mention. The poetical cast also of the passage is preserved*, which in the translations hitherto given of it is entirely destroyed.

Our learned translators inform us in their marginal reading, that the two words, rendered "the plummet" in their text, literally signify the stone of tin. Now a stone is often used in the old testament for a weight, and in a few passages for a plummet, but is never found connected with the mention of tin, either in that or in any other signification; so that if a plummet were the thing intended in the passage before us, the mention of tin was not only unnecessary, but perplexing and obstructive. But tin is thought to be here put for tin ore; and though tin itself be the lightest of metals, yet because its ore is heavier than that of any other metal, it is supposed to be peculiarly calculated for use as a plummet. Before however this can be applied as an argument to defend the rendering in our English text, it must be farther supposed, that the use of a lump of tin ore for a plummet was so common among the Jews, that the expression, a stone of tin, had passed by custom into an

* In the translation I have arranged the lines in their proper order. They form two triplets succeeded and terminated by a distich. Had the poetical form of the passage been observed, the words an 12 would never have been joined in construction.

appellative for that instrument. Now it cannot be proved, and it is not at all likely, that tin ore was ever in common use for such a purpose. The Jews had no tin in their own country. What they bad of that metal they got from abroad, in all probability from Britain*, and perhaps, before the Phenicians took so long a voyage, by a partial land carriage through France or Spain. But then they would be likely to receive it in a metallic state, not in that of ore; for the weight of the ore being more than forty times greater than that of the metal, the price of freight and carriage must have been proportionably augmented. Besides it is remarkable, that we, the inhabitants of the Cassiterides, do not find any such peculiar adaptation of tin ore to the purpose of plummets, as to prevent us from commonly making use of a piece of lead.

None of the ancient versions make any mention of a plummet. Jonathan, the Chaldee paraphrast, seems to be the original author of that rendering. Having his mind entirely occupied, as was likely, by the idea of erecting the temple, and considering that a plummet is an instrument

* Bochart argues more ingeniously than convincingly for the derivation of Britain from -, Barat-anac, the country of tin. Phaleg. p. 649.

greatly used in building, and that a stone often signifies a weight and is used a few times in scripture for a plummet, he joined to it the next word, the true signification of which he did not see, or at least know how to apply to the passage, and so sunk the meaning of both in one common rendering, a plummet. Moreover, his paraphrase is so obscure and fanciful in the latter part, that it entirely takes away all weight from his authority. "Who is this, that despiseth this day? Because this edifice is small? Will he not change his mind and rejoice, when he shall see the plummet (or stone of the plumbline) in the hand of Zerubbabel? Seven courses like those. Before the Lord are discovered all the doings of the children of men in all the earth." He seems desirous to interpret the seven to be seven courses or rows of stones built up, one on the other, in the walls of the temple; but seeing the impossibility of applying that interpretation to the eyes of the Lord, he flies off and contents himself with delivering a general axiom. The uncertainty and fluctuation of the author are then sufficiently conspicuous, to prevent any one from bowing to his authority. The only argument that remains in favour of the version in our English text is, that if the two Hebrew words do not signify a plummet, it is difficult

to ascribe to them any signification at all. That difficulty it is hoped will be removed, at least lessened, by the following considerations.

The stone, that well known emblem of the Messiah, was introduced with singular solemnity in the fourth part of the vision; and in this part it has been again brought forward, only three verses above, with distinguished eminence as the head-stone, that was to become the great mountain. Now can any one suppose, that when the same word occurs for the third time within a few verses and with the emphatic article prefixed, it is used without reference to its previous signification? Besides, the stone in the fourth part of the vision is described as sculptured with seven eyes, and the very next thing, which follows the mention of the stone here, is the introduction of seven subjects, as already known to the reader, which are immediately afterwards explained to be seven eyes. If then it be maintained, that the stone is not here intended to represent the same subject, as in the two former places, it must be done upon such principles, as will preclude the possibility of explaining a course of prophetic imagery, and will even introduce the greatest confusion and uncertainty into language in general.

The whole difficulty and obscurity have arisen from taking the second word as a noun substantive, and putting the former in construction with it*. But in reality that word is a verb, and a very common one, appearing in its usual form and used in its common meaning, that of dividing or separating. Many texts may be produced,

*That construction itself involves an irregularity, the emphatic article being prefixed præter morem to the substantive in regimine. Buxtorf, in his Thes. Gr. p. 385, cites eight examples of this irregularity; and among them is the passage now before us. But the article is here prefixed not only to the noun in regimine, but to the second also; which duplication seems intended to mark some extraordinary emphasis laid on them. Yet, since the phrase does not occur elsewhere, and there is nothing remarkable in the use of a plummet by a builder, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to guess at the reason of such emphasis.

Ma

+ The Greek, Latin, and Arabic versions concur in the marginal rendering of our English bibles; but the Syriac reads 5, the stone of separation; thus retaining strong traces of the true meaning of the passage. an is plainly the perfect tense of the Hiphil form, and governed by the substantive or relative pronoun understood. The word, to which the pronoun refers, is indeed of the feminine gender, whereas the verb is in the masculine form. But the enallage generis is far from being uncommon. ny examples of it may be seen in Buxtorf. Thes. Gr. p. 437. But the present does not depart so widely, as most of those, from strict grammatical analogy. Instead of agreeing with the emblem itself, it agrees with the person represented by it. A strong case in point is found in Eccles. i. 2, where the feminine noun ap is construed with the masculine verb, because Solomon, the person designated by that noun, had his name been expressed, would have required a verb in the masculine. The instance is cited by Buxtorf and other grammarians.