there exists no evidence that any canonical book of the Old Testament
has been lost. To which we may add, that there are many general
considerations of great weight which go to prove that no part of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament has been lost. The translation of these
books into Greek is sufficient to show that the same books existed
nearly two hundred years before the advent of Christ. And, above all,
the unqualified testimony to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by
Christ and his Apostles, ought to satisfy us that we have lost none of
the inspired books of the canon. The Scriptures are constantly referred
to, and quoted as infallible authority by them, as we have before shown.
These oracles were committed to the Jews as a sacred deposit, and they
are never charged with unfaithfulness in this trust. The Scriptures are
declared to have been written “for our learning;” and no intimation is
given that they had ever been mutilated, or in any degree corrupted.
As to the New Testament, the same author proceeds: With respect to the
New Testament, I am ready to concede, as was before done, that there may
have been books written by inspired men that have been lost; for
inspiration was occasional, not constant; and confined to matters of
faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in matters of
mere science. And if such writings have been lost, the canon of
Scripture has suffered no more by this means, than by the loss of any
other uninspired books. But again: I am willing to go farther, and say
that it is possible (although I know no evidence of the fact) that some
things, written under the influence of inspiration, for a particular
occasion, and to rectify some disorder in a particular church, may have
been lost, without injury to the canon. For, since much that the
Apostles preached by inspiration is undoubtedly lost, so there is no
reason why every word which they wrote must necessarily be preserved,
and form a part of the canonical volume. For example: suppose that when
St. Paul said, “I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with
fornicators,” 1 Cor. v, 9, he referred to an epistle which he had
written to the Corinthians, before the one now called the First; it
might never have been intended that this letter should form a
constituent part of the canon; for although it treated of subjects
connected with Christian faith or practice, yet, an occasion having
arisen, in a short time, of treating these subjects more at large, every
thing in that epistle (supposing it ever to have been written) may have
been included in the two Epistles to the Corinthians which are now in
the canon.
1. The first argument to prove that no canonical book has been lost, is
derived from the watchful care of providence over the sacred Scriptures.
Now, to suppose that a book written by the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, and intended to form a part of the canon, which is the rule of
faith to the church, should be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely
not very honourable to the wisdom of God, and in no way consonant with
the ordinary method of his dispensations, in regard to his precious
truth. There is good reason to think that, if God saw it needful, and
for the edification of the church, that such books should be written
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by his providence he would
have taken care to preserve them from destruction. We do know that this
treasure of divine truth has been, in all ages, and in the worst times,
the special care of God, or not one of the sacred books would now be in
existence. And if one canonical book might be lost through the
negligence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And thus the end of
God, in making a revelation of his will, might have been defeated. But
whatever other corruptions have crept into the Jewish or Christian
churches, it does not appear that either of them, as a body, ever
incurred the censure of having been careless in preserving the oracles
of God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who perverted the sacred
Scriptures to their own ruin, with having lost any portion of the sacred
deposit intrusted to them. History informs us of the fierce and
malignant design of Antiochus Epiphanes, to abolish every vestige of the
sacred volume; but the same history assures us that the Jewish people
manifested a heroic fortitude and invincible patience in resisting and
defeating his impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice their
lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the
sacred volume in their possession. And the same spirit was manifested,
and with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the
Christians. Every effort was made to obliterate the sacred writings of
Christians; and multitudes suffered death for refusing to deliver up the
New Testament. Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel
persecution, did, in the hour of temptation, consent to surrender the
holy book; but they were ever afterward called traitors; and it was with
the utmost difficulty that any of them could be received again into the
communion of the church, after a long repentance, and the most humbling
confessions of their fault. Now, if any canonical book was ever lost, it
must have been in these early times, when the word of God was valued far
above life, and when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with
his blood.
2. Another argument which appears to me to be convincing is, that in a
little time, all the sacred books were dispersed over the whole world.
