and Oάpoos,1'Thrax' and 'Threx,' 'rechtlich' and 'redlich,' 'harnais' and 'harnois,' 'allay' and 'alloy.' That which may be affirmed of all these, may also, I am persuaded, be affirmed in respect of ανάθημα and ἀνάθεμα. Whether this were so or not was a question debated with no little heat by some of the great early Hellenists, and names of weight and importance are ranged on either side; Salmasius being the greatest name among those who maintained the existence of a distinction, at least in Hellenistic Greek; Beza among those who denied it. Perhaps here, as in so many cases, the truth did not absolutely lie with the combatants on either part, but lay rather between them, though much nearer to one part than the other; the most reasonable conclusion, after weighing all the evidence on either side, being this-that such a distinction did exist, and was allowed by many, but was by no means recognised or observed by all.

In classical Greek ává@nua is quite the predominant form, and the only one which Attic writers allow (Lobeck, Phrynichus, pp. 249, 445; Paralip. p. 391). It is there the technical word by which all such costly offerings as were presented to the gods, and then suspended or otherwise exposed to view in their temples, all by the Romans termed 'donaria,' as tripods, crowns, silver and golden vases, and the like, were called; these being in this way separated for ever from all common 1 Gregory Nazianzene (Carm. ii. 34. 55):

θράσος δέ, θάρσος πρὸς τὰ μὴ τολμητέα.

and profane uses, and openly dedicated to the honour of that deity, to whom they were presented at the first (Xenophon, Anab. v. 3. 5; Pausanias, x. 9).

But with the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, a new thought demanded to find utterance. Those Scriptures spoke of two ways in which things and persons might be holy, set apart for God, devoted to Him. The children of Israel were devoted to Him; God was glorified in them: the wicked Canaanites were devoted to Him; God was glorified on them. This awful fact that in more ways than one a thing might be holy to God (Lev. xvii. 28),-that things and persons might be devoted to Him for good, and for evil; that there was such a thing as being "accursed to the Lord" (Josh. vi. 17; cf. Deut. xiii. 16; Numb. xxi. 1-3); that of the spoil of the same city, a part might be consecrated to the Lord in his treasury, and a part utterly destroyed, and yet this part and that be alike dedicated to Him (Josh. vi. 19, 21); —this claimed its expression and utterance now, and found it in the two uses of one word; which, while it remained the same, just differenced itself enough to indicate in which of the two senses it was employed. And here let it be observed, that those who find separation from God as the central idea of ává@epa, are quite unable to trace a common bond of meaning between it and ȧvábnua, which last is plainly separation to God; or to show the point at which they diverge from one another; while there is no difficulty of

the kind when it is seen that separation to God is in both cases implied.'

Already in the Septuagint we begin to find ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα disengaging themselves from one another, and from a confused and promiscuous use. How far, indeed, the distinction is observed there, and whether universally, it is hard to determine, from the variety of readings in various editions; but in one of the later critical editions (that of Tischendorf, 1850), many passages (such for instance as Judith xvi. 19; Lev. xxvii. 28, 29), which appear in some earlier editions negligent of the distinction, are found observant of it. In the N. T. the distinction that áváOnua is used to express the 'sacrum' in a better sense, ȧváleμa in a worse, is invariably maintained. It must be allowed, indeed, that the passages there are not numerous enough to convince a gainsayer; he may attribute to hazard the fact that they fall in with this distinction; ȧválnμa occurring only once: "Some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts,"

1 Flacius Illyricus (Clavis Script. s. v. Anathema) excellently explains the manner in which the two apparently opposed meanings unfold themselves from a single root: 'Anathema igitur est res aut persona Deo obligata aut addicta; sive quia Ei ab hominibus est pietatis causâ oblata: sive quia justitia Dei tales, ob singularia aliqua piacula veluti in suos carceres pœnasque abripuit, comprobante et declarante id etiam hominum sententiâ.... Duplici enim de causâ Deus vult aliquid habere; vel tanquam gratum acceptumque ac sibi oblatum ; vel tanquam sibi exosum, suæque iræ ac castigationi subjectum ac debitum.'

(αναθήμασι, Luke xxi. 5); and ἀνάθεμα no more

than six times (Acts xxiii. 14; Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 3; xvi. 22; Gal. i. 8, 9). Still none can deny that so far as these uses reach, they confirm this view of the matter; while if we turn to the Greek Fathers, we shall find some of them indeed neglecting the distinction; but others, and these of the greatest among them, not merely implicitly allowing it, as does Clement of Alexandria (Coh. ad Gen. 4: ἀνάθημα γεγόναμεν τῷ Θεῷ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ: where the context plainly shows the meaning to be, "we have become a costly offering to God"); but explicitly recognising and drawing out the difference with accuracy and precision; see, for instance, Chrysostom, Hom. xvi. în Rom., as quoted in Suicer's Thes. s. v. ȧváðeμa.

And thus, putting all which has been urged together, the anterior probability, drawn from the existence of similar phenomena in all languages, that the two forms of a word would gradually have two different meanings attached to them; the wondrous way in which the two aspects of dedication to God, for good and for evil, are thus set out by slightly different forms of the same word; the fact that every place in the New Testament, where the words occur, falls in with this scheme; the usage, though not perfectly consistent, of later ecclesiastical books,-I cannot but conclude that ἀνάθημα and ἀνάθεμα are employed not accidentally by the sacred writers of the New Covenant in different senses; but that St. Luke uses ávánμa (xxi. 5), because he intends to express that which

is dedicated to God for its own honour as well as for God's glory; St. Paul uses ȧváleμa because he intends that which is devoted to God, but devoted, as were the Canaanites of old, to his honour indeed, but its own utter loss; even as in the end every intelligent being, capable of knowing and loving God, must be either ȧválnμa or ȧváleμa to Him. (See Witsius, Misc. Sac. vol. ii. p. 54, sqq.; Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. ii. p. 495, sqq.)

§ vi.—προφητεύω, μαντεύομαι.

Προφητεύω is a word of constant occurrence in the N. T.; μavтevoμaι occurs but once, namely at Acts xvi. 16; where of the girl possessed with the "spirit of divination," or "spirit of Apollo," it is said that she "brought her masters much gain by soothsaying" (μavтevoμévn). The abstinence from the use of this word on all other occasions, and the use of it on this one, is very observable, furnishing as it does a very notable example of that instinctive wisdom wherewith the inspired writers keep aloof from all words, the employment of which would have tended to break down the distinction between heathenism and revealed religion. Thus evda povía, although from a heathen point of view a religious word, for it ascribes happiness to the favour of the deity, is yet never employed to express Christian blessedness; nor could it fitly have been thus employed, daíμwv,