SCRIPTURE is a word derived from the Latin Scriptures scriptura, and in its original sense is of the same import of the Old Testament, signifying "any thing written." It is, however, commonly used to denote the writings of the Old and New Testaments; which are sometimes called the Scripture, the Scriptures, sometimes the sacred or holy Scriptures, and sometimes canonical Scripture. These books are called the Scriptures by way of eminence, as they are the most important of all writings; they are said to be holy or sacred on account of the sacred doctrines which they teach; and they are termed canonical, because when their number and authenticity were ascertained, their names were inserted in ecclesiastical canons, to distinguish them from other books; which, being of no authority, were kept as it were out of sight, and therefore styled apocryphal (A).

The authenticity of the Old Testament may be proved from the character of the Jews, from internal evidence, and from testimony.

1. The character of the Jews affords a strong presumptive evidence that they have not forged or corrupted the Old Testament. Were a person brought before a court of justice on suspicion of forgery, and yet no presumptive or positive evidence of his guilt could be produced, it would be allowed by all that he ought to be acquitted. But farther, if the forgery alleged were inconsistent with the character of the accused; if it tended to expose to disgrace and reproach his general principles and conduct; or if we were assured that he considered forgery as an impious and abominable crime—it would require very strong testimony to establish his guilt. The case now mentioned corresponds exactly with the character and situation of the Jews. If a Jew had forged any book of the Old Testament, he must have been impelled to do bold and dangerous an enterprise by some very powerful motive. It could not be national pride, for there is scarcely one of those books which does not severely censure the national manners. It could not be the love of fame; for that passion would have taught him to flatter and extol the national character; and the punishment, if detected, would have been infamy and death. The love of wealth could not produce such a forgery; for no wealth was to be gained.

The Jews were selected from among the other nations of the world, and preserved a distinct people from the time of their emigration from Egypt to the Babylonish captivity, a period of 892 years. The principal purposes for which they were selected was to preserve in a world running headlong into idolatry the knowledge and worship of the one true God, and to be the guardians of those sacred books that contained the prophecies which were to prove to future ages the divine mission of the Redeemer of mankind. To fit them for these important truths, the spirit of their laws and the rites of their religion had the strongest tendency. Miracles were openly performed, to convince them that the God of Israel was the God of all the earth, and that he alone was to be worshipped. Public calamities always befell them when they became apostates to their God; yet they continued violently attached to idolatry till their captivity in Babylon made them forever renounce it.

The Jews then had two opposite characters at different periods of their history: At first they were addicted to idolatry; afterwards they acquired a strong antipathy against it.

Had any books of the Old Testament been forged before the Babylonish captivity, when the Jews were devoted to idolatry, is it to be conceived that the impostor would have inveighed so strongly against this vice, and so often imputed to it the calamities of the state; since by such conduct he knew that he would render himself obnoxious to the people and to those idolatrous monarchs who persecuted the prophets?

But it may next be supposed, that "the sacred books were forged after the Babylonish captivity, when the principles of the Jews would lead them to inveigh against the worship of idols." But these principles would surely never lead them to expose the character of their ancestors, and to detail their follies and their crimes. Never had any people more national pride, or a higher veneration for their ancestors, than the Jews. Miracles and prophecies ceased soon after their return to Jerusalem; and from that period their respect for the sacred books approached to superstition. They preserved them with pious care, they read them often in their synagogues, and they considered every attempt to alter the text as an act of sacrilege. Is it possible that such men could be guilty of forgery, or could false writings be easily imposed on them?

2. There is an internal evidence in the books of the Old Testament that proves them to have been written by different persons, and at distant periods; and enables us with precision to ascertain a time at or before which they must have been composed. It is an undeniable fact that Hebrew ceased to be the living language of the Jews during the Babylonish captivity, and that the Jewish productions after that period were in general written either in Chaldee or in Greek. The Jews of Palestine, some ages before the coming of our Saviour, were unable, without the assistance of a Chaldee paraphrase, to understand the Hebrew original. It necessarily follows, therefore, that every book which is written in pure Hebrew was composed either before or about the time of the Babylonish captivity. This being admitted, we may advance a step farther, and contend that the period which elapsed between the composition of the most ancient and the most modern book of the Old Testament was very considerable; or, in other words, that the most ancient books of the Old Testament were written many ages before the Babylonish captivity.

No language continues stationary; and the Hebrew, like other tongues, passed through the several stages of infancy, youth, manhood, and old age. If therefore, on comparison, the several parts of the Hebrew Bible are found to differ not only in regard to style, but also in regard to character and cultivation, we have strong internal marks that they were composed at different and distant periods. No classical scholar would believe, independent of the Grecian history, that the poems ascribed to Homer were written in the age of Demosthenes, the Orations of Demosthenes in the time of Origen, or the Commentaries of Origen in the time of Lactantius and Chrysoloras. For the very same reason, it is certain that the five books which are ascribed to Moses were not written in the time of David, the Psalms.

(A) From ἀποκρύψις, to put out of sight, or conceal. Scripture. Psalms of David in the age of Isaiah, nor the prophecies of Isaiah in the time of Malachi; and since the Hebrew became a dead language about the time of the Babylonish captivity, the book of Malachi could not have been written much later. Before that period therefore were written the prophecies of Isaiah, still earlier the Psalms of David, and much earlier than these the books which are ascribed to Moses.

3. Let us now consider the evidence of testimony for the authenticity of the Old Testament. As the Jews were a more ancient people than the Greeks or Romans, and for many ages totally unconnected with them, it is not to be expected that we should derive much evidence from the historians of those nations: it is to the Jews alone we must look for information. But it has unfortunately happened that few of their works except the Scriptures themselves have been preserved to posterity. Josephus is the most ancient of the Jewish historians to whom we can appeal. He informs us, that the Old Testament was divided into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or poetical books. No man, says he, hath ever dared to add or take away from them. He tells us also, that other books were written after the time of Artaxerxes; but as they were not composed by prophets, they were not reckoned worthy of the same credit.

Since the promulgation of the Christian religion, it is impossible that any material alterations or corruptions could have taken place in the books of the Old Testament; for they have been in the hands both of Jews and Christians from that period. Had the Jews attempted to make any alterations, the Christians would have detected and exposed them; nor would the Jews have been less severe against the Christians if they had corrupted the sacred text. But the copies in the hands of Jews and Christians agree; and therefore we justly conclude, that the Old Testament is still pure and uncorrupted.

The division mentioned by our Saviour into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, corresponds with that of Josephus. We have therefore sufficient evidence, it is hoped, to convince even a deaf, that the Old Testament existed at that time. And if the deaf will only allow, that Jesus Christ was a personage of a virtuous and irreproachable character, he will acknowledge that we draw a fair conclusion when we assert that the Scriptures were not corrupted in his time; for when he accused the Pharisees of making the law of no effect by their traditions, and when he enjoined his hearers to search the Scriptures, he could not have failed to mention the corruptions or forgeries of Scripture, if any in that age had existed. But we are assured, by very respectable authority, that the canon of the Old Testament was fixed some centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus the son of Sirach, the author of Ecclesiasticus, makes evident references to the prophecies of Isaiah *, Jeremiah †, and Ezekiel ‡, and mentions these prophets by name. He speaks also of the twelve minor prophets §. It appears also from the prologue, that the law and the prophets, and other ancient books, existed at the same period. The book of Ecclesiasticus, according to the calculations of the best chronologers, was written in Syriac about A.M. 3772, that is, 232 years before the Christian era, and was translated into Greek in the next century by the grandson of the author. The prologue was added by the translator; but this circumstance does not diminish the evidence for the antiquity of Scripture; for he informs us, that the law and the prophets, and the other books of their fathers, were studied by his grandfather: a sufficient proof that they existed in his time. As no authentic books of a more ancient date, except the sacred writings themselves, have reached our time, we can ascend no higher in search of testimony.

There is, however, one remarkable historical fact, which proves the existence of the law of Moses at the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel, when the ten tribes were carried captive to Assyria by Shalmanezer, and dispersed among the provinces of that extensive empire; that is, about 741 years before Christ. It was about that time the Samaritans were transported from Assyria to repeople the country, which the ten captive tribes of Israel had formerly inhabited. The posterity of the Samaritans still inhabit the land of their fathers, and have preserved copies of the Pentateuch, two or three of which were brought to this country in the seventeenth century. The Samaritan Pentateuch is written in old Hebrew characters (see Philology, No. 28), and therefore must have existed before the time of Ezra. But so violent were the animosities which subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, that in no period of their history would the one nation have received any books from the other. They must therefore have received them at their first settlement in Samaria from the captive priest whom the Assyrian monarch sent to teach them how they should fear the Lord (2 Kings xvii.).

The canon of the Old Testament, as both Jewish and Christian writers agree, was completed by Ezra and some of his immediate successors (see Bible). In our text, copies of the sacred books are divided into 39. The Jews reckoned only 22, corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. They united the books of Judges and Ruth; they joined the two books of Samuel; the books of Kings and Chronicles were reckoned one; Ezra and Nehemiah one; the Prophecies and Lamentations of Jeremiah were taken under the same head; and the 12 minor prophets were considered as one book—so that the whole number of books in the Jewish canon amounted to 22.

The Pentateuch consists of the five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Several observations have been already made respecting the authenticity of these under the article Pentateuch; but several additional remarks have occurred, which may not improperly be given in this place. For many of these we acknowledge ourselves indebted to a sermon published by the reverend Mr Marti, whose research, learning, and critical accuracy, will be acknowledged by every reader of discernment.

One of the strongest arguments that have occurred to us in support of the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and the inspiration of the writer, has already been given under the article Religion, No. 14, &c., which see: But we shall in this place present two arguments of a different kind, which would be sufficient to prove at least the former of these conclusions. We argue from the language and contents of the Mosaic writings, and from the testimony of the other books of Scripture. From the contents and language of the Pentateuch there arises a very strong presumption that Moses was its author. The very mode of writing in the four last books discovers an author contemporary with the events which he relates; every description, both religious and political, is a proof that the writer was present at each respective scene; and the legislative and historical parts are so interwoven with each other, that neither of them could have been written by a man who lived in a later age. The account which is given in the book of Exodus of the conduct of Pharaoh towards the children of Israel, is such as might have been expected from a writer who was not only acquainted with the country at large, but had frequent access to the court of its sovereign: and the minute geographical description of the passage through Arabia is such, as could have been given only by a man like Moses, who had spent 40 years in the land of Midian. The language itself is a proof of its high antiquity, which appears partly from the great simplicity of the style, and partly from the use of archaisms or antiquated expressions, which in the days even of David and Solomon were obsolete (n). But the strongest argument that can be produced to show that the Pentateuch was written by a man born and educated in Egypt, is the use of Egyptian words; words which never were, and never could have been, used by a native of Palestine: and it is a remarkable circumstance, that the very same thing which Moses had expressed by a word that is pure Egyptian, Isaiah, as might be expected from his birth and education, has expressed by a word that is purely Hebrew (c).

