S i >:iii ijjilj! LIBRARY OF THE University of California. GIFT OF Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. Received October, i8g4. ^Accessions No.SZ?tf$~0 . Class No. £*&JPH / / ytS?l/*Z/£ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,; THE SUBSTANCE OF A COURSE OP LECTURES ADDRESSED TO THE THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON. 8V> 3 RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, B. D., PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON ; AUTHOR OF "STUDY OF WORDS," ETC. FKOM TH« TH1BD LONDON EDITION, K«VIf*D AND IVUJDID, J 84 BEEKMAN STREET, NEW YORK. vkjr or mi *^ Wtirsitt] &byjT> Tl yso-7 V& 01 TH* $5 [WnVBRSITYi PREFACE. This little volume lias grown out of a short course of lectures on the synonyms of the New Testament, which, in the fulfilment of my duties as Professor of Divinity at King's College, I have more than once addressed to the theological students there. It seemed to me that lectures on such a subject might help, in however partial a measure, to supply a want, of which many of the students themselves are probably conscious, of which those who have to do with their training cannot help being aware. The long, patient and exact studies in philology of our great schools and universities, which form so invaluable a portion of their mental, and, I will add, of their moral discipline also, can find no place during the two years or two years and a half of the theological course at King's College. The time itself is too short to allow this, and it is 6 PREFACE. in great part claimed by other and more pressing studies. Some, indeed, we rejoice to find, come to us possessing this knowledge in a very respectable degree already ; while of others much more than this can be said. Yet where it does not already exist, it is quite impossible that it can be more than in part supplied. At the same time we feel the loss and the deficiency ; we are sometimes conscious of it even in those who go forth from us with general theological acquirements, which would bear a fa- vourable comparison with the acquirements of those trained in older institutions. It is a matter of re- gret, when in papers admirable in all other respects, errors of inexact scholarship are to be found, which seem quite out of keeping with the amount of in- telligence, and the standard of knowledge, which every where else they display. Feeling the immense value of these studies, and how unwise it would be, because we cannot have all which we would desire, to forego what is possi- ble and within our reach, I have two or three times dedicated a brief course of lectures to the compara- tive value of words in the New Testament — and these, with some subsequent additions and some defalcations, have supplied the materials of the present volume. I have never doubted that, set- ting aside those higher and more solemn lessons, which in a great measure are out of our reach to i'ki.i aci;. 7 impart, being to be taught rather by God than men, there are few things which we should have more at heart than to awaken in our scholars an enthusiasm for the grammar and the lexicon. "We shall have done much, very much for those who come to us for theological training and generally for mental guidance, if we can persuade them to have these continually in their hands ; if we can make them believe that with these, and out of these, they may be learning more, obtaining more real and lasting acquisitions, such as will stay by them, such as will form a part of the texture of their own minds for ever, that they shall from these be more effectually accomplishing themselves for their future work, than from many a volume of divinity, studied be- fore its time, even if it were worth studying at all, crudely digested/Sand therefore turning to no true nourishment of the inner man. \ But having now ventured tb challenge for these lectures a somewhat wider audience than at first they had, it may be permitted to me to add here a very few observations on the value of the study of synonyms, not any longer considered in reference to our peculiar needs, but generally ; and on that of the synonyms of the New Testament in particu- lar ; as also on the helps to this study which are at present in existence. The value of this study as a discipline for 8 PREFACE. training the mind into close and accurate habits of thought, the amount of instruction which may be drawn from it, the increase of intellectual wealth which it may yield, all this has been implicitly recognized by well-nigh all great writers — for well- nigh all from time to time have paused, themselves to play the dividers and discerners of words — ex- plicitly by not a few who have proclaimed the value which this study had in their eyes. And in- structive as in any language it must be, it must be eminently so in the Greek — a language spoken by a people of the finest and subtlest intellect ; who saw distinctions where others saw none ; who di- vided out to different words what others often were content to huddle nnder a common term ; who were themselves singularly alive to its value, diligently cultivating the art of synonymous distinction, 1 and sometimes even to an extravagant excess ; 2 who have bequeathed a multitude of fine and delicate observations on the right distinguishing of their { own words to the after world. And while thus, with reference to all Greek, the investigation of the likenesses and differences of words appears especially invited by the charac- teristic excellences of the language, in respect to 1 The buonara Siaipelv, Plato, Laches, 197 d. * Id. Protag. 377 a b c. PREFACE. 9 the Greek of the New Testament, plainly there are reasons additional inviting ns to this study. If by it we become aware of delicate variations in an author's meaning, which otherwise we might have missed, where is it so desirable that we should not miss anything, that we should lose no finer inten- tion of the writer, than in those words which are the vehicles of the very mind of God ? If it in- creases the intellectual riches of the student, can this anywhere be of so great importance as there,\ where the intellectual may, if rightly used, prove spiritual riches as well ? If it encourage thoughtful meditation on the exact forces of words, both as they are in themselves, and in their relation to other words, or in any way unveil to us their marvel and their mystery, this can nowhere else have a worth in the least approaching that which it acquires when the words with which we have to do are, to those who receive them aright, words of eternal life ; while out of the dead carcases of the same, if men suffer the spirit of life to depart from them, all manner of corruptions and heresies may be, as they have been, bred. The words of the New Testament are eminently the o-Tot^eta of Christian theology, and he who will lot begin with a patient study of these, shall never make an;j considerable, least of all any secure, ad vances in this: for here, as everywhere else, disap- 1* 10 PREFACE. pointment awaits him who thinks to possess the whole without first possessing the parts, of which that whole is composed. Now it is the very nature and necessity of the investigation of synonyms to compel such patient investigation of the forces of words, such accurate weighing of their precise value, absolute and relative, and in this its merits as a mental discipline, consist. Yet neither in respect of Greek synonyms in general, nor specially in respect of those of the New Testament, can it be affirmed that w r e are even tolerably furnished with books. Whatever there may be to provoke occasional dissent in Doderlein's Lateinische Synonyme und Etymologieen, yet there is no book on Greek synonyms which for compass and completeness can bear comparison with it ; and almost all the more important modern languages of Europe have better books devoted to their syno- nyms than any which has been devoted to the Greek. The works of the early grammarians, as of Ammonius and others, supply a certain amount of important material, but cannot be said even remote- ly to meet the needs of the student at the present day. Yomel's Synonymisches Worterbuch, Frank- furt, 1822, an admirable little volume as far as it goes, but at the same time a school-book and no more, and Pillon's Synonymes Grecs, of which a translation into English was edited by the late TRI I 11 T. K. Arnold, London, 1850, are the only modern attempts to supply the deficiency; at least I am not aware of any other. But neither of these wri- ters has allowed himself space to enter on his sub- ject with any fulness and completeness ; while the references to the synonyms of the New Testament are exceedingly rare in Vomel ; and though some- what more frequent in Pillon's work, are capricious and accidental there, and in general of a meagre and unsatisfactory description. The only book dedicated expressly and exclu- sively to these is one written in Latin by J. A. H. Tittman, De Synonymis in JVbvo Testamento, Leip- sic, 1829, 1832. It would ill become me, and I have certainly no intention to speak slightingly of the work of a most estimable man, and of a good scholar — above all, when that work is one from which I have occasionally derived assistance, such as I most willingly acknowledge. Yet the fact that we are offering a book on the same subject as a preceding author ; and may thus lie under, or seem to others to lie under, the temptation of unduly claiming for the ground which we would occupy, that it is not occupied already ; this must not wholly shut our mouths in respect of what appear to us deficiencies or shortcomings on hie part. And this work of Tittmann's seems to me still to leave room for another on the subject of the synonyms of the 12 rUEFACE. New Testament. It sometimes travels very slowly over its ground ; the synonyms which he selects for discrimination cannot be esteemed always the most interesting, nor, which is one of the most important things of all, are they always felicitously grouped for investigation ; he often fails to bring out in sharp and clear antithesis the differences between them ; while now and then the investigations of later scholars have quite broken down the distinctions which he has sought to establish. Indeed the fact that this book of Tittmann's, despite the interest of its subject, and its standing alone upon it, not to speak of its republication in England and in English, 1 has never obtained any considerable cir- culation among students of theology here, is itself an evidence that it has not been felt to meet our wants on the matter. The work which is now offered, is, I am perfect- ly aware, but a slight contribution to the subject — small in respect of the number of synonyms con- sidered, 8 which might easily have been doubled or ^•Biblical Cabinet, vols. iii. xxxvii. Edinburgh, 1833, 1837. It must at the same time be owned that Tittmann has hardly had a fair chance. Nothing can well be imagined more incorrect and more slovenly than this translation. It is often unintelligible, where the original is perfectly clear. 2 I have not thought it worth while to dispose these synonyms in alphabetical order. The fact that only one in each pair or group, rKKFA.CE. 13 trebled ; many of the most interesting having re- mained untouched by mo ; and also, as I am pain- fully aware, with manifold deficiencies, most proba- bly with some mistakes, even in the treatment of these. The conclusions at which I have arrived may rest sometimes on too narrow an induction : it is possible that a larger knowledge would have com- pelled me to modify or forego them altogether. I can only say that I have not consciously passed over any passages which would have made against my distinction ; and that on this and any other sub- ject in the volume I shall most gladly receive in- struction and correction ; while yet, in conclusion, I will not fear to add that, with all this, the book is the result of enough of honest labour, of notices not to be found ready to hand in Wetstein, or Gro- tius, or Suicer, in German commentaries, or in lexi- cons (though I have availed myself of all these), but gathered one by one during many years, to make me feel confident that any who shall hereafter give a better and completer book on the subject, will yet acknowledge a certain amount of assistance derived from these preparatory labours. Let me only add how deeply thankful I shall can be arranged according to such law, renders the disposition nearly, if not altogether, useless. On the other hand, I have sought, by sufficient indexes, to assist the reader's references to the book. 14 PREFACE. be to Him who can alone prosper the work of our hands, if my book, notwithstanding its deficiencies and imperfections, shall be of any service to any in leading them into a closer and more accurate inves- tigation of His Word, and of the riches of wisdom and knowledge which are therein contained. Itchenstoke, May, 1854. • • CONTENTS. PAG» § i. — 'ZKK\v)arl(n, > (atria, eKeyxos) ... 81 v. — avdQt]fxa, avdOefxa 85 vi. — trpo(pr)T(v(o, jxavrcvofxat ..... 40 vii. — Ti/xwpla, K6\affis ....... 46 viii. — a\T)Qys, aAr]div6s J 48 ix. — BepdirtDV, SovAos, Zianovos, virriperrjs .... 68 x. — 5ei\loy , airrofxai, ifaAacpdw ..... 