* The meaning of this term, to which an allusion has thus occurred, may be explained as follows.

The use of ovσa is just as common as the use of ἡ αὔριον -with the ellipsis in each instance of pépa-for to-morrow, or the morrow, in opposition to onμepov, to-day, or this day. Vide Acts vii. 26. xvi. 11. XX. 15. xxi. 18. xxiii. 11.

From the former of these, considered as a substantive, the adjective émiovotos, in the kindred signification of of, or belonging to, the morrow, would be regularly derived. The words of the petition, then, are equivalent to these-τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν, τὸν τῆς ἐπιούσης, δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον, Give us this day our bread of the morrow and the bread of the morrow is a genuine Hebraism for the bread which is wanted to-day. The bread of to-day is in one sense the bread of the morrow; for it is the bread which must sustain us until the morrow. It is the bread, ó eis τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν—the bread which is wanted against the morrow. The change which St. Luke has made in the terms of St. Matthew, places this relation to the morrow in a still clearer light: TòV ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν Tò κað ημéρav, xi. 3. Give us every day our bread of the morrow; or, more literally, Give us, for the day, our bread of the morrow.

Origen, Operum i. 245. F. De Oratione, 27: declares him

c Matt. vi. 11.

self much perplexed by this term ἐπιούσιος, which he had never met with either in common discourse, or in profane writers; nor any thing in the Old or New Testament which resembled it, except TeрLovσioS in the sense of peculiar-the version of the Seventy for Exod. xix. 5 a version adopted by A5: quila, (Hieronymus, Õperum iii. 1831. ad med. in Malachiæ iv.) as that of aíperos was by Symmachus, (Theodorit, Operum i. 147. Quæstiones in Exodum. Interp. xxxv.) and that of Teрiñoinow in general by others. (Hieronymus, loc. cit. and iv. Pars ia. 21. ad princip.)

And, though he leans to the derivation of the word from ovoia, substantia, yet 249. C. he observes: ἐρεῖ δέ τις τὸν ἐπιούσιον παρὰ τὸ ἐπιέναι, καὶ ἐσχηματίσθαι ὥστε αἰτεῖν ἡμᾶς κελεύεσθαι τὸν ἄρτον τὸν οἰκεῖον τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, ἵνα προλαβὼν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς ἤδη ἡμῖν δωρήσηται, ὥστε τὸ οἱονεὶ αὔριον δοθησόμενον σήμερον ἡμῖν δοθῆναι· σήμερον μὲν τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος λαμβανομένου, αὔριον δὲ τοῦ μέλλοντος.

The old Italic version, it is to be observed, renders it by cottidianum; and by Jerome, (Operum iv. Pars i. 21. ad princip. in Matt. vi.) it is said: In Evangelio, quod appellatur secundum Hebræos, pro supersubstantiali pane, reperi MAHAR, quod dicitur crastinum; ut sit sensus : Panem nostrum crastinum, id est futurum, da nobis hodie. Cf.

Luke xi. 3.

further, ibid. 431 and 432. in Tit. ii.

Joannes Damascenus, De Orthodoxa Fide, lib. iv. p. 114. ad sinistram, cap. 90, seems to have been aware that the meaning of ἐπιούσιος, thus contended for, in the sense at least of future, was an allowable one, when he observes upon the sacramental bread, οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἡ ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἄρτου, ὅς ἐστιν ὁ ἐπιούσιος. τὸ γὰρ ἐπιούσιον δηλοῖ ἢ τὸν μελλοντα, τουτέστι τὸν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, ἢ τὸν πρὸς συντήρησιν τῆς οὐσίας ἡμῶν λαμβανόμενον : in which sense Suidas also explains it, in voce, ó ènì tô οὐσίᾳ ἡμῶν ἁρμόζων.

