of Christ teaching 'in the temple' (Matt. xxvi. 55; Luke xxi. 57; 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 maintained, without interrupting the service of God. But this is ever the iepóv, 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 from the iepóv, and not from the vaós. Irreverent 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 vaós here, at once to get rid of a difficulty, which may perhaps have presented itself to many-this namely, Was not the altar in the temple? how then could any locality be described as between these two? In the iepóv, doubtless, the brazen altar to which allusion is here made was, but not in the vaós, "in the court of the house of the Lord" (cf. Josephus, Antt. viii. 4. 1), where the sacred historian (2 Chron. xxiv. 21) lays the scene of this murder, but not in the house of the Lord, or vaós itself. Again, how vividly does it set forth to us the despair and defiance of Judas, that he presses even into the vaós itself (Matt. xxvii. 5), into the 'adytum' which was set apart for the priests alone, and there

casts down before them the accursed price of blood! Those expositors who affirm that here vaós stands for iepóv, should adduce some other passage in which the one is put for the other.

§ iv.—ἐπιτιμάω, ἐλέγχω. αἰτία, ἔλεγχος.)

ONE may rebuke' another without bringing the rebuked to a conviction of any fault on his part; and this, either because there was no fault, and the rebuke was therefore unneeded or unjust; or else because, though there was such fault, the rebuke was ineffectual to bring the offender to own it; and in this possibility of 'rebuking' for sin, without convincing' of sin, lies the distinction between these two words. In éπTITIμâv lies simply the notion of rebuking; which word can therefore be used of one unjustly checking or blaming another; in this sense Peter began to rebuke' Jesus (paтo éπɩτɩμâv, Matt. xvi. 22; cf. xix. 13; Luke xviii. 39) :—or ineffectually and without any profit to the person rebuked, who is not thereby brought to see his sin; as when the penitent thief ' rebuked' (πeτíμa) his fellow malefactor (Luke xxiii. 40; cf. Mark ix. 25). But exéyxew is a ἐλέγχειν much more pregnant word; it is so to rebuke another, with such effectual wielding of the victorious arms of the truth, as to bring him, if not to a confession, yet at least to a conviction, of his sin, just as in juristic Greek, éλéyxew is not merely to reply to, but to refute, an opponent.

When we keep this distinction well in mind, what a light does it throw on a multitude of passages in the N. T.; and how much deeper a meaning does it give them. Thus our Lord could demand, "Which of you convinceth (ẻλéyxel) Me of sin?" (John viii. 46.) Numbers 'rebuked' Him; numbers laid sin to his charge (Matt. ix. 3; John ix. 16); but none brought sin home to his conscience. Other passages which will gain from realizing the fulness of the meaning of enérxe, are John iii. 20; viii. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25; but above all, the great passage, John xvi. 8: “When He [the Comforter] is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:" so we have rendered the words, following in our 'reprove' the Latin 'arguet;' although few, I think, that have in any degree sought to sound the depth of our Lord's words, but will admit that convince,' which unfortunately our translators have relegated to the margin, would have been the preferable rendering, giving a depth and fulness of meaning to this work of the Holy Ghost, which 'reprove' in some part fails to express. "He who shall come in my room, shall so bring home to the world its own 'sin,' my perfect 'righteousness,' God's coming

1

1

'Lampe gives excellently well the force of this λéyget: 'Opus Doctoris, qui veritatem quæ hactenus non est agnita ita ad conscientiam etiam renitentis demonstrat, ut victas dare manus cogatur.' See an admirable discussion on the word, especially as here used, in Archdeacon Hare's Mission of the Comforter, 1st edit. pp. 528-544.

'judgment,' shall so 'convince' it of these, that it shall be obliged itself to acknowledge them; and in this acknowledgment may find, shall be in the right way to find, its own blessedness and salvation."

Between αἰτία and ἔλεγχος a difference of a similar character exists. Airía is an accusation, but whether false or true the word does not attempt to anticipate; and thus it could be applied, indeed it was applied, to the accusation made against the Lord of Glory Himself (Matt. xxvii. 37); but λeyxos implies not merely the charge, but the truth of the charge, and the manifestation of the truth of the charge; nay more than all this, very often also the acknowledgment, if not outward, yet inward, of its truth on the side of the party accused; it being the glorious prerogative of the truth in its highest operation not merely to assert itself, and to silence the adversary, but to silence him by convincing him of his error. Thus Demosthenes (Con. Androt. p. 600): Пáμπoλv Xoidopía тe kai αἰτία κεχωρισμένον ἐστὶν ἐλέγχου. αἰτία μὲν γάρ ἐστιν, ὅταν τις ψιλῷ χρησάμενος λόγῳ μὴ παράσχηται πίστιν, ὧν λέγει· ἔλεγχος δέ, ὅταν ὧν ἂν εἴπῃ τις, καὶ τἀληθὲς ὁμοῦ δείξῃ. Cf. Aristotle (Rhet. ad Alex. 13): Ἔλεγχος ἔστι μὲν ὃ μὴ δυνατὸν ἄλλως ἔχειν, ἀλλ ̓ οὕτως, ὡς ἡμεῖς λέγομεν. By our serviceable distinction between 'convict' and 'convince' we maintain a difference between the judicial and the moral eλeyxos. Both will flow together into one in the last day, when every condemned sinner will be at once 'convicted' and

'convinced;' which all 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).

§ ν.—ἀνάθημα, ἀνάθεμα.

MANY would deny that there is any room for synonymous discrimination in respect of these two words, affirming them to be merely different spellings 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 ȧválnμa and ȧváθεμα, like εὕρημα and εὕρεμα, ἐπίθημα and ἐπίOepa, 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 certain that nothing is more common than for slightly different orthographies of the same 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 independence one of the other. I have elsewhere given a considerable number of examples of the kind (On the Study of Words, p. 156); and a very few may here suffice: Opáros

C