89 xviii. — iraAiyyeveffta, avaicalvwffis 92 xix. — alaxv^Vy «*8«os ....... 98 xx. — alSdos, (ruxppoavvT) ...... 102 xxi. — avpcc, €\kvu 105 xxii. — d\6K\T]pos, TtAcios 108 xxiii. — creipavos, SidSrj/JLa . . . . . . .112 xxiv. — irAeopegfa, o.\el(pa>) . . . . 182 xxxix. — 'EjSpalbr, 'Ioi/SaTos, 'Ixvos, Xafiirds . . . 219 xlvii. — X°-P is t e^os ........ 225 xlviii.— Qeotrefi-os, eucre)34]s, euAa/Jrjs, OprjaKOS, SaffiSalfxoov . 227 xlix. — Khriixa, K\a5o? 237 1. — a. xP r ) aT ° T7 l s > o-yaOuxrvvrj ..... 238 j8. 4\iris, Ttlams ...... 239 y. cx^^o-, alpeffts ...... 239 5. ixaKpoOv/jLia, Trpa6ri/}s ...... 240 €. A.oi5ope&>, fi\a . . . . . 240 £ if>t»xiKos, , but from the adjective delos. Comparing the two passages where they severally occur, we shall at once perceive the fitness of the employment of one word in one, of the other in the other. In the first (Rom. i. 20), St. Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids ; He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in His Son ; but only His divine attributes, His majesty and glory. This Theophylact feels, who gives fieyaXeiorr]^ as equivalent to deioTrj*; here ; and it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word, just because he would affirm that men may know God's power and majesty from His works ; but would Ttot imply that they may know Himself from these or from anything short of the revelation ©f His Eter- nal Word. 1 But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9), St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead ; they were no 1 Cicero (Tusc. I 13): Multi de Diis prava sentiunt; omu«i tamen esse vim et naturam divinam arbitrantur. 2 Zb SYNONYMS OF THE mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, light- ing up His person for a season and with a splendour not His own ; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God ; and the Apostle uses deorr)? to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son. Thus Beza rightly : ISTon dicit : ttjv deLoryra, i. e. divinitatem, sed ttjv OeorrjTa, i. e. deitatem, ut ma- gi s etiam expresse loquatur ; . . . rj Oeiorr)? attributa videtur potius quam naturam ipsam declarare. And Bengel : Non modo divinse virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura. De Wette has sought to express the dis- tinction in his German translation, rendering Oeiorrjs by < Gottlichkeit,' and Oeor^ by < Gottheit.' There have not been wanting those who have denied that any such distinction was intended by St. Paul ; and they rest this denial on the assump- tion that no such difference between the forces of the two words can be satisfactorily made out. Bn» even supposing that it did not appear in classic Greek, this of itself would be in no way decisive on the matter. The Gospel of Christ might for all this put into words, and again draw out from them, new forces, latent distinctions which those who hith- erto employed the words may not have required, but which were necessary for it. And that this distinction between ' deity ' and t divinity,' if I may use these words to represent severally Oeorrj? and 0ew>Ti7?, is one which would be strongly felt, and NEW TESTAMENT. 27 which therefore would seek its utterance in Chris- tian theology ; of this we have signal proof in the fact that the Latin Christian writers were not con- tent with 'divinitas,' which they found ready to their hand in the writings of Cicero and of others ; but themselves coined * deitas I as the only adequate Latin representative of the Greek Oeorrjs. We have Augustine's express testimony to the fact (De Civ. Dei, vii. 1) : Hanc divinitatem, vel ut sic dixerim deitatem ; nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant id quod illi OetJTTjra appellant, &c. Cf. x. 1, 2. But not to urge this nor yet the several etymologies of the words, which so clearly point to this difference in their meanings, examples, so far as they extend, go to support the same. Both 6e6rrj<; and OeioTrjs, as in general the abstract words in every language, are of late formation ; and one of them, Oeorrj^ is ex- tremely rare ; indeed only a single example of it from classical Greek has yet been brought forward (Lucian, Icarom. 9) ; where, however, it expresses, in agreement with the view hero affirmed. Godhead in the absolute sense, or at least in as absolute a* sense as the heathen could conceive it. OetoT^? is a very much commoner word ; and all the instances of its employment with which I am acquainted also bear out the distinction which has been here drawn. There is ever a manifestation of the divine, there 2S SYNONYMS OF THE are divine attributes, in that to which Oeiorr)? is at- tributed, but never absolute personal Deity. Thus Lucian, (De Calum. 17), attributes 0€c6t7j<; to He- phgestion, when after his death Alexander would have raised him to the rank of a god ; and Plutarch speaks of the Qeiovr)? rrjs ^vxn^ {De Plac. Phil. v. 1 ; cf. De Isid. et Osir. 2 ; Sull. 6), with various other passages to the like effect. In conclusion, it may be observed, that whether this distinction was intended, as I am fully persuaded it was, by St. Paul or not, it established itself firmly in the later theological language of the Church — the Greek Fathers using never 0€l6ttj^ but always Oeorrj^, as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of each of the Three Persons in the Trinity. § iii. — lepov, veto?. We have only in our Version the one word ' temple,' with which we render both of these ; nor is it very easy to perceive in what manner we could have indicated the distinction between them ; which is yet a very real one, and one the marking of which would often add much to the clearness and preci- sion of the sacred narrative. 'Iepov is the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, the Tepevos, in- NEW TESTAMENT. 29 eluding the outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and other buildings subordinated to the temple itself. Naos, on the other hand, from valo), 'habito,' the proper habitation of God, is the temple itself, that properly and by especial right so called, being the heart and centre of the whole ; the Holy and the Holy of Holies. This distinction, one that existed and was recognized in profane Greek and with reference to heathen temples, quite as much as in sacred Greek and with relation to the temple of the true God (see Herodotus, i. 181, 183), is one, I be- lieve, always assumed in all passages relating to the temple at Jerusalem, alike by Josephus, by Philo, by the Septuagint translators, and in the New Testament. Often indeed it is explicitly recognized, as by Josephus, (Antt. viii. 3. 9), who, having described the building of the vaos by Solo mon, goes on to say ; Naov 8' eljcoOev lepbv cpKoho^ir)- aev iv rerpaycova) ay^^ari. In another passage (Antt. xi. 4. 3), he describes the Samaritans as seek- ing permission of the Jews to be allowed to share in the rebuilding of God's house (avyKaraa-Kevdaac rbv vaov). This is refused them (cf. Ezra iv. 2) ; but, according to his account, it was permitted to them afa/cvovfiepoL? ek to lepbv aefteLV rbv Qeov — a privilege denied to mere Gentiles, who might not, under penalty of death, pass beyond their own Court (Acts xxi. 29, 30). 30 SYNONYMS OF THE. The distinction may be brought to bear with advantage on several passages in the New Testa- ment. When Zacharias entered into " the terwple of the Lord " to burn incense, the people who wait- ed his return, and who are described as standing " without " (Luke i. 10), were in one sense in the temple too, that is the lepov, while he alone entered into the vao$, the c temple ' in its more limited and auguster sense. We read continually of Christ teaching f in the temple ' (Matt. xxvi. 55 ; Luke xxi. 37 ; John viii. 20) ; and perhaps are at a loss to understand how this could have been so ; or how long conversations could there have been maintain- ed, without interrupting the service of God. But this is ever the iepov, the porches and porticoes of which were eminently adapted to such purposes, as they were intended for them. So too the money changers, the buyers and sellers, with the sheep and oxen whom the Lord drives out, He repels them from the lepov, and not from the vaos. Irreve- rent as was their intrusion, they yet had not dared to establish themselves in the temple properly so called (Matt. xxi. 23 ; John ii. 14). On the other hand, when we read of another Zacharias slain " between the temple and the altar " (Matt, xxiii. 35), we have only to remember that ' temple ' is vaos here, at once to get rid of a difficulty, which may perhaps have presented itself to many — this, NEW TESTAMENT. 31 namely, Was not the altar in the temple? how then could any locality be described as between these two ? In the lepoi/, doubtless, the brazen altar to which allusion is here made was, but not in the vaos, " in the court of the house of the Lord " (cf. Josephus, Antt. viii. 4. 1), where the sacred histo- rian (2 Chron. xxiv. 21) lays the scene of this mur- der, but not in the house of the Lord, or 1/1*09 itself. Again, how vividly does it set forth to us the despair and defiance of Judas, that he presses even into the vao<; (Matt, xxvii. 5), into that which was set apart for the priests alone, and there casts down before them the accursed price of blood ! Those expositors who affirm that here rao? stands for lepov, should adduce some other passage in which the one is put for the other. § iv. — iiriTL/jida}, eXey^o). {alria, eXey^o?.) One may ' rebuke ' another without bringing the rebuked to a conviction of any fault on his part ; and this, either because there was none, and the rebuke was therefore unneeded or unjust ; or else because, though there was such fault, the re- buke was ineffectual to bring the offender to own it ; and in this possibility of * rebuking ' for sin, 32 SYNONYMS OF THE without * convincing ' of sin, lies the distinction be- tween these two words. In iirtrifiav lies simply the notion of rebuking; which word can therefore be used of one unjustly checking or blaming another ; in this sense Peter ' rebuked ' Jesus {fip^aro iirir^ fiav, Matt. xvi. 22 ; cf. xix. 13 ; Luke xviii. 39) : — or ineffectually and without any profit to the person rebuked, who is not therefore made to see his sin ; as when the penitent thief i rebuked ' (eVert/za) his fellow malefactor (Luke xxiii. 40 ; cf. Mark ix. 25). But e\e yjpncrd- fievos \6y

v av eiirv rt?, ical rdXr]6e^ ofiov Sei^rj. Compare Aristotle, Rhet. ad Alex. 13 : "EXeyxps ecrrc fiev b fir) hvvarov aXXcos €X eLV *&V ovroos, co? ridels Xiyofiev. By our serviceable distinction be- tween ' convict ' and ' convince ' we maintain a dif- ference between the judicial and the moral eXey^o?. Both will meet together in the last day, when every condemned sinner will be at once ' convicted ' and ' convinced ; ' all which is implied in that " he was speechless " of the guest who was found by the king without a marriage garment (Matt. xxii. 12 ; cf. Rom. iii. 4). NEW TESTAMENT. 35 § v. — avddrjfjia, avdde^ia. Many would deny that there is any room foi synonymous discrimination in respect of these two words, affirming them to be merely different spell- ings of the same word, and promiscuously used ; which if it were the fact, their fitness for a place in a book of synonyms would of course disappear; difference as well as likeness being necessary for this. This much, indeed, of what they affirm is perfectly true — namely, that dvdOr]p.a and dvadepui, like evpr)fjLa and evpefxa^ iiridrj/jLa and MfefM, must severally be regarded as having been at first only different pronunciations, which issued in different spellings, of one and the same word. But it is cer- tain that nothing is more common than for slightly different orthographies of the 6ame word finally to settle and resolve themselves into different words, with different provinces of meaning which they have severally appropriated to themselves ; and which henceforth they maintain in perfect inde- pendence one of the other. I have elsewhere given a considerable number of examples of the kind ; and a very few may here suffice : dpdaos and 6dpcro v7T€p Xpta-rov : where the context plainly shows the meaning to be, we have become a costly offering to God; but explicitly recognising and drawing out the difference with accuracy and precision. See, for instance, Chrysostom, Horn. xvi. in JRom., as quoted in Suicer's Thesaurus, s. v. avdOefjua. And thus, putting all which has been urged to- gether, — the d priori probability, drawn from simi- lar phenomena in all languages, that the two forms of a word would gradually have two different mean- ings attached to them ; the wondrous way in which the two aspects of dedication to God are thus set out by slightly different forms of the same word; the fact that every place in the New Testament, where the words occur, falls in with this scheme ; the usage, though not perfectly consistent, of later 40 SYNONYMS OF THE ecclesiastical books, — I cannot bnt conclude that avadrj/xa and avdOefia are employed not accidentally by the sacred writers of the New Covenant in dif- ferent senses ; but that St. Luke uses dvddrjfjLa, be- cause he intends to express that which is dedicated to God for its own honour as well as for God's glory ; St. Paul uses avdOe/jua, because he intends that which is devoted to God, but devoted, as were the Canaanites of old, to his honour indeed, but its own utter loss ; even as in the end every intelligent being, capable of knowing and loving God, must be either dvddrjfjLa or dvdOefia to Him. (See Wit- sius, Misc. Sac. vol. ii. p. 54, sqq. ; Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. ii. p. 495, sqq.) § vi. — irpotyrjTevco, fiavrevofiai. npoep6fJL€vo<; (2 Pet. i. 21), which is very much more than ' moved,' as we have rendered it ; rather ' getrieben,' as De "Wette ; and we must not go so far in our opposition to heathen and Mon- tanist error as to deny this, which some, especially of those engaged in controversy with the Montanists, have done. But then he is not beside himself ; he is lifted above, not thus set beside, his every-day self. It is not discord and disorder, but a higher harmo- ny, a diviner order, that is introduced into his soul ; so that he is not as one overborne in the region of his lower life by forces stronger than his own, by an insurrection from beneath ; but his spirit is lift- ed out of that region into a clearer atmosphere, a diviner day, than any in which at other times it is permitted him to breathe. All that he before had still remains his, only purged, exalted, quickened, by a power higher than his own, but yet not alien to his own ; for man is most truly man, when he is most filled with the fulness of God.' Even within 1 See John Smith, the Cambridge Platonist, On Prophecy : ch. 4. NEW TESTAMENT. 