The testimony of such writers as the Greek fathers, scholiasts, and glossographers to the usus loquendi of the New Testament diction, is not of great value. Their explanations of words are generally loose and often inaccurate. The substitution of one term for another cannot be called interpretation, especially when there is a perceptible difference between the ideas expressed by both. Their value is to be estimated 1st, According to their age. The nearer a commentator was to the apostolic times, the more competent was he, ceteris paribus, to unfold the usus loquendi, and to illustrate the customs and rites referred to by the inspired writers. 2dly, According to their own internal goodness. This may be ascertained by comparing their explanations with such as are well known, and by attending to their general tenor. The Greek fathers, ignorant of Hebrew, rested upon Greek usage alone, and fell in consequence into much error. They gave the sense of words and phrases not in its general, comprehensive, fundamental aspect, but according to the context of single passages. Besides, their notes are often ascetic meditations. The New Testament interpreter need scarcely have recourse to these glossaries and scholia, since they have been incorporated into the best modern lexicons, as those of Schleusner, Bretschneider, Wahl, and Robinson. On these valuable dictionaries, the aid which patristic writings can furnish in ascertaining the usus loquendi of the New Testament, has been brought to bear with considerable skill. After having so copiously alluded to the modes of interpretation adopted by the fathers, it will not be necessary to repeat what has been said, or to repronounce our opinion of their commentaries as sources of interpretation. It is in this view that they come before us on the present occasion. In respect to the early fathers, we quite coincide with the sentiments of Mr. Osburn. "They were exactly in the situation of men translated in a moment from total darkness to the unclouded blaze of noon. That truth, in search of which they had groped in vain in every corner of their prison-house, and which was still the subject of their anxious enquiry, had been shot at once into their hearts and understandings by the energy of Omnipotence. And we are not surprised to find, that they were dazzled and confounded with the intensity of the light it diffused: their overwhelming astonishment being far more excited by the undoubted certainty and vast importance of the truths which Christianity revealed, than by the miracles which had first called their attention to them. The whole tenor of their works evidences this and I speak it to the shame of modern infidelity. But we maintain that persons so circumstanced were no more qualified for the office of commentators and expositors of the doctrines of the New Testament, than the just liberated prisoner to gaze upon the noon-day sun. Their errors are exactly what might have been anticipated, under the circumstances in which they were placed. They were not able to endure the direct rays of the divine truth; and, therefore, they endeavoured to shade their aching eyes with the veil of their former prepossessions, and to look upon Christianity through the medium of certain notions which they drew from the ritual of Heathenism, and from the Platonic philosophy. It is a grievous and dangerous error to set them forth, either as infallible expositors of the Christian faith, or as the authorised exemplars of Christian practice. The tradition of the early fathers is possessed of no power of prescription whatever over the Church of Christ in succeeding ages. Like the opinions of authors of any other period, it is to be received, so far as it is agreeable to God's word,' and no further." And with regard to the subsequent fathers, they took much of their tone from the earlier. Even the best expositors among them often pursued obliquitous paths of exegesis, from which the judgment of the weakest modern will keep him away. By degrees, the lengthening line of these ancient writers became more and more corrupt, until their works present few of the living truths of the gospel, which alone are effectual for the salvation of the soul, or the conservation of righteousness in a church. We trace feeble and faint allusions to the free grace of God as working all good in the Christian's acts and exercises;- the atonement of Christ becomes a vague generality, until their writings present the lamentable spectacle of a great apostasy from the pure faith of the apostles, no less than a gross perversion of heavenly doctrine. It is also superfluous for the expositor to consult the Greek writers belonging to the period of the xový diáλexros, or the Sep Doctrinal Errors of the Apostolical and Early Fathers, London 1835, 8vo, pp. 328, 9. We take the present opportunity of recommending this very able book to the perusal of our readers. It should be studied along with Mr. Taylor's Ancient Christianity. tuagint, Josephus, Philo, Apocryphal writings, &c., since modern lexicographers have incorporated into their dictionaries whatever materials of value these works afford. The following axiomatic principles may be laid down for the guidance of Biblical expositors. They are founded on the preceding chapters, of which they are only a condensation. Perhaps in their present form they will be serviceable, if not in conducting the interpreter to the correct sense in every case, at least in preventing him from falling into error. Leaving versions out of consideration, the usual, established signification of a word should be followed in a given place except there be some necessity for abandoning it. This necessity is unfolded in the succeeding rules. 