nadayıάšev, sanctificare, to hallow, to sanctify; but not once by öotos, or any of its conjugates. On the other hand, chasid is rendered ἐλέημων and πολυέλεος, misericors, merciful, εὐλάβης, 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 application 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 vestinents; 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 eminenceýäyia, scilicet ozývn, the holy place, and the inner nazia ayear, the holy of holies, or the most holy place. Now I find nothing like this in the use made of the word ooios, which, as far as I can discover, is applied only to persons or beings susceptible of character. The ta oota Aaßid, (Isa. 55: 3. Acts 13: 34), cannot be accounted an exception. The word used by the prophet is

chesed, benignitas, not chasid, benignus, and is not improperly rendered in our version mercies. Nor is the ooovs pripas of the apostle (1 Tim. 2: 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 äytos 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. 106: 16.), as applied to Aaron: "They envied Moses also in the camp, and

Aaron the saint of the Lord;" rov äzov Kvolov. 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 ;” αγίασμα Κυρίου.

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. 33: 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 öotos, the whole passage is exceedingly obscure; insomuch 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.

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. One 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. 17: 1. etc. Numb. 20: 3. etc. 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 thine holy one," chasidecha, rov öolov oov, "to see corruption," Psal. 16:10. 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. 10: 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, rov öolov Gov, in words addressed to God, is not authority enough for understanding him to be meant by To oo oov, to thy holy one, in words addressed to Levi.

7. But to return: another difference in the application of the words ayios and ooos 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 ayios 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 (7:26.) says of our Lord, that he was, ὅσιος, ἄκακος, αμίαντος, 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 duíavros, and consequently does not hit the exact meaning of the word "otos, which here probably denotes pious; the two epithets being here 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. 1: 8), ought to be φιλόξενον, φιλάγαθον, σώφρο να, δίκαιον, ὅσιον, ἐγκρατῆ. Το render the word ὅσιος in this verse holy, is chargeable with the same fault as in the former instance. The same thing holds also of the adverb öos. Now the word äytos is not included in this manner in the enumeration of good qualities: It is commonly found single, or joined with other epithets equally general. The expression used by the apostle, Rom. 7: 12 ὁ μὲν νόμος ἅγιος, καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἅγια, καὶ δίκαια, καὶ ἀγαθή. “ 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 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 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.

8. Having assigned my reasons for thinking that the two words öotos and äytos in the New Testament are not synonymous, I shall now, as I proposed, endeavor 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, and to translate them by the same word. The authors of the Vulgate, in particular, have almost always employed sanctus in expounding both. This has misled most modern interpreters in the West. As to our translators, the example has doubtless had some influence. Nevertheless, they have in this not so implicitly followed the Vulgate in their version of the Old Testament, as in that of the New. Let it be premised, that the significations of words in any nation, do not remain invariably the same. In a course of years much fewer than two thousand, which are reckoned to have elapsed from the commencement to the finishing of the sacred canon, very considerable changes happen in the meanings of words in the same language, and among the same people. Now, to trace the gradations and nicer shades of meaning which distinguish different periods, is one of the most difficult, but most important tasks of criticism.

9. In regard to the word kadosh, hagios, I acknowledge that it does not seem to me to have had originally any relation to character or morals. Its primitive signification appears to have been clean —first, in the literal sense, as denoting free from all filth, dirt, or nastiness; secondly, as expressing what, according to the religious ritual, was accounted clean. The first is natural, the second ceremonial cleanness. Some traces of the first of these meanings we have in the Old Testament, but nothing is more common there than the second, particularly in the Pentateuch. Again, as things are made clean to prepare them for being used, (and the more important the use, the more carefully they are cleaned), the term has been adopted to denote, thirdly, prepared, fitted, destined for a particular purpose, of what kind soever the purpose be: fourthly, and more especially, consecrated, or devoted to a religious use: fifthly, as things so prepared and devoted are treated with peculiar care and attention, to hallow or sanctify comes to signify to honor, to reverence, to stand in awe of; and holy, to imply worthy of this treatment, that is, honorable, venerable, awful: sixthly and lastly, as outward and corporeal cleanness has, in all ages and languages, been considered as an apt metaphor for moral purity, it denotes guiltless, irreproachable, which is at present among Christians the most common acceptation of the word.

10. I shall give an example or two of each of the six uses aforesaid, not confining myself to the adjective kadosh, but including, its conjugates of the same root. First, that it denotes clean in the vulgar acceptation, is manifest from the precept given to Israel in the desert, to be careful to keep the camp free from all ordure.* The reason assigned is in these words: " For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, therefore shall thy camp be holy," wi xai oral aya, "that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee."

καὶ ἔσται

Another remarkable example of this meaning we have in the history of king Hezekiah, who is said (2 Chron. 29: 5 etc.), to have given orders to the Levites to sanctify the house of the Lord; the import of which order is explained by the words immediately following, and "carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place." The sacred service had, in the reign of the impious Ahaz, been for a long time totally neglected; the lamps were gone out, and the fire extinguished on the altars both of burnt-offerings and of incense; nay, and the temple itself had at length been absolutely deserted and shut up. The king, intending to restore the religious worship of Jehovah to its former splendor, saw that the first thing necessary was to make clean the house, with all its furniture, that they might be fit for the service. Frequent mention is made of this cleansing in the chapter above referred to, where it is sometimes called cleansing, 2 Chron. 29: 15, 16, 18, sometimes sanctifying, ver. 5, 17, 19; the Hebrew verbs tahar, and kadash being manifestly, through the whole chapter, 'used indiscriminately. Both words are accordingly, in this passage, rendered by the Seventy indifferently ἁγνίζειν and καθαρίζειν, not ἁγιάζειν; in the Vulgate mundare, expiare, and once sanctificare. In both the above examples the word holy is evidently the opposite of dirty, nasty, filthy, in the current acceptation of the terms. This, as being the simplest and most obvious, is probably the primitive sense. Things sensible first had names in every language: The names were afterward extended to things conceivable and intellectual. This is according to the natural progress of knowledge.

11. From this first signification, the transition is easy to that which, in the eye of the ceremonial law, is clean. One great purpose of that law, though neither the only nor the chief purpose, is to draw respect to the religious service, by guarding against every thing that might savor of indecency or uncleanliness. The climate, as well as the nature of their service, rendered this more necessary than we are apt to imagine. Any thing which could serve as a security against infectious disorders in their public assemblies, whereof, as they lived in a hot climate, they were in much greater

* See the whole passage, Deut. 23: 12—15.