That Moses was the author of the Pentateuch is proved also from the evidence of testimony. We do not here quote the authority of Diodorus Siculus, of Longinus, or Strabo, because their information must have been derived from the Jews. We shall seek no authority but that of the succeeding sacred books themselves, which bear internal evidence that they were written in different ages, and therefore could not be forged, unless we were to adopt the absurd opinion that there was a succession of impostors among the Jews who united in the same fraud. The Jews were certainly best qualified to judge of the authenticity of their own books. They could judge of the truth of the facts recorded, and they could have no interest in adopting a forgery. Indeed, to suppose a whole nation combined in committing a forgery, and that this combination should continue for many hundred years, would be the most chimerical supposition that ever entered into the mind of man. Yet we must make this supposition, if we reject the historical facts of the Old Testament. No one will deny that the Pentateuch existed in the time of Christ and his apostles; for they not only mention it, but quote it. "This we admit," reply the advocates for the hypothesis which we are now combating; "but you cannot therefore conclude that Moses was the author; for there is reason to believe it was composed by Ezra." But unfortunately for men of this opinion, both Ezra iii. 2. Nehemiah ascribe the book of the law to Moses (n), Ezra iii. 2. viii. 14. The Pentateuch was in the possession of the Samaritans before the time of Ezra. It existed in the reign of Amaziah king of Judah, A. C. 839 years before the reign of Jehoiakim, A. C. 912; for that virtuous prince appointed Levites (n) kings and priests who taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah and taught the people (n). It is referred to by David in his dying admonitions to Solomon (n). The same royal bard makes (n) many allusions to it in the book of Psalms, and sometimes quotes it (n). There remains therefore only one Comp. reference to those who contend that Moses was not the author, viz., that it was written in the period which elapsed between the age of Joshua and that of David, xxix. 6. But the whole history of the Jews from their settlement in Canaan to the building of the temple presupposes, that the book of the law was written by Moses.

We have satisfactory evidence that it existed in the time of Joshua. One passage may be quoted where this fact is stated. The Divine Being makes use of these words to Joshua: "Only be thou strong, and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do all according to the law which Moses my servant commanded thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein" (n).

To the foregoing demonstration objections may be general stated. "We will admit the force of your arguments, objections and grant that Moses actually wrote a work called the book of the law; but how can we be certain that it was the very work which is now current under his name? And unless you can show this to be at least probable, your whole evidence is of no value." To illustrate the force or weakness of this objection, let us apply it to some ancient Greek author, and see whether a classical scholar would allow it to have weight. "It is true that the Greek writers speak of Homer as an ancient and celebrated poet; it is true also that they have quoted from the works which they ascribe to him various passages that we find at present in the Iliad and Odyssey: yet still there is a possibility that the poems which were written by Homer, and those which we call the Iliad and Odyssey, were totally different productions." Now an advocate for Greek literature would reply to this objection, not with a serious answer, but with a smile of contempt; and he would think it beneath his dignity to silence an opponent who appeared to be deaf.

(n) For instance, כָּנֵ֥י אִלֶּ֖ה, and יְרֵ֣עַ פִּיכֶ֑ר, which are used in both genders by no other writer than Moses. See Gen. xxiv. 14. 16. 28. 55. 57. xxviii. 21. 25.

(c) For instance, כָּנֵ֥י אִלֶ֖ה (perhaps written originally כָּנֵ֥י אִלֶ֖ה, and the lengthened into יְרֵ֣עַ פִּיכֶ֑ר by mistake), written by the Seventy אֲגֹֽוֶּה or אֲגֹֽוֶּה, Gen. xlii. 2. and יְרֵ֣עַ פִּיכֶ֑ר, written by the Seventy אֲגֹֽוֶּה or אֲגֹֽוֶּה. See La Croze Lexicon Ægyptiacum, art. אֲגֹֽוֶּה and אֲגֹֽוֶּה.

The same thing which Moses expresses by יְרֵ֣עַ פִּיכֶ֑ר, Gen. xlii. 2. Isaiah xix. 7. expresses by יְרֵ֣עַ פִּיכֶ֑ר, for the Seventy have translated both of these words by אֲגֹֽוֶּה. Scripture to the clearest conviction. But still more may be said in defence of Moses than in defence of Homer; for the writings of the latter were not deposited in any temple or sacred archive, in order to secure them from the devastations of time; whereas the copy of the book of the law, as written by Moses, was intrusted to the priests and the elders, preserved in the ark of the covenant, and read to the people every seventh year (D). Sufficient care therefore was taken not only for the preservation of the original record, but that no spurious production should be substituted in its stead. And that no spurious production ever has been substituted in the stead of the original composition of Moses, appears from the evidence both of the Greek and the Samaritan Pentateuch. For as these agree with the Hebrew, except in some trifling variations (E), to which every work is exposed by length of time, it is absolutely certain that the five books which we now ascribe to Moses are one and the same work with that which was translated into Greek in the time of the Ptolemies, and, what is of still greater importance, with that which existed in the time of Solomon. And as the Jews could have had no motive whatever, during that period which elapsed between the age of Joshua and that of Solomon, for substituting a spurious production instead of the original as written by Moses, and, even had they been inclined to attempt the imposture, would have been prevented by the care which had been taken by their lawgiver, we must conclude that our present Pentateuch is the very identical work that was delivered by Moses.

The positive evidence being now produced, we shall endeavour to answer some particular objections that have been urged. But as most of these occur in the book of Genesis, we shall reserve them for separate examination, and shall here only consider the objections peculiar to the last four books. They may be comprised under one head, viz. expressions and passages in these books which could not have been written by Moses. 1. The account of the death of Moses, in the last chapter of Deuteronomy, we allow must have been added by some succeeding writer; but this can never prove that the book of Deuteronomy is spurious. What is more common among ourselves than to see an account of the life and death of an author subjoined to his works, without informing us by whom the narrative was written? It has been objected, that Moses always speaks of himself in the third person. This is the objection of foolish ignorance, and therefore scarcely deserves an answer. We suspect that such persons have never read the classics, particularly Caesar's Commentaries, where the author uniformly speaks of himself in the third person, as every writer of correct taste will do who reflects on the absurdity of employing the pronoun of the first person in a work intended to be read long after his death. (See Grammar, No. 33.) 2. As to the objection, that in some places the text is defective, as in Exodus xv. 8, it is not directed against the author, but against some transcriber; for what is wanting in the Hebrew is inserted in the Samaritan. 3. The only other objection that deserves notice is made from two passages. It is said in one place that the bed of Og is at Ramah to this day; and in another (Deut. iii. 14), "Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshur and Maacath, and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day." The last clause in both these passages could not have been written by Moses, but it was probably placed in the margin by some transcriber by way of explanation, and was afterwards by mistake inserted in the text. Whoever doubts the truth of this assertion may have recourse to the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, and he will find that the spurious additions in the texts of some manuscripts are actually written in the margin of others (F).

That the Pentateuch, therefore, at least the last four books of it, was written by Moses, we have very satisfactory evidence; which, indeed, at the distance of 3000 years is wonderful, and which cannot be affirmed of any profane history written at a much later period.

The book of Genesis was evidently not written by a person who was contemporary with the facts which he records; for it contains the history of 2360 years, a period comprehending almost twice as many years as all the rest of the historical books of the Old Testament put together. Moses has been acknowledged the author of this book by all the ancient Jews and Christians; but it has been matter of dispute from what source he derived his

(D) "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God." Deut. xxxi. 9—11. 24—26. There is a passage to the same purpose in Josephus: Διαλεξει δια των αναγραφημάτων τω Ιερών ορθογραφίας, Josephi Antiquit. lib. v. c. i. § 17. ed. Hudson.

(E) See the collation of the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuch, in the 6th vol. of the London Polyglot, p. 19, of the Animaeversiones Samaritae.

(F) To mention only two examples. 1. The common reading, 1 Cor. xvi. 2, is μετὰ συνδεσμῶν; but the Codex Petavian. 3, has τῷ κόσμῳ in the margin; and in one of the manuscripts which Beza used, this marginal addition has been obliterated in the text. See his note on this passage. 2. Another instance is, 1 John ii. 27, where the genuine reading is ἐπίστασαι; but Wettstein quotes two manuscripts, in which πιστεύω is written in the margin; and this marginal reading has found its way not only into the Codex Covelli 2, but into the Coptic and Ethiopic versions. Some who have looked on themselves as profound philosophers have rejected many parts of the book of Genesis as fabulous and absurd; but it cannot be the wisdom of philosophy, but the vanity of ignorance, that could lead to such an opinion. In fact, the book of Genesis affords a key to many difficulties in philosophy which cannot otherwise be explained. It has been supposed that the diversities among mankind prove that they are not descended from one pair; but it has been fully shown that all these diversities may be accounted for from natural causes. It has been reckoned a great difficulty to explain how fossil shells were introduced into the bowels of the earth; but the deluge explains this fact better than all the romantic theories of philosophers. It is impossible to account for the origin of such a variety of languages in a more satisfactory manner than is done in the account of the confusion of tongues which took place at Babel. It would be no easy matter to show why the sea of Sodom is so different from every other sea on the globe which has yet been explored, if we had not possessed the scriptural account of the miraculous destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is saturated with bitumen and salt, and contains no fishes. These are very singular facts, which have been fully established by late travellers. The book of Genesis, too, has been treated with contempt, because it makes the world less ancient than is necessary to support the theories of modern philosophers, and because it is difficult to reconcile the chronologies of several nations with the opinion that the world is not above 6000 or 7000 years old. The Chaldeans, in the time of Cicero, reckoned up 479,000 years. The Egyptians pretend that they have records extending 50,000 years back; and the Hindoos go beyond all bounds of probability, carrying back their chronology, according to Halhed, more than 7,000,000 years.

An attempt has been made by the unfortunate M. Bailly, once mayor of Paris, to reconcile these magnified calculations with the chronology of the Septuagint, which is justified before the Hebrew. (See Septuagint.) He informs us, that the Hindoos, as well as the Chaldeans and Egyptians, had years of arbitrary determination. They had months of 15 days, and years of 60 days, or two months. A month is a night and day of the patriarchs; a year is a night and day of the gods; four thousand years of the gods, are as many hundred years of men. By attention to such modes of computation, the age of the world will be found very nearly the same in the writings of Moses, and in the calculations and traditions of the Brahmans. With these also we have a remarkable coincidence with the Persian chronology. Bailly has established these remarkable epochs from the Creation to the Deluge.

The Septuagint gives 2256 years. The Chaldeans 2222 The Egyptians 2340 The Persians 2500 The Hindoos 2600 The Chinese 2300

The same author has also shown the singular coincidence of the age of the world as given by four distinct Scripture and dilutely situated people.

The ancient Egyptians - 5544 years. The Hindoos - 5502 The Persians - 5501 The Jews, according to Josephus, 5555

Having made these few remarks, to shew that the facts recorded in Genesis are not inconsistent with truth, we shall now, by a few observations, establish the evidence, from testimony, that Moses was the author, and answer the objections that seem strongest.

There arises a great probability, from the book of Genesis itself, that the author lived near the time of Joseph; for as we advance towards the end of that book, the facts gradually become more minute. The materials of the antediluvian history are very scanty. The account of Abraham is more complete; but the history of Jacob and his family is still more fully detailed. This is indeed the case with every history. In the early part, the relation is very short and general; but when the historian approaches his own time, his materials accumulate. It is certain, too, that the book of Genesis must have been written before the rest of the Pentateuch; for the allusions in the last four books to the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are very frequent. The simplicity of the style shows it to be one of the most ancient of the sacred books; and perhaps its similarity to the style of Moses would determine a critic to ascribe it to him. It will be allowed that no man was better qualified than Moses to compose the history of his ancestors. He was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, the most enlightened nation of his time, and he had the best opportunities of obtaining accurate information. The short account of the antediluvian world could easily be remembered by Abraham, who might obtain it from Shem, who was his contemporary. To Shem it might be conveyed by Methuselah, who was 345 years old when Adam died. From Abraham to Moses, the interval was less than 400 years. The splendid promises made to that patriarch would certainly be carefully communicated to each generation, with the concomitant facts; and thus the history might be conveyed to Moses by the most distinguished persons. The accounts respecting Jacob and his son Joseph might be given to Moses by his grandfather Kohath, who must have been born long before the descent into Egypt; and Kohath might have heard all the facts respecting Abraham and Isaac from Jacob himself. Thus we can easily point out how Moses might derive the materials of the book of Genesis, and especially of the last 38 chapters, from the most authentic source.