45 the sphere of heathenism itself, the superior digni- ty of the TTpocfryJTT)? to the fidinc? was recognised ; and recognised on these very grounds. Thus there is a well known and often cited passage in the Ti- mceus of Plato (71 e, 72 a, b), where exactly for this reason, that the iluvtls is one in whom the powers of the understanding are suspended, who, according to the derivation of the word, more or less rages, the line is drawn broadly and distinctly between him and the 7t/oo0?;t7;?, the former is subordinated to the latter, and his utterances only allowed to pass after they have received the seal and approbation of the other. The truth which the best heathen philosophy had a glimpse of here, was permanently embodied in the Christian Church in the fact that, while it assumed the Trpofareveiv to itself, it ascribed the fiavreveadat to that heathenism which it was about to displace and overthrow. The difference of the true prophetical Spirit from an enthusiastical Imposture. 46 SYNONYMS OF THE § vii. — TificopLd, KoXaais. Of these words the former occurs but once in the New Testament (Heb. x. 29), and the latter only twice (Matt. xxv. 46 ; 1 John iv. 18). In rifAwpia, according to its classical use, the vindicative charac- ter of the punishment is the predominant thought : it is the Latin * ultio ; ' punishment as satisfying the innicter's sense of outraged justice, as defending his own honour, or that of the violated law ; herein its meaning agrees with its etymology, being from rifiy, and ovpos, opdco, the guardianship or protectorate of honour. In /coXaais, on the other hand, is more the notion of punishment as it has reference to the cor- rection and bettering of him that endures it ; it is 1 castigatio,' and has naturally for the most part a milder use than TLficapia. Thus we find Plato (Protag. 323 e), joining /coXdaeLS and vovOerrjae^ together : and the whole passage to the end of the chapter is eminently instructive as to the distinction between the words : ovSeU KoXd^ei tou? dhucovvras; on rjBi/CTjaev, octtis /jltj (oarrep Orjptop aXoyioT&S ti- fAcopeirai, . . . dXka tov fieWovros %dpiv, tva firj avdi? dSiicrjcrr) : the same change of the words which he employs, occurring again twice or thrice in the sentence. Compare an instructive chapter in Cle- NEW TESTAMENT. 47 mens of Alexandria, Strom, iv. 24. And this is Aristotle's distinction (lihet. i. 10) : haepei he t*- fMcopla teal KoXaaw rj [xev yap K6Xa?, aXrjdtvb? 7toi/to?, would say that 3 50 SYNONYMS OF THE it alone realized to the full the idea of the great ocean deep ; cf. Pol. i. 347 d : 6 tg3 ovtl aXrjOivos apywv. We should frequently miss the exact force of the word, we should, indeed, find ourselves en- tangled in many and serious embarrassments, if we understood it necessarily as the true opposed to the false. Rather it is very often the substantial as opposed to the shadowy and outlinear ; as Origen (in Joan. torn. ii. § 4) has well expressed it : aXrjOivbs, Trpos avTihiaaToKrjv ovaa? teal tvttov teal el/eovos. Thus, at Heb. viii. 2, mention is made of the aicTjvr) aXrjOcvrj into which our great High Priest entered ; which, of course, does not imply that the tabernacle in the wilderness was not also most truly pitched at God's bidding, and according to the pattern which he had shown; but only that it, and all things in it, were weak earthly copies of things which had a real and glorious existence in heaven {avrlrcvTra t&v aXnOivcov) ; the passing of the Jewish High Priest into the Holy of Holies, with all else pertaining to the worldly sanctuary, being but the i/o-?}? 6 BovXo? rov Qeov. From the fact that the Septuagint translates the same Hebrew word, now by 8ov\o$, now by 6epd7rcov, it will not follow that there is no difference between the words ; nor yet that there may not be occasions when the one would be far more appropriately employed than the other ; but only that there are other occasions which do not require the bringing out into promi- nence of that which constitutes the difference be- tween them. And such real difference there is. The SovXoq (opposed to ikevdepos, Rev. xiii. 16 ; xix. 18 ; Plato, Gorg. 502 d) is one in a permanent rela- tion of servitude to another, and that, altogether apart from any ministration to that other at the present moment rendered ; but the Oepdircov is the 54 SYNONYMS OF THE performer of present services without respect to the fact whether as a freeman or a slave he renders them ; and thus, as will naturally follow, there goes constantly with the word the sense of one whose services are tenderer, nobler, freer than those of the BovXos. In the verb Oepcnrevew (' curare '), as distinguished from Sovkevecv, and connected with 6 faveo,' * foveo,' OdXira), the nobler and more careful character of the service comes still more strongly out. It may be used of the physician's watchful tendance of the sick, man's service of God, and is beautifully applied by Xenophon (Mem. iv. 3. 9) to the care which the gods have of men. Thus Achil- les, in Homer, styles Patroclus his Oepdirtov {II. xvi. 244), one whose service was not constrained, but the officious ministration of love. Merioneus is Oepdircov to Idomeneus (xxiii. 113), and all the Greeks are Oepdirovre? "Aprjos (ii. 110 and often). So too in Plato (Symp. 203 c) Eros is styled the dicoXovOos Kal Oepdiraiv of Aphrodite. With all which agrees the definition of Iiesychius : oi iv hevrepa rd^et, l\ol ; of Ammonius : oi viroreray pi- vot, 6/3os as a iraOos, admitted evkd^eta into the circle of virtues. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 116 : rrjv he €v\d(3eiav [evavriav (f>aalv elvac] to3 <£o/3g), ovaav evXoyov eKKkiaiv o/3r)dtfa€a0cu fiev yap rbv 6v ovSa/jLtos, evXafirjOtfaeadat, 8e. It is joined to irpovoia by Plutarch, Marc. 9 ; and set over against Opdcros by Demosthenes, 517. § xi. — Kafcla, 7rovr]pla, KaKor)6eta. We are probably at first inclined to regard icaicia in the New Testament as expressing the whole complex of moral evil, as vice in general ; and in this latitude no doubt it is often used. Thus, dpera) NEW TESTAMENT. 61 Kai Kaiciai are ' virtues and vices ' (Aristotle, jRhet. ii. 12 ; Plutarch, Conj. Prcec. 25, and continually) ; while Cicero (Tusc. iv. 15) refuses to translate tca/cia by ' malitia,' choosing rather to coin * vitiositas ' for the occasion, giving this as his reason : Nam mali- tia certi cujusdam vitii nomen est, vitiositas om- nium ; showing plainly that in his eye fcct/cla was the name Tiot of one vice, but of all. Yet a little consideration of the passages in which it occurs in the New Testament, must make evident that it is not there so used ; for then we should not find it as one in a long catalogue of sins (Eom. i. 29 ; Col. iii. 8) ; seeing that in it alone the others would all have been contained. We must therefore seek for it a more special meaning, and bringing it into compari- son with 7rop7jpla, we shall not err in saying that KaKia is more the evil habit of mind, Trovqpia rather the outcoming of the same. Thus Calvin says of icaicia (Eph. iv. 32) : Signilicat hoc verbo [Aposto- lus] animi jM*avitatem quae humanitati et sequitati est opposita, et malignitas vulgo nuncupatur. Our English translators, rendering Katcla so often by 1 malice ' (Eph. iv. 32 ; 1 Cor. v. 8 ; xiv. 20 ; 1 Pet. ii. 1), show that they regarded it in the same light. But the 7rov7)p6<; is, as Hesychius calls him, 5 Bpao-THcbs rod tca/cov, the active worker out of evil ; the German ' Bosewicht,' or as Beza (Annott. in 62 SYNONYMS OF TIIK Matt. v. 37) lias drawn the distinction : Significat TTQVT)p6s aliquid amplius quam /catcos, nempe euin qui sit in onmi scelere exercitatus, et ad injur iam cuivis inferendam totus comparatus. He is, accord- ing to the derivation of the word, 6 irapexcov ttovovs, or one that, as we say, " puts others to trouble ; " and TTovripla is the cupiditas nocendi ; or as Jeremy Taylor explains it : " aptness to do shrewd turns, to delight in mischiefs and tragedies ; a loving to trouble our neighbour and to do him ill offices; crossness, perverseness, and peevishness of action in our intercourse" {Doctrine and Practice of Repentance^ iv. 1). If the kcucos is opposed to the dyados, and the auA.ot,\ico. We have not, I believe, in any case attempted to discriminate between these two words in oui English Yersion. It would not have been easy, perhaps not possible to have done it ; and yet there is often a difference between them, one very well worthy to have been noted, if this had lain within the compass of our language ; and which makes the two words to stand very much in the same rela- tion to one another as ' diligo ' and ' amo ' in the Latin. It may be worth our while to realize to ourselves the exact distinction between these two Latin w T ords, as it will help us much to understand that which exists between those which are the more immediate object of our inquiry. We have here abundant help from Cicero, who often sets the words in a certain instructive antithesis one to the other. Thus, writing to one friend of the affection in which he holds another (Ep. Fam. xiii. 47) : Ut scires ilium a me non diligi solum, vcrum etiam amari ; and again (Ad Brut 1): L. Clodius valde 66 SYNONYMS OF THE me diligit, vel, ut ificjxiTi/cwTepov dicam, valde me amat. From these and various other passages to the same effect (there is an ample collection of them in Doderlein's Latein. Synonyme, vol. iv. p. 98 sq.), we might conclude that ' amare,' which corresponds to iXeia0aL. The first expresses a more rea- soning attachment, of choice and selection (diligere «== deligere), from seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard ; or else from a sense that such was fit and due toward the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or NEW TESTAMENT. 67 the like ; while the second, without being necessa- rily an unreasoning attachment, does yet oftentimes give less account of itself to itself; is more instinct- ive, is more of the feelings, implies more passion ; thus Dion Cass. 44 : i^cX^aare avrov &>? irarepa, koX r]yairr)aare o>9 evepyeriju. From this last fact it fol- lows, that when the iXeiv is attributed to a person of one sex in regard to one of another, it generally implies the passion of love, and is seldom employed, but rather ayairav, where such is not intended. Take as an example of this the use of the two words in John xi. The sisters of Bethany send to Jesus to announce that His friend Lazarus is sick (ver. 3) : no misunderstanding is here possible, and the words therefore run thus: bv t,\el<; daOevel: cf. ver. 36. But where the Saviour's affection to the sisters themselves is recorded, St. John at once changes the word, which, to unchaste ears at least, might not have sounded so well, and instead of cf)t- Xelv, expresses himself thus: rjydira he. 6 'Irjcrovs ttjv Mdpdav, k. t. X. (ver. 5). We have an instruct- ive example of the like variation between the two words, and out of the same motives, at Wisd. viii. 2, 3. At the same time the CXeZv is not unusual to express the affection between persons of different sexes, and this where no passion, no epw, honour- able or dishonourable, is intended, if the case be one where nearness of blood at once, and of itself lu 68 SYNONYMS OF THE precludes the supposition of such, as that of a brother to a sister. See, for instance, Xenophon, Mem. ii. 7, 9, 11, a very useful passage in respect of the relation in which the two words stand to one another, and which shows us how the notions of respect and reverence are continually implied in the aycnrav, which, though of course not excluded by, are still not involved in, the Ckelv. Out of this which has been said it may be explained, that while men are continually bidden ayairav rbv Oeov (Matt. xxii. 37 ; Luke x. 27 ; 1 Cor. viii. 3), and good men declared to do so (Rom. viii. 28 ; 1 Pet i. 8 ; 1 John iv. 21), the fyikelv tov Geov is com- manded to them never. The Father, indeed, both ayaira tov Tlov (John iii. 35), and also (f>Ckel tov Tlov (John v. 20) ; with the first of which statements such passages as Matt. iii. 17, with the second, as John i. 18 ; Prov. viii. 22, 30, may be brought into connexion. In almost all these passages of the "New Testa- ment, the Yulgate, by the help of 'diligo' and 1 amo,' has preserved and marked the distinction, which in each case we have been compelled to let go. It is especially to be regretted that at John xxi. 15 — 17 we have not been able to retain it, for the alternations there are singularly instructive, and if we would draw the whole meaning of the pas- sage forth, must not escape us unnoticed. On occa- NEW TESTAMENT. 