phrase; in the duty of translating with fidelity; in the importance of so proceeding that the reader may have it in his power, and may be led, to form a just and accurate conception of the thing; in the necessity of exhibiting, at the same time, the external beauties of diction found in the original; in the aim to employ another language so that it may seem as if the writer himself must express himself just as we translate, and use this proverb, this exclamation, this formula, were he to write in our language.

As to the latter class, which consists of those words which are to be expressed by a circumlocution, there is one rule which, in my opinion, a translator ought carefully to observe, viz. to imitate the writer himself in selecting a word which, though it may not exhaust, is at least adequate to express, that notion composed of several parts, such for instance as those which have already been mentioned, luoa, to pervert, ninowoα, to establish. But he should remind the reader of the increased compass which, in this place, is to be given to the signification of the word thus he will neither be censured, because he has not exhausted the whole meaning, (for the writer himself has failed to do this,) nor be liable to the charge of obtruding his own sentiment and mode of explanation upon the writer's language.

I have thus spoken on that part of the subject which relates to giving the sense instead of the signification, in explaining or translating single words. We are now to consider entire sentences and propositions, which, where they do not admit of being translated word for word without obscuring rather than throwing light upon the meaning, are so treated that the sense may be substituted for the significations. In what way this is to be understood, I have already explained. Sometimes, then, where the writer has given a sign or symbol of some truth, the interpreter presents the truth itself indicated by that sign: as when interpreters show that the phrase, God descending from heaven,' means God executing some glorious work, or acting in general, knowing, propitious or not propitious; or when they show

1 Homer said that God ůvtiqv dvorov, comes to attend sacrifices, (I. I. 67.) Hence Rhea in Apollon. Rhod. 1. 1141, is avrain daiμor, a goddess that attends sacrifices, or Evlitάvεvtos, as the scholiasts explain it. So in the hymns of Orpheus, (10, 21,) God is said Baivew ἐπὶ λοιβαῖς. In all these cases the proper will of the deity is to be understood.

that Christ, sitting at the right hand of God, is Christ reigning with God; or when they remind us that in the oriental writers, the obscuring of the sun, the darkening of the moon, the trembling of the stars, is the symbol of disastrous times; and thus, whenever it is said that these natural events are about to take place, the only thing to be understood is, that there are to be disastrous times, in which nature, as it were, will seem threatened with destruction. Here belong all the passages in which God is described as appearing visibly in the character of the future judge, with forms taken from the customs of men, that is, so far as the sense is concerned, ἀποδώσων ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν noağev avrov, as it is expressed Matt. 16: 27.

In explaining these passages, there is no one but sees that the sense must be pointed out; it is not so easy, however, to understand how it is best to proceed in translating. For in the first place, where it is evident from the enumerating of many signs, that a description is intended picturing forth the thing to the life, every thing must be closely rendered; for the interpreter who should here attempt to abridge, or to express the sense in a summary way, would mangle the diction of the writer; because it is not the writer's intention to present a concise statement to the mind, but to exhibit a picture before the eye. Again, in respect to particular forms of speaking, if a translation by preserving them leads to no error, but any one who reads the translation perceives that these words are to be understood differently from what they are read, (i. e. not to the letter,) as, for instance, when God is spoken of as a man, avvоwnoлads; there is no reason why they should be changed into a paraphrase or explanation. For who would mistake or hesitate

1 Him whom David (Ps. 110: 1) describes sitting upon the right hand of God until he triumphs over all his enemies, Paul (1 Cor. 15: 25) describes as reigning until he triumphs over all his enemies. Therefore to sit upon one's right hand, is to reign with him. The angels, as it is asserted in Heb. 1: 13, 14, are nowhere said to sit on the right hand of God; but they are every where called ministers, i. e. we nowhere read that the government is committed to them; comp. Heb. 2: 5. 10: 12. The Jewish priests perform their daily repeated

עמדים לפני המלך,sacrifices standing, after the manner of servants

and ; Christ, having finished his sacrifice, is no longer a minister, but sits at the right hand of God, i. e. reigns. This is correctly explained by Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. lib. 2. c. 7.

2 As Matt. 24: 29, 30, 31. Joel 3: 1. Daniel 7: 9. Φαντασία ἐναργής. Ειδωλοποιία. Long. de Subl. c. 15.

about the meaning, if he should read that men thrown into affliction approach as suppliants to the throne of God? But if the translation, in so far as it is translation—that is, in so far as it is a book written for instance in the English language, and read by the unlearned, who do not understand the language from which it is translated, or if they understand it generally, are unable to interpret a book written in it, from being unacquainted with the necessary rules and helps,-if the translation, viewed in this light, either leads necessarily to error, because it renders word for word, or conveys a contrary sentiment, or none at all I see not, why we should hesitate to express the sense of the proposition in place of the signification of the words, especially, if an argument is pursued, which does not depend upon the words, but upon the sense, and which no one could comprehend, but by leaving the words out of view and considering the sense of the proposition. Such, as it appears to me, are the phrases, to intercede for men,' and to sit on the right hand of the king, which for these reasons were so expressed, as it seemed to me they ought to be expressed, in a German version of the epistle to the Hebrews, published some years since at Leipsic. Such are, Christ became poor, that men might be rich,3 and, the

1 Heb. 7:25. How can intercession in the proper sense, that is, prayer for favour or pardon to be bestowed on another, have place between God and his Son? But comp. what I have said in the tract de utilitate notionum universarum in Theologia, Dissertationes vol. 1. p. 239, particularly p. 298.