It will now be necessary to consider very shortly the objections which have been supposed to prove that Genesis could not have been written by Moses. 1. It is objected, that the author of the first chapters of Genesis must have lived in Mesopotamia, as he discovers a knowledge of the rivers that watered Paradise, of the cities Babylon, Erech, Eridu, and Calneh; of the gold of Pifon; of the bdellium and onyx stone. But if he could not derive this knowledge from the wisdom of the Egyptians, which is far from being improbable, he might surely obtain it by tradition from Abraham, who was born and brought up beyond the Euphrates. 2. In Genesis... Genesis xiv. 14, it is said, Abraham pursued the four confederate kings to Dan, yet that name was not given till after the conquest of Palestine*. We answer, this might be inferred by a transcriber. But such a supposition is not necessary; for though we are told in the book of Judges that a city originally called Laith received then the name of Dan, this does not prove that Laith was the same city with the Dan which is mentioned in Genesis. The same answer may be given to the objection which is brought from Genesis xxxv. 21, where the tower of Edar is mentioned, which the objectors say was the name of a tower over one of the gates of Jerusalem. But the tower of Edar signifies the tower of the flocks, which in the pastoral country of Canaan might be a very common name. 3. The most formidable objection is derived from these two passages, Gen. xii. 6. "And the Canaanite was then in the land." Gen. xxxvi. 31. "These are the kings that reigned over the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Now, it is certain that neither of these passages could be written by Moses. We allow they were added by a later writer; but this circumstance cannot invalidate the evidence which has been already produced. It does not prove that Moses was not the author of the book of Genesis, but only that the book of Genesis has received two alterations since his death.

According to Rivet, our Saviour and his Apostles have cited 27 passages verbatim from the book of Genesis, and have made 38 allusions to the same.

The book of Exodus contains the history of the Israelites for about 145 years. It gives an account of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt; of the miracles by which they were delivered; of their passage through the Red sea, and journey through the wilderness; of the solemn promulgation of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai, and of the building and furniture of the Tabernacle. This book is cited by David, by Daniel, and other sacred writers. Twenty-five passages are quoted by our Saviour and his apostles in express words, and they make 19 allusions to the same.

The book of Leviticus contains the history of the Israelites for one month. It consists chiefly of laws. Indeed, properly speaking, it is the code of the Jewish ceremonial and political laws. It describes the consecration of Aaron and his sons, the daring impiety and exemplary punishment of Nadab and Abihu. It reveals also some predictions respecting the punishment of the Israelites in case of apostasy; and contains an assurance that every fifth year should produce abundance to support them during the seventh or Sabbatical year. This book is quoted as the production of Moses in several books of scripture*.

The book of Numbers comprehends the history of the Israelites for a period of about 38 years, reckoning from the first day of the second month after their departure from Egypt. It contains an account of two numberings of the people; the first in the beginning of the second year of their emigration, the second in the plains of Moab towards the conclusion of their journey in the wilderness†. It describes the ceremonies employed at the consecration of the tabernacle, gives an exact journal of the marches and encampments of the Israelites, relates the appointment of the 70 elders, the miraculous cure performed by the brazen serpent, and the misconduct of Moses when he was commanded to bring water out of the rock. There is also added an account of the death of Aaron, of the conquest of Sihon and Og, and the story of Balaam, with his celebrated prophecy concerning the Messiah§.

The book of Numbers is quoted as the work of Mosesxxvii. 17, in several parts of Scripture*.

The book of Deuteronomy comprehends a period of nearly two months. It consists of an interesting address to the Israelites, in which Moses recalls to their remembrance the many instances of divine favour which they had experienced, and reproaches them for their ingratitude. He lays before them, in a compendious form, Matthew's laws which he had formerly delivered, and makes some explanatory additions. This was the more necessary, because the Israelites, to whom they had been originally promulgated, and who had seen the miracles in Deuteronomy, at the Red sea, and Mount Sinai, had died in the wilderness. The divine origin of these laws, and the miracles by which they were sanctioned, must already have been well known to them; yet a solemn recapitulation of these by the man who had miraculously fed the present generation from their infancy, who by the lifting up of his hands had procured them victory in the day of battle, and who was going to leave the world to give an account of his conduct to the God of Israel, could not but make a deep and lasting impression on the minds of all who heard him. He inculcates these laws by the most powerful motives. He prefaces before them the most animating rewards, and denounces the severest punishments against the rebellious. The prophecies of Moses towards the end of this book, concerning the fate of the Jews, their dispersion and calamities, the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, the miseries of the besieged, and the present state of the Jewish nation, cannot be read without astonishment. They are periphrastic and minute, and have been literally accomplished.

This book is quoted as the production of Moses by Christ and his apostles*.

4. The historical books are 12 in number, Joshua, the historians, Judges, Ruth, Samuel I. and II. Kings I. and II. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. These, if considered distinctly from the Pentateuch, and the writings more properly styled prophetical, contain a compendium of the Jewish history from the death of Moses, A. M. 2552, to the reformation established by Nehemiah after the return from the captivity, A. M. 3595, comprehending a period of 1043 years.

To enable us to discover the authors of these books, we have no guide to conduct us but conjecture, internal evidence, or the authority of the modern Jews. From the frequent references in Scripture, and from the testimony of Josephus, it appears that the Jews were in possession of many historical records which might have thrown much light on this subject if they had still been preserved. But during the calamities which befell that infatuated nation in their wars with the Romans, and the dispersion which followed, these writings have perished. But though we can produce no testimony more ancient than the age of our Saviour to authenticate the full extent of the historical books, yet there are some facts recorded concerning the mode of their preservation which entitle them to credit. The very circumstance itself, that the Jews have preserved them in the sacred volume to this day, while their other ancient books have been lost, is a proof that they considered them as the genuine records. From Josephus we know that they exiled in his time; and from his account of the manner in which they were preserved we are assured they were not in danger of being corrupted. They existed also when the Septuagint translation was made. Frequent references are made to them in the writings of the later prophets; sometimes the same facts are related in detail. In short, there is such a coincidence between the historical books and the writings of those prophets who were contemporary, that it is impossible to suppose the latter true without receiving the former.

Indeed, to suppose that the Jews could have received and preserved with such care for so many hundred years false records, which it must have been in the power of every person to disprove, and which at the same time do so little credit to the character of their nation, is to suppose one of the greatest absurdities in the world; it is to suppose that a whole nation could act contrary to all those principles which have always predominated in the human mind, and which must always predominate till human nature undergoes a total revolution.

The book which immediately follows the Pentateuch Joshua has been generally ascribed to Joshua the successor of Moses. It contains, however, some things which must have been inserted after the death of Joshua. It is necessary to remark, that there is some accidental derangement in the order of the chapters of this book, which was probably occasioned by the ancient mode of fixing together a number of rolls. If chronologically placed, they should be read thus, 1st chapter to the 10th verse, then the 2nd chapter; then from the 10th verse to the end of the 11th chapter; afterwards should follow the vii. viii. ix. x. and xi. chapters; then the xxii.; and lastly the xii. and xiii. chapters to the 24th verse of the latter.

The facts mentioned in this book are referred to by many of the sacred writers §. In the first book of Chronicles, Kings xvi. 34. the words of Joshua are said to be the words of God. See Joshua.

By whom the book of Judges was written is uncertain. Acts 7:15—xiii. 5: be the composition of one individual (C), who lived after Joshua ii. under the regal government was established *, but before the accession of David; for it is said in the 21st verse of Ecclesiasticus, the 1st chapter, that the Jebusites were still in Jerusalem; who, we know, were dispossessed of that city early in the reign of David +. We have reason, therefore, to ascribe this book to Samuel.

The history of this book may be divided into two parts; the first contains an account of the judges from Othniel to Samson, ending at the 16th chap. The second part relates several remarkable transactions which occurred soon after the death of Joshua; but are added to the end of the book, that they might not interrupt the course of the history.

The book of Ruth is a kind of supplement to the book of Judges, and an introduction to the history of David,

(g) In support of this opinion, it may be observed that the author, chap. ii. 10, &c. lays before us the contents of the book. Scripture. David, as it is related in the books of Samuel. Since the genealogy which it contains descends to David, it must have been written after the birth of that prince, but not at any considerable time after it; for the history of Boaz and Ruth, the great-grandfather and great-grandmother of David, could not be remembered above two or three generations. As the elder brothers of David and their sons are omitted, and none of his own children are mentioned in the genealogy, it is evident that the book was composed in honour of the Hebrew monarch, after he was anointed king by Samuel, and before any of his children were born; and consequently in the reign of Saul. The Jews ascribe it to Samuel; and indeed there is no person of that age to whom it may be attributed with more propriety. We are informed (1 Sam. x. 25.) that Samuel was a writer, and are assured that no person in the reign of Saul was so well acquainted with the splendid prospects of David as the prophet Samuel.

The Greeks denominate the books of Samuel, which follow next in order, The Books of Kingdoms; and the Latins, The Books of Kings I. and II. Anciently there were but two books of Kings; the first was the two books of Samuel, and the second was what we now call the two books of Kings. According to the present division, these two books are four, viz. the first and second books of Samuel, and the first and second books of Kings.

Concerning the author of the two books of Samuel there are different opinions. Some think that Samuel wrote only twenty or twenty-four chapters of the first book, and that the history was continued by Nathan and Gad. This opinion they ground on the following passage in Chronicles i., "Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and Gad the seer." Others think they were compiled by Ezra from ancient records; but it is evident that the books of Samuel were written before the books of Kings and Chronicles; for on comparison it will be found, that in the last mentioned books many circumstances are taken from the former. The first book carries down the history of the Israelites from the birth of Samuel to the fatal battle of Gilboa, comprehending a period of about 80 years. The second relates the history of David from his consecration to the throne of Israel till within a year or two of his death, containing 40 years. There are two beautiful passages in these books which every man of sentiment and taste must feel and admire, the lamentation or elegy on Saul and Jonathan, and the parable of Nathan. The impartiality of the historian is fully attested by the candour and freedom with which the actions of Saul and David are related. There are some remarks interspersed which were probably added by Ezra.

When the two books of Kings were written, or by whom they were compiled, is uncertain. Some have supposed that David, Solomon, and Haggai, wrote the history of their own times. Others have been of opinion that the prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Gad, and Nathan, each of them wrote the history of the reign in which he lived. But it is generally believed that Ezra wrote these two books, and published them in the form in which we have them at present. There can be no doubt that the prophets drew up the lives of the kings who reigned in their times; for the names and writings of those prophets are frequently mentioned, and cited. Still, however, it is evident that the two books of Kings are but an abridgment of a larger work, the substance of which is contained in the books before us. In support of the opinion that Ezra is the author of these books, it is said, That in the time of the pentateuch, the ten tribes were captives in Assyria, whither they had been carried as a punishment for their sins; That in the second of these books the author makes some reflections on the calamities of Israel and Judah, which demonstrate that he lived after that event. But to this it is objected, That the author of these books expresses himself throughout as a contemporary, and as one would have done who had been an eye and ear witness of what he related. To this objection it is answered, That Ezra compiled these books from the prophetic writings which he had in his possession; that he copied them exactly, narrating the facts in order as they happened, and interspersed in his history force reflections and remarks arising from the subjects which he handled.

The first book comprises a period of 126 years, from the death of David to that of Jehoashaphat. The second book records the transactions of many kings of Judah and Israel for about 300 years, from the death of Jehoashaphat to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, A. M. 3416, A. C. 588.

