unworthy considerations. Everything relating to the holy book, doubtless, is of momentous interest; but this is not a matter of that vital consequence which belongs to some topics.

With regard to the author and the time when this book was written, the question seems to be whether Solomon composed it himself, or whether some one shortly after the time of that monarch. For the best critics now agree that the Song is not of late date. The Aramaisms which have been noted in it are easily explained by its poetic character; and the descriptions of the state of things in Solomon's day are so vivid, that they cannot be supposed to proceed from any but a contemporary. It has been imagined, therefore, that the writer lived a short time after Solomon. But most of the reasons for denying the authorship to the king himself are weak. Thus

שִׁיר הַשִׁירִים אֲשֶׁר לִשְׁלֹמֹה ,we are told that the inscription is not genuine

because the author never uses, but invariably, and that he would not have called his own composition "The Song of Songs," that is, an excellent song. Further, he speaks of David (iv. 4.) as if he were not his father. One may fairly ask, how the critics imagine, the relationship pre-supposed, that the writer would have spoken of David. Moreover the words nibh no one, viii. 11., are said to prove that the writer was not Solomon's contemporary. But it is forgotten that these words are put into the mouth of the Shulamite, and that, if it is incongruous for a contemporary to speak of Solomon's vineyard as a thing that was, it must be at least as incongruous for the Shulamite, just fresh from Solomon's palace, to use such an expression. The most exquisite bit of criticism, however, is that which alleges as a reason why the writer was not Solomon, was not a resident in Judah at all, but belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes, that in vi. 4. he names Tirzah before Jerusalem. Such arguments serve merely to bring criticism into contempt.

It is readily admitted, as remarked before, that, if the subject be proved to be the rejection of Solomon's love, he is not likely to have himself written the book. On this point also, good and wise men will differ.2]

The Chaldee paraphrase of this book is a long and tiresome application of it throughout to the circumstances of the history of the Jews. The Greek version of it is tolerably exact; and Bos, in the Frankfort edition of the Septuagint (1709), ascribes it to Sym

machus.

'See Hitzig, Das Hoheslied erklärt, 1855. p. 77.

Keil decidedly maintains the Solomonic authorship. See Einleitung, § 126. pp. 422— 424.; Hävernick, Einleitung, § 310. III. pp. 465-474.

CHAP. IV.

ON THE PROPHETS.

SECTION I.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROPHETS AND THEIR WRITINGS.

I. The prophetical books, why so called.-II. Different kinds of prophets mentioned in the scriptures. -III. Situation of the prophets, and their manner of living.—IV. Mosaic statutes concerning prophets.—Evidences of a divine mission.-V. Qualifications of the prophets. - VI. Nature of the prophetic inspiration.—VII. Antiquity and succession of the prophets. -VIII. Collection of their writings, and mode of announcing their predictions. IX. Number and order of the prophetic books.

I. WE now enter on the fourth or prophetical part of the Old Testament, according to the division which is generally adopted, but which forms the second division, according to the Jewish classification of the sacred volume. This portion of the scriptures is termed prophetical, because it chiefly consists of predictions; though historical passages are interspersed; as there also are many predictions scattered through the more strictly historical books. But these books also contain very many passages which relate to other subjects, such as the nature and attributes of God; the religious and moral duties of man; reproofs of idolatry and other sins; exhortations to the practice of true religion and virtue; together with warnings respecting the political state of the country, and the administration of affairs, which in the theocracy were sent to the kings and princes of the Hebrews by the prophets as ambassadors of their supreme monarch, Jehovah. The authors of these books are, by way of eminence, termed Prophets, that is, divinely-inspired persons, who were raised up among the Israelites to be the ministers of God's dispensations. Jehovah, at sundry times and in divers manners, spake unto the fathers by the prophets. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (Heb. i. 1.; 2 Pet. i. 21.).1

II. To these messengers of heaven frequent reference is made in various parts of the sacred writings. The term prophet, indeed, is of general signification. It was applied by the heathens to all persons who were supposed to be conversant with divine things; and, in conformity to this notion, St. Paul, in his epistle to Titus (i. 12.), when citing a passage from a profane poet, calls him a prophet, because the heathens supposed their poets to be inspired. In the historical books of the Old Testament we meet with frequent notice of the schools of the prophets, that is, of seminaries, where religious truths, or the divine laws, were particularly taught2; for the pupils in these

[See the relation of prophecy to the law noticed before, p. 395. Comp. Davison, Discourses on Prophecy, disc. iv. part ii. pp. 119-126.]

