Page images
PDF
EPUB

hall he be called. For the Lord hath called thee, as a woman forfaken and grieved in fpirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refufed, faith thy God, Ifa. liv. 5, 6. But the Song of Solomon being a continued Allegory of Chrift and his Church, it is no more to be expected, that the Name of God fhould be mention'd there; than in the Parables in the Gospel. The Book of Estber has likewife the fame Objection to it, which may be as easily answer'd; for this containing an hiftorical Narrative, nothing is related, but what was faid and done by Efther, Mordecai, and other Perfons therein mention'd; and the Name of God or Lord having not been used by them in all that Bufinefs, it is no Prejudice, but a real Advantage and just Commendation of this Book, that the strict and necessary Truth only is related, as it was in Fact, and as it stood recorded in the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Perfia (chap. ii. 23. x. 2.) For what was not contain'd in thofe Records, was tranfacted between Efther and Mordecai by Hatach one of the King's Chamberlains and others that attended upon her, (chap. iv. 5, 12, 15.) And that high Veneration, which the Jews had for the Seven Names of God, might be the Caufe that none of them were mention'd in a Meffage with which Heathens were entrusted: for it was esteem'd a Prophanation of any of thefe Names, when they were but written by a Gentile, or if a Book of the Law were found in his Poffeffion. The great Corruptions among the Jews, by their Converfation with the Gentiles, which Nehemiah reproves, might be the occafion, why this Opinion and Practice then firft prevail'd among fome, at least, of the devouter fort: for we find Nehemiah, using the Name of God neither to Artaxerxes, (chap. ii. 3, .5, 7, 8.) nor to Sanballat (chap. vi. 3, 8.) tho' the Name both of God and Lord being mention'd in the Decree of Cyrus, was from

e

[ocr errors]

Maimon. de Fundament. Legis, c. 6. §. 2, 10. cum Vorst. Not.

G 3

[ocr errors]

thence

thence transmitted into all the fubfequent publick Acts relating to the Building of the Temple, and could not be omitted by Ezra. But how it came to pass, that the Name of God was not mention'd in fuch an Exigence of Affairs is a Question, which concerns not the Authority of the Book of Esther, but the Difpofition and Demeanour of the Perfons spoken of in the Narrative. We find Expreffions of Humiliation and Devotion, Sackcloth and Ashes, and Fafting mention'd (chap. iv. 3, 16.) and the Faith of Mordecai, and his Dependence upon God, is declar'd chap. x. 13, 14. And whatever might be the occafion, why in a cafe of fo much Danger, the Name of God was not publickly used, a ftrict adhering to Truth has been the cause of its Omiffion, in a Book which relates Matter of Fact, as it was, with no fuch Addition of Ornaments as to reprefent it better than it really was in it felf. The Septuagint in their Translation have frequently inferted the Name of God and Lord; fo has Jofephus in his History, and the Author of the Apocryphal Book of Efther, with a Prayer of Mordecai and another of Efther. But thefe Additions being found neither in the Hebrew nor the Chaldee, were never taken into the Canon. So ftrict regard have the Jews always had to the Divine Authority of their Canon of Scripture that no Objections, however obvious and plausible, have mov❜d them at any time to depart from it, or to make any Alteration in it. Why fhould they receive the Books of those whom their Fore-fathers had flain, and those very Books for which they flew them, but upon the cleareft evidence? It is certain they could be poffefs'd with no Prejudice in their Favour, bút with very many against the Books of fuch Authors. To give another inftance: The Book of Ruth contains the Affairs and Tranfactions of a particular Family, of no great Confequence, as one might imagine at first view, and yet it has been preferv'd with as much Care, and as conftantly receiv'd as the reft. There is

little reason, upon humane Confiderations, why a Relation concerning that Family fhould be inferted into the Canon of Scripture, rather than one concerning any other. But the Lineage of the Meffias is set forth in it, and that was a fufficient Reason why it should be inferted; and therefore by the divine Wisdom and Providence, neither the Emulation and Envy of other Families, nor any other Cause or Accident, hinder'd its Reception and Preservation amongst the other infpired Books. And in that History, there is an account not very honourable for David's Family, in deriving his Descent from Phares of Thamar, and fhewing that his great Grandmother was a Moabitefs; the Moabites being a People, who had an indelible Mark of Infamy fixt upon them by the Law of Mofes, Deut. xxiii. 3.

