can be given for assigning another more remote one to this second? It appears then, upon a comparison of these two titles, that the rendering now proposed is the true one. Indeed, had the intention of the writer (whoever he was) been to convey the meaning given by most translators, he would, I conceive, have expressed himself thus: nga

.as in the title of the second chapter הדבר אשר חזה

No one would dispute the construction of a relative, as the nominative of a verb following, and belonging to an antecedent noun in the genitive; but that such is the order of the words in the present instance, is very questionable. We prefer the common construction of the passage, for this reason, among others; that the verb n requires an objective case after it; we must therefore refer the relative to the noun, and read with other translators, the vision which Isaiah saw. The noun in the singular designates the entire contents of the whole book, in the same manner as Aπоnaλ is used as the title of the Revelation; and so it is employed in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, where the acts of Hezekiah are said to be written in the vision of 'Isaiah, the prophet.'

Chap. 1. 5. In this passage, the present Translator has very properly adhered to the Common Version, in opposition to Lowth, who has evidently misinterpreted the original.

'On what part will ye smite again; will ye add correction?' Lowth. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: C. V.

In the concluding member of the 7th vs., Mr. Jenour gives a translation which deviates both from Lowth's reading and from the rendering of the Common Version, to which he was, perhaps, led by the marginal lection of the latter.

-as if destroyed by an inundation.' Lowth.

-as overthrown by strangers.' C. V.

-as the overthrow of strangers.' Marg. reading.

-as in the overthrow of the strange cities.' Jenour.

Strange cities,' says Mr. Jenour in his explanatory notes, referring to Sodom and Gomorrah.'-And in his critical notes, he remarks, that the translation which he has given, is founded upon the following passages; Gen. xix. 29. Deut. xxix. 23. Isaiah xiii. 19. Jer. I. 40. Amos iv. 11. In all of which passages, he observes, we find exactly the same phraseology. The 'last example,' he adds,' is precisely parallel. The cities may 'be called "strange," because they were in a peculiar sense 'alienated from God and strangers to his promises.' Mr. Jenour's references all fail to give the support which he solicits

from them. The phraseology in those passages is far from being the same as that which we find in the text; and particularly is the language in Amos iv. 11, not in accordance with the terms used here. In all of these passages, the words are clear and definite: the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah,' is the full expression in every one of them. And if the passage in Isaiah had been designed to convey the same allusion, the words would have been in like manner explicit and emphatic. The cities of the plain are never, we believe, called 'strange cities' in any part of the Bible; nor, if they were, would Mr. Jenour's reasons for the denomination be found satisfactory.

With Mr. Jenour, we must express our very great surprise at the use which has been made of Chap. ii. vs. 22. 'It seems

truly astonishing that Luther, Ecolampadius, and others of the Reformers, should have understood this passage of Christ. 'As if the prophet had said, "Take care ye do not despise the 'man, that is, Jesus Christ, because of his humble condition, on ' account of which indeed he may not appear to be of any 'worth." We know not to what extravagant offspring of erring and capricious minds we should refer, as the instance of widest deviation from truth and probability, in the rendering of the original text of the Bible; but the view which has been given of this passage, may safely be described as 'certainly one of the most far-fetched, improbable interpretations of Scripture that ever entered into the mind of a human being.' There is no reason that this verse should be omitted, or treated as an interpolation; and nothing can be more pertinent than its relation to the context. 'Isaiah, having predicted that terrible judge'ments were coming upon the people, cautions them not to hope 'that they would be able to avert them by the aid of any man, ' however wise and powerful he might appear, since his breath 'is in his nostrils, and can be taken away in a moment at the 'pleasure of the Lord.' This is, we have no doubt, the sense of the passage; but we do not adopt the opinion of Mr. Jenour, that the king of Egypt is especially intended. The caution, we apprehend, refers to the leaders of the people of Israel, the mighty man, and the man of war, the judge and the prophet, &c., whom the Lord Jehovah God of Hosts would take from Jerusalem and from Judah.

זקן

The

In Chap. iii. 2, Mr. Jenour renders the aged.' term is evidently official, and should be rendered Elder,' which is better than either ancient,' the rendering in the Common Version, or 'sage,' which is Lowth's reading. Doederlein's Latin Version has senatores.' So the Author reads vs. 14.

In verse 8, Lowth reads, 'cloud of his glory.' He is very properly deserted by the present Translator, who agrees with the Common Version in the lection, 'eyes of his glory.'

In his practical Remarks,' appended to the second Chapter, Mr. Jenour refers to the genius and effects of the Gospel, as intended to eradicate the evil principles and passions which impel men to become agents in exciting the disorders and scenes of violence which afflict the world, and to promote harmony and peace. Comparing its design and tendencies with the state of the countries in which the profession of the Gospel has been adopted in all past time since its commencement, there is but too much reason for deploring that the limits of its influence have been very confined and narrow. The time is not yet come, when Christians can avail themselves as they would wish, of practical appeals honourable to their name as 'sons of peace." We gladly circulate such sentiments as the following.

