The first refers to the thing to be expressed; for if it appear that this was new, and unknown to the ancients, we may conclude, with an appearance of truth, that the word which expresses it is also of later origin. Thus, as to ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, 1 Pet. iv. 15, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, Coloss. iii. 22, ȧgxiovvάywyos, Luke viii. 41, ἀρχιτελώνης, Luke xix. 2, δωδεκάφυλον, Acts xxvi. 7, εἰδωλολατρεία, 1 Cor. x. 14, εἰδωλολάτρης, 1 Cor. x. 7, and similar examples, no one will doubt who remembers, that the things themselves, which these words were intended to express, belonged, not to the Greeks, but only to the Jews. Another mark which indicates a thing to be of the later age, is found in those words which refer to a thing not by any means unknown, nor without a proper name in the more ancient language. Μερισμός and διαμερισ Mós are condemned by grammarians-the latter, by Pollux, viii. 136, ὁ γὰρ διαμερισμὸς ὑπόφαυλον— the former, by Thomas Magister, p. 49, ȧvaδάσασθαι, οὐκ ἀναμερίσασθαι. Καὶ ἀναδασμός, οὐ μερισ μós; and, in my opinion, rightly. Magropós and διαμερισμός occurs only in the κοινοί; the former, in Joseph. Antiq. vii. p. 249, Theophrastus, de caus. Plant. i. 13, Hist. Plant. i. 2, Polyb. ix. 34, 7; the latter, in Plutarch, V. viii. 592, Diod. xi. 47. Older writers used i daouds and

ἀναδασμός. ̓Αγαθοσύνη, a word used by Paul, Rom. xv. 14, Galat. v. 22, I find employed only by the Alexandrian interpreters of the Bible, and ecclesiastical writers. That xgnoTórns was used by the Attics, is stated by Thomas Magister, p. 921 : χρηστότης, οὐκ ἀγα θότης, οὐδ ̓ ἀγαθοσύνη. There are numberless other instances; thus, ἀποκεφαλίζειν for καρατομεῖν, κράββατος for σκίμπους, σαροῦν for σαίρειν, ἐξυπνί ζειν for ἀφυπνίζειν. Finally, a third criterion which proves a more recent origin, relates to those words, which, either in the formation, or in the sense, follow an analogy altogether new, and not occurring in the older speech. Of this kind is ὀρθρίζειν for ὀρθρεύειν, which we have already noticed. Another example is duvaμów, Coloss. i. 11. Comp. Ecclesiasticus, x. 10, Dan. ix. 27. According to analogy, this word should come either from a noun of the second declension, in os, as δουλόω from δοῦλος, or in ov, as πτεgów from Tregó, or from a genitive of the third declension, as Tugów from Tug, rugós. But there is no root of this kind from which we can derive δυναμόω or the compound ἐνδυναμόω, which, like the simple verb, is found nowhere, except in the books of the New Testament and the Alexandrian version, Heb. xi. 34, Philipp. iv. 13, Ps. li. 7. Let me add oλayxvídα, which

recent origin.

appears from its signification to be a word of For the more ancient Greeks did not call pity τὰ σπλάγχνα, a mode of speaking which passed from the Hebrew to the Jews who spoke Greek. The word occurs Matth. ix. 36, and in other places, Symmach. on Deut. xiii. 8. The Alexandrian Interpreters used the compound, έtiotλayxvígeodai, in Prov. xvii. 5. To the same class belongs πολύσπλαγχνος, which occurs Jerem. v. 1, and, it seems, nowhere else.

There were various ways in which new words might be formed. Some were occasioned by the rise of things new, and previously unknown. Of these we have already given some examples, and innumerable instances are to be found in writers of the later age. Other words, though not used to denote new things, took their rise from analogy, under the influence of which, men of later times constructed them. Words of this kind are everywhere to be met with. Thomas Magister states, that the more ancient authors never said καταλαλία, but that λαλία and προσλαλία were approved words. Καταλαλία is used by the Apostle, 2 Cor. xii. 20, and is met with nowhere else, except in the Alexandrian version, Wisd. i. 20, and the Fathers, as Clem. Alex. p. 566,

N

Basil, v. ii. p. 247 and 497. The verb καταXaλεй occurs in Aristophanes, Ran. 752. 'Ayaθοσύνη and μερισμός, in which there is no violation of analogy, have been already noticed. There are other words again, that seem formed after the manner of foreign languages. We have, for example, ¿vlútaros, Acts xiii. 7, ανθυπατεύω, Acts xviii. 12, αλεκτοροφωνία, Mark xiii. 35, προσωποληπτέω, James ii. 9, προσωπολήπτης, Acts x. 34, goowoλntía, Rom. ii. 11; in which every one will find traces of the Latin and Hebrew. Finally, there are other words where one may observe a desire of speaking concisely, which object seems the sole reason for forming them. Thus, aixuaλwrigen, Rom. vii. 23, and the passive, aixuaλwríleɗdα, Luke xxi. 24, for which the grammarians would have the expressions αίχμάλωτον ποιεῖν and γίνεσθαι to be adopted, Phrynich. p. 192, Thom. Mag. p. 23-also ȧvaorarov, Acts xvii. 6, Galat. v. 12, which, although not mentioned by grammarians, yet never occurs, except in versions of the Old Testament, Ps. lviii. 11, Es. xxii. 3, and in Harpocration, who explains ȧvaonevάoασθαι by the word αναστατωθῆναι. The Attics, we find, used, instead of it, άváσTarov TOIEN, as Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 35, Sophocl. Antig. 687, Trach. 39. Isocrat. Panegyr. c. 31. Το

this class, not without sufficient reason, perhaps, we are to refer the verb ßeßnλów, which, with the exception of Matth. xii. 5, and Acts xxiv. 6, I find employed by none but the Alexandrian interpreters, Exod. xxxi. 14, Ezek. xliii..7, &c. Whether the Greeks used, instead of it, Béßnλov Toε, or some such expression, I cannot with certainty say. These words can only be explained by attending to individual examples, on which we must not continue to dwell.

7. To the seventh class of instances in which we discern traces of the later Greek, belong those significations of words, which, not being found in the more ancient language, seem to have been either of recent usage, or of imperfect authority. It belongs to an interpreter to have a correct knowledge of the sources from which the usage is derived; and this he cannot have, without the new powers of words, both in the works of the later writers, and in the vulgar speech, being accurately marked and distinguished. In this inquiry there is great difficulty to be encountered, not only in guarding against attributing a new signification to a word used only with a change of sense, but also in discovering the probable link by which a new force was attached to words pre