The Hebrews style the two books of Chronicles Da'or Chaveri Imine §, i.e. Words of days, journals or diaries, in allusion to those ancient journals which appear to have been kept among the Jews. The Greeks call them Paralipomena*, which signifies things omitted; as if these two books were a kind of supplement to inform us what had been omitted or too much abridged in the books of Kings. The two books of Chronicles contain indeed several particulars which are not to be met with in the other books of scripture; but it is not therefore to be supposed that they are the records of the kings of Judah and Israel, so often referred to in the books of Kings. Those ancient registers were apparently much more copious than the books before us; and the compiler of the books of Chronicles often refers to, and makes long extracts from, them.

Some suppose that the author of these two books was the same with that of the two books of Kings. The Jews say that they were written by Ezra, after the return from the captivity, assisted by Zechariah and Haggai, who were then alive. But events are mentioned in them of so late a date as to show that he could not have written them in their present form; and there is another objection to his being their author, which is little less forcible: between the books of Kings and Chronicles there are numerous variations both in dates and facts, which could not have happened if Ezra had been the author of them, or indeed if they had been the work of any one person.

The books of Chronicles are not to be regarded merely as an abridgement of former histories with some useful additions, but as books written with a particular view; which seems to have been to furnish a genealogical register of the twelve tribes, deduced from the earliest times, in order to point out those distinctions which were necessary to discriminate the mixed multitude which returned from Babylon; to ascertain the lineage of Judah; The book of Ezra, and also that of Nehemiah, are attributed by the ancients to the former of these prophets; and they called them the 1st and 2nd books of Esdras; which title is still kept up by the Latin church. It is indeed highly probable that the former of these books, which comprises the history of the Jews from the time that Cyrus made the decree for their return until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (which was about 100 years, or as others think 79 years), was all composed by Ezra, except the first six chapters, which contain an account of the first return of the Jews on the decree of Cyrus; whereas Ezra did not return till the time of Artaxerxes. It is of this second return therefore that he writes the account; and adding it to the other, which he found composed to his hand, he made it a complete history of the Jewish restoration.

This book is written in Chaldee from chap. iv. 8. to chap. vii. 27. As this part of the works chiefly contains letters, conversations, and decrees expressed in that language, the fidelity of the historian has probably induced him to take down the very words which were used. The people, too, had been accustomed to the Chaldee during the captivity, and probably understood it better than Hebrew; for it appears from Nehemiah's account, chap. viii. 2, 8, that all could not understand the law.

The book of Nehemiah, as has been already observed, bears, in the Latin bibles, the title of the second book of Esdras; the ancient canons likewise give it the same name, because, perhaps, it was considered as a sequel to the book of Ezra. In the Hebrew bibles it has the name of Nehemiah prefixed to it; which name is retained in the English bible. But though that chief is by the writer of the second book of Maccabees affirmed to have been the author of it, there cannot, we think, be a doubt, either that it was written at a later period, or had additions made to it after Nehemiah's death.

With the book of Nehemiah the history of the Old Testament concludes. This is supposed to have taken place about A. M. 3574, A. C. 434. But Prideaux with more probability has fixed it at A. M. 3595. See Scriptures, Nehemiah.

It is uncertain who was the author of the book of Esther. Clement of Alexandria, and many commentators, have ascribed it to Mordecai; and the book itself seems to favour this opinion; for we are told in chap. ix. 20, that "Mordecai wrote these things." Others have supposed that Ezra was the author; but the more probable opinion of the Talmudists is, that the great synagogue (see Synagogue), to perpetuate the memory of the deliverance of the Jews from the conspiracy of Haman, and to account for the origin of the feast of Purim, ordered this book to be composed, very likely of materials left by Mordecai, and afterwards approved and admitted it into the sacred canon. The time when the events which it relates happened, is supposed by some to have been in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and by others in that of Darius the son of Hystaspes, called by the sacred penman Ahasuerus.

Concerning the author of the book of Job there are many different opinions. Some have supposed that Job himself wrote it in Syriac or Arabic, and that it was afterwards translated by Moses. Others have thought that Elihu wrote it; and by others it is ascribed to Moses, to Solomon, to Isaiah, and to Ezra. To give even an abridgement of the arguments brought in support of these various opinions would fill a volume, and at last leave the reader in his present uncertainty. He who has leisure and inclination to weigh them may study the second section of the fifth book of Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, together with the several works there referred to; but the question at issue is of very little importance to us. The book of Job, by whomsoever it was written, and whether it be a real history, or a dramatical poem founded on history, has been always deemed a portion of canonical scripture, and is one of the most sublime compositions in the sacred volume.

The book of Job appears to stand single and unparalleled in the sacred volume. It seems to have little connection with the other writings of the Hebrews, and no relation whatever to the affairs of the Israelites. The scene is laid in Idumaea (n); the history of an inhabitant

(n) "The information which the learned have endeavoured to collect from the writings and geography of the Greeks concerning the country and residence of Job and his friends, appears to me (says Dr Lowth) so very inconclusive, that I am inclined to take a quite different method for the solution of this question, by applying solely to the Sacred Writings: the hints with which they have furnished me towards the illustration of this subject, I shall explain as briefly as possible.

"The land of Uz, or Gomorah, is evidently Idumaea, as appears from Lam. iv. 21. Uz was the grandson of Seir the Horite, Gen. xxxvi. 20, 21, 28. 1 Chron. i. 38, 42. Seir inhabited that mountainous tract which was called by his name antecedent to the time of Abraham; but his posterity being expelled, it was occupied by the Idumaeans: Gen. xiv. 6. Deut. ii. 12. Two other men are mentioned of the name Uz; one the grandson of Shem, the other the son of Nachor, the brother of Abraham; but whether any district was called after their name is not clear. Idumaea is a part of Arabia Petraea, situated on the southern extremity of the tribe of Judah: Numb. xxxiv. 3. Josh. xv. 1, 21. The land of Uz therefore appears to have been between Egypt and Philistia, Jer. xxv. 20. where the order of the places seems to have been accurately observed in reviewing the different nations from Egypt to Babylon; and the same people seem again to be described in exactly the same situations, Jer. xlvii. 1-3. Children of the East, or Eastern peoples, seems to have been the general appellation for that mingled race of people (as they are called, Jer. xxxv. 20.) who inhabited between Egypt and the Euphrates, bordering upon Judea from the south to the east; the Idumaeans, the Amalekites, the Midianites, the Moabites, the Ammonites. See Judges vi. 3, and Isa. xi. 14. Of these the Idumaeans and Amalekites certainly possessed the southern parts. See Numb. xxxiv. 3. xiii. 29. 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, 10. This appears to be the true state of the case: The whole region between..." Scripture, habitant of that country is the basis of the narrative; the characters who speak are Idumaeans, or at least Aramaeans of the adjacent country, all originally of the race of Abraham. The language is pure Hebrew, although the author appears to be an Idumean; for it is not improbable that all the posterity of Abraham, Israelites, Idumaeans, and Aramaeans, whether of the family of Keturah or Ishmael, spoke for a considerable length of time one common language. That the Idumaeans, however, and the Temanites in particular, were eminent for the reputation of wisdom, appears by the testimony of the prophets Jeremiah and Obadiah: Baruch also particularly mentions them among "the authors (or exponents) of fables, and searchers out of underland."

The principal personage in this poem is Job; and in his character is meant to be exhibited (as far as is consistent with human infirmity) an example of perfect charity. This is intimated in the argument or introduction, but is still more eminently displayed by his own actions and sentiments. He is holy, devout, and most piously and reverently impressed with the sacred awe of his divine Creator; he is also upright, and conscious of his own integrity; he is patient of evil, and yet very remote from that inflexibility or rather stupidity to which the Stoic school pretended. Oppressed therefore

between Egypt and Euphrates was called the East, at first in respect to Egypt (where the learned Mede thinks the Israelites acquired this mode of speaking, Mede's Works, p. 580.), and afterwards absolutely and without any relation to situation or circumstances. Abraham is said to have sent the sons of his concubines, Hagar and Keturah, "eastward, to the country which is commonly called the East," Gen. xxv. 6, where the name of the region seems to have been derived from the same situation. Solomon is reported "to have excelled in wisdom all the Eastern people, and all Egypt," 1 Kings iv. 30.; that is, all the neighbouring people on that quarter: for there were people beyond the boundaries of Egypt, and bordering on the south of Judea, who were famous for wisdom, namely, the Idumaeans (see Jer. xlix. 7. Ob. 8.), to whom we may well believe this passage might have some relation. Thus Jehovah addresses the Babylonians; "Arise, ascend unto Kedar, and lay waste the children of the East," (Jer. xlix. 28.) notwithstanding these were really situated to the west of Babylon. Although Job, therefore, be accounted one of the orientals, it by no means follows that his residence must be in Arabia Deferta.

"Eliphaz the Temanite was the son of Esau, and Teman the son of Eliphaz, (Gen. xxxvi. 10, 11.). The Eliphaz of Job was without a doubt of this race. Teman is certainly a city of Idumaea, (Jer. xlix. 7, 20. Ezek. xxv. 13. Amos i. 11, 12. Ob. 8, 9.).

"Bildad the Shuhite: Shuah was one of the sons of Abraham by Keturah, whose posterity were numbered among the people of the East, and his situation was probably contiguous to that of his brother Midian, and of his nephews Shebah and Dedan, (see Gen. xxv. 2. and 3.). Dedan is a city of Idumaea (Jer. xlix. 8.), and seems to have been situated on the eastern side, as Teman was on the west, (Ezek. xxv. 13.). From Sheba originated the Sabaeans in the passage from Arabia Felix to the Red Sea: Sheba is united to Midian (Isa. lx. 6.); it is in the same region however with Midian, and not far from Mount Horob, (Exod. ii. 15. iii. 1.).

"Zophar the Naamathite: among the cities which by lot fell to the tribe of Judah, in the neighbourhood of Idumaea, Naama is enumerated, (Josh. xv. 21, 41.). Nor does this name elsewhere occur; this probably was the country of Zophar.

"Elihu the Buzite: Buz occurs but once as the name of a place or country (Jer. xxv. 23.), where it is mentioned along with Dedan and Thema: Dedan, as was just now demonstrated, is a city of Idumaea; Thema belonged to the children of Ishmael, who are said to have inhabited from Havilah, even to Shur, which is in the district of Egypt, (Gen. xxv. 15. 18.). Saul, however, is said to have smitten the Amalekites from Havilah even to Shur, which is in the district of Egypt, (1 Sam. xv. 7.). Havilah cannot, therefore, be very far from the boundaries of the Amalekites; but the Amalekites never exceeded the boundaries of Arabia Petraea. (See Reland Palæstin. lib. i. c. 14.). Thema, therefore, lay somewhere between Havilah and the desert of Shur, to the southward of Judea. Thema is also mentioned in connection with Sheba, (Job vi. 19.).

"Upon a fair review of these facts, I think we may venture to conclude, still with that modesty which such a question demands, that Job was an inhabitant of Arabia Petraea, as well as his friends, or at least of that neighbourhood. To this solution one objection may be raised: it may be asked, How the Chaldeans, who lived on the borders of the Euphrates, could make depredations on the camels of Job, who lived in Idumaea at so great a distance? This too is thought a sufficient cause for afflicting Job a situation in Arabia Deferta, and not far from the Euphrates. But what should prevent the Chaldeans, as well as the Sabaeans, a people addicted to rapine, and roving about at immense distances for the sake of plunder, from wandering through these desolate regions, which were divided into tribes and families rather than into nations, and pervading from Euphrates even to Egypt? Further, I would ask on the other hand, whether it be probable that all the friends of Job who lived in Idumaea and its neighbourhood, should instantly be informed of all that could happen to Job in the desert of Arabia and on the confines of Chaldea, and immediately repair thither? Or whether it be reasonable to think, that some of them being inhabitants of Arabia Deferta, it should be concerted among them to meet at the residence of Job; since it is evident, that Eliphaz lived at Theman, in the extreme parts of Idumaea? With respect to the Affinis of Ptolemy (for so it is written, and not Affinis,) it has no agreement, not so much as in a single letter, with the Hebrew Gnuze. The LXX indeed call that country by the name Affida, but they describe it as situated in Idumaea; and they account Job himself an Idumean, and a descendant of Esau." See the Appendix of the LXX to the book of Job, and Hyde Not. in Peritzol, chap. xi. Lowth on Hebrew Poetry. Scripture, therefore with unparalleled misfortunes, he laments his misery, and even wishes a release by death; in other words, he obeys and gives place to the dictates of nature. Irritated, however, by the unjust insinuations and the severe reproaches of his pretended friends, he is more vehemently exasperated, and a too great confidence in his own righteousness leads him to expostulate with God in terms scarcely consistent with piety and strict decorum.

