1. THE words of king Lemuel; the oracle which his mother taught him.

2. What, my son? and what, O son of my womb? And what, O son of my vows?

3. Give not thy strength unto women, Nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

4. It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; Nor for princes to say, Where is strong drink?

5. Lest they drink, and forget the law, And pervert the judgment of any that is afflicted.

6. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, And wine unto the bitter in soul:

7. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, And remember his misery no more.

8. Open thy mouth for the dumb, In the cause of all such as are left desolate.

9. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, And minister judgment to the poor and needy.

10. A virtuous woman who can find? For her price is far above rubies.

11. The heart of her husband trusteth in her, And he shall have no lack of gain.

12. She doeth him good and not evil All the days of her life.

13. She seeketh wool and flax, And worketh willingly with her hands.

14. She is like the merchant-ships; She bringeth her food from afar.

15. She riseth also while it is yet night, And giveth meat to her household, And their task to her maidens.

THIS chapter, as well as the preceding, is unique and unlike the first twenty-nine of this book. It comes not from Solomon, but from a certain king Lemuel and his mother, of whom nothing further is certainly known. It is in two parts, vs. 1-9 being a wise mother’s coun-

16. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: With the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17. She girdeth her loins with strength, And maketh strong her arms.

18. She perceiveth that her merchandise is profitable: Her lamp goeth not out by night.

19. She layeth her hands to the distaff, And her hands hold the spindle.

20. She spreadeth out her hand to the poor; Yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21. She is not afraid of the snow for her household; For all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22. She maketh for herself carpets of tapestry; Her clothing is fine linen and purple.

23. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24. She maketh linen garments and selleth them; And delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25. Strength and dignity are her clothing; And she laugheth at the time to come.

26. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; And the law of kindness is on her tongue.

27. She looketh well to the ways of her household, And eateth not the bread of idleness.

28. Her children rise up, and call her blessed; Her husband also, and he praiseth her, saying:

29. Many daughters have done worthily, But thou excellest them all.

30. Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain: But a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

31. Give her of the fruit of her hands; And let her works praise her in the gates.

sels to her son with reference to his responsibilities and duties as king; while vs. 10-31 recite the qualities and praises of a virtuous woman. The same mother’s hand may be supposed to have originated both parts of this interesting chapter. This latter portion of twenty-two verses is an acrostic on the Hebrew alphabet, each successive verse commencing with the successive letters of this alphabet—a method due, we may suppose, jointly to the current literary taste and to its actual value as an aid to the memory. H. C.

1-9. These nine verses contain the instructions of Lemuel’s mother: Caution against incontinence and drunkenness; and admonitions in respect to doing justice and vindicating the oppressed. These precepts are brief but very expressive. The cautions are directed against those vices into which kings are most apt to fall. Wine, women and oppression, in order to collect much money from the people, are things about which kings usually need very impressive instruction. The excellent mother has here given salutary advice, with great kindness and much earnestness. M. S.—How admirably does she assume that her son is raised to the throne, not to reach higher facilities for self-indulgence, but to bear worthily a higher class of responsibilities; to rule under God for the protection and vindication of human rights, especially the rights of the weak and afflicted!

2. These questions and repetitions must be understood as the natural expression of strong maternal affection. What shall I say to thee, O my beloved son? How can I express all the interest I feel in thy future course of life, in the virtue and the wisdom with which thou shalt meet the responsibilities and withstand the temptations incident to a youthful prince ascending his throne. “The son of my vows” finds a pertinent illustration in the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. 1: 11). H. C.

4. “Not for kings, O Lemuel, not for kings, to drink wine; lest they drink and forget the law, and change the judgment of the poor.” Here is certainly “total abstinence,” at least for kings. The precept shows its urgency in its repetitions: “Not for kings, not for kings,” not at all for them. And why? Can any one suppose that the spirit of this impassioned precept is confined to a few monarchs in Palestine and its surroundings? Is there nothing here for our Congressmen, Senators, Judges, Governors, and Presidents? The ethical meaning is plain: Not for kings, not for rulers of any kind, not for men in authority. Carry it out, and it fairly includes all men in stations, or in positions of responsibility—all whose acts and duties may be connected with the welfare of their fellow-men. Not for such, not for such, to drink wine. And why? Lest they forget law—forget duty. The precept must be as universal as the reason. The passage has a direct precept, and subjoined to it are incidental illustrations intended for its enforcement. Not for kings, not for rulers—no! not for them. If it must be used at all, give it to the “perishing,” the “bitter in soul.” The nature of the exceptions prove the totality and strength of the rule as applied to all responsible persons in health. Not for such, but for those in mortal anguish, the dying, the perishing—for persons in the extremity of pain. Give it as physicians give brandy or any other temporary stimulant, in extremis, to stay the dying strength till some other support can be applied; or as, before the discovery of chloroform, the surgeon might use alcohol, judiciously or injudiciously, to give a brief strength, or a short season of partial forgetfulness, or to allay in some measure the deadly fear. T. Lewis.

