In addition to these fifty-one instances, in which I reject the proposed alteration of particular passages, as unnecessary in every one, and, in many, much for the worse; the metrical arrangement, attempted by the learned Primate, may be considered as one vast conjectural emenda. tion, affecting the whole text of the prophet, in the form, though not in the substance, which I have not ventured to adopt. The stile of Hosea is indeed poetical in the very highest degree. In maxim solemn, sententious, brief; in perswasion, pathetic; in reproof, severe; in its allusions, always beautifull and striking, often sublime: rich in its images; bold in hyperbole, artificial, though perspicuous, in its allegory: possessing in short, according to the variety of the matter, all the characters by which poetry, in any language is distinguished from prose. And there cannot be a doubt, that the composition was originally in the metrical form. But as the division of the hemistichs is not preserved in the MSS. nor in any of the versions; I consider the metrical form as lost. And as the greatest adepts, in the mysteries of the Masoretic punctuation, have never discovered in this book (or, as far as I know, in any of the prophets) those peculiarities of accentuation, which are remarkable in the books confessedly retaining the metrical form; I suspect that it was lost early, not only in Hosea, but in all the prophets (Isaiah perhaps excepted) and the at

tempt to restore it is too much, in my judgment, for modern criticism; especially as the parallelism (the only circumstance the modern critic has to guide him in the construction of the distichs) is, in many parts of the book, if not indeed in the greater part of it, exceedingly imperfect, interrupted and obscure an effect perhaps of the commatism of the stile. If in certain passages the parallelism is entire, manifest, and striking (as in some it certainly is, insomuch that some of Bishop Lowth's choicest examples, of this great principle of Hebrew verse, are taken from this prophet), I trust that my translation is so close, as in those parts to display the structure of the original, though the hemistichal division is not exhibited to the eye in the printed page: and that, notwithstanding this defect, if a defect it be, as much of the versification, if it may be so called, is preserved, as is with certainty discernible to the Biblical scholar in the Hebrew text, in its present state.

With respect to my translation, I desire that it may be distinctly understood, that I give it not, as one that ought to supersede the use of the public translation in the service of the church. Had my intention been to give an amended translation for public use; I should have conducted my work upon a very different plan, and observed rules in the execution of it, to which I have not confined myself. This work is intended for the edification of the Christian reader in his closet. The translation is such as, with the notes, may form a perpetual comment on the text of the Holy Prophet. For a translation, accompanied with notes, I take to be the best perpetual comment upon any text in the dead language. My great object therefore in translating has been, to find such words and phrases, as might convey neither more nor less than the exact sense of the original (I speak here of the exact sense of the words, not of the application of the prophecy). For this purpose I have been obliged, in some few instances, to be paraphras

tic. But this has only been, when a single word, in the Hebrew, expresses more, than can be rendered by any single word in the English, according to the established usage of the language. A translator, who, in such cases, will confine himself to give word for word, attempts in truth what cannot be done; and will give either a very obscure, or a very defective translation. That is, he will leave something untranslated. The necessity of paraphrastic translation will particularly occur, whereever the sense of the original turns upon a paronomasia: a figure frequent in all the Prophets, but in the use of which Hosea, beyond any other of them, delights. With the same view of presenting the sense of my author in language perspicuous to the English reader, for Hebrew phrases I have sometimes judged it expedient to put equivalent phrases of our own tongue (where such could be found) rather than to render the Hebrew word for word. But these liberties I have never used, without apprising the learned reader of it in my Critical Notes, and assigning the reason. And sometimes in the case of phrases, I have given the English reader a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase in the explanatory notes. In some instances, but in very few, I have changed words, and forms of expression, in frequent use in our public translation, for others, equivalent in sense, of a more modern phraseology ever keeping my great point in view, to be perspicuous to the generality of readers. The dignity resulting from Archaisms, is not to be too readily given up. But perspicuity is a consideration, to which every thing must be sacrificed. And if the phraseology of the Bible were not changed, from time to time, to keep pace in some degree, with the gradual changes of common speech; it would become unintelligible to the common people. With respect to them at this day, the Holy Bible, translated into the English of Chaucer's age, would be a translation out of one dead language into another. Not to say that Archaisms, too

resoun.

long retained, instead of raising the stile, become in the end mean, and even ludicrous. The Book of Psalms would be of little use to the vulgar, if it were translated into the vulgar tongue, after the manner of this specimen: "Why gnastes the gens, and the peple thougte ydil thingis.*" Though the text were accompanied with this luminous comment: "The Prophete, snybband hem that tourmentid crist, saies,whit the gens-thoo were the knyttes of rome that crucified crist. -gnasted," "as bestes with oute and the peple, thoo were the Jews, thoughte vaynte thoughtes, &c." And the tragical story of John the Baptist, so admirably related in all its circumstances by the Evangelist, would not be heard with gravity in any congregation at this day, were the narrative to proceed in this language: "When the doughtyr of that Herodias was incomyn, and had tombylde and pleside to Harowde, and also to the sittande at mete, the kynge says to the wench, &c." There is a limit therefore to the love of Archaisms, beyond which it should not be indulged. But there is a limit also to innovation, which I hope I have not passed.

* Ps. ii. 1.

Gleanings.

1. On the General Scheme and Structure of the Apocalypse. From The Jewish Expositor, for July, 1327.

The scheme and structure of the Apocalypse have been discussed by many commentators, and it cannot be doubted that for the right interpretation of the book, the previous knowledge of its general scheme and structure, is indispensable. In presenting the following view of it, the writer offers it with deference to others, and in differing from those who have preceded him, he would do so with courtesy and respect, and without presuming to suppose that he alone can be right in all things. It has generally been found that one portion of the truth is seen with greater accuracy by one individual, and another by another; whilst no one discerns the whole. Discussion and research are necessary for the elucidation of every great subject, and it is by the contention of mind with mind, and of opinion with opinion, that truth is elicited and understood, and becomes finally established. As the waters of many streams form at length the majestic river, which rolls its flood into the ocean, so the operation of many minds is required for the enlargement of knowledge, and to render it accurate and perfect.

It seems universally acknowledged, that a great similarity obtains between the book of the prophet Daniel, and the book of Revelations. They treat of the same subjects, they both give chronological dates, and they both deliver their prophecies under figures, signs, and symbols. This general coincidence between them is remarked by almost every commentator, and they are always considered as mutually reflecting light upon each other. The general similarity of structure also, has not passed unobserved; and Mr. Frere, in his late publication, expressly refers to Daniel, as illustrative of the scheme of the Apocalypse. As the book of Daniel then, may be taken as a guide, it may