69 sion of that threefold "Lovest thou Me?" which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, ayaira<; yue ; At this moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beat- ing with an earnest affection toward his Lord, this word on that Lord's lips sounds too cold ; not suffi- ciently expressing the warmth of his personal affec- tion toward Him. Besides the question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (ver. 17), there is an addi- tional pang in the form which the question takes, sounding as though it were intended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep him there ; or at least as not permitting him to ap- proach so near to Him as fain he would. He there- fore in his answer substitutes for it the word of a more personal love, cpikco ae (ver. 15). When Christ repeats the question in the same words as at the first, Peter in his reply again substitutes his L\a) for the aycnra*; of his Lord (ver. 16). And now at length he has conquered ; for when the third time his Master puts the question to him, He does it with the word which Peter feels will alone express all that is in his heart, and instead of the twice repeated ayanra^^ his word is (fnXel^s now (ver. 17). The question, grievous in itself to Peter, as seeming to imply a doubt in his love, is not any longer made more griev- ous still, by the peculiar shape which it as- 70 SYNONYMS OF THE surnes. ' All this subtle and delicate play of feeling disappears perforce, where the variation in the words nsed is incapable of being reproduced. Let me observe in conclusion that e'/oo)?, ipav, ipao-TT]^ never occur in the New Testament, but the two latter occasionally in the Old ; ipaar^ generally in a dishonourable sense (Ezek. xvi. 33 ; Hos. ii. 5) ; yet once or twice (as "Wisd. viii. 2 ; Prov. iv. 6) in a more honourable meaning, not as 'amasius,' but 'amator.' A word or two on the causes of this their significant absence may here find place. In part, no doubt, the explanation of this absence is, that these words by the corrupt use of the world had become so steeped in earthly sen- sual passion, carried such an atmosphere of this about them, that the truth of God abstained from the defiling contact with them ; yea, found out a new word for itself rather than betake itself to one of these. For it should never be forgotten that the substantive aydirr) is purely a Christian word, no example of its use occurring in any heathen writer whatever; the utmost they attained to here was , diligere, judicii. NEW TESTAMENT. 71 esting discussion on the subject, Prol. in Cant. vol. iii. pp. 28 — 30. But the reason may lie deeper than this. "Epo)?, like so many other words, might have been assumed into nobler uses, might have been consecrated anew r despite of the deep degradation of its past history ; l and there were beginnings al- ready of this, in the Platonist use of the word, as the longing and yearning love after that unseen but eternal Beauty, the faint vestiges of which may here be everywhere traced. 8 But in the very fact that e/)6t>9 did express this yearning love (in Plato's exquisite mythus, Symp. 203 b, "Epcos is the child of Ilevla), lay the real unfitness of the word to set forth that Christian love, which is not merely the sense of need, of emptiness, of poverty, with the 1 On the attempt which some Christian writers have made to distinguish between • amor' and ' dilectio' or 'caritas,' see Augus- tine, Be Civ. Dei, xiv. 7 : Nonnulli arbitrantur aliud esse dilectio- nem sive caritatem, aliud amorem. Dicunt enim dilectionem acci- piendam esse in bono, amorem in malo. He shows, by many ex- amples of 'dilectio' and 'diligo' used in an ill sense in the Latin Scriptures, of ' amor ' and ' amo ' in a good, the impossibility of maintaining any such distinction. a I cannot regard as a step in this direction the celebrated words of Ignatius, Ad Rom. 7 : & tfibs tpws laravpunu. It is far more consistent with the genius of these Ignatian Epistles to take tpoas subjectively here; "My love of the world is crucified," i. e. with Christ* rather than objectively : u Christ, the object of my love, is crucified." 72 SYNONYMS OF THE longing after fulness, not the yearning after an in- visible Beauty ; but a love to God and to man, which is the consequence of a love from God, al- ready shed abroad in the hearts of His people. The mere longing and yearning, which epa>? at the best would imply, has given place since the Incar- nation to the love which is not in desire only, but also in possession. § xiii. — daXaaaa^ rriXayo?. GdXaaaa, like the Latin ' mare,' is the sea as contrasted with the land (Gen. i. 10 ; Matt, xxiii. 15 ; Acts iv. 24). UeXayo?, closely allied with 7r\af , 7r\aTu?, ' flat,' is the level uninterrupted ex- panse of open water, the c altum mare,' 1 as distin- guished from those portions of it broken by islands, shut in by coasts and headlands. Hippias, in Plato's Gorgias (338 a), charges the eloquent soph- ist, Prodicus, with a fevyeiv et? to TreXayo? rcov 1 It need not be observed that, adopted into Latin, it has the same meaning : Ut pelagus tenuere rates, nee jam amplius ulla Occurrit tellus, maria undique et undique coelum. Virgil, jEn. v. 8, 9. NEW TESTAMENT. 73 \6ytov, airoKpirfyavja yfjv. 1 Breadth, and not depth, save as quite an accessory notion, and as that which will probably find place in this open sea, lies in the word. Thus the murmuring Isarelites, in Philo ( Vit. Mos. 35), liken to a irekayo^ the illimitable sand-flats of the desert ; and in Herodotus (ii. 92), the Nile overflowing Egypt is said irekayi&w ra ireZia, which yet it does not cover beyond the depth of a few feet. A passage which illustrates well the distinction between the words, occurs in the Timceus of Plato (25 a, 5), where the title of ireXayos is re- fused to the Mediterranean sea ; that is but a har- bour, with the narrow entrance between the Pillars of Hercules for its mouth ; only the great Atlantic Ocean beyond can be acknowledged as akijOcvos 7rcWoalverac Kara ra? To?, which indeed does not itself occur in the ]STew Testament, being connected with fiddos, /36V0OS, perhaps the same word as this last, and im- plying the sea in its perpendicular depth, as ireXa- 70? (cequor maris), the same in its horizontal dimen- sions and extent. § xiv. — a/cXnpos, avarnpos. In the parable of the Talents (Matt, xxv.), the slothful servant charges his master with being a/cXrjpos, " an hard man " (ver. 24) ; while in the corresponding parable of St. Luke it is avo-Tvpos, " an austere man " (xix. 21), which he accuses him of being. It follows that the words are to a certain degree interchangeable ; but not that their mean- ings run exactly parallel throughout. They will be found, on the contrary, very capable of discrimina- tion and distinction, however the distinction may not affect the interpretation of these parables. ^tcXijpos, derived from a/ceXXa), o-fcXrjvai,, 'arefa- cio,' is properly an epithet expressing that which through lack of moisture is hard and dry, and thus NEW TESTAMENT 75 rough and disagreeable to the toucn; nay more, waited and intractable. It is then transferred to the region of ethics, in which is by far its most fre- quent use ; and where it expresses the roughness, harshness, and intractability in the moral nature of a man. Thus it is an epithet applied to Nabal (1 Sam. xxv. 3), and no other could better express the evil condition of the churl. Looking to the com- pany which o-fcXrjpos keeps, w r e find it commonly associated with such words as the following : a£%- Mpos (Plato, Symp. 195 d) ; avrirvn-os (T/iecet. 155 a) ; ay p lo$ (Aristotle, Ethic, iv, 8) ; Plutarch (Cons, ad Apoll. 3) ; arpeizro'; (Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 64, 117) ; 7rov7)p6<; (1 Sam. xxv. 3). It is set over against 6vt)6lk6^ (Plato, Charm. 175 d); paXcuco? (Protag. 331 d) ; p,a\6aic6<; (Symp. 195 d). Av associated, is there that deep moral per- versity which lies in those with which o-fcXwpd? is linked ; and, moreover, it is met not seldom in more honourable company ; thus it is joined with crcocfrpwv continually (Plutarch, Conj. Prcec. vii. 29 ; Qucest. Gr. 40) ; while the Stoics were wont to affirm all good men to be avarwpoi (Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 64, 117) I teal avaTrjpovs 8e ? enrovhaiovs ra> firjre avrovs 7rpo? rjSovrjv Sfiikeiv, fjbijTe irap dXkcou rd irpos rj&ovrjv irpoahe^eaOai. In Latin 'austerus' is predominantly an epithet of 1 In Plutarch this word is used in an ill sense, as self-willed, 'eigensinnig;' being one of the many, in all languages, which, be- ginning with a good sense (Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. iv. 7), ended with a bad. NKW TESTAMENT. 77 honour (Doderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. iii. p. 232). The ' austcrus \ is one of an earnest, severe charac- ter, opposed to all levity ; needing, it may very well be, to watch against harshness, rigour, or morose- ness, into which his character might easily degene- rate (non austeritas ejus tristis, non dissoluta sit comitas, Quintilian, ii. 2. 5), but as yet not charged with these. We may distinguish, then, between o-Kkrjpos and avo-TTjpos thus : o-fe\r)p6$, applied to any, conveys always a reproach and a severe one, indicates a character harsh, inhuman, and (in the earlier use of the word) uncivil ; avo-njpo^, on the contrary, does not always convey a reproach at all, any more than the German i streng,' which is very different from ' hart ; ' and even where it does, yet one of com- paratively a milder and less opprobrious description. § xv. — eltCGiv, 6/jloi(o/xa might often be used as equivalent, and in many po- sitions it would be indifferent whether of the two were employed. Thus they are convertibly used by Plato {Phcedr. 250 5), o/xoKo^ara and el/coves alike, to set forth the earthly patterns and resem- blances of the archetypal things in the heavens. "When, however, the Church found it necessary to raise up bulwarks against Arian error and Arian equivocation, it drew a strong distinction between these words, one not arbitrary, but having essential difference for its ground. EUcop (== imago, imita- go) always supposes a prototype, that which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn. It is the German ' Abbild,' which invariably presumes a ' Yorbild ; ' Gregory Nazianzene, Orat. 36 : avrrj yap el/covos o-tcrt?, or their Hebrew NEW TESTAMENT. 83 originals, I think we may be bold to say that the whole history of man, not only in his original crea- tion, but also in his after restoration and reconstitu- tion in the Son, is significantly wrapped up in this double statement; which is double for this very cause, that the Divine Mind did not stop at the contemplation of his first creation, but looked on to him as " renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him " (Col. iii. 10) ; because it knew that only as partaker of this donble benefit would he attain the true end for which he was made. § xvi. — aacoTia, aaekyeia. The man who is aTo?, it is little likely that he will not be aaeXyrjs also ; and yet dawria and daek- yeia are not identical in meaning ; they will express different aspects of his sin, or at any rate contem- plate it from different points of view. And first daeoTia, a word in which heathen ethics said much more than they intended or knew. It occurs thrice in the Eew Testament (Eph. v. 18 ; Tit. i. 6 ; 1 Pet. iv. 4) ; once only in the Septuagint (Prov. xxviii. 