same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; OeóTNS being from Θεός, and θειότης, not from τὸ θεῖον, which might be said to be the same thing as Ocós, but from the adjective θεῖος.

Comparing the two passages where they severally occur, we shall at once perceive the fitness of the employment of one word in one, of the other in the other. In the first (Rom. i. 20) St. Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids; He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in his Son; but only his divine attributes, his majesty and glory. This Theophylact feels, who gives μεγαλειότης as equivalent to θειότης here; and it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word, just because he would affirm that men may know God's power and majesty from his works; but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or from anything short of the revelation of his Eternal Word.1

But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9) St. Paul

1 Cicero (Tusc. i. 13): Multi de Diis prava sentiunt; omnes tamen esse vim et naturam divinam arbitrantur.'

is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses córns to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son. Thus Beza rightly: 'Non dicit: Tηv Deιótηta, i. e. divinitatem, sed tǹv leótηta, i. e. deitatem, ut magis etiam expresse loquatur;

...

Oelóτns attributa videtur potius quam naturam ipsam declarare.' And Bengel: 'Non modo divinæ virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura.' De Wette has sought to express the distinction in his German translation, rendering betóτns by 'Gottlichkeit,' and Oeórns by 'Gottheit.'

There have not been wanting those who have denied that any such distinction was intended by St. Paul; and they rest this denial on the assumption that no such difference between the forces of the two words can be satisfactorily made out. But, even supposing that such a difference could not be shown in classical Greek, this of itself would be in no way decisive on the matter. The Gospel of Christ might for all this put into words, and again draw out from them, new forces, evolve latent distinctions, which those who hitherto employed the words may not have required, but which had become necessary now. And that this distinction between 'deity' and 'divinity,' if I may use these words to represent severally OcóτNS and Oelóτns, is one which would be strongly felt,

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 eórηs. 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 cóτηta 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 Oelórns, 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 Oetórns is attributed, but never absolute personal Deity. Thus Lucian (De Cal. 17) attributes Ocióτns 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 OecórηS, but always cóτns, as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of each of the Three Persons in the Trinity.

6

§ 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 TEтρаYÓν@ σXýμari. In another passage (Antt. τετραγώνῳ σχήματι. 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 (συγκατασκευάσαι Tòv vaóv). This is refused them (cf. Ezra iv. 2); 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).

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

เ