as these interpreters would make it, there is added in it a sentiment altogether foreign to what precedes, frigid, and doyós, i. e. wholly destitute of effect and force; and also not congruous to the sentiment of verse 37. For where the Lord says (verse 37) that every one shall hereafter be judged by his words, he cannot be understood as meaning, that every one will be capable of proving his integrity and goodness merely by his words alone; a sentiment surely as far as possible from the intention of our divine Master. We must therefore necessarily understand a certain kind of words or discourse, which, under the appearance of sincerity and integrity, is often the worst possible, and καταδικάζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, condemns a man, because it is uttered with an evil purpose. If then we interpret dgyóv according to established Greek usage, there arises a facile and very appropriate sense; namely, doyós is the same as aɛoyos, otiosus, vain, idle; then, void of effect, without result, followed by no corresponding event. Therefore nua dorov is empty ῥῆμα αργόν and vain words or discourse, i. e. void of truth, and to which the event does not correspond ; μάταιος λόγος, πράξεων ἄμοι pos revóμevos, as Demosthenes expresses it. In short, it is the empty, inconsiderate, insincere language of a man who says one thing and means another; and in this sense doyós is very frequently employed by the Greeks. Thus in Stobaeus (Serm. c. 34) we find αἱρετώτερόν σοι ἔστω λίθον εἰκῆ βαλεῖν, ἢ lóyou agyóv; which words, as it seems to me, Palairet and Kypke (on this verse) have incorrectly understood as meaning wicked, injurious language, when they ought to be explained of empty discourse, uttered inconsiderately and without sincerity; as is shewn by the comparison of a stone thrown six, in vain, without effect. Hierocles also, in speaking of vain prayers, avevéoynTov Eug, calls them to doyóv, i. e. inefficacious, since they result

Herodotus. Such examples however are frequent in Greek; see e. g. Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. IV. 211. Sallust. Philos. c. 9. Stobaeus Serm. 247.-See on the other hand Glass in Philol. Sac. Lib. I. p. 226 ed. Dathe. But such modes of speech are surely not to be reckoned as belonging to any peculiar usage of the sacred writers, when they are found in almost every language.

* Compare Demosth. xarà Agógov λóy. a. p. 815. ed. Reisk. + In Orat. ad Philippi Epist.

In Carm. aur. Pythagor.

in nothing, being made ψιλῆς τῆς εὐχῆς τοῖς λογισμοῖς, μηδὲν πρὸς τὴν κτῆσιν τῶν αἰτηθέντων προσφέροντας, 6 with merely thoughts of prayer, profiting nothing for the acquisition of the things sought.' The same writer in another passage opposes τὴν ἀργίαν τοῦ καλοῦ to τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ κακοῦ, the inefticiency of good to the energy of evil.' The sophism of the ancients, called the doyos hóyos, ignava ratio,* is also well known. Chrysostom therefore says correctly :† ἀργὸν δὲ τὸ μὴ κατὰ πράγματος κείμενον, τὸ ψευδὲς, τὸ συκοφαντίαν ἔχον, the word doyov signifies that which is not according to fact, false, delusive.' Hence it would appear that the following is the sense of the passage under consideration: Believe me, he who uses false and insincere language, shall suffer grievous punishment; your words, if uttered with sincerity and ingenuousness, shall be approved; but if they are dissembled, although they may bear the strongest appearance of integrity, they shall be condemned.‡

*So called by Cicero de Fato c. 12. Facciolatus has treated of this sophism in his Acroas. V. [The following is the passage of Cicero above referred to. "Nec nos impediet illa ignava ratio, quae dicitur; appellatur enim quidam a philosophis agros Moyos, cui si pareamus, nihil omnino agamus in vita. Sic enim interrogant: Si fatum tibi est, ex hoc morbo convalescere; sive medicum adhibueris, sive non, convalesces. Item, si fatum tibi est, ex hoc morbo non convalescere; sive tu medicum adhibueris, sive non, non convalesces; et alterutrum fatum est. Medicum ergo adhibere nihil attinet. Recte genus hoc interrogationis ignavum atque iners nominatum est, quod eadem ratione omnis e vita tolletur actio."] † Homil. XLIII. in Matt.

We have dwelt somewhat longer on this passage, for the purpose of shewing, with how much uncertainty and indefiniteness the comparison of the oriental tongues has hitherto been applied to the interpretation of the New Testament. Although it is by no means our opinion, that nothing is to be gained by referring to the analogy of those languages; and while we believe, on the contrary, that this is productive of very great utility; still it would seem to be necessary to apply this principle with very great caution. Those interpreters certainly act most considerately, who prefer to explain the words of a writer from the usus loquendi of his own language, rather than by the uncertain analogy or similarity of a foreign tongue. The study of such analogies is no doubt very attractive; but they have also given occasion to many forced interpretations. For want of due caution, such interpreters have been exposed columbae collo commoveri, as Cicero says, Academ. IV. 25.