2 See an account of these schools in Vol. III. pp. 517, 518.

schools were not, strictly speaking, all of them prophets; though God bestowed upon some of them the spirit of prophecy, or of predicting future events (2 Kings ii. 3.). Further, in the Old Testament, the prophets are spoken of, as holy men of God, as seers, and as prophets, in the most exalted sense of the term. The first denomination seems to have been sometimes applied to men of exemplary piety, who assiduously studied the divine law, as communicated by their legislator Moses; who firmly believed in the predictions of good and evil that should attend the Israelites according to the tenor of their conduct; who were observant of the character of the times in which they lived; and who might be able to discern the natural and inevitable consequences of particular actions, without the necessity of immediate inspiration. These men of God, however, received peculiar communications upon certain emergencies. They were divinely appointed to execute some important commissions, and to predict events which were not in the ordinary course of things, but far beyond the reach of human penetration. It was this which sometimes gave them the title of seers. The higher class of prophets were those who foretold important events that were to take place at distant periods, which no human sagacity could foresee, and which were most opposite to the natural conceptions or general expectations of mankind; as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets.'

[The names,,, require to be distinguished. The word

3

may be considered to signify a speaker (comp. Exod. iv. 16., vii. 1.). By some, however, the idea of gushing out, after the analogy of 7, is attributed to it; and so words flow forth (Psal. lxxviii. 2.). It is held by others to be a passive form from the Arabic root,, and therefore one taught (of God), divinely inspired (to speak). This was an official title. It was applied to Abraham (Gen. xx. 7.), who united the priestly, the prophetical, and the kingly offices in himself. The name, it would seem, though given to some individuals, as Moses, Miriam, and Deborah, afterwards fell into disuse; , the seer (1 Sam. ix. 9.), being substituted: from Samuel, however, a regular line of prophets having been formed, the appellation given in the law was restored. The word signifies also a seer, and has been thought only a more poetical title, identical in meaning with . But Dr. Lee has pointed out a distinction, see 1 Sam. xxviii. 6., Isai. xxix. 10., and supposes that the chozeh was the general name of one to whom revelations were occasionally made: "The titles Roeh and Nabi equally point out the official prophet (the former term being merely the archaic and popular designation of an office which had been defined from the very first by Moses); while by Chozeh are indicated those individuals who occasionally, or for some specific purpose, were chosen to convey

'Dr. Cogan, Theological Disquisitions, pp. 275, &c.; Dr. Gregory Sharpe, Second Argument in Defence of Christianity from Prophecy, pp. 1-20.

De Wette, Einleitung, § 202.

Köster, Die Proph. des Alt. und Neu. Test. pp. 182, 183.

a communication from God, and who possessed the prophetic gift, but not the prophetic office: e. g. the authors of sacred poetry, such as Asaph (2 Chron. xxix. 30.) are so called. And hence the Nabi might be styled Chozeh, but not conversely."']

III. The prophets, according to Augustine, were the philosophers, divines, instructors, and guides of the Hebrews in piety and virtue. These holy men were the bulwarks of religion against the impiety of princes, the wickedness of individuals, and every kind of immorality. Their lives, persons, and discourses were alike instructive and prophetical. Raised up by God to be witnesses of his presence, and living monuments of his will, the events that frequently happened to them were predictions of what was about to befall the Hebrew nation. Although the prophets possessed great authority in Israel, and were highly esteemed by pious sovereigns, who undertook no important affairs without consulting them, yet their way of life was exceedingly laborious, and they were very poor, and greatly exposed to persecution and ill treatment. They generally lived retired in some country-place, and in colleges or communities, where they and their disciples were employed in prayer, in manual labour, and in study. Their labour, however, was not such as required intense application, or was inconsistent with that freedom from secular cares which their office required. Thus, Elisha quitted his plough, when Elijah called him to the prophetic office (1 Kings xix. 19, 20.); and Amos (vii. 14.) tells us that he was no prophet, neither a prophet's son, but a herdsman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. The pupils or sons of the prophets, who lived under the direction of Elijah and Elisha, erected their own dwellings, for which they cut down the timber that was requisite (2 Kings vi. 1-4.).

