and noway necessary to the sense. But let it be observed of the second method, that I am never for using such names of coins and measures as are peculiarly modern, or European, and not applied to the money and measures of ancient and Oriental countries: for such terms always suggest the notion of a coincidence with us, in things wherein there was actually no coincidence.

We read in the common version, Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, vno TOV μodiov, but on a candlestick. Every person must

be sensible, that the size of the measure is of no consequence here to the sense: the intention being solely to signify, that a light is brought, not to be covered up, but to be placed where it may be of use in lighting the household. The general term corn. measure, perfectly answers the author's purpose, in this place; and as nowhere, but in the expression of this very sentiment, does the word uoduos occur in the Gospels, there is no reason for adopting it. The term bushel serves well enough for conveying the import of the sentiment; but as it indirectly suggests an untruth, namely, the ancient use of that measure in Judea, it is evidently improper. For an example in money, our Lord says, when the Pharisees interrogated him about the lawfulness of paying the tribute imposed by their conquerors, Eδειξατε μοι δηναριον, rendered in the common version, show me a penny, the sequel evinces that it was of 8 Luke, xx. 24.

7 Matth. v. 15.

Επι

no importance what the value of the money was; the argument is affected solely by the figure and inscription on it. And if, in no other place of the Gospels, the value of that coin had affected the sense more than it does here, it might have been rendered by the general phrase piece of money. Now let us see how Le Cene's method does with those two examples. In the first he would say, Neither do men light a candle to put it under a measure which contains about a pint less than a peck. Or, accord ing to the manner which he sometimes adopts, containing such a precise number of eggs (I do not recollect how many); would not this particularity in fixing the capacity of the measure, but too manifestly convey the insinuation that there would be nothing strange or improper in men's putting a lighted candle under any other measure larger or smaller than that whereof the capacity is, as a matter of principal moment, so nicely ascertained? A strange way this of rendering Scripture perspicuous!

Nor does it answer better in coins than in measures. When our Lord said, Επιδειξατε μοι δηνάριον, the very words imply that it was a single piece he wanted to see; and what follows supplies us with the reason. But how does this suit Le Cene's mode of reduction? Show me sevenpence halfpenny. Have we any such piece? The very demand must, to an English reader, appear capricious, and the money asked could not be presented otherwise than in different pieces, if not in different kinds. It is added, Whose image and superscription hath it? Is this a

question which any man would put, Whose image and superscription hath sevenpence halfpenny? But there may have been formerly sevenpence half-penny pieces, though we have none now.' Be it so. Still, as it is unsuitable to have the head and inscription of a Roman emperor on what must, from the denomination, be understood to be British coin, they ought, for the sake of consistency, and for making the transformation of the money complete, to render the reply to the aforesaid question, George's instead of Cesar's. If this be not translating into English, it is perhaps superior; it is what some moderns call Englishing, making English, or doing into English; for all these expressions are used. Poems done in this manner are sometimes more humbly termed imitations.

§ 7. I OBSERVED a third case that occurs in the Gospels with respect to money and measures, which is when the value of the coin, or the capacity of the measure mentioned, does not, but the comparative value of the articles specified, does, affect the sense. Of this kind some of our Lord's parables furnish us with excellent examples. Such is the parable of the pounds9. I shall here give as much of it as is necessary for my present purpose, first in the vulgar translation, then in Le Cene's manner. 13. He called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 16. The

first came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds, and he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. Nothing can be more manifest than that it is of no consequence to the meaning and design of this brief narration, what the value of the pound was, great or little. Let it suffice that it here represents the whole of what we receive from our Creator to be laid out in his service. In the accounts returned by the servants, we see the different improvements which different men make of the gifts of heaven; and in the recompenses bestowed, we have their proportional rewards. But these depend entirely on the numbers mentioned, and are the same, whatever be the value of the money. I shall now, in reducing them to our standard, follow the rates assigned on the margin of the English Bible. Ducats, so often mentioned by Le Cene, are no better known to the generality of our people, than talents or mina are. Whether the rate of conversion I have adopted be just or not, is of no consequence. I shall therefore take it for granted, that it is just. The different opinions of the comparative value of their money and ours, nowise affect the argument. The objections are against the reduction from the one species to the other, not against the rule of reducing. The foregoing verses so rendered will run thus: He called his ten servants, and delivered them thirty

one pounds five shilling's sterling, and said, Occupy till I come, The first came, saying, Lord, thy three pounds two shillings and sixpence, have gained thirtyone pounds five shillings; and he said to him, Well, thou good servant, because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy three pounds two shillings and sixpence, have gained fifteen pounds twelve shillings and sixpence. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. In regard to the parable of the talents 10, it is needless, after the specimen now given, to be particular. I shall therefore give only part of one verse thus expressed in the common version. To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; which, in Le Cene's manner, would be, To one he gave nine hundred thirty-seven pounds ten shillings sterling. To another three hundred seventy-five pounds. And to another one hundred eighty-seven pounds ten shillings. In both examples, what is of real importance, the comparative degrees of improvement and proportional rewards, which in the original, and in the common version, are discovered at a glance, are, if not lost, so much obscured, by the complicated terms employed in the version, that it requires an arithmetical operation to discover them. In the example of the king who called his servants to account", this manner is, if possible, still more awkward, by rea

10 Matth. xxv. 14.

11 Matth. xviii. 23.