set apart to the same; and thus in the O. T. the λειτουργεῖν and the λειτουργία are ascribed only to the priests and Levites who were separated to minister in holy things; they only are Xecroupyoí (Numb. iv. 24; 1 Sam. ii. 11; Nehem. x. 39; Ezek. xliv. 27); which language, mutatis mutandis, reappears in the New; where not merely is that old priesthood and ministry designated by this language (Luke i. 23; Heb. ix. 21; x. 11), but that of apostles, prophets, and teachers in the Church (Acts xiii. 2; Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17), as well as that of the great High Priest of our profession, who is τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός (Heb. viii. 2). In later ecclesiastical use there has been sometimes the attempt to push the special application of XeTOUρyía still further, and to limit its use to those prayers and offices which stand in more immediate relation to the Holy Eucharist.'

1 A reviewer in The Ecclesiastic, July, 1854, to whom but for this I could have only felt obliged for much praise and for some corrections, has thought good to charge me with saying here what I knew, while I said it, to be untrue. His words are: "It is not an attempt sometimes' to limit the Xeɩroupyia to the Eucharistic celebration that has been made. It is the universal language, as Mr. Trench must know well, of all Catholic Ecclesiastical writers." p. 297. It might have sufficed to charge me with ignorance, not with wilful falsehood in my statement; and for repelling this charge of ignorance, I will content myself with quoting a single passage from Bingham's Antiquities (xiii. 1. 8): "[The Greek writers] usually style all holy offices, and all parts of Divine Service, by the general name of Aerovрyía. But it is never used, as the Romanists would appropriate it, for the business of sacrificing only;" and of this he gives ample proof in his notes. Cf. Suicer, Thes. s. V., and Augusti, Christl. Archæol. vol. ii. pp. 537, 538.

L

It may be urged against the distinction here drawn that λατρεύειν and λατρεία are sometimes applied to official ministries, as at Heb. ix. 1, 6. This is, of course, true; just as where two circles have the same centre, the greater will necessarily include the less. The notion of service is such a centre here; in Xerovpyeîv this service finds a certain limitation, in that it is service in an office: it follows that every λeɩroupyía will of necessity be a λarpeía, but not the reverse, that every λατρεία will be a λειτουργία. I know no passage which better brings out the distinction between these two words which I have sought to trace, than Ecclus. iv. 14, where both occur: oi λa-` τρεύοντες αὐτῇ [i. e. τῇ Σοφία] λειτουργή σovou Ayiw. "They that serve her, shall minister to the Holy One."

σουσιν

§ xxxvi.—πένης, πτωχός.

IN both these words the sense of poverty, and of poverty in this world's goods, is involved; yet have they severally meanings which are exclusively their own. It is true that Tévms and πTwxós continually occur together in the Septuagint, in the Psalms especially, with no rigid demarcation of their meanings (as at Ps. xxxix. 18; lxxiii. 22; lxxxi. 4; cf. Ezek. xviii. 12; xxii. 29); very much as our "poor and needy;" and whatever distinction may exist in the Hebrew between

the Alexandrian translators have ,עָנִי and אֶבְיוֹן

either considered it not reproducible by the help of these words, or have not cared to reproduce it; for they have no fixed rule in regard of them, translating the one and the other by πτшуós and πένης Tévηs alike. Still there are passages which show that they were perfectly aware of the distinction, and would, where it seemed to them needful, maintain it; occasions upon which they employ Tévns (as Deut. xxiv. 16, 17; 2 Sam. xii. 1, 3, 4), and where, as will presently be evident, πτwxós would have been manifestly unfit.