8,9. In contrast with the two besetting sins of Eastern monarchs stands what was looked on as and actually was their one great duty, to give help to those who had no other helper, to redress the wrongs of those who were too crushed to complain of them, to interpose between the oppressor and his victims. E. H. P.—Let the king deem it his first glory that God has given him a mouth to plead effectually for those who are dumb as to pleading for themselves; literally [in Hebrew], all the sons of bereavement—i.e., the orphans who have no father and no mother to plead in their behalf. So in the next verse, “the poor and the needy” comprise all those classes who are defenceless against oppression, and for whom therefore the great Father provides the protection of civil law and the power of righteous rulers. H. C.

10-31. This description of a true, good woman, is an alphabetical poem, consisting of twenty-two verses, each verse commencing with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and proceeding in a consecutive order throughout. The picture here presented indicates that the position of woman in the Hebrew community during the period referred to was one of special honor, trust, and efficiency. This detail of her daily life shows not only the elevating tendency of the Mosaic social system, but it is replete with interesting instruction concerning domestic customs and household economy. The family referred to here is large, wealthy, and eminent; and this wife, mother, and mistress, by her wise, energetic industry and activity, mainly ensures its prosperity and happiness. It presents a beautiful picture of the true elements of womanly excellence; what the true woman is in her home, to her husband, and children, and household, and to the poor; her high, pure aim, her industry, her helpful counsel and sympathy, her care for the outward needs and the heart training of all dependent upon her. And its inspired record, as well as its peculiar alphabetical structure, shows that it was designed for special study by all whom it concerned, from ancient to modern times. B.

An admirable portrait of a model woman. Of course the picture is laid amid the scenes of Oriental life, and adapts itself to the usages of those times. Yet everywhere we have the qualities of industry, diligence, devotion to the duties of her sphere, love and esteem for her husband, care of her family, and, to crown the whole, the spirit of kindness toward all and of true piety toward God. “Virtuous” is here in a somewhat broader sense than simply moral purity, connubial chastity. It is rather the old Roman sense of virtus—energy, capability—describing the woman who fills every sphere of her duty capably and nobly. H. C.—No literature of any age offers a finer ideal of the wife and mother than this Hebrew poem written not less than 2500 years ago, when the history of Greece was still the era of fable, and Rome was little more than a rude fort on the top of the Palatine Hill. For hundreds of years before Mary’s day it had been on the lips of every Jewish maiden, for the words of the sacred books were familiar to the whole Jewish race, as no part of any other literature, so far as we know, has ever been to any people. The picture of loving fidelity, ceaseless industry, prudence, management, charity, thrift, wisdom, self-respect; of noble reverence, rising from the husband on earth to God above, and of motherly virtues toward her children, must have kindled high aspirations in many a Jewish wife. Geikie.

10-12. What the virtuous woman is to her husband. To him her worth is beyond any known standard of valuable things, because his heart can perfectly trust in her truth and helpfulness; because his interests are supreme in her thoughts and efforts. No evil or harm that she can prevent or repel will disturb his peace. He needs no spoil of warfare, because she co-operates with him in his appropriate ways of toil. B.

12. She makes it her constant business to do him good, and is afraid of doing anything, even through inadvertency, that may turn to his prejudice. She does him good, not only all the days of his life, but of her own too; if she survive him, still she is doing him good in her care of his children, his estate, and good name, and all the concerns he left behind him. We read of kindness showed not only to the living, but to the dead (Ruth 2:20). H.

