invalidate it; and I cannot, upon grounds so slight, give up the authenticity of any book in the sacred volume, or suffer my confidence to be shaken in the canonicity of any composition which has been admitted, by the Jewish church, into the number of inspired writings.

It may be observed, en passant, that the method in which the Proverbs were collected accounts for some repetitions observable in the book; repetitions scarcely avoidable in compiling them from different quarters, and various sources.* Yet it might have happened, that, if they had been collected by the divinely-enlightened author himself, he would have admitted a few repetitions, for the sake of reiterating some useful maxim, and enforcing some valuable truth.

With respect to the two last chapters, commentators have entertained a variety of opinions; some conjecturing that Solomon describes himself under the appellations of Agur and Lemuel; others, that

* Simon, Hist. Crit. du V. T. lib. i. cap. 4. Christ. Ben. Michalis, (father of the celebrated J. David Michalis,) Præfat. ad Notas Uberiores in Prov. Salomonis, § 29. Jahn, Introductio ad Lib. Sac. § 182, p. 398, Viennæ, 1814.

these persons were interlocutors with him; and many, that they are the real productions of those whose names are prefixed. The two first opinions are destitute of sufficient evidence to produce a rational conviction. The thirtieth chapter is entitled, "The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh," and the thirty-first," The words of king Lemuel;" and it is surely most consistent with the literal interpretation to understand these titles as implying, that these chapters are the composition, or, at least, the compilation, of two persons, whose names were Agur and Lemuel. Scripture history, indeed, affords us no information respecting their situation and character; but there must have been sufficient reason for regarding their works in the light of inspired productions, or they would not have been admitted into the sacred canon. They are called Massa, a term frequently applied to the undoubted productions of the prophetic spirit; and it is not improbable, that the authors meant, by the adoption of this term, to lay claim to the character of inspiration.* A succession

*", quod ex etymo est, eloquium, oraculum, Xoyɩov, non magis ad vaticinia de rebus futuris, quam ad omnia Dei eloquia pertinet, illa etiam quæ salutarem doctrinam morumque præcepta pandunt.”—Michalis, Notæ et Epim, in Lowthi Prælect. p. 113, Oxon. 1810.

D

of virtuous and eminent men, favoured with divine illumination, flourished in Judæa till the final completion of the sacred code; and most likely many more than those whose writings have been preserved.* Agur may, then, have been one of those prophets whom divine Providence raised up to comfort or admonish his chosen people; and Lemuel may have been some neighbouring prince, the son of a Jewish woman, by whom he was taught the Massa contained in the thirty-first chapter. These, of course, can only be considered as mere conjectures; for, in the absence of historic evidence, who can venture to pronounce with certainty?

The opinion, however, that Agur and Lemuel are appellations of Solomon, is sanctioned by so many and such respectable writers, that it demands a more particular examination.

The knowledge of names was anciently regarded as a matter of the highest importance, in order to understand the nature of the persons or things which

Semper inclaruit Judæa viris afflatu divino actis, neque historiam reipublicæ Israeliticæ legisse putandus est, qui præter sedecem prophetas, quorum fragmenta et orationes extant, alios vixisse negarit.”— Doederlein, Scholia in cap. xxx, 1.

they designate; and, in the opinion of the Rabbins, preferable even to the study of the written Law.* The Heathens paid considerable attention to it, as appears from the Cratylus of Plato; and some of the Christian Fathers entertained very favourable notions of such knowledge. The Jewish Doctors, it is true, refined upon the subject with an amazing degree of subtilty, grounding upon it many ridiculous ideas and absurd fancies: yet it is unquestionable, that many of the proper names in Scripture are significant and characteristic. Thus, the names Eve, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Israel, &c. were imposed by reason of their being expressive of the several characters of the persons whom they represent.§ Reasoning from analogy, we may infer, that all the proper names in the Old Testament, at their original imposition, were intended to denote some quality or circumstance in the person or thing to which they belong; and though many, from transference, have ceased to be personally characteristic, yet are they

* Ficini Argument. in Cratyl. Platonis.

+ St. Jerom, Liber de Interp. Nom. Heb. vol. ii. ed. Martian, Origen contra Cels. lib. i. § 24, 25. Eusebius, Præparat. Evangel. lib. xi. cap. 6. ‹

Simonis, Onomasticum, Sect. Prælim. § 2, 15. Shuckford's Connection, lib. ix.

§ Gen. iii. 20, iv. 1, iv 25, ▼. 29, xvii. 5, xxxii. 28.

all significative. A variety of authors, whom Wolfius has enumerated in his Bibliotheca Hebræa, have laboured to investigate this signification; but, of all the works explanatory of the proper names, which I have had an opportunity of consulting, by far the most learned and ingenious is the Onomasticum of Simonis. The explanation in the sixth volume of the London Polyglott, and in the Concordances of Cruden and Calasio, is very defective.

As the custom of imposing descriptive names prevailed in the primitive ages, it is not impossible, that Agur and Lemuel may be appropriated to Solomon, and Jakeh to David, as mystic appellations significative of their respective characters. It is even some confirmation of this opinion, that Solomon is denominated Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord) by the prophet Nathan;* and that, in the book of Ecclesiastes, he styles himself Koheleth, or the Preacher. Nevertheless, this hypothesis does not appear to rest upon a firm foundation. It is foreign to the simplicity of the sacred penmen, and contrary to their custom in similar cases, to adopt a mystic name, without either explaining it, or alleging the reasons for its adoption.

* 2 Sam. xii. 25.