If a book had, by some accident or violence, been destroyed in one
region, the loss could soon have been repaired, by sending for copies to
other countries. The considerations just mentioned would, I presume, be
satisfactory to all candid minds, were it not that it is supposed that
there is evidence that some things were written by the Apostles which
are not now in the canon. We have already referred to an epistle to the
Corinthians, which St. Paul is supposed to have written to them,
previously to the writing of those which we now possess. But it is by no
means certain, or even probable, that St. Paul ever did write such an
epistle; for not one ancient writer makes the least mention of any such
letter, nor is there any where to be found any citation from it, or any
reference to it. It is a matter of testimony, in which all the fathers
concur, as with one voice, that St. Paul wrote no more than fourteen
epistles, all of which we now have. But still, St. Paul’s own
declaration stands in the way of our opinion: “I wrote to you in an
epistle,” 1 Cor. v, 9, 11. The words in the original are, Ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν
τῇ ἐπιϛολῇ; the literal version of which is, “I have written to you in
the epistle,” or “in this epistle;” that is, in the former part of it;
where, in fact, we find the very thing which he says that he had
written. See 1 Cor. v, 2, 5, 6. But it is thought by learned and
judicious commentators, that the words following, Νυνὶ δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν,
“But now I have written unto you,” require that we should understand the
former clause, as relating to some former time; but a careful attention
to the context will convince us that this reference is by no means
necessary. The Apostle had told them in the beginning of the chapter, to
avoid the company of fornicators, &c; but it is manifest, from the tenth
verse, that he apprehended that his meaning might be misunderstood, by
extending the prohibition too far, so as to decline all intercourse with
the world; therefore, he repeats what he had said, and informs them that
it had relation only to the professors of Christianity, who should be
guilty of such vices. The whole may be thus paraphrased: “I wrote to you
above in my letter, that you should separate from those who were
fornicators, and that you should purge them out as old leaven; but,
fearing lest you should misapprehend my meaning, by inferring that I
have directed you to avoid all intercourse with the Heathen around you,
who are addicted to these shameful vices, which would make it necessary
that you should go out of the world, I now inform you that my meaning
is, that you do not associate familiarly with any who make a profession
of Christianity, and yet continue in these evil practices.” In
confirmation of this interpretation, we can adduce the old Syriac
version, which, having been made soon after the days of the Apostles, is
good testimony in relation to this matter of fact. In this venerable
version, the meaning of the eleventh verse is thus given: “This is what
I have written unto you,” or, “the meaning of what I have written unto
you.”
The only other passage in the New Testament which has been thought to
refer to an epistle of St. Paul not now extant, is that in Colossians
iv, 16: “And when this epistle is read among you, cause also that it be
read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the
epistle from Laodicea.” But what evidence is there that St. Paul ever
wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans? The text on which this opinion has
been founded, in ancient and modern times, correctly interpreted, has no
such import. The words in the original are, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα
καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε, “and that ye likewise read the epistle from
Laodicea,” Col. iv, 16. These words have been differently taken; for, by
them some understand that an epistle had been written by St. Paul to the
Laodiceans, which he desired might be read in the church at Colosse.
Chrysostom seems to have understood them thus; and the Romish writers
almost universally have adopted this opinion. “Therefore,” says
Bellarmine, “it is certain that St. Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans is
now lost.” And their opinion is favoured by the Latin Vulgate, where we
read, _eamque Laodicensium_, “that which is of the Laodiceans;” but even
these words admit of another construction. Many learned Protestants,
also, have embraced the same interpretation; while others suppose that
St. Paul here refers to the epistle to the Ephesians, which they think
he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present inscription is spurious.
But that neither of these opinions is correct, may be rendered very
probable. That St. Paul could not intend, by the language used in the
passage under consideration, an epistle written by himself, will appear
by the following arguments: (1.) St. Paul could not, with any propriety
of speech, have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to the
Laodiceans, an epistle _from_ Laodicea. He certainly would have said,
ϖρὸς Λαοδικείαν, [to Laodicea,] or some such thing. Who ever heard of an
epistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an
epistle from them? (2.) If the epistle referred to in this passage had
been one written by St. Paul, it would have been most natural for him to
call it his epistle; and this would have rendered his meaning incapable
of misconstruction. (3.) All those best qualified to judge of the fact,
and who were well acquainted with St. Paul’s history and writings, never
mention any such epistle: neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac
interpreter, knew any thing of such an epistle of St. Paul. But it may
be asked, To what epistle, then, does St. Paul refer? It seems safest in
such a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense
of the words, and to believe that it was an epistle written by the
Laodiceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to the Colossians,
together with his own epistle, for their perusal.
CANTICLES, _the book of_, in Hebrew, שיר השירים, _the song of songs_.
The church, as well as the synagogue, received this book generally as
canonical. The royal author appears, in the typical spirit of his times,
to have designed to render a ceremonial appointment descriptive of a
spiritual relation; and this song is accordingly considered, by
judicious writers, to be a mystical allegory of that sort which induces
a more sublime sense on historical truths, and which, by the description
of human events, shadows out divine circumstances. The sacred writers
were, by God’s condescension, authorized to illustrate his strict and
intimate relation to the church by the figure of a marriage; and the
emblem must have been strikingly becoming and expressive to the
conceptions of the Jews, since they annexed ideas of peculiar mystery to
this appointment, and imagined the marriage union to be a counterpart
representation of some original pattern in heaven. Hence it was
performed among them with very peculiar ceremonies and solemnity, with
every thing that could give dignity and importance to its rites.