13-20. The methods and results of her willing industry. Willingly, gladly she labors in seeking and preparing materials for the clothing of the household and the furnishing of the house. Such was the custom among all the more cultured ancient nations. Useful occupation, in administering the affairs of the home, in personal toil and supervision of the wardrobe of the family, was the fitting sphere of woman in high or lowly station.

14. Nor was her active industry limited to the supply of the household needs. The products of domestic toil were so abundant that large profits were received from their sale or exchange for other valuable commodities. Hence she is likened to the merchants’ ships that bring back the products of far lands in return for home exports.

15. Early rising is referred to as one of the means by which so much is accomplished by her energetic household. Before the dawn she attends to the morning meal, and allots the toil of the day to each of her maidens.

16. Her supervision reaches also to the field and vineyard, from which, too, she derives profit, after she has purchased and planted them with the proceeds of her domestic manufacture.

17. The loose flowing garments of the East require to be gathered close about the body and fastened with the girdle before undertaking any active employment. “The use of the girdle is universal, under the impression that it greatly contributes to the strength of the loins.”

18. So wisely planning and assiduously toiling within, in the house, and without, in the field, she is careful to produce that which will meet with ready sale and give satisfaction. And for protection by night, as well as for the completion of necessary tasks, the lamp burns brightly during the hours of darkness. It is added (v. 19) that she counts it no disparagement to her self-respect or her high position to lead her maidens in their toil.

20. Yet, with all the objects of absorbing interest, and amid all her planning, supervision, and toil, she finds time and heart to help the poor and needy on every side. These she seeks out and abundantly supplies.

21-24. Her special care of her own family. She anticipates the season of cold by providing fitting garments. For their couches and beds she weaves coverings of tapestry, and for them robes of silk and purple. And so, in part by his cleanly and elegant costume, the husband of such a wife is distinguished as he sits with the leading men gathered in the gates to talk over the affairs of the day. V. 24 seems to intimate that her merchandise is, after all, a secondary matter. Only the surplus of products, after her family and her poor are abundantly supplied, is disposed of to the merchants.

25-27. An admirable summary of her beautiful character. A high, pure aim pursued with vigor and steadfastness marks her inward spirit and life. And this “strength and honor” in which her soul is clad is the ground of her tranquil content concerning the future. “If honor be your clothing,” aptly says Arnot, “the suit will last a lifetime; but if clothing be your honor, it will soon be worn threadbare.” From the high, pure aim, and the contented, trustful spirit naturally come words of helpful wisdom and kindness. All her discourse is characterized by prudence and patience, by excellent counsel and active sympathy. Always thoughtful, gentle, and mindful of responsibility, never censorious, harsh, or irritable, her presence and her words minister guidance and strength, comfort and peace of mind. And it is further expressly stated that she gives careful heed to the moral training of her household, taking care that all its members are taught the principles and led in the practices of virtue or godliness. With a profound significance it is added that she attends habitually to this moral and religious supervision of her household without intermitting her active toil in supplying their personal and family needs.

28,29. The just estimate of such a mother and wife by her children and husband. Those whom she has borne, nurtured, wisely restrained, and taught in the fear and love of God acknowledge her care with loving appreciation and return while she lives, and gratefully honor and bless her memory by seeking to reproduce her beautiful character and life. And her husband, to whom she has been a light and stay by her loyal love and helpful counsel, who has been indebted to her industry and careful management in great part for his own high position in the community, expresses his estimate in the simple but comprehensive eulogy: Many women have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30,31. The true elements of womanly excellence, that alone are worthy of praise. Note the contrast here. It is between personal “grace” and “beauty” on the one hand, and piety or the “fear of God” on the other. The former, loveliness of person, with all that it has of attraction, may cover a false heart; it is evanescent and unsatisfying, while true piety is an inward and higher beauty; its works are enduring and its fruits satisfying. Therefore let her piety be extolled in its works as wrought through Divine grace, and let her rejoice in its fruits as the rewarding gifts of the same Infinite grace! B.