3. Other interpreters, in the third place, misled by that ambiguity above described, have either neglected all grammatical laws, or have too strenuously observed them. Although the writers of the New Testament have not indeed always followed the rules of the Greek language; yet it cannot be said that they have wholly neglected them. It will suffice to give an example of each kind. On the one hand, interpreters would have spared themselves much pains, and done less violence to many passages of the New Testament, had they recollected the rule of Greek syntax, that futures often have the force of aorists ;* as James 2: 18 xaya deigo, which is to be rendered, as I also am accustomed to shew you; and further, that aorists often signify the continuance of the action which the verb expresses; as James 5: 6, καταδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον, i. e. ye are accustomed to condemn and murder the innocent; and so in the passage cited above from Matthew (12: 33), onoare is to be translated judge or regard habitually, etc. I conjecture also, in the very difficult passage in 1 Pet. 3: 20, that őre is put elliptically for os öte, the wis being here left out, as is often done in comparisons;† and this being admitted, a remedy perhaps can be applied to the passage. On the other hand, in James 3: 6, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, interpreters have been troubled by the article o before the predicate, as if they expected in this writer an entire grammatical accuracy, axoißea; comp. John 1: 1. It is here the article nyntixós, as it is called, or as used deixtixws,‡ and was familiar to the Hebrews, who not unfrequently employed their to connect the subject with the predicate. It would be indeed a very great merit in regard to sacred interpretation, if some one would ascertain and illustrate the analogies of the Greek style of the New Testament with more diligence and accuracy, than has yet been done by those who thus wander in uncertainty and ambiguity; and would in this way establish some certain principles and rules in regard to

* See Lennep, Analog. Ling. Grecae, p. 354.

+ See Bos, Ellips. Graec. p. 392. Noldius, Concord. Part. p. 379. Gataker Advers. Misc. II. 20. p. 382. Compare Eustath. ad Il. ω'. 253, δεῖ κανταύθα προσυπακούειν συνήθως ως. Compare also 2 Pet. 3: 4.

See Vigerus de Idiotism. Ling. Graecae, p. 19. ed. Hermann. 1822.

Gesenius Lehrgeb. p. 708. Stuart's Heb. Gramm. § 447.

this diction. It would then be easy to avoid a multitude of forced interpretations.*

II. We come now to the second cause mentioned above. We have said that a multitude of forced interpretations have had their origin in this circumstance, that the interpreters have not accurately understood or regarded the genius of the writer,† and the times and persons for whom he wrote. We will speak of these in succession.

1. There is evidently a diversity of style and manner among the different writers of the New Testament, corresponding to their diversity of talent and disposition, which must be diligently observed by those who wish to avoid a forced mode of interpretation. The style of John is placid, but marked nevertheless occasionally by more difficult words and phrases. The language of Paul is fervid, often involved, throwing aside all else for the sake of some easy similitude, pouring itself out in figures, tropes, comparisons, antitheses of members, parallelisms of

66

Inasmuch as those who are ignorant of the analogies of an ancient language, can employ no certain method in explaining the monuments of that language, but must be governed by the authority of uncertain usage or the hints of grammarians; so also the interpretation of the New Testament must necessarily be destitute of any certain laws, so long as the analogies of the language which the sacred writers employed, shall not be defined in as accurate and certain a manner as possible. These analogies consist, to use the language of I. D. Lennep, in the constant and uniform likeness and correspondence (similitudo et convenientia) of all the words which compose a language, distributed into certain classes; of the significations attached to them; and lastly of the phrases and whole construction;" and they are exhibited not only in the laws which regulate the formation of words, but also and chiefly investigate the sources of the significations and the proper method of defining them, as well as the various laws of construction. See L. C. Valcknaer and J. C. Lennep, Observatt. de Analogia Ling. Graecae, ed. Ev. Scheid. Traj. ad R. 1790. Whether there are, in the Greek language of the New Testament, any certain and distinct analogical relations, may be questioned by others; for ourselves we are persuaded, that unless these be discovered and established, the interpretation of the New Testament must be given over to the caprice of every interpreter.

The author has not hitherto directly included this particular topic among the causes of forced interpretation; although he has more than once referred to it indirectly; see p. 468 seq.-ED.

words; yet not wholly destitute of rhetorical art. Peter's mind is rapid and impetuous, scarcely bearing the restraints of continued discourse; his language is inelegant, often interrupted, obscured by new words, vehement, yet variable. Of the other writers also the genius is different and the style various. The diction of Matthew is unlike that of Luke. In the former you find a mode of writing somewhat harsh and inelegant, indicating an unpractised writer; in the latter there is more polish, and a certain degree of elegance and ornament. The characteristic of Mark is conciseness in the highest degree. But in each we find certain words and phrases, which are in a manner their own; and which either do not occur in the others, or are found in a different sense. Now since it is impossible to ascertain the sense of any writer without an accurate knowledge of the particular usage and manner which are familiar and appropriate to that writer; it is easy to perceive, and the experience of all ages demonstrates the fact, that those who are ignorant of or neglect these things, have proposed interpretations in the highest degree forced. This is done especially in regard to metaphors and comparisons, which every one employs more or less. And the same thing often takes place, when language which in one writer ought to be interpreted metaphorically, requires in another to be explained literally; or when words which one author uses in their proper sense, are therefore understood in the same manner in another writer.-But to have suggested this point is sufficient; as our object in this discussion is not to speak of particular passages or writers, but of interpretation in general.

2. In order properly to understand and explain any writer, an acquaintance with the times in which he lived and for which he wrote, must evidently be of the highest advantage. In this indeed lies almost the whole sum and essence of the so called historical interpretation, from which however the grammatical can in no way be separated.* Had now very many interpreters

*The necessity of the union of both these modes, is demonstrated by Keil in his Commentat. de historica Lib. sacror. interpretatione ejusque necessitate, Leip. 1788. There is in fact no grammatical interpretation, and cannot be, unless joined with the historical. There are indeed some who wish to separate the two; but while they pass an unfavourable judgment on the former, they change the latter into an unbridled license of conjecture in regard to words.Comp. G. L. Bauer in Philol. Glassii his temporibus accommodata, T. II. Sect. II. p. 256 seq.