, has exactly missed the force of both; it is the same with Theodoret, who on Rom. i. 31 writes : ἀσυνθέτους, TOUS ἀκοινώνητον Kal πονηρὸν βίον ἀσπαζομένους" ἀσπόνδους τοὺς ἀδεῶς τὰ συγκείμενα παραβαΐί- vovtas. Only by giving to each word that meaning which they have given 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. Συνθήκη assumes peace; being a further agree- ment, it may be a treaty of alliance, between those already on general terms of amity. Thus there was a συνθήκη between the several states that were gathered round Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, that with whatever territory they began the war, with the same they should close it (Thucy- dides, v. 31). But σπονδή, or more commonly in the plural, assumes war, of which it is the cessa- tion; it may be only the temporary cessation, being often used of an armistice (Homer, J/. 1]. 341). It is true that a συνθήκη may be attached to a σπονδή, terms of alliance consequent on terms of peace; thus σπονδή and συνθήκη occur to- gether in Thucydides, iv. 18: but they are different 10 SYNONYMS OF THE 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, further agreement or alliance.—Evovv0eros, I tu observe, which would be the exact opposite of ἀσύνθετος, does not occur in Greek; but εὐσυν- θεσία, Philo, De Merc. Mer. 3. 11.---μακροθυμία. ὑπομονή, avoyn. μακρ μιᾶ, μονη Xx” Μακροθυμία and ὑπομονή occur together at Col. i. 11, where Chrysostom draws this distinc- tion between them; that a man μακροθυμεῖ, who having power to avenge 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 the former. Thus the fastens he implies, would commonly be called to exercise the former grace among themselves (1 Cor. vi. 7), the latter in respect of those that were without : μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὑπομονὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω" μακροθυμεῖ γάρ τις πρὸς ἐκείνους ods δυνα- τὸν καὶ ἀμύνασθαι, ὑπομένει δὲ ods οὐ δύναται ἀμύνασθαι. This, however, will not endure a closer examination; for see decisively against it Heb. xii. 2, 3. He, to whom ὑπομονή is there ascribed, bore, not certainly because He could not help bearing; for He might have summoned to his aid twelve legions of angels, if so He had NEW TESTAMENT. 1] willed (Matt. xxvi. 53). It may be well, there- fore, to consider the words apart, and then to bring them into comparison, and try whether some more satisfactory distinction between them cannot be drawn. Μακροθυμία is a word of the later periods of the Greek language. It occurs in the Septuagint (Jer. xv. 15), and in Plutarch (Lue. 32), although not in Plutarch exactly with the sense which in Scripture it bears. The long-suffering of men he prefers to express by ἀνεξικακία (De Cap. ex In. Util. 9), while for the grand long-suffering of God he has a noble word, of his own coining I believe, 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 ‘longanimity,’ but without success; and this though Jeremy Taylor allowed and employed the word. We have preferred ‘long- suffering, and understand by it a long holding out of the mind before it gives room to action or passion—generally to passion. 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, Proy. xvi. 32, and set over against θυμώδης, Prov. xv. 18. At the same time it need not necessarily be wrath, which is thus excluded or set at a distance ; for when the historian of the Macca- bees describes how the Romans had won the world “by their policy and their patience,” (1 Macc. vill. 4), μακροθυμία is that Roman persistency 12 SYNONYMS OF THE which would never make peace under defeat ; cf. Plutarch, Luc. 32, 33; Isai. lvii. 15. The true antithesis to μακροθυμία in that sense is ὀξυθυμία, a word belonging to the best times of the language, and employed by Euripides (Androm. 729), as ὀξύθυμος by Aristotle (Rhet. ii. 12). But ὑπομονή,---βασιλὶς τῶν ἀρετῶν Chry- sostom calls it,—is that virtue which in heathen Ethics would be called more often by the name of καρτερία (the words are joined together, Plutarch, Apoth. Lac. Ages, 2), and which Clement of Alex- andria, following in the track of some heathen moralists, describes as the knowledge of what things are to be borne and what are not (ém- στήμη ἐμμενετέων Kal οὐκ ἐμμενετέων, Strom. 11. 18 ; cf. 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 ὃ, where ἀνδρικῶς ὑπομεῖναι is opposed to ἀνάνδρως φευγείν) ; it does not mark merely the endurance, the ‘sustinentiam’ (Vulg.), or even the ‘patientiam’ (Clarom), but the ‘perseverantiam,’ the brave patience with which the Christian con- tends against the various hindrances, persecutions, and temptations that befal him in his conflict 1 These two Cicero (De Inven. ii. 54) thus defines: ‘ Patientia est honestatis aut utilitatis causa rerum arduarum ac difficilium voluntaria ac diuturna perpessio; perseverantia est in ratione bene considerata stabilis et perpetua per- mansio.’ Cf. Augustine, Quest. LXXXIII. qu. 31. NEW TESTAMENT. 19 with the inward and outward world. (Ellicott, on 1 Thess. 1. 3.) Cocceius, too, (on Jam. i. 12) has described it well: “Ὕπομονή versatur in contemtu bonorum hujus mundi, et in forti sus- ceptione afflictionum cum gratiarum actione; imprimis autem in constantia fidei et caritatis ut neutro modo quassari aut labefactari se patiatur, aut impediri quominus opus suum et laborem suum efficiat.’ We may proceed now to draw a distinction between them; and this distincion, I believe, will hold good in all places where the words occur: 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. 1. 6; cf. Clemens Rom. 1 Lp. 5). We should speak, there- fore, 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, though the word itself does not occur, at Wisd. xu. 20. Men may tempt and provoke Him, and He may and does display 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 with which He has created them, even 14 SYNONYMS OF THE 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 cannot find place in Him, nor is it, as Chrysostom rightly observes, ever ascribed to Him ; 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, 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. So Tittmann (p. 194): “Θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς, Deus qui largitur ὑπομονήν. ᾿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. 11, 4; iii, 26). Between it and μακροθυμία Origen draws the following distinction in his Commentary on the Romans (ii. 4)—the original, as is well known, is lost :—‘ Sustentatio [dvoyn] a patientid [μακροθυμία] hoc videtur differre, quod qui infirmitate magis quam proposito delinquunt sustentart dicuntur; qui vero pertinaci mente velut exsultant in delictis suis, ferri patienter dicendi sunt.’ This does not hit off very success- fully the difference. Rather the ἀνοχή is temporary, transient : we may say that, like the word ‘truce, it asserts its own temporary, transient character ; that after a certain lapse of time, and unless other NEW TESTAMENT. 15 conditions intervene, it will pass away. This, it may be urged, is true of μακροθυμία no less; above all, of the divine μακροθυμία. 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. 11. 4) distinguishes the words : “ἡ ἀνοχή indulgentiam notat qua jus tuum non continuo exequutus, ei qui te leserit spatium des ad resipiscendum ; ἡ μακροθυμία clementiam sig- nificat qua ire temperans delictum non statim vindices, sed 6] qui peccaverit poenitendi locum relinquas ;’ and see p. 198, on Rom. 111. 26, where he draws the matter still better to a point: ‘Indulgentia (ἡ ἀνοχή) eo valet, ut in aliorum peccatis conniveas, non ut alicui peccata condones, quod clementie est ;’ it 1s therefore fitly used at this last place 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. 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 con- ditions of repentance and obedience (Luke xiii. 9 ; Rom. 11, 13). The words are also distinguished, but the difference between them not very sharply drawn out, by Jeremy Taylor, in his first Sermon ‘On the Mercy of the divine Judgments, in init, 16 SYNONYMS OF THE § 4--.-Στρηνιάω, τρυφάω, σπαταλάω. In all these words lies the notion of excess, of wanton, dissolute, self-indulgent, prodigal living, but with a difference. Στρηνιᾶν occurs only twice in the N. T. (Rev. Xvi. 7, 9), στρῆνος once (Rev. xviii. 3; cf. 2 Kin. xix. 28), and the compound καταστρηνιᾶν as often (1 Tim. v.11). It is a word of the New or Middle Comedy, and is used by Lycophron, as quoted in Athenzeus (x. 420 b); by Sophilus (ὦ. 11. 100 a) ; and Antiphanes (ib. iii. 127 d); but rejected by the Greek purists—Phrynichus, indeed, affirming that none but one out of his senses would employ it, having τρυφᾶν at his command (Lobeck, Phry~ nichus, p. 881). They do however different work, and oftentimes one would be no substitute for the other, as will presently appear. Τρυφᾶν, which is thus so greatly preferred, is of solitary occurrence in the N. T. (Jam. v. 5) ἐντρυφᾶν (2 Pet. 11. 18) of the same; but belongs with τρυφή (Luke vii. 25 ; 1 Tim. v.11; 2 Pet. 11. 13), to the best age and most classical writers in the language. In στρηνιᾶν (= ἀτακτεῖν, Suidas; or διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ὑβρίζειν, Hesychius) is properly the in- solence of wealth, the wantonness and petulance from fulness of bread; something of the Latin ‘lascivire. There is nothing of sybaritic effeminacy in it; so far from this that Pape connects στρῆ- vos with ‘strenuus;’ and whether he does this correctly or no, there is at any rate always the NEW TESTAMENT. AT notion of force, 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 this of effeminacy, brokenness of spirit through self-indulgence, is exactly the point from which τρυφή and τρυφᾶν (connected with θρύπτειν and θρύψις) start; thus τρυφὴ καὶ χλιδή (Philo, De Mere. Meret. § 2); τρυφὴ καὶ πολυτέλεια (Plutarch, Marcus, 3); cf. Suicer, Thes. s.v.; note too the company in which τρυφή is found (Plato, Alecib. 1. 122 6b); these words only running into the notion of the insolent as a secondary and rarer meaning, It is thus we find united τρυφή and ὕβρις (Strabo, vi. 1); τρυφᾶν and ὑβρίζειν (Plu- tarch, Prac. Ger. Rep. 3); and compare the line of Menander— 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; Ps. xxxv. 9). Σπαταλῶν (occurring only 1 Tim. v. 6; Jam. v. 5; ef. Ecclus. 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 (= ἀναλίσκειν, Hesychius), which, consistently with its deri- vation from σπάω, σπαθάω, is inherent in the word. Thus Hottinger: “ τρυφᾶν deliciarum est, et exquisite voluptatis, σπαταλᾶν luxurie atque prodigalitatis.’ Tittmann: “ τρυφῶν potius molli- C 18 SYNONYMS OF THE tiam vite luxuriose, σπαάταλαν petulantiam et prodigalitatem denotat.’ Theile, who takes them in the reverse order, ‘Componuntur tanquam an- tecedens et consequens; diffluere et dilapidare, luxuriare et lascivire.’ It will thus be seen that the σπαταλᾶν might properly be laid to the charge of the Prodigal, scattering his substance in riotous living (ζῶν ἀσώ- τως, 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. Xxxu, 15), δ v.—Orpus, στενοχωρία. THESE words are often joined together. Thus στενοχωρία, occurring only four times in the N. T., occurs thrice in association with θλέψις (Rom. ii. 9; vill. 5; .2 Cor. ν1..4. δὲ Isai. vi. 22 5 xxx), So too the verbs θλίβειν and στενοχωρεῖν, 2 Cor. iv. 8; cf. Lucian, Vigrin. 13; Artemidorus, i. 79; ii. 37). From the antithesis of the last-mentioned scriptural passage, θλιβόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ στενοχω- ρούμενοι, and from the fact that wherever in the N. T. the two words occur together, στενοχωρία always occurs last, we may conclude that, whatever is the difference of meaning, στενοχωρία is the stronger word. They indeed express very nearly the same thing, but under changed images. Oddéus, which we find NEW TESTAMENT. 19 jomed with βάσανος, Ezek. xii. 18, is properly pressure, ‘pressura,’ ‘tribulatio,—which last in Church Latin had a metaphorical sense, and in- deed belongs to Church Latin alone,—that which presses upon, or burdens the spirit—I should have said ‘angor, the more that Cicero (Twsc. iv. 8) explains this ‘ egritudo premens, but that the con- nexion of ‘angor’ with ‘Angst,’ ‘enge’ (see Grimm, Worterbuch, s.v. Angst) makes it better to reserve this for στενοχωρία. The proper meaning of this latter word 15 narrow- ness of room, confined space, ‘ angustize,’ and then the painfulness of which this is the occasion: ἀπορία στενή and στενοχωρία occur together, Isai. viii 22. It is used literally by Thucydides, vii. 70; being sometimes exchanged for dvcywpia; by Plutarch (Symp. v. 6) set over against ἄνεσις : and in the Septuagint expresses the straitness of a siege (Deut. xxvili. 53, 57). It is once employed in a secondary and metaphorical sense in the O. T. (στενοχωρία πνεύματος, Wisd. v. 3), this being the only sense in which it is employed in the New. The fitness of this image is attested by the fre- quency with which on the other hand a state of joy is expressed in the Psalms and elsewhere as a bringing into a large room (εὐρυχωρία, Marcus Antoninus, ix. 32), I do not know whether Aquinas intended an etymology, but he certainly uttered a truth, when he said, ‘letitia est quasi latitia ;’ compare the use of πλατυσμός by the Greek Fathers ; as by Origen, De Orat. 30. When, according to the ancient law of England, C2 20 SYNONYMS OF THE those who wilfully refused to plead, had heavy weights placed on their breasts, and were so pressed and crushed to death, this was literally θλέψις. When Bajazet, having been vanquished by Tamer- lane, was carried about by him in an iron cage, this was στενοχωρΐα : or, as we do not know that any suffering there ensued from actual narrowness of room, we may more fitly adduce the oubliettes in which Louis the Eleventh shut 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 constructed, that the prisoners could neither stand, walk, sit, nor lie in it at full length” The word ‘little-ease’ is not in our dictionaries, but grew in our early English to a common-place to express any condition of extreme discomfort.—For some considerations on the awful sense in which θλίψις and στενοχωρία shall be, according to St. Paul’s words (Rom. 11. 9), alike the portion of the lost, see Gerhard, Loc. Theoll. xxxi. 6. 52. . e fn 9 , Vi ὃ νἱἹ.---,αἀπλοῦς, ἀκέραιος, ἄκακος, ἄδολος. In this group of words we have some of the rarest and mest excellent graces of the Christian character set forth; or perhaps, as it will 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. NEW TESTAMENT. 21 22; Luke xi. 34); but ἁπλότης seven times, or perhaps eight, always in St. Paul’s Epistles, and amos once (Jam. i. 5). It would be quite impos- sible 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. 13; cf. ‘simplex’ (not ‘sine plicis’ ‘without folds ;’ but ‘ one-folded,’ ‘einfaltig, see Donaldson, Varronianus, p. 390), which is its exact representative in Latin, and a word, like it, in honourable use. This notion of singleness, simplicity, absence of folds, which thus les according to its etymology in ἁπλοῦς, is also the prominent one in its use—‘ animus alienus a versutid, fraude, simulatione, dolo malo, et studio nocendi aliis ’ (Suicer). That all this lies in the word is manifest from those with which we find it connected, as ἀπόνη- pos (Theophrastus) ; γενναῖος (Plato, Rep. 361 6); ἄκρατος (Plutarch, De Comm. Not. 48); ἀσύνθετος, ‘incompositus, not put together (id. 2.; Basil, Adv, Eunom. 1. 23); μονότροπος (id. Hom. in Prin. Prov. ὃ 1); σαφής (Alexis, in Meineke’s Frag. Com. p. 750). But it is still more apparent from the words to which it is opposed, as ποικίλος (Plato, Theet. 146 d); πολυειδής (Phedrus, 270 d); πολύ- τροπος (Hipp. Min. 364 ¢); πεπλεγμένος (Aristotle, 1 See the learned note in Fritzsche’s Commentary on the Romans, vol. iii. p. 64, denying that ἁπλότης has ever the meaning of liberality, which our Translators have so often given it. ee SYNONYMS OF THE Poét. 13); διπλοῦς (2b.); παντοδαπός (Plutarch, Quom. Ad. ab Am. 7). Ἁπλότης (see 1 Mace. 1. 37) is in like manner associated with εἰλικρίνεια (2 Cor. i 12), with axaxia (Philo, Opif. § 41); the two words being used indiscriminately in the Septuagint to render the Hebrew, which we translate now ‘integrity’ (Ps. vil. 8; Prov. xix. 1); now ‘simpli- city’ (2 Sam. xv. 11); again with μεγαλοψυχία (Josephus, Ant, vil. 13. 4), with ἀγαθότης (Wisd. 1. 1); is opposed to ποικιλία (Plato, Rep. 404), to πολυτροπία, to κακουργία (Theophylact), to κακοή- θεια (Theodoret), to δόλος (Aristophanes, Plut. 1158). It may further be observed that DM (Gen. xxv. 17) which the Septuagint renders ἄπλαστος, Aquila has rendered ἁπλοῦς. As is the case with at least one other word of the group, and with multitudes of others expressive of the same ethical qualities, ἁπλοῦς comes often to be used of a foolish simplicity, unworthy of the Christian, who with all his simplicity should be φρόνιμος as well. It is so used by Basil the Great, Ep. 58. Axépatos (not in the Septuagint) occurs only three times in the N. T. (Matt. x. 16; Rom. xvi. 19; Phil. 11. 15). A mistaken etymology, namely, that it was = ἀκέρατος, and derived from @ and κέρας (cf. κεραΐζειν, ‘leedere’), 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 caused our Translators on two of these occasions to render it ‘harmless.’ ‘In each case, however, they have put a more correct rendering, ‘simple’ in NEW TESTAMENT. 23 St. Matthew, ‘sincere’ in Philippians, 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 ὦ and κεράννυμι, is the absence of foreign admixture: ὁ μὴ κεκραμένος κακοῖς, GAN ἁπλοῦς καὶ ἀποίκιλος (Etym. Mag.). 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 διδοὺς, ἔδωκεν οὐκ ἀκέραιον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀναμίξας αὐτῇ δέος ἀργαλεώτερον. It is joined by Plato with ἀβλαβής (Rep. i. 842 2), and with ὀρθός (Polit. 268 6); by Plutarch with ὑγιής (Adv. Store. 31); by Clemens Romanus (1 Cor. ii.) With εἰλικρινής. That, we may say, is ὠκέραιος, which is in its true and natural condition (Jose- phus, Andé. i. 2. 2) ‘integer ;’ in this bordering on ὁλόκληρος, although completeness in all the parts is there the predominant idea, and not, as here, immunity from disturbing elements. The word which we have next to consider, ἄκακος, is to be found 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. It is used in its very highest sense, predicating in Him to whom it is there applied that absence of all evil which implies the presence of all good, at Heb. vu. 26, 24. SYNONYMS OF THE being associated there with other noblest epithets, and employed of the Son of God Himself. The Septuagint, which knows all uses of ἄκακος, em- ploys it sometimes in this nobler sense: thus at Job viii. 20, the ἄκακος is opposed to the ἀσεβής ; and at Ps, xxiv. 21 is joined to the εὐθής, as by Plutarch (Quom. in Virt. Prof.’ 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). The N. T. does not supply an example of the word at this its second stage. The process by which it comes to signify easily deceived, and then ¢oo 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 such as 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; cf. Matt. x. 16); if “simple con- cerning evil,” yet “wise unto that which is good” (Rom. xvi.19). The word, as employed Rom. xvi. 18, already indicates this confidence beginning to degenerate into a credulous openness to the being deceived and led away from the truth (θαυμα- στικοὶ καὶ ἄκακοι, Plutarch, De Rect. Rat. Aud. 7; ef. Wisd. iv. 12; Prov. 1. 4; xiv. 15; ἄκακος πιστεύει παντὶ λόγῳ). For a somewhat contemp- NEW TESTAMENT. 25 tuous use of ἄκακος, see Plato, Timeus, 91 ἃ, and Stallbaum’s note; but above all, the words which the author of the Second Alcibiades puts into Socrates’ mouth (140 ο) : τοὺς μὲν πλεῖστον αὐτῆς [ἀφροσύνης] μέρος ἔχοντας μαινομένους καλοῦμεν, τοὺς δ᾽ ὀλίγον ἔλαττον ἠλιθίους καὶ ἐμβροντήτους" οἱ δὲ ἐν εὐφημοτάτοις ὀνόμασι βουλόμενοι κατ- ονομάζειν οἱ μὲν μεγαλοψύχους, οἱ δὲ εὐήθεις, ἕτεροι δὲ ἀκάκους καὶ ἀπείρους καὶ ἐνεούς. The second and third of these meanings of ἄκακος run so much into one another, are divided by so slight and vanishing a line, that it is not wonderful if some find rather two stages in the word’s use than three; Basil the Great, for ex- ample, whose words are worth quoting (Hom. in Prine. Prov. § 11) : Διττῶς νοοῦμεν τὴν ἀκακίαν. Ἢ yap τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀλλοτρίωσιν λο- γισμῷ 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 history as ἁπλοῦς, εὐήθης, with which 26 SYNONYMS OF THE it is often joimed (as by Diodorus Siculus, v. 66), ‘bon’ (Jean le Bon = Jétourdi), ‘bonhommie,’ ‘silly, ‘simple,’ ‘einfaltig,” and many more. The last word of this beautiful group, ἄδολος, occurs only once in the N.T. (1 Pet. 11. 2), and is there beautifully translated ‘ sincere, —“ the sincere milk of the word ;” see the early English use of ‘sincere’ as unmixed, unadulterated; and com- pare, for that milk of the word which would noé be sincere, 2 Cor. iv. 2. It does not appear in the Septuagint, but ἀδόλως once (Wisd. vii. 13). Plato joins it with ὑγιής (Hp. viii. 355 6) ; Philemo (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Ὁ. 843) with γνήσιος. It is difficult to vindicate an ethical province for this word, on which the others of the group have not encroached, or, more truly, which they have not occupied already. It is indeed impossible. We can only regard it as setting forth the same ex- cellent 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, 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 1. 47). And finally, to sum up all, we may say, that as the ἄκακος (= ‘innocens’) has no harmfulness in him, and the ἄδολος (= ‘sincerus’) no guile, so the ἀκέραιος (= ‘integer’) no admixture, and the ἁπλοῦς (= ‘simplex’) no folds. bo “I NEW TESTAMENT. § vii—ypévos, καιρός. THESE words occur together in several places of the N. T., but always in the plural, χρόνοι καὶ καιροὶ (Acts 1. 7; 1 Thess. v. 1); and not unfre- quently in the Septuagint, Wisd. vii. 18; vii. ὃ (both instructive passages); Dan. 11. 21; and in the singular, Eccles. 111, 1; Dan. vii. 12 (but in this last passage the reading is doubtful). Grotius (on Acts i. 7) conceives 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, if not in- accurate, 15 insufficient, and altogether fails to reach the heart of the matter. Χρόνος is time, simply contemplated as such ; the succession of moments (Matt. xxv. 19; Rev. x. 6; Heb. iv. 7); αἰῶνος εἰκὼν κινητή, Plato calls it (Timeus, 37 d); διάστημα τῆς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κινήσεως, Philo (De Mund. Op. 7); the German ‘Zeitraum, as distinguished from ‘Zeitpwnkt.’ Thus Severianus (Suicer, 1168. s.v.): χρόνος μῆκός ἐστι, καῖρος evKaipia. Καιρός, derived from keipw, as ‘tempus’ from ‘temno,’ is time as it brings forth its several births; thus καιρὸς θε- ρισμοῦ (Matt. xiii. 30); καιρὸς σύκων (Mark ΧΙ, 13); Christ died κατὰ καιρόν (Rom. v. 6); and, above all, compare Eccles. iii, 1—8. Χρόνος, it will be seen from this, embraces all possible καιροί, and being the larger, more inclusive word, 28 SYNONYMS OF THE may be often used where καιρός would have been equally suitable, though not vice versé; thus χρὄνος τοῦ τεκεῖν, the time of bringing forth (Luke 1. 