30. Talk as we may of beauty as a thing to be chiselled from marble or wrought out on canvas; speculate as we may upon its colors and outlines, what is it but an intellectual abstraction after all? The heart feels a beauty of another kind; looking through the outward environment, it discovers a deeper and more real loveliness. “I have seen,” said Charles Lamb, “faces upon which the dove of peace sat brooding.” In that simple and beautiful record of a holy life, the “Journal of John Woolman,” there is a passage of which I have been more than once reminded in my intercourse with my fellow-beings: “Some glances of real beauty may be seen in their faces who dwell in true meekness. There is a Divine harmony in the sound of that voice to which Divine love gives utterance.” Quite the ugliest face I ever saw was that of a woman whom the world calls beautiful. Through its “silver veil” the evil and ungentle passions looked out hideous and hateful. On the other hand, there are faces which the multitude at the first glance pronounce homely, unattractive, and such as “Nature fashions by the gross,” which I always recognize with a warm heart thrill; not for the world would I have one feature changed; they please me as they are; they are hallowed by kind memories; they are beautiful through their associations. J. G. Whittier.—Some faces, plainest by the rules of classic symmetry, are noble with moral dignity and radiant with spiritual light. The faces we love to look at, over and over again, must be the really beautiful faces. Said Chrysostom, speaking of Bishop Flavian, “The countenance of holy men is full of spiritual power.” This kind of beauty, the only real kind, is producible. The soul, such as it is, will shine through. But the completeness of that transformed expression will be seen only where the long patience of self-control, and the holiest sincerity of love, and the slow triumph of unselfish principle, have wrought their interior work, moulding the inner man into a nobleness that the outward shape may honestly image. F. D. H.

That feareth the Lord. The last lesson of the book is the same as the first. The fear of the Lord is the condition of all womanly, as well as manly excellence. E. H. P.—That which completes and crowns her character is that she fears the Lord, is guided and governed by conscience and a regard to God; this is that which is here preferred far before beauty, that is vain and deceitful. The fear of God reigning in the heart is the beauty of the soul; it recommends those that have it to the favor of God, and is in His sight of great price; it will last forever, and bid defiance to death itself, which consumes the beauty of the body, but consummates the beauty of the soul. H.

31. Let all her works praise her in the great assembly of the people. The moral bearing of such an example, so beautifully commended, must have been eminently wholesome in those ancient times. It is scarcely less so in our age, although the modes of domestic life and labor have so greatly changed. The same qualities of massive goodness; the same capabilities for filling perfectly her domestic sphere; the same words of wisdom in her mouth and the same law of kindness on her tongue are never out of order—must be in every age the cardinal elements of woman’s power and of woman’s worth. The verdict of the good through all ages goes unanimously to the praise of such mothers of mankind. H. C.

Woman’s mission is to be the light and joy of the household, to nourish and train the immortal children within its precincts, to be the priestess in the sanctuary of home, to be the comfort and support of man in seasons of sorrow and of suffering, to move in the realm of ignorance and want, to shine, to cheer, and to bless in all the varied ministrations of sympathy and love, from the cradle to the grave. What purer, nobler, holier realm can she desire? “The true nobility of woman is to keep her own sphere, and to adorn it.” E. C. Wines.

The Christian wife and mother is a Christian in the spirit by which she orders her household and nurtures her offspring. Too many mothers make their first request for their sons that of the mother of Zebedee’s children—that they may sit on thrones of wealth and power. What wonder if those sons are worldlings, are hypocrites, are criminals? Too many train up their daughters with no loftier aim than to be beautiful brides, or to value a husband by his income, or not to be over-nice in their judgment of men because they are not expected to be virtuous, like women. Infamous effrontery toward God! And thus are reared, generation by generation, those successive ranks of artificial and perverted things called “women of the world.” Not such is the mother that has sat, with the sisters of Bethany, at the feet of Jesus; that has entered into devout communion with the Redeemer in His Church; that has made her quiet dwelling fragrant with the odors of the prayers of saints. She stands in her household, the priestess of an immortal faith, the reconciler of human love with the Divine; she moves among sons and daughters, folding the hands of infancy in prayer, joining the hands of all in fellowship, opening them in charity, and pointing with her own to heaven. Christianity exhibits no more perfect achievement than in the completed character of a spiritual womanhood; for, passing on one stage later yet, we find the united result of a life’s discipline and a heavenly faith in the Christian woman’s old age. Providence has not withheld that confirmation of the power and beauty of religion from our eyes. We feel new confidence in truth, new love for goodness, new zeal for duty, new trust in God, new gratitude to Christ, when we look on her ripened holiness; and, as her strength faints before the power of decay, behold the crown of immortality descending almost visibly upon her head! The recollection of her former activities blends with the hallowed hope of her renewed energies in the immaterial body, with which she shall be clothed upon from heaven. And she shall rejoice, with what exceeding joy, when heart and tongue fail, at the right hand of God! F. D. H.

