Jesus to be the son of God; on the contrary, they call Simon the power of God." Accordingly, they were never confounded with the Christians in the time of persecution, or involved with them in any trouble or danger.* Justin Martyr is another evidence of the same thing; † as is also Irenæus, in the account which, in his treatise against heresies, he gives of Simon and his disciple Menander. So is likewise Epiphanius. From them all it appears manifestly, that the above-named persons were so far from being in any sense followers of Jesus Christ, that they presumed to arrogate to themselves his distinguishing titles and prerogatives, and might therefore be more justly called Antichrists than Christians. The like may be said of some other ancient sects, which, through the same mistake of the import of the word, are commonly ranked among the heresies which arose in the church. Such were the Ophites, of whom Origen acquaints us, that they were so far from being Christians, that our Lord was reviled by them as much as by Celsus, and that they never admitted any one into their society till he had vented curses against Jesus Christ.§

Mosheim, sensible of the impropriety of classing the declared enemies of Christ among the heretics, as the word is now universally applied, and at the same time afraid of appearing to contradict the unanimous testimony of the three first centuries, acknowledges that they cannot be suitably ranked with those sectaries who sprang up within the church; and apologizes, merely from the example of some moderns who thought as he did, for his not considering those ancient party-leaders in the same light wherein the early ecclesiastic authors, as he imagines, had considered them. But he has not said any thing to account for so glaring an inaccuracy, not of one or two, but of all the primitive writers who have taken notice of those sects; for even those who deny that they were Christians, call them heretics.|| Now

* Orig. adv. Cels. lib. vi.

Adv. Hæreses, lib. 1. cap. xx. xxi.

+ Apol. 2da. Dialog. cum Tryphone.

§ Οφιανοι καλουμενοι τοσουτον αποδεουσία του είναι Χριστιανοι, ώστε ουκ ελαττον Κελσου κατηγορείν αυτους του Ιησου. Και μη πρότερον προσίεσθαι τινα επι το συνέδριον έαυτων, εαν μη agao Intai nara Tou Ingou. Adver. Cels. lib. vi.

"Quotquot tribus prioribus sæculis SIMONIS Magi meminerunt, etsi hæreticorum eum familiam ducere jubent, per ea tamen quæ de eo referunt, hæreticorum ordine excludunt, et inter Christianæ religionis hostes collocant. ORIGINES Simonianos disertissime ex Christianis sectis exturbat, eosque non Iesum Christum, sed Simonem colere narrat. Cum hoc cæteri omnes, alii claris verbis, alii sententiis, quas SIMONI tribuunt, consentiunt: quæ quidem sententiæ ejus sunt generis, ut nulli conveniant quam homini CHRISTO longissime se præferenti, et divini legati dignitatem sibimet ipsi arroganti. Hinc Simoniani etiam, quod ORIGENES et JUSTINUS MARTYR præter alios testantur, quum Christiani quotidianis periculis expositi essent, nullis molestiis et injuriis afficiebantur: CHRISTUM enim eos detestari, publice notum erat. Sic ego primus, nisi fallor, quum ante viginti annos de Simone sentirem, erant, quibus periculosum et nefas videbatur, tot sanctorum virorum, qui SIMONEM hæreticorum omnium patrem fecerunt, fidem in disceptationem vocare, tot sæculorum auctoritatem contemnere. Verum sensim plures hæc sententia patronos, per ipsam evidentiam suam, sibi acquisivit. Et non ita pridem tantum potuit apud Jos. AuGUSTINUM ORSI, quem summo cum applausu ipsius Pontificis Maximi Romæ Histo

I will take upon me to say, that though this, in one single writer, might be the effect of oversight, it is morally impossible that, in so many, it should be accounted for otherwise than by supposing that their sense of the word aipɛTIKOÇ did not coincide with ours; and that it was therefore no blunder in them, that they did not employ their words according to an usage which came to be established long after their time. I am indeed surprised that a man of Mosheim's critical sagacity, as well as profound knowledge of Christian antiquity, did not perceive that this was the only reasonable solution of the matter. But what might sometimes be thought the most obvious truth, is not always the first taken notice of. Now, I cannot help considering the easy manner in which this account removes the difficulty, as no small evidence of the explanation of the word in scriptural use which has been given above. To observe the gradual alterations which arise in the meanings of words, as it is a point of some nicety, is also of great consequence in criticism; and often proves a powerful means both of fixing the date of genuine writings, and of detecting the supposititious.