It must be observed, that the first speech of Job, though it bursts forth with all the vehemence of passion, consists wholly of complaint, "the words and sentiments of a despairing person, empty as the wind," which is indeed the apology that he immediately makes for his conduct; intimating, that he is far from presuming to plead with God, far from daring to call in question the divine decrees, or even to mention his own innocence in the presence of his all just Creator; nor is there any good reason for the censure which has been passed by some commentators on this passage. The poet seems, with great judgment and ingenuity, to have performed in this what the nature of his work required. He has depicted the affliction and anguish of Job, as flowing from his wounded heart in a manner so agreeable to human nature (and certainly to far venial), that it may be truly said, "in all this Job sinned not with his lips." It is, nevertheless, embellished by such affecting imagery, and inspired with such a warmth and force of sentiment, that we find it afforded ample scope for calumny; nor did the unkind witnesses of his sufferings permit to fail an opportunity to escape. The occasion is eagerly embraced by Eliphaz to rebuke the impatience of Job; and, not satisfied with this, he proceeds to accuse him in direct terms of wanting fortitude, and obliquely to intone something of a deeper dye. Though deeply hurt with the coarse reproaches of Eliphaz, still, however, when Job afterwards complains of the severity of God, he cautiously refrains from violent expostulations with his Creator, and, contented with the simple expression of affliction, he humbly confesses himself a sinner. Hence it is evident, that those vehement and perverse attestations of his innocence, those murmurs against the divine Providence, which his tottering virtue afterwards permits, are to be considered merely as the consequences of momentary passion, and not as the ordinary effects of his settled character or manners. They prove him at the very worst not an irreligious man, but a man possessed of integrity, and too confident of it; a man oppressed with almost every imaginable evil, both corporal and mental, and hurried beyond the limits of virtue by the strong influence of pain and affliction. When, on the contrary, his unfortunate visitors abandon by silence the cause which they had so wantonly and so maliciously maintained, and cease unjustly to load him with unmerited criminations; though he defends his argument with scarcely less obstinacy, yet the vehemence of his grief appears gradually to subside, he returns to himself, and explains his sentiments with more candour and sedateness; and however we may blame him for affuming rather too much arrogance in his appeals to the Almighty, certainly his defence against the accusations of Eliphaz is no more than the occasion will strictly justify. Observe, in the first place, how admirably the confidence and perseverance of Job is displayed in replying to the slander of his false friends:

As God liveth, who hath removed my judgement; Nay, as the Almighty liveth, who hath imbibed my soul; Verily as long as I have life in me, And the breath of God is in my nostrils; My lips shall not speak perversity, Neither shall my tongue whisper prevarication. God forbid that I should declare you righteous! Till I expire I will not remove my integrity from me. I have fortified myself in my righteousness, And I will not give up my station: My heart shall not upbraid me as long as I live. May mine enemy be as the impious man, And he that riseth up against me as the wicked.

But how magnificent, how noble, how inviting and beautiful is that image of virtue in which he delineates his past life! What dignity and authority does he seem to possess!

If I came out to the gate, nigh the place of public resort, If I took up my seat in the street; The young men saw me, and they hid themselves; Nay, the very old men rose up and stood. The princes refrained talking, Nay, they laid their hands on their mouths. The nobles held their peace, And their tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth.

What liberality! what a promptitude in beneficence! Because the ear heard, therefore it blessed me; The eye also saw, therefore it bare testimony for me. That I delivered the poor who cried, The orphan also, and him who had no helper. The blessing of him who was ready to perish came upon me, And I caused the heart of the widow to sing for joy.

What sanctity, what integrity in a judicial capacity! I put on righteousness, and it clothed me like a robe; My justice also was a diadem. I was a father to the poor, And the controversy which I knew not, I searched it out. Then brake I the grinders of the oppressor, And I plucked the prey out of his teeth.

But what can be more engaging than the purity of his devotion, and his reverence for the Supreme Being, founded on the best and most philosophical principles? Besides that through the whole there runs a strain of the most amiable tenderness and humanity:

For what is the portion which God distributeth from above, And the inheritance of the Almighty from on high? Is it not destruction to the wicked, And banishment from their country to the doers of iniquity? Doth he not see my ways? And numbereth he not all my steps? If I should despise the cause of my servant, Or my maid, when they had a controversy with me, What then should I do when God ariseth, And when he visiteth, what answer could I make him? Did not he who formed me in the belly form him, And did not one fashion us in the womb?

The three friends are exactly such characters as the nature of the poem required. They are severe, irritable, malignant censors, readily and with apparent satisfaction deviating from the purpose of consolation into reproof and contumely. Even from the very first they manifest this evil propensity, and indicate what is to be expected from them. The first of them, indeed, in the opening of his harangue, assumes an air of candour:

Wouldst thou take it unkindly that one should essay to speak to thee?

Indignation is, however, instantly predominant: But a few words who can forbear? The second flames forth at once: How long wilt thou trifle in this manner? How long shall the words of thy mouth be as a mighty wind?

But remark the third: Shall not the matter of words be answered? Or shall a man be acquitted for his fine speeches? Shall thy prevarications make men silent? Shall thou even loof, and there be no one to make thee ashamed?

The lenity and moderation of Elihu serves as a beautiful contrast to the intemperance and asperity of the other three. He is pious, mild, and equable; equally free from adulation and severity; and ended with singular wisdom, which he attributes entirely to the inspiration of God: and his modesty, moderation, and wisdom, are the more entitled to commendation when we consider his unripe youth. As the characters of his detractors were in all respects calculated to inflame the mind of Job, that of this arbitrator is admirably adapted to soothe and compose it: to this point the whole drift of the argument tends, and on this the very purport of it seems to depend.

Another circumstance deserving particular attention in a poem of this kind, is the sentiment; which must be agreeable to the subject, and embellished with proper expression. It is by Aristotle enumerated among the essentials of a dramatic poem; not indeed as peculiar to that species of poetry alone, but as common, and of the greatest importance, to all. Manners or character are essential only to that poetry in which living persons are introduced; and all such poems must afford an exact representation of human manners: but sentiment is essential to every poem, indeed to every composition whatever. It respects both persons and things. As far as it regards persons, it is particularly concerned in the delineation of the manners and passions: and those instances to which we have just been adverting are sentiments expressive of manners. Those which relate to the delineation of the passions, and to the description of other subjects, yet remain unnoticed.

The poem of Job abounds chiefly in the more vehement passions, grief and anger, indignation and violent contention. It is adapted in every respect to the incitement of terror; and, as the specimens already quoted will sufficiently prove, is universally animated with the true spirit of sublimity. It is, however, not wanting in the gentler passions. The following complaints, for poem of instance, are replete with an affecting spirit of melancholy:

Man, the offspring of a woman, Is of few days, and full of inquietude; He springeth up, and is cut off like a flower; He fleeth like a shadow, and doth not abide: On such a creature dost thou open thine eyes? And wilt thou bring me even into judgement with thee? Turn thy look from him, that he may have some reprieve, Till he shall, like a hireling, have completed his day.

The whole passage abounds with the most beautiful imagery, and is a most perfect specimen of the Elegiac. His grief afterwards becomes more fervent; but is at the same time soft and querimonious.

How long will ye vex my soul, And tire me with vain harangues? These ten times have ye loaded me with reproaches, Are ye not ashamed that ye are so obstinate against me? Pity me, O pity me, ye are my friends, For the hand of God hath smitten me. Why will ye be my persecutors as well as God, And therefore will ye not be satisfied with my flesh?

The ardour and alacrity of the war-horse, and his eagerness for battle, are painted with a masterly hand:

For eagerness and fury he devoureth the very ground; He believeth it not when he heareth the trumpet. When the trumpet soundeth, he faith, ahah! Yea he feetheth the battle from afar, The thunder of the chieftains and their shouts.

The following sublime description of the creation is admirable:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? If thou knowest, declare. Say, who fixed the proportions of it, for surely thou knowest? Or who stretched out the line upon it? On what were its foundations fixed? Or who laid the corner-stone thereof? When the morning-stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy; When the sea was flung up with doors; When it burst forth as an infant that cometh out of the womb; When I placed the cloud for its robe, And thick darkness for its swaddling-band; When I fixed my boundary against it, When I placed a bar and gates; When I said, Thus far shalt thou come, and not advance, And here shall a stop be put to the pride of thy waves.

Let it suffice to say, that the dignity of the style is anverable to that of the subject; its force and energy, to the greatness of these passions which it describes; and as this production excels all the other remains of the the Hebrew poetry in economy and arrangement, so it yields to none in sublimity of style and in every grace and excellence of composition. Among the principal of these may be reckoned the accurate and perfectly poetical conformation of the sentences, which is indeed generally most observable in the most ancient of the poetical compositions of the Hebrews. Here, however, as is natural and proper in a poem of so great length and sublimity, the writer's skill is displayed in the proper adjustment of the period, and in the accurate distribution of the members, rather than in the antithesis of words, or in any laboured adaptation of the parallelisms.

The word Psalms is a Greek term, and signifies Songs. The Hebrews call it Sepher Tehillim*, that is, "the Book of Praises," and in the Gospel it is styled the Book of Psalms. Great veneration has always been paid to this collection of divine songs. The Christian church has from the beginning made them a principal part of her holy services; and in the primitive times it was almost a general rule that every bishop, priest, and religious person, should have the psalter by heart.

Many learned fathers, and not a few of the moderns, have maintained that David was the author of them all. Several are of a different opinion, and insist that David wrote only 72 of them; and that those without titles are to be ascribed to the authors of the preceding psalms, whose names are affixed to them. Those who suppose that David alone was the author, contend, that in the New Testament, and in the language of the church universal, they are expressly called the Psalms of David. That David was the principal author of these hymns is universally acknowledged, and therefore the whole collection may properly enough go under his name; but that he wrote them all, is a palpable mistake. Nothing certain can be gathered from the titles of the psalms; for although unquestionably very ancient, yet authors are not agreed as to their authority, and they differ as much about their signification. The Hebrew doctors generally agree that the 92nd psalm was composed by Adam; an opinion which for many reasons we are not inclined to adopt. There seems, however, to be no doubt that some of them were written by Moses; that Solomon was the author of the 49th; and that others were occasioned by events long posterior to the flourishing era of the kingdom of Judah. The 137th particularly is one of those which mentions the captivity of Babylon.

The following arrangement of the Psalms, after a careful and judicious examination, has been adopted by Calmet.

1. Eight Psalms of which the date is uncertain, viz., 1, 4, 19, 81, 91, 110, 139, 145. The first of these was composed by David or Ezra, and was sung in the temple at the feast of trumpets held in the beginning of the year and at the feast of tabernacles. The 81st is attributed to Asaph, and the 110th to David. The authors of the rest are unknown.

2. The Psalms composed by David during the persecution of Saul. These are seventeen, 11, 31, 34, 56, 16, 54, 52, 109, 17, 22, 35, 57, 58, 142, 140, 141, 7.

