affected an elegant and copious diction, he has disfigured, with his adventitious ornaments, the native simplicity which so remarkably distinguishes the sacred penmen, and is in fact one of their greatest ornaments. We can more easily bear rusticity than affectation, especially on the most serious and important subjects. Among other arts by which Castalio has endeavoured to recommend his work, one is a studied variety in the phrases, that the ear may not be tired by too frequent recurrence to the same sounds. The words under consideration afford a strong example. The verb peravoe is translated by him, I know not how many different ways. It is se corrigere, vitam corrigere, redire ad frugem, redire ad sanitatem, reverti ad sanitatem: when the vices which we are required to amend are mentioned, the phrase is, desciscere a sua pravitate, desistere a turpitudine, desistere a suis operibus, impudicitia sua recedere, sua homicidia, &c. omittere. MeTavola partakes of the like variety. It is emendata vita, vitæ emendatio, correcta vita, vitæ correctio, morum correctio, correcti mores, corrigenda vita, sanitas, pænitentia; and in the oblique cases, frugem and bonam frugem. For μeraμeλoμai I only find the two words pœnitere and mutare sententiam. Merаvolav aμɛтaμελnTov is not badly rendered "vitæ correctionem nunquam pœnitendam, aμɛraμeλnta xaρioμara, munera irrevocabilia, and αμετανόητος καρδια, deploratus animus. Diodati, the Italian translator, in every case of moment, renders the verb μɛTavoɛv, ravedersi, which in the Vocabolario della Crusca is explained resipiscere, ad mentis sanitatem redire; but for the noun μετανοια he always uses penitenza, and for μεταμελομai, very properly pentirsi. The Geneva French translates μeravoεw, s'amender, μɛraμɛλoμat, se repentir, and μɛravoia, repentance. In both these versions they use, in rendering μeтavolav αμεταμέλητον, the same paronomasia which is in the common English version. Diodati has penitenza della quale huom non si pente. The Geneva French has repentance dont on ne se repent. The other passages also above quoted from the original, they translate in nearly the same manner. Luther, in his German translation, has generally distinguished the two verbs, rendering μετανοειν, busse thun, and μεταμελεσθαι, reuen or gereuent. PART IV. I SHALL give, as another example of words supposed to be synonymous, the terms ayios and booç. The former is, if I mistake not, uniformly rendered in the New Testament holy, or, when used substantively in the plural, saints. The latter, except in one instance, is always rendered by the same term, not only in the English Bible, but in most modern translations. Yet that these two Greek words are altogether equivalent, there is, in my opinion, good reason to doubt. Both belong to the second class of words which I explained in a former Dissertation. They relate to manners, and are therefore not so easily defined. Nor are such words in one language ever found exactly to tally with those of another. There are, however, certain means by which the true signification may in most cases be very nearly, if not entirely reached. I shall, therefore, first mention my reasons for thinking that the two words ȧytos and óotos, in the New Testament, are not synonymous, and then endeavour to ascertain the precise meaning of each. 2. That there is a real difference in signification between the two Greek words; notwithstanding their affinity, my first reason for thinking is, because in the Septuagint, which is the foundation of the Hellenistic idiom, one of them is that by which one Hebrew word, and the other that by which another, not at all synonymous, is commonly translated. 'Ayios is the word used for wip kadosh, sanctus, holy, dolos for Ton chasid, benignus, gracious. 3. My second reason is, because the words have been understood by the ancient Greek translators to be so distinct in signification, that not in one single instance is the Hebrew word kadosh rendered by the Greek όσιος, or chasid by ἁγιος. What gives additional weight to this reason is the consideration, that both words frequently occur; and that the Greek translators, though they have not been uniform in rendering either, but have adopted different words on different occasions for translating each, have, nevertheless, not in a single instance adopted any of those terms for rendering one of these Hebrew words, which they had adopted for rendering the other. Few words occur oftener than kadosh. But, though it is beyond comparison oftenest translated ȧyoç, it is not so always. In one place it is rendered KaSaρoç, mundus, clean; the verb kadash, the etymon, is rendered dokažev, glorificare, to glorify, avaßißaleiv, ascendere, facere, to cause to ascend, KaJapılεv, purgare, to cleanse, ayvilav, purificare, to purify, as well as ayaev and kadayıalɛiv, santificare, to hallow, to sanctify; but not once by óotos, or any of its conjugates. On the other hand, chasid is rendered ελεημων and πολυέλεος, misericors, merciful, evλaßns, pius, devout, and by some other words, but not once by ayos, or by any of its conjugates, or by any of the terms employed in rendering kadosh; a certain sign that, to the old Greek translators, several other words appeared to have more coincidence with either, than these had with each other. 