this attempt; but I have the pleasure to know, that if I have failed in giving the sense of the text, or in expressing it clearly, it has not been through design, nor has it been through want of diligence in consulting the best authorities, as the notes will abundantly testify. I have never had recourse to hypercriticism, or endeavoured to give new and forced senses to the Hebrew text; nor have I, except in a few desperate cases, admitted any conjectural reading or emendation. Hence, many readings which I consider as probable, and even favoured in my notes to my Hebrew Bible, I have not adopted in this.' The Introduction' comprises a concise but valuable compendium of details relative to the authenticity, the inspiration, and the history of the sacred text, in which the prominent subjects of Biblical criticism are very judiciously treated. In explaining the verbal agreements and discrepancies of the first three Evangelists, Mr. Boothroyd adopts the hypothesis of Bishop Marsh, of which he gives a general description in a note at p. 5. An abridgement of Michaelis's Mosaic Law, executed in a very respectable manner, occupies the second part of this Introduction. Parts the third and fourth treat of the Religious Polity of the Jews, the climate and productions of Judea, with the arts, customs, and manners of the Israelites. The whole of these prolegomena are compiled with considerable judgement and care. The information which they contain, will materially assist the reader of the Bible, in forming an enlightened and accurate acquaintance with its contents, and we may fairly represent this Introduction' as, on the whole, one of the most appropriate and excellent that have ever been provided for the readers of the Scriptures.

We must however remark upon one passage in this part of Mr. Boothroyd's work. It is certainly true that some critics have argued from the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that it could not have been written by the Apostle Paul; but it is not true, nor is it candid to affirm, as Mr. Boothroyd represents in his note to p. 7, that the reasons on which this judgement is founded, are in opposition to the Divinity of our Lord and the doctrine of the Atonement. Calvin himself denies that the Epistle in question could have been written by Paul. We know not in what manner Mr. B. may have conducted his examination of the question, but we are fully satisfied that a careful investigation of the Epistle would convince any fair critic, that the opinion which Mr. B. opposes, is not, as he asserts, a mere assumption.' The idioms which occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are of a character quite distinct from those which are found in the acknowledged writings of the Apostle, and certainly they present difficulties which, to say the least, are sufficient to justify hesitation on the subject.

We shall commence our extracts from this new version of the

Bible, with the following passage from the history of the creation.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And 2 the earth was desolate and waste; darkness also was upon the

face of the deep, and a mighty wind agitated the surface of 3 the waters. And God said, "Let there be light;" and there 4 was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God dis5 tinguished the light from the darkness; And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.

And the evening had been and the morning had been, One day; 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse amidst the waters, and 7 let it separate waters from waters;" and so it was. For God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below 8 the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; And God called the expanse, Heavens ; "and God saw that this was good."

And the evening had been and the morning had been, a Second ́9 day; And God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be collected into one place, that the dry land may appear;" And so it Яas. "For the waters below the expanse were collected into 10 their places, and the dry land appeared." And God called the dry land Earth; and the collection of waters he called Seas; And God saw that this also was good.'

The first remarkable difference in this "Improved Version," from the reading of the common English Bible, is in the substitution of the phrase a mighty wind,' for, the spirit of God,' for which the following reasons are assigned.

And a mighty wind, &c. After much thought, I have thus rendered the original for the following reasons: 1. It is unquestionable that denotes breath, wind, as well as spirit. Compare Psalm xiv. 7, and Isa. xl. 7. The word God is often used to denote, excellence of any kind; as mountains of God, mean great mountains,' trees of God, tall, flourishing trees; and by a similar idiom, wind of God, means, a strong, mighty wind.' 2. This I conceive is a part of the description of the chaotic state, and connected with what precedes, from the participle (non) agitating being used. 3. Because the common version seems opposed to the design of the sacred author, who introduces God as first exerting his power and wisdom in separating the discordant elements, and reducing the chaos into order, by the production of light. 4. Because the common version ascribes no effects to the Spirit of God, worthy of his immediate agency. If we render, instead of agitating, moving, or brooding, yet no effect follows, but what my version contains. The Targums, the Arabic and Persic translators have thus rendered.'

There is certainly considerable force in the reasons urged in support of the adopted rendering, and we are perfectly satisfied that Mr. Boothroyd's preference is founded entirely on philological ground. Still we think the propriety of the alteration is

a disputable point, and, on the whole, we should give our decision for retaining the reading of the Common Version, "the "Spirit of God." 1. Because, though it is not to be controverted that ruach denotes wind, nor that the word God in connexion with another word, is used frequently to denote excellence, or greatness, no example of the word God occurring with a word meaning wind, and thus denoting great or mighty wind, is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. The phrase for

רוח אלהים never ; רוח חזק or רוח גדול,strong or mighty wind,is

2. The phrase be occurs in several instances, in which its meaning is invariably the Spirit of God.' Mr. Boothroyd is not strictly correct in citing the Targums as reading with his own version; they use the very words of the Hebrew text in connexion with a phrase (from before the Lord, pm) which, to say the least, is not decisive in favour of the reading, 'mighty wind.' Further, Mr. Boothroyd has translated the words mm (2 Kings ii. 16,) by, "the Spirit of Jehovah." Now, all the Targums read in this passage, precisely as they do in Gen. i. 2; they cannot therefore be cited in support of the rendering of this "Improved Version" in the example before us, as this would be to compel their uniform testimony in behalf of different readings. As Spirit of God" is the literal rendering of the original Hebrew, as the words are thus translated in every other instance in which they occur, and as no example of the combination s m, formighty wind,' can be produced, we should hesitate to change the common reading, and are indeed of opinion that it is better to retain it in the English Bible. Since, however, Mr. Boothroyd has preferred the other phrase, he ought, we think, to have adopted the same expression in the translation of 2 Kings ii. 16.; particularly as he has remarked that the sons of the prophets seem to have had a notion that Elijah was lost in an aerial tempest.'