3. The Psalms composed by David at the beginning of his reign, and after the death of Saul. These are fifteen, 2, 9, 24, 63, 101, 29, 20, 21, 28, 39, 40, 41, 6, 51, 32, 33.

4. The Psalms written by David during the rebellion of Absalom are eight in number; 3, 4, 55, 62, 70, 71, 143, 144.

5. The Psalms written between the death of Absalom and the captivity, which are ten, 18, 32, 72, 45, 78, 82, 83, 76, 74, 79: of these David wrote only three; 18, 30, and 72.

6. The Psalms composed during the captivity, which amount to forty. These were chiefly composed by the descendants of Asaph and Korah: they are 10, 12, 13, 14, 53, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 60, 64, 69, 73, 75, 77, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 120, 121, 123, 130, 131, 132.

Lastly, Those hymns of joy and thanksgiving, written on the release from the Babylonish captivity, and at the building and dedication of the temple. These are, 122, 61, 63, 124, 23, 87, 85, 46, 47, 48, from 96 to 117 inclusive, 126, 133 to 137 inclusive, 149, 150, 140, 147, 148, 59, 65, 66, 67, 118, 125, 127, 128, 129, 138.—According to this distribution, only 45 are positively assigned to David.

Josephus, and most of the ancient writers, assert, that the Psalms were composed in numbers: little, however, reflecting the nature and principles of the Hebrew versification is known.

There existed a certain kind of poetry among the Hebrews, principally intended, it would appear, for the afflatus of the memory; in which, when there was little connection between the sentiments, a sort of order or method was preferred, by the initial letters of each line or stanza following the order of the alphabet. Of this there are several examples extant among the sacred poems (1); and in these examples the verses are so exactly marked and defined, that it is impossible to mistake them for prose; and particularly if we attentively consider the verses, and compare them with one another, since they are in general so regularly accommodated, that word answers to word, and almost syllable to syllable. This being the case, though an appeal can scarcely be made to the ear on this occasion, the eye itself will distinguish the poetic division and arrangement, and also that some labour and accuracy has been employed in adapting the words to the measure.

The Hebrew poetry has likewise another property altogether peculiar to metrical composition. It admits foreign words and certain particles, which seldom occur in prose composition, and thus forms a distinct poetical dialect. One or two of the peculiarities also of the Hebrew versification it may be proper to remark, which as they are very observable in those poems in which the verses are defined by the initial letters, may at least be reasonably conjectured of the rest. The first of these is, that the verses are very unequal in length; the shortest consisting of six or seven syllables; the longest extending tending to about twice that number: the same poem is, however, generally continued throughout in verses not very unequal to each other. It must also be observed, that the close of the verse generally falls where the members of the sentences are divided.

But although nothing certain can be defined concerning the metre of the particular verses, there is yet another artifice of poetry to be remarked of them when in a collective state, when several of them are taken together. In the Hebrew poetry, as is formerly remarked, there may be observed a certain conformation of the sentences; the nature of which is, that a complete sense is almost equally infused into every component part, and that every member constitutes an entire verse. So that as the poems divide themselves in a manner spontaneously into periods, for the most part equal; so the periods themselves are divided into verses, most commonly couplets, though frequently of greater length. This is chiefly observable in those passages which frequently occur in the Hebrew poetry, in which they treat one subject in many different ways, and dwell on the same sentiment; when they express the same thing in different words, or different things in a similar form of words; when equals refer to equals, and opposites to opposites: and since this artifice of composition seldom fails to produce even in prose an agreeable and measured cadence—we can scarcely doubt that it must have imparted to their poetry, were we masters of the verification, an exquisite degree of beauty and grace.

The elegant and ingenious Dr Lowth has with great acuteness examined the peculiarities of Hebrew poetry, and has arranged them under general divisions. The correspondence of one verse or line with another he calls parallelism. When a proposition is delivered, and a second is subjoined to it, equivalent or contrasted with it in sense, or similar to it in the form of grammatical construction, these he calls parallel lines; and the words or phrases answering one to another in the corresponding lines, parallel terms. Parallel lines he reduces to three sorts; parallels synonymous, parallels antithetic, and parallels synthetic. Of each of these we shall present a few examples.

First, of parallel lines synonymous, which correspond one to another by expressing the same sense in different but equivalent terms.

O-Jehovah, in-thy-strength the-king shall-rejoice; And-in-thy-salvation how greatly shall-he-exult! The-desire-of-his-heart thou-hast-granted unto-him; And-the-request of-his-lips thou-hast-not-denied.

Ps. xxi. 1, 2.

Because I-called, and-ye-refused; I-stretched-out my-hand, and-no-one regarded: But-ye-have-defeated all my-counsel; And-would-not incline to-my-reproach: I also will-laugh at-your-calamity; I-will-mock, when-what-you-feared cometh; When-what-you-feared cometh like-a-devastation; And-your-calamity advanceth like-a-tempest; When-difficulties and-anguish come upon-you; Then shall-they-call-upon-me, but-I-will-not-answer;

They-shall-feek-me-easily, but-they-shall-not-find-me: Because they-hated knowledge; And-did-not choose the-fear of-Jehovah; Did-not incline to-my-counsel; Contemptuously-rejected all my-reproach; Therefore-shall-they-eat of-the-fruits of-their-ways; And-shall-be-fatigued with-their-own-devices. For-the-defection of-the-simple shall-flay-them; And-the-security of-fools shall-destroy them.

Prov. i. 24—32.

Seek-ye Jehovah, while-he-may-be-found; Call-ye-upon-him, while-he-is near; Let-the-wicked forsake his-way; And-the-unrighteous man his-thoughts: And-let-him-return to-Jehovah, and-he-will-compassionate him; And unto our-God, for he-aboundeth in-forgiveness (k). Isaiah lv. 6, 7.

These synonymous parallels sometimes consist of two, three, or more synonymous terms. Sometimes they are formed by a repetition of part of the first sentence:

As, What shall I do unto thee, O Ephraim! What shall I do unto thee, O Judah! For your goodness is as the morning cloud, And as the early dew it passeth away.

Hosea vi. 4.

The following is a beautiful instance of a parallel triplet, when three lines correspond and form a kind of stanza, of which two only are synonymous.

That day, let it become darkness; Let not God from above inquire after it; Nor let the flowing light radiate upon it. That night, let utter darkness seize it; Let it not be united with the days of the year; Let it not come into the number of the months. Let the stars of its twilight be darkened; Let it look for light, and may there be none; And let it not behold the eyelids of the morning.

Job iii. 4, 6, 9.

The second sort of parallels are the antithetic, when two lines correspond with one another by an opposition of terms and sentiments; when the second is contrasted with the first, sometimes in expressions, sometimes in sense only. Accordingly the degrees of antithesis are various: from an exact contraposition of word to word through the whole sentence, down to a general disparity, with something of a contrariety, in the two propositions. Thus in the following examples:

A wife for rejoiceth his father; But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.

Prov. x. 1.

Where every word hath its opposite; for the terms father and mother are, as the logicians say, relatively opposite.

The memory of the just is a blessing; But the name of the wicked shall rot.

Prov. x. 7.

(k) All the words bound together by hyphens answer to single words in Hebrew. Here there are only two antithetic terms; for memory and name are synonymous.

There is that scattereth, and filleth increaseth; And that is unreasonably sparing, yet growth poor. Prov. xi. 24.

Here there is a kind of double antithesis; one between the two lines themselves; and likewise a subordinate opposition between the two parts of each.

There in chariots, and those in horses; But we in the name of Jehovah our God will be strong. They are bowed down, and fallen; But we are risen, and maintain ourselves firm. Pf. xx. 7, 8.

For his wrath is but for a moment, his favour for life; Sorrow may lodge for the evening, but in the morning gladness. Pf. xxx. 5.

Yet a little while, and the wicked shall be no more; Thou shalt look at his place, and he shall not be found; But the meek shall inherit the land; And delight themselves in abundant prosperity. Pf. xxxvii. 10, 11.

In the last example the opposition lies between the two parts of a stanza of four lines, the latter distich being opposed to the former. So likewise the following:

For the mountains shall be removed; And the hills shall be overthrown; But my kindness from thee shall not be removed; And the covenant of my peace shall not be overthrown. Isaiah liv. 10.

Isaiah by means of the antithetic parallelism, without departing from his usual dignity, adds greatly to the sweetness of his composition in the following instances:

In a little anger have I forsaken thee; But with great mercies will I receive thee again; In a short wrath I hid my face for a moment from thee; But with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee. Isaiah liv. 7, 8.

Behold my servants shall eat, but ye shall be famished; Behold my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; Behold my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be confounded; Behold my servants shall sing aloud, for gladness of heart; But ye shall cry aloud for grief of heart; And in the anguish of a broken spirit shall ye howl. Isaiah lxv. 13, 14.

Frequently one line or member contains two sentiments:

The nations raged; the kingdoms were moved; He uttered a voice; the earth was dissolved; Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted in the nations, I will be exalted in the earth. Pf. xlv. 6, 10.

When thou passest through waters I am with thee; And through rivers, they shall not overwhelm thee; When thou walkest in the fire thou shalt not be scorched; And the flame shall not cleave to thee. Isaiah xliii. 2.

The third sort of parallels is the synthetic or constructive: where the parallelism consists only in the similar form of construction; in which word does not answer to word, and sentence to sentence, as equivalent or opposite; but there is a correspondence and equality between different propositions, in respect of the shape and turn of the whole sentence, and of the constructive parts; such as noun answering to noun, verb to verb, member to member, negative to negative, interrogative to interrogative.

Lo! he withholdeth the waters, and they are dried up; And he sendeth them forth, and they overturn the earth. With him is strength, and perfect excellence; The deceived, and the deceiver, are his. Job xii. 13—16.

Is such then the fast which I choose? That a man should afflict his soul for a day? Is it, that he should bow down his head like a bulrush, And spread sackcloth and ashes for his couch? Shall this be called a fast, And a day acceptable to Jehovah? Is not this the fast that I choose? To dissolve the bands of wickedness; To loosen the oppressing burdens; To deliver those that are crushed by violence; And that ye should break afunder every yoke? Is it not to distribute thy bread to the hungry? And to bring the wandering poor into thy house? When thou leavest the naked, that thou clothe him; And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth like the morning; And thy wounds shall speedily be healed over; And thy righteousness shall go before thee; And the glory of Jehovah shall bring up thy rear." Isaiah lviii. 5—8.

We shall produce another example of this species of parallelism from Pf. xix. 8—11, from Dr Lowth:

The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple: The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of Jehovah is clear, enlightening the eyes: The fear of Jehovah is pure, enduring for ever; The judgements of Jehovah are truth, they are just altogether. More desirable than gold, or than much fine gold; And sweeter than honey, or the dropping of honeycombs.

Synonymous parallels have the appearance of art and concinnity, and a studied elegance; they chiefly prevail in shorter poems; in many of the Psalms; in Balaam's prophecies; frequently in those of Isaiah, which are most of them distich poems of no great length. The antithetic parallelism gives an acuteness and force to adages and moral sentences; and therefore abounds in Solomon's Proverbs, and elsewhere is not often to be met with. The poem of Job, being on a large scale and in a high tragic style, though very exact in the division of the lines and in the parallelism, and affording many fine examples of the synonymous kind, confines itself chiefly chiefly of the constructive. A happy mixture of the several sorts gives an agreeable variety; and they mutually serve to recommend and set off one another.

The reader will perceive that we have derived everything we have said relating to Hebrew poetry from the elegant Lectures of Dr Lowth, which are beautifully translated by Mr Gregory, a distinguished author as well as translator.

