of Heman; of the prayers of Moses, of Habbakuk, &c.; which certainly cannot mean prayers concerning those prophets. This sense is also confirmed by the ancient versions, and particularly by the Septuagint. The other rendering concerning Solomon, clearly originated with the allegorical rabbins, and Christian fathers, who attributing the poem to the Messiah, as the antitype of Solomon, availed themselves of the equivocation of the Hebrew prefix as an argument in their favour. I admit their hypothesis, but shall en

vide it) ends with Ps. xli.-the 3d with Ps. lxxxix.-the 4th with Ps. cvi, all with double amen, as this concludes the 2d book.-Farther, this verse does not appear to be poetry, as are the preceding, and is therefore omitted in the poetic versions of Buchanan, Dr. Watts, Mrs. Rowe, &c. as it is also in the comment of Bp. Horne, who takes no notice of it. As to the ancient versions, it is inserted in the LXX. but omitted in the Arabic, which instead of it inserts hallelujah.

3. Admitting the disputed verse in its common acceptation, it yet will not prove that the preceding psalm was David's, for we know that the 50th psalm, which falls into the same book, was Afaph's. It is true the LXX understand the above psalm to be David's, [] for Solomon; but the Chaldee paraphrase says, This psalm was given by the hand of Solomon in prophecy,' namely, of the Messiah; and I conceive the internal evidence of the psalm leads the same way. Give the king thy judgments, O • God, and thy righteousness to the king's son,' i. e. give me, the son of David, who am now king in his stead, the communication of wisdom and grace to reign, and to be a proper type of my great descendant the Messiahfor it is chiefly of his kingdom that the author speaks, as the ancient Jews readily confess. In Ps. xxi. David prays concerning himself in a similar manner-The king shall joy in thy strength, O Lord,' &c.

4. Since writing the above, I find Michaelis is of opinion 'that this is the end of the first collection of psalms, which was made, probably under Solomon, for the service of the temple.'

deavour to vindicate it from better authority, because I disdain to employ an argument which appears to me fanciful, untenable, and invented only

to serve a turn.

In this Song of Solomon, the Seventy take the lamed, as they do in the Psalms, for the sign of its author, and render it like our translators'. Even those critics, who incline to the other rendering, which makes Christ (the true Solomon) the subject of the song, are yet disposed to include the literal Solomon as its author, and this is certainly the case as to the Jewish writers, as we may have further occasion to observe.

Now that Solomon composed a great variety of songs or poems, we are told by the inspired author of the book of Kings2, who enumerates them at one thousand and five;' some of these we perhaps have in the book of Psalms-others may be included in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes -and the rest lost, or perhaps, as being only the extemporaneous effusions of his genius, were never committed to writing; but this is called the Song of Songs,' as being the most considerable and important; or, for the peculiar excellency of its subject3,

1 0 {OT: Eadwμw. The Syriac calls it, The wisdom of wisdoms of the same Solomon,' i. e. the same who wrote the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

2 1 Kings, iv. 32. comp. Ecclus. xlvii. 17.

So Holy of holies, King of kings, Heaven of heavens, and more particularly, Ornament of ornaments,' Ezek. xvi. 7.

Having shewn that this poem claims Solomon for its author, and that this claim was admitted and recognized by the most ancient versions, we may now consider what has been objected to it. The first objection is, that Josephus does not mention this among the sacred books; but the fact is, he names none of them distinctly and expressly. His words are, We have two-and-twenty books ' which justly claim our belief and confidence. Of these, five are the books of Moses-thirteen, 'the books of the prophets-and FOUR more con'tain hymns to God, and admonitions for the cor⚫rection of human life.' The question is, which are the four last? We reckon, 1. The Psalms, 2. Proverbs, 3. Ecclesiastes, and, 4. The Song of Solomon: and because the Psalms were placed first, and are the most considerable, these four books, appear to have been all anciently comprehended under this name: so our Lord distinguishes the sacred books into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms'. These books, sometimes including others, are also called the hagiographa or, sacred writings, not comprehended in the law and the prophets. I am aware that, in order to exclude 'the Song of Songs' from this canon, some chuse to introduce Job as one of the four books; but this appears to me arbitrary, and hypothetical, since Job ranks as properly among the historical