37); πλήρωμα tod χρόνου (Gal. iv. 4), the fulness, or the ripeness, of the time for the manifestation of the Son of God, when we should before have rather expected τοῦ καιροῦ, or τῶν καιρῶν, which last phrase does actually occur Ephes. i 10. So, too, there is every reason to think that the χρόνοι ἀποκαταστάσεως of Acts iii. 21 are identical with the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως of the verse preceding. Thus it is possible to speak of the καιρὸς χρόνου, and Sophocles (Lect. ‘ 1292) does so: χρόνου yap ἄν σοι καιρὸν ἐξείργοι λόγος, but not of the χρόνος καιροῦ; cf. Olympio- dorus (Suicer, 7168. s. ν. χρόνος) : χρόνος μέν ἐστι τὸ διάστημα καθ᾽ ὁ πράττεταί TL καιρὸς δὲ ὁ ἐπιτήδειος τῆς ἐργασίας χρόνος: ὥστε ὁ μὲν χρόνος καὶ καιρὸς εἶναι δύναται: ὁ δὲ καιρὸς οὐ χρόνος, GAN εὐκαιρία τοῦ πραττομένου ἐν χρόνῳ γινομενή. Ammonius: ὁ μὲν καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποιό- TNTA χρόνου, χρόνος δὲ ποσότητα. From what has been said, it will be seen 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” (χρόνους ἢ καιρούς, Acts i. 6, 7), ‘the times’ (χρόνοι) are, in Augus- tine’s words, ‘ipsa spatia temporum,’ the spaces of time, contemplated merely under the aspect of its NEW TESTAMENT. 29 duration, over which the Church’s history should extend ; but ‘the seasons’ (καιροί) are the joints, the articulations, in this time, the critical epoch- making periods fore-ordained of God (καιροὶ mpo- τεταγμένοι, Acts vii. 26), when all which has been slowly, and often unmarkedly, ripening through long 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 recognition of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire; such the conversion of the Germanic tribes settled within the limits of the Empire ; 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, the second coming of the Lord (Dan. vii. 22). It would seem as if the Latin had no word by which exactly to render καιροί, Augustine com- plains of this (Hp. cxevil. 2): ‘Grece legitur χρόνους ἢ καιρούς. Nostri autem utrumque hoc verbum tempora appellant, sive χρόνους, sive καιρούς, cum habeant heec duo inter se non negli- gendam differentiam; καιρούς quippe appellant Greece tempora queedam, non tamen que in spa- tiorum voluminibus transeunt, sed que in rebus ad aliquid opportunis vel importunis sentiuntur, sicut messis, vindemia, calor, frigus, pax, bellum, et si qua similia: χρόνους autem ipsa spatia tem- porum vocant. Bearing out this complaint of. his, we find in the Vulgate the most various renderings of καιροί, as often as it occurs in com- 30 SYNONYMS OF THE bination with χρόνοι, and cannot therefore be rendered by ‘tempora,’ which χρόνοι has generally preoccupied. Thus ‘tempora et momenta’ (Acts i. 7; 1 Thess. v. 1), ‘tempora et etates’ (Dan. ii. 21), ‘tempora et seecula’ (Wisd. vii. 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 conditions. This, however, is not so. Augustine has anticipated this suggestion, but only to acknowledge its in- sufficiency, on the ground that ‘ opportunitas’ (= ‘opportunum tempus’) is a convenient, favour- able season, εὐκαιρία; while the καιρός may be the most inconvenient, most unfavourable of all, the essential notion of it being that it is the critical nick of time; 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’). § vill—dépo, φορέω. On the distinction between these words Lobeck (Phrynichus, p. 585) has the following remarks: ‘Inter φέρω et φορέω hoc interesse constat, quod 1 Yet not perhaps very correctly, for in the common Latin phrase ‘dies tempusque,’ it is dies which answers to χρόνος, and tempus to καιρός ; see Déderlein, Lat. Syn. iv. 267. NEW TESTAMENT. 91 illud actionem simplicem et transitoriam, hoc autem actionis ejusdem continuationem significat ; verbi caus ἀγγελίην φέρειν, est alicujus rei nun- cium afferre, Herod. 11. 53 et 122; v.14; ἀγγε- λίην φορέειν, 111. 34, nuncii munere apud aliquem fungi. Hinc et φορεῖν dicimur ea que nobiscum circumferimus, quibus amicti indutique sumus, ut ἱμάτιον, τριβώνιον, δακτύλιον φορεῖν, tum que ad habitum corporis pertinent’ He _ proceeds, however, to acknowledge that this is a rule by no means constantly observed even by the best Greek authors. It is, therefore, the more noticeable, as an example of the accuracy which so often takes us by surprise in the use of words by the writers of the N. T., that this rule is there exactly ob- served. The only places where φορεῖν occurs are the following, Matt. xi. 8; John xix. 5; Rom. xii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 49, bis; Jam. 11. 3; and in all these it expresses, not an accidental and tem- porary, but a regular and continuous bearing. ‘Sic enim differt φορεῖν a φέρειν ut hoc sit ferre, illud Jerre solere’ (Fritzsche on Matt. xi. 8). Cf. Prov. ii. 16, where of the heavenly Wisdom it is said, νόμον δὲ καὶ ἔλεον ἐπὶ γλώσσης gopet—she bears these on her tongue, and bears them evermore. A sentence in Plutarch (Apoth. Reg.), in which both words occur, illustrates very well their diffe- rent uses: of Xerxes he records, ὀργισθεὶς δὲ Βαβυλωνίοις ἀποστᾶσι, Kal κρατήσας, προσέταξεν ὅπλα μὴ φέρειν, ἀλλὰ ψάλλειν καὶ αὐλεῖν καὶ πορνοβοσκεῖν καὶ καπηλεύειν, καὶ φορεῖν κολ- 92 SYNONYMS OF THE πωτοὺς χιτῶνας. Arms would only be borne at intervals, therefore φέρειν ; but garments are habitually worn, therefore this is in the second clause exchanged for φορεῖν. δ ΙΧχ.---κοσμός, αἰών. THE first of these words our Translators have, I believe, always rendered ‘world;’ and the second often, though by no means exclusively, so; thus (not to speak of εἰς αἰῶνα) see Ephes. ii 2, 7; Col. i 26. It is certainly a question whether we might not have made more use of ‘age’ in our Version: we have employed it but rarely,—only, indeed, in the two places which I have cited last. ‘Age’ may sound to us in- adequate now; but it is quite possible that, so used, it would little by little have expanded and acquired a larger, deeper meaning than it now possesses. One cannot but regret that by this or some other like device, our Translators did not mark the difference between words conveying, to a considerable extent, different ideas; κόσμος being the world contemplated under aspects of space, αἰών under aspects of time,—xoopos ‘mun- dus,’ and αἰών ‘seculum ;’ for the Latin, like the Greek, has two words, where we have, or have acted as though we had, but one. In all those passages, such as Matt. xii. 39; 1 Cor. x. 11, which speak of the end or consummation of the NEW TESTAMENT. Sa 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” (i. 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,’ ‘comp- tus,’ is a word with a history of very great interest in more aspects than one. Suidas traces four successive significations through which the word passed: σημαίνει δὲ ὁ κόσμος τέσσαρα, εὐπρέ- πειαν, τόδε τὸ πᾶν, τὴν τάξιν, τὸ πλῆθος παρὰ τῇ Ἰραφῆ. Having originally the meaning of ‘ornament,’ obtaining this meaning once in the Deel, Pet: 1i 3); ef: Eeclus: xlin,: 9), from. this it passed to that of ‘order, ‘arrangement,’ (‘lucidus ordo’) ‘beauty,’ as springing out of these; εὐπρέ- mea and τάξις, as Suidas gives it above, or as Hesychius, καλλωπισμός, κατασκευή, τάξις, κατά- στασις, κάλλος. Pythagoras is said to have been the first who transferred and applied the word to the sum total of the material universe, desiring thereby to express his sense of the beauty and order which everywhere reigned in it; see Plutarch, De Place. Phil..i. 5; and for a history of this transfer, a note in Humboldt’s Cosmos. ‘Mundus’ in Latin,—‘ digestio et ordinatio singularum qua- rumque rerum formatarum et distinctarum,’ Au- gustine (De Gen. ad Int. c. 3) calls it,—followed, as is familiar to all, in the same track; giving occasion to plays of words, such as ‘O munde immunde,’ in which the same great Church teacher D 34 SYNONYMS OF THE delights. Thus Pliny (H. XN. 11. 3): ‘Quem κόσμον Greci nomine ornamenti appellaverunt, eum nos a perfecté absolutaque elegantié mundum;’ ef. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 22. From this signifi- cation of κόσμος as the material world, which is not uncommon in Scripture (Matt. xii. 35 ; John xxi. 25; Rom. i. 20), followed that of κόσμος as the sum total of the men living in the world (John 1. 29 ; iv. 42; 2 Cor. v. 19), and then upon this, and ethically, those not of the ἐκκλησία, the alienated from the life of God (John 1. 10; 1 Cor. i. 20, 21; Jam. iv. 4; 1 John 111.13). On this threefold use of κόσμος, and the serious con- fusions which, if not carefully watched against, may arise therefrom, see Augustine, Con. Jul. Pel. vi. § 3, 4. But αἰών, connected with ἀεί, though scarcely αἰὲν wv (Aristotle), has in like manner a primary, and then, superinduced on this, a secondary and ethical, sense. In its primary, it signifies time, short or long, in its unbroken duration; often- times in classical Greek the duration of a human life (= Bios, for which it is exchanged, Xenophon, Oyrop. 111. 8. 24); but essentially time as the con- dition under which all created things exist, and the measure of their existence. Thus Theodoret: ὁ αἰὼν οὐκ οὐσία τις ἐστίν, GAN ἀνυπόστατον χρῆμα, συμπαρομαρτοῦν τοῖς γεννητὴν ἔχουσι φύσιν. καλεῖται γὰρ αἰὼν καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ 1 Origen indeed (tz Joan. vi. 38) mentions some one in his day who interpreted κόσμος as the Church, being as it is the ornament of the world (κόσμος οὖσα τοῦ κόσμου). NEW TESTAMENT, 35 κόσμου συστάσεως μέχρι τῆς συντελείας διά- στημα.---αἰὼν τοίνυν ἐστὶ τὸ τῇ κτιστῇ φύσει παρεζευγμένον διάστημα. But thus signifying time, it comes presently to signify all which exists in the world under conditions of time; ‘die Totalitat desjenigen, was sich in der Dauer der Zeit dusserlich darstellt, die Welt, so fern sie sich in der Zeit bewegt’ (Bleek); and then, more ethically, the course and current of this world’s affairs. This course and current being full of sin, it is nothing wonderful that αἰὼν οὗτος, like κόσμος, acquires presently in Scripture an evil sionificance ; the βασιλεῖαι τοῦ κόσμου of Matt. iv. 8 are βασιλεῖαι τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου in Ignatius (Ep. ad Rom. 6); God has delivered us by his Son ἐξ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ (Gal. 1. 4) ; Satan is θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (2 Cor. iv. 4; ef. Ignatius, Ep. ad Magn. 1: 6 ἀρχὼν τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) ; sinners walk κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, too weakly translated in our Version, as in all preceding, “ the cowrse of this world ” (Ephes. 11, 2). The last is a specially instructive passage, seeing that in it both the words which we are discriminating occur together; Bengel excellently remarking, “αἰὼν et κόσμος differunt. 116 hune regit et quasi informat: κόσμος est quiddam exterius, αἰών subtilius. Tempus [= αἰών] dicitur non solum physice, sed etiam moraliter, conno- tata qualitate hominum in eo viventium ; et sic αἰών dicit longam temporum seriem, ubi etas mala malam «tatem excipit.’’ Compare Windisch- mann (on Gal. i. 4): “αἰών darf aber durchaus D 2 36 SYNONYMS OF THE nicht bloss als Zeit gefasst werden, sondern be- ereift alles in der Zeit befangene; die Welt und ihre Herrlichkeit, die Menschen und ihr natiir- liches unerlostes Thun und Treiben in sich, m 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, at any time current in the world, which it is im- possible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, 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 expressed it, the subtle, in- forming 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 that well-known phrase of Tacitus (Germ. 19), ‘Corrumpere et corrumpi seculum vocatur.’ While it is thus with αἰών in all the other passages where it occurs in the N.T., it must be freely admitted that there are two in the Epistle to the Hebrews which constitute excep- tions to the explanation here given, and to the distinction here drawn between it and κοσμός, namely i. 2 and xi. 8. In both of these αἰῶνες are the worlds contemplated, if not entirely, yet NEW TESTAMENT. 37 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 in the first of these passages, as the successive dispensations, the χρόνοι Kat καιροί of the divine economy. But whatever doubt might have existed, had this verse stood alone, the parallel xi. 3 is decisive, that the αἰῶνες can only be, as we have rendered the word, ‘the worlds, and not ‘the ages.’ I have said these two are the only exceptions, for I cannot accept 1 Tim. 1. 17 as a third; where αἰῶνες seems to 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 agegre- gation adumbrate the conception of eternity. The βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων will thus be the sovereign dispenser and disposer of the ages of the world (see Ellicott, an loco). 1 Our English ‘ world, as far as the etymology goes, more nearly represents αἰών than κόσμος. The old ‘weralt, or ‘weralti’? (in modern German ‘ welt’), is composed of two words, ‘wer,’ man, and ‘alti,’ age or generation. The ground- meaning, therefore, of ‘weralt’ is generation of men. 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 it is used, first as an expression of time, and only derivatively as one of space. See Rudolf von Raumer, Die Linwirkung des Christenthums auf die Alt hochdeutsche Sprache, 1845, p. 375. 38 SYNONYMS OF THE § x.—véos, καινός. WE translate both these words by the one English word ‘new, and there are those who deny that any difference can in the New Testament be traced between them. They derive a certain plausible support for this assertion from the fact that mani- festly νέος and καινός oftentimes are interchange- ably used; thus νέος ἄνθρωπος (Col. iii. 10), ‘the new man,’ and καινὸς ἄνθρωπος (Eph. 11. 15), ‘the new man’ also; νέα διαθήκη (Heb. xii. 24) and καινὴ διαθήκη (Heb. ix. 15), both ‘a new cove- nant ;’ νέος οἶνος (Matt. ix. 17) and καινὸς οἶνος (Matt. xxvi. 29). The words, it is urged, are evidently of the same force and significance. But this does not follow, and in fact is not so. The same covenant may be qualified as νέα or καινή, but it is contemplated from a different point of view, according as it has one epithet applied to it or the other. It is the same in the other in- stances adduced: the same man, or the same wine, may be νέος or xauvos; but a different notion is predominant according as the one epithet is applied or the other, and it will not be hard pre- sently to demonstrate as much. Contemplate the new under the aspects of ¢ime, as that which has more recently come into exis- tence, and this is νέος (see Pott, Htymol. Forsch. 2d ed. vol. 1. p. 290—292). Thus the young are continually οἱ νέοι, or οἱ νεώτεροι, the generation which has lately sprung up; so, too, νέοι θεοί, the younger race of gods, Jupiter, Apollo, and NEW TESTAMENT. 39 other Olympians (Adschylus, 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 under the aspect of time, but of quality, the new, as set over against that which has seen service, the out-worn, the exhausted or marred through age, and this is καινός : thus καινὸν ἱμάτιον (Luke v. 36), ‘a new garment, as contrasted with one threadbare and outworn; καινοὶ ἀσκοί, ‘new wine-skins’ (Matt. ix. 17; John ix. 19); and in this sense, xawos οὐρανός (2 Pet. ii. 13), ‘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, xaivas γλῶσσαι (Mark xvi. 17) does not express the recent commencement of this miraculous speaking with tongues, but the un- likeness of these tongues to any that went before, therefore called also ἕτεραι γλῶσσαι (Acts 1]. 4), tongues different from any hitherto known. Thus also, that καινὸν μνημεῖον, in which Joseph of Arimathea laid the body of our Lord (Matt. xxvii. 60), is not one lately hewn from the rock, but one which had never yet been used, in which no other dead had ever lain, making the place ceremonially unclean (Matt. xxiii, 27). It might have been hewn out a hundred years before, and would thus have forfeited its right to the epithet véos, but if never turned to use before it would be καινός still. That it should be so was part of that divine decorum which ever attended the Lord in the midst of the humiliations of His earthly 40 SYNONYMS OF THE life (ef. Luke xix..30; 1 Sam. vi 7; 2 Kin. i. 20). It will be seen 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 heaven, “the new Jerusalem” (Rev. 111. 12); “a new song” (v. 9); “a new heaven and new earth” (xxi. 1, cf. 2 Pet. 11. 13); “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 (Ecclus. ix. 10), and the old wine (Luke v. 39), are better than the new. And in many other cases xawos may express only the novel and strange, as contrasted, and that unfavourably, with the known and the familiar. Thus I observed just now that νέοι Oéou 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 καινοὺς θεούς, or καινὰ δαιμόνια into Athens (Plato, Apol. 26 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 accus- tomed to worship. So, too, they who exclaim of Christ’s teaching, “ What new doctrine [καινὴ διδαχή] is this?” mean any thing but praise (Mark 1, 27). Follow up these words into their derivatives and compounds, and it will be found that the same distinction comes yet more clearly out: thus, νεότης (1 Tim. iv. 12) is youth; καινότης (Rom. NEW TESTAMENT. Al vi. 4) is newness; veoevdys, of youthful appear- ance; καινοειδής, of novel unusual appearance ; νεολογία (if there had existed such a word) would have been, a younger growth of words as con- trasted with 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 principles 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 (Clement of Alexandria, Pedag. 1. 5, will supply one), in which the words occur together; but neither in this are they em- ployed as a mere rhetorical accumulation: each has its own special significance. Relating a stra- tagem by which the town of Selge was very nearly surprised and taken, Polybius makes this observa- tion, that, notwithstanding the many cities which have evidently been lost through the same device, we are, some way or other, still new and young in regard of similar deceits (καινοί τινες αἰεὶ καὶ νέοι πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ἀπάτας πεφύκαμεν), and ready to be deceived by them over again. Here καινοί is an epithet applied to men in respect to their rawness and inexperience, νέου in respect to their youth. It is true that these two, inexperience and youth, go often together; thus νέος and ἄπειρος are joined by Plutarch (De Rect. Rat. And. 17) ; but this is not of necessity. An old man may be 42 SYNONYMS OF THE raw and unpractised in the affairs of the world, therefore καινός : there have been many young men, νέον as regarded age, who were well skilled and exercised in these. Apply the distinction here drawn, and it will be manifest that the same wine, or the same man, may be at once νέος and καινός, and yet different meanings may be, and may have been intended to be, conveyed, as the one word was used, or the other. Take for example the νέος ἄνθρωπος of Col. iii, 10, and the καινὸς ἄνθρωπος of Ephes. ii. 15. Contemplate under the aspect of time that mighty change which has found and is finding place in the man who has become obedient to the truth, and you will call him subsequently to this change, νέος 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 called véos. But, on the other hand, contemplate, not now under aspects of time, but of quality and condition, this same mighty transformation; behold the man who, through long contact with the world, inveterate habits of sinning, had grown outworn and old, casting off the old conversation, as the snake its shrivelled skin, coming forth again a new creation (καινὴ κτίσις), from his heavenly Maker’s hands, with a πνεῦμα καινόν given to him (Ezek. xi. 18), and you have here the καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, one prepared to walk in newness of life (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς, Rom. vi. 4) through the dvaxaivwous of the Spirit (Tit. 111. 5) ; compare the Epistle of Barnabas, 16, ἐγενόμεθα NEW TESTAMENT. 43 καινοὶ, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτιζόμενοι. Often as the vords in this application would be interchangeable, yet there are also times when they would not be so. Take for instance the saying of Clement of Alex- andria (Peed. i. 6), χρὴ yap εἶναι καινοὺς Λόγου καίνου μετευιληφότας. How impossible it would be to substitute νέους or νέου here. Take, again, the verbs ἀνανεοῦν (Ephes. iv. 23), and ἀνακαινοῦν (Col. iv. 10). We have need ἀνανεοῦσθαι, and we have need ἀνακαινοῦσθαι. It is indeed the same mysterious process, to be brought about by the. same almighty Agent; but it is the same regarded from different points of view; avaveota Aan, to be made young again, ἀνακαινοῦσθαι, to be made new again. Apply this in the other instances quoted above. New wine may be characterized as véos or καινός, but from different points of view. As it is véos, it is tacitly contrasted with the vintage of past years; as it 15 καινός, We May assume it austere and strong, in contrast with that which is χρηστός, sweet and mellow through age (Luke v. 39). So too, the Covenant of which Christ is the Mediator is a διαθήκη νέα, as compared with the Mosaic covenant, given nearly two thousand years before; it is a διαθήκη καινή as compared with the same, effete with age, and from which all vigour, energy, and strength had departed (Heb. viii. 13). A Latin grammarian, drawing the distinction between ‘recens’ and ‘novus,’ has said, ‘ Recens ad tempus, novum ad rem vefertur.’ Substituting νέος and καινός, we might say, “νέος ad tempus, 40 SYNONYMS OF THE 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 Boa, Plutarch, Alexander, 38), pass to the harlots’ houses, or otherwise wander through the streets, with insult and wanton out- rage for any whom they meet; cf. Meineke, Pragm. Com. Gree. p. 617. It is evident that Milton had the κῶμος in his eye in those lines of his— ‘when night Darkens the streets, then wander forth the sons Of Belial, flown with insolence and wine Plutarch (Alex. 37) characterized as a κῶμος the mad drunken march of Alexander and his army through Carmania, returning from their Indian expedition. Κραυνπάλη, the Latin ‘crapula, though with a more limited signification (ἡ χθεσινὴ μέθη, Am- monius), 1s a word concerning the derivation of which nothing certain has been arrived at. We have rendered it ‘surfeiting’ at Luke xxi. 34, being the single occasion on which it occurs in the N. T. In the Septuagint it is never found, but the verb κραυπαλάω twice (Ps. lxxvii. 65; Isai. » xxix. 9). ‘Fulsomeness,’ in the early sense of that word (see my Select Glossary of English Words, 2 ἔοικε ἐπὶ κῶμον βαιδίζειν. φαίνεται. στεφανόν γέ τοι καὶ δᾷδ᾽ ἔχων πορεύεται. Aristoph. Ῥίμέ, 1040. 2 Theophylact makes these songs themselves the κῶμοι, defining the word thus: τὰ pera μέθης καὶ ὕβρεως dopara. NEW TESTAMENT. 47 s.v. ‘fulsome’), would express it very well, with only the drawback that by ‘fulsomeness’ might be indicated the disgust and loathing from over- fulness of meat as well as of wine, while κραυπάλη expresses only the latter; thus Plutarch, Prac. San. 11: πλησμονὴ ἢ κραιπάλη. It is, as Clement of Alexandria (Ped. ii. 2)*defines it, ἡ ἐπὶ τῇ μέθῃ δυσαρέστησις καὶ ἀηδία: and with it this series of words may fitly close. * § ΧΙΠ.---καπηλεύω, Sodow. In two passages, standing very near to one another in St. