highest scope of man's life; and indeed Clement (Strom. ii. 22) brings the great passage of Plato to bear upon this very discussion. The Schoolmen, in like manner, drew a distinction, although it was not this one, between "these two divine stamps upon man." Thus Lombard, Sent. ii. dist. 16; H. de S. Victore, De Animâ, ii. 25; De Sac. i. 6. 2: Imago secundum cognitionem veritatis, similitudo secundum amorem virtutis:' the first declaring the intellectual, as the second the moral, preeminence, in which man was created. Many, however, have refused to acknowledge these, or any other distinctions, between the two declarations; as Baxter, for instance, who, in his interesting reply to Elliott's, the Indian Missionary's, inquiries on the subject, rejects them all as groundless conceits, though himself in general only too anxious for distinction and division (Life, vol. ii. p. 296).

They were scarcely justified in this rejection; for myself, I should rather believe that the Alexandrians were very near the truth, if they did not grasp it altogether. There are eminently significant parts of Scripture, where the words of Jerome, originally applied to the Apocalypse, quot verba tot sacramenta,' can hardly be said to contain an exaggeration. Such a part is the history of man's creation and his fall, in the first three chapters of Genesis. We may expect to find mysteries there; prophetic intimations of truths which it might require ages and ages to develop. And, without attempting to draw any very strict line between εἰκών and ὁμοίωσις, or their Hebrew originals, I

think we may be bold to say that the whole history of man, not only in his original creation, but also in his after restoration and reconstitution 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 double benefit would he attain the true end for which he was made.

§ xvi.—ἀσωτία, ἀσέλγεια.

It is little likely that the man who is aσwTos will not be doeλyns also; and yet dowría and doéλyela are not identical in meaning; they will express different aspects of his sin, or at any rate contemplate it from different points of view.

And first dowría, a word in which heathen ethics said much more than they intended or knew. It occurs thrice in the N. T. (Eph. v. 18; Tit. i. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 4); once only in the Septuagint (Prov. xxviii. 7). Besides this we have the adverb dowτws, Luke xv. 13; and aσwros once in the Septuagint, Prov. vii. 11. At Eph. v. 18 we translate it excess; in the other two places, 'riot,' as the Cov dowτws, 'in riotous living;' the Vulgate always by luxuria' and luxuriose,' words which, it is hardly needful to observe,

6

6

6

imply in Latin much more of loose and profligate living than our luxury' and 'luxuriously' do now. Ασωτος is sometimes taken in a passive sense, as though it were dowσTоs, one who cannot be saved, σώζεσθαι μὴ δυνάμενος, as Clement of Alexandria (Pædag. ii. 1) expressly explains it, = 'perditus,'' heillos,' or as we used to say, a 'losel.' Grotius: 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 dowτos is not one who cannot be saved, but who cannot himself save, or spare; ='prodigus,' or, again to use a good old English word more than once employed by Spenser, but which we have now let go, a scatterling.' Aristotle notes, that this, a too great prodigality in the use of money, is the earliest meaning of dowría, giving this as its definition (Ethic. Nic. iv. 1. 3): ἀσωτία ἐστιν ὑπερβολὴ περὶ χρήματα. The word forms part of his ethical terminology; the ev¬ Oépios, or the truly liberal man, is with him one who keeps the golden mean between the two åkpа,

6

1 Thus, in the Adelphi of Terence (iv. 7), one having spoken of a youth luxu perditum,' proceeds:

Ipsa si cupiat Salus,

Servare prorsus non potest hanc familiam.

No doubt in the Greek original from which Terence translated this comedy, there was a threefold play here on the words. ἄσωτος, σωτήρια, and σώζειν, which the absence of a corresponding group of words in the Latin language has hindered Terence from preserving.]

namely, ἀσωτία on one side, and ἀνελευθερία, οι 'stinginess,' on the other. And it is in this view of dowría that Plato (Pol. viii. 560 e), when he names the various catachrestic terms, according to which men call their vices by the names of the virtues which they caricature, makes them style their ἀσωτία, μεγαλοπρέπεια. It is with the word at this stage of its meaning that Plutarch joins TOλUTÉNEιa (De Apotheg. Cat. 1).

But it is easy to see, and Aristotle does not fail to note, that one who is aawTos in this sense of spending too much, of laying out his expenditure on a more magnificent scheme than his means will warrant, slides too easily under the fatal influence of flatterers, and of all those temptations with which he has surrounded himself, into a spending on his own lusts and appetites of that with which he parts so easily, laying it out for the gratification of his own sensual desires; and that thus a new thought finds its way into the word, so that it indicates not only one of a too expensive, but also and chiefly, of a dissolute, debauched, profligate manner of living; the German lüderlich.' These are his words (Ethic. Nic. iv. 1. 36: Stò kai ȧκóλαστοι αὐτῶν [τῶν ἀσώτων] εἰσιν οἱ πολλοί· εὐχερῶς γὰρ ἀναλίσκοντες καὶ εἰς τὰς ἀκολασίας δαπανηροί εἰσι, καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ πρὸς τὸ καλὸν ζῆν, πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς ἀποκλίνουσιν. Here he gives the explanation of what he has stated before: TOÙS ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανηροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν.

1 1 Quintilian (Inst. viii. 36): 'Pro luxuriâ liberalitas dicitur."

In this sense dowría is used in the N. T.; as we find ἀσωτίαι and κραιπάλαι (Herodian, ii. 5) joined elsewhere together. It will of course at once be felt that the two meanings will often run into one another, and that it will be hardly possible to keep them strictly asunder. Thus see the various examples of the ἄσωτος, and of ἀσωτία, which Athenæus (iv. 59-67) gives; they are sometimes rather of one kind, sometimes of the other. The waster of his goods will be very often a waster of everything besides, will lay waste himself-his time, his faculties, his powers; and, we may add, uniting the active and passive meanings of the word, will be himself laid waste; he loses himself, and is lost.

There is a difference in ἀσέλγεια, a word the derivation of which is wrapped in much obscurity; some going so far to look for it as to Selge, a city of Pisidia, whose inhabitants were infamous for their vices; while others derive it from Oényeiv, probably the same word as the German 'schwelgen.' Of more frequent use than dowria in the New Testament, it is in our Version generally rendered lasciviousness' (Mark vii. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Gal. v. 19; Eph. iv. 19; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Jude 4); though sometimes wantonness' (Rom. xiii. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 18); as in the Vulgate either by 'impudicitia' or 'luxuria.' If our translators or the Latin intended by these renderings to express exclusively impurities and lusts of the flesh, they have certainly given to the word too narrow a meaning. Acélyeia, which it will be observed