2 Heb. 1: 13. The phrase interpreted with reference to our own manners, would be, to occupy a superior place; with reference to those of the East, to be one of the princes of the realm. Is either true of Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father? Can it then be translated word for word?

3 2 Cor. 8: 9. Christ at no time, neither before he was visibly present on the earth, nor during the time of his life here, was rich, in the common sense of the word, and as they were whom Paul was desirous should contribute of their wealth to the poorer class. It cannot then be simply rendered in this way; but requires the addition, perfectly blessed. Christ was poor as we are said to be poor, and as they were, concerning whose relief the apostle is speaking. ought therefore to be simply rendered in this way. We are not, in the proper sense, made rich by the poverty and humiliation of Christ. It cannot therefore be simply rendered in this way; but with the addition we are enriched with benefits.

It

heavens must receive, which last I think without any doubt should be rendered, must be exalted above all,2 and explained, must reign with absolute power.

In other instances, what writers have said concerning the part or species, interpreters have transferred to the whole or to the class, and the reverse. For the sentiment which viewed in the former light is too obscure, or harsh, or to be understood with limitation, if it be viewed in the latter, becomes more clear, more delicate, and accurately expressed. The wish of David that the habitation of his enemies, and so of the Messiah's, might be desolate, was fulfilled, according to the interpretation of Peter,3 upon Judas the betrayer of Christ, and is to be referred to him. But it is apparently to be understood in one way as applied to the enemies of David, (if the passage may be supposed to have had primary reference to them,) and in another as applied to Judas. As applied to the enemies of Davied it may be understood literally; but not so in reference to Judas; for how does it appear, that the habitation of Judas became deserted and desolate after his death? In truth, it would be necessary to do violence to the passage, and resort to ingenious trifling, to make out that the passage, as referred to him, is to be literally understood.4 We must make the trial, therefore, in what way the sense may be given in universum. To 1 Acts 3: 21.

2 If all had thought so, and had compared a passage of the Old Testament (Ps. 115: 3), or the words in our Lord's prayer (Matt. 6: 9); if they had there concluded, that the supreme governor of all is to be understood, my van-e b, where God is said to be in heaven; and had not trifled upon the word dezeσ0; the question surely would never have been proposed, whether Christ took possession of heaven, or heaven of him, nor would it have been thought that the majesty of Christ was diminished by being confined as it were to a place, nor would Beza have composed such a note as he has written. The sense, the sense must be sought for; not the significations of single words. By no micans.

3. Acts 1: 20.

4 Some who perceived that the passage could not be understood literally, chose to understand the desolate habitation as referring to the vacated office. But they neither perceived how forced this would be, nor considered what would follow. If a vacant house is a vacated office, and it follows, let no man dwell therein, the sense of these words would necessarily be, either, may he have no successor, or,

express, then, against one, the wish that his house may become desolate, is to express generally the wish that he may be removed out of the way, destroyed. Imprecations are expressions in which, as we may see in common life, the words themselves are not always regarded, but the evil generally in which it is desired that one may be involved: for the language, in which imprecations are commonly conceived, serves only to evince by its moderation or vehemence, the greater or less degree of passion with which the mind is affected, and the greater or less degree of evil which it is desired should fall upon the offender. Thus, to the imprecation of which I am now speaking, the adjunct is, let him be destroyed, and the desolate habitation is, rhetorically speaking, the image of the destruction; logically speaking, the part or species of the destruction; in the language of common life, the example of the destruction. So if we should say, that the meaning in general contained in these words, as referred to Judas, is, may he be destroyed, and avoid pressing too close to the letter, we should express no more than what really happened to Judas, and this sense would agree with the design of Peter's discourse. What Peter wished to show was, if Judas has perished, he must have a successor. But if the passage is taken according to the letter, the conclusion would not follow: Because the habitation of Judas is desolate, he must have a successor.' Therefore, according to a common custom, Peter selects from an imprecatory Psalm of some length a single imprecation, not because this is to be specially regarded, above all the rest, but that it may appear, to whom all those imprecations may or ought to be referred. For are we to suppose that Paul in repeating the words of David, Rom. 11: 9, was anxious that those particular forms of expression should be retained and insisted upon? On the contrary, he shows that the imprecatory Psalm in question applies as a whole to the Jews. Is it his design that those figurative words should be interpreted as referring to some particular form of evil, as to poverty or to disease? By no means; but he shows that the general sentiment contained in those imprecations is, let evil fall upon my enemies. At the same time, it is obvious that in translating passages of this sort, it is not

may he not recover his office. How incongruous this is to the place, need not be shown.-The passage in the Epistle to the Romans (11:9) certainly proves, that the language of imprecation must not every where be understood literally.