II. As the Pentateuch was ever acknowledg'd by the People of Ifrael after their Separation from the •Tribe of Judah, fo if they rejected the Writings of the Prophets, it must have been because many of them were written by Prophets, who were of the two Tribes, and all the Prophets of Ifrael owning the Temple of Jerufalem to be the true place of Worship, the Ifraelites and Samaritans must have great Prejudices against them upon that account, and the Prophetick Books likewife containing divers Prophecies against the Ten Tribes for their corrupt way of Worship, it cannot be expected, that they fhould receive the Books of any of the Prophets in the fame manner as they did thofe of Mofes. The Books of Samuel, David, and Solomon, had lefs regard paid to them upon Reasons of State by the Tribes, who follow'd the Revolt of Jeroboam: yet when Jofeph Scaliger fent to the Samaritans for the Canticles and the Book of Pfalms in their Language; as well as for the Book of the Law, and of Joshua, they promis'd to fend him

{ Antiq. Orient. Eccl. Epift. 1.
G 4

ther

them. And it is prov'd fufficiently by Dr. Lightfoot, that neither the Samaritans, nor the Sadducees, rejected the Books of the Old Teftament, though they did not admit the reft into the fame Veneration and Authority with the Books of Mofes, nor read them in their Synagogues. This is alfo prov'd by F. Simon h both of the Sadducees and the Karai, and Morinus likewise proves it of the Karai, who are generally taken for Sadducees. F.Simon maintains the contrary, and that they have wrong done them in being charg'd with the Opinions of the Sadducees: However, this is not material to our prefent purpose, fince he fhews that both the Sadducees and the Karai, or Caraites and all the Jews befides receiv'd the entire Volume of the Scriptures without any contradiction. *Hackspan likewife has fhew'd that the Sadducees deny'd not the Authority of the Books of the Prophets.

III. Concerning the Books, whereof we find mention made in the Old Teftament, either 1. They are.. not different from thofe, which are now in the Canon, but the fame Books under divers Names. Or 2. they were not written by Inspiration, tho' written by Prophets. For we are not to fuppofe, that the Prophets were inspired in every thing that they wrote, any more than in all they spoke. We read of the ftory of the Prophet Idda, and the ftory of the Book of the Kings, 2 Chron. xiii. 22. xxiv. 27. that is, the Commentary, (as in the Margin) the Midrash, Inquifitorium, Repertorium. And the Book of Jasher, or of the Upright, leems to have been a Commentary or Chronicle, which was continued down from Age to Age, at least from Fofhuah's time, to David's. And this fhews the Care and Integrity of the Jews in compiling their Canon that they would not take into it all the Writings even

• Hebr. and Talmud. Exercit. on John iv. 25.

Crit. Hift. V. T. lib. i. c. 16. & 29: Difquifit. Crit. c. 12.
Epift. 70. inter Antiq. Eccl. Orient.

Prafat. de Lipmanno,

of

of the Prophets themselves, but only fuch as they knew to be written by them, as Prophets, that is, by Inspiration, the Prophets themselves, no doubt, making a Diftinction (as we find St. Paul did) between what they had written by the Spirit of God, and that in which they had not his immediate and extraordinary Direction, and infallible Affiftance. Or 3. they might not be written by Prophets. For the Office of Recorder, or Remembrancer, or Writer of Chronicles (as it is explain'd in the Margin) is mention'd as an Office of great Honour and Truft, and was distinct from that of the Prophets, 2 Sam. viii. 16. 2 Kings xviii. 18. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8. Isaiah xxxvi. 3, 22. Befides the Hebrews call'd every fmall Writing a Book: Thus the Book of the Generations of Adam is the Genealogy of the Patriarchs, Gen. v. 1. and the Book of the Generations of Jefus Chrift, Matt. i. 1. is his Genealogy. The fame Word is tranflated a Register of the Genealogy, Nehem. vii. 5. and that which we render a Bill of Divorcement, Deut. xxiv. 1. is in the Original a Book of Divorcement, the Word being the fame, which, Joh. x. 13. and 2 Sam. i. 18. is tranflated the Book of Jafher. So Matt. xix. 7. and Mark x. 4. it is in the Greek a Book of Divorcement, the Word is the fame which the Septuagint had ufed; it indeed may fignify a little Book, but it often fignifies a Book, without that diftinction, and fo it is render'd, 2 Tim. iv. 13. David's Letter to Joab is a Book in the He brew and in the Greek, 2 Sam. xi. 14, 15. So is the King of Syria's Letter to the King of Ifrael, 2 Kings v. 5. and there are many the like inftances; and Letters are ftyled Books by Herodotus and other Authors. Or 4. tho' it should be granted that fome Books, which were written by Infpiration, are now loft, it is no Abfurdity to fuppofe that God fhould

1

Herod. lib. i. c. 124. & lib, vi. c. 4. Demofth. Paufan. Meffen. Dion. Caff. 1.43

fuffer

« PreviousContinue »