No one of the canonical books of the Bible has been interpreted more variously than this. No one has seemed to tax the skill of the best critics more severely. Yet all critics agree that the book is truly a part of the Jewish sacred Scriptures, received into their canon by the same authority as other books and indorsed by Christ and His apostles with their Divine sanction. There can therefore be not the least doubt that the book, legitimately interpreted, is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). H. C.

The Book of Ecclesiastes has, in common with the other Old Testament books, a claim to the place which it holds as one of the inspired writings. The author does not, indeed, assert himself to be inspired; but neither do many other writers in the Old Testament assert this of themselves. There the book is, in the midst of the Hebrew Scriptures; and there it has been, at least ever since the period when the Hebrew canon was closed. There at all events it was, when our Saviour and the apostles declared the Jewish Scriptures to be of Divine origin. Enough for us that the Jews of our Saviour’s time held fast to this book, and that this usage was sanctioned by Christ and His apostles. M. S.

The Book of Ecclesiastes records the experiments, observations, and reflections of the wise king of Israel in relation to that which constitutes the true happiness and real welfare of man. Like the books of Proverbs and of Job, it deals with the questions of human life from the standpoint of “wisdom,” showing that not merely as a matter of duty and obligation, but from a regard to his own highest interest, man should obey the law of God. These three books form a complete cycle in the treatment of this common theme. Proverbs exhibits the harmony between man’s duty and his true interest, as a general fact, in the common experience of men. In brief, sententious maxims, embodying the results of observation and commanding universal assent, it sets forth the fact that right-doing has its reward and evil-doing its penalty. This is the ordinary rule in the actual working of human affairs. Like all other general rules, however, this has at least its apparent exceptions, and these are of too serious a nature, and enter too prominently into human experience, to be overlooked or to be dismissed without careful consideration. There is the case of piety without outward prosperity, and there is the case of outward prosperity without piety. The two remaining books of the series deal with these seeming exceptions, with the view of establishing the absolute universality of the rule. The Book of Job discusses the case of a man of eminent piety, who, from no fault of his own, but at the suggestion of the Evil One, was plunged into unexampled distress; and it is shown that, notwithstanding all the darkness and mystery which clouded the dispensations, God’s design in it all was a gracious one, and the final issue was the elevation of Job’s piety and the increase of his prosperity. Ecclesiastes is occupied with the opposite case, of a king without equal in wisdom and prosperity, who gave himself of set purpose to extract satisfaction from purely worldly sources; but who, after the baffling experiments of a lifetime, reached the conclusion that to fear God and keep His commandments was the whole concern of man, and the only spring of his true happiness and welfare. W. H. G.

It is that which it professes to be—the confession of a man of wide experience looking back upon his past life and looking out upon the disorders and calamities which surround him. The writer is a man who has sinned in giving way to selfishness and sensuality, who has paid the penalty of that sin in satiety and weariness of life, but who has through all this been under the discipline of a Divine education, and has learned from it the lesson which God meant to teach him. It is tolerably clear that the recurring burden of “Vanity of vanities” and the teaching which recommends a life of calm enjoyment, mark, whenever they occur, a kind of halting-place in the succession of thoughts. The writer concludes by pointing out that the secret of a true life is that a man should consecrate the vigor of his youth to God. P. S.

There blows throughout this book a piercing chill against every earthly aim and every vain endeavor—a contempt of everything which, in the usual proceedings of men, is one-sided and perverse; an indefatigable penetration in the discovery of all human vanities and fooleries. In no earlier writing has all cause of pride and vain imagination so decidedly and comprehensively been taken from man; and no book is pervaded by such an outcry of noble indignation against all that is vain in the world. Ewald. —I do not know any book in the Old Testament which describes more fully, more convincingly, or more concisely the whole sum of human life, with all its changes and vanities, its occupations and plans, its speculations and pleasures, and at the same time that which alone is real, lasting, progressive, and rewarding. Herder.