But is war altogether unlawful to a Christian? This is a question which naturally enough arises from the view here given of the kingdom of Christ. It is one, however, that may be easily decided, if we will be guided by the practice and example of the primitive times, Are not the instances of the Roman centurion, and of Cornelius, Matt. viii. 5. Acts x., sufficient to shew that neither Christ nor his Apostles considered war utterly unlawful? otherwise would they not have forbidden those persons any longer to exercise their profession; and if they had given so remarkable a prohibition, would it not have been recorded? I cannot think, then, that the profession of a soldier must necessarily hinder a man from being a Christian. Indeed, the many examples we have had to the contrary, forbid such an idea. Should, therefore, any person, while in the army, be called to a knowledge of the truth, he may, according to the Apostle's injunction, "abide in the calling wherein he was called." Yet, I should say, and I speak from actual experience, that it would be decidedly unadvisable for one already a Christian, to enter upon the military profession. The horrors of war and the dissoluteness of the army, can never become congenial to a religious mind, or tend to its peace and growth in grace. Indeed, although it would be difficult to prove the profession of a soldier to be entirely incompatible with that of a Christian, there is something in the very nature of war, so opposed to those benevolent feelings towards all our fellow-creatures which the Gospel inculcates, and so evil in its very principle, that the Christian had better have nothing to do with it.' Vol. I. p. 96.

In Chap. vi. vs. 1, Mr. Jenour's rendering avoids an ambiguity, occasioned by the punctuation of the Common Version: 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple,' 'a high and lofty throne.' But he might have extended his emendation to the concluding member of the verse, by adopting Lowth's expression, the train of his 'robe'; which, as it is the proper meaning of the original, prevents the confusion arising from the use of the doubtful word 'train.' 'Cried one to another,' is better than 'cried alternately': the latter is Lowth's rendering; in the former, the present

Translator coincides with the Common Version. Pillars of the vestibule,' (vs. 4.) in Lowth, is exchanged, in Jenour, for pillars of the porch.' The act of the seraph who applied the burning coal to the prophet's lips, is sufficiently explained in vs. 7th, and is but very questionably illustrated by such remarks as the following, the incongruity of which is very apparent.

The live coal from off the altar signified the blood of Christ, who being offered up in his human nature as a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour, acceptable to the Father, his blood, applied by faith, cleanses the believer from all sin. The blood of Christ is represented by fire, because that element purifies and cleanses by entering into the inner parts, as water does by outward application; and by fire from the altar, because the victims that were offered up upon it were types of the coming Saviour.'

A new reading which Mr. Jenour has introduced into the 13th verse, arrested our attention, and claims to be examined. We shall extract so much of the connected passage in which it occurs, as may be necessary to elucidate our animadversions; placing in juxtaposition the corresponding portions of Lowth's translation and the Common Version.

12. And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

13.

But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten as a Teyle-tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.' C. V.

12. Until JEHOVAH remove man far away:

And there be many a deserted woman in the midst of the land. 13. And though there be a tenth part remaining in it,

Even this shall undergo a repeated destruction;

Yet, as the ilex, and the oak, though cut down, hath its stock remaining,

A holy seed shall be the stock of the nation.' Lowth.

12. And Jehovah hath removed the men far away,

And great be the desolation in the midst of the land.

13. (Yet in it shall be the tenth of God)

And it be taken captive and burnt:

As the elm and the oak, which when they are cut down have yet the stock remaining to them,

So the holy seed shall be its stock.' Jenour.

Mr. Jenour's remark, that, 'The affixed to y, which is 'not noticed by other translators, signifies the name of God,' is not implicitly to be received; it is, we believe, entirely unsupported by usage. That the sense which he attributes to the affix n, is not an original suggestion, may be seen by referring to Poli Synopsis Crit. in loc.; but the tenth of God' is not a phrase which we can adopt as the representative of the original,

In his practical 'Remarks,' appended to the second Chapter, Mr. Jenour refers to the genius and effects of the Gospel, as intended to eradicate the evil principles and passions which impel men to become agents in exciting the disorders and scenes of violence which afflict the world, and to promote harmony and peace. Comparing its design and tendencies with the state of the countries in which the profession of the Gospel has been adopted in all past time since its commencement, there is but too much reason for deploring that the limits of its influence have been very confined and narrow. The time is not yet come, when Christians can avail themselves as they would wish, of practical appeals honourable to their name as 'sons of peace.' We gladly circulate such sentiments as the following.

But is war altogether unlawful to a Christian? This is a question which naturally enough arises from the view here given of the kingdom of Christ. It is one, however, that may be easily decided, if we will be guided by the practice and example of the primitive times. Are not the instances of the Roman centurion, and of Cornelius, Matt. viii. 5. Acts x., sufficient to shew that neither Christ nor his Apostles considered war utterly unlawful? otherwise would they not have forbidden those persons any longer to exercise their profession; and if they had given so remarkable a prohibition, would it not have been recorded? I cannot think, then, that the profession of a soldier must necessarily hinder a man from being a Christian. Indeed, the many examples we have had to the contrary, forbid such an idea. Should, therefore, any person, while in the army, be called to a knowledge of the truth, he may, according to the Apostle's injunction, "abide in the calling wherein he was called." Yet, I should say, and I speak from actual experience, that it would be decidedly unadvisable for one already a Christian, to enter upon the military profession. The horrors of war and the dissoluteness of the army, can never become congenial to a religious mind, or tend to its peace and growth in grace. Indeed, although it would be difficult to prove the profession of a soldier to be entirely incompatible with that of a Christian, there is something in the very nature of war, so opposed to those benevolent feelings towards all our fellow-creatures which the Gospel inculcates, and so evil in its very principle, that the Christian had better have nothing to do with it.' Vol. I. p. 96.

In Chap. vi. vs. 1, Mr. Jenour's rendering avoids an ambiguity, occasioned by the punctuation of the Common Version: 'I saw 'the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his 'train filled the temple,' a high and lofty throne.' But he might have extended his emendation to the concluding member of the verse, by adopting Lowth's expression, the train of his 'robe'; which, as it is the proper meaning of the original, prevents the confusion arising from the use of the doubtful word 'train.' 'Cried one to another,' is better than 'cried alternately': the latter is Lowth's rendering; in the former, the present