4. The third reason which inclines me to think that the two words are not synonymous is, because I find, on examining and comparing, that there is a considerable difference in the applica * Diss. II. sect. 4. tion of them, not only in the Old Testament, but in the New. In regard to the word ayos, it is applied not only to persons, but to things inanimate, as the sacred utensils and vestments; to times, as their jubilees and sabbaths, their solemn festivals and fasts; and to places, as the land of Judea, the city of Jerusalem, the mountain whereon stood the temple with its courts; but more especially the house which the courts enclosed, the outer part whereof was called by way of eminence n ayia, scilicet oкnvn, the holy place, and the inner åya ayıwv, the holy of holies, or the most holy place. Now I find nothing like this in the use made of the word doos, which, as far as I can discover, is applied only to persons or beings susceptible of character. The ra bota Aaßid, (Isa. lv. 3; Acts xiii. 34,) cannot be accounted an exception. The word used by the prophet is TOM chesed, benignitas, not Ton chasid, benignus, and is not improperly rendered in our version mercies. Nor is the dotovs xepas of the apostle, (1 Tim. ii. 8,) an exception, this being manifestly not a literal, but a tropical use of the epithet, wherein that is applied to the instrument, which, in strictness, is applicable only to the agent; as when we say a slanderous tongue and guilty hands, we are always understood as applying the qualities of slander and guilt to the person of whose tongue and hands we are speaking. 5. I observed further, that even when åytos is applied to persons, it has not always a relation to the moral character, but often to something which, in regard to the person, is merely circumstantial and external. It is in this respect that the children of Israel are called a holy nation, being consecrated by their circumcision, notwithstanding they were a rebellious and stiff-necked people, and rather worse, instead of better, than other nations; as their great legislator Moses often declares to them. In this sense the tribe of Levi was holier than any other tribe, purely because selected for the sacred service; the priesthood had more holiness than the other Levites, and the high-priest was the holiest of all. There was the same gradation in these, as in the courts and house of the temple. It is in this sense I understand the word ayos, (Psal. cvi. 16,) as applied to Aaron: "They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the Lord;" Tov ȧylov Kupiov. Aaron's personal character does not seem to have entitled him to this distinction above Moses and the whole nation. Nor does the title seem to have been peculiarly applicable to him in any other sense than that now mentioned, namely, that he was the only one of the people who carried on his forehead the signature of his consecration, "holiness to the Lord;" ἁγιασμα Κυριου. 6. On the other hand, it does not appear, from any clear passage either in the Old Testament or in the New, that the Hebrew word chasid, or the Greek hosios, are susceptible of this interpretation. I say, any clear passage; for I acknowledge there is one, the only one I can find in either, wherein the application of this term, as commonly understood, is similar to that of the other lately quoted from the Psalms. It is in Moses' benediction of the tribes, immediately before his death: "Of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah," Deut. xxxiii. 8. Not to mention, that in the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch (which in some things is more correct than the Hebrew) there is a different reading of the word here rendered bows, the whole passage is exceedingly obscure; inasmuch that it is impossible to say with certainty, who is here called chasidecha, which our translators have rendered "thy holy one." The words which follow serve rather to increase the darkness than to remove it. One Houbigant, in his valuable edition of the Old Testament, with a new Latin translation and notes, will not admit that it can refer to Aaron or his successors in the pontificate; and, in my judgment, supports his opinion with unanswerable reasons. is, that the term chasid, hosios, is never applied to Aaron, nor to the