servation of Cicero, if I remember right, that the word hostis with them anciently meant foreigner, which, having been given at first, through delicacy, as a milder name for people with whom they were at war, became, through long-continued use, the proper appellation for enemy. By the like gradation doubtless amongst us, the word knave, from denoting servant, has degenerated into the sign of a character distinguished more for turpitude of manIt would ners, than for meanness of condition.

not be easy to divine how the word beholden, (if not a corruption of the Dutch gehouden) the passive participle of the verb to behold, came, from signifying seen or perceived, to denote indebted. Innumerable examples of this kind might be mentioned.

18. BUT, from simple words to proceed, as I proposed, to compounds; were we to lay it down as a principle, that the combined meanings of the component parts will always give us the sense of the compound, we should conclude that the Greek word navaρyos, is equivalent to the English poetic πανέργος, word omnific, to which it exactly corresponds in etymology; yet nothing can be more different in signification. The former is always adopted in a bad, the latter in a good sense. Hardly any rule in the composition of Greek words holds more uniformly than that the adverb ev gives the addition of a good quality to the word with which it is joined ; yet the term ɛundns which, if any faith were due to

οικοδο

etymology, should mean a virtuous and worthy man, denotes generally a simpleton or fool. The Greek word avτapxea exactly corresponds, in respect of the signification of its component parts, to the English word self-sufficiency: yet the former has a good meaning, and denotes contentment; the latter, except when applied to the Deity, has invariably a bad meaning, and signifies arrogance. Sometimes the sense of one of the words in composition is totally lost, the compound term being applied in a manner which excludes it. Thus the word oxodoμew ought to signify to build a house, but it is not only construed with tapos a sepulchre (which by metaphor may indeed be called a house, being the receptacle of the dead), but with Ovolanpiov altar, xapaxwois bulwark, and several other terms which, in no sense, proper or figurative, can be denominated houses. Such anomalies, both in derivation and in composition, are to be found in all tongues, insomuch that often etymology points to one meaning, and use to another. Were we to mind the indication of the former, the English word always ought to be rendered into Latin omnimodo and not semper; our verb to vouchsafe should denote to give one a protection, or to insure one's safety, and not to deign or condescend. The inseparable preposition re in English commonly denotes again, but to reprove is not to prove again, to recommend is not to commend again, nor does to remark mean to mark again. As little can these be explained by the aid of the adverb back, like the verbs to recall and to return.

19. In the above examples I have confined myself to terms whose meaning, though an exception from the rules of analogy, is incontrovertible; my principal object being to evince, to the satisfaction of every intelligent reader, that the sense of words is often totally different from that to which the etymology points, and that, consequently, in all the cases wherein use cannot be discovered, and wherein the context does not necessarily fix the meaning, the conviction which arises from etymology alone, is consi derably inferior to that which arises either from known use, or from the words immediately connected. But, before I dismiss this topic, I shall offer some criticisms on a few passages of the New Testament which may appear, on a superficial view, more controvertible, in order to show with how much caution we ought to proceed in rendering a compound word in one language, by one in another similarly compounded; and that even, though the original term be not, like those above specified, an exception, in respect of meaning, from the common rules of analogy.

The word Suluxos, used by the Apostle James, compounded of dis, signifying in composition double or twice, and 4vxn, soul, mind, spirit, could not, one would at first imagine, be more properly or literally rendered, than by the similar English compound double-minded. But this, though in some sense, it may be called a literal version, is a mistranslation of the word, inasmuch as it conveys a sense entirely different. Yet the meaning of the ori

ginal term is analogical: only there are different ways wherein the mind or soul may be charged with duplicity. One is, when it sometimes leans to one opinion, sometimes to the contrary; another is, when it secretly harbours passions and opinions the reverse of those which it openly professes. No two meanings can be more different; the first is certainly the import of the Greek word, the second of the English, which is justly explained by Johnson, deceitful, insidious. To recur to the passage itself"; Ανηρ διψυχος ακαταςατος εν πασαις ταις odos avτs, in the common translation, A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways: first, the sentiment itself may suggest a doubt of the justness of the version. There appears no immediate connection between deceitfulness and inconstancy. The deceitful are often but too stable in a bad course. The doubleness expressed in the English word does not imply sudden changes of any kind; but solely, that the real motives of conduct and the outward professions disagree; or that the person intends one thing, whilst he professes another. Now who sees not that, in respect of both the intention and the profession, he may be very steady? Fickleness is not remarkably an attendant on hypocrisy. When I examine the context, I find nothing there that relates to sincerity or the conformity that ought to subsist between a man's words and his thoughts; but I am led di

7 James, i. 8.

rectly by it to think of constancy in right principles, as the apostle had been, in the preceding words, urging the necessity of unshaken faith. This verse, if Suluxos be understood to mean unsteady in the belief of the truth, perfectly coincides with, and supports, the Apostle's argument; implying that inconstancy in principles produces inconstancy in the whole conduct, than which no sentiment can be clearer.

To recur, however, to some of the other rules of criticising above mentioned (not as necessary, in the present instance, but for the sake of illustration), and first to Scriptural usage; I find, on inquiry, that there is only one other passage in the New Testament wherein the word occurs. It is in the same Epistle, but the expression there is too general to ascertain the import of the term in question. As the word is not to be found in the Septuagint, nor even in the Apocrypha, there is reason to believe that it is not affected by the idiom of the synagogue. I therefore apply to common use, and find that the word uniformly denotes doubtful, fluctuating in respect of one's judgment. All its conjugates in like manner support this meaning; dfuxia is doubt or hesitancy, duluxew to doubt, to hesitate. If we apply to the ancient Greek expositors, they all interpret it in the same way. And as this is none of the passages whereon any of their theological controversies were founded, we can give them the greater credit. I shall only transcribe the explanation given