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corin- thians, he avouches of himself that he is not “as many who corrupt (καπηλεύοντες) the word of God” (i 17); and presently again he disclaims being of them who can be accused of “handling the word of God deceitfully,” (δολοῦντες, iv. 2) ; these being the only occasions on which either. of these words is employed in the N.T. It is evident, not less from the context than from the character of the words themselves, that the notions which they express must lie very near to one another ; oftentimes it is said or assumed that they are absolutely identical, as by all translators who render the two Greek words in the same way ; by the Vulgate, for instance, which has ‘adulterantes ’ in both places; by Chrysostom, who explains καπηλεύειν as = νοθεύειν. But I am persuaded 48 SYNONYMS OF THE that, on nearer inspection, it will be found that while καπηλεύοντες covers all that δολοῦντες does, it also covers something more, and this, whether in the literal sense, or transferred figurative in which it is used by the Apostle; even as it is quite plain that our own Translators, whether with any very clear insight into the distinction between the words or not, certainly did not acquiesce in the obliteration of all distinction between them. The history of καπηλεύειν is not difficult to trace. The κάπηλος is properly the huckster or petty trader, as set over against the ἔμπορος who sells his wares not in retail but in the gross. But while the word may be applied to any such pedlar, the κάπηλος is predominantly the vendor in retail of wine (Plato, Gorg. 518; Lucian, Hermot. 58). Exposed to many and strong temptations, into which it was easy for them to fall (Ecclus. xxvi. 29), as to mix their wine with water (Isai. 1. 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 con- tempt; καπηλεύειν being the making of any shameful traffic and gain as the κάπηλος does (see Becker, Charikles, Leipzig, 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 “NEW TESTAMENT. 49 it only expresses partially the tampering itself, as the following extract from Lucian (Hermotimus, 59) would seem to say: ot φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται τὰ μαθήματα ὥσπερ οἱ κάπηλοι, κερασάμενοί γε οἱ πολλοὶ, καὶ δολώσαντες, καὶ κακομετροῦντες : for here the δολοῦν is only one part of the deceit- ful 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 the one word there is only the simple falsifying, there is in the other the doing of this with the intention of obtaining shameful 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 same Epistle (xu. 14; cf. Acts xx. 33), 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 covetous- ness, make merchandise of souls; thus by St. Paul himself, Tit. i. 11; Phil. iii 19; cf. 2 Pet. 1. 3, 14, 15; Jude 11, 16; Ezek. xiii 19; and see Ignatius (the larger 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, καὶ καπηλεύοντες TOV λόγον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Surely we have here E 48 SYNONYMS OF THE that, on nearer inspection, it will be found that while καπηλεύοντες covers all that δολοῦντες does, it also covers something more, and this, whether in the literal sense, or transferred figurative in which it is used by the Apostle; even as it is quite plain that our own Translators, whether with any very clear insight into the distinction between the words or not, certainly did not acquiesce in the obliteration of all distinction between them. The history of καπηλεύειν is not difficult to trace. The κάπηλος is properly the huckster or petty trader, as set over against the ἔμπορος who sells his wares not in retail but in the gross. But while the word may be applied to any such pedlar, the κάπηλος is predominantly the vendor in retail of wine (Plato, Gorg. 518; Lucian, Hermot. 58). Exposed to many and strong temptations, into which it was easy for them to fall (Ecclus. xxvi. 29), as to mix their wine with water (Isai. 1. 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 con- tempt; καπηλεύειν being the making of any shameful traffic and gain as the κάπηλος does (see Becker, Charikles, Leipzig, 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- eraceful gain thereby. Nay, it might be urged that “NEW TESTAMENT. 49 it only expresses partially the tampering itself, as the following extract from Lucian (Hermotimus, 59) would seem to say: of φιλόσοφοι ἀποδίδονται Ta μαθήματα ὥσπερ οἱ κάπηλοι, Kepacdpevol γε οἱ πολλοὶ, καὶ δολώσαντες, καὶ κακομετροῦντες: for here the δολοῦν is only one part of the deceit- ful 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 the one word there is only the simple falsifying, there is in the other the doing of this with the intention of obtaining shameful 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 same Epistle (xi. 14; ef. Acts xx. 33), 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 covetous- ness, make merchandise of souls ; thus by St. Paul himeelf, Tit: i. 11; Phil. 111. 19; cf:2) Pet. id, 14, 15; Jude 11, 16; Ezek. xii. 19; and see Ignatius (the larger recension), where, no doubt with a reference to this passage, and showing how the writer understood it, the false teachers are denounced as χρηματολαίλαπες, aS χριστέμποροι, tov ᾿Ιησοῦν πωλοῦντες, Kal καπηλεύοντες TOV λόγον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Surely we have here E 50 SYNONYMS OF THE a difference which it is quite worth our while not to pass by unobserved. The Galatian false teachers were such as undoubtedly might 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 precious stones ; but there is nothing which would lead us to charge them as καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, working this mischief which they did work for filthy lucre’s sake (see Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. iv. p. 636). I cannot forbear quoting here a remarkable extract from Bentley's Sermon on Popery (Works, vol. ii. p. 242), in which he strongly maintains the distinction which I have endeavoured to trace: ‘Our English Translators have not been very happy in their version of this passage [2 Cor. ii. 17]. We are not, says the Apostle, καπηλεύ- οντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, which our Translators have rendered, “we do not corrupt” or (as in the margin) deal deceitfully with “the word of God.” They were led to this by the parallel place, c. 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 καπη- λεύοντες and δολοῦντες in the same adequate notion, as the vulgar Latin had done before them, which expresses both by the same word, adulte- rantes verbum Dei; and so, likewise, Hesychius makes them synonyms, ἐκκαπηλεύειν, δολοῦν. Δολοῦν, indeed, is fitly rendered ‘adulterare ;’ so NEW TESTAMENT, 51 δολοῦν τὸν χρυσὸν, τὸν οἶνον, to adulterate gold or wine, by mixing worse ingredients with the metal or liquor. And our Translators 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 adul- terating, has an additional notion of unjust lucre, gain, profit, advantage. 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 καπη- λεύειν, 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, καπη- λεύειν Tas 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 adul- terating is part of the notion of καπηλεύειν, but the principal essential of it is sordid lucre. So ‘cauponari’ in the famous passage of Ennius, where Pyrrhus refuses the offer of a ransom for his captives, and restores them gratis : ‘Non mi aurum posco, nec mi pretium dederitis, Non cauponanti bellum, sed belligeranti.’ And so the Fathers expound this place..... So that, in short, what St. Paul says, καπεηλύοντες E 2 52 SYNONYMS OF THE τὸν λόγον, might be expressed in one classic word -λογέμποροι, or λογοπρῶται,, 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. — § xiii—dyabwovvn, χρηστότης. Ἀγαθωσύνη is one of the words with which re- vealed religion has enriched the Greek language. It occurs no where else but in the Greek transla- tions of the O. T. (Nehem. ix. 25; 2 Chron. xiv. 16), in the N. T., and in those writings which are 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 yet we shall see is not absolutely identical with it, should be always employed in its stead (Lobeck, Pathol. Serm. Gree. ° p. 237). Inthe N. T. we meet with it four times, always in the writings of St. Paul (Rom. xv. 14; 1 So λογοπῶλοι in Philo, Cong. Erud. Grat. 10. ‘NEW TESTAMENT. 53 Gal. v. 22; Ephes. v. 9; 2 Thess, i, 11); and it is invariably rendered ‘goodness’ in our Version. We feel the want of some word more special and definite at such passages as 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 Phavorinus explains it, ἡ ἀπηρτισμένη ἀρετή, is little satisfactory. It is quite true that in such passages as Ps. lit 5, it is set over against κακία, and has this general meaning, but not there. At the same time it is hard to suggest any other rendering ; even as, no doubt, it is harder to seize the central force of this word than it is of χρηστότης, this difficulty mainly arising from the fact that we have no helping passages in other literature; for, however these can never be admitted to give the absolute law to the meaning of words in Scripture, we feel much at a loss when such are wanting altogether. It may 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. That other, a beautiful word, as it is the expres- sion of a beautiful grace, (cf. χρηστοήθεια, Ecclus. Xxxvii. 13), like ἀγαθωσύνη, occurs in the N. Τὶ only in the writings of St. Paul, being by him joined to φιλανθρωπία (Tit. 111. 4) ; to μακροθυμία and ἀνοχή (Rom. ii. 4); and opposed to ἀποτομία (Rom. xi. 22). The E. V. renders it ‘ good’ (Rom. iii, 12); ‘kindness’ (2 Cor. vi. 6; Ephes, i. 7; 5A SYNONYMS OF THE Col. iii. 12; Tit. 11, 4); ‘gentleness’ (Gal. v. 22). The Rheims, which has for it ‘benignity’ (Gal. v. 22), ‘sweetness’ (2 Cor. vi. 6), has perhaps seized more successfully the central notion of the word. It is explained in the Definitions which go under Plato’s name (412 ὁ), ἤθους ἀπλαστία μετ᾽ εὐλο- γιστίας: by Phavorinus, εὐσπλαγχνία, ἡ πρὸς τοὺς πέλας συνδιάθεσις, τὰ αὐτοῦ ὡς οἰκεῖα ἰδιο- ποιουμένη. It is joined by Clemens Romanus with ἔλεος (1 Ep. i. 9); by Plutarch with φιλανθρωπία (Demet. 50) ; with εὐμένεια (De Cap. ex In. Util. 9); with γλυκυθυμία (Terr. an Aquat. 32); with ἁπλότης and μεγαλοφροσύνη : grouped by Philo with εὐθυμία, ἡμερότης, ἠπιότης (De Mer. Merc. 3). So too, when Josephus speaks of the χρηστότης of Isaac (Antt. 1. 18. 3), the word marks upon his part a very true insight into the character of the patriarch ; see Gen. xxvi. 20—22. _ Calvin has quite too superficial a view of ypn- στότης, When, commenting on Col. iii. 12, he writes: ‘ Comitatem—-sic enim vertere libuit χρηστότητα, qua nos reddimus amabiles. Mansuetudo [πραὕτης], quee sequitur, latius patet quam comitas, nam illa preecipue est in vultu ac sermone, hec etiam in αἰδοῖα 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 ν. 39); Christ’s yoke is χρηστός, as having nothing harsh or galling about it (Matt. xi 30). On the distinction between it and ἀγαθωσύνη NEW TESTAMENT, 55 Cocceius (on Gal. v. 22), quoting Tit. iii. 4, where χρηστότης OCCUTS, goes on to say: ‘Ex quo exemplo patet per hance vocem significari quandam liberali- tatem et studium benefaciendi. Per alteram autem [ἀγαθωσύνη] possumus intelligere comitatem, sua- vitatem morum, concinnitatem, gravitatem morum, et omnem amabilitatem cum decoro et dignitate conjunctam.’ This does not seem to me perfectly successful as a distinction. If the words are at all set over against one another the ‘ suavitas’ belongs to the χρηστότης rather than to the ἀγαθωσύνη. I like much better what Jerome has said on the difference between the words. Indeed, I do not know anything so well said on this matter else- where (Com. in Ep. ad Gal. v. 22): ‘ Benignitas sive suavitas, quia apud Greecos χρηστότης utrum- que sonat, virtus est lenis, blanda, tranquilla, et omnium bonorum apta consortio; invitans ad familiaritatem sui, dulcis alloquio, moribus tem- perata. Denique et hanc Stoici ita definiunt: Benignitas est virtus sponte ad benefaciendum ‘exposita. Non multum bonitas [ἀγαθωσύνη] a benignitate diversa est; quia et ipsa ad benefacien- dum videtur exposita. Sed in eo differt; quia potest bonitas esse tristior, et fronte severis moribus irrugata, bene quidem facere et preestare quod pos- citur; non tamen suavis esse consortio, et sua cunctos invitare dulcedine. Hane quoque secta- tores Zenonis ita definiunt: Bonitas est virtus que prodest, sive, virtus ex quad oritur utilitas; aut, virtus propter semetipsam ; aut, affectus qui fons sit utilitatum.’ With this agrees in the main the 56 SYNONYMS OF THE distinction which Basil draws between the words (Reg. Brev. Tract. 214): πλατυτέραν οἶμαι εἶναι τὴν χρηστότητα, εἰς εὐεργεσίαν τῶν ὅπως δηπο- τοῦν ἐπιδεομένων ταύτης" συνηγμένην δὲ μᾶλλον τὴν ἀγαθωσύνην, καὶ τοῖς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λόγοις ἐν ταῖς εὐεργεσίαις συγχρωμένην. A man might display his ἀγαθωσύνη, his zeal for goodness and truth, in rebuking, correcting, chastising. Christ was working in the spirit of this grace when He drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple (Matt. xxi. 13); when He uttered all those terrible words against the Scribes and Pharisees recorded in the 23d chapter of St. Matthew; but we could not say that his χρη- στότης was shown in these acts of a righteous in- dignation. This was rather displayed in his recep- tion of the penitent woman (Luke vii. 37—50; cf. Ps, xxiv. 7, 8); in all 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 predominantly the character of Christ's ministry, so much so that it is nothing wonderful to learn from Tertullian (Apol. 3), 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 1 The χρηστός was called ἠλίθιος by those who would fain take every thing by its wrong handle (Aristotle, Rhe?. i. 9. 3; ef, Eusebius, Prep. Evang. v. 5. 5). NEW TESTAMENT. 57 only the harmlessness of the dove, and nothing of the wisdom of the serpent; a contempt which it is justified in feeling for a goodness which has no edge, no sharpness in it, no righteous indignation against sin, nor willingness to punish it. That what was called χρηστότης, still retaining this honourable name, did yet sometimes degenerate into this, and end with being no goodness at all, we have evidence in a striking fragment of Menan- der (Meineke, Fragm. Com. Gree. p. 982) :— e ~ ἡ νῦν ὑπό τινων χρηστότης καλουμένη μεθῆκε τὸν ὅλον εἰς πονηρίαν βίον" οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀδικῶν τυγχάνει τιμωρίας. 8 χῖν.---δίκτυον, ἀμφίβληστρον, σαγήνη. Οὐκ English word ‘net’ will, in a general way, cover all these three, which yet are capable of a more accurate discrimination one from the other. Δίκτυον (= ‘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 as well as the fishing, although used only of the latter in the N. T. (Matt. iv. 20; John xxi. 6). Ἀμφίβληστρον and caynvy are different kinds of fishing nets ; they occur together, Hab. i. 15; and in Plutarch (De Sol. Anim. 26), who joins γρῖπος with caynvn, ὑποχή with ἀμφίβληστρον. Apdi- βληστρον, found only in the N. T. at Matt. iv. 18, andy Mark i. 16% ef; Eecl, ix. 12:5» λό 105 58 SYNONYMS OF THE (ἀμφιβολή, Oppian), is the casting net, ‘jaculum, ze. ‘rete jaculum’ (Ovid, Ar. Am. 1, 763), or ‘funda’ (Virgil, Georg. i. 141), which, when skil- fully 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 mos- quito net, to which, as Herodotus (ii. 95) tells us, the Egyptian fishermen turned it; but see Blakesley’s Herodotus, in loco. Laynvn, found only at Matt. xiii. 47: cf. Eccl. vil. 28; Isai. xix. 8 (from σάττω, ‘onero,’ perf. acécaya), is the long draw-net, or sweep-net, ‘ vasta sagena’ Manilius calls it, the ends of which being carried out in boats so as to enclose a large space of open sea, are then drawn together, and all which they contain, enclosed and taken. It is rendered ‘sagena’ in the Vulgate, whence ‘seine,’ or ‘ sean,’ the name which this net has in Cornwall, on whose coasts it is much in use. In classical Latin it is called ‘everriculum’ (see Cicero’s pun upon Verres’ name, ‘everriculum in provincia’), from its sweep- ing the bottom of the sea. From the fact that it was thus a πάναγρον or take-all (Homer, Ji. v. 487), the Greeks gave the name of caynvevew to a device by which the Persians were reported to have cleared a conquered island of its inhabitants (Herodotus, 111. 149 ; vi. 31; Plato, Legg. 11. 698 d). Virgil in two lines describes the fishing by aid of the ἀμφίβληστρον and the cayjvn, every word in NEW TESTAMENT. 59 each line having its precise fitness for its own kind (Georg. 1. 141) :— * Atque alius latum funda jam verberat amnem Alta petens, pelagoque alius trahit humida lina.’ It will be seen that there is an evident fitness in our Lord’s use of σαγήνη in a parable (Matt. xiii. 47) wherein He is setting forth the wide reach, and all-embracing character, of his future kingdom. Neither ἀμφίβληστρον, nor yet δίκτυον which might not have meant more than ἀμφίβληστρον, would have suited at all so well. § χν.---λυπέομαι, πενθέω, Opnvéw, κόπτω. 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 ways of manifestation. Λυπεῖσθαι (Matt. xiv. 9; Ephes. iv. 30; 1 Pet. i. 6) is the most general word, to be sorrowful, ‘dolere, being opposed to χαίρειν (Aristotle, Rhet. i, 2), as λύπη to χαρά (Xenophon, Hell. vii. 1, 22). This λύπη, unlike the grief of the three following words, a man may so entertain in the deep of his heart, that there shall not be any outward manifes- tation of it, unless he himself be pleased to reveal it (Rom. ix. 2; Phil. ii. 7). Not so the πενθεῖν, which is stronger, being not merely ‘dolere’ or ‘angi, ‘but ‘lugere, and like this last, properly and primarily (Cicero, T'use. 1. 13; 60 SYNONYMS OF THE iv. 8: ‘luctus, eegritudo ex ejus, qui carus fuerit, interitu acerbo’) to lament for the dead; wevOétv νέκυν (Homer, J]. xix. 225); τοὺς ἀπολωλότας (Xenophon, Hell. 11. 2, 3); then any other passionate lamenting (Sophocles, Gd. Tyr. 1296 ; Gen. xxxvii. 34); πένθος being in fact a form of πάθος (see Plutarch, Cons. ad Avpoll. 22); to grieve with a grief which so takes possession of the whole being that it cannot be hid; cf. Spanheim (Dub. Evang. 81): “πενθεῖν enim apud Hellenistas respondit verbis 33 κλαίειν, θρηνεῖν, et Phin} ὀλολύζειν, adeoque non tantum denotat luctum conceptum intus, sed et expressum foris.” According to Chry- sostom (i loco) the πενθοῦντες of Matt. v. 4 are οἱ μετ᾽ ἐπιτάσεως λυπουμένοι, those who so grieve that their grief manifests itself externally. Thus we find πενθεῖν often joined with κλαίειν (2 Kin. xix. 1; Mark xvi. 10; Jam. iv. 9; Rev. xviii. 13) ; so πενθῶν καὶ σκυθρωπάζων, Ps. xxxiv. 14. Gre- gory of Nyssa (Suicer, Tes. 5. v. πένθος), gives it more generally, πένθος ἐστὶ σκυθρωπὴ διάθεσις τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐπὶ στερήσει τινὸς τῶν καταθυμίων συνισταμένη: but he was not distinguishing syn- onyms, and in nothing therefore induced to draw out finer distinctions. Θρηνεῖν, joined with ὀδύρεσθαι (Plutarch, Quom. Virt. Prof. 5), with κατοικτείρειν (Cons. ad A poll. 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. 11. 18), breaking out in unstudied words, the Irish wake is such a θρῆνος, or it may take the more artificial NEW TESTAMENT. 61 form ofa poem. That beautiful lamentation which David composed over Saul and Jonathan, is intro- duced in the Septuagint with these words, ἐθρήνησε Δαβὶδ τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον, x.7.d. (2 Sam. i. 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 last to deal with κόπτειν (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 (Nah. 11. 7; Luke xviii. 13); so κοπετός (Acts viil. 2) is θρῆνος peta ψοφοῦ χειρῶν (Hesychius), and, as πενθεῖν, oftenest in token of grief for the dead (Gen. xxill. 2; 2 Kin. iii. 31). It is the Latin ‘plangere’ (‘laniataque pectora plangens’: Ovid, Metam. vi. 248), which is connected with ‘plaga’ and πλήσσω. Plutarch (Cons. ad Uz. 4) joins ὀλοφύρσεις and κοπετοί (cf. Fab. Max. 17: κοπετοὶ γυναικεῖοι) as two of the more violent manifestations of grief, and such as he esteems faulty in their excess. § xvl—apaptia, ἁμάρτημα, παρακοή, ἀνομία, παρανομία, παράβασις, παράπτωμα, ayvo- / Ὡ ήμα, ἥττημα. A MOURNFULLY numerous group of words, which it would be only too easy to make much larger than it is. Nor is it hard to see why. For sin, ὅταν 62 SYNONYMS OF THE which we may define in the language of St. Augus- tine, as ‘ factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra eternam legem’ (Con. Faust. xxii. 27; ef. the Stoic definition, ἁμάρτημα, νόμου ἀπαγόρευμα, Plutarch, De Rep. Stoie. 11); or again, ‘voluntas admittendi vel retinendi quod justitia vetat, et unde liberum est abstinere’ (Con. Jul. 1. 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 above all to the Scriptures, nowhere else are we likely to find it contemplated on so many sides, set forth under such various images. It may be contemplated 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 upright; this will be παράπτωμα : ignorance of what one ought to have known ; this will be ἀγνοήμα : diminishing of that which should have been rendered in full measure, which is ἥττημα : non-observance of a law, which is ἀνομία or παρανομία: a discord, and then it is πλημμέλεια: and in other ways almost out of number. In seeking accurately to define ἁμαρτία, and so better to distinguish it from the other words of this group, there is no help to be derived from its etymology, seeing that is quite uncertain. Suidas, as is well known, derives it from μάρπτω, “ἁμαρτία quasi ἁμαρπτία, a failing to grasp. Buttmann’s conjecture (Leatlogus, p. 85, English edition), that NEW TESTAMENT, 63 it belongs to the root μέρος, weipew, on which a negative intransitive verb, to be without one’s share of, to miss, was formed, has found more favour (see Fritzsche on Rom. v. 12, a long note, with excellent philology and execrable theology). Only this much is plain, that when sin is con- templated as ἁμαρτία, it is regarded as a failing and missing the true end and scope of our lives, which is God; ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀπόπτωσις, as Gicu- menius ; ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀποτυχία, and ἁμαρτάνειν an ἄσκοπα τοξεύειν, as Suidas; ἡ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐκτροπὴ, εἴτε τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, εἴτε τοῦ κατὰ νόμον, as another. It is a matter of course that with slighter appre- hensions 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 acquired. The words run through the same course, through which all words ultimately taken up into ethical terminology, seem inevitably to run. Employed first about things natural, they are then transferred to things spiritual, according to that analogy between those and these, which the soul delights to trace. Thus ἁμαρτάνειν signifies, when we meet it first, to miss a mark; thus a hundred times in Homer the warrior ἁμαρτεῖ, who hurls his spear, but misses his adversary (12. iv. 491). ' The next advance in the use of the words is to things intellectual. The poet ἁμαρτάνει, who 64 SYNONYMS OF THE selects a subject which it is impossible to treat poetically, or who seeks to attain results which are beyond the limits of his art (Aristotle, Poét. 8 and 25) ; so we have δόξης ἁμαρτία (Thucydides, i. 33) ; γνώμης ἁμάρτημα (ii. 65). It is constantly set over against ὀρθότης (Plato, Legg. 1. 627d; ib, ii. 668c; 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 (Eth. Nic. v. 8,7) 5 it is a mistake, a fearful one it may be, like that of Cidipus, but nothing more (Poet. 13; οἵ, Euripides, Hippolytus, 1407). Else- where, however, it has as much of the meaning of our ‘sin,’ as any word, employed in heathen ethics, could possess. “Αμάρτημα 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 sinned, ‘ peccatio’ (A. Gellius, xii. 20, 17) no less than ‘peccatum’; while ἁμάρτημα (it only occurs Mark iii. 28; iv. 12; Rom. 111. 