Solomon, therefore, in celebrating the circumstances of his marriage,
was naturally led, by a train of correspondent reflections, to consider
that spiritual connection which it was often employed to symbolize; and
the idea must have been the more forcibly suggested to him, as he was at
this period preparing to build a temple to God, and thereby to furnish a
visible representation of the Hebrew church. The spiritual allegory thus
worked up by Solomon to its highest perfection, was very consistent with
the prophetic style, which was accustomed to predict evangelical
blessings by such parabolical figures; and Solomon was more immediately
furnished with a pattern for this representation by the author of the
forty-fifth Psalm, who describes, in a compendious allegory, the same
future connection between Christ and his church.
2. But though the work be certainly an allegorical representation, many
learned men, in an unrestrained eagerness to explain the song, even in
its minutest and most obscure particulars, have too far indulged their
imaginations; and, by endeavouring too nicely to reconcile the literal
with the spiritual sense, have been led beyond the boundaries which a
reverence for the sacred Scriptures should ever prescribe. The ideas
which the sacred writers furnish concerning the mystical relation
between Christ and his church, though well accommodated to our
apprehensions by the allusion of a marriage union, are too general to
illustrate every particular contained in this poem, which may be
supposed to have been intentionally decorated with some ornaments
appropriate to the literal construction. When the general analogy is
obvious, we are not always to expect minute resemblance, and should not
be too curious in seeking for obscure and recondite allusions. Solomon,
in the glow of an inspired fancy, and unsuspicious of misconception or
deliberate perversion, describes God and his church, with their
respective attributes and graces, under colourings familiar and
agreeable to mankind, and exhibits their ardent affection under the
authorized figures of earthly love. No similitude, indeed, could be
chosen so elegant and apposite for the illustration of this intimate and
spiritual alliance, as a marriage union, if considered in the chaste
simplicity of its first institution, or under the interesting
circumstances with which it was established among the Jews.
3. This poem may be considered, as to its form, as a dramatic poem of
the pastoral kind. There is a succession of time, and a change of place,
to different parts of the palace and royal gardens. The persons
introduced as speakers, are the bridegroom and bride, and their
respective attendants. The interchange of dialogue is carried on in a
wild and digressive manner; but the speeches are adapted to the persons
with appropriate elegance. The companions of the bride compose a kind of
chorus, which seems to bear some resemblance to that afterward adopted
in the Grecian tragedy. Solomon and his queen assume the pastoral
simplicity of style, which is favourable to the communication of their
sentiments. The poem abounds throughout with beauties, and presents
every where a delightful and romantic display of nature, painted at its
most interesting season, and described with every ornament that an
inventive fancy could furnish. It is justly entitled Song of Songs, or
most excellent song, as being superior to any that an uninspired writer
could have produced, and tending, if properly understood, to purify the
mind, and to elevate the affections from earthly to heavenly things.
CAPERNAUM, a city celebrated in the Gospels, being the place where Jesus
usually resided during the time of his ministry. It stood on the sea
coast, that is, on the coast of the sea of Galilee, in the borders of
Zebulun and Naphtalim, Matt. iv, 15, and consequently toward the upper
part of it. As it was a convenient port from Galilee to any place on the
other side of the sea, this might be our Lord’s inducement to make it
the place of his most constant residence. Upon this account Capernaum
was highly honoured; and though “exalted unto heaven,” as its
inhabitants boasted, because it made no proper use of this signal favour
it drew from him the severe denunciation, that it should “be brought
down to hell,” Matt. xi, 23. This sentence of destruction has been fully
realized; the ancient city is reduced to a state of utter desolation.
Burckhardt supposes the ruins called Tal Houm, near the rivulet called
El Eshe, to be those of Capernaum. Mr. Buckingham, who gives this place
the name of Talhhewn, describes considerable and extensive ruins; the
only remains of those edifices which exalted Capernaum above its
fellows.
CAPPADOCIA, is called in Hebrew _Caphtor_. Cappadocia joined Galatia on
the east, and is mentioned in Acts ii, 9, and by St. Peter, who
addresses his First Epistle to the dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Asia. The people of this country were formerly
infamous for their vices; but after the promulgation of Christianity, it
produced many great and worthy men: among these may be reckoned Gregory
Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, and St. Basil, commonly styled the Great.
CAPTIVES. The treatment of persons taken in war among ancient nations
throws great light upon many passages of Scripture. The eastern
conqueror often stripped his unhappy captives naked, shaved their heads,
and made them travel in that condition, exposed to the burning heat of a
vertical sun by day, and the chilling cold of the night. Such barbarous
treatment was to modest women the height of cruelty and indignity;
especially to those who had been educated in softness and elegance, who
had figured in all the superfluities of ornamental dress, and whose
faces had hardly ever been exposed to the sight of man. The Prophet
Isaiah mentions this as the hardest part of the sufferings in which
female captives are involved: “The Lord will expose their nakedness.”