1st, When the context obviously rejects such a signification. 2dly, When by adhering to the ordinary meaning, a sentiment inconsistent with one or more parallel places would be elicited. But when the vicinity of a term and parallel passages harmonize with its common usage, there arises the greatest certainty that no other usage should be sought or created. The context, when rightly understood, can never be opposed to the signification which a word bears in a parallel place. Both agree in testimony, although it may not be equally definite or unambiguous. Taking versions into account it may be safely affirmed — 1. The signification of a word, though found in no more than one version, if agreeable to its general usage and to the context, is to be admitted. 2. The signification of a word not given by any of the ancient versions in a particular locality, provided it be the usual one and recommended by the connexion, should be adopted. 3. A signification supported by all the versions, but contrary to the usus loquendi and the context, is to be rejected. 4. The signification given to an ä≈ağ λeyóμevov in all or in a majority of versions, should be received as correct. 5. When parallel passages, context, and versions agree in restricting a term to a certain sense, that sense should be received. 6. When a signification attached to a word in all other places of the Bible is opposed to the vicinity of a particular locality, it cannot be admitted there, though sanctioned by the best versions. 7. Where versions, parallels, and context appear to disagree among themselves respecting the signification of a word in a certain place, the context must be considered as of greater weight than either of the others, provided it recommend explicitly and clearly a certain sense. The next degree of authority is due to parallel places, and a lower to ancient versions. The three, however, are seldom found to disagree in one place; and where two unite against the third, they should be followed. There is no instance in which the signification of a term sanctioned both by versions and parallels, is opposed to the context of a passage. The testimony of versions may truly disagree with that of the context and of parallels;-but the context rightly understood cannot contradict the signification which parallels manifestly require. When, therefore, versions and parallels agree in affixing a certain sense in opposition to the context, the testimony of parallels or of the context is misunderstood. These rules, mutatis mutandis, apply to sentences and paragraphs. When the testimony of the context or of parallels is ambiguous, the necessity for departing from the ordinary signification of terms becomes less; while external helps are more needed. Too great caution cannot be applied in determining what are parallels, and what light they are capable of throwing on a place under examination. The connexion also is very variIts evidence is not always certain, nor even probable to the inquirer. In every case, the judicious interpreter will prayerfully avail himself of all the assistance which the researches of others afford, and give to each circumstance its due value. Comparing and combining all the testimony which he can procure, he will arrive at such a conclusion as approves itself to his conscientious and best judgment. ous. CHAPTER XIV. III.* COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION. WHEN the preceding means of ascertaining the right signification of a word, or the sense of a phrase, fail to afford satisfaction, as they sometimes do; when neither etymology, nor context, nor parallel passages, nor versions, furnish a sufficiently clear explanation, we have recourse to other and cognate languages. Various circumstances connected with them, suggest and sanction the idea, that they are likely to prove valuable auxiliaries. Some are more copious than the one which we are desirous to illustrate. Presenting richer remains, they may be able tosupply the deficiencies of their comparatively meagre cognate. Others again have been longer preserved than that to which the attention is chiefly directed; - circumstances have contributed to ward off their extinction for a greater period, and thus lying more within reach of the philologist, they may afford valuable assistance towards the elucidation of the more ancient. Or, it may happen, that although one cognate language does not surpass another in richness, or in vernacular duration, it may be serviceable in strengthening conclusions which the other does not establish with complete satisfaction, or in bringing out with greater fulness the import of an obscure phrase. Any or all of these reasons must prompt the interpreter to employ cognate languages for mutual explanation. But how is their relationship ascertained? By what means may we know that one is closely allied to another? The testimony of history is an important index to the reality of such an affinity. In addition to this, there are internal evidences or marks no less decisive of the same conclusion. Both may be employed mutually to strengthen and establish the fact of an existing alliance. History informs us, that several tribes and nations sprung from the same race, and that their dialects are substantially the same as those of their progenitors. In this case, the various dialects arising from the same source may be regarded with much probability as sister dialects, and there *See page 228. |