as ἁγιάζειν and καθαγιάζειν sanctificare, to hallow, to sanctify; but not once by 'ooos, or any of its conjugates. On the other hand, chasid is rendered ɛɛnuov and noλvɛɛos misericors, merciful, εvλaßng 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 vestments; 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 inclosed, the outer part whereof was called, by way of eminence, 'n ‘ayıa scilicet oxnvn, the holy place, and the inner in ayia ayun, the holy of holies, or the most holy place. Now I find nothing like this in the use made of the word 'ootos, which as far as I can discover, is applied only to persons, or beings susceptible of cha racter. The ta oσia Aaßid 14, cannot be accounted τα όσια Δαβιδ an exception. The word used by the Prophet is on chesed, benignitas, not on chasid, benignus, and is not improperly rendered in our version mercies. Nor is the 'oos xepas of the Apostle 142, 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 OBSERVE, further, that even when ayos 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, as applied to Aaron; 141 Isaiah. lv. 3. Acts, xiii. 34. 142 1 Tim. ii. 8. They envied Moses, also, in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the Lord 13; τον ἅγιον Κύριο. 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, ayaoua Κυριό. § 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 1. 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 dotos; the whole passage is exceedingly obscure; insomuch that it is impossible to say, with certainty, who is here called chasidecha, which our 143 Psal. cvi. 16. 144 144 Deut. xxxiii. 8. 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 14. 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 thy holy one, chasidecha, tov bolov os, to see corruption 146. 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 7, as some of them also tempted, 145 Exod. xvii. 1, &c. Numb. xx. 3, &c. 147 1 Cor. x. 9. referring to what happened in the desert, and were destroyed of serpents. 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, tov ootov σ, in words addressed to God, is not authority enough for understanding him to be meant by τω οσίω σε, ⚫ to thy holy one, in words addressed to Levi. 7. BUT to return: another difference in the application of the words ayios and 'ootos, 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 |