25; 1 Cor. vi. 18) is never sin regarded as sinfulness, or as the act of sinning, but only sin contemplated in its separate outcomings and deeds of disobedience to a divine law. There is the same difference between ἀνομία and ἀνόμημα (not in the N. T.; but Ezek. xvi. 49), ἀσέβεια and ἀσέβημα (not in the N. T.; but Lev. xviii. 17), ἀδικία and ἀδίκημα (Acts xviii. 14). This is brought out by Aristotle (Hthiec. Nic. v. 7), who sets over against one another ἄδικον (= ἀδικια) and ἀδίκημα in these words: διαφέρει τὸ ἀδίκημα NEW TESTAMENT, 65 καὶ τὸ ἄδικον. Ἄδικον μὲν yap ἔστι τῇ φύσει, ἢ τάξει" τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο, ὅταν πραχθῆ, ἀδίκημά ἐστι; cf. a good passage in Xenophon (Mem. ii. 2.3): at πόλεις ἐπὶ τοῖς μεγίστοις ἀδικήμασι ζημίαν θάνατον πεποιήκασιν, ὡς οὐκ ἂν μειζόνος κακοῦ φόβῳ τῆν ἀδικίαν παύσοντες.ς On the dis- tinction between ἁμαρτία and ἁμάρτημα, ἀδικία and ἀδίκημα, and other words of this group, there is a discussion at length by Clemens of Alexandria (Strom. 11. 15), but which does not yield much profit. Παρακοή is found only at Rom. v. 19 (where it is opposed to ὑπακοή), 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. ii. 2. It is not in the Septuagint, but παρακούειν (once in the N. T., Matt. xviii. 17) occurs several times there in the sense of to disobey, Esth. 111. 3, 8; Isai. Ιχν. 12. Παρακοή is in its strictest sense a failing to hear, or a hearing amiss—the active dis- obedience, which follows on this inattentive or care- less hearing, being tacitly implied ; or, it may be, the sin being contemplated 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 initiiin lapsu Adami. Queeritur quomodo hominis recti intellectus aut voluntas potuit detrimentum capere aut noxam admittere? Resp. Intellectus et voluntas simul labavit per ἀμέλειαν: neque quicquam potest prius concipi, quam ἀμέλεια, incuria, sicut initium capiende urbis est vigiliarum remissio. Hance incuriam significat παρακοή, in- obedientia.’ It need hardly be observed how con- F 66 SYNONYMS OF THE tinually in the O. T. disobedience is described as a refusing to hear (Jer. xi. 10; xxxv. 17) ; and it appears literally as such at Acts vi. 57. Joined with, and following παράβασις at Heb. i. 2, it would there imply, in the intention of the writer, that not merely every actual transgression, em- bodying 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. 23; Rom. vi. 19; Heb. x. 17); but once ‘unrighteousness’ (2 Cor. vi. 14), and once ‘ trans- gression of the law’ (1 John iii. 4). Ἄνομος is once at least in Scripture used negatively of a person without law, or to whom a law has not been given (1 Cor. ix. 21); though elsewhere of the greatest enemy of all law, the Man of Sin, the lawless one (2 Thess. ii. 8); ἀνομία, however, is never in Scripture the condition of one living with- out law, but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law: and so, of course, παρανομία, which occurs however only once (2 Pet. 11. 16). It will follow that where there is no law (Rom. v. 12), there may be ἁμαρτία, ἀδικία, but certainly not ὠνομία : being, as Gcumenius defines it, ἡ περὶ τὸν θετὸν νόμον πλημμέλεια : as Fritzsche: ‘legis contemtio aut morum licentia qué lex violatur,’ Thus the Gentiles, not having a law (Rom. 11. 14), might sin, but they, sinning without law (ἀνόμως = χωρὶς νόμου, Rom. 11]. 12; i. 21), could not be charged with ἀνομία. It is true, indeed, that NEW TESTAMENT, 67 behind that law of Moses, which they never had, there is another law, the original law and revela- tion of the righteousness of God, written on the hearts of all (Rom. 11. 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 Rom. iv. 5): ‘ Iniquitas sane a peccato hance habet differentiam, quod iniquitas in his dicitur que contra legem committuntur, unde et Greecus sermo ἀνομίαν appellat. Peccatum vero etiam illud dici potest, si contra quam natura docet, et conscientia arguit, delinquatur.’ 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 witnessed by the fact that there was death ; but those between the law given in Paradise (Gen. il. 16, 17) and the law given from Sinai, sinning indeed, yet did not sin “after the similitude of Adam’s transgression” (παρα- βάσεως, Rom. v. 14). With law came first the possibility of the transgression of the law; and exactly this transgression, or trespass, is παράβασις, from παραβαίνειν, ‘transilire ineam,’ the French, ‘forfait, ‘faire fors’ or ‘hors, some act which is excessive, enormous. Cicero (Parad. 3): ‘ Peccare est tanquam transilire lineas ;’ compare the Ho- meric ὑπερβασίη, Il. 111. 107 and often. In the constant language of St. Paul this παράβασις, as F 2 68 SYNONYMS OF THE the transgression of a commandment distinctly given, is more serious than ἁμαρτία (Rom. 11. 23; 1 Tim. 11. 14; οἵ. Heb. 11. 2; ix. 14). It is in this point of view, and indeed with reference to the very word with which we have to do, that Augus- tine draws often the distinction between the ‘peccator’ and the ‘preevaricator, between ‘ pec- catum’ (ἁμαρτία) and ‘preevaricatio’ (παράβασις). It will be seen that his Latin word introduces a new image, not of overpassing a line, but of halting on unequal feet. ΤῊ" image, however, had faded from the word when he used it, and his motive to employ it les in the fact that the ‘preevaricator, or collusive prosecutor, dealt un- justly with a law. He who, having no express law, sins, is in Augustine’s language, ‘ peccator ;’ he who, having a law, sins, is ‘preevaricator’ (= παραβάτης, Rom. 11. 25). Before the law came men might be the first ; after the law they could only be the second. In the first there 1s ampliet, in the second explicit, disobedience. We now arrive at παράπτωμα. ‘Si originem verbi spectemus, significat ea facta pree quibus quis cadit et prostratus jacet, ut stare coram Deo et surgere non potest’ (Cocceius). At Ephes. 11. 1, where παραπτώματα and ἁμαρτίαι are found together, Jerome quotes with apparent assent a distinction between them; that the former are 1 Tnarr. in Ps. exviil.; Serm. 25: ‘Omnis quidem pre- varicator peccator est, quia peccat in lege, sed non omnis peccator prevaricator est, quia peccant aliqui sine lege. Ubi autem non est lex, nec preevaricatio.’ NEW TESTAMENT. 69 sins conceived in the mind, and the latter the same embodied in actual deeds: ‘Aiunt quod παραπτώματα quasi initia peccatorum sint, quum cogitatio tacita subrepit, et ex aliquaé parte con- niventibus nobis; necdum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam. Peccatum vero esse, quum quid opere consummatum pervenit ad finem.’ This, however, cannot be allowed to pass. Only this much truth it may be admitted to have; that, as sins of thought partake more of the nature of infirmity, and have less aggravation than the same sins embodied in act, so it cannot be denied that there is sometimes a disposition to employ παράπτωμα 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, where, doubt- less, our Translators meant to indicate as much when they rendered it by ‘fault,’ and not ob- —scurely, as it seems to me, at Rom. v. 15, 17, 18. It is used in the same sense as an error, a mistake in judgment, a blunder, by Polybius (ix. 10. 6; ef. Ps. xviii. 13). 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’), though of course this cannot be accepted as otherwise having any right in it. But this mitigated sense is very far from be- longing always to the word. ‘There is nothing of it at Ephes. ii. 1, “dead in ¢trespasses (παραπτώ- 70 SYNONYMS OF THE pact) and sins ;” παράπτωμα is mortal sin, Ezek. Xvill. 26; and the παραπεσεῖν of Heb. vi. 6 is equivalent to the ἐκουσίως ἁμαρτάνειν of x. 26, the ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ζῶντος of iii. 12; and any such extenuation of the force of the word is expressly excluded in a passage of Philo (1. 648), resembling these two in the Hebrews, in which he distinctly calls it παράπτωμα, when a man, having reached an acknowledged pitch of godli- ness 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.’ "Ayvonua in the N. T. occurs only at Heb. ix. 7 (see Tholuck, On the Hebrews, Beit. p. 92), but also at 1 Mace. xiii. 39 ; and ἄγνοια in the same sense of sin, Ps. xxv. 7 and often; and ἀγνοεῖν, to sin, at Hos. iv. 15; Ecclus. v.15; Heb. v. 2. Sin is designated by this word when it is desired to make excuses for it, so far as this may be possible, to regard it in the mildest possible light (see Acts ii. 17). There is indeed always a certain element of ignorance 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 compare the words of the Lord, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke xxii. 34), with those of St. Paul, “I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief” (1 Tim. 1. 13). No sin of man, except perhaps the sin against the Holy NEW TESTAMENT. va! Ghost, which for this reason is irremissible (Matt. xii. 32), is committed with a full and perfect recognition of the evil which is chosen as evil, and the good which is abandoned as good. Com- pare the numerous passages in the Dialogues of Plato, which identify vice with ignorance, and even pronounce that no man is voluntarily evil ; οὐδεὶς ἐκὼν κακός, and what is said qualifying or guarding this statement in Archer Butler's Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, vol. 11. p. 285. Whatever exaggeration there may be in his state- ment, it still remains true that sin is always, more or less, an ἀγνόημα; and the more the ἀγνοεῖν, as opposed to the ἐκουσίως ἁμαρτάνειν (Heb. x. 26), predominates, the greater the 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 is used 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. 13), ‘peccata prozeretica, committed against conscience and with a high hand against God; those who committed such would be cut off from the congregation ; there was no provision made in the Levitical constitution for the forgiveness of such (Num. xv. 30, 31); but 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 circumspection (Lev. v. 15—19; Num. xv. 22—29), and afterwards looked back on with 72 SYNONYMS OF THE shame and regret. The same difference exists between ἄγνοια and ἀγνόημα which has been already traced between ἁμαρτία and ἁμάρτημα, ἀδικία and ἀδίκημα : that one, namely the first, is often the more abstract, the other is always the concrete. “Ἥττημα does not appear in classical Greek, but nTTa, being opposed to νίκη, as discomfiture or worsting to victory, and has passed very much through the same stages as the Latin ‘clades’ In the final wa which it has acquired we have an illustration of the tendency of so many words to obtain an additional syllable in the later periods of a language. “Hrtnwa appears once in the Septuagint (Isai. xxxi. 8), and twice in the N. Τ᾿, 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 (Loe. Theoll. xi.): “ἥττημα diminutio, defectus, ab 77- τᾶσθαι victum esse, quia peccatores succumbunt carnis et Satane tentationibus.’ ΤΠ λημμέλεια, a very frequent word in the Old Testament (Lev. v. 15; Num. xviii. 9, and often), does not occur in the New. It is derived, as need hardly be said, from πλημμελής, one who sings out of tune (πλὴν and péros),—as ἐμμεδής is one who is in tune, and ἐμμέλεια, the right modulation of the voice to the music ;—so that Augustine’s Greek is at fault when he finds in it μέλει, ‘ curee est’ (Qu. in Lev. 1. 111. qu. 20), and makes πλημ- μέλεια = ἀμέλεια. Rather it is sin regarded as NEW TESTAMENT. 73 a discord or disharmony (πλημμέλειαι καὶ ἀμε- tpiat, Plutarch, Symp. ix. 14. 7), according to those sublime words of Milton : ‘ Disproportioned sin Jarred against nature’s chime, and with harsh din Broke the fair music that all creatures made To thei great Lord.’ § xVll.—apyatos, παλαιός. WE should go astray if we contemplated these words as expressing one a higher antiquity than the other, and should at all seek in this the distinction between them. On the contrary, this remoter antiquity will be expressed now by one, now by the other. ᾿Αρχαῖος, expressing that which was from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς), if we accept this as the first beginning of all, must be older than any person or thing that is merely παλαιός, existing 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. In Donaldson’s New Cratylus, p. 19, the following passage occurs : ‘As the word archwology is already appropriated to the discussion of those subjects of which the antiquity is only comparative, it would be con- sistent with the usual distinction between ἀρχαῖος and παλαιός to give the name of palwology to 74. SYNONYMS OF THE those sciences which aim at reproducing an abso- lutely primeval state or condition.’ I confess I fail to find in the uses of παλαιός so strong a sense, or at least at all so constant a sense, of a more primeval state or condition, as this state- ment would seem to imply. Thus compare Thucy- dides, 11. 15: Ξυμβέβηκε τοῦτο ἀπὸ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαῖου, 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 them is not to be looked for here, and on many occasions it is 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; Plutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. 27; Justin Martyr, Coh. ad Gree. 5). It lies in the etymology of the words that in cases out of number they may be quite in- differently used ; that which was from the begin- ning 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 (Crad. 418 e) is exactly equivalent to the παλαία φωνή of another (10. 398 δ) ; οἱ παλαιοί and οἱ ἀρχαῖοι alike mean the ancients (Plutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. 14 and 33); there cannot be much difference between παλαιοί χρόνοι (2 Mace. vi. 21) and ap- χαίαι ἡμέραι (Ps. xiii. 2). NEW TESTAMENT. 75 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 Satan is ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος (Rev. xii. 9 ; xx. 2), his mischievous counterworkings of God reaching back to the earliest epoch of the history of man. The world before the flood, that therefore which was indeed from the first, is 6 ἀρχαῖος κόσμος (2 Pet. 1]. 5). Mnason was ἀρχαῖος μαθητής (Acts xxi. 16), “an old disciple,” not in the sense in which most English readers inevitably take the words, namely, an aged disciple, but one who had been such from the commencement of the faith, from Pentecost or before it. The original founders of the Jewish Commonwealth, who, as such, gave with authority the law, are ot apyaios (Matt. v. 21, 27, 33; cf. 1 Sam. xxiv. 14; Isai. xxv. 1); πίστις ἀρχαία (Eusebius, ἢ. #. v. 28, 9), is the faith which was from the beginning, “once delivered to the saints.” The Timeus of Plato, 22 δ, offers an instructive passage in which both words occur, where it is not hard to trace the finer instincts of language which have ¢etermined their several use ; another occurs in the Trachiniew, 546, where Deianira speaks of the poisoned shirt, the gift to her of Nessus : ἦν μοι παλαιὸν δῶρον ἀρχαίου ποτὲ θηρὸς, λέβητι χαλκέῳ κεκρυμμένον. Compare the Humenides, 727, 128, which furnishes another. Apxaios, like the Latin ‘priscus, will often 76 SYNONYMS OF THE designate the ancient as the venerable as well, as that to which the honour due to antiquity belongs ; thus Κῦρος ὁ ἀρχαῖος, Xenophon, Anad. i. 9. 1 ; and it is here that we reach a point of decided 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 ex- clusively as its own domain. I have just observed that the honour of antiquity is sometimes ex- pressed 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 to be unsuitable to the present, and to belong to a world which has past away. We have a witness for this fact in our own language, where ‘antique’ and ‘antic’ are but two different spellings of one and the same word. There lies often in ἀρχαῖος this sense superadded of old- world fashion ; now not merely antique, but anti- quated and out of date (Auschylus, Prom. V. 525; Aristophanes, Plut. 323); and still more strongly in ἀρχαιότης, which has no other meaning but this (Plato, Legg. 11. 657 0). But while ἀρχαῖος goes off in this direction (we have, indeed, no instance 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 it is always παλαιός, never ἀρχαῖος, which is employed to express old NEW TESTAMENT. via § in such a sense as this.2. Thus ἱμάτιον παλαιόν (Matt. ix. 16); ἀσκοὶ παλαιοί (Matt. ix. 17); so ἀσκοὺς παλαιοὺς καὶ κατεῤῥωγότας (Josh. ix. 10); παλαιὰ ῥάκη (Jer. xlv. 11). In the same way, while ot ἀρχαίοι could never express the old men of a living generation as compared with the young of the same, ot παλαιοί continually bears this sense; thus νέος ἠὲ παλαιός (Homer, 71. 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: TO δὲ παλαιούμενον Kal γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφα- viopov; cf. Heb. 1. 11 ; Luke xii. 33; Ecclus. xiv. 17; while Plato joins παλαιότης and σαπρότης together (Rep. x. 609 ¢; οἵ Aristophanes, Plut. 1086: tpv& παλαία καὶ σαπρά). As often as παλαιός is employed to connote this worn out, or wearing out, by age, it will absolutely demand καινός as its opposite (Mark 11. 21 ; Heb. viii. 13), as it will also sometimes have it on other occa- sions (Herod. ix. 26, δ) ; when this does not lie in the word, there is nothing to prevent véos being set over against it (Lev. xxvi. 10; Homer, Od. ii. 293; Plato, Cratylus, 418 ὃ; Aschylus, Eumenides, 778, 808); and καινός against ἀρχαῖος (2 Cor. v.17; Philo, De Vit. Con. 10). 1 The same lies, or may lie, in ‘vetus,’ as witnesses Tertullian’s pregnant antithesis (Δαν. Marc. 1. 8): ‘ Deus si est vetus, non erit; si est novus, non fuit.’ 78 SYNONYMS OF THE eee [2 , § xvlil—Papds, θυσιαστήριον. Ἐ HAVE noticed elsewhere, in dealing with the words προφητεύω and μαντεύομαι (Synonyms of the N. T., part I. § 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 are severally appropriated to each, and not per- mitted to be promiscuously used for the one and for the other alike. 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 has need to be named (Acts xvii. 23) the word is changed, and βωμός in the place of θυσιαστήριον is employed. But indeed this distinction is common to all sacred and ecclesiastical Greek, both to that which goes before, and that which follows, the writings of the New Covenant. Thus so resolute were the Septuagint Translators to mark the distinction between the altars of the true God and those on which abominable things were offered, that there is every reason to think they invented the word θυσιαστήριον for the purpose of maintaining this distinction; being indeed herein more nice than the inspired Hebrew Scriptures themselves, in which MAT does duty for the one and for the other (Lev. i. 9; Isai. xvii. 8). I need hardly observe that θυσιαστήριον, properly the neuter of NEW TESTAMENT. ‘79 θυσιαστήριος, as ἱλαστήριον (Exod. xxv. 17; Heb. ix. 5) of ἱλαστήριος, nowhere occurs in classical Greek ; and it is this fact of its having been coined by the Septuagint Translators one must suppose that Philo has in mind when he affirms that Moses invented the word (De Vit. Mos. iii. 10). At the same time the writers of the Septuagint do not themselves invariably observe this distinction. Thus there are four occasions, two in the Second Book of Maccabees (ii, 20; xiii. 8), and two in Ecclesiasticus (1. 13, 16), where βωμός is used of the altar of the true God; these two Books however, it must be remembered, hellenize very much; it is employed in like manner occasionally by Philo, thus De Vit. Mos. 111. 29: and θυσιαστήριον is sometimes used of an idol altar ; thus “πᾶσ. ii. 2 ; vi. 25; 4 Kin. xvi. 10, and in other places. Still these are quite the rare exceptions, and some- times the antagonism between the words comes out with the most marked emphasis. It does so, for example, at 1 Macc. i. 59, where the historian recounts how the servants of Antiochus offered sacrifices to Olympian Jove on the altar which had been built over the altar of the God of Israel: θυσιάζοντες ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν, ὃς ἣν ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσια- στηρίου. Our Translators here are put to their shifts, and are obliged to render βωμός ‘idol altar,’ and θυσιαστήριον ‘altar.’ In the Latin, of course, there is no such difficulty ; for at a very early day the Church adopted ‘altare’ as tlie word expres- sive of her altar, and assigned ‘ara’ exclusively to heathen uses. Thus Cyprian (Hp. 63) expresses 80 SYNONYMS OF THE his wonder at the profane boldness of one of the ‘thurificati, or those who in time of persecution had consented to save their lives by burning incense before a heathen idol—that he should afterwards have dared, without having obtained the Church’s forgiveness, to continue his ministry —‘quasi post aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei fas sit’ I said the distinction between βωμός and θυσιαστήριον, first established in the Sep- tuagint, and recognized in the N. T., was after- wards observed in ecclesiastical Greek; for the Church has still her θυσία αἰνέσεως (Heb. xii. 15) and her θυσία ἀναμνήσεως, or rather her ava- μνησις θυσίας, and therefore her θυσιαστήριον still. This may be seen in the following passage of Chrysostom (In 1 Kp. ad Cor. Hom. 24), in which Christ is assumed to be speaking: ὥστε εἰ αἵματος ἐπιθυμεῖς, μὴ τὸν TOV εἰδώλων βωμὸν τῷ τῶν ἀλόγων φόνῳ, ἀλλὰ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἐμὸν τῷ ἐμῷ φοίνισσε αἵματι. Compare Mede, Works, 1672, p. 391; and Augusti, Handbuch d. Christl. Archeol. vol. i. p. 412. ὃ xix.—peTavoéw, μεταμέλομαι. Tr is a frequent statement of our early theo- logians that μετάνοια and μεταμέλεια, with their several verbs, μετανοεῖν and μεταμέλεσθαι, are used with this distinction, that where it is in- tended to express the mere desire that the done ‘NEW TESTAMENT, : 81 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 think, who first strongly urged this difference between the words, He was followed by many; thus see Spanheim, Dub. Evang. vol. 111. 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. xxvu, 3, μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπέτρεψε, he repented and went and hanged himself, and so constantly in other places. But that repentance to which remission of sins and salvation is promised, 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 inaccuracy in this statement. Μεταμέλεια nowhere occurs in the N. T.; only once, if we may trust Trommius, in the Old (Hos. xi. 8). So far as we deal with New Testament synonyms, it is properly between the verbs alone that the comparison can be instituted and a distinction sought to be drawn; though, indeed, what is good of them will be good of their substantives as well, The statement will need also a certain qualifica- G 82 SYNONYMS OF THE tion, as will presently appear. Jeremy Taylor allows this. His words—they occur in his great treatise, On the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, ch, 11. § 1, 2—are as follows: ‘The Greeks use two words to express this duty, μεταμέλεια and petavota. Μεταμέλεια is from μεταμελεῖσθαι, post factum angi et cruciari, to be afflicted in mind, to be troubled for our former folly ; it is ducapé- στησις ἐπὶ πεπραγμένοις, Saith Phavorinus, a being displeased for what we have done, and it is gene- rally 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 ov μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ πιστεῦ- σαν αὐτῷ, and ye, seeing, did not repent that ye might believe Him. Of the second sense we have an example in Judas, μεταμελήθεις 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, m~ NEW TESTAMENT, 83 μετάνοιαν κατεργάζεται, worketh this better re- pentance, μετάνοιάν ἀμεταμέλητον and εἰς σωτη- piav. Presently, however, he admits that ‘ how- ever the grammarians may distinguish them, yet the words are used promiscuously, and that it is impossible to draw so rigid a line of distinction between them as some have attempted to do. This to a considerable extent is true, yet not so true but that a predominant use of one and of the other can very clearly be traced. Μετανοεῖν is properly to know after, as προνοεῖν 'to know before, and μετάνοια after or later know- ledge, as πρόνοια foreknowledge ; which is well brought out by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, ll, 6): εἰ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥμαρτεν μετενόησεν, εἰ σύνεσιν ” Sno) 3 ” , « , 9 ἔλαβεν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔπταισεν, καὶ μετέγνω, ὅπέρ ἐστι, μετὰ ταῦτα ἔγνω" βραδεῖα γὰρ γνῶσις, μετάνοια. At its next step μετάνοια signifies the change of mind consequent on this after-knowledge, At its third, regret for the course pursued, resulting from the change of mind consequent on this after-; _ knowledge ; ‘ passio queedam animi que veniat de offensd sententie prioris, as Tertullian (De Penit. 