IIévns occurs only once in the N. T. (1 Cor. ix. 9), while Twɣós some thirty or forty times. Derived from πένομαι, and connected with πόνος, Tovéoμaι, and the Latin 'penuria,' it properly signifies one so poor that he earns his daily bread by his labour; Hesychius calls him well autoStákovos, as one who by his own hands ministers to his own necessities. The word does not indicate extreme want, or anything approaching to it, any more than the 'pauper' and 'paupertas' of the Latin; but only the 'res angusta' of one to whom Tovσios would be an inappropriate epithet. What was the popular definition of a πévηs we learn from Xenophon (Mem. iv. 2. 37): тoùs μèv oîμaι μὴ ἱκανὰ ἔχοντας εἰς ἃ δεῖ τελεῖν, πένητας· τοὺς δὲ πλείω τῶν ἱκανῶν, πλουσίους. Πένης was an epithet commonly applied to Socrates (Xenophon, Econ. ii. 3); and πevía he claims more than once for himself (Plato, Apol. 23 c; 31 c). What his Tevía was, he explains in the passage from Xenophon referred to; namely, that all which he had, if

sold, would not bring five Attic minæ. So, too, the Пevéσtal in Thessaly, (if, indeed, the derivation of the name from Téveσ0a is to stand,) were a subject population, but not reduced to abject want; on the contrary, retaining partial rights, as boors or cultivators of the soil.

But while the Tévηs is 'pauper,' the πTwуós is 'mendicus;' he is the 'beggar,' and lives not by his own labour or industry, but on other men's alms (Luke xvi. 20, 21); being one therefore whom Plato would not endure in his ideal State (Legg. xi. 936 c). If indeed we fall back on etymologies, προσαίτης (a word which ought to be replaced in the text at John ix. 8), or eπalтns, would be the more exactly equivalent to our 'beggar.' Tertullian long ago noted the distinction between wуós and Tévηs (Adv. Marc. iv. 14), for having to do with our Lord's words, μakáρioi oi πтwɣol (Luke vi. 20), he changes the 'Beati pauperes,' which still retains its place in the Vulgate, into Beati mendici,' and justifies the change, observing, 'Sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Græco est.'

6

The words then are markedly distinct; a far deeper depth of destitution is implied in πτwɣeía than in πενία: the πένης may be so poor that he earns his bread by daily labour; but the Twɣós is so poor that he only obtains his living by begging. There is an evident climax intended by Plato, when he speaks of tyrannies (Pol. x. 618 a) eis Tevías τε καὶ φυγὰς καὶ εἰς πτωχείας τελευτώσας. The πένης has nothing superfluous, the πτωχός has nothing at all. (See Döderlein, Lat. Synon,

vol. iii. p. 117.) The two, Tevía (= 'paupertas') and πтшɣeía (= 'egestas '), may be sisters, as one in Aristophanes will have them (Plut. 549); but if such, yet the latter very far barer of the world's good than the former, and indeed IIevía in that passage seems inclined to disallow wholly any such near relationship as this. The words of Aristophanes, in which he plays the synonymist between them, have been often quoted :

πτωχοῦ μὲν γὰρ βίος, ὃν σὺ λέγεις, ζῆν ἐστιν μηδὲν ἔχοντα· τοῦ δὲ πένητος, ζῆν φειδόμενον, καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις προσέχοντα, περιγίγνεσθαι δ ̓ αὐτῷ μηδὲν, μὴ μέντοι μηδ ̓ ἐπιλείπειν.

§ xxxvii.—θυμός, οργή, παροργισμός.

Ovpós and opy are found several times together in the N. T. (as at Rom. ii. 8; Eph. iv. 3; Col. iii. 8; Rev. xix. 15); often also in the Septuagint (2 Chron. xxix. 10; Mic. v. 15), and often also in other Greek (Isocrates, xii. 81; Polybius, vi. 56. 11; Josephus, Antt. xx. 5. 3; Plutarch, De Coh. Irá, 2; Lucian, De Cal. 23); nor are they found only in the connexion of juxtaposition, but one of them made dependent on the other; thus Ovμòs TS opyns (Rev. xvi. 9; cf. Job iii. 17; Josh. vii. 26); while opyn Ovμoû, not occurring in the N. T., is of constant recurrence in the Old (Ps. lxxvii. 49; Lam. i. 12; Isa. xxx. 27; Hos. xi. 9).

When these words, after a considerable anterior history, came to settle down on the passion of anger, as the strongest of all passions, impulses