7). Besides this we have the adverb acrwTO)?, Luke xiv. 13 ; and acrtwro? once in the Sep- tuagint, Prov. vii. 11. At Eph. v. 18 we translate 84 SYNONYMS OF THE it f excess ; ' in the other two places, ' riot,' as the £a>v aacoTcos, i in riotous living;' the Yulgate al- ways by ' luxuria ' and ' luxuriose,' words which, it is hardly needful to observe, imply in Latin much more of loose and profligate living than our ' luxu- ry ' and ' luxuriously ' do now. The word is some- times taken in a passive sense, as though it were ao-coo-To?, one who cannot be saved, aco&o-dab fxrj 8wd/jL€vos, as Clement of Alexandria (Pcedag. ii. 1) expressly explains it, = l perditus,' ' heillos,' or as we used to say, a \ losel.' Grotins : Genus hominum ita immersorum vitiis, ut eorum salus deplorata sit; the word being, so to speak, prophetic of their doom to whom it was applied. ! This, however, was quite its rarer use ; more commonly the aacoTos is not one who cannot be saved, but who cannot him- self save, or spare ; = ' prodigus,' or, again to use a good old English word which we have now let go, a ' scattering.' Aristotle notes that this, a too great prodigality in the use of money, is the ear- 1 Thus, in the Adelphi of Terence (iv. 7), one having spoken of a youth 'luxu perditwn,' proceeds: ' Ipsa si cupiat Salus, bervare prorsus non potest hanc familiam. No doubt in the Greek original from which Terence translated this comedy, there was a play here on the word &w- fievo) opei). Many interpreters have seen allusion in these words to Ps. civ. 32 : " He toucheth the hills and they smoke ; " and to the fact that, at the giving of the Law, God did descend upon mount Sinai, which " was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it " (Exod. xix. 18). But, not to say that in such case we should expect a perfect, as in the following tce/cavfjievq), still more decisively against this is the fact that yfr^Xa^dco is never used in the sense of so handling an object as 90 SYNONYMS OF THE to exercise a moulding, modifying influence upon it, but only to indicate a feeling of its surface (Luke xxiv. 39 ; 1 John i. 1) ; often sucli a feeling as is made with the intention of learning its composition (Gen. xxvii. 12, 21, 22) ; while not seldom the word signifies no more than a feeling for or after an ob- ject, without any actual coming in contact with it at all. It is used continually to express a groping in the dark (Job v. 14), or of the blind (Isa. lix. 10 ; Gen. xxvii. 12 ; Deut. xxviii. 29 ; Judg. xvi. 26) ; and tropically, Acts xyii. 27 ; with which we may compare Plato, Phced. 99 b : -tyrjkao)VT6<; coairep iv cncorei. The ■^rjXacpco/jLevov opos, in this passage, is beyond a doubt the ? mons palpabilis : ' " Ye are not come," the Apostle would say, ff to any material mountain, like Sinai, capable, as such, of being touched and handled ; not in this sense, to the mountain that may be felt, but to the heavenly Jeru- salem," to a votjtov opos, and not to an aludrjTov. The so handling of any object as to exert a modifying influence upon it, the French ' manier,' as distinguished from ' toucher,' the German < betas- ten,' as distinguished from 'beriihren,' would be either airreadai l or diyyavew. Of these the first is stronger than the second ; airreaOai (== \ con- 1 In the passage alluded to already, Ps. civ. 32, tne words of the Septuagint are, 6 airrS/xeyos ruv opecov, Kal KairvtCovrcu. NEW TESTAMENT. 91 trectare'), than Oiyydvew (Ps. civ. 15 ; 1 John v. 18), as appears plainly in a passage of Xenophon (Cyrop. i. 3. 5), where the child Cyrus, rebuking his grand- father's delicacies, says : on ae opco, orav fiev rod dprov dyjrrj^ et? irdvv axdofievo?. Our Yersion, then, has just reversed the true order of the words, when, at Col. ii. 21, it translates firj a-tyy, p,r)8e yevo-rj, firj&e #47779, " Touch not, taste not, handle not." The first and last prohibitions should, in our Eng- lish, just have changed their places, and the pas- sage should stand, " Handle not, taste not, touch not." How much more strongly will then come out the ever ascending scale of superstitious pro- hibition among the false teachers at Colosse. 1 Handle not ' is not sufficient ; they forbid to ' taste ■ and, lastly, even to touch those things from which, according to their notions, unclean- ness might be derived. Beza well : Verbum QLyeiv a verbo airreaOai, sic est distinguendum, ut decres- cente semper oratione intelligatur crescere super- stitio. 92 SYNONYMS OF THE § xviii. — irdkiyyeveaia, avaicalvoaaLS. 'Avayevvrjo-is, a word frequent enough in the Greek Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. s. v.), no where occurs in the New Testament ; although the verb avayewdco twice (1 Pet. i. 13, 23). Did we meet avaykvvT)s had at that time the same duplicity of meaning as is latent in the Latin 'pudor,' in our own * shame.' Thus in Homer alcrxyvq never occurs, while sometimes, as II. v. 787, at'&fc is used on occasions when ala-^vvrj would, in later Greek, have necessarily been employed : elsewhere Homer employs ai&o? in that sense which, at a later period, it vindicated as exclusively its own. And even Thucydifles (i. 84), in a difficult and doubtful passage where both words occur, is by many considered to have employed them as equi- pollent and convertible. Generally, however, in the Attic period of the language, the words were not accounted synonymous. Ammonius formally distinguishes them in a philological, as the Stoics in an ethical, interest ; and almost every passage in which either word occurs is an evidence of the real difference existing between them. Yet the distinction has not always been quite successfully seized. Thus it has been sometimes said that alSdx; is the shame which hinders one from doing a disho- nourable thing ; ala^umj is the disgrace, outward or inward, which follows on having done it (Luke xiv. 9). This distinction, while it has its truth, is yet not an exhaustive one ; and if we were thereupon to assume that alcr^vvq was thus only retrospective, the consequence of things unworthily done, it would 100 SYNONYMS OF THE be an erroneous one ; l for it would be abundantly easy to show that ala^vvn is continually used to ex- press that feeling which leads to shun what is un- worthy out of a prospective anticipation of disho- nour. Thus one definition (Plat. Def. 416) makes it kcuccov, 7) irapovTcoVj rj jeyovorcov, rj fieWovrcov. In this sense as ' fuga dedecoris ' it is used Ecclus. iv. 21 ; by Plato, Gorg. 492 a; by Xenophon, Andb. iii. 1. 10. In this last passage, which runs thus, ? oi iroXKol St' ala^vvrjv teal dWtjXwv koli Kvpov avraala : its seat, therefore, as he goes on to show, is not properly in the moral sense of him that entertains it, in his consciousness of a right which has been, or would be, violated by his act, but only in his apprehension of other persons who are, or might be, privy to its violation. Let this apprehension be removed, and the aloyyvy ceases ; while alSm finds its motive in its own moral being, and not in any other ; it implies reverence for the good as good, and not merely as that to which honour and reputation are attached. Thus it is often connected with evXdfieia' (Heb. xii. 28), the reverence before God, before His majesty, His ho- liness, which will induce a carefulness not to offend, the German < Scheu ; ' so Plutarch, Cces. 14 ; Cory}. Ptcbc. 47 ; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 44 ; often also with Seo?, as Plato, Euth. 126 c ; with evfcoo-fita, Xeno- phon, Cyrop. viii. 1. 33 ; with evra^ia and /eoo-yittoT???, Plutarch, Cces. 4 ; with ? tovs pevyovra^ t tol>? Be ? 6 vo/mos tceXevei : cf. Plutarch, De Curws. 14 ; Be Virt. Mor. 2 ; Gryll. 6 : rj fiev ovv ao)(j>poavvrj ftpaxyTTj? Tt? earlv eircOu- fjLLcov teal reives, dvatpovcra fiev tcls iireLo-dtcrovs teal Trepirras, teaipa) Be /cal /jLerpioTyrt Koa-fjuovaa Ta? dvay- tcalas : and Diogenes Laertius, iii. 57. 91. No single Latin word exactly represents it. Cicero, as he avows himself (Tusc. iii. 5 ; cf. v. 14), renders it now by ' temperantia,' now by ' moderation now by 'modestia.' HoxppoavvT) was a virtue which as- sumed more marked prominence in heathen ethics than it does in Christian ; not because more value was attached to it there than with us ; but partly because it was there one of a much smaller com- pany of virtues, each of which therefore would sin- gly attract more attention ; but also in part because for as many as are " led by the Spirit," this condi- tion of self-command is taken up and transformed into a condition yet higher still, in which a man does not command himself, which is well, but, which is far better still, is commanded by God. In the passage already referred to (1 Tim. ii. 9), where it and alScos occur together, we shall best distinguish them thus, and the distinction will be capable of further application. If alScb? is the 104 SYNONYMS OF THE 1 shamefastness,' l or pudency, which shrinks from overpassing the limits of womanly reserve and mod- esty, as well as from the dishonour which would justly attach thereto, o-axfrpoavvr] is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to this from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as should overbear the checks and hindrances which al8do<; opposed to it. 1 It is a pity that 'shamefast' and 'shamefastness/ by which last word our translators rendered l\.0dafMaTa were vouchsafed, as contrasted with those weak partial glimpses of the Eternal Beauty, which is all whereof the greater part of men ever now catch sight ; cf. his Timee'U8 i 4A c. 'OXofcXrjpos, then, is an epithet applied to a person or a thing that is ' omnibus nu- HO SYNONYMS OF THE meris absolutus;' and the iv fiTjSevl Xenro/jLevoi, which at Jam. i. 4 follows it, must be taken as the ep exegesis of the word. TeXews is a word of various applications, but all of them referable to the reXo?, which is its ground. They in a natural sense are riXecot, who are adult, having reached the full limit of stature, strength, and mental power appointed to them, who have in these respects attained their reXo?, as dis- tinguished from the vioi or 7ra£Se?, young men or boys ; so Plato, Legg. 929 c. St. Paul, when he employs the word in an ethical sense, does it con- tinually with this image of full completed growth, as contrasted with infancy and childhood, underlying his use, the reXeioi being by him set over against the vr)T7LOL iv Xpi-arS (1 Cor. ii. 6 ; xiv. 20 ; Eph. iv. 13, 14 ; Phil. iii. 15 ; Heb. v. 14), being in fact the 7raTe/3€? of 1 John ii. 13, 14, as distinct from the vea- vigkoi and iraihia. Nor is this application of the word to mark the religious growth and progress of men, confined to the Scripture. The Stoics opposed the riXecos in philosophy to the irpoKoirTcov^ with which we may compare 1 Chron. xxv. 8, where the reXeioi, are set over against the iiavOavovTes. With the heathen, those also were called riXecoc who had been initiated into the mysteries ; the same thought being at work here as in the giving of the title to reXeiov to the Lord's Supper. This was so called, NEW TESTAMENT. Ill because in it was the fulness of Christian privilege, because there was nothing beyond it ; and the TeXecoc of heathen initiation had their name in like manner, because those mysteries into which -they were now introduced were the latest and crowning mysteries of all. It will be seen that there is a certain ambiguity in our word ' perfect,' which, indeed, it shares with reXeio? itself; this, namely, that they are both em- ployed now in a relative, now in an absolute sense ; for only out of this ambiguity could our Lord have said, "Be ye therefore perfect (reXeiot,), as your Heavenly Father is perfect (reXejo?), Matt. v. 48 ; cf. xix. 21. The Christian shall be ' perfect,' yet not in the sense in which some of the sects preach the doctrine of perfection, who, preaching it, either mean nothing which they could not have expressed" by a word less liable to misunderstanding ; or mean something which no man in this life shall attain, and which he who affirms he has attained is deceiv- ing himself, or others, or both. He shall be < per- fect,' that is, seeking by the grace of God to be fully furnished and firmly established in the knowledge and practice of the things of God (Jam. iii. 2) ; not a babe in Christ to the end, " not always employed in the elements, and infant propositions and prac- tices of religion, but doing noble actions, well skilled in the deepest mysteries of faith and holi- 112 SYNONYMS OF THE ness." l In this sense Paul claimed to be reXeto?, even while almost in the same breath he disclaimed the being reTeXetGD/zez/o? (Phil. iii. 12, 15). The distinction then is plain ; the reXeto^ has reached his moral end, that for which he was intend- ed ; namely, to be a man in Christ ; (it is true indeed that, having reached this, other and higher ends open out before him, to have Christ formed in him more and more;) the oXo/cXrjpos has preserved, or, having lost, has regained, his completeness. In the 6\6/c\7)po<; no grace which ought to be in a Christian man is wanting ; in the Te'Xew? no grace is merely in its weak imperfect beginnings, but all have reached a certain ripeness and maturity. 'OXoTeX?;?, which occurs once in the New Testament (1 Thess. v. 23 ; cf. Plutarch, Plac. Phil. v. 21), forms a certain con- necting link between the two, holding on to oXokXtj- po? by its first half, to TeXeto? by its second. § xxiii. — aricpavos, SidBwfia. The fact that our English word { crown ' covers the meanings of both these words, must not lead us 1 On the sense in which ' perfection ' is demanded of the Chris- tian, there is a discussion at large by J. Taylor, Doctrine and Prac- tice of Repentance, i. 3. 40 — 56, from which these words in inverted commas are drawn. NEW TESTAMENT. 113 to confound them. In German the first would often be translated * Kranz,' and only the second ' Krone.' I indeed very much doubt whether anywhere in classical literature are^avo^ is used of the kingly, or imperial crown. It is the crown of victory in the games, of civic worth, of military valour, of nuptial joy, of festal gladness — woven of oak, of ivy, of parsley, of myrtle, of olive, — or imitating in gold these leaves or others — of flowers, as of violets or roses (see Athenseus, xv. 9 — 33), but never, any more than i corona ' in Latin, the emblem and sign of royalty. The SlaBrj/xa was this (Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 3. 