1) affirms, was all that the heathen understood by it, At this stage of its meaning it is found con- nected with δηγμός (Plutarch, Quom. Am. ab ») Adul. 12). Last of all it signifies change of conduct for the future, springing from all this, There is not of necessity any ethical meaning in the word in any of these stages of meaning— the change of mind, and of action upon this following, may be for the worse as well as for G2 84 SYNONYMS OF THE the better; thus Plutarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. 21) tells us of two murderers, who, having spared a child, afterwards ‘repented’ (μετενόησαν) and sought to slay it; μεταμέλεια is used by him in the same sense of a repenting of good (De Ser. Num. Vin. 11) ; so that here also Tertullian had right in his complaints (De Penit. 1): ‘Quam autem in pcenitentiz actu irrationaliter dever- sentur [ethnici], vel uno isto satis erit expedire, cum illam etiam in bonis actis suis adhibent. Peenitet fidei, amoris, simplicitatis, patientiz, misericordiz, 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 Inb. Hd. 14; Sept. Sap. Conv. 12 ; De Solér. Anim. 3: λύπη δι ἀλγηδόνος, ἣν μετά- votav ὀνομάζομεν, ‘displeasure with cneself, pro- ceeding from pain, which we call repentance’ (Holland). That it had sometimes, though rarely, an ethical meaning, none would of course deny, in which sense Plutarch (De Ser. Num. Vin. 6) has a passage in wonderful harmony with Rom. ii. 4, 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 τῶ change of mind, taking a wiser view of the past, συναίσθησις ψυχῆς ἐφ᾽ ols ἔπραξεν ἀτόποις (Phavorinus), a regret for the ill done in that past, NEW TESTAMENT, 85 and out of all this a change of life for the better. This is all imported into, does not etymologically| | nor yet by primary usage lie in, the word. Not very frequent in the Septuagint (yet see Ecclus. xliv. 15; Wisd. xi. 24; xii. 10, 19; and for the verb, Jer. vill. 6), it is frequent in Philo, who joins μετάνοια with βελτέωσις (De Abrah. 3), explaining it as πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον ἡ μεταβολή (bed, and De Pen. 2); while in the N.T. μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια are never used in other than an ethical sense. It is singular how seldom they occur in the writings of St. Paul, μετανοεῖν only once, and μετάνοια not more than four times, But while thus μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια gradu- ally 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 hfe and practice’ (Kettlewell) as we call repentance; the like honour was very partially vouchsafed to pera- μέλεια and μεταμέλεσθαι. The first, explained by Plutarch as ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἡδοναῖς, ὅσαι παράνομοι καὶ ἀκρωτεῖς, αἰσχύνη (De Gen. Soc. 22), asso- ciated by him with βαρυθυμία (An γι. αὐ Inf. 2), by Plato with ταραχή (Rep. ix. 577 6), has been noted as never occurring in the Ν, Τὶ ; the second only five times ; and on one of these to designate the.sorrow of ee world which worketh death, of Judas Iscariot (Matt. xxvii. 3), and on another expressing not the repentance of men, but of God 86 SYNONYMS OF THE (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 em- ployed as convertible terms, and both to express remorse (Plutarch, De Trang. Anim. 19); in the latter to passages in the N. Τὶ where μεταμέλεσθαι implies all that μετανοεῖν would have implied (Matt. xxi. 29, 32). But all this freely adinitted, 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 value 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 nothing but a selfish dread of the con- Sequences of what he has done; so that the long debate on the relation of these words with one another may be summed up in the words of Bengel, which seem 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, hec solicitu- dinem vel potius studium mutatum dicat..... Utrumque ergo dicitur de eo, quem facti consiliive peenitet, sive poenitentia bona sit sive mala, sive NEW TESTAMENT, 87 male rei sive bone, sive cum mutatione actionum in posterum, sive citra eam. Veruntamen si usum spectes, μεταμέλεια plerunque est μέσον voca- bulum, et refertur potissimum ad_actiones singu- lares: μετάνοια vero, in N. T. presertim, in bonam partem sumitur, quo notatur pcenitentia totius vite ipsorumque nostri quodammodo: sive tota “Illa beata mentis post errorem et peccata remini- scentia, cum omnibus affectibus eam ingredien- tibus, quam fructus digni sequuntur. Hine fit ut μετανοεῖν seepe in imperativo ponatur, perape- λεῖσθαι Nunquam : ceteris autem locis, ubicunque μετάνοια legitur, μεταμέλειαν possis substituere : sed non contra,’ or ὃ χχ.--μορφή, σχῆμα, ἰδέα. Μορφή is ‘form,’ ‘forma,’ ‘gestalt ;’ σχῆμα is ‘fashion, ‘habitus, ‘figur;’ idéa, ‘ appearance,’ ‘species. The first two, which occur not un- frequently together (Plutarch, Symp. viii. 2, 3), are objective ; for the form and fashion of a thing would exist, were it alone in the universe, and whether there were any to behold it or no, The other 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, To consider in the first place the distinction between μορφή and σχῆμα. The passage in which we may best study this distinction, and at the »»" 88 SYNONYMS OF THE same time appreciate its importance, is that great doctrinal passage in the Philippians (ii. 6—8), where St. Paul speaks of the Son of God 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 dov- λου λαβών), and after his Incarnation and during his walk upon earth as “being found in fashion as a man” (σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ws ἄνθρωπος). It was the custom of the Fathers to urge the first phrase, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, against the Arians, and the Lutherans did the same against the Socinians, as a ‘dictum probans’ of the abso- lute divinity of the Son of God; that. is, they affirmed μορφή here to be equivalent to οὐσία or φύσις. This asserted equivalence cannot, however, as is now generally acknowledged, be ‘maintained. Doubtless there does lie in the words a proof of the divinity of Christ, but implicitly and not ex- plicitly. Μορφή is not = οὐσία: 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 manner of being, or better still, manner of existence; and only God could have the manner of existence of God. But He who had thus been from eternity ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, took αὖ his Incarnation μορφὴν δούλου. The verity of his taking of our flesh is herein implied; there NEW TESTAMENT. 89 was nothing docetic, nothing imaginary about it. His manner of existence was now that of a δοῦλος, that is, of a δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ : for with all our Lord’s humiliations He was never a δοῦλος ἀν- θρώπων ; their διάκονος He may have been, and from time to time eminently was (John xii. 4, 5 ; Matt. xx. 28), this is part of his ταπείνωσις men- tioned in the next verse; but their δοῦλος never. It was with respect of God He so emptied Himself of his glory, that, from that manner of existence “ἢ 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 expressed in the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. These words which follow do but express the outward facts which came under the knowledge of his fellow-men, with therefore an emphasis on εὑρεθείς : He was by men found in fashion as a man, the σχῆμα here signifying his whole outward presentation, 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. Σχῆμα is the outline, as Plutarch (De Place. Phil. 14) describes it: ἐστὶν ἐπιφάνεια Kat περιγραφὴ καὶ πέρας σώματος. The distinction between the words comes out very clearly in the compound verbs μετασχημα- τίζειν and μεταμορφοῦν. Thus if I were to change 90 SYNONYMS OF THE a Dutch garden into an Italian, this would be μετασχηματισμός : but if I were to transform a garden into something wholly different, say a garden into a city, this would be μεταμόρφωσις. It is possible for Satan μετασχηματέζειν himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 14); he can take all the outward semblance of such; the μεταμορφοῦσθαι would be impossible; it would involve an inwardness of change, 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 ‘transformed’* 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 your- selves fashioned to them (μὴ ocvaynpartifecde), but undergo a deep abiding change (ἀλλὰ μετα- μορφοῦσθε) by the renewing of your mind, such as the Spirit of God alone can work in you (2 Cor. iii. 18). Theodoret, commenting on these words, calls particular attention 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: Εδίδασκεν 1 The Authorized Version is the first which uses ‘ trans- formed’ here. Wiclif and the Rheims, both following closely the Vulgate, ‘ transfigured,’ and the intermediate Reformed Versions, ‘changed into the fashion of” If the distinctions I am here seeking to draw are correct, and if they stand good in English as well as Greek, ‘transformed’ is not the word. NEW TESTAMENT, 91 ὅσον πρὸς τὰ παρόντα THs ἀρετῆς τὸ διάφορον" ταῦτα γὰρ ἐκάλεσε σχῆμα, τὴν ἀρετὴν δὲ μορφήν" ἡ μορφὴ δὲ ἀληθῶν πραγμάτων σημαντικὴ, τὸ δὲ σχῆμα εὐδιάλυτον χρῆμα. Meyer perversely enough, ‘ Beide Worte stehen'im Gegensatze nur durch die Pripositionen, ohne differenz des Stamm- Verba ;’ and compare Fritzsche, 7 loc. One can understand a commentator overlooking, but scarcely — one denying, the significance of this change. For the very different uses of the words, see Plutarch, Quom. Adul, ab Amic. 7, in which chapter both occur. At the resurrection Christ μετασχηματίσει the bodies of his samts (Phil. 111, 21; ef. 1 Cor. xv. 53), on which saying Calov remarks, ‘Ille μετα- σχηματισμός non substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, non ratione quidditatis corporis nos- tri, sed ratione qualitatum, salva quidditate, im- portat :’ but the changes of heathen deities into wholly other shapes are μεταμορφώσεις. In the μετασχηματισμός there is transition, but no abso- lute solution of continuity. The butterfly, pro- _phetic image of our resurrection, is immeasurably more beautiful than the grub, yet has been duly unfolded from it; but when Proteus changes him- self into a flame, a wild beast, a running stream (Virgil, Georg. iv. 442), each of these disconnected with all that went before, there is then not a change merely of the σχῆμα, but of the μορφή. All the conditions of our Lord’s own body under- went so wonderful an alteration at the Resurrection that we must not wonder to hear that after this 02 SYNONYMS OF THE He appeared to his disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ (Mark xvi. 12), though that phrase seems at first to express more even than that change would have involved. It is only, however, in keeping with the μετεμορφώθη of Matt. xvii. 2; Mark ix. 2; this change upon the Mount being a pro- phetic anticipation of that which should be. The μορφή then, it may be assumed, is of the essence of a thing;! we cannot conceive of the thing as apart from this its formality, to use ‘formality’ in its old logical sense ; the σχῆμα is of its accident, having to do not with the ‘quid- ditas, but the ‘qualitas, and, however it may change, 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, Pisce. 35) is the whole outward array and adorn- ment of a monarch-—diadem, tiara, sceptre, robe (cf. his 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 him- self. He may put it on, and again put it off. Thus Menander (Meineke, Prag. Com. p. 985) : πρᾶον κακοῦργος σχῆμ ὑπεισελθὼν ἀνὴρ κεκρυμμένη κεῖται παγὶς τοῖς πλησίον. Thus, too, the σχῆμα τοῦ κοσμοῦ passes away (1 Cor. vii. 31), the image being here probably 1 “La forme est nécessairement en rapport avec la matiére ou avec le fond. La figure au contraire est plus indépendante des objets; se concoit a part’ (Lafaye, Syn. Franc. p. 617). - NEW TESTAMENT, 93 drawn from the shifting scenes of a theatre, but the κόσμος itself abides; there is no τέλος τοῦ «κοσμοῦ, but only τοῦ αἰῶνος. There is so far a corresponding use in Latin of the words ‘forma’ and ‘figura,’ that while ‘figura formee’ occurs not rarely (‘ veterem forma servare jiguram ;’ and cf. Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 32), ‘forma figure’ not at all (see Doderlein, Latein, Syn. vol. 111. p. 87).. Contrast too in English ‘deformed’ and ‘disfigured.’ A hunchback is ‘deformed,’ a man that has been beaten about the face is ‘ dis- figured ;’ one is for life, the other may be only for a few days. In ‘transformed’ and ‘trans- figured’ it is easy to recognize the same distinc- tion. There are some valuable remarks on the distinction between μορφή and σχῆμα in The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, No. 7, pos bi3,116, 121. ᾿Ιδέα occurs only once in the N. T. (Matt. xxviii. 9). Our Translators have there rendered it ‘ coun- tenance, as at 2 Macc. i. 16 ‘face. It is not a happy translation; ‘appearance’ would have been much better ; for ἐδέα is exactly this, ‘species sub oculos cadens,’ not the thing itself, but the thing as beholden; thus Plato (Rep. ix. 588 ὁ), πλάττε ἰδέαν θηρίου ποικίλον, fashion to thyself the image of ἃ manifold beast; so ἰδέα τοῦ προσ- ώπου, the look of the countenance (Plutarch. Pyrr. 3, and often), ἐδέᾳ καλός, fair to look on (Pindar, Olymp. xi. 122), χιόνος ἰδέα, the ap- pearance of snow (Philo, Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 48) ; but ἰδέα never bears the meaning which our 94 SYNONYMS OF THE Translators have given it; rather that which Plutarch ascribes to it in a definition, of which all the earlier parts may be past by, as belonging to the word in its philosophic use, and of which the last clause alone concerns us here (De Plae, 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 in all its uses is constant to the definition of this last clause, and to the ἐδεῖν lying at its own base ; oftentimes it 15 manifestly so, as in the following quotation from Philo, which is further curious as showing how widely. his doctrine of the Logos differed from St. John’s, was in fact a denial of it on its most important side; ὁ δὲ ὑπεράνω τούτων [τῶν χερουβίμ] Λόγος θεῖος εἰς ὁρατὴν οὐκ ἦλθεν ἰδέαν (De Prof. 19). On the distinction between εἶδος and ἐδέα, and how far in the Platonic philosophy there is a distinction between them at all, see Stallbaum’s note on Plato’s Republic, x. 596 b; Donaldson’s Cratylus, 3d ed. p. 105; and Professor Thompson’s note on Archer Butler’s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 127, e , 4 ὃ Χχὶ.---ψυχικὸς, σαρκικός. Ψυχικός occurs six times in the N. T.; on three of these it has no distinctly ethical meaning attached to it; but the meanness of the σῶμα ψυχικόν which the believer now bears about. with NEW TESTAMENT, 95 him is contrasted with the glory of the spiritual which he shall bear (1 Cor. xv. 44 bis, 45). On the other three occasions a moral emphasis rests on the word, and always a most depreciatory. Thus St. Paul declares the ψυχικός receives not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 11. 14); St. James characterizes the wisdom which is ψυχική, as also ἐπίγειος and δαιμονιώδης (111. 15) ; St. Jude explains the ψυχικοί as πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες (ver. 19), The word nowhere appears in the Septuagint, but ψυχικῶς in the sense of ‘heartily’ twice (2 Macc. iv. 37; xiv. 24). It is at first with something of surprise that we find ψυχικός employed in these senses, and keeping this company ; and the modern fashion of talking about the soul, as though it were the highest part of man, does not make this surprise the less; for it would rather lead us to expect to find it grouped with πνευματικός, as though there were only light shades of difference between them. But indeed this 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. Ψυχικός, continually used as the highest in later classical Greek literature—I do not think the word is older than Aristotle—being there opposed to σαρκικός, or rather, where there was no ethical antithesis, to σωματικός (Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 9; Aristotle, Ethic. Nie. iii. 10. 2), and constantly employed in praise as the noblest part of man (Plutarch, Ne Suav, Vivi sec, Epic, 9 96 SYNONYMS OF THE and 14), must come down from its high estate, another so much greater than it being installed in the chiefest place of all; for indeed that old philosophy knew of nothing higher than the soul of man; but Revelation of the Spirit of God, and of that, indwelling and making his habitation with men, and calling out an answering spirit in them. According to it the ψυχή, no less than the σάρξ, belongs to the lower region of man’s being; and if a double use of ψυχή in Scripture (as at Matt. xvi. 26; Mark vii. 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, and is an epithet quite as freely applied to this lower. The ψυχικός of Scripture is one for whom the ψυχή is the highest motive power of life and action; in whom the πνεῦμα, as the 1 Hilary has not gwite, however nearly, extricated himself from this notion, and in the following passage certainly ascribes more to the Ψψυχικός than the Scriptures do, however plainly he sets him in opposition to the πνευματικός (Tract. in Ps. xiv. 3): ‘Apostolus et carnalem [σαρκικόν) hominem posuit, et animalem [ψυχικόν], et spiritalem [πνευματικόν] ; carnalem, belluee modo divina et humana negligentem, cujus vita corporis famula _sit, negotiosa cibo, somno, libidine. Animalis autem, qui ex judicio sensts humani quid decens honestumque sit, sentiat, atque ab omnibus vitiis animo suo. auctore se referat, suo proprio sensu utilia et honesta diju- dicans; ut pecuniam spernat, ut jejuniis parcus sit, ut ambitione careat, ut voluptatibus resistat. Spiritalis autem est, cui superiora illa ad Dominum studia sint, et hoc quod agit, per scientiam Dei agat, intelligens et cognoscens que sit voluntas Hjus, et sciens que ratio sit a Deo carnis assumpte, qui crucis triumphus, que mortis potestas, que in virtute resur- rectionis operatio.’ Compare Irenzus, v. 6. NEW TESTAMENT. 97 organ of the divine Πνεῦμα, is suppressed, dormant, for the time as good as extinct; whom the opera- tion of this divine Πνεῦμα has never lifted into the region of spiritual things (Rom. vii. 14; viii. 1; Jude 19). For a good collection of passages from the Greek Fathers in which the word is employed in this sense, see Suicer, Thes. 5.0. It may be said that the σαρκικός and the ψυχικός alike, in the language of Scripture, stand in opposition to the πνευματικός. Both epithets ascribe to him concerning whom they are predi- cated a ruling principle antagonistic to the πνεῦμα, though they do not ascribe the same antagonism. When St. Paul describes the Ephesians as “ ful- filling the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Ephes. 11. 3), in the first he describes them as σαρκικοί, in the second as ψυχικοί. For, indeed, in men unregenerate there are two forms of the life lived apart from God; and, though every un- regenerate 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, and ψυχιεκοί, in whom the ψυχή. It is quite true that σάρξ is often used in Scripture as covering the entire domain in which sin springs up and in which it moves; thus the ἔργα τῆς σαρκός (Gal. v. 19—21) are not merely those sinful works that are wrought in and throvgh the body, but those which move in the sphere and region of the mind as well; more than one half of them belong to the latter class. Still the word, covering at times the whole region of that in man H 98 SYNONYMS OF THE 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 differ- ence between the words, in Bishop Reynolds’ Latin sermon preached at Oxford, with the title Animalis Homo. I quote the most important paragraph bearing on the matter in hand: ‘ Verum cum homo ex carne et anima constet, sitque anima pars hominis preestantior, quamvis sepius ivregenitos, propter appetitum in vitia pronum, atque preecipites concupiscentiz motus, σάρκα et σαρκικούς Apostolus noster appellet; hic tamen hujusmodi homines a preestantiore parte denominat, ut eos se intelligere ostendat, non qui libidinis mancipia sunt, et crassis concupiscentiis vel na- tivum lumen obruunt, (hujusmodi enim homines ἄλογα ζῶα vocat Apostolus, 2 Pet. 11. 12), sed homines sapientiz studio deditos, et qui ea sola, quee stulta et absurda sunt, rejicere solent. Hic itaque ψυχικοί sunt quotquot τὸ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔχουσι (Jud. 10), utcunque alias exquisitissimis nature dotibus preefulgeant, utcunque potissimam partem, nempe animam, omnigena eruditione ex- colant, et rectissime ad prescriptum rationis vitam dirigant. Denique eos hic ψυχικοὺς vocat, quos supra Sapientes, Scribas, Disquisitores, et istius seculi principes appellaverat, ut excludatur quidquid est native aut acquisite perfectionis, quo nature viribus assurgere possit ratio humana. Ψυχικός, ὁ TO πᾶν τοῖς λογισμοῖς THs ψυχῆς NEW TESTAMENT, 99 διδούς, Kal 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 N.T.; 1 Cor, 11. 14): ‘Non idem est Ψυχικὸς ἄν- θρωπος et σαρκικός. Ψυχικός est qui humane tantum rationis luce ducitur, σαρκικός qui corporis affectibus gubernatur: sed plerunque ψυχικοί aliqué in parte sunt σαρκικοί, ut Greecorum philo- sophi scortatores, puerorum corruptores, glorize aucupes, maledici, invidii Verum hic [1 Cor. 11. 14] nihil aliud designatur quam homo humana tantum ratione nitens, quales erant Judzorum plerique et philosophi Greecorum.’ The question, how to deal with ψυχικός in translation, is certainly one not very easy to answer. ‘Soulish, which some have proposed, would have 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 English readers. Wiclif rendered it ‘beastly,’ which, it need hardly be said, had nothing for him of the meaning of θηριώδης, but was simply = ‘animal’ (he found ‘animalis’ in his Vulgate). The Rheims renders it ‘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 of the word’s occurrence they have rendered it ‘natural.’ These are both H 2 100 SYNONYMS OF THE unsatisfactory renderings, and ‘sensual’ more so now than it was at the time when our Version was made, ‘sensual’ and ‘sensuality’ having con- siderably modified their meaning since that time. oe § xxll—oapkixos, σάρκινος. A DISCUSSION on the relations between ψυχιεκός and σαρκικός easily draws after it one on the rela- tions between the latter of these words 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. 11. 