The apparel of the prophets was in unison with the simplicity of their private life. Elijah was clothed with skins, and wore a leather girdle round his loins (2 Kings i. 8.). Isaiah wore sackcloth (xx. 2.); which was the ordinary habit of the prophets. Zechariah, speaking of the false prophets who imitated externally the true prophets of the Lord, says that they should not wear a rough garment (Heb. a garment of hair) to deceive (Zech. xiii. 4.). Their poverty was conspicuous in their whole life. The presents they received were only bread, fruits, and honey; and the first-fruits of the earth were given them, as being persons who possessed nothing themselves (2 Kings iv. 42.). The woman of Shunem, who entertained Elisha, put into the prophet's chamber only what was plain and absolutely necessary (2 Kings iv. 10.). The same prophet refused the costly presents of Naaman (2 Kings v. 16.), and pronounced a severe sentence upon his servant Gehazi, who had clandestinely obtained a part of them (20-27.). Their frugality appears throughout their history; for instance, the wild gourds, which one of the prophets ordered to be prepared for his disciples (2 Kings iv. 38-41.). The angel gave

'The Inspiration of Holy Scripture (2nd edit.), Append. K. p. 544.

Ipsi eis erant philosophi, hoc est, amatores sapientiæ, ipsi sapientes, ipsi theologi, ipsi prophetæ, ipsi doctores probitatis atque pietatis. De Civitate Dei, lib. xviii. cap. xli. 2. tom. vii. col 524 (edit. Bened.) [This was in a time of famine.]

Elijah only bread and water for a long journey (1 Kings xix. 6-8); and Obadiah, the pious governor of Ahab's household, gave the same food to the prophets whose lives he saved in a cave (1 Kings xviii. 4. 13.). Their recluse abstemious mode of living, and mean apparel, sometimes exposed them to contempt among the gay and courtly: it was, probably, the singular dress and appearance of Elisha which occasioned the impious scoffs of the young men at Bethel (2 Kings ii. 23.). But, in general, the prophets were regarded with high esteem and veneration by the wise and good, and even by persons of the first rank in the state (1 Kings xviii. 7.). It does not appear that the prophets were bound by any vow of celibacy; for Samuel had children; and the scriptures mention the wives of Isaiah (viii. 3.) and Hosea (i. 2.). But the prophets maintained a very guarded intercourse with the female sex; as is evident in the conduct of Elisha towards his benevolent hostess (2 Kings iv. 27.).

But, however they might be respected by pious monarchs, the prophets were frequently exposed to cruel treatment from wicked princes, whose impiety they reprehended, and to insults and jeers from the people, whose immoral practices they censured and condemned; and many of them were even put to violent deaths (Heb. xi. 35-38.). Yet, amid all these persecutions and this injurious treatment, they despised dangers, torments, and death, and with wonderful intrepidity attacked whatever was contrary to the law and worship of Jehovah, contemning secular honours, riches, and favours, with astonishing disinterestedness.'

[Some critics are inclined to exaggerate the poverty and asceticism of the prophets. They cull passages descriptive of privations under special circumstances, as of famine or persecution, and view these as indicating their ordinary mode of life. Hengstenberg is not free from this fault. It was to be expected that, not merely as prophets but as men of faith, who lived above the world and looked for a better home, they would set examples of simplicity and purity of life. But there is no proof that they voluntarily deprived themselves of comforts. Thus Elijah had his attendant even in his hasty flight from Jezreel to Beersheba (1 Kings xix. 3.). And, even under an ungodly king, Elisha appears to have had powerful influence at court (2 Kings iv. 13). Titles, too, of high respect were given them (1 Kings xviii. 7, 13; 2 Kings ii. 19.). If, as Hengstenberg imagines, the offerings, which by the Mosaic law were to be the portion of the Levites, were brought by the pious of the kingdom of Israel to the schools of the prophets, they must have been amply endowed. But this opinion is questionable. The passage on which Hengstenberg relies for proof of it (2 Kings iv. 42.) is by no means decisive.

IV. "Prophecy being necessary in the early ages for the preservation of the knowledge of God, in the Hebrew commonwealth prophets were not merely tolerated, as some have supposed, but they

1 Calmet, Preface Générale sur les Prophètes, Art. 3. sur la Manière de Vie des Prophètes, &c. Comm. tom. v. pp. 560, 561., Dissert. tom. ii. pp. 308–311.

Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit. art. Prophecy