The book of Proverbs has always been accounted canonical. The Hebrew title of it is *Mifshah*, which signifies "similitudes." It has always been ascribed to Solomon, whose name it bears, though some have doubted whether he really was the author of every one of the maxims which it contains. Those in chap. xxx. are indeed called the words of Agur the son of Jakob, and the title of the 31st or last chapter is the words of King Lemuel. It seems certain that the collection called the Proverbs of Solomon was digested in the order in which we now have it by different hands; but it is not, therefore, to be concluded that they are not the work of Solomon. Several persons might have made collections of them: Hezekiah, among others, as mentioned chapter xxv. Agur and Ezra might have done the same. From these several collections the work was compiled which we have now in our hands.

The book of Proverbs may be considered under five divisions.

1. The first, which is a kind of preface, extends to the 10th chapter. This contains general cautions and exhortations from a teacher to his pupil, expressed in elegant language, duly connected in its parts, illustrated with beautiful description, and well contrived to engage and interest the attention.

2. The second part extends from the beginning of chap. x. to chap. xxii. 17. and consists of what may strictly and properly be called proverbs, viz. unconnected sentences, expressed with much neatness and simplicity. They are truly, to use the language of their sage author, "apples of gold in pictures of silver."

3. In the third part, which is included between chapter xxii. 16. and chapter xxv. the tutor drops the sententious style, addresses his pupil as present, and delivers his advice in a connected manner.

4. The proverbs which are included between chapter xxv. and chapter xxx., are supposed to have been selected by the men of Hezekiah from some larger collection of Solomon, that is, by the prophets whom he employed to restore the service and writings of the church. Some of the proverbs which Solomon had introduced into the former part of the book are here repeated.

5. The prudent admonitions which Agur delivered to his pupils Ithiel and Ucal are contained in the 30th chapter, and in the 31st are recorded the precepts which the mother of Lemuel delivered to her son.

Several references are evidently made to the book of Proverbs by the writers of the New Testament.

The Proverbs of Solomon afford specimens of the didactic poetry of the Hebrews. They abound with antithetic parallels; for this form is peculiarly adapted to that kind of writing, to adages, aphorisms, and detached sentences. Indeed, the elegance, acuteness, and force of a great number of Solomon's wise sayings arise in a great measure from the antithetic form, the opposition of diction and sentiment. Take the following examples:

The blows of a friend are faithful; But the kisses of an enemy are treacherous. The cloyed will trample on an honeycomb; But to the hungry every bitter thing is sweet. There is who maketh himself rich, and wanteth all things; Who maketh himself poor, yet hath much wealth. The rich man is wise in his own eyes, But the poor man that hath discretion to trace him out will despise him.

The Hebrew title of the book which we call Ecclesiastes is *Keleth*, that is, the Gatherer or Collector; and it is so called, either because the work itself is a collection of maxims, or because it was delivered to an assembly gathered together to hear them. The Greek term *Ecclesiastes* is of the same import, signifying one who gathers together a congregation, or who discourses or preaches to an assembly convened. That Solomon was the author of this book is beyond all doubt; the beautiful description of the phenomena in the natural world, and their causes; of the circulation of the blood, as some think, and the economy of the human frame, shews it to be the work of a philosopher. Atmen before what period of his life it was written may be easily found out. The affecting account of the infirmities of old age which it contains, is a strong indication that the author knew by experience what they were; and his complete conviction of the vanity of all earthly enjoyments proves it to have been the work of a penitent. Some passages in it seem, indeed, to express an Epicurean notion of Providence. But it is to be observed, that the author, in an academic way, disputes on both sides of the question; and at last concludes properly, that to "fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man; for God (says he) will bring every work to judgement, and every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

The general tenor and style of Ecclesiastes is very different from the book of Proverbs, though there are many detached sentiments and proverbs interspersed. For the whole work is uniform, and confined to one subject, namely, the vanity of the world exemplified by the experience of Solomon, who is introduced in the character of a person investigating a very difficult question, examining the arguments on either side, and at length disengaging himself from an anxious and doubtful disputatious. It would be very difficult to distinguish the parts and arrangement of this production; the order of the subject, and the connection of the arguments, are involved in so much obscurity, that scarcely any two commentators have agreed concerning the plan of the work, and the accurate division of it into parts or sections. The truth is, the laws of methodical composition and arrangement were neither known by the Hebrews nor regarded in their didactic writings. They uniformly retained the old sententious manner, nor did they submit to method, even where the occasion appeared to demand it. The style of this work is, however, singular; the language is generally low; it is frequently loose, unconnected, approaching to the incorrectness of conversation; and possesses very little of the poetical character, even in the composition and structure of the periods: which peculiarity may possibly be accounted counted for from the nature of the subject. Contrary to the opinion of the Rabbies, Ecclesiastes has been clasped among the poetical books; though, if their authority and opinions were of any weight or importance, they might perhaps on this occasion deserve some attention.

The Song of Solomon, in the opinion of Dr Lowth, is an epithalamium or nuptial dialogue, in which the principal characters are Solomon, his bride, and a chorus of virgins. Some are of opinion that it is to be taken altogether in a literal sense; but the generality of Jews and Christians have esteemed it wholly allegorical, expressing the union of Jesus Christ and the church. Dr Lowth has supported the common opinion, by showing that the sacred writers often apply metaphors to God and his people derived from the conjugal state. Our Saviour is styled a bridegroom by John the Baptist (John iii.), and is represented in the same character in the parable of the ten virgins. Michaelis, on the other hand, rejects the argument drawn from analogy as inconclusive, and the opinion of Jews and Christians as of no greater authority than the opinion of the moderns.

The second of those great divisions under which the Jews clasped the books of the Old Testament was that of the Prophets, which formerly comprehended 16 books.

The Prophets were 16 in number: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. The first four are called the greater prophets; the other twelve are denominated the minor prophets.

The writings of the Prophets are to Christians the most interesting part of the Old Testament; for they afford one of the most powerful arguments for the divine origin of the Christian religion. If we could only prove, therefore, that these prophecies were uttered a single century before the events took place to which they relate, their claim to inspiration would be unquestionable. But we can prove that the interval between their enunciation and accomplishment extended much farther, even to 500 and 1000 years, and in some cases much more.

The books of the prophets are mentioned by Josephus, and therefore surely existed in his time; they are also quoted by our Saviour, under the general denomination of the Prophets. We are informed by Tacitus and Suetonius, that about 60 years before the birth of our Saviour there was an universal expectation in the east of a great personage who was to arise; and the source of this expectation is traced by the same writers to the sacred books of the Jews. They existed also in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, A.C. 166; for when that tyrant prohibited the reading of the law, the books of the Prophets were substituted in its place, and were continued as a part of the daily service after the interdict against the law of Moses was taken off. We formerly remarked, that references are made by the author of Ecclesiasticus, A.C. 200, to the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and that he mentions the 12 Prophets. We can ascend still higher, and affirm from the language of the Prophets, that all their writings must have been composed before the Babylonish captivity, or within a century after it; for all of them, except Daniel and Ezra, are composed in Hebrew, and even in them long passages are found in that language; but it is a well-known fact, that all the books written by Jews about two centuries after that era are composed in the Syriac, Chaldaic, or Greek language. "Let any man (says Michaelis) compare what was written in Hebrew after the Babylonish exile, and, I apprehend, he will perceive no less evident marks of decay than in the Latin language." Even in the time of Ezra, the common people, from their long residence in Babylon, had forgotten the Hebrew, and it was necessary for the learned to interpret the law of Moses to them. We can therefore ascertain with very considerable precision the date of the prophetic writings; which indeed is the only important point to be determined: For whether we can discover the authors or not, if we can only establish their ancient date, we shall be fully entitled to draw this conclusion, that the predictions of the Prophets are inspired.

Much has been written to explain the nature of inspiration, and to show by what methods God imparted to the prophets that divine knowledge which they were commanded to publish to their countrymen. Attempts have been made to disclose the nature of dreams and visions, and to describe the ecstasy or rapture to which the prophets were supposed to be raised while they uttered their predictions. Not to mention the degrading and indecent comparison which this last circumstance suggests, we shall only inform those who expect here an explanation of the prophetic dreams and visions, that we shall not attempt to be wise above what is written. The manner in which the all-wise and unseen God may think proper to operate upon the minds of his creatures, we might expect a priori to be mysterious and inexplicable. Indeed such an inquiry, though it were successful, would only gratify curiosity, without being in the least degree conducive to useful knowledge.

The business of philosophy is not to inquire how almighty power produced the frame of nature, and bestowed upon it that beauty and grandeur which is everywhere conspicuous, but to discover those marks of intelligence and design, and the various purposes to which the works of nature are subservient. Philosophy has of late been directed to theology and the study of the Scriptures with the happiest effects; but it is not permitted to enter within the veil which the Lord of Nature has thrown over his councils. Its province, which is sufficiently extensive, is to examine the language of the prophecies, and to discover their application.

The character of the prophetic style varies according to the genius, the education, and mode of living of the respective authors; and there are some peculiarities which run through the whole prophetic books. A logical unadorned style would not have suited those men who were to wrap the mysteries of futurity in a veil, which was not to be penetrated till the events themselves should be accomplished. For it was never the intention of prophecy to unfold futurity to our view, as many of the rash interpreters of prophecy fondly imagine; for this would be inconsistent with the free agency of man. It was therefore agreeable to the wisdom of God that prophecies should be couched in a language which would render them unintelligible till the period of their completion; yet such a language as is distinct, difficult, regular, and would be easily explained when the events themselves should have taken place. This is precisely the character of the prophetic language. It is partly derived from the hieroglyphical symbols of Egypt, to which the Israelites during their captivity were familiarized, and partly from that analogy which subsists between natural objects and those which are moral and political.

The prophets borrowed their imagery from the most splendid and sublime natural objects, from the host of heaven, from seas and mountains, from storms and earthquakes, and from the most striking revolutions in nature. The celestial bodies they used as symbols to express thrones and dignities, and those who enjoyed them. Earth was the symbol for men of low estate. Hades represents the miserable. Ascending to heaven, and descending to earth, are phrases which express rising to power, or falling from it. Great earthquakes, the shaking of heaven and earth, denote the commotions and overthrow of kingdoms. The sun represents the whole race of kings shining with regal power and glory. The moon is the symbol of the common people. The stars are subordinate princes and great men. Light denotes glory, truth, or knowledge. Darkness expresses obscurity of condition, error, and ignorance. The darkening of the sun, the turning of the moon into blood, and the falling of the stars, signify the destruction or desolation of a kingdom. New moons, the returning of a nation from a dispersed state. Conflagration of the earth, is the symbol for destruction by war. The scent of smoke from anything burning forever, denotes the continuance of a people under slavery. Riding in the clouds, signifies reigning over many subjects. Tempestuous winds, or motion of the clouds, denote wars. Thunder denotes the noise of multitudes. Fountains of waters express cities. Mountains and islands, cities with the territories belonging to them. Houses and ships stand for families, assemblies, and towns. A forest is put for a kingdom. A wilderness for a nation much diminished in its numbers.

Animals, as a lion, bear, leopard, goat, are put for kingdoms or political communities corresponding to their respective characters. When a man or beast is put for a kingdom, the head represents those who govern; the tail those who are governed; the horns denote the number of military powers or states that rise from the head. Seeing signifies understanding; eyes men of understanding; the mouth denotes a lawgiver; the arm of a man is put for power, or for the people by whose strength his power is exercised; feet represent the lowest of the people.