3); but the evidence is overwhelming for its further right to a place at Rom. vii. 14; Heb. vii. 16; while a preponderance of evidence is in favour of allowing σάρκινος to stand also at 1 Cor. iii. 1. Words with the termination in «tvos, μετουσι- αστικά as they are called, designating, as they most frequently do, the substance of which any- thing is made (see Donaldson, Cratylus, p. 458 ; Winer, Gramm. § xvi. 3), are common in the N.T.; thus @vivos, of thyine wood (Rey. xviii. 12), ὑάλινος, of glass, glassen (Rev. iv. 6), ὑακίνθινος (Rev. ix. 7), axav@wos (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 called out by the ethical necessities of the Church), and at 2 Cor. 111. 3 well rendered ‘fleshy ;’ that is, having NEW TESTAMENT. 101 flesh for the substance and material of which it is made. JI am not aware whether the word ‘fleshen’ ever existed in the English 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. 900 6; Aristotle, Hthic. Nic. ii. 9. 3), while ‘fleshen’ must be what σάρκινος means here, namely ‘carneus, or made of flesh. Such a word may very probably have once existed in the language, a vast number of a like form having once been current, which have now passed away ; as, for example, ‘stonen,’ ‘hornen,’ ‘clayen’ (all in Wiclif’s Bible), ‘threaden’ (Shakespeare), ‘tinnen’ (Sylvester), ‘milken,’ ‘breaden,’ ‘reeden,’ with many more (see my Hnglish Past and Present, 5th edit. p. 165 sqq.). Their perishing is to be regretted, for they were often by no means super- fluous. Thus we have given up ‘stonen’ and kept only ‘stony,’ while the Germans retain both ‘steinig’ and ‘steinern,’ and find use for both ; as the Latin does for ‘lapidosus’ and ‘lapideus,’ ‘saxosus’ and ‘saxeus.’ We might do the same for ‘stony’ and ‘stonen ;’ a ‘stony’ field is a field in which stones are many, a ‘stonen’ vessel would be a vessel made of stone. As again, a ‘glassy’ sea 15. 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, any more than are ‘earthly, ‘earthy, and ‘earthen,’ for all of which we are able to find their own proper employment. 102 SYNONYMS OF THE ‘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. 1. 11), and the man who is σαρκικός is the man allowing an undue preponderance of the σάρξ; which is in its place so long as it is under the dominion of the πνεῦμα, but which becomes the source of all sin and all opposition to God so soon as the true positions of these two are reversed, and that rules which should have been ruled. But when St. Paul says of the Corinthians (1 Cor. iii. 1) that they were σάρκινοι, he finds fault indeed with them; but the accu- sation is far less grave than if he had written σαρκικοί instead. He does not intend hereby to charge them with positive active opposition to the Spirit of God—this is evident from the ὡς νήπιον with which he proceeds to explain it—but only that they were intellectually as well as spiritually tarrying at the threshold of the faith; 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 which was freely given to them of God. He does not charge them in this word with being anti- spiritual, but only with bemeg wnspiritual, with being flesh and little more, when they might have NEW TESTAMENT. 103 been much more. He goes on indeed, at verses 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 capxuvor alone, for no man and no Church can long tarry at this point, but σαρκικοί as well, and, as such, full of “ envying and strife and divisions” (ver. 3). In what manner our Translators should have marked the distinction 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, who probably accepted the received text, in which there was no variation of words. At 2 Cor. 11. 3 all was plain before them; the σάρκιναι πλάκες are, as they have given it well, the “fleshy tables of the heart ;’ where Erasmus observes to the point that σάρκινος, not σαρκικός, is used, ‘ut materiam in- telligas, 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 exalt- ing 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 (ef. Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 26; Jer. xxxi. 33). 104 SYNONYMS OF THE § xxili.—voyj, πνεῦμα, ἄνεμος. From the association into which πνεῦμα is here brought, it will at once be evident that it is only proposed to deal with it in its natural and earthly, not at all in its supernatural and heavenly, meaning. It may be permitted, however, to ob- serve, by the way, that on the relations between . πνοή and πνεῦμα in this its higher sense there is a discussion in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xiii. 22 ; cf. De Anim. οἱ Huy. Orig. 1. 14.19. The three words, as designating not things heavenly but things earthly, differ from one another exactly as, according to Seneca, do in the Latin ‘aér,’ ‘spiritus,’ ‘ventus’ (Wat. Qu. v. 13): “ Spiritum a vento motus! separat ; vehementior enim spiritus ventus est ; invicem spiritus leviter fluens aér.’ Πνοή conveys the impression of a lighter, gentler, breath of air than πνεῦμα, as ‘aura’ than ‘ ventus’ (Pliny, Lp. v. 6: ‘Semper aér spiritu aliquo movetur; frequentius tamen auras quam ventos habet’); this is evident from the following words of Philo (Leg. Alleg. 1. 14): 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 αὐρά τίς ἐστι καὶ ἀναθυμίασις ἠρεμαία καὶ πραεῖα. It may be urged as against this, that in one of the only two places where πνοή occurs in the N. T., namely Acts 11. 2, the epithet βιαία is attached to it, and 1 So quoted in Déderlein ; but the edition of Seneca before me reads ‘ modus,’ NEW TESTAMENT, 105 it plainly is used of a strong and vehement wind (cf. Job xxxvii. 9). But, as De Wette has ob- served, this may be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that it was necessary to reserve πγεῦμα for the higher gift of which this πνοή was the sign and symbol; and it would have introduced, if not confusion, yet certainly a repetition, for many reasons to have been avoided, to have em- ployed that word here. Πνεῦμα is seldom used in the N. T., indeed only twice, namely at John i. 8; Heb. 1.7 (in this last place not certainly), for wind; but in the Septuagint often, as at Gen. vill. 1; Ezek. xxxvil. 9; Eccles. xi. 5. The rendering of 71) in this last passage by ‘spirit, and not, as so often, by ‘wind’ (Jobi. 19; Ps. exlviii. 8), in our English Version, is to be regretted, obscuring as it does the remarkable connexion between these words of the Preacher and our Lord’s words at John i. 8. He, who ever moves in the sphere and region of the O. T., in those words of his, “The wind bloweth where it listeth,” takes up the words of the Preacher, “Thou knowest not what is the way of the wind ;” who had 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 this generally in a figurative sense: Job xxi. 3; Isai, xlii. 5; lvii. 16; 2 Sam. xxu. 16 (πνοὴ πνεύματος). Ἄνεμος, etymologically identical with ‘ ventus ’ and ‘wind, is the strong, oftentimes the tempes- 106 SYNONYMS OF THE tuous, wind (1 Kin. xix. 11; Jobi. 19; Matt. vii. 25; John vi. 18; Acts xxvii. 14; Jam. i. 4; Plutarch, Pre. Cony. 12). It is interesting and instructive to observe that our Lord, or rather the inspired reporter of his conversation with Nico- demus, 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 tempested in a sea of error, it is κλυδωνιζόμενοι Kal περι- φερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας (Ephes. iv. 14; cf. Jude 12 with 2 Pet. ii. 17). § xxiv. doxipdlo, πειράζω. THESE words occur not seldom together, as at 2. Cor. xiii. 5; Ps. xxv. 2; xciv. 10 (at Heb, i. 9 the better reading is ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ) ; but though both in our English Version are rendered ‘ prove’ (John vi. 6; Luke xiv. 19), both ‘try’ (Rev. 1. 2 ; 1 Cor. iti, 13), both ‘examine’ (1 Cor. xi. 28; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), they are not therefore perfectly synonymous. In δοκιμάζειν, which has four other renderings in our Version, — namely, ‘discern’ (Luke xii. 56); ‘like’ (Rom. i. 28); ‘approve’ (Rom. ii. 18); ‘allow’ (Rom. xiv. 22),—hies ever NEW TESTAMENT. 107 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 ὁ; 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. i. 13), δοκιμάζειν and πυροῦν are often found together (Ps. xcv. 9; Jer. ix. 4). As employed in the N. T., the word will in almost every case imply that the proof is victoriously surmounted, the proved is also approved (2 Cor. vii. 8; 1 Thess. u. 4; 1 Tim. ii. 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 (1 Thess. 11. 4; cf Plutarch, Theseus, 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, A nab. iii. 3. 12; cf. Rom. 1. 18). But on δοκιμάξειν there not merely for the most part follows a coming victoriously out of the trial, but also it is implied that the trial was itself made in the expectation and hope that so it would be; at all events, with no contrary hope or expec- tation. The ore is not thrown into the fining pot— and this is the image which continually underlies 108 SYNONYMS OF THE the use of the word in the Old Testament (Zech. xii, 9; Prov. viii. 10; xvi. 3; xxvu. 21; Ps. Ixv. 10; Jer. ix. 7; Sirac. 1. 5. Wisd. 11.6; ef. 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 show that they are all dross. As such, He is δοκιμαστὴς τῶν καρδιῶν (1 Thess. 11.4 ; Jer. xi. 20; Ps. xvi. 4) ; as such, Job could say of Him, using another equivalent word, διέκρινέ με ὥσπερ TO χρυσίον. 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 probemur, non reprobemut.’ And here is the point of divergence between the use of δοκιμάζειν and πειράζειν, as will be plain when the second of these words has been a little considered. This putting to the proof may have quite another intention, as it may have quite another issue and end, than those which have been just described ; nay, it certainly will have such in the case of the false-hearted, and those who, seemingly belonging to God, had yet no root of the matter in themselves. Being proved or tempted, they NEW TESTAMENT, 109 will appear to be what they have always been ; and this fact, though it does not overrule all the uses of πειράζειν, does yet predominantly affect the use of the word. It lies not of necessity in it that it should oftenest possess an evil significa- tion, and imply a making trial with the intention and hope of entangling the person so tried in sin. Πειράζειν, connected with ‘perior, ‘experior, πείρω, means properly no more than to make an experience of (πεῖραν λαμβάνειν, Heb. xi. 29, 36), to pierce or search into (thus of the wicked it is sald, πειράζουσι θάνατον, Wisd. ii. 25; cf. xii. 26; Ecclus. xxxix. 4); or to attempt (Acts xvi. 7; xxiv. 6). But the word came next to signify the trying intentionally and with the purpose of dis- covering what of good or evil, of power or weak- ness, was in a person or thing (Matt. xvi. 1; xix. 3; xxi. 18; 1 Kin. x. 1); or, where this was already known to the trier, discovering the same to the tried themselves; as when St. Paul ad- dresses the Corinthians, ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε, “ try,” or as we have it, “examine yourselves” (2 Cor. xii. 5). Itis thus that sinners are said to tempt God (Matt. iv. 7 [ἐκπειράξειν)] ; Acts ν. 9: 1 Cor. x. 9; Wisd. 1. 2), putting Him to the proof, re- fusing to believe Him on his own word or till He has shown 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 ΠΝ ΤΙ ck Gen xxi. 1: Exod. xy. 2a. Deut. xii. 3). In no other sense or intention can He try or tempt men (Jam. i. 15); but because. 110 SYNONYMS OF THE He does tempt in this sense (γυμνασίας yapiv καὶ avappyoews, (Ecumenius), 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 fo say, “Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations” G. 2; cf ver, 12). The word itself, however, does not stop here, _ 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 they may break down; and thus the word is constantly applied to the temptations of Satan (Matt. iv. 1; 1 Cor. vu. 5; Rev. 11. 10), which are always made with such intention, he himself bearing the name of The Tempter (Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. 111. 5), and evermore approving himself as such (Gen. 111, 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 1 Augustine (Sem. lxxi. ὁ. 10): ‘In eo quod dictum est, Deus neminem 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. 5]. Est enim tentatio adducens pec- catum, qua Deus neminem tentat; et est tentatio probans fidem, qua et Deus tentare dignatur.’ Cf. Serm. ii. ¢. 3: ‘Deus tentat ut doceat; diabolus tentat, ut decipiat.’? Cf, Serm. lvii. c. 9, . NEW TESTAMENT. 111 he never proves that he may approve, or tests that he may accept. § χχυ.---Σοφία, φρόνησις, γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις. Σοφία, φρόνησις, γνῶσις all occur together, Dan. 1, 4,17. They are all ascribed to God, (φρόνησις not in the N. T., for Ephes. 1. 8 is not in point) ; σοφία and γνῶσις, Rom. xi. 33; φρόνησις and σοφία, Prov. 11.19; Jer. x. 12. There have been various efforts to draw the exact lines of distinc- tion between them. These, however they may vary in detail, have this in common, that σοφία is always recognized as expressing the highest and noblest, as indeed it must, being, as it is commonly de- clared, the knowledge of things divine and human. Ociwv καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων ἐπιστήμη, Clemens of Alexandria defines it (Padag. 11. 2), but adds elsewhere, καὶ τῶν τούτων αἰτίων (Strom. i. 5), following herein the Stoic definition! Augus- tine distinguishes between it and γνῶσις as follows (De Div. Quest. 11. qu. 2), ‘Heec ita discerni solent, ut sapientia [σοφία] pertineat ad intellectum eter- norum, scientia [γνῶσις vero ad ea que sensibus corporis experimur ; and for a much fuller discus- sion see De Trin. xii. 22—24; xiv. 3. Very much the same is said in regard of the relation between σοφία and φρόνησις. Thus Philo, who defines 1 On the relation of φιλοσοφία (ἐπιτήδευσις σοφίας, Philo, De Cong. Erud. Grat. xiv.) to copia see Clemens, Strom, i, 5, 7112 SYNONYMS OF THE φρόνησις as the mean between cunning and folly, μέση πανουργίας καὶ μωρίας φρόνησις (Quod Deus. Imm. 35), gives elsewhere the distinction between it and σοφία (De Prem. ect Pen. 14): Σοφία μὲν yap πρὸς θεραπείαν Θεοῦ, φρόνησις δὲ πρὸς ἀνθρωπίνου βίου διοίκησιν. This was the familiar and recog- nized distinction, as witness the words of Cicero (De Off. ii. 43) ; ‘Princeps omnium virtutum est illa sa- pientia quam σοφίαν Greeci vocant. Prudentiam enim, quam Greci φρόνησιν dicunt, aliam quan- dam intelligimus, que est rerum expetendarum, fugiendarumque scientia; illa autem sapientia, quam principem dixi, rerum est divinarum atque humanarum scientia:’ ef. Zusc. iv. 26. In all this he is following in the steps of Aristotle, who thus defines φρόνησις (Ethic. Nic. vi. 5. 4): ἕξις ἀληθὴς μετὰ λόγου πρακτικὴ περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀγαθὰ καὶ κακά. It will be seen from these references and quotations, that the Christian Fathers have drawn their distinction between these words from the schools of heathen philosophy, with only such deepening of their meaning as must necessarily follow when the ethical terms of a lower are assumed into the service of a higher. We may say boldly that σοφία is never in Scrip- ture ascribed to other than God or good men, except in an ironical sense, with the express addition, or subaudition, of τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (1 Cor. i. 20), τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (1 Cor. ii. 6), or some such words (2 Cor. 1. 12) ; nor are any of the children of this world called σοφοί except with this tacit or ex- pressed addition (Luke x. 21) ; they are in fact the NEW TESTAMENT, 113 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί of Rom.1. 22. For, indeed, if σοφία includes the striving after the best ends as well the using of the best means (cf. Aristotle, Lithic, Nie. vi. 7. 3), there can be no wisdom dis- joined from goodness, even as Plato had said long ago (Menex.19): πᾶσα ἐπιστήμη χωριζομένη δικαι- οσύνης καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς, πανουργία οὐ σοφία φαίνεται" cf. Ecclus, xix. 20, 22, a fine parallel. The true antithesis to σοφός is ἀνόητος (Rom.i.14). The ἀσύνετος need not be more than intellectually de- ficient, but in the ἀνόητος there is always a moral fault which lies at the root of the intellectual, the νοῦς, the highest knowing power in man, the organ by which divine things are known and ap- prehended, being the ultimate seat of the error. Thus compare Luke xxiv. 25 (ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ Bpadets τῇ καρδία) ; Gal. v. 1, 3; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Tit. 11. 3; in every one of which places the word has a moral tinge: it is the foolishness which is akin too and is derived from wickedness, even as σοφία is the wisdom which is akin to goodness. — But φρόνησις, being a right use and application of the φρήν, is a μέσον. It may be akin to σοφία (Prov. x. 23),—they are interchangeably used by Plato, Conv. 202 a,—but it may also be akin to πανουργία (Job v. 13; Wisd. xvi. 7). It skil- fully adapts its means to the attainment of the desired ends, but whether the ends themselves are good, of this the word affirms nothing, On the different kinds of φρόνησις, and the very different senses in which it is employed, see Basil the Great, Hom. in Princ. Prov. § 6; οἵ, Aristotle, Rhet. i. 9. I 114 SYNONYMS OF THE It is true that on the only two occasions when 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 φρόνησις is not wisdom, nor φρόνιμος wise; so that Augustine (De Gen. ad Int. xi. 2) has right when he objects to the ‘ sapientissimus’ with which some Latin Version had rendered the φρονιμώτατος applied to the serpent at Gen. ii. 1, saying, ‘ Abu- sione nominis sapientia dicitur in malo;’ cf. Con. Gaud.i. 5. And the same objection, as has been often urged, holds good against the “wise* as ser- pents” (Matt. x. 16), “wiser than the children of light” (Luke xvi. 8), of our Version. On the distinction between σοφία and γνῶσις Bengel has the following note (Gnomon, in 1 Cor. 12): ‘Illud certum, quod, ubi Deo ascribuntur, in solis objectis differunt ; vid. Rom. xi. 33. Ubi fideli- bus 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 eeternarum ; quare etiam sapientia non dicitur abroganda, 1 Cor. xii. 8.’ On the difference between γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις, it will be sufficient to say that the ἐπί in the latter must be regarded as intensive, giving to the com- 1 The Old Italic runs perhaps into the opposite extreme, rendering φρόνιμοι here by ‘ astuti;’ which, however, it must be remembered, had not in the later Latin at all so evil a subaudition as it had in the classical ; so Augustine (Zp. 167. 6) assures US. NEW TESTAMENT. 115 pound word a greater strength than the simple possessed ; thus ἐπιμελέομαι, ἐπινοέω, ἐπαισθά- vowat: and, by the same rule, if γνῶσις is ‘ cog- nitio, ‘kenntniss,’ ἐπίγνωσις is ‘major exactiorque cognitio’ (Grotius), ‘erkenntniss, a deeper and more intimate knowledge and acquaintance ; not recognition, in the Platonic sense of knowledge ; a reminiscence, as distinct from cognition, if we might use that word; which Jerome, on Ephes. iv. 13, and some moderns, have affirmed. St. Paul, it will be remembered, exchanges the γιγνώσκω, which expresses his present and fragmentary know- ledge, for ἐπεγνώσομαι, when he would express his future intuitive and complete knowledge (1 Cor, xii. 12). It is difficult to see how this should have been preserved in the English Version ; our Translators have made no attempt to preserve it ; Bengel does so by aid of ‘ nosco’ and ‘ pernoscam,’ and Culverwell (Spiritual Optics, p. 180) has the following note: ‘’Emiyvwous and γνῶσις differ. ᾿Ἐπίγνωσις 18 ἡ μετὰ τὴν πρώτην νῶσιν 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 St. Paul’s uses of ἐπίγνωσις justify and bear out this distine- tion (Rom. i. 28; 11. 20; x. 2; Eph.iv.13; Phil.i.9; 1 Tim, G4; 2 Tim, ii, 25), eo 116 SYNONYMS OF THE § xxvl—Aaréo, λέγω (λαλιά, λόγος). In dealing with synonyms of the N. T. we ought plainly not to concern ourselves with such earlier, or even cotemporary, uses of the words which we are discriminating, as lie altogether outside of its sphere, when these uses do not illus- trate, and have not affected, the scriptural employ- ment of the words. It will follow from this that all those contemptuous uses of λαλεῖν as to talk at random, as one with no door to his lips might do; of λαλιά as chatter (ἀκρασία 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 of the lne of Eupolis, λαλεῖν ἄριστος, ἀδυνατώτατος λέγειν, does not help us, nor touch the distinction between the words which we seek to draw out. What that distinction is, may in this way be made clear. There are two leading aspects under which speech may be contemplated. It may, first, be contem- plated as the articulate utterance of human lan- guage, 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 powers with which NEW TESTAMENT. 117 as creatures they have been endowed, as in the lower animals. This is one aspect of speech, namely articulated words, as distinguished from silence, or from animal cries. But, secondly, speech may be regarded as the orderly linking and knit- ting 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 λαλεῖν = 3", the German ‘lallen,’ ‘loqui,’ ‘ sprechen, to speak ; the second λέγειν = “DX, “ dicere,’ ‘ re- den,’ to discourse. Thus the dumb man, restored to human speech, ἐλάλησε (Matt. ix. 33; Luke xi. 14; cf. xu, 22), the Evangelists fitly employing this word, for they are not concerned with relating what the man said, but only with 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 11: 4; 1 Cor. xii. 30), for it is not what those in an ecstatic condition utter, but the fact of this new utterance itself, and quite irrespective of the burden 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 his speaking to men than what it may have been that He spake. But if in λαλεῖν the fact of uttering human words is the prominent notion, in λέγειν it 15 the words uttered, and that these are correlative to reasonable thoughts within the breast of the ut- 118 SYNONYMS OF THE terer. Thus while the parrot or talking automaton (Rey. xiii. 15) may be said, though even they not without a certain impropriety, λαλεῖν, seeing they produce sounds imitative of human speech; yet seeing that 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, as the correlative and complement to the words on the lips. Of φράζειν in like manner (it only occurs twice in the N. T., Matt. xiii. 36 ; xv. 15), Plutarch affirms that 7 could not, but λαλεῖν could, be pre- dicated of monkeys and dogs: λαλοῦσι yap οὗτοι, ov φράζουσι δέ (De Plac. Phil. v. 20). In the innumerable passages where the words occur together, I refer especially to such phrases as ἐλάλησε λέγων and the like (Matt. ix. 33; Luke xi. 14; cf. λαληθεὶς λόγος, Heb. 11. 2), each is true to its own meaning, as just asserted. “EAdAnoe expresses the fact of opening the mouth to speak, as opposed to the remaining silent (Acts xviii. 9) ; 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; 1 Cor. xi. 17; 1 Thess. 1. 8, there is no difficulty in giving to λαλεῖν its proper meaning; indeed all these passages gain rather than lose when this is done. At Rom. ui. 19 there is an instructive exchange 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 NEW TESTAMENT. 119 sense, is abundantly clear from the fact that on one occasion it, as well as λόγος, is claimed by the Lord Himself (John vii. 43; cf. Ps. xviii. 