lofernes (that was the next year after) in the 13th year of Nabuchodonofer, which is the truth of the matter; whereas the other, following the blunder of the former contradiction, makes another, by placing it in the 18th year of his reign, and fo renders that part of the hiftory wholly inconfiftent with itself. And therefore certainly, in this particular, Jerome's verfion is to be preferred, which gives good reafon to think, that it ought to be fo in all the reft, wherever there is any dif ference between them.

is

But ftill, whether the book be a true or a feigned history, what learned men are not agreed in. The Romanifts will have it all to be true; for they have received it into the canon of divine writ. But, on the other hand, it is the opinion of a Grotius, that it is wholly a parabolical fiction, written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when he came into Judea to raise a perfecution against the Jewish church; and that the defign of it was, to confirm the Jews under that perfecution in their hopes that God would fend them a deliverance: That therein, by Judith is meant Judea; by Bethulia, the temple or houfe ' of God; and by the fword, which went out from thence, the prayers of the faints; that Nabuchodonofor doth there * denote the devil; and the kingdom of Affyria, the devil's kingdom, pride: that by Holofernes is there meant the in'ftrument or agent of the devil in that perfecution; Antiochus Epiphanes, who made himself master of Judea, that 'fair widow, fo called, becaufe deftitute of relief: that Eliakim fignifies God, who would arife in her defence, and at length cut off that inftrument of the devil who would have corrupted her.' This particular explication of the parable (as he will have it to be) is, I confefs, the peculiar fancy of this great man: But otherwife there are abundance of other learned writers among the Proteftants, who agree with him in the general, that this book is rather a parabolical than a real hiftory, made for the inftructing and comforting of the people of the Jews under that figure, and not to give them a narrative of any thing really done; and their reafon for it is, that they think it utterly inconfiftent with all times, where it hath been endeavoured to be placed, either before or after the captivity of the Jews. My putting it in the time of Manaffeh takes off all the objections which are brought to prove its inconfistency with the times after the captivity, which, I confefs, are unanswerable.

But where it here ftands, the objections from the other part ftill remain; and they are thefe following: It, That Joakim or Eliakim

C 4

In Præfatione ad Annotationes in Librum Judith.

Eliakiam (for they are acknowledged to be both the fame name) is faid in the hiftory of Judith to have been then high prieft; but there is none of that name to be found, either in the fcriptures or in Jofephus, that was high priest before the captivity. 2dly, Achior the Amonite, in his fpeech to Holofernes (ch. v. ver. 18), there fpeaks of the temple as having been lately call to the ground, which was not done till the laft year of the reign of Zedekiah; and therefore this cannot be confiftent with any time before it; and the 3d verfe of chapter iv. plainly puts it after the captivity; for there the text is, that the people of the Jews were newly returned from their captivity, when Holofernes invaded Judea. 3dly, The chief management of the public affairs of the ftate are in that book placed wholly in the high prieft, without any mention made of the king throughout the whole of it, or implying in the leaft, that there was then any fuch government in the land; which renders it wholly inconfiftent with any other times than thofe in which there was no king in Judah. 4thly, That, in the conclufion of the book, Judith is faid to have lived an hundred and five years; and that none made the children of Ifrael any more afraid in all her days, nor a long time after her death.. But fuppofing her to have been 45 years old when she went out to Holofernes (and in an older age fhe cannot well be fuppofed to have beauty enough to charm fuch a man), to make her an hundred and five years old, there must be 60 years more added to her life, which will carry down her death to the 4th year of Zedekiah, when the flate of the Jews had for feveral years been exceedingly disturbed by the Babylonians, and was, within a little while after, totally fubverted by them; which makes both her life and her death abfolutely inconfiftent with the times in which they are above placed.

To the firft of thefe objections may be anfwered, 1, That though there be no fuch perfon as Joakim, or Eliakim, named in feripture to have been high priest before the captivity, yet this is no argument but that there might have been fuch an one; for the fcripture no where profefleth to give us an exact catalogue of all fuch as had been high pricfts till the captivity. That which looks moft like it is what we have in the 6th chapter of the first book of Chronicles. But that is only a direct lineal defcent of the pontifical family from Aaron to Jozadack, the fon of Seraiah, who was high prieft at the captivity, and not a catalogue

For they are both of the fame fignification, El being the name of God in one, as Jehovah is the other, and the latter part of the name is the fame in both; and therefore, as Jehoiakim, er Joakim, king of Judah, is called alfo Eliakim, fo this high pricft is, in the verfion of Jerome, called promifcuously by both names.

catalogue of fuch as had borne the pontifical office; for feveral are in that pedigree who never were high priests, and several are left out that were. The high priests of the family of Eli are inftances of the latter; for they are left out of that pedigree, though they were high priests: and those of the true race, who were excluded by them, are inftances of the former; for they are in it, though they never were high priefts. And it is very likely, that, from the time of Solomon to the captivity, many more fuch inflances might have happened to binder that pedigree from being an exact catalogue of the high priests: for, on the minority, or fome other unqualifying defect of the right heir, the next collateral must have been admitted to the office, whofe name could not come into the pedigree; and, on the failing of an elder branch (as might have happened), the heir of the next collateral branch must have come into the office; and then the ancestors of the collateral fucceffor must be in the pedigree, though they never had been in the office, and those of the elder branch, though they had been in the office, could not be in the pedigree, because it had failed. For it is only the pedigree of Jozadack, the fon of Seraiah, who was high priest at the captivity, which is in a direct line from Aaron, that is given us in the 6th chapter of the first book of Chronicles: and it being the ufage of the Jews, in their pedigrees, to pass from a remote ancestor to a remote defcendant, by leaving out thofe who are between, of which abundance of inftances might be given in fcripture, it is poffible this alfo might have happened in this cafe. And thus much is certain, that four high priests named in fcripture are not in that pedigree, i. c. Jehoidah, and Zechariah his fon, who were high priefts in the reign of Joath; Azariah, who was high prieft in the reign of Uzziah; and Urijah, who was high priest in the reign of Abaz, kings of Judah. There are indeed two Azariahs named in that pedigree, befides the Azariah who was the father of Seraiah; but neither of thefe two could be the Azariah that was high priest in the time of Uzziah: for Amariah, the fon of the laft of the faid two Azariahs in that pedigree, was high priest in the time of Jehofaphat, five generations before. As to the pedigrees of the high priefts in Ezra and Nehemiah, they are but imperfect parts of that which we have in the 6th chapter of the ift book of Chronicles. As for the catalogue of Jofephus, it is fo corrupted, that fcarce five of the names in it agree with any thing that we have in fcripture. And therefore, putting all this together, Joakim or Eliakim might have been high priest in the time of Manaffch, though there be no mention of nit as fuch, by either of his names, either in the holy feriptures or