The daughter of Zion had indulged in all the softness of oriental
luxury; but the offended Jehovah should cause her unrelenting enemies to
drag her forth from her secret chambers into the view of an insolent
soldiery; strip her of her ornaments, in which she so greatly delighted;
take away her splendid and costly garments, discover her nakedness, and
compel her to travel in that miserable plight to a far distant country,
a helpless captive, the property of a cruel lord. Arrived in the land of
their captivity, captives were often purchased at a very low price. The
Prophet Joel complains of the contemptuous cheapness in which the people
of Israel were held by those who made them captives: “And they have cast
lots for my people; and have given a boy for a harlot, and sold a girl
for wine, that they might drink.” The custom of casting lots for the
captives taken in war appears to have prevailed both among the Jews and
the Greeks. The same allusion occurs in the prophecy of Obadiah:
“Strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into
his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem,” Obadiah 11. With respect to
the Greeks, we have an instance in Tryphiodorus:--
“Shared out by lot the female captives stand,
The spoils divided with an equal hand;
Each to his ship conveys his rightful share,
Price of their toil, and trophies of the war.”
2. By an inhuman custom which is still retained in the east, the eyes of
captives taken in war were not seldom put out, sometimes literally
scooped or dug out of their sockets. This dreadful calamity Samson had
to endure from the unrelenting vengeance of his enemies. In a posterior
age, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah and Benjamin, after being
compelled to behold the violent death of his sons and nobility, had his
eyes put out, and was carried in chains to Babylon. The barbarous custom
long survived the decline and fall of the Babylonian empire; for by the
testimony of Mr. Maurice, in his history of Hindostan, the captive
princes of that country were often treated in this manner by their more
fortunate rivals; a red hot iron was passed over their eyes, which
effectually deprived them of sight, and at the same time of their title
and ability to reign. To the wretched state of such prisoners, the
Prophet Isaiah alludes in a noble prediction, where he describes in very
glowing colours the character and work of the promised Messiah: “He hath
sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them
that are bruised,” as captives too frequently were by the weight of
their fetters.
3. It seems to have been the practice of eastern kings, to command their
captives taken in war, especially those that had, by the atrociousness
of their crimes, or the stoutness of their resistance, greatly provoked
their indignation, to lie down on the ground, and then put to death a
certain part of them, which they measured with a line, or determined by
lot. This custom was not, perhaps, commonly practised by the people of
God, in their wars with the nations around them; but one instance is
recorded in the life of David, who inflicted this punishment on the
Moabites: “And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting
them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to
death, and with one full line to keep alive: and so the Moabites became
David’s servants, and brought gifts,” 2 Sam. viii, 2. But the most
shocking punishment which the ingenious cruelty of a haughty and
unfeeling conqueror ever inflicted on the miserable captive, is
described by Virgil in the eighth book of the Æneid; and which even a
Roman, inured to blood, could not mention without horror:--
“_Quid memorem infandas cædes? quid facta tyranni_,” &c.
Line 483.
“What words can paint those execrable times,
The subjects’ sufferings, and the tyrant’s crimes!
That blood, those murders, O ye gods! replace
On his own head, and on his impious race:
The living and the dead at his command
Were coupled face to face, and hand to hand,
Till, choked with stench, in loathed embraces tied,
The lingering wretches pined away, and died.”
DRYDEN.
It is to this deplorable condition of a captive that the Apostle refers,
in that pathetic exclamation, “O wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?” Who shall rescue me, miserable
captive as I am, from this continual burden of sin which I carry about
with me; and which is cumbersome and odious, as a dead carcass bound to
a living body, to be dragged along with it where-ever it goes?
CAPTIVITY. God generally punished the sins and infidelities of the Jews
by different captivities or servitudes. The first captivity is that of
Egypt, from which they were delivered by Moses, and which should be
considered rather as a permission of providence, than as a punishment
for sin. Six captivities are reckoned during the government by judges:
the first, under Chushanrishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, which continued
about eight years; the second, under Eglon, king of Moab, from which the
Jews were delivered by Ehud; the third, under the Philistines, from
which they were rescued by Shamgar; the fourth, under Jabin, king of
Hazor, from which they were delivered by Deborah and Barak; the fifth,
under the Midianites, from which Gideon freed them; and the sixth, under
the Ammonites and Philistines, during the judicatures of Jephthah,
Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Eli, Samson, and Samuel. But the greatest and most
remarkable captivities were those of Israel and Judah, under their regal
government.