Toup, indeed, in his note on this passage of Suidas, objects to the opinion of Kuster, Scaliger, and Salmasius, all of whom agreed in deriving novotos from émiovσa, that the word, so formed, Ne Græcum quidem videreter: and he contends that it is derived not from ovoa, but from οὐσία. But the truth is, that even ovoia, whence Toup would form ovotos, is itself derived from ovoa, the feminine nominative of the participle of the substantive verb εἰμί. Admitting that there was such a substantive in use as ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, in the sense of the morrow, we might contend that ἐπιούσιος, of or belonging to ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, was regularly formed from it; according to a well known rule of one of the modes of the formation of adjectives from feminine substantives in η and a, which is simply to change the termination into los. Thus, τιμὴ, τίο

μιος, βουλὴ, βούλιος, ἡμέρα, ἡμέ ριος, θάλασσα, θαλάσσιος; and what is still more to the point, kouσα, ἑκούσιος, ἀκοῦσα, ἀκούσιος, &c. The objection, therefore, of Toup to the irregularity of the formation in question, is without foundation. I fear his own explanation of the sense of the word, supposing it derived from οὐσία, would be much more open to objection. The bread rs oùσίας, οι πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν, in the sense of the bread of our subsistence, would scarcely be Greek. It is a nice distinction, but still an intelligible one-that there is a difference between the ovvia of a given subject, and the eivai, or the ináрxew of the same. The very passage which Toup quotes from Porphyry, in support of his opinion, illustrates this distinction; and so far makes against him: εἰς τὸ ΕΙΝΑΙ συνέχει τὴν ΟΥΣΙΑΝ. Bread of our subsistence, bread, unde vivamus, as Toup explains it, is bread eis rò εἶναι ἡμῶν, not εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν. may be very true that διὰ τοῦ εἶναι, ἡ οὐσία συνέχεται: but it is also true that the ovoía of a given subject would remain the same,though the εἶναι, or ὑπάρχειν, of it, in the sense of continuing to be and to live, were no more. The proper sense of ovơía in Greek, is to express the logical substantia; the pars materialis more particularly of the essence; the рórn λn of things that are without which they could not so much as be. The ovoía of the dead subject in this sense would be nothing different from that of the living; for to

It

the ovσia in this sense, to be, or not to be, that is, to be living or to be dead, is alike indifferent. The bread of our subsistence, then, would not be properly expressed in Greek by ὁ ἄρτος τῆς οὐσίας ἡμῶν, any more than in Latin, by panis substantiæ nostra, or in English by the bread of our substance.

Mr. Harmer observes that it is usual in the East at present, to prepare the corn, intended for the day's consumption, always at daybreak on the same day and to bake no more breadin their ovens at once than will suffice for the day: Vol. i. chap. iv. obs. viii. p. 269. Cf. also Obs. iv. p. 250, and Obs. ix. p. 277. They live in short, as far as bread is concerned, de die in diem. If such was the practice anciently, it reflects additional illustration upon the sense of movσios: and that it was so, may be inferred from Luke xvii. 34, 35, (Cf. Matt. xxiv. 41,) and Luke xi. 5-7.

While I am upon the subject of the anaέ λeyóμeva which occur in the Gospels, I will take the liberty of adding one more, peculiar also to St. Luke; yet not so much on account of the peculiarity of the word, as of that of the sense in which it is used. This is in the use of ȧváσraσw, ii. 34-the difficulty of understanding which text, so long as the word was considered to possess there its common signification of resurrection, has often been painfully felt by myself, and, probably, by others also. But the word

Isocrates, Oratio xv. 135: éπì τῆς ἐκείνου στρατηγίας οὐδεὶς ἂν οὔτ ̓ ἀναστάσεις εὖροι γεγενημένας, οὔτε πολιτειῶν μεταβολάς. Demosthenes, Olynth. ii. 1: wσTE TÀS πρὸς ἐκεῖνον διαλλαγὰς πρῶτον μὲν ἀπίστους, εἶτα τῆς ἑαυτῶν πατρίδος νομίζειν ἀνάστασιν εἶναι. Cf. Pollux, Onomasticon, iii. cap. 13: Suidas, áváσraσis: Diodorus Siculus, xiii. 28: Dio Chrysostomus, Oratio xxxvi. 76. 1. 25: Maximus Tyrius, Dissertatio xiii. 4: Euripides, Troades, 921: Anthologia, iii. 223: Orphei, De Terræ Motibus, 26. A multitude of other instances might be produced from Philo, Josephus, and the contemporary writers. Equally common are ἀναστατὴρ, ἀναστάτης, ἀνάστατος, and avaσrarów, in their analogous senses. The latter occurs thrice in the New Testament itself.