13 ; Plutarch, De Frat. Am. 18), being pro- perly a linen band or fillet, 'taenia' or ' fascia' (Curtius, iii. 3), encircling the brow ; so that no lan- guage is more common than TreptTtOevai BcdSTj/jba to signify the assumption of royal dignity (Polybius, v. 57. 4 ; Josephus, Antt. xii. 10. 1), even as in Latin in like manner the ' diadema ' is alone the ' insigne regium ' (Tacitus, Annal. xv. 29). A passage bringing out very clearly the distinc- tion between the two words occurs in Plutarch, Cces. 61. It is the well known occasion on which Anto- nius offers Caesar the kingly crown, which is de- scribed as 8id$r)/jLa aretyavw $d(j>VT)<; 7r€pi7re7r\€y/JL€vov : here the arifavo? is only the garland or laureate wreath, with which the true diadem was enwoven. Indeed, according to Cicero (Phil. ii. 34), Csesar 114 SYNONYMS OF THE was already i coronatus ' = eo-Tefyavwfxevos (this he would have been as consul), when the offer was made. Plutarch at the same place describes the statues of Caesar to have been, by those who would have suggested his assumption of royalty, hiahrjfxa- avo$ 7% hotjijs (1 Pet. v. 4), leaves no doubt about St. Peter's allusion. If this is not so directly to the Greek games, yet still the contrast which he tacitly draws, is one between the wreaths of heaven which never fade, and the garlands of earth which lose their brightness and freshness so soon. At Jam. i. 12 ; Rev. ii. 10 ; iii. 11 ; iv. 4, it is more probable that a reference is not intended to these Greek games ; the alienation from which as idolatrous and profane was so deep on the part of the Jews (Josephus, Antt. xv. 8. 1 — 4r), and no doubt also of the Jewish mem- bers of the Church, that an image drawn from the rewards of these games would have been to them rather repulsive than attractive. Yet there also the aricjiavos, or the o-Tecfravos t>)? fa)?)?, is the emblem, not of royalty, but of highest joy and gladness, of glory and immortality. We may feel the more confident that in these last passages from the Apocalypse St. John did not intend kingly crowns, from the circumstance that on three occasions, where beyond a doubt he does mean such, SidhriiAa is the word which he employs (Rev. xii. 3 ; xiii. 1 [cf. xvii. 9, 10, at i-irTa /cea\al . . . fiaaiXets eirrd eUrw] ; xix. 12). In this last verse it is fitly said of Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, that "on His head were many crowns"' 116 SYNONYMS OF THE (SiaBr/fiara iroXKa) ; an expression which, with all its grandeur, we find it hard to realize, so long as we picture to our mind's eye such crowns as at the present monarchs wear, but intelligible at once when we contemplate them as diadems, that is, nar- row fillets bound about the brow, such as hiahrjfiara will imply. These " many diadems " will then be the tokens of the many royalties — of earth, of hea- ven, and of hell (Phil. ii. 10) — which are his ; roy- alties once usurped or assailed by the Great Eed Dragon, the usurper of Christ's dignity and honour, described therefore with his seven diadems as well (xiii. 1), but now openly and for ever assumed by Him to whom they rightfully belong ; just as, to compare earthly things with heavenly, we are told that when Ptolemy, king of Egypt, entered Antioch in triumph, he set two crowns (hiahrjuaTa) on his head, the crown of Asia, and the crown of Egypt (1 Mace. xi. 13). The only place where erriepdvo^ might seem to be used of a kingly crown is Matt, xxvii. 29, with its parallels in the other Gospels, where the weaving of the crown of thorns (aricfxivos cucavQwoi), and placing it on the Saviour's head, is evidently a part of that blasphemous caricature of royalty which the Roman soldiers enact. But woven of such materials as it was, probably of the juncus marinus. or of the lycium spinosum, it is evident NEW TESTAMENT. 117 that SidSr)fj.a could not be applied to it; and the word, therefore, which was fittest in respect of the material whereof it was composed, takes place of that which would have been the fittest in respect of the purpose for which it was intended. § xxiv. — irXeove^ia^ i\apyvpla. Between these two words the same distinction exists as between our ' covetousness ' and ' avarice,' or as between the German ' Habsucht ] and i Geiz.' JJXeove^ia is the more active sin, t\apyvpia the more passive : the first seeks rather to grasp what it has not, and in this way to have more; the second, to retain, and, by accumulating, to multiply that which it already has. The first, in its methods of acquiring, will be often bold and aggressive ; even as it may, and often will be as free in scattering and squandering, as it was eager and unscrupulous in getting ; ' rapti largitor,' as is well imagined in the Sir Giles Overreach of Massinger. Consistently with this we find ifKeoveKT^ joined with apira^ (1 Cor. v. 10) ; irXeove^ia with ftapvrrjs (Plutarch, Arist. 3) ; and in the plural, with ickoiral (Mark vii. 22) ; with aSitciai (Strabo, vii. 4. 6) ; with fyCkoveiicLai, (Plato, Legg. iii. 677 I) ; and the sin defined by 118 SYNONYMS OF THE Theodoret : rj rod 7r\eiWo? efacns, /cal rj twv ov irpoa- t]k6vt(0V apirayrj. But, while it is thus with 7r\eo- vet; la, (piXapyvpla on the other hand will be often cautious and timid, and will not necessarily have cast off the outward appearances of righteousness. Thus, the Pharisees were cptAdpyvpot, (Luke xvi. 14) ; this was not irreconcilable with the maintenance of the outward shows of holiness, which the 7rXeo- ve%La would evidently have been. Cowley, in the delightful prose which he has mixed up with his verse, draws this distinction strongly and well {Essay 7, Of Avarice), though Chaucer had done the same before him in his Per- sones Tale: "There are," says Cowley, "two sorts of avarice ; the one is but of a bastard kind, and that is the rapacious appetite for gain ; not for its own sake, but for the pleasure of refunding it immedi- ately through all the channels of pride and luxury ; the other is the true kind, and properly so called, which is a restless and unsatiable desire of riches, not for any farther end or use, but only to hoard and preserve, and perpetually increase them. The cov- etous man of the first kind is like a greedy ostrich, which devours any metal, but it is with an intent to feed upon it, and, in effect, it makes a shift to digest and excern it. The second is like the foolish chough, which loves to steal money only to hide it." There' is another and more important point of NEW TESTAMENT. 119 view, from which ifKeove^la may be regarded as the wider, larger term, the genus, of which i\apyvpia is the species ; this last being the love of money, while ir\eov€%ia is the drawing and snatching to himself, on the sinner's part, of the creature in every form and kind, as it lies out of and beyond himself; the 'indigentia' of Cicero: (Indigentia est libido inexplebilis : Tusc. iv. 9. 21). For this distinction between the words compare Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. cxviii. 35, 36 ; and Bengel's profound explana- tion of the fact, that, in the enumeration of sins, St. Paul so often unites ifkeove^la with sins of the flesh ; as at 1 Cor. v. 11 ; Eph. v. 3, 5 ; Col. iii. 5 : Solet autem jungere cum impuritate ifkeove^iav, nam homo extra Deum quaerit pabulum in creatura* ma- teriali, vel per voluptatem, vel per avaritiam; bo- num alienum ad se redigit. But, expressing much, Bengel has not expressed all. The connexion be- tween these two provinces of sin is deeper, is more intimate still ; and this is witnessed in the fact, that not merely is ifkeove%(a, as covetousness, joined to sins of impurity, but the word is sometimes in Scripture, continually by the Greek Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. s. v.), employed to designate these sins themselves ; even as the root out of which they alike grow, namely, the fierce and ever fiercer long- ing of the creature which has turned from God, to fill itself with the inferior objects of sense, is one 120 SYNONYMS OF THE and the same. Regarded thus, irXeove^ia has a much wider and deeper sense than t\apyvpia. Take the sublime commentary on the word which Plato (Gorg. 493) supplies, where he likens the de- sire of man to the sieve or pierced vessel of the Danaids, which they were ever filling, but might never fill ; l and it is not too much to say, that the whole longing of the creature, as it has itself aban- doned God, and by a just retribution is abandoned by Him, to stay its hunger with the swines' husks, instead of the children's bread which it has left, is contained in this word. § XXV. ftoa/CQ), 7T0lf/,aLV(D. While both these words are often employed in a figurative and spiritual sense in the Old Testa- ment, as at 1 Chron. xii. 16 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 3 ; Fs. lxxvii. 72 ; Jer. xxiii. 2 ; and iroofiaiveLv often in the New ; tne only occasions in the latter, where ftoa/ceiv 1 It is evident that the same comparison had occurred to Shak- speare : " The cloyed will, That satiate yet unsatisfied desire, That tub both fill'd and running." Cymbeline, Act i. Sc. 7. NEW TESTAMENT. 121 is so used, are John xxi. 15, 17. There our Lord, giving to St. Peter his thrice repeated commission to feed his " lambs " (ver. 15), his " sheep " (ver. 16), and again his " sheep " (ver. 17), uses, on the first occasion, /?oWe, on the second, Troipcuve, and returns again to fioaice on the third. This return, on the third and last repetition of the charge, to the word employed on the first, has been a strong argument with some for the indifference of the words. They have urged, and with a certain show of reason, that Christ could not have had progressive aspects of the pastoral work in His intention, nor have purposed to indicate them here, else He would not have come back in the end to fioatce, the same word with which He began. Yet I cannot believe the variation of the words to have been without a motive, any more than the changes, in the same verses, from dyawdv to (pckelv, from apvia to Trpofiara* It is true that our Version, rendering ySocr/ce and iroufialve alike by " Feed," has not attempted to reproduce the varia- tion, any more than the Yulgate, which, on each occasion, has ' Pasce ; ' nor do I perceive any re- sources of language by which either the Latin Version or our own could have helped themselves here. It might be more possible in German, by aid of ' weiden ' (= fioatceiv), and ' hiiten ' (== iroi- fiaiveiv)\ De Wette, however, has ' weiden ' through- 6 fcriuvi&siT 122 SYNONYMS OF THE The distinction, although thus not capable of being easily reproduced in all languages, is very far from fanciful, is indeed a most real one. {36o-kw, the same word as the Latin ' pasco,' is simply ' to feed : ' but Troifialvw involves much more ; the whole office of the shepherd, the entire leading, guiding, guarding, folding of the flock, as well as the finding of nourishment for it ; thus Lampe : Hoc symboluin totum regimen ecclesiasticum comprehendit ; and Bengel : /36o-k€lv est pars tov iroifxaiveLv. Out of a sense continually felt, of a shadowing forth in the shepherd's work of the highest ministries of men for the weal of their fellows, and of the peculiar fit- ness which this image has to set forth the same, i- has been often transferred to their office, who are, or should be, the faithful guides and guardians of the people committed to their charge. Kings, ir> Homer, are 7roifiive<; Xa&v : cf. 2 Sam. v. 2 ; vii. 7. ]S~ay more, in Scripture God Himself is a Shepherd (Isa. xl. 11) ; and David can use no words which shall so well express his sense of the Divine protec- tion as these : Kvpios iroipjaivei fie (Ps. xxiii. 1) ; nor does the Lord take anywhere a higher title than 6 iroifirjv 6 icakos (John x. 11 ; cf. 1 Pet. v. 4, 6 ap- yyrroipJqv : Heb. xiii. 20, 6 /j,eya<; iroiyJqv tcov Trpofta- tcov, nor give a higher than that implied in this word to his ministers. Compare the sublime pas- sage in Philo, De Agricul. 12, beginning : ovrco NEW TESTAMENT. 123 /xevToi to TTOiiiaLveiv iarlv aya66v, wore ov fia- aiXevai jjlovov kcu (robots avSpdai, kqX yfrv^al, aWa ical Gew ra> iravTjyefiovi Siiealm avaTtderai : and also the three sections pre- ceding. Still, it may be asked, if iroiyLaivuv be thus the higher word, and if Troifxaive was therefore superadd- ed upon /3606vo<;. These words are often joined together ; they are so by St. Paul, Gal. v. 20, 21 ; by Clemens Roma- nus, 1 Ep. ad Cor. 3, 4, 5 ; and by classical writers as well; as, for instance, by Plato, Phil. 47 0; Legg. 679 c ; Menex. 242 a. Still, there are differences between them ; and this first, that J5}\o9 is a /jlgo-ov, being used sometimes in a good (as John ii. 17 ; Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. ix. 2), sometimes, and in Scripture oftener, in an evil sense (as Acts v. 17 ; Rom. xiii. 13 ; Gal. v. 20 ; Jam. iii. 14) ; while 66vo<; is not capable of a good, but is used always and only in an evil signification. When £?)