fects the mind of a Jew or a Christian. Ought we to have different names for the Pagan deities, Jupiter, Juno, &c. because the mention of them was attended with reverence in Pagans, and with contempt in Christians?

But what shall we say of his supplying idolum, by a barbarism of his own, deaster, a word of no authority, sacred or profane? It suited the fundamental principles of his undertaking to reject idololatra, idolater, because, though analogically formed from a good word, it could plead only ecclesiastic use. But, by what principle, he has introduced such a monster as deastricola, that was never heard of before, it would be impossible to say. He could be at no loss for a proper expression. Idolorum or simulacrorum cultor would have served. He has given but too good reason, by such uncouth sounds as deaster, deastricola, and infidens infidel, to say that his objections lay only against the liberties in language which had been taken by others. Castalio argues against barbarisms as being obscure; surely this argument strikes more against those of his own coining, than against those (if they can be called barbarisms) which are recommended by so long continued, and so extensive, an use. For, though he should not allow the use of theologians to be perfectly good, it is surely, on those subjects, sufficient for removing the objection of obscurity. I do not see any thing, in his work, which has so much the appearance of self-conceit as this. In other respects, I find him modest and unassuming. It has been

also observed, that his idioms are not always pure. Dominus ad cujus normam, is not in the Latin idiom. Norma legis is proper, not norma Dei, or norma. hominis. But this I consider as an oversight, the other as affectation.

§ 14. I SHALL add a few words on the subject of Hebraisms, which Castalio is accused of rejecting altogether. This charge he is so far from denying, that he endeavours to justify his conduct in this particular. Herein, I think, if his adversaries went too far on one side, in preferring the mere form of the expression, to the perspicuous enunciation of the sense; this interpreter went too far on the opposite side, as he made no account of giving to his version the strong signatures which the original bears of the antiquity, the manners, and the character, of the age and nation of the writers. Yet both the credibility of the narrative, and the impression which the sentiments are adapted to make on the readers, are not a little affected by that circumstance. That those are in the worse extreme of the two, who would sacrifice perspicuity and propriety (in other words, the sense itself) to that circumstance, is not indeed to be doubted. The patrons of the literal method do not advert that, by carrying the point too far, the very exhibition of the style and manner of the author, is, with both the other ends of translating, totally annihilated. "Quo pertinent," says Houbigant ", " istiusmodi interpretationes, quæ ni

56

56 Proleg.

“hil quidquam resonant, nisi adhibes interpretis al"terum interpretem ?" Again, " Num proprietas “hæc censenda est, quæ mihi exprimat obscure ac "inhumane, id quod sacri scriptores dilucide ac "liberaliter expresserunt ?" The sentiments of this author, in regard to the proper mean between both extremes, as they seem entirely reasonable, and equally applicable to any language (though expressed in reference to Latin versions only), I shall subjoin to the foregoing observations on Castalio: "Utro66 que in genere tam metrico quam soluto, retinen"das esse veteres loquendi formas, nec ab ista li"nea unquam discedendum, nisi gravibus de causis,

quæ quidem nobis esse tres videntur : primo, si "Hebraismi veteres, cum retinentur, fiunt Latino "in sermone, vel obscuri vel ambigui; secundo, si "eorum significantia minuitur, nisi circuitione qua“dam uteris; tertio, si vergant ad aliam, quam He"braica verba, sententiam 57 ̧»>

§ 15. I SHALL finish my critique on this translator, with some remarks on a charge brought against him by Beausobre and Lenfant, who affirm 58 that, abstracting from the false elegance of his style, he takes greater liberty (they must certainly mean with the sense) than a faithful interpreter ought to take. Of this his version of the following passage given as an example.

59

Το επιςρέψαι απο σκοτες εις

57 Ibidem.

58 Preface Generale, P. II. des Versions du N. T.

59 Acts, xxvi. 18.

φως, και της εξυσίας το Σατανα επι τον Θεον, το λαβειν αυτός αφεσιν ἁμαρτιων, και κληρον εν τοις ηγι ασμενοις, πίζει τη εις εμε ; which is thus translated by Castalio: "Ut ex tenebris in lucem, et ex Sata"næ potestate ad Deum se convertant, et ita pecca"torum veniam, et eandem cum iis sortem consequantur, qui fide mihi habenda sancti facti fuerint:" and by Beza, whom they here oppose to him: "Et "convertas eos a tenebris ad lucem, et a potestate Sa"tanæ ad Deum, ut remissionem peccatorum et sor"tem inter sanctificatos accipiant per fidem quæ est "in me." In my opinion there is a real ambiguity in the original, which if Castalio be blameable for fixing, in one way, Beza is not less blameable for fixing it, in another. The words uge tn eis euɛ, may be πιςει τη εις εμε, construed with the verb 2aße at some distance, or with the participle nyaσuevos, immediately preceding. In the common way of reckoning, if one of these methods were to be styled a stretch, or a liberty, it would be Beza's, and not Castalio's; both because the latter keeps closer to the arrangement of the original, and because the Apostle, not having used the adjective ἅγιοις but the participle ἡγιασμένοις, gives some ground to regard the following words as its regimen. Accordingly, Beza has considered the version of Erasmus, which is to the same purpose with Castalio's, and with which the Tigurine version also agrees; ut accipiant remissionem peccatorum, et "sortem inter eos qui sanctificati sunt, per fidem

66

quæ est erga me;" as exhibiting a sense quite different from his own; at the same time, he freely ac

knowledges, that the original is susceptible of either meaning. "Tn Tuga. Potest quidem hoc referri "ad participium nyiaσuevois, quemadmodum retulit "Erasmus." In this instance, Beza, though not remarkable for moderation, has judged more equitably than the French translators above mentioned, who had no reason to affirm, dogmatically, that the words ought to be joined in the one way, and not in the other; or to conclude that Castalio affected to give the words this turn, in order to exclude the idea of absolute election. Did the English translators, for this purpose, render the passage after Erasmus and Castalio, not after Beza, That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me? Nobody, I dare say, will suspect it.

I cannot help thinking those critics unlucky in their choice of an example: for had there been more to say, in opposition to this version of the passage, than has yet been urged, it would still have been hard to treat that as a liberty peculiar to Castalio, in which he was evidently not the first, and in which he has had the concurrence of more translators, than can be produced on the other side. For my part, as I acknowledge that such transpositions are not unfrequent in holy writ, my opinion is, that the connection and scope of the place ought chiefly to determine us in doubtful cases. In the present case, it appears to me to yield the clearest sense, and to be every way the most eligible, to join the words Ơτει τη εις εμε, neither to ἡγιασμένοις, nor to λαβειν,