a

22. Chron. xix. 11.

in

in the history of Jofephus. But, 2dly, That this Joakim or Eliakim (for both, as hath been afore obferved, is the fame name) is not named in fcripture, is not certainly true: for there are some who will have Eliakim, the fon of Hilkiah, that is afore spoken of, to have been the perfon, and understand what is faid in If. xxii. 21. of the robe and the girdle, which he was to put on, as meant of the pontifical robe and girdle; and therefore infer from hence, that he was high priest and a St Jerome and St Cyril, among the ancients, both were of this opinion. And it must be faid, that what is there prophefied of him by Ifaiah, that God would commit the government of the ftate to his hands, in the room of Shebnah, who was chief minifter before him; and that he fhould be a father to the inhabitants of Jerufalem, and to the house of Judah; and that the key of the house of David should be laid upon his fhoulder, to open and to shut without controul, as he should think fit, doth very well agree with that part which Joakim is faid to have. acted in the book of Judith. But that he was the fame person is what I durft not from that, which is brought to prove it, lay much stress upon; neither is there any need of it for the fatisfying of this objection, what I have elfe faid being fufficient for it.

2dly, As to the objection from ch. iv. ver. 3. of Judith, and from the fpeech of Achior (ch. v. ver. 18.), the words on which they are founded are not in Jerome's verfion; and therefore it is most likely they were put into the Greek version (from whence the English is taken) from fome of thofe corrupted copies of the original which Jerome complains of: for in his verfion) which he made from the best corrected copies of the original Chaldee), ver. 3. of chapter iv. is wholly left out, as are alfo thofe words of ch. v. ver. 18. which speak of the temple's having been caft to the ground. And although there be words ftill remaining in Jerome's verfion, as well as in our English, which fpeak of the captivity and difperfion of the Jews, and their late refloration again to their own land; yet they are none other than what may be better understood of the Affyrian captivity, in the time of Manaffeh, than of the Babylonish, which happened afterwards. As to the third objection, it is poffible Manafleh might be then engaged in the defence of fome other part of his kingdom, and therefore had intrusted Joakim with the management of all affairs at Jerufalem during his abfence. And if he were the Eliakim mentioned in the 22d chapter of Haiah, and, as chief minister of ftate, was then inveiled with all that amplitude of truft and power as is there defcribed, that might be reafon enough for him only to be made

* In Efaiam xxii

mention

mention of in this tranfaction, without naming of his master at all therein.

But, lftly, To give a fatisfactory answer to the fourth objection, I mult confefs is not in my power. Could we put this history so far back, as the minority of Manaffeh, this would not only afford us an anfwer to this objection, but would also give us a much clearer one to the last preceding. For, then there would be reafon enough, not to mention the minor king, but only the chief minifter and guardian of the kingdom, in the tranfacting of the whole affair: and the death of Judith would, on this fuppofition, be at fuch a diftance from the deftruction of the Jewish ftate, as not to make this objection unanfwerable. But the wickedness of the pupil will not allow him to have been bred under fo good a man for his governor, as Eliakim is defcribed to be. And what is faid in the 18th and 19th verfes of the fifth chapter of Judith, concerning the captivity and reftoration of the Jews, and is retained alfo in Jerome's verfion, muft neceffarily refer the matters therein. related, to those times which followed the captivity of Manaffeh, and the reftoration of him and his people again to their own land. And the chronology of this hiftory will not peranit the beginning of it to fall any where elfe, but in the 12th year of Saofduchimus, and the laft of Deioces; and thefe two characters of the time exactly concurring, according to Herodotus and Ptolemy, do unavoidably determine us to fix it here. However, our not being able to clear this difficulty, is not a fufficient reason for us to reject the whole history. There is fcarce any history written, but what, to the next age after, may appear, as to time, place, and other circumstances, with thofe feeming inconfiftencies, as cannot then be easily reconciled, when the memory of men begin to fail concerning them. And how much more then, may we be apt to blunder, when we take our view at the distance of above two thousand years, and have no other light to difcern the so far diftant object by, than fuch glimmerings from broken fcraps of hiftory, as leave us next door to groping in the dark for whatsoever knowledge we get by them? That which feemeth most probable in this cafe is, that the writer of this book, the more to magnify his heroine, attributed too long a continuance to that peace, which was by her obtained for the land: a far, according to this

account,

For, allowing her to have been 45 years old at the time of her. killing Hooferi es, there must be 60 years after to the time of her death, and a long time after" in the text (Judith xvi. 25.) cannot imply lefs than 20 years more. But if we fuppofe her to be but 25 at the kilang of Holofernes (which is more likely) it will carry down the computation even beyond the deftruction of Jerufalem, which makes the objection much stronger.