understand him, condescending here to human infirmity, and saying, "Your anger shall not be imputed to you as a sin, if you put it away before nightfall" (see Suicer, Thes. s. v. ópyn); but rather, "Be ye angry, yet in this anger of yours suffer no sinful element to mingle; there is that which may cleave even to a righteous anger, the παροργισμός, the irritation, the exasperation ('exacerbatio'), which must be dismissed at once; that so, being defecated of this impurer element which mingled with it, that only which ought to remain, may remain."

§ xxxviii.—ἔλαιον, μύρον (χρίω, ἀλείφω).

IT has been sometimes denied that in the O. T. there is any distinction between these words; and that, on the very insufficient grounds that the Septuagint renders sometimes by μúpov (Prov. xxvii. 9; Cant. i. 3; Isa. xxxix. 2; Am. vi. 6); though much more frequently, indeed times out of number, by exaιov. But how often in a single word of one language are latent two words of another; especially, when that other abounds, as does the Greek compared with the Hebrew, in finer distinctions, in a more subtle notation of meanings; παροιμία and παραβολή are a wellknown example of this, both lying in the Hebrew

; and this duplicity of meaning it is the part

sinews of the soul; he that wants it hath a maimed mind, and with Jacob sinew-shrunk in the hollow of his thigh, must needs halt. Nor is it good to converse with such as cannot be angry."

of a well-skilled translator to evoke. Nay the thing itself, the μúpov (=‘unguentum') so naturally grew out of the eλatov (= 'oleum '), having oil for its base, with only the superaddition of spice or scent or other aromatic ingredients,-Clement of Alexandria (Pædag. ii. 8) calls it "adulterated oil” (Sedoλwμévov eλacov1),—that it would be long in any language before the necessity of differencing words would be felt. Thus in the Greek itself μúpov is not found earlier than in the writings of Archilochus, who was the first to employ it (Athenæus, xv. 37). Doubtless there were ointments in Homer's time; he is satisfied however with 'sweet-smelling oil' (ev@des exaιov, Od. ii. 339); 'roseate oil' (podóev ëλacov, Il. xxiii. 186), wherewith to express them.

In later times there was a clear distinction between the two, and a distinction which uttered itself in language, as is abundantly evident. I would only refer in proof to a passage in Xenophon (Conv. ii. 3, 4), which turns altogether on the greater suitableness of exaιov for men, of μúpov for women; these last consequently being μύρον better pleased that the men should savor of the manly oil than of the effeminate ointment (èλaíov δὲ τοῦ ἐν γυμνασίοις ὀσμὴ καὶ παροῦσα ἡδίων ἢ μύρου γυναιξὶ, καὶ ἀποῦσα ποθεινοτέρα. And in like manner our Lord's rebuke to the discourteous Pharisee, "My head with oil thou didst not anoint,

1 Compare what Plutarch says of Lycurgus (Apoth. Lac. 18): τὸ μὲν μύρον ἐξέλασεν, ὡς τοῦ ἐλαίου φθορὰν καὶ ὄλεθρον.

but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment" (Luke vii. 46), would lose all or nearly all its point on any other supposition: "Thou withheldest from me," He would say, "cheap and ordinary civilities; while she bestowed upon me costly and rare homages;" where Grotius remarks well: Est enim perpetua avriσToxía. Mulier illa lacrimas impendit pedibus Christi proluendis: Simon ne aquam quidem. Illa assidua est in pedibus Christi osculandis: Simon ne uno quidem oris osculo Christum accepit. Illa pretioso unguento non caput tantum sed et pedes perfundit: ille ne caput quidem mero oleo: quod perfunctoriæ amicitiæ fuerat.'

6

Some have drawn a distinction between the verbs aλeipei and xpiev, which, as they make it dependent on this between μύρον and ἔλαιον, may deserve to be mentioned here. The axeípew, they say, is commonly the luxurious, or at any rate the superfluous, anointing with ointment, xpíe the sanitary anointing with oil. Thus Casaubon (Anim. in Athenæum, xv. 39): aλelpeolau, proprium ἀλείφεσθαι, voluptuariorum et mollium: xpleolaι etiam sobriis interdum, et ex virtute viventibus convenit:' and Valcknaer: 'àλelpeolaι dicebantur potissimum homines voluptatibus dediti, qui pretiosis unguentis caput et manus illinebant; Xpleo@at de hominibus ponebatur oleo corpus, sanitatis caussa, inunguentibus.' No traces of the observation of any such distinction appear in the N. T.; thus compare Mark vi. 13; Jam. v. 4, with Mark xvi. 1; John xi. 2;

nor yet of that of Salmasius (Exerc. p. 330): Spissiora linunt, Xpiovor: liquida perfundunt, ἀλείφουσι.

A distinction between the words is maintained there, but it is wholly different from these; namely, that ἀλείφειν is the common and mundane, χρίειν the sacred and heavenly, word. 'Axelpew is used indiscriminately of all actual anointings, whether with oil or ointment; while xpiev, no doubt in its connexion with Xplorós, is absolutely restricted to the anointing of the Son, by the Father, with the Holy Ghost, for the accomplishment of his great office, being wholly separated from all secular and common uses. Thus, see Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27; x. 38; 2 Cor. i. 21; Heb. i. 9; the only occasions on which xpíew occurs. The same holds good in the Septuagint, where χρίσις, χρίσμα (cf. 1 John ii. 20, 27), and xpie, are the constant and ever recurring words in respect of all religious and symbolical anointings; aλeipei hardly occurring in this sense, not oftener, I believe, than at Exod. xl. 13, and Numb. iii. 3.

§ xxxix.Ἑβραῖος, Ἰουδαῖος, Ισραηλίτης. ALL these titles are used to designate members of the elect family and chosen race; yet they are very capable, as they are very well worthy, of being discriminated.

'Eẞpatos will naturally claim first to be considered; for it is a name which brings us back to a period, earlier than any when one, and very

much earlier than any when the other, of those brought into comparison with it, were, or could have been, in existence (Josephus, Antt. i. 6. 4). It is best derived from, the same word as vπép, 'super;'-in this title allusion being contained to Abraham's immigration into the land of future inheritance from the other side of Euphrates; who was, therefore, in the language of the Phoenician tribes among whom he came, "Abram the Hebrew," or ὁ περάτης, as it is well given in the Septuagint (Gen. xiv. 13), being from beyond (πépav) the river; thus also rightly Origen (In Matt. tom. xi. 5): Ἑβραῖοι, οἵτινες ἑρμηνεύονται περατικοί. The name, according to this explanation of it, is not one by which the chosen people know themselves, but by which others know them; not one which they have taken, but which others have imposed on them; and we find the word's use through all the Old Testament entirely consistent with this explanation of its rise. In every case 'Eẞpaîos is either a title by which foreigners designate the people of God (Gen. xxxix. 14, 17; xli. 12; Exod. i. 16, 19; 1 Sam. iv. 6; xiii. 19; xxix. 3; Judith xii. 11); or by which they designate themselves to foreigners (Gen. xl. 15; Exod. ii. 7; iii. 18; v. 3; ix. 1; Jon. i. 19); or by which they speak of themselves in tacit opposition to other nations (Gen. xliii. 32; Deut. xv. 12; 1 Sam. xiii. 3; Jer. xxxiv. 9, 14); never, that is, being used without such a national antagonism, either latent or expressed.

When, however, the name 'Iovdaîos arose, as it