14. I shall observe in passing, that the want of due attention to this circumstance has, in another instance, greatly contributed to several errors in relation to Christian antiquities, and particularly to the multiplication of the primitive martyrs far beyond the limits of probability. The Greek word uaprup, though signifying no more, originally, than witness, in which sense it is always used in the New Testament, came by degrees, in ecclesiastical use, to be considerably restrained in its signification. The phrase οἱ μαρτυρες του Ιησού, the witness of Jesus, was at first in the church applied by way of eminence only to the apostles. The reality of this application, as well as the grounds of it, we learn from the Acts. Afterwards, it was extended to include all those who, for their public testimony to the truth of Christianity, especially when emitted before magistrates and judges, were sufferers in the cause, whether by death or banishment, or in any other way. Lastly, the name martyr (for then the word was adopted into other languages) became appropriated to those who suffered death in consequence of their testimony: the term

are,

riam Ecclesiasticam Italico sermone scribere notum est, ut eam approbaret." Moshemius De Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum Magnum Commentarii. Sæculum primum, lxv. No. 3. The words in the text to which the preceding note refers "Toti hæreticorum agmini, maxime cohorti gnosticæ, omnes veteris ecclesiæ doctores præponunt SIMONEM MAGUM.- Omnia quæ de SIMONE memoriæ ipsi prodiderunt, manifestum faciunt, eum non in corruptorum religionis Christianæ, id est, hæreticorum, sed infensissimorum ejus hostium numero ponendum esse, qui et ipsum CHRISTUM maledictis insectabatur, et progredienti rei Christianæ quæ poterat, impedimenta objiciebat."

Acts i. 8, 22. ii. 32. iii. 15. v. 32. x. 39. xxii. 15. xxvi. 16. The last two pas sages quoted relate to Paul, who, by being designed of God "a witness of the Lord Jesus to all men," was understood to be received into the apostleship, and into the society of the twelve.

óμoλoynτns, confessor, being, for distinction's sake, assigned to those witnesses who, though they suffered in their persons, liberty, or goods, did not lose their lives in the cause. Now several later writers, in interpreting the ancients, have been misled by the usage of their own time; and have understood them as speaking of those who died for the name of Jesus, when they spoke only of those who openly attested his miracles and mission, agreeably to the primitive and simple meaning of the word uaprvo. Of this Mosheim has justly taken notice in the work above quoted. I have here only observed it by the way, for the sake of illustration; for, as to the sense wherein the word is used in the New Testament, no doubt seems ever to have arisen.*

15. I shall conclude with adding to the observations on the words schism and heresy, that how much soever of a schismatical or heretical spirit, in the apostolic sense of the terms, may have contributed to the formation of the different sects into which the Christian world is at present divided, no person who, in the spirit of candour and charity, adheres to that which, to the best of his judgment is right, though in this opinion he should be mistaken, is in the scriptural sense either schismatic or heretic; and that he, on the contrary, whatever sect he belong to, is more entitled to these odious appellations, who is most apt to throw the imputation upon others. Both terms, for they denote only different degrees of the same bad quality, always indicate a disposition and practice unfriendly to peace, harmony, and love.

"Ipsa vocabuli martyr ambiguitas apud homines imperitos voluntatem gignere potuit fabulas de tragico eorum [apostolorum] exitu cogitandi. Martyr Græcorum sermone quemlibet testem significat. Sacro vero Christianorum sermone idem nomen eminentiore sensu testem CHRISTI sive hominem designat, qui moriendo testari voluit, spem omnem suam in CHRISTO positam esse. Priori sensu apostoli ab ipso CHRISTO Mapruges nominantur, et ipsi eodem vocabulo muneris sui naturam explicant. Fieri vero facile potuit, ut indocti homines ad hæc sacri codicis dicta posteriorem vocabuli Martyr significationem transferrent, et temere sibi propterea persuaderent, apostolos inter eos poni debere, quos excellentiori sensu Christiani Martyres appellare solebant." Sæc. Prim. xvi. Our historian is here, from the ambiguity of the word, accounting only for the alleged martyrdom of all the apostles except John. But every body who reflects will be sensible, that the same mistake must have contributed to the increase of the number in other instances. For, even in apostolical times, others than the apostles, though more rarely, were called witnesses. Stephen and Antipas are so denominated in sacred writ. And as both these were put to death for their testimony, this has probably given rise in after-times to the appropriation of the name witness or martyr to those who suffered death in the cause.