priesthood in general, nor to any priest as such: another is, that though we often hear of the people's proving God at Massah, and contending with him at the waters of Meribah, we nowhere hear that they proved or tempted Aaron, and strove with him there. Indeed, if they had been said to have tempted Moses, the expression, though unusual, had been less improper, because the immediate recourse of the people, in their strait, was to Moses. They chid with him, we are told, and were almost ready to stone him, Exod. xvii. 1, &c., Numb. xx. 3, &c. Houbigant's opinion is, that by thy holy one is here meant Jesus Christ, who is distinguished by this appellation in the book of Psalms: "Thou wilt not suffer thy holy one," TTDI chasidecha, тov bolov σov, "to see corruption," Psal. xvi. 10. And to say that they strove with, tempted, or proved Christ in the wilderness, is conformable to the language of Scripture: "Neither let us tempt Christ," says Paul, as some of them also tempted," referring to what happened in the desert, "and were destroyed of serpents," 1 Cor. x. 9. Houbigant's version (the words being understood as addressed to Levi, according to the original) is, "Levi autem dixit, Thummim tuum, tuumque Urim viri sancti tui est, quem tu tentationis in loco tentasti, cui convitium fecisti, apud aquas contradictionis." It must be owned, that he has added some plausibility to his gloss upon the passage, by the turn he has given to the following verses. But it is sufficient for my purpose to say, in regard to the negative part of his remark, that he is certainly right in maintaining that the expression does not refer to Aaron and his successors. But as to the positive part, that it refers to our Lord Jesus Christ, will perhaps be thought more questionable. His being styled thy holy one, Tov bolov σov, in words ad 66 dressed to God, is not authority enough for understanding him to be meant by Tw bou σov, to thy holy one, in words addressed to Levi. 7. But to return: another difference in the application of the words ȧyios and dolog is, that the latter is sometimes found coupled with other epithets expressive of different good qualities, and applied to character or moral conduct, each exhibiting, as it were, a feature distinct from those exhibited by the rest. The word aylos is not commonly accompanied with other epithets: when it is, they are of such a general nature as rather to affect the whole character than separate parts of it. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (vii. 26,) says of our Lord, that he was dolos, AKAKOÇ, AμAνTOs, in the common translation, "holy, harmless, undefiled." But the English word holy, being general in its signification, adds nothing to the import of the other epithets, especially of quiavros, and consequently does not hit the exact meaning of the word ootos, which here probably denotes pious; the two other epithets being employed to express compendiously the regards due to others, and to himself. Paul has given us another example in his character of a bishop, who, he says, (Tit. i. 8, ought to be φιλοξενον, φιλαγαθον, σωφρονα, δικαιον, ὅσιον, EYKOаrη. To render the word óotoç in this verse holy, is chargeable with the same fault as in the former instance. The same thing holds also of the adverb óows. Now the word ayoç is not included in this manner, in an enumeration of good qualities: It is commonly found single, or joined with other epithets equally general. The expression used by the apostle, Rom. vii. 12, 8 μεv νομος άγιος, και ἡ εντολη ἅγια, και δίκαια, και αγαπη, " The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good"— is no exception; for we have no enumeration here of the virtues of an individual, but of the general good qualities that may be ascribed to God's law. And though the terms are equally general, they are not synonymous; they present us with the different aspects of the same object. To say that the law of God is holy, is to represent it as awful to creatures such as we; to say it is just, is to remind us that it is obligatory; and to say it is good, is to tell us in other words, that it is adapted to promote universal happiness, and therefore lovely. εγκρατη. 8. Having assigned my reasons for thinking that the two words óotos and ȧytos in the New Testament are not synonymous, I shall now, as I proposed, endeavour to ascertain the precise meaning of each. I believe it will appear on examination, that the affinity between the two Greek words, in their ordinary and classical acceptation, is greater than between the Hebrew words in lieu of which they have been so generally substituted by the Seventy. This, which may have originated from some peculiarity in the idiom of Alexandria, has, I suppose, led the translators of both Testaments to regard them often as equivalent, |