4), This passage in St. John deserves especial atten- tion, as in it these two words occur in a certain opposition to one another, and in the seizing of the distinction intended between them must lie the right understanding of what the Lord here says. What He intended by varying λαλιά and λόγος has been very differently understood. Some, as Augustine, though commenting 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 sig- nificance, have failed to draw it rightly out. It is clear that, as a failing to understand his speech (λαλιά) is traced up to a refusing to hear his word (λόγος), this last, as the root and ground of the mischief, must be the deeper, the anterior thing. To hear his word, must be to give room to his truth in the heart. They who will not do this must fail to understand his λαλιά, the outward utterance of his teaching. In other words, they that are of God hear God’s words, his ῥήματα, = λαλιά here,! (John viii. 47 ; xviii. 37), which they that are not of God do not and cannot hear. Me- lancthon : ‘ Qui veri sunt Dei filii et domestici non possunt paterne domtis ignorare linguam.’ 1 Philo makes the distinction of the λόγος and the ῥῆμα to be that of the whole and the part, Ley. Alleg. ili. 61: τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα μέρος λόγου. ------.--- 120 SYNONYMS OF THE § xxvll—droAvTpwots, καταλλαγή, ἱλασμός. THERE are three grand circles of images, by aid of which it is sought in the Scriptures of the N. T. to set forth to us the inestimable benefits of Christ’s death and passion. Transcending, as these benefits do, all human thought, and failing to find any- where 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 central truth from different quarters; to seek to set it forth not on one side but on many, that so these may seve- rally supply the deficiency of one another, and that moment of the truth which one does not ex- press, another may. The words placed at the head of this article, ἀπολύτρωσις or redemption, καταλ- λαγή or reconciliation, ἕλασμός or propitiation, are the capital words summing up three such families of images; to one or other of which almost every word directly bearing on this work of our salva- tion through Christ may be more or less remotely referred. To speak first of ἀπολύτρωσις, which form, and not λύτρωσις, St. Paul invariably employs, λύτρωσις occurring only at Luke i. 68; ii. 38; Heb. ix. 12,— Chrysostom upon Rom. 111. 24, draw- ing attention to this, observes that by this ἀπὸ the Apostle would express the completeness of our re- demption in Christ Jesus, which no later bondage NEW TESTAMENT. 121 should follow: καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς εἶπε, λυτρώσεως, . ἀλλ᾽ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ὡς μηκέτι ἡμᾶς ἐπανελθεῖν πάλιν ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν δουλείαν. In this no doubt he has right, and there is the same force in the ἀπό of ἀποκαταλλάσσειν (Ephes. 11.16; Col.i. 20, 22), which is ‘prorsus reconciliare; see Fritzsche on | Rom. v.10. Both ἀπολύτρωσις (which nowhere occurs in the Septuagint, but ἀπολυτρόω twice, Exod. xxi. 8; Zeph. 111. 1), and λύτρωσις are late words in the Greek language. Rost and Palm (Lex.) give no earlier authority for them than Plu- tarch (Pomp. 24), while λυτρωτής seems to be peculiar to the Greek Scriptures (Ps. xvii. 15; Acts vii. 35), and such writings as are dependant upon them. When Theophylact defines ἀπολύτρωσις as ἡ ἀπὸ τὴς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐπανάκλησις, he omits one most important moment of the word, and one con- stituting the central notion of it, as indeed of our word ‘redemption’ no less; for ἀπολύτρωσις 15 not recall from captivity merely, as he would imply, but recall from captivity through a price paid ; ef. Origen on Rom. 111. 24, The idea of deliverance through a price paid, though in actual use it may sometimes fall away from words of this family (thus see Ps. cxxxiv. 24), is yet central to them. Let us keep this in mind, and we shall find con- | nect themselves with ἀπολύτρωσις a whole group of most significant words; not only λύτρον (Matt. xx, 28; Mark x. 45); ἀντιλύτρον (1 Tim. τι. 6); λυτροῦν (Tit. 11. 14; 1 Pet. 1. 18); λύτρωσις (Heb. ix, 12) ; but ἀγοράζειν (1 Cor. vi. 20) and ἐξαγορά- 122 SYNONYMS OF THE Cew (1 Pet. 1. 19; Luke i. 74): here indeed is a point of contact with the ἱλασμός, for the λύτρον paid in this ἀπολύτρωσις, is identical with the mpoogopa or θυσία by which that ἱλασμός is effected. Not to say that there also link them- selves with ἀπολύτρωσις all those passages which speak of sin as slavery, and of sinners as slaves (John vi. 17, 20; viii. 34; 2 Pet. 11. 19); of de liverance from sin as freedom, cessation of bondage (John viii. 33, 36; Rom. viii. 21; Gal. v. 1). Καταλλαγή, occurring four times in the N. T. only occurs twice in the Septuagint. On one of these occasions, namely at Isai. ix. 5, it does not come into consideration, meaning simply exchange ; but at 2 Mace. v. 20 it is employed in the N. T. sense, being opposed to the ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and expressing the reconciliation, the εὐμένεια of God to his people. While διαλλαγή (Ecclus. xxii. 28 ; xxvil. 21), and διαλλάσσειν (in the N. T. only at Matt. v. 24; cf. Judg. xix. 3) are the more frequent words in the earlier and more classical periods of the language,” still the grammarians are wrong who denounce καταλλαγή and καταλλάσσειν as words avoided by those who wrote the language in its highest purity. None need be ashamed of words which found favour with Aischylus (Sept. con. Theb. 767); and Plato (Phed. 69 a). Fritzsche (on Rom. v. 10) has a valuable note disposing of Tittman’s fanciful distinction between καταλλάσ- σειν and διαλλάσσειν. 1 Christ according to Clement of Alexandria (Coh. ad Gen. 10), is διαλλακτὴς Kal σωτὴρ ἡμῶν. NEW TESTAMENT, 19 The Christian καταλλαγή has two sides. It is first a reconciliation, ‘qua Deus nos sibi recon- ciliavit,’ laid aside his holy anger against our sins, and received us into favour, a reconciliation effected once for all for us by Christ upon his cross; so 2 Cor. v. 18,19; Rom. v. 10; in which last passage καταλλάσσεσθαι is a pure passive, ‘ab eo in eratiam recipi apud quem in odio fueris.’ But καταλλαγή is secondly and subordinately the re- conciliation, ‘qua nos Deo reconciliamur, the daily deposition, under the operation of the Holy Spirit, of the enmity of the old man toward God. In this passive middle sense καταλλάσσεσθαι is used, 2 Cor. v. 20; and ef. 1 Cor. vii. 11. All attempts to make this, the secondary meaning of the word, to be the primary, rest not on an unprejudiced exegesis, but on a foregone determination to get rid of the reality of God’s anger against. sin. With καταλλαγή connects itself all that lan- euage of Scripture which describes sin as a state of enmity (ἔχθρα) with God (Rom. viii. 7; Eph. ii, 15; Jam. iv. 4); and sinners as enemies to Him and alienated from Him (Rom. v. 10; Col. i. 21) ; Christ on the cross as the Peace, and maker of peace between God and man (Ephes. u. 14; | Col. i. 20); all such language as this, “Be ye re- conciled with God” (2 Cor. v. 20). Before leaving καταλλωγή it may be well to observe, that the exact relations between it and ἱλασμός, Which will have to be considered next, are somewhat confused for the English reader, from the fact that the word ‘atonement,’ by which our 124 SYNONYMS OF THE Translators have rendered καταλλαγή on one of the four occasions upon which it occurs in the N. T., namely Rom. v. 11, has gradually shifted its meaning. It has done this so effectually, that if the translation were now for the tirst time to be made, and words to be employed in their present sense and not in their past, it is plain that it would be a much fitter rendering of ἑλασμός, the notion of propitiation, which we shall find the central one of this word, always lying in our present use of ‘atonement. It was not so once; when our Translation was made, it signified, as innumerable examples prove, reconciliation, or the making up of a foregoing enmity; all its uses in our early literature justifying the etymology now sometimes called into question, that ‘atonement’ is ‘at-one- ment, and therefore = reconciliation: and con- sequently then, although not now, the proper rendering of καταλλαγή (see my Select Glossary, s.vv. ‘atone,’ ‘ atonement’). Ἵλασμός occurs only twice in the N. T., both times in the First Epistle of St. John (ii. 2; iv. 10). I am inclined to think that the excellent word ‘propitiation,’ by which our Translators have ren- dered it, did not exist in the language when the earlier Reformed Versions were made. Tyndale, the Geneva, and Cranmer have “to make agree- ment,” instead 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, have also ren- dered ‘propitiation’ (Rom. 111. 25), is rendered in NEW TESTAMENT. 125 translations which share in what I conceive our error “the obtainer of mercy” (Cranmer), ‘a paci- fication’ (Geneva); and first ‘propitiation’ in the Rheims—the Latin tendencies of this translation ‘giving it boldness to transfer this word from the Vulgate. Ἵλασμός is of rare use also in the Septuagint, but in such passages as Num. v. 8; Ezek. xliv. 27; 2 Mace. 111, 33, it is being pre- pared for the higher employment which it shall obtain in the N. Τὶ Connected with ἵλεως, *‘ pro- pitius,’ (NdoxeoOau, ‘ placare, ‘iram avertere,’ ‘ex irato mitem reddere,’ it is by Hesychius explained, not incorrectly indeed (for see Dan. ix. 9; Ps, exxix. 4), but inadequately, by the following syno- nyms, εὐμένεια, συγχώρησις, διαλλαγή, καταλ- λαγή, TpaoTns—inadequately, because in none of these does there lie what is constant in ἱλασμός, namely that the εὐμένεια or goodwill has been gained by means of some offering or other, ‘placamen. The word is more comprehensive than ἱλάστης, which Grotius proposes as equiva- lent to it. Christ does not propitiate alone, as that word would say, but at once propitiates, and is Himself the propitiation ; being, to speak in the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the offering of Himself both at once, ἀρχιερεύς and θυσία or tpoc dopa, for the two functions of priest and sacrifice, which were divided, and of necessity divided, in the typical sacrifices of the law, met and were united in Him, the sin-offering by and through whom the just anger of God against our sins was appeased, and God was rendered pro- 126 SYNONYMS OF THE pitious to us once more. All this the word ἱλασμός, applied to Him, declares, It will be seen that with ‘Aacpos connect them- selves 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. v. 2; Heb. x. 14; 1 Cor. v. 7), as the Lamb of God (John i. 29, 36; 1 Pet. 1.19), 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 (which is equivalent to the German Verséhnung), ἑλασμός (which is equivalent to Versiihnung) is the deeper word, goes more to the central heart of things. 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 describe that we were enemies, and by that death were made friends; but how made friends xat- αλλαγή 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. I conclude this discussion with Bengel’s excellent note on Rom. iii. 24: “ἱλασμὸς (expiatio sive propitiatio) et ἀπολύτρωσις (redemtio) est in fundo rei uwnicum beneficium, scilicet, restitutio peccatoris perditi. Ἀπολύτρωσις est respectu hostium, et καταλλαγή est respectu Dei. Atque hic voces ‘Aacpos et NEW TESTAMENT. By καταλλαγή iterum differunt. “Tkacpds (propitia- tio) tollit offensam contra Deum; καταλλαγὴή (reconciliatio) est δίσσλευρος et tollit (a) indigna- tionem Dei adversum nos, 2 Cor. v. 19 (Ὁ) nostram- que abalienationem a Deo, 2 Cor. v. 10.’ | § ΧΧΥΠΙ.--ψαλμός, ὕμνος, ὠδή. ALL these words occur together at Ephes. v. 19, and again at Col. in. 16; both times in the same order, and in passages which very nearly repeat one another; cf. Ps. lxvi. 1. When some refuse even to attempt to distinguish them from each other, urging that St. Paul had certainly no intention of giving a classification of Christian poetry, this may be, and 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 done equally well. It may reasonably be doubted whether we can draw very accurately the lines of demarcation between the “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” of which the Apostle makes mention, or whether he drew them for: himself with a perfect accuracy ; the words, even at the time when he wrote, may have been often promiscuously, confusedly used. Still each must have had a meaning which belonged to it more, 128 SYNONYMS OF THE and by a better right, than it belonged to either of the others; and this it may be possible to draw out, even while it is quite impossible with perfect strictness to distribute under these three heads Christian poetry as it existed in the Apo- stolic age. The Psalms of the O. T. remarkably enough have no single, well recognized, universally ac- cepted name by which they are designated in the Hebrew Scriptures. They first obtained such in the Septuagint. Ψαλμός, properly a touching, then a touching of the harp or other stringed instruments with the finger or with the plectrum ; 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 ἁρμο- νικοῦς λόγους τὸ ὄργανον κρούηται ; cf. Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. ii. 4): 0 ψαλμός, ἐμμελής ἐστιν εὐλογία Kat σώφρων. It is certainly far the most probable that the ψαλμοί of Ephes. v. 19; Col. 111. 16, are the inspired Psalms of the Hebrew Canon. The word must refer to these on every other occasion when it is met in the N. T, with only one exception, namely 1 Cor. xiv. 26 ; and even there it in all likelihood means nothing else; and I must needs believe that the Psalms which the Apostle would have the faithful to sing to one another, are the Psalms of David, and of NEW TESTAMENT. 129 the other sweet singers of Israel; above all, seeing that the word seems bounded and limited to its narrowest use by the nearly synonymous words with which it is grouped. But while the psalm by the right of primo- geniture, as 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 “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, 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 Calli- sthenes (Arrian, iv. 11) reminds Alexander; who, claiming hymns for himself, or suffering them to be addressed to him, implicitly accepted not human honours but divine (ὕμνον μὲν és τοὺς θεοὺς ποιοῦνται, ἔπαινοι δὲ ἐς ἀνθρώπους). In the gradual breaking down of the distinction be- tween human and divine, with the snatching on the part of men of divine honours, the ὕμνος came more and more to be applied to men; although this not without observation (Atheneus, vi. 62; xy. 21, 22). When the word was assumed into the language of the Church, this essential dis- K 130 SYNONYMS OF THE tinction clung to it still. A psalm might be a De profundis, the story of man’s deliverance, or a commemoration 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 (ln Ephes. v.19): ‘ Breviter hymnos esse dicendum, qui fortitudinem et majes- tatem preedicant Dei, et ejusdem semper vel bene- ficia, vel facta, mirantur.” Cf. Origen, Con. Cels. vill. 67; and a precious fragment, probably of the Presbyter Caius, preserved by Eusebius (ἢ. ἢ. v. 28): ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ ὠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντεςς. Augus- tine in more places than one states the notes of what in his mind are the essentials of a hymn— which are three. It must be sung. It must be praise. It must be to God. Thus Lnarr. in Ps. Ixxu. 1: ‘Hymni 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 landem, et Dei, et canticum.’ Cf. Enarr. in Ps. exlyii. 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, NEW TESTAMENT. 151 et cantum, et laudem, et Dei.’* Compare Gregory of Nazianzum : » , > > “ 3 fal / ἔπαινός ἐστιν εὖ TL TOY ἐμῶν Ppacat, 5) > + > \ , αἶνος δ᾽ ἔπαινος εἰς Θεὸν σεβάσμιος, ς > ¢ be > f ς yf ὁ δ᾽ ὕμνος, αἶνος ἐμμελής, ὡς 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 a somewhat earlier day. Notwithstanding the authority which St. Paul’s employment of it in these two places which have been so often referred to might seem to give it, it nowhere occurs in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, nor in those of Justin Martyr, nor in the Apostolic Constitutions ; only once in Tertullian (ad Uxor. u. 8). It is at least a plausible explanation of this that the word was so steeped in heathenism, so linked with profane associations, there were so many hymns to Zeus, to Hermes, to Aphrodite, and the rest, that the early Christians shrunk from and would not willingly employ it. If we ask ourselves what probably the hymns, which St. Paul desired that the faithful should sing among themselves, were, we may, I think, confi- dently assume that these observed the law to which the heathen hymns were submitted, and 1 Tt is not very easy to follow Augustine in his distinction between a psalm and a canticle [canticum]. Indeed he acknowledges himself that he has not arrived at any clearness on this matter ( παν». in Ps. \xvii.1; cf. in Ps. iv. 1; ef. Hilary, Prol. in Lib. Psalm. §§ 19—21). K 2 132 SYNONYMS OF THE were hymns to God. Inspired specimens of the vuvos we may find at Luke 1. 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 un- inspired hymns could prove we have evidence in the Te Dewm, in the Veni Creator Spiritus, and im many a later heritage for ever which the Church has acquired. That the Church, at the time when St. Paul wrote, brought into a new and marvel- lous world of realities, would be rich in these we might be sure, even if no evidence existed to this effect, of which however there is abundance, more than one fragment of a hymn being pro- bably embedded in St. Paul’s own Epistles (Ephes. v.14; 1 Tim. 11.16). And as it was quite im- possible that the Christian Church, mightily releasing itself, though not with any revolutionary violence, from the Jewish synagogue, should fall into that mistake into which some portions of the Reformed Church afterward ran, 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 well conclude, to a larger extent in Churches gathered .out of the heathen world than in those where a strong Jewish element was found. ᾽Ω,δή (= ἀοιδή) 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, NEW TESTAMENT, 136 because #67 by itself might mean any kind of song, of battle, of harvest, or festal, or hymeneal, while ψαλμός from its Hebrew, and ὕμνος from its Greek, use, did not require any such qualifying adjective. It will at once be evident that this epithet thus applied does not necessarily imply that these @éaé were divinely inspired, any more than the ἀνὴρ πνευματικός was an inspired man (1 Cor. iii. 1 ; Gal. vi. 1); but only that they were such as were composed by spiritual men, and had to do with spiritual things. How, it may be asked, are we to distinguish these “spiritual songs” from the “psalms” and “hymns” with which they are associated by St. Paul? If the first word represents the heritage of sacred song which the Christian Church derived from the Jewish, the second and third will between them express what more of this sacred song it pro- duced out of its bosom; but with a difference. What the ὕμνοι were, we have already seen; but Christian 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 Keble’s Christian Year, or Herbert's Temple, there are many poems in both which, as they certainly are not psalms, so as little do they possess the characteristics of hymns; but which would most justly be entitled “spiritual songs ;” and 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: ‘Sub his tribus nominibus complexus est 134 SYNONYMS OF THE [Paulus] omne genus canticorum; que ita vulgo distinguuntur, ut Psalmus sit in quo concinendo adhibetur musicum aliquod instrumentum preeter lincuam; hymnus proprie sit laudis canticum, sive ass voce, sive aliter canatur; oda non laudes tantum contineat, sed parzeneses, et alia argu- menta.’ ὃ xxix. daypdppatos, ἰδιώτης. THESE words occur together Acts iv. 13; aypap- ματος nowhere else in the N. T., but ¢dv@rns on * four other occasions (1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 24; 2 Cor. xi. 6). In that first-named passage there can be little doubt that according to the natural rhetoric of human speech the second word is stronger than the first, adds something to it ; thus our Translators have evidently understood them, rendering ἀγράμματος ‘unlearned, and ἰδιώτης ‘jonorant;’ and so Bengel: “ἀγράμματος est rudis, ἐδεώτης rudior.’ When we seek more accurately to distinguish them, and to detect the exact notion which each conveys, the second, as the word of more various and subtle uses, will mainly claim our attention. Ἀγράμματος need not occupy us long; it is simply illiterate (John vii. 13; Acts xxvi. 24; 2 Tim. iii. 15); the ἀγράμματος being joined by Plato with ὄρειος, rugged as the mountaineer (Crit. 109 6), with ἄμουσος (Tim. 23 Ὁ); by Plutarch set over against the μεμουσωμένος (Adv. Col. 26). But ἰδιώτης is a far more complex word. Its NEW TESTAMENT. 135 primary idea, the point from which, so to speak, etymologically it starts, is that of the private man, occupying himself with τὰ ἴδια, as con- trasted with the political; the man unclothed with office, as set over against and distinguished from him who bears some office in the state. But then as it lay 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, a contemptuous use lay very near to ἐδιώτης, Which it did not fail presently to make its own. The ἰδιώτης, unexercised in business, unaccustomed to deal with his fellow- men, is unpractical ; and thus the word is joined with ἀπράγμων by Plato (Rep. x. 620 ¢; cf. Plu- tarch, De Virt. οἱ Vit. 4), with ἄπρακτος by Plutarch (Phil. esse cwm Prine. 1), who sets him over against the πολιτικὸς καὶ πρακτικός. But more than this, he is boorish, and thus ἐδιώτης is linked with ἄγροικος (Chrysostom, In 1 Ep. Cor. Hom. 3), with ἀπαίδευτος (Plutarch, Arist. et Men. Comp. 1).* The history of the word by no means stops here, though we have followed it as far as is absolutely necessary to explain its association at Acts iv. 13 with ἀγράμματος, and the points of likeness and difference between them. But for the sake of the other passages where it occurs, 1 There is, I may observe, an excellent discussion on the successive meanings of ἰδιώτης in Bishop Horsley’s Zracts iz Controversy with Dr. Priestley, Appendix, Disquisition Second, pp. 475—485, 136 SYNONYMS OF THE and to explain why it should be used at 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 24, and exactly in what sense,- it may be well to pursue this history a little further. The circumstance is explained by a singular characteristic of the word, which is not easy to describe, but which a few examples at once make intelligible. There lies continually in it a negation of that particular skill, know- ledge, profession, 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 éatpds, he is one igno- rant of the physician’s art (Plato, Rep. 111. 389 0; Philo, De Conf. Ling. 7); against the σοφιστής, he is one unacquainted with the dialectic fence of the sophists (Xenophon, De Venat. 13; ef. Hero, i. 2; Lucian, Pisce. 34; Plutarch, Symp. iv. 2. 3). Those unpractised in gymnastic exercises are ἐδιῶται as contrasted with the ἀθληταί (Xeno- phon, Hiero, iv. 6; Philo, De Sept. 6); subjects are ἰδιῶταν as contrasted with their prince (Id. De Abrah. 33); the underlings in the harvest-field are ἐδιῶται καὶ ὑπηρέται as distinguished from the ἡγεμόνες (Id. De Somn. 11. 4); and lastly, the whole congregation of Israel are ἰδιῶται as con- trasted with the priests (De Vit. Mos, iii. 29), With these uses of the word to assist us, it is impossible, I think, to come to any other con- NEW TESTAMENT. 