\o? is taken in good part, it signifies the honourable emulation, with the consequent imitation, of that which presents itself to the mind as excellent ; £?)A.o? tojv aplo-rcav, Lucian, Adv. Indoct. 17 ; tffko^ical fjilfiTjais, Herodian, ii. 4 ; %r)\corr)<; real /u^tt)?, vi. 8. It is the Latin ' semula- tio,' in which nothing of envy is of necessity in- NEW TESTAMENT. lVT, eluded, however it is possible that such may find place; the German 'Nacheiferung,' as distinguished from c Eifersucht.' The verb ' aemulor,' as is well known, finely expresses the distinction of worthy and unworthy emulation, governing an accusative in cases where the first, a dative where the second, is intended. By Aristotle (Rhet. ii. 11) £?}\o? is employed ex- clusively in this nobler sense, to signify the active emulation which grieves, not that another has the good, but that itself has it not; and which, not stopping here, seeks to make the wanting its own, and in this respect is contrasted by him with envy : €av\ov, kol cfravXcov. Cf. Jerome, Exfp. in Gal. v. 20 : £77X0? et in bonam partem accipi potest, quum quis nititur ea quoe bona sunt semulari. Invidia vero aliena felicitate torquetur ; and again, In Gal. iv. 17 : ^Ernulantur bene, qui cum videant in aiiquibus esse gratias, dona, virtutes, ipsi tales esse desiderant. (Ecumenius : eo-n £77X09 tclvrjo-ts 'ty'V'xfl'S ivdovacGoSr)? fari Tt, fierd tlvoofioia)d6vos : thus Plato, Menex. 242 a : irp&rov fjuev f/)\o?, airb tyXov Be that is, in its nobler form, for it was such as prompted him to worthy actions, and would not let him rest till he had set a Sal amis of his own against the Ma- rathon of his great predecessor. But it was 66vo$ which made that Athenian citizen to be weary of hearing Aristides evermore styled " The Just " (Plu- tarch, Arist. 7) ; and this his (f>Q6vo<; contained no impulses moving him to strive for himself after the justice which he envied in another. See on this 1 Augustine's definition of 66vos, see Plutarch's graceful little essay, full of subtle analysis of the human heart, Be Invidid et Odio. 128 SYNONYMS OF THE subject further the beautiful remarks of Plutarch. De Prof. Virt. 14. § xxvii. — £o>?7, /3/o?. The Latin language and the English are alike poorer than the Greek, in having but one word, the Latin { vita,' the English ' life,' to express these two Greek. There would, indeed, be no comparative poverty here, if £(orj and /3to? were merely dupli- cates ; but, covering as they do very different spaces of meaning, it is certain that we, having but one word for them both, must use this one in very di- verse senses ; it is possible that by this equivocation we may, without being aware of it, conceal very real and important differences from ourselves ; for, indeed, there is nothing so potent to do this as the equivocal use of a word. The true antithesis of &V is Qavauros (Rom. viii. 38 ; 2 Cor. v. 4 ; cf. Jer. viii. 3 ; Sirac. xxx. 17 ; Plato, Legg. xii. 944 c), as of the verb $l v i clttoOvyj- (tk6lv (Matt. xx. 38 ; 1 Tim. v. 6 ; Rev. i. 18 ; cf. II. xxiii. 70 ; Herodotus, i. 31 ; Plato, Phcedo, 71 d : ovk ivavrlov (prj^ tg3 pjv to redvdvcu elvaC) ; {wrf, in fact, being very nearly connected with aa>, drjfit, to breathe the breath of life, which is the necessary NEW TESTAMENT. 129 condition of living, and, as such, is involved in like manner in irvevfia and yjrvxn- But, while {oj?; is thus life intensive (' vita qua vivimus ' ), ftlos is life extensive (' vita quam vivi- mus ' ), the period or duration of life ; and then, in a secondary sense, the means by which that life is sustained ; and thirdly, the manner in which that life is spent. Examples of the use of fim in all these senses the ]S"ew Testament supplies. Thus it is used as — a, the period or duration of life ; 1 Pet. iv. 3, Xpwos rod ftiov. cf. Job. x. 20, /3t'o? rod xpovov: Plu- tarch, De Lib. Ed. 17 : arTcyjJLT) yjpbvov 7ra? 6 /3/o? icrrt. /?, the means of life, or * living,' E V. ; Mark xii. 44 ; Luke viii. 43 ; xv. 12 ; 1 John iii. 17, rov Biov rod Koa/mov : cf. Plato, Gorg. 486 d ; Legg. 936 c ; Aristotle, Hist. Anim. ix. 23. 2 ; and often, but not always, these means of life, with an under sense of largeness and abundance. 7, the manner of life ; 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; so Plato, Pol. 344 e : filov Biaywyr) : and Plutarch very nobly {De Is. et Os. 1) : rod Be yivono-KUv ra ovra, /cal logy,' for animals have the vital prin- ciple ; they live, as well as men ; and they are capable of being classed and described in relation to the different workings of this natural life of theirs ; but, on the other hand, we speak of ' Mo- graphy ; ' for men not merely live, but they lead- lives, lives in which there is that moral distinction between one and another which may make them well worthy to be recorded. Out of this it will fol- 1 See on this point, and generally on these two synonyms, VS- mel, Synon. Worterbuch, p. 168 sq. NP.W TESTAMENT. 131 low, that, while davaros and ^a>rj constitute, as was observed above, the true antithesis, yet they do so only so long as both are physically contemplated. So soon as a moral idea is introduced, the antithesis is not between Bdvaro^ and £o>»7, but ddvaros and /5/o? : thus Xenophon (liesp. Laced. 9. 1) : tov kcl- Xbv Odvarov aim tov alayjpov ftlov. The two great chapters with which the Gorgias of Plato concludes (82, 83), are alone sufficient to bring plainly before the consciousness the full distinction between the words themselves, as also between those derived from them. But this being the case, y&'o?, and not £a>?7, being thus shown to be the ethical word in classical anti- quity, a thoughtful reader of Scripture might very well inquire with something of perplexity, how it is to be explained that there all is reversed — &V being certainly in it the nobler word, belonging to the innermost circle of those terms whereby are expressed the highest gifts of God to his creatures ; so that, while /3/o? has there no such noble use, but rather the contrary — for we find it in such associa- tions as these, rjSoval tov /3/ou (Luke viii. 14), irpcvy- jxareiai tov ftiov (2 Tim. ii. 4), akatpveia tov ft'iov (1 John ii. 16) — far], on the other hand, is continu- ally used in the very noblest connexion ; o~Teavos r»)? fanj? (Rev. ii. 10), /3//3X.09 t?}? feu?}? (iii. 5), Jcd?) Kai evatPeca (2 Pet. 1. 3), &rj kclI d6apala (2 Tim. 132 SYNONYMS OF THE i. 10), £Wy tov Qeov (Epli. iv. 18), fyor) aloovtos (Matt. xix. 16) ; ' or it may be simply £a>^ (Matt. vii. 14, and often), to express the highest blessedness of the creature. A little reflection will supply the answer. Re- vealed religion, and it alone, puts death and sin in closest connexion, declares them the necessary cor- relatives one of the other (Gen. i. — iii. ; Rom. v. 12), and, as an involved consequence, in like manner, life and holiness. It alone proclaims that, wherever there is death, it is there because sin was there first ; wherever there is no death, that is, life, it is there because sin has never been there, or, having been once, is now cast out and expelled. In revealed religion, which thus makes death to have come into the world through sin, and only through sin, life is the correlative of holiness. "Whatever truly lives, does so because sin has never found place in it, or, having found, has been expelled from it. So soon as ever this is felt and understood, £o>?7 at once as- sumes the profoundest moral significance ; it be- comes the fittest expression for the very highest blessedness. Of that whereof you predicate abso- lute &v 9 you predicate of the same absolute holi- ness. Christ affirming of Himself, eyco elfti rj far), 1 Z«7j aui>vios occurs once in the Septuagiut (Dan. xii. 2 ; cf. fab Uvvaos, 2 Mace. vii. 36), and in Plutarch, Be hid. et Os. 1. NEW TESTAMENT. 133 implicitly affirmed of Himself that He was absolute holiness ; and in the creature, in like manner, that only lives, or triumphs over death, death at once physical and spiritual, which has first triumphed over sin. No wonder, then, that Scripture should know of no higher word than &V to set forth either the blessedness of God, or the blessedness of the creature in communion with God. From what has been said it will at once be per- ceived how erroneous is that exposition of Eph. iv. 18, which understands airriWoTpKOfxevoi, tt?? fa»)? tov 0eoO, as " alienated from a divine life," or, from a life lived according to the will and commandments of God (remoti a vita ilia quae secundum Deum est: Grotius), £a>?7 having never, certainly never with St. Paul, this signification. The fact of such aliena- tion was only too true ; but it is not what the Apos- tle is affirming. Rather he is there describing the miserable condition of the heathen, as of men es- tranged from God, the one fountain of life (itapa Jot 77-777?; ?&>%, Ps. xxxv. 10) ; as not having life, because separated from Him who alone absolutely lives (John v. 26), and in connexion with whom alone any creature has life. Gal. v. 22 is another passage, which we shall never rightly understand, which will always seem to contain a tautology, until we give to fv and the Trepirepo? \f) ayaTrrj ov irep- Trepeverai,, 1 Cor. xiii. 4], that the first vaunts of things which he does not possess, the second, of things which, — however little this his boasting and bravery about them may become him, — he actually has. The distinction, however, is not one that can be maintained (Polybius, xxxii. 6. 5 ; xl. 6. 2) ; both are liars alike. But this habitual boasting of one's own, will hardly fail to be accompanied with a contempt for that of others. If it did not find, it would rapidly generate, such a feeling; and thus aXa^ovela is nearly allied to vTrepoyjria : we find them not seldom used as almost convertible terms ; thus see Philo, De Carit. 22 — 24. But from irrrepo^ria to vireprjfyavia the step is very near ; and thus we need not wonder 1 We formerly used 'glorious' in this sense. Thus, in North's Plutarch, p. 183 : "Some took this for a glorious brag; others thought he [Alcibiades] was like enough to have done it." And Milton (Hie Reason of Church Government, i. 5) : " He [Anselm] little dreamt then that the weeding hook of Keformation would, after two ages, pluck up his glorious poppy [prelacy] from insult- ing over the good corn [presbytery]." NEW TESTAMENT. 141 to meet v7repr)avos joined with aXa&v. This word occurs three times, hesides the two occasions noted already ; at Luke i. 51 ; Jam. iv. 6 ; 1 Pet. v. 5 ; virepiifyavia once, Mark vii. 22. A picturesque image serves for its basis, being, of course, derived from t/7re/o, and (Jhu'vo/jlcil, one who shows himself above his fellows, exactly as the Latin ' superbus ' is from * super;' as our 'stilts' is connected with 'Stok,' and with 'stout' in its earlier sense of ' proud,' or ' lifted up.' Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. v. p. 219 : Quae vox proprie notat hominem capite su- per alios eminentem, ita ut quemadmodum Saul, prae ceteris, sit conspicuus, 1 Sam. ix. 2. Figurate est is qui ubique eminere, et aliis praeferri cupit. A man can be actually dXa^cov only when he is in company with his fellow men ; but the seat of the V7rep7)avia is the mind. He that is sick of this sin, compares himself secretly with others, and lifts himself above others, in honour preferring himself. His sin, as Theophrastus (Charact. 34) describes it, is the Kara(f)p6vr)cri<; T£? ttXtjv avrov ra>v aXKcov. His conduct to others is not of the essence of his sin, it is only the consequence. His ' arrogance,' as we say, his claiming to himself of honour and observance, his indignation, and, it may be, his cruelty and re- venge, if these are withheld, are only the result of this false estimate of himself. In this way xnreprj- (bavoi teal ftapels (Plutarch, Qu. Rom. 63) are joined 142 SYNONYMS OF THE together. In the vTreprjfyavos we have tne perversion of a much nobler character than in the dXa^cov, the melancholic, as the dXa^cov is the sanguine, the vjBpKTTTj^ the choleric, temperament ; but because nobler, therefore one which, if it falls 5 falls more deeply, sins more fearfully. He is one, in the striking language of Scripture, " whose heart is lift- ed up," vyjrrjXofcdpStos (Prov. xvi. 5) ; he is one of those ra v-fyrfka povovvTe$ (Rom. xii. 16), as opposed to the TCLTreivol rfj icaphlq ; and this lifting up of his heart may be not merely against man, but against God ; he may assail the very prerogatives of Deity itself (1 Mace. i. 21, 24 ; "Wisd. xiv. 6 : virep^avov jLjavres). Therefore are we thrice told, in the very same words, that " God resisteth the proud " {vireprj- avo- pwv (Xenophon, Apol. Soc. 19 ; Ages. x. 2). The three words, then, are very broadly distin- guishable from one another, have very different provinces of meaning severally belonging to each, and present to us an ascending scale of guilt, such as I sought to seize at the first, when I observed, that the three severally" expressed a sin in word, in thought, and in deed. NEW TESTAMENT. 