and which therefore would seek its utterance in Christian theology, of this we have signal proof in the fact that the Latin Christian writers were not content with divinitas,' which they found ready to their hand in the writings of Cicero and others; but themselves coined 'deitas' as the only adequate Latin representative of the Greek Oeórns. 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 Græco expressius transferant id quod ille Оcóτηta 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 can be adduced, go to support the same. Both θεότης and Oetóτns, as in general the abstract words in every language, are of late formation; and one of them, cóτns, is extremely 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 here affirmed, Godhead in the absolute sense, or at all events in as absolute a sense as the heathen could conceive it. Oecórns 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 are divine attributes, in that to which leɩóτns is attributed, but never absolute personal Deity. Thus Lucian (De Cal. 17) attributes Oecóτns to Hephæs

tion, when after his death Alexander would have raised him to the rank of a god; and Plutarch speaks of the θειότης τῆς ψυχῆς (De Plac. Phil. v. 1; cf. De Is. et Os. 2; Sull. 6), with various other passages to the like effect.

It may be observed, in conclusion, 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 Oetóτns, but always eóτns, as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of each of the Three Persons in the Trinity.

§ iii.—ἱερόν, ναός.

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 precision of the sacred narrative. 'Iepóv is the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, the réuevos, including the outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and other buildings subordinated to the temple itself. Naós, on the other hand, from vaiw, 'habito,' as the proper habitation of God, is the temple itself, that by especial right so called, being the heart and centre of the whole; the Holy and

the Holy of Holies. This distinction, one that existed and was recognised 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, I believe, always assumed in all passages relating to the temple at Jerusalem, alike by Josephus, by Philo, by the Septuagint translators, and in the N. T. Often indeed it is explicitly recognised, as by Josephus (Antt. viii. 3. 9), who, having described the building of the vaós by Solomon, goes on to say: Ναοῦ δ ̓ ἔξωθεν ἱερὸν ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐν TEтρауÓν σXýμari. In another passage (Antt. xi. 4. 3) he describes the Samaritans as seeking permission of the Jews to be allowed to share in the rebuilding of God's house (OVYKATAOKEVάOAι Tòv vaov). This is refused them (cf. Ezra iv. but, according to his account, it was permitted to them ἀφικνουμένοις εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν σέβειν τὸν Ocóv a privilege denied to mere Gentiles, who might not, under penalty of death, pass beyond their own exterior Court (Acts xxi. 29, 30; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 31).

2);

The distinction may be brought to bear with advantage on several passages in the New Testament. When Zacharias entered into "the temple of the Lord" to burn incense, the people who waited his return, and who are described as standing "without" (Luke i. 10), were in one sense in the temple too, that is, in the iepóv, while he alone. entered into the vaós, the temple' in its more limited and auguster sense. We read continually

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

6

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 éTITIμâv 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 èπITIμâv, 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' (Teтíμa) his fellow malefactor (Luke xxiii. 40; cf. Mark ix. 25). But exéyxew is a 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, éxéyxew is not merely to reply to, but to refute, an opponent.