occurs (Rom. iii. 25). Our Trans-
lators have noticed in the margin, but have not marked
in their Version, the variation in the Apostle's phrase,
rendering pa here by ‘remission,’ as they have rendered
a@fesij elsewhere; and many have since justified them in
this; whilst others, as I cannot doubt, more rightly affirm
that St. Paul of intention changed his word, wishing to say
something which pa would express adequately and
accurately, and which a@fesij would not; and that our
Translators should have reproduced this change which he
has made.
It is familiar to many, that Cocceius and those of his
school found in this text one main support for a favourite
doctrine of theirs, namely, that there was no remission of
sins, in the fullest sense of these words, under the Old
Covenant, no telei (Heb. x. 1-4), no entire abolition
of sin even for the faithful themselves, but only a present
praetermission (pa), a temporary dissimulation, upon
God's part, in consideration of the sacrifice which was
one day to be; the a]na remaining the
meanwhile. On this matter a violent controversy raged
among the theologians of Holland at the end of the
sixteenth and beginning of the following century, which
was carried on with an unaccountable acrimony; and for a
brief history of which see Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. v. p. 209;
Vitringa, Obss. Sac. vol. iv. p. 3; Venema, Diss. Sac. p. 72;
while a full statement of what Cocceius did mean, and
in his own words, may be found in his Commentary on the
Romans, in loc. (Opp. vol. v. p. 62); and the same more
at length defended and justified in his treatise, Utilitas
Distinctionis duorum Vocabulorwm, Scripturae, pare et
a]fe (vol. ix. p. 121, sq.) Those who at that time
opposed the Cocceian scheme denied that there was any
distinction between a@fesij and pa; thus see Wit-
sius, OEcon. Foed. Dei, iv. 12.36. But in this they erred;
for while Cocceius and his followers were undoubtedly
116 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XXXIII.
wrong, in saying that for the faithful, so long as the
Old Covenant subsisted, there was only a pa, and
no a@fesij, a[marthma, in applying to them what was
asserted by the Apostle in respect of the world; they were
right in maintaining that pa was not entirely equi-
valent to a@fesij. Beza, indeed, had already drawn at-
tention to the distinction. Having in his Latin Ver-
sion, as first published in 1556, taken no notice of it, he
acknowledges at a later period his error, saying, ‘Haec
duo plurimum inter se differunt;’ and now rendering
pa by ‘dissimulatio.’
In the first place, the words themselves suggest a
difference of meaning. If a@fesij is remission, ‘Loslas-
sung,' pa from pari