Such is the precision and regularity of the prophetic language, which we learn to interpret by comparing prophecies which are accomplished with the facts to which they correspond. So far is the study of it carried already, that a dictionary has been compiled to explain it; and it is probable, that in a short time it may be fully understood, that we shall find little difficulty in explaining any prophecy. But let us not from this expect, that the prophecies will enable us to penetrate the dark clouds of futurity: No! The difficulty of applying prophecies to their corresponding events, before completion, will still remain insurmountable. Those men, therefore, however pious and well-meaning they may be, who attempt to explain and apply prophecies which are not yet accomplished, and who delude the credulous multitude by their own romantic conjectures, cannot be acquitted of rashness and presumption.

The predictions of the prophets, according to the opinion of Dr Lowth, are written in a poetical style. They possess indeed all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, with the single exception, that none of them are alphabetical or acrostic, which is an artificial arrangement utterly repugnant to the nature of prophecy.

The other arguments, however, ought to be particularly adverted to on this subject: the poetical dialect, for instance, the diction so totally different from the language of common life, and other similar circumstances, which an attentive reader will easily discover, but which cannot be explained by a few examples; for circumstances which, taken separately, appear but of small account, are in a united view frequently of the greatest importance. To these we may add the artificial conformation of the sentences; which is a necessary concomitant of metrical composition, the only one indeed which is now apparent, as it has always appeared to us.

The order in which the books of the minor prophets are placed is not the same in the Septuagint as in the Hebrew. According to the latter, they stand as in our translation; but in the Greek, the series is altered as to the first six, to the following arrangement: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. This change, however, is of no consequence, since neither in the original, nor in the Septuagint, are they placed with exact regard to the time in which their sacred authors respectively flourished.

The order in which they should stand, if chronologically arranged, is by Blair and others supposed to be as follows: Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Joel, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. And this order will be found to be generally consistent with the periods to which the Prophets will be respectively assigned in the following pages, except in the instance of Joel, who probably flourished rather earlier than he is placed by these chronologists. The precise period of this prophet, however, cannot be ascertained; and some disputes might be maintained concerning the priority of others also, when they were nearly contemporaries, as Amos and Hosea; and when the first prophecies of a later prophet were delivered at the same time with, or previous to, those of a prophet who was called earlier to the sacred office. The following scheme, however, in which also the greater prophets will be introduced, may enable the reader more accurately to comprehend the actual and relative periods in which they severally prophesied. The Prophets in their supposed Order of Time, arranged according to Blair's Tables* with but little variation.

| Before Christ | Kings of Judah | Kings of Israel | |---------------|----------------|----------------| | Jonah | Between 856 and 784 | Jehu, and Jehoahaz, according to Lloyd; but Joah and Jeroboam the Second according to Blair. | | Amos | Between 810 and 785 | Uzziah, chap. i. 1. Jeroboam the Second, chap. i. 1. | | Hosea | Between 810 and 725 | Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, the third year of Hezekiah. Jeroboam the Second, chap. i. 1. | | Isaiah | Between 810 and 698 | Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, chap. i. 1. and perhaps Manasseh. | | Joel | Between 810 and 660, or later | Uzziah, or possibly Manasseh. | | Micah | Between 758 and 699 | Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, chap. i. 1. Pekah and Hosea. | | Nahum | Between 720 and 698 | Probably towards the close of Hezekiah's reign. | | Zephaniah | Between 640 and 609 | In the reign of Josiah, chap. i. 1. | | Jeremiah | Between 628 and 586 | In the thirteenth year of Josiah. | | Habakkuk | Between 612 and 598 | Probably in the reign of Jehoiakim. | | Daniel | Between 606 and 534 | During all the Captivity. | | Obadiah | Between 588 and 583 | Between the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of the Edomites by him. | | Ezekiel | Between 595 and 536 | During part of the Captivity. | | Haggai | About 520 to 518 | After the return from Babylon. | | Zechariah | From 520 to 518, or longer | | | Malachi | Between 436 and 397 | | Isaiah is supposed to have entered on the prophetic office in the last year of the reign of Uzziah, about 755 years before Christ; and it is certain that he lived to the 15th or 16th years of Hezekiah. This makes the least possible term of the duration of his prophetic office about 48 years. The Jews have a tradition that Isaiah was put to death in the reign of Manasseh, being sawn asunder with a wooden saw by the command of that tyrant; but when we recollect how much the traditions of the Jews were condemned by our Saviour, we will not be disposed to give them much credit. The time of the delivery of some of his prophecies is either expressly marked, or sufficiently clear from the history to which they relate. The date of a few others may with some probability be deduced from internal marks; from expressions, descriptions, and circumstances interwoven.

Isaiah, the first of the prophets both in order and dignity, abounds in such transcendent excellencies, that he may be properly said to afford the most perfect model of the prophetic poetry. He is at once elegant and sublime, forcible and ornamented; he unites energy with copiousness, and dignity with variety. In his sentiments there is uncommon elevation and majesty; in his imagery the utmost propriety, elegance, dignity, and diversity; in his language uncommon beauty and energy; and, notwithstanding the obscurity of his subjects, a surprising degree of clearness and simplicity. To these we may add, there is such sweetness in the poetical composition of his sentences, whether it proceed from art or genius, that if the Hebrew poetry at present is possessed of any remains of its native grace and harmony, we shall chiefly find them in the writings of Isaiah: so that the saying of Ezekiel may most justly be applied to this prophet:

* Ezek. xxviii. 12.

Thou art the confirmed exemplar of measures, Full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty *.

Isaiah greatly excels too in all the graces of method, order, connection, and arrangement: though in asserting this we must not forget the nature of the prophetic impulse, which bears away the mind with irresistible violence, and frequently in rapid transitions from near to remote objects, from human to divine; we must also be careful in remarking the limits of particular predictions, since, as they are now extant, they are often improperly connected, without any marks of discrimination; which injudicious arrangement, on some occasions, creates almost insuperable difficulties. It is, in fact, a body or collection of different prophecies, nearly allied to each other as to the subject, which, for that reason, having a sort of connection, are not to be separated but with the utmost difficulty. The general subject is the restoration of the church. Its deliverance from captivity; the destruction of idolatry; the vindication of the divine power and truth; the consolation of the Israelites, the divine invitation which is extended to them, their incredulity, impiety, and rejection; the calling in of the Gentiles; the restoration of the chosen people; the glory and felicity of the church in its perfect state; and the ultimate destruction of the wicked—are all set forth with a sufficient respect to order and method. If we read these passages with attention, and duly regard the nature and genius of the mythical allegory, at the same time remembering that all these points have been frequently touched upon in other prophecies promised Scripture, at different times, we shall neither find any irregularity in the arrangement of the whole, nor any want of order and connection as to matter or sentiment in the different parts. Dr Lowth effects the whole book of Isaiah to be poetical, a few passages excepted, which, if brought together, would not at most exceed the bulk of five or six chapters.

The 14th chapter of Isaiah is one of the most sublime odes in the Scripture, and contains one of the noblest personifications to be found in the records of poetry.

The prophet, after predicting the liberation of the Jews from their severe captivity in Babylon, and their restoration to their own country, introduces them as reciting a kind of triumphal song upon the fall of the Babylonian monarch, replete with imagery, and with the most elegant and animated personifications. A sudden exclamation, expressive of their joy and admiration on the unexpected revolution in their affairs, and the destruction of their tyrants, forms the exordium of the poem. The earth itself triumphs with the inhabitants thereof; the fir-trees and the cedars of Lebanon (under which images the parabolic style frequently delineates the kings and princes of the Gentiles) exult with joy, and persecute with contemptuous reproaches the humbled power of a ferocious enemy:

The whole earth is at rest, is quiet; they burst forth into a joyful shout: Even the fir-trees rejoice over thee, the cedars of Lebanon: Since thou art fallen, no feller hath come up against us.

This is followed by a bold and animated personification of Hades, or the infernal regions:

Hades from beneath is moved because of thee, to meet thee at thy coming: He rouseth for thee the mighty dead, all the great chiefs of the earth; He maketh to rise up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Hades excites his inhabitants, the ghosts of princes, and the departed spirit of kings; they rise immediately from their seats, and proceed to make the monarch of Babylon; they insult and deride him, and comfort themselves with the view of his calamity:

Art thou, even thou too, become weak as we? art thou made like unto us? Is then thy pride brought down to the grave; the found of thy frightly instruments? Is the vermin become thy couch, and the earthworm thy covering?

Again, the Jewish people are the speakers, in an exclamation after the manner of a funeral lamentation, which indeed the whole form of this composition exactly imitates. The remarkable fall of this powerful monarch is thus beautifully illustrated:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art cut down from earth, thou that didst subdue the nations! Yet thou didst say in thy heart, I will ascend the heavens; Scripture. Above the stars of God I will exalt thy throne; And I will sit upon the mount of the divine presence, on the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. But thou shalt be brought down to the grave, to the sides of the pit.

He himself is at length brought upon the stage, boast- ing in the most pompous terms of his own power; which furnishes the poet with an excellent opportunity of dis- playing the unparalleled misery of his downfall. Some persons are introduced, who find the dead carcase of the king of Babylon cast out and exposed; they at- tentively contemplate it, and at last scarcely know it to be his:

Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that shook the kingdoms? That made the world like a desert, that destroyed the cities? That never dismissed his captives to their own home? All the kings of the nations, all of them, Lie down in glory, each in his sepulchre; But thou art cast out of the grave, as the tree abomi- nated: Clothed with the slain, with the pierced by the sword, With them that go down to the stones of the pit; as a trodden carcase. Thou shalt not be joined to them in burial; Because thou hast destroyed thy country, thou hast slain thy people; The seed of evil doers shall never be renowned. They reproach him with being denied the common rites of sepulture, on account of the cruelty and atrocity of his conduct; they execrate his name, his offspring, and their posterity. A solemn address, sa of the Deity him- self, closes the scene, and he denounces against the king of Babylon, his posterity, and even against the city which was the scene of their cruelty, perpetual destruc- tion, and confirms the immutability of his own counsels by the solemnity of an oath.

How forcible is this imagery, how diversified, how sublime! how elevated the diction, the figures, the sen- timents!—The Jewish nation, the cedars of Lebanon, the ghosts of departed kings, the Babylonish monarch, the travellers who find his corpse, and last of all Jeho- vah himself, are the characters which support this beau- tiful lyric drama. One continued action is kept up, or rather a series of interlacing actions are connected toge- ther in an incomparable whole. This, indeed, is the principal and distinguished excellence of the sublimer ode, and is displayed in its utmost perfection in this poem of Isaiah, which may be considered as one of the most ancient, and certainly the most finished, specimen of that species of composition which has been trans- mitted to us. The personifications here are frequent, yet not confused; bold, yet not improbable; a free, ele- vated, and truly divine spirit, pervades the whole; nor is there anything wanting in this ode to defeat its claim to the character of perfect beauty and sublimity. "If (says Dr. Lowth) I may be indulged in the free de- claration of my own sentiments on this occasion, I do not know a single instance in the whole compass of Greek and Roman poetry, which, in every excellence of composition, can be said to equal, or even approach it."

SCRIPTURE continued in next Volume.

END OF THE EIGHTEENTH VOLUME.

Erratum.—Page 366, note at bottom, in some copies, instead of This was the name given to the palace of the Grand Duke, &c. read as follows: The Kremlin, or Kremli, is a particular quarter of Mosco, where stands the palace of the tzars, first built of stone by Dimitri Ivanovitch Donski in 1367. See Mosco. DIRECTIONS FOR PLACING THE PLATES OF VOL. XVIII.

PART I.

Plate CCCCLXII. to face page 88 CCCCLXIII. CCCCLXIV. - 268 CCCCLXV. - - 280 CCCCLXVI. - - - 316 CCCCLXVII. - - - 348

PART II.

CCCCLXVIII. - - - 452 CCCCLXIX. - - - 524 CCCCLXX—CCCCLXXVI. - - 568 CCCCLXXXVII. - - - 580