There are great doubts, indeed, whether Solomon was, in any proper sense, the author; or rather, it is generally agreed by those best competent to discuss the matter critically, that the poem is of a later age. Possibly it may have been written, even retrospectively, in reference to him and to one of his many marriages. But more probably (judging from the contents of the poem itself) it is a collection of several poems, originally separate, and perhaps of various authorship and various periods, only corresponding in their general subject, which is Love. It is quite impossible to trace any other principle of coherence throughout the poem. Anything like a plan or plot has been sought in vain. Those who have taken it as one poem celebrating one of the marriages of Solomon, have variously considered it as proving that the bride was an Ethiopian or Egyptian princess, that she was a high-born Jewish lady, and that she was a Jewish country maiden. What stronger proof can we have, that it is not one poem, but many? It may be impossible (and the attempt, perhaps, scarcely worth the labour) to separate it into its originally distinct parts; but the observable literary facts of the case suggest this theory as the most reasonable respecting the origin of Solomon's Song.

This poem is a perpetual puzzle, even to interpreters who are content to seek for its literal meaning. But there are certainly many beautiful passages in it, though nothing of directly religious interest. Perhaps the sweetest and the most nearly bordering upon the devotional, is the following description of the return of Spring:

"My beloved spake and said unto me,

Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.
For lo! the winter is past,

The rain is over and gone.

The flowers appear on the earth,

The time of the singing of birds is come,

And the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

The fig-tree putteth forth her green figs,

And the vines with the tender grape give a good smell.

Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away."

(ii. 10-13.)*

* Good's Song of Songs, or Sacred Idyls, translated, with Notes. 1803. 4to.

Wellbeloved's and Noyes's Translations, as above mentioned.

PART IV.

THE JEWISH PROPHETS,

IN THEIR PROBABLE ORDER OF TIME.

THE remaining books of the Old Testament (from Isaiah to Malachi inclusive) are those of the Jewish Prophets. The Later Prophets they are called by the Jews, for distinction's sake, in that very wide use of the word by which the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, are called the Earlier Prophets. These Later Prophets are the only prophetical books, in the more modern sense of the term.

The Later Prophets are generally, but very needlessly, subdivided by Christians into the major and the minor; the former being Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel; the latter including the other twelve, from Hosea to Malachi, in the order of the common Bible.

The order of arrangement in the modern Bibles is copied from that of the Greek Septuagint, differing from the Hebrew arrangement merely in the insertion of Daniel; which book, in the Hebrew copies, stands among the Chetubim or miscellaneous Scriptures (as already mentioned, p. 16). But in this arrangement there is no attempt at chronological order; for want of which it is the most perplexing and unsatisfactory thing ima

ginable to read the Prophets as they stand in the common Bible. It is evidently of first importance to a clear understanding of their contents, that they be arranged in their probable order of time. Their capability of illustrating, and receiving illustration from, the Jewish historical books, will thus only be realized.

We shall therefore take the Prophets in their historical order, so far as it is ascertained, and without reference to the distinction of major and minor; which, if it only means that four of the books are longer compositions than the rest, is a very insufficient ground of distinction; while, if it be supposed to apply to their comparative merits or importance, it is not a correct distinction, since some of the minor Prophets surpass some of the major in religious power and poetical merit.

I shall adopt the arrangement of Archbishop Newcome, in his translation of the minor Prophets, inserting the other four in their proper places, respecting which there can be little or no room for doubt. This order is as follows: Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Joel, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel [perhaps Daniel], Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, more properly, last. Mr. Noyes, in his "New Translation of the Hebrew Prophets, arranged in chronological order," has adopted the same sequence, except that he regards Joel as the earliest (an opinion in which I cannot follow him), and that he places Jonah last but one instead of first, for a reason which leaves it optional how we place him, namely, that, though this prophet lived the earliest, there is reason to think the book of Jonah was not composed by himself, and perhaps not till nearly the time of Malachi. Similar reasons may place Daniel next to Ezekiel according to his personal date, but long after Malachi according to the prevailing opinion of critics as to the date of the book bearing his

name. I shall adhere to Newcome's order as the most satisfactory; but, as it is now generally understood that the books of Isaiah and Zechariah are each composed of writings of two different periods (perhaps by two prophets of the same name), somehow mixed together, I shall insert in their presumed proper places the parts ascribed respectively to the elder Zechariah, as the critics call him, and to the second Isaiah.

Another great help to understanding and appreciating the Prophetical books, is to read them in some approved translation more recent than the received version. Without disparaging the work of King James's translators in their day, it must be admitted that many parts, of these books especially, are quite unintelligible to the English reader. Much has been done for scriptural learning since their time, of which more recent translators have, of course, availed themselves. The reproduction of the form of poetry in the modern translations, is also a great advantage in point of force and beauty. And the freshness of a new version, in place of words of doubtful or no meaning, in many a familiar passage, is quite delightful to a reader who seeks to understand what is written. In such extracts as I shall have occasion to quote, I shall keep the general form of the common version, except where incorrect or unintelligible or decidedly inferior to some other translation before me, the words of which I shall in such case freely substitute, rarely adopting any expression for which such authority is not at hand. The most approved modern translations, thus used, are mentioned below.*

* New Translation of the Hebrew Prophets, arranged in chronological order, by Geo. R. Noyes, Professor of Sacred Literature in Harvard University, Boston, U. S. 1843. 3 Vols.

Bishop Lowth's New Translation of Isaiah.

Archbishop Newcome's Attempt towards an Improved Version of Ezekiel.

[Archbishop