137 clusion than that the ἐδιῶται of St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23,.24) are the plain believers, with no special spiritual gifts, as distinguished from those who were in the possession of these; 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 it is at once combined and contrasted which determines its use. But to return to the matter immediately before us. For this it will be sufficient to say that when the Pharisees recognized Peter and James 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 O. T., the ἱερὰ γράμματα, and to the glosses of the elders upon these, their lack of acquaintance with such lore as St. Paul had learned at the feet of Gamaliel; in the second the absence in them of that education which men insensibly acquire by mingling with those who have import- ant affairs to transact, and by themselves sharing in the transaction of such. Setting aside that higher training of the heart and the intellect which comes from direct contact with God and his truth, no doubt books and public life, literature and politics, are the two most effectual organs of mental and moral training which the world has at its com- mand—the second, as needs hardly be said, im- measurably more effectual than the first. He is ἀγράμματος who has not shared in the first, ἰδιώτης who has no part in the second. 138 SYNONYMS OF THE δ xxx.— doxéw, φαίνομαι. Our Translators have not always observed the distinction which exists between δοκεῖν = " videri,’ and φαίνεσθαι =‘apparere.’ Aoxetv expresses the subjective mental estimate or opinion about a matter which men form, their δόξα concerning it, which may be right (Acts xv. 28; 1 Cor. iv. 9; vi. 40; cf. Plato, Tim. 51 ἃ, δόξα ἀληθής), but which may be wrong ; involving, as it always does, the possibility of error (2 Macc. ix. 10 ; Matt. vi. 7; Mark vi. 49 ; John xvi. 2; Acts xxvii. 13 ; cf. Plato, . Gorg. 458 a, δόξα ψευδής ; Xenophon, Cyr. 1. 6. 22 ; Mem. i. 7. 4; ἰσχυρὸν, 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 as- sumption of any beholder at all; suggesting an opposition not to the ὄν, but to the νοούμενον. Thus, when Plato (Rep. 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 consequence that what they showed, they were as well. So too, when Xenophon writes ἐφαίνετο ixvia ἵππων (Anab. i. 6.1), he would imply that horses had been actually there, and left their prmts on the ground. He could only have used δοκεῖν, supposing him to have wished to say, that Cyrus and his company took for the tracks of horses what indeed might have been, NEW TESTAMENT. 139 but what also might not have been, such at all; ef. Mem. iii. 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, Phaedr, 269 d; Legg. xii. 960 d). Even in passages where δοκεῖν may be exchanged with εἶναι, it does not lose the proper meaning which Zeune gives to it here. Theré is ever a predominant reference to the public opinion and estimate, rather than to the actual being ; however the former may be the just echo of the latter (Prov. xxvii. 14). Thus, while there is no slightest ᾿ touch of irony in St. Paul’s use of οὗ δοκοῦντες at Gal. ii. 2, οἱ δοκοῦντες εἶναί re (ii. 6), and mani- festly could not be, seeing that he is so charac- terizing some of the chiefest of his fellow Apostles, the words at the same time express rather the reputation in which they were held in the Church than that which in themselves they were, how- ever this reputation was only the true measure of their worth (= ἐπίσημοι, Rom. xvi. 7); compare Euripides, Hee. 295, and Porphyry, De Abst. 11. 40, where οἱ δοκοῦντες in like manner is put abso- lutely, and set over against τὰ πλήθη. In the same way of δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν (Mark x. 42) casts no doubt on the reality of the rule of these, for see Matt. xx. 25, but as little is it redundant. It means those who are acknowledged as rulers of the Gentiles; cf. Josephus, Anfé. xix. 6. 3; Susan. 5; and Winer, Gramm. § lxvii. 4. But as on one side the mental conception may 140 SYNONYMS OF THE have, but also may not have, a corresponding truth in the world of realities, so on the other the ap- pearance may have a reality behind it, and φαί- veoOas is often synonymous with εἶναι and γίγνεσ- θαι (Matt. 11. 7; xii. 26); but it may also have none; φαινόμενα for instance are set off against Ta ὄντα TH ἀληθείᾳ by Plato (Rep. 596 6) ; being the reflections of things, as seen in a mirror: or it may be utterly false, as is the show of goodness which the hypocrite makes (Matt. xxii. 28). 10 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. It still subsists in the objective character of the one, and the subjective character of the other. Thus, at Matt. xxii. 27, 28, the contrast is not between what other men took the Pharisees to be, and what they really were, but what they showed themselves to other men (φαίνεσθε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δίκαιοι), and what they were indeed. Δοκεῖν signifying ever, as we have seen, that subjective estimate which may be formed of a thing, not the objective show and seeming which it actually possesses, it will follow that our Trans- lation of Jam. 1. 26 is not perfectly satisfactory : “Tf any man among you seem to be religious [δοκεῖ θρῆσκος 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, it will have been asked, can a man “seem to be religious,” that is, present himself to others as such, when NEW TESTAMENT. 141 his religious pretensions are belied and refuted by the allowance of an unbridled tongue? But render the words, “If any man among you think himself religious” (cf. Gal. vi. 3, where δοκεῖ is rightly so translated ; as is the Vulgate here, “se putat reli- giosum esse”), “and bridleth not his tongue, &c.” and all will then be plain. It is the man’s own subjective estimate of his spiritual condition which δοκεῖ expresses, an estimate which the following words declare to be altogether erroneous.! If the Vulgate in dealing here with one of these words is right, while our Translators are wrong, elsewhere in dealing with the other it is wrong, while they 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 dis- ciples are here warned not against the hypocrisy of wishing to be supposed to fast when they did not, as these words might imply, but against the ostentation 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 place of our Version; although not through any confusion between it and δοκεῖν, but rather between it and φαίνειν, there. We render ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ (Phil. 11. 15), “among whom ye shine as lights in the world.” To justify “ye shine” in this place, which is com- mon to all the Versions of the English Hexapla, 1 Compare Heb. iy. 1, where for δοκῇ the Vulgate has rightly ‘ existimetur.’ 142 SYNONYMS OF THE St. Paul should have written gdawere (John 1. 5; 2 Pet.i.19; Rev.i. 16), and not, as he has written, φαίνεσθε. It is worthy of note that, while the Vulgate, having ‘lucetis, shares and anticipates our error, an earlier Version was free from it, as is evident from the form in which the verse is quoted by Augustine (Hnarr. in Ps. cxlvi. 4): ‘In quibus apparetis tanquam luminaria in celo.’ § xxxi—Zdov, θηρίον. THERE are passages out of number where 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 In. Util. ἃ. This is not however sufficient to prove that there is no distinction between them, if others occur, however few, where one would be fit and the other not; or where, though neither would be unfit, one would yet possess a greater fitness than would the other. The distinction, latent in the other cases, because there is nothing to evoke it, emerges in these. The difference between ζῶον and θηρίον is the difference not between two terms in any respect coordinate; one, on the contrary—that is, the second—is wholly subordinate to the first, is a less included in a greater. All creatures that live on earth, including man himself, λογικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζῶον, as Plutarch (De Am. Prol. 3) so NEW TESTAMENT. 143 orandly describes him, are ζῶα (Aristotle, Hist. Anim. i. 5.1); nay, God Himself is ζῶον ἀθάνα- tov (Plato, Def.), 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 there is no ex- ample of this employment of ζῶον to designate man in the N. T.; but see Plato, Pol. 271 δ; Xenophon, Cyr.i. 1.3; Wisd. xix. 20; still less to designate God; for whom, as not merely living, but as being absolute life, the one fountain of life, the αὐτοζῶον, the fitter and more reverent ζωή is retained (John 1.4; 1 Johni. 2). In its ordinary use ζῶον covers the same extent of meaning as our own word ‘animal,’ having gene- rally, but by no means universally (Plutarch, De Garr. 22; Heb. xiii. 11), ἄλογον or some such epithet attached (2 Pet. 11. 12; Jude 10). Θηρίον, a diminutive of θήρ, which in its A%olic form φήρ gives the Latin ‘fera,’ and appears in its more usual shape in the German ‘Thier’ and our own ‘deer,’ like χρυσίον, βιβλίον, φορτίον, ἀγγεῖον, and so many other words in the Greek language (see Fischer, Prol. de Vit. Lex. N. T. Ῥ. 256), has quite left behind its diminutive signi- fication; how completely it is felt to have done so is remarkably attested in the modern compound ‘megatherium ;’ and compare Xenophon, Cyrop. 1. 4. 11, θηρία μεγάλα. Neither does θηρίον ex- clusively mean the mischievous and cruel beast, for see Heb. xii. 20; Exod. xix. 13; at the same time it has predominantly this meaning 144 SYNONYMS OF THE (Mark i. 13; Acts xxviii. 4, 5); θηρία at Acts xi. 6 being distinguished from τετράποδα. It is very noticeable that, numerous as are the passages of the Septuagint where beasts for sacrifice are mentioned, it is never under this name; and the reason of this is evident, namely, that the brutal, bestial element is that which the word brings prominently forward, and not that wherein the lower animals are akin to man, not that therefore which gives them a fitness to be offered as substi- tutes for man. 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. 1. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32; Josephus, Antt. xvii. 5.5; Arrian, In Epict. ii. 9). All this makes the more to be regretted the breaking down for the English reader of the distinction between ζῶον and θηρίον in the Apo- calypse, by the rendering of ζῶα as ‘beasts’ throughout that Book. As I could only say over again in other words what I had said _ before, I will make no apology for quoting on this matter some words of my own (On the Authorized Version of the New Testament, 2d edit. p. 102): ‘One must always regret, and the regret has been often ex- pressed—it was so by Broughton almost as soon as our Version was published—that in the Apoca- lypse our Translators should have rendered θηρίον and ζῶον by the same word, ‘beast. Both play important parts in the book ; both belong to its higher symbolism; but to portions the most different. The da or “living creatures,” which NEW TESTAMENT. 145 stand before the throne, in which dwells the fulness of all creaturely life, as it gives praise and glory to God (iv. 6—9; v. 6; vi. 1; and often) form 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 (xii. 1), of which the one makes war upon the two Witnesses, the other opens his mouth in blasphemies, 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 eranting the name to be suitable to both; it is a more serious one, when the word used, bringing out, as this must, 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 translations. That the Rheims should not have escaped it is strange ; for the Vulgate renders ζῶα by ‘ animalia’ (‘ ani- mantia’ would have been still better), and only θηρίον by ‘bestia. If ζῶα had always been ren- dered “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, 13, 14, and often; where “living creature” is the rendering in our English Version of (17M, as ζῶον is in the Septuagint. - 140 SYNONYMS OF THE § ΧΧΧΙ.---ὑπέρ, ἀντί. It has been often claimed, and in the interests of an all-important truth, namely the vicarious character of the sacrifice of Christ, that in such passages as Heb. 11.9; Tit. ii 14; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Gal, ui.13; Luke xxi.'19, 20; 1 Petras in. 18; iv. 1; Rom. 'v. 8; John Σ. 15, ΕΝ which Christ is said to have died ὑπὲρ πάντων, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων, and the like, ὑπέρ shall be accepted as equipollent with ἀντέ: it being further urged that, as ἀντί is the prepo- sition first of equivalence (Homer, JJ. ix. 116, 117) and then of exchange (1 Cor. xi. 15; Heb. x11. 16; Matt. v. 38), ὑπέρ must in the passages referred to above be regarded as having the same force. Each of these, it is evident, would thus become a dictum probans for a truth, in itself most vital, namely that Christ suffered, not merely on our behalf and for our good,. but also in our_ room, and bearing that penalty of our sins which we otherwise must 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 ἀποκρι- γοῦμαι, | will answer in your stead; οὗ Thucy- dides, 1.141; Euripides, Alcestis, 712; Polybius, 11, 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. 11. 1, and continually. It must be admitted, NEW TESTAMENT. 147 I think, 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 found on these any urefragable proof that the death of Christ 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. 1111. 4—6). It is only as having other declarations to the effect that Christ died ἀντὶ πολλῶν (Matt. xx. 28), gave Himself as an ἀντίλυτρον (1 Tim. 11. 6), and bringing these others to the interpretation of those, that we feel we have 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 our sakes (here it touches more nearly on the meaning of περί, Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24; 1 Pet. 11]. 18. διά also once occurring in this connexion, 1 Cor. viii. 11), and in our stead ; while ἀντί would only have expressed the latter. Tischendorf, in his little treatise, Doctrina Paula de vi mortis Christi satisfactorid, has some excellent remarks on this matter: ‘Fuerunt, qui ex sola natura et usu prepositionis ὑπέρ demonstrare conarentur, Paulum docuisse satisfactionem Christi vicariam; alii rursus negarunt, preepositionem ὑπέρ a N. Test. auctoribus recte positam esse pro ἀντί, inde probaturi contrarium. Peccatum utrim- L2 ‘ 148 SYNONYMS OF THE que est. Sola prpositio utramque pariter ad- juvat 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 vindi- cant, atque ipsum Paulum eodem significatu eam usurpasse, et quidem in locis, que ad nostram rem non pertinent, nemini potest esse dubium (cf. Philem. 13; 2 Cor. v. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 29). Si autem queeritur, cur hic potissimum prepositione incerti et fluctuantis significatis in re tam gravi usus sit Apostolus—inest in ipsa preepositione quo sit aptior reliquis ad describendam Christi “mortem pro nobis oppetitam. Etenim in _ hoc versari rei summam, quod Christus mortuus sit in commodum hominum, nemo negat; atque id quidem factum est ita, ut moreretur hominum loco. Pro conjuncté significatione et commodi et vicarii preclare ab Apostolo adhibita est pree- 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 Lati- norum 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 per- quam aperta sit, excludi illam in isté formula, jure meo dico,’ NEW TESTAMENT. 149 § xxxlll.—dovevs, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, σικάριος. Our Translators have rendered all these words by ‘murderer,’ a word apt enough in the case of the first (Matt. xxii. 7; 1 Pet.iv.15; Rev. xxi. 8), but at the same time so general that it keeps out of sight characteristic features which the other two possess. Ἀνθρωποκτόνος, exactly corresponding to our ‘manslayer, or ‘homicide,’ occurs in the N.T. only in the writings of St. John (viii. 44; 1 Ep. 11]. 15 bis); it is found also in Euripides (Lphig. in Taur. 390). On our Lord’s lips the word has its special fitness ; no other would have suited at all so well; for his reference (John viii. 44) is to the ereat, 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 should be the authors of being to all other men, he poisoned, as he hoped, the stream of human life at its fountain- head. Satan was thus 6 ἀνθρωποκτόνος indeed ; for he would have fain murdered not this man or that, but the whole race of mankind. Σικάριος, which only occurs once in the N. T. and, noticeably enough, then on the lps of a Roman captain (Acts xxi. 38), is one of the many Latin words which-we meet with there. Such in not inconsiderable numbers had followed the Roman domination even into those provinces of the empire that still retained their own language. The ‘sicarius, in the Roman use of the word, 7 150 SYNONYMS OF THE having his name from the “5108, a short sword, or rather poniard or stiletto, which he wore and was prompt to use, was the hired bravo or swords- man, of whom in the last days of the Republic, lawless men, the Antonies and the Clodiuses, kept troops in their pay and oftentimes about their person, to remove out of the way any who were obnoxious to them. The word had found its way into Palestine, and into the Greek which was spoken there; Josephus in two instructive pas- sages (B. J. ἢ. 13.3; Antt. xx. 8. 6) giving us full details about those to whom the name of σικάριοι was applied. They were assassins who sprang up in the latter days of the Jewish Commonwealth, when, in token of the approaching catastrophe, all ties of society were fast being dissolved. Concealing their short swords under their garments (it was from the likeness of this sword to the Roman ‘sica’ that, as Josephus tells us, they obtained their name), and mingling with the multitude, especially at the chief feasts, they stabbed whom of their enemies they would, and then, taking part with the bystanders in exclama- tions 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, avOpa- moxTovos has a special stress and emphasis of its own. It bears on its front that he to whom this 4 NEW TESTAMENT, 151 name is given is a murderer of men, a homicide : while φονεύς is capable of vaguer use, so that it would be possible to characterize a wicked man as φονεὺς τῆς εὐσεβείας, a destroyer of piety, though he made no direct attack on the lives of men, or a traitor as φονεὺς τῆς πατρίδος (Plutarch, Prec. Ger. Reip. 19); and such uses of the word are not unfrequent. ὃ XXXlv.—zrovnpds, φαῦλος. THAT which is morally evil may be contem- plated on two sides, from two points of view; either on the side of its positive malignity, its will and power to work mischief, or else on that of its negative worthlessness, and, so to speak, its good-for-nothingness. Ilovnpds contemplates evil from the former point of view, and φαῦλος from the latter. Ilovnpos, connected with πόνος and πονεῖν, has sometimes, though very rarely, a good sense, as when Hercules on account of his twelve noble toils is termed in Hesiod πονηρότατος καὶ ἄριστος. It is then equal to ἐπίπονος, by which Suidas ex- plains it. Very much oftener, however, πονηρός is not one who himself labours, but who causes labours to others; and the point of difference between it and φαῦλος, and in a measure between it and κακός, is, that in it the positive activity of evil is more decidedly expressed than in either of those. Thus ὄψον πονηρόν (Plutarch, Sept. Sap. 152 : SYNONYMS OF THE Conv. 2) is an unwholesome dish; ἄσματα πονηρά (id. Quom. Adol. Poét. 4), wanton songs, such as corrupt the minds of the young. Satan is empha- tically 6 πονηρός, as the first author of all the mischief in the world (Matt. vi. 13; Ephes. v. 16 ; cf. Luke vii. 21; Acts xix. 12); evil beasts are always θηρία πονηρά in the Septuagint (Gen. xxxvii. 33; Isai. xxxv. 9); κακὰ θηρία indeed once in the N. T. (Tit. 1. 12), but the meaning to be expressed is not precisely the same; so too the evil eye is ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός (Mark vii. 22); and compare John iii. 19; vu. 7; xvi 15. But while it is thus with πονηρός, there are words, I should suppose, in all languages, and φαῦλος is one of them, which contemplate evil under another aspect, that namely of its good-for- nothingness, the impossibility of any good ever coming forth from it. Thus ‘nequam’ (in strict- ness opposed to ‘frugi’) and ‘nequitia’ in Latin ; ‘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 recognized in ‘faul,’ ‘ foul’), which in Greek runs successively through the following meanings, light, unstable, blown about by every wind (see Donaldson, Cratylus, § 152 ; “synonymum ex levitate permutatum :’ Matthee1), 1 Graff, in his , ἀγαθωσύνη. ἅγιος ἀγνοήμα ἁγνός ἀγράμματος ἄδολος. αἴτημα 3, αἰών. ἄκακος ἀκέραιος ἁμάρτημα * ἁμαρτία. ἀμφίβληστρον. ἄνεμος > , ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἀνομία avoxy > / ἀντί. ἁπλοῦς = > , amrohuTpwots ἀρχαῖος. ΕἾ ἄσπονδος > , ἀσύνθετος ἀχρεῖος. JA ἄχρηστος βῶμος γέρων γνῶσις. δέησις δεῖ δίκτυον. δοκέω δοκιμάζω δυλόω δύναμις. ἑδραῖος. L , εἰλικρινῆς ἔνδοξον. ld ἐντευξις. > , ἐπίγνωσις. > / ἐπιθυμία εὐχαριστία. εὐχή. ζῶον. ἥττημα. 188 θηρίον θλίψις θρηνέω θυσιαστήριον. ἰδέα. ἰδιώτης. ἱερός. ἱκετηρία. ς U iAagpos . καθαρός. καινός καιρός καλὸς ΄ καπηλεύω καταλάλος. καταλλαγή. κόπτω koopos . κραιπάλη κῶμος λαλέω λαλιά λέγω. λόγος λυπέομαι μακροθυμία μάχη. μέθη. μεταμέλομαι μετανοέω μορφή μῦθος INDEX. PAGE 142 νεός 18 Ἢ οἰνοφλυγία. ὄρεξις 87 ὁρμή . ὅσιος ὩΣ ὀφείλει. 1 120 πάθος παλαιός. 154 παράβασις. 88 παράδοξον. 97 παρακοή. 1384 παρανομία 47 παράπτωμα. 185 πειράζω. 190 πενθέω 50 πνεῦμα. 890. πνοή. 34. πόλεμος. 384 πονηρός. πότος 110 πρεσβύτης. 1160 προσευχή = foe Abb, aya, ἘΠ σαγήνην ΧΊΟΝ σαρκικὸς σάρκινος 10 σημεῖον. 167 σικάριος. 44. σοφία 80 σπαταλάω 80 στενοχωρία 87 στρηνιάω 174 σχῆμα τεθεμελιωμένος τέλος. τέρας τρυφάω. v4 ὕμνος «ς , ὕπερ. ς , ὑπομονὴ φαίνομαι φαῦλος. φέρω φονεύς INDEX PAGE 185 gopew 183 φόρος 177 φρόνησις 160 φωνή. 197 χρηστότης. 146 Χρόνος 10 ψαλμός. ae Ψψιθυριστής.. 151 30 dy) 149 ὡραῖος INDEX OF OTHER WORDS. ἀδίκημα. ἀδικία Aér . alvos . ἀκήρατος ἀκήρυκτος Altare ἀνακαινόω ἀνανεόω. Anger Angst Animal . ἀνόητος. Antic Aras Archeology Astutus . ’ ἀσύνετος Atonement . Aura Benignitas . Bestia iT, Bitte . Bonitas . Canticum χρηστός. Comissatio . Crapula . Deprecatio . διαλλαγή δίκαιος. δοκίμιον. » , eihixpivera . > , ἐμμέλεια ἔπαινος .« evpvxwpia . Figura , Figure . Forma Formality . Forme Fulsomeness Glassen . Gebet Hadiwist ἁγνεία ἁγνίζω ἁπλότης. ἱλαστήριον. Hymnus Iniquitas Intercession Interpellatio Jaculum / καινολογία. , κάπηλος. καταστρηνιάω . Letitia . Legend . Little-ease . Longanimity . Luctus . λυτρωτῆς μάχομαι. μεταμέλεια. μεταμορφούμαι. μετάνοια. μετασχηματίζω INDEX. PAGE . 101 Monstrum , ὃ. Mundus Neuf. 84 Nouveau 109 Novus . 169 21 οἴνωσις. Ξ i Opportunitas . Paleology . 67 + Patientia 8 Pecco, peccatum . 4 Perseverantia . Petitio φιλοσοφία. 58 φράζω πλατυσμός. A] πλημμέλεια 48 Pcenitentia . 16 πολεμέω ᾿ Preevaricatio Precatio jg -Frodigium . a vy Pp ie opitiation 90 Prudentia . 111} ΓΝ ἸπΕΟΟπΕ- 191 Sagena . Sapientia 157 Seculum 80 σῆμα. 00 Senecta . 80 Senium , 91 Sensual, . 192 Sicarius . Simplex . Signum . Spiritus . σπονδή. Stonen . Strenuus συνθηκή. συσχηματίζω. Susurro . Tempus . Tento θαῦμα LONDON: R. CLAY, SON, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS, INDEX. . 149 Tolerantia . . 91] Transfigure. . 179 #£Transform . . 104 τρυφή 9. Turenl.. 101 16 Ventus . 9 Verbum . 90 Vetus Lah -WVox-. Sore... Webbe ~110 Weralt .. . 183 World BS2385.2 .T79 v.2 Synonyms of the New Testament. Part the ii ncet iil e il | 1 1012 00077 6106 _ 2