The translation of the concluding paragraph of the third chapter of Genesis, is evidently an improvement on the common rendering, inasmuch as it preserves the allusion to that part of the temptation, verse 5, in which the seducer of the first pair flattered them that they should be as gods.

22 And God Jehovah said; "Behold, Adam would so become like one of us, as to know good and evil; and now possibly, he will put out his hand, and take also of the fruit of the tree of 23 LIFE, that he may live for ever!" Therefore, God Jehovah sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground, whence he had 24 been taken. And he drove out the man, and placed at the East of the garden of Eden, Cherubs, with flame-brandishing swords, to keep the way to the tree of life.

22. Behold the man that would become, &c. In this version I adopt the principle, that the verb (7) here denotes not what man actually

'became,' but what he attempted to become; (See Glassius Canon 8. in ver.) and this version, unless I am mistaken, is more suitable to the character of God, than the common one. This rendering converts what has been regarded an irony, into the language of commiseration; and what follows contains the reason why Jehovah expelled man from paradise; lest having violated the divine command, and incurred the penalty of death, he should attempt to escape the punishment by eating of the tree of life.'

By an error, occasioned probably by the homoioteleuton, the words "cattle, and reptile, and wild beast, according to their "kinds," are omitted in the 24th verse of this chapter.

In his version of ch, iv.. v. 1. Mr. Boothroyd adheres to the sense of the common translation, which we apprehend is the correct one. The passage has been variously rendered, and has been construed by some commentators, as signifying the complacency of Eve on the birth of the promised deliverer of mankind. Geddes would read, god-like man-child,' and remarks that the original is hardly susceptible of the common rendering. His own rendering we apprehend not to be at all supported by examples of the idiom in question, which, it must also be acknowledged, is attended with some difficulty, as interpreted by the public Translators, and the present Editor: "I have acquired a man-child from Jehovah."

Ch. iv. v. 10. Jehovah is the antecedent to the verb, for * which Mr. Boothroyd has substituted" God;" an alteration, indeed, of no great moment, but which is unnecessarily and improperly made.

3 V. 15. Jehovah gave a token to Cain. A very proper though not original correction of the public version, which has greatly perplexed many readers by its rendering, "The Lord "set a mark upon Cain."

Ch. vi. 1. And it came to pass, when men began to be numerous upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 That the sons of the chiefs saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they seized of them for wives, whomsoever they 3 chose. And Jehovah said, "My spirit shall never pronounce judgment on men unwarned. They are but flesh. Their days shall therefore yet be, one hundred and twenty years." In 4 those days were lawless warriors upon the earth. For after the sons of the chiefs went in to the daughters of men, to them they bare sons, who became mighty, the renowned men of antiquity."

Ch. vi. 2. Sons of the Chiefs. To understand (b) as denoting the pious, the worshippers of Jehovah, the Sons of God, as opposed to the wicked, seems to me a forced and very unnatural interpretation. That such persons should act as these did, is equally inconsistent with their profession and spirit; but that the Sons of the Chiefs should become profligate from indulgence, and seize whom

effective style, and only wanted to be rendered by such engravers as those by whose means we obtain Mr. Allason's de lineations. But the art was not at that time in a flourishing state in the French capital, as the editors or publishers of the work acknowledge; and less ability and care in this departme were exerted for this than for some nearly contemporary works as, for instance, the celebrated one of Denon on Egypt. Th engravings give in a prominent and decided manner the shape and proportions of the objects, but their execution is for the most part, crude, hard, and mechanical. It was hardly discree therefore for the editor to assume for it the same rank as that De Choiseul-Gouffier's Voyage de la Gréce, of which the engravings are quite of another order, being in general very elegantly elaborated. But even that work, rich and beautifa as it is, cannot be placed on a level with some of the recent o present English works of the picturesque class. It does not rival in style and power of engraving, for example, Landseer's Antiquities of Dacca, Hakewell's Picturesque Tour of Italy, or Turner and Cooke's Southern Coast of England. We migh name also, but that they are of a different class in point a subjects, the superb Arabian Antiquities of Spain, Wild' Lincoln Cathedral, Britton's Cathedrals, and Neale's Westminster Abbey.

But to return to the works of Cassas and our Author. If without any regard to the merit of the plates, simply considere as engravings, a person who had them both, wished to give a friend a plain bulky idea, if we may be allowed such a phrase, of the antiquities of Pola, he would perhaps by preference shew him the work of the Frenchman, whose prints preserve very well the general substantial truth of representation as to form, and have the advantage, in most of the instances, of exhibiting the objects in more magnitude. Of the Temple of Augustus, for instance, the inspector will acquire a fuller idea from the views of Cassas, which display not its portico only, but its whol extent. The Porta Aurea, or triumphal arch of the Sergii, is given in several of its aspects in both the works, with so much correspondence, except as to the place of one of the inscriptions, as to certify us of having a competent representation of that fine object in either of them. There is, however, a very strange difference in the accessories, that is, the buildings and fragments of ruin in the neighbourhood, or in contiguity to the structure. As we are well warranted by experience in placing more dependence on the fidelity of an English artist, there is no doubt that the Frenchman has made a manful fictitious clearing away of a very massive house nearly adjoining one side, and high, heavy wall on the other.

As to the engraving, a highly advantageous comparison is