145 § xxx. — avTLXpio-Tos, tyevho-xpiaros. The word avrLxpicnos is peculiar to the Epistles of St. John, occurring five times in them ; 1 Ep. ii. 18, bis ; ii. 22 ; iv. 3 ; 2 Ep. 7 ; and no where be- sides. But, although St. John only has the word, St. Paul has, in common with him, a designation of the person of this great adversary, and of the marks by which lie shall be recognized ; for there can be no doubt that the avdpcoTro? tt}9 afiaprtas, the utos tt}? d7ro)Xe/a?, the avo/juos of 2 Thess. ii. 3, 8, are all of them other designations of the same person (see Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xx. 19. 2) ; and, indeed, to St. Paul and to that passage in his wri- tings w r e are indebted for our fullest instruction concerning this great enemy of Christ and of God. Passing by, as not relevant to our purpose, many of the discussions to which the mysterious announce- ment of such a coming foe has naturally given rise, as, for instance, whether we are to understand by the Antichrist a single person or a line of persons, a person or a system, there is only one of these questions which has a right tj occupy us here; namely, what the force is of ami in this composi- tion ; does avrixpwros imply one who sets himself up against Christ, or one who sets himself up in the 7 J.4f) SYNONYMS OF THE stead of Christ ? Is he an open foe, who seeks vio- lently to usurp his seat ; or a false friend, that pro- fesses to hold it in his name ? There is no settling this matter off-hand, as some are in so great a hurry to do ; seeing that avri, in composition, has both these forces. It is used often in the sense of substitution / thus, avTiftaaCkevs, he who is instead of the king, 'prorex,' ' viceroy;' avOvTraToS) he who is instead of the consul, ' procon- sul ; ' avriheLTTvos, he who fills the place at a feast of an absent guest ; avriXyrpov, the ransom paid in- stead of a person. Then, secondly, there is in avrl often the sense of opposition, as in avrLOeats, avri- Xoyia, avTCfceifievos : and still more to the point, more exact parallels to avrixpiaTos, as expressing not merely the fact of opposition, but, in the latter half of the word, the very object against which the opposition is directed, avrivo\ila (see Suicer, Thes. s. v.), opposition to law ; avTl^up, the thumb, as set over against the hand ; avrrjkto^, lying over against, and so exposed to, the sun ; 'Avtikcltcov, the title which Caesar gave to a book which he wrote against Cato ; avriOeos, — not indeed in Homer, where it is applied to Polyphemus (Od. i. 70), and to the suit- ors (xiv. 18), and must mean ' godlike,' that is, in strength and power; — but yet, in later use, as in Philo ; with whom avrideos vovs (De Conf. Ling. 19) can be no other than the ' adversa Deo mens ; ' NEW TESTAMENT. 147 and so in the Christian Fathers. And the jests about an 'Antipater' who sought to murder his father, to the effect that he was fepcbvvfjLos, would be utterly pointless, if avri in composition did not bear this meaning. I will not cite 'AvTepm, where the force of avri is more questionable ; and exam- ples in sufficient number have been quoted already to prove that in w r ords compounded with avri, some imply substitution, some opposition ; which being so, they have equally erred, who, holding one view of Antichrist or the other, have affirmed that the word itself decided the matter in their favour. It does not so ; but leaves the question to be settled by other considerations. (See on this word dvrl- ^/ho-to? a masterly discussion by Lucke, Coram, vb. die Brief e des Johannes, pp. 190 — 194.) For myself, St. John's words seem to me deci- sive on the matter, that resistance to, and defiance of, Christ, not the false assumption of his character and offices, is the essential mark of Antichrist ; that which, therefore, we should expect to find embodied in his name ; thus see 1 John ii. 22 ; 2 John 7 ; and in the parallel passage, 2 Thess. ii. 4, he is 6 avTi/cel- /iez/o?, where none will deny that the force of ami is that of opposition : and in this sense, if not all, yet many of the Fathers have understood the word. Thus Tertullian {De Preesc. JScer. 4): Qui Anti- christi, nisi Christi rebelles? He is, in Theophy- 148 SYNONYMS OF THE lact's language, evavrio? tm Xpia-rS, ' Widerchrist,' as the Gemans have rightly rendered it ; one who shall not pay so much homage to God's word as to assert its fulfilment in himself, for he shall deny that word altogether ; hating even erroneous wor- ship, because it is worship at all, hating much more the Church's worship in spirit and in truth ; who, on the destruction of every religion, every acknow- ledgment that man is submitted to higher powers than himself, shall seek to establish his own throne ; and, for God's great truth, i God is man,' to substi- tute his own lie, ' Man is God.' The term yfrevBoxp^To^, with which we proceed to compare it, occurs only twice in the New Testa- ment ; or, if we count, not how often it has been written, but how often it was spoken, only once ; for the two passages (Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Mark xiii. 22) are records of the same discourse. In form the word resembles so many others which appear to have been combined of i/reOSo? and almost any other sub- stantive at will. Thus, yjrevSaTroaroXo^, tyev8d$e\e- 1 The Greek, indeed, acknowledged, to a certain extent, the same, in his secondary use of d/c^Aoo-Toy, which, in its primary, meant simply 'the tmchastised.' 7* 15i SYNONYMS OF TIIE \l/ao$ ry ^rvxfj, eTriTrovass ttoWclkls t&v cltto Kaicim KrfKihcdv avrrjv e/c/caOalpovaa. For those who felt and acknowledged that which is asserted in the second clause of this last definition, the word came to sig- nify, not simply ' eruditio,' but, as Augustine ex- presses it, who has noticed the change {Enarr. in Ps. cxviii. 66), l per molestias eruditio.' And this is quite the predominant use of Trcuheia and iraihevetv both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament (Lev. xxvi. 18 ; Ps. vi. 1 ; Isa. liii. 5 ; Sirac. xxii. 6 ; fia-anye? teal 7ratSe/a : Luke xxiii. 16 ; Heb. xii. 5, 7, 8 ; Rev. iii. 19, and often). The only occasion in the New Testament upon which Trcuheveiv occurs in the old Greek sense, is Acts vii. 22. Instead of " nurture " at Eph. vi. 4, which is hardly strong enough a word, ' discipline,' I am persuaded, would have been preferable — the laws and ordinances of the Christian household, the transgression of which will induce correction, being indicated by irauheia. NovOeala, for which the more Attic Greek would have had vovOerla or vov0eT7)cn<; (Lobeck, Phi^yni- chus, pp. 513, 520), is more successfully rendered, 1 admonition ; ' which, however, as we must not for- get, has been defined by Cicero thus : Admonitio est quasi lenior objurgatio. Exactly so much is in- tended by vovOecria here ; the training by word — by' the word of encouragement, when no more than this is wanted, but also by the word of remonstrance, NEW TESTAMENT. 155 of reproof, of blame, where these may be required ; as set over against the training by act and by dis- cipline, which is iraihela. It seems to me, therefore, that Bengel, who so seldom misses, has yet missed here the distinction, who, on the words, eV irai^eia teal vovQealq, has this note : Ilarum altera occurrit ruditati; altera oblivioni et levitati. Utraque et sermon em et reliquam disciplinam includit. In support of that which has been urged above, and in evidence that vovdeala is the training by word of mouth, such combinations as the following, irapai- veaecs ical vovdealai (Plutarch, De Coh. I?*d, 2) ; vov- Oerifcol \6yoi (Xenophon, Ifem. i. 2. 21) ; BtBaxv ical vovdeTrjac? (Plato, Pol. 399 b) ; vovderelv ical huZda- iceiv [Prot. 323 d\ may be adduced. Kelatively, then, and as by comparison with iraihela, vovdeala is the milder term ; while yet its mention, associated with that other, teaches us that this too is a most needful element of Christian edu- cation ; that the iraihela without it would be very incomplete ; even as, when years advance, and there is no longer a child to deal with, it must give place to, or rather be swallowed up in, the vovdeala alto- gether. And yet the vovdeala itself, where need is, may be earnest and severe enough. The word in- dicates much more than a mere Eli-remonstrance : " Nay, my sons, for it is no good report that I hear " (1 Sam. ii. ^4) ; indeed, of Eli it is expressly re- 156 SYNONYMS OF THE corded, in respect of those sons: ov/c ivovOerei avrovs (iii. 12). In Plutarch alone we find the word united with fie^i? (Conj. Prcec. 13) ; with ^6709 (De Adul. et Am. 17) ; and vovOerelv to have con- tinually, if not always, the sense of admonishing with blame (lb. 37 ; De Prof, in Virt. 11 ; Conj. Prcec. 22). Jerome, then, is only partially in the right, when he desires to get rid, at Eph. vi. 4, of i correptione,' which he found in the Yulgate, and which still keeps its place there. This he did, on the ground that in vovOeala no rebuke nor austerity is implied, as in ' correptio \ there certainly is : Quam correptionem nos legimus, melius in Grseco dicitur vovOeala, quae admonitionem magis et erud%- tionem quam austeritatem sonat. Undoubtedly, in vovOeala such is. not of necessity implied, and there- fore ' correptio ■ is not its happiest rendering ; but the word does not exclude, nay implies this, when- ever it may be required ; the derivation, from vovs and T1071/M, involves as much ; whatever is needed to cause the monition to be taken home, is implied in the word. In claiming for vovdeata, as compared with and discriminated from 7ratSeta, that it is predominantly the admonition by word, which is also plainly the view that our translators have taken of it, I would not at all deny that both it and the verb vovOerelv are used to express correction by deed, but only af NEW TESTAMENT. 157 firm of the other — the appeal to the reasonable faculties — that it is the prevailing use of both ; so that in such phrases as these of Plato : pdfiSov vov- 6eT7}elr)/M, the image which un- derlies it is, of course, that of a releasing or letting go ; probably the year of jubilee, called constantly ero<; 7 or eVtai/ro?, t?}? ac^ecrea)?, or simply aee- crt9 elsewhere ; and many have since justified them in this, having, after consideration of the subject, denied that any difference was intended by him. Others again, and as I believe more rightly, are persuaded that St. Paul changed his word not without a reason, but of intention, and because he wished to say something which irdpeais does ex- press adequately and accurately, and which afyea-Ls would not. It is known to many, that Cocceius with those of his school made much of the variation of words here, rinding herein a great support for a favourite assertion of theirs, that there was no remission of sins, in the fullest sense of the words, under the Old Covenant, no TeXelaxTcs (Heb. x. 1 — £), no entire abolition of sin even for the faithful themselves, but only a present pretermission (Trdpeais), or dissimula- tion, upon God's part, in consideration of the sacrifice which was one day to be. On this matter a violent controversy raged among the theologians of Hol- land, at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of NEW TESTAMENT. 159 the following century, which was carried on with an unaccountable acrimony ; and for a brief history of which the reader may turn to Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. v. p. 209 ; Vitringa, Obss. Sac. vol. iv. p. 3 ; Venema, Diss. Sac. p. 72 ; while the fullest state- ment of what Cocceius did mean, and in his own words, may be found in his treatise, Utilitas Dis- tinctionis dumdum Vocabulorum Scriptural, irapk- crea)? et atpicrecos, Opp. vol. ix. p. 121. Those who at that time opposed the Cocceian scheme, denied that there was any distinction between afecn? and irdpeo-Ls. But in this they erred : the Cocceians were undoubtedly wrong, in saying that for the faithful there was only a Trdpeais, and no afeaK, afiapTrj/jLciTGw, in applying to them what was assert- ed in respect of the world under the Old Covenant ; but they were right in maintaining that irdpea^ was not purely and entirely equivalent with afyeais. Beza, indeed, had already drawn attention to the distinction. Having in his Latin Version, as first published, taken no notice of it, he acknowledges at a later period his error, saying, Hsec duo pluri- mum inter se differunt ; and now rendering irdpeaw by ' dissimulation In the first place, the derivation would a priori suggest a difference of meaning ; if ae<™? is re- mission, irdpeai^ from Trapirj/jLi, will be naturally ' prajtei^mssioii ' — the irdpeais dfiapT^fxaTcav, the 160 SYNONYMS OF THE prostermission or passing by of sins for the present, leaving it open in the future either entirely to remit, or else to punish them, as may seem good. And the classical usage both of irapievai and of irdpecns bears out this distinction. Thus Xenophon {Hipp. vii. 10) : a/jLapTrjfAara ov %pr) irapievai a/cokaara. Of Herod Josephus tells us, that being desirous to punish a certain offence, yet for other considerations he passed it by (Antt. xv. 3. 2) : iraprj/ce ttjv d/juap- rlav. When the Son of Sirach (Ecclus. xxiii. 2) prays to God that He would not "pass by " his sins, he assuredly does not use ov /irj irapfj as = ov /jltj dfi, but only asks that he may not be without a wholesome chastisement following close on his transgressions. So, too, on the contrary, when in proof that irdpea^ is equivalent to a(/>e