DISSERTATION X.

THE CHIEF THINGS TO BE ATTENDED TO IN TRANSLATING.COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE OPPOSITE METHODS TAKEN BY TRANSLATORS OF HOLY WRIT.

A

PART I.

THE THINGS TO BE ATTENDED TO IN TRANSLATING.

To translate has been thought, by some, a very easy matter to one who understands tolerably the language from which, and has made some proficiency in the language into which, the translation is to be made. To translate well is, however, in my opinion, a task of more difficulty than is commonly imagined. That we may be the better able to judge in this question, let us consider what a translator, who would do justice to his author and his subject, has to perform. The first thing, without doubt, which claims his attention is, to give a just representation of the sense of the original. This, it must be acknowledged, is the most essential of all. The second thing is, to convey into his version, as much as possible, in a consistency with the genius of the language which he writes, the author's spirit and manner, and, if I may so express myself, the very character of his style. The third and last thing is, to take care that the version have at least so far the quality of an original performance, as to appear natural and easy, such as shall give no handle to the critic to charge the translator with applying words improperly, or in a meaning not warranted by use, or combining them in a way which renders the sense obscure, and the construction ungrammatical, or even harsh.

It

2. Now, to adjust matters so as in a considerable degree to attain all these objects, will be found upon inquiry not a little arduous, even to men who are well acquainted with the two languages, and have great command of words. In pursuit of one of the ends above-mentioned, we are often in danger of losing sight totally of another; nay, on some occasions, it will appear impossible to attain one without sacrificing both the others. may happen, that I cannot do justice to the sense without fre quent recourse to circumlocutions; for the words of no language whatever will at all times exactly correspond with those of another: yet by this method, a writer, whose manner is concise, simple, and energetic, is exhibited in the translation as employing a style which is at once diffuse, complex, and languid. Again, in endeavouring to exhibit the author's manner, and to

confine myself as nearly as possible to the same number of words and the like turn of expression, I may very imperfectly render his sense, relating obscurely, ambiguously, and even improperly, what is expressed with great propriety and perspicuity in the original. And, in regard to the third object mentioned, it is evident, that when the two languages differ very much in their genius and structure, it must be exceedingly difficult for a translator to render this end perfectly compatible with the other two. It will perhaps be said, that this is of less importance, as it seems solely to regard the quality of the work as a performance in the translator's language, whereas the other two regard the work only as an exhibition of the original. I admit that this is an object inferior to the other two; I meant it should be understood so by mentioning it last. Yet even this is by no means so unimportant as some would imagine. That a writing be perspicuous in any language, much depends on the observance of propriety; and the beauty of the work (at least as far as purity is concerned) contributes not a little to its utility. What is well written, or well said, is always more attended to, better understood, and longer remembered, than what is improperly, weakly, or awkwardly expressed.

3. Now, if translation is in general attended with so much difficulty, what must we think of the chance of success which a translator has, when the subject is of so great importance that an uncommon degree of attention to all the above-mentioned objects will be exacted of him; and when the difference, in point of idiom, of the language from which, and of that into which the version is made, is as great perhaps as we have any example of. For, in translating the New Testament into English, it is not to the Greek idiom, nor to the oriental, that we are required to adapt our own, but to a certain combination of both; often, rather, to the Hebrew and Chaldaic idioms involved in Greek words and syntax. The analogy and prevailing usage in Greek will, if we be not on our guard, sometimes mislead us. On the contrary, these are sometimes safe and proper guides. But, without a considerable acquaintance with both, it will be impossible to determine when we ought to be directed by the one, and when by the other.

4. There are two extremes in translating, which are commonly taken notice of by those who examine this subject critically: from one extreme we derive what is called a close and literal, from the other a loose and free translation. Each has its advocates. But though the latter kind is most patronised when the subject is a performance merely human, the general sentiments, as far as I am able to collect them, seem rather to favour the former when the subject is any part of holy writ. And this difference appears to proceed from a very laudable principlethat we are not entitled to use so much freedom with the dictates