It teaches the thinking mind how it must handle the problem of its existence. Coheleth represents the attitude of a soul pondering the emptiness of all human effort, unable to solve the perplexities of its own experience, yet gravitating with all the energy of right moral feeling toward the only solid result attainable by man. All is vanity except religion—this is the “conclusion of the whole matter.” The Preacher casts penetrating glances over the phenomena of life, and gives free expression to the dark surmises which unfettered thought often suggests. But these doubts have their antidote—they are corrected; not, indeed, by direct refutation (have they ever been thus corrected?), but by holding up the great practical truth on which the soul can always rest. Like the Book of Job, Ecclesiastes exhibits the struggles of a mind perplexed by certain aspects of human life; in the story and result of these struggles lies the lesson it would teach. Travelling the pathway of speculation, the Preacher shows the doubter where lies the true goal. In a serious but sceptical generation it becomes no light thing that inspiration has respected the profound questions of the soul, and dared to seek amid the boldest doubts a solid basis for human action. This fact of itself is a gospel to every perplexed and wavering mind. What earnest thinker, groping after the goal of faith, may not be cheered by the experience of Coheleth? American Theological Review, 1859.

The author was evidently a man of profound faith in God, of large and varied personal experience, of acute observation of men and things, and of deep sensibility. Probably he was first moved to write by a mind painfully full of the disappointing nature of all things viewed apart from God. Next to this we shall not err in ascribing to him a deep sympathy with fellow-men touched by the same natural feelings as himself, and suffering like him, though each in their several ways. And thirdly, there is on his part an evident desire to lead other men, and specially young men, out of the temptations which he had felt, and out of the perplexities which once entangled and staggered him. Whether his heart was chilled by old age or by the cold shadow of some former eclipse of faith can only be conjectured; but there is in Ecclesiastes an absence of that fervor of zeal for the glory of God which glows in other books, and which we are justified in regarding as a feature of Solomon’s character in his early days. His immediate object would seem then to be to relieve his mind by pouring out the results of his own life, to comfort those who bore the same burden of humanity, and to lift up those who were naturally feeble or depressed by circumstances and to lead them in the way of God’s commandments. W. T. B.

In respect to God there is no part of the Old Testament which inculcates more thoroughly the fear of Him, reverence for Him, His supremacy, and His sovereign right to order all things and direct all concerns. In what part of the Old Testament is there more spirituality as to worshipping him inculcated, or the fear of offending more emphatically enjoined? See 4:17-5:6, and many other passages—as 7:13, 14; 8:12, 13, 17, etc. There is, indeed, in the Psalms more of adoration and praise, and thanksgiving, and confession, and supplication; and all this for the obvious reason that the Psalms are composed for this very purpose, and of course are made up of such matter. But even in the Psalms, numerous as they are, there are not so many passages concerning future retribution as in this book; nor is the character of God set forth, and His claims vindicated with a stronger hand. M. S.

The Book of Ecclesiastes is called in Hebrew “Coheleth,” a word which signifies one who speaks in public, and which indeed is properly translated by the Greek word Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher. It is unquestionably the production of Solomon, who, for the great excellency of his instructions, is emphatically styled “the Preacher;” for the writer of it styles himself “the son of David, king of Jerusalem” (1:1); he describes, too, his wisdom, his riches, his writings, and his works, in a manner which is applicable only to Solomon; and by all tradition, Jewish and Christian, the book is attributed to him. Gray.

Although the name of Solomon is not prefixed to this book, as it is to the Proverbs and the Song of Songs, yet the description of the author (1:1, 12) applies so definitely to him and to no other, that it answers the same purpose as if he were named. Accordingly this book is placed, in the most ancient Jewish and Christian lists, between the other two books attributed to him, and the constant tradition of the Jewish and Christian churches has handed down Solomon without question as the author. W. T. B.

Renan declares his belief that Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs “are productions of the period of Solomon.” Dean Milman writes that he is “well aware that the general voice of German criticism assigns a later date” (than that of Solomon) “to Ecclesiastes. But,” he adds, “I am not convinced by any arguments from internal evidence which I have read.” E. H. P.

I accept the testimony of the book as to its author, and hold that it was written by Solomon. His name is not given, but he is described so fully and precisely as to preclude all doubt. The author was a “son of David and king in Jerusalem” (v. 1); was “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (1:12). Solomon is the only man in whom these conditions meet. The eminent critics who deny that Solomon was the author admit that the voice of the early Jewish and Christian fathers down to the sixteenth century is unanimous for