1 Dr. PRIESTLEY says, 'There can be no doubt but that 'the canon of the Old Testament was the same in the time of our Saviour as it is now.' Institutes of Rel. (17 82) vol. I. p. 297.

books, Joshua, Judges, &c. which Josephus in cludes under the general name of prophetic wri tings'

It has indeed been suggested, by Voltaire and others, that the divine authority of this book was doubted in the primitive Christian church, and particularly by Theodorus of Mopsuestia; but when the fact comes to be examined, it can only be proved that he rejected its allegorical, explication, and thought it difficult to explain2. This Theodore, however, lived in the middle of the sixth century; and his opinion was generally condemned by the other doctors of the church: whereas MELITO, bishop of Sardis, before the middle of the second century, without hesitation enumerates the CANTICLES among the sacred books then universally received3.

Another objection alledged against the antiquity of this book is, that the name of David is spelt in the original with a yod, according to the manner of spelling it after the captivity. But as this name occurs but once, I cannot see with what propriety this circumstance can be insisted on by critics who maintain that the present Hebrew is full of literal mistakes of far greater importance; nor should I have thought it worth an answer, but for the respectable name from which it comes.

1 See Cosins's Scholaftic Hiftory of the Canon of the Holy Scripture, p. 12-15. and Gill's Expofition (not Com ment.) p. 8.

2 Findlay's Vindication of the Sacred Books, p. 455-8. 3 Cosins's Schol. Hist. p. 33. Eufeb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. cap. 26.

H

However, as the subject is a very dry one, I shall throw it into the margin, where the reader will find it completely answered by the very learned Dr. GILL.

1 Dr. Kennicot [Dissert. I. p. 20.] observes that the word DAVID, from its first appearance in Ruth, where it is writ'ten (7) without the yod, continues to be fo written through the books of Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; but appears with a yod () in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 'Zachariah; wherefore he suggests, that if it was customa " ry to write this word without a yod till the captivity, and with one after it; then he thinks a strong argument may 'be drawn from hence against the antiquity of the Canticles ' and its being made by Solomon, since this name is written with a yod in Canticles, iv. 4. the only place in it in which it is ufed; but in anfwer to this, it must be faid, it is not fact, that the word is universally used without a yod in the books mentioned, particularly the books of Kings: for the authors of the Massorah have observed on 1 Kings iii. 14, that it is five times written full, as they call it. e. with the yod. Three of the places I have traced out, (1 Kings iii. 14. xi. 4, 36.) and have found it fo written in all the ' printed copies I have feen; and so it is read by the eastern Jews in Ezek. xxxvii. 24. and in several printed editions of Ezek. xxxiv. 23. This learned man is aware that it is so written once in Hosea, and twice in Amos, books "written 200 years before the captivity; but then hẹ observes, that in the two last places, in Bomberg's edition, it has a little circle (°) to mark it for an error, or a faulty 'word, though none over the word in Hosea : but it should be known that that circle, in hundreds of places, is not ' used to point out any thing faulty in the copy; but is only 'a mark referring to the margin, and what is observed there; and be it, that it does point out an error, or a faul ty word, the same circle is over the word in Canticles, and consequently shews it to be faulty there, and to be corrected and read without the yod; which observation 'deftroys the argument from it; and so it is read in that place of the Talmud without it, and in the ancient book ' of Zohar: so that upon the whole the argument, if it has any force in it, turns out for, and not against, the antiquity of Solomon's Song. But this matter stands in a clearer light by observing the larger Mafforah on 1 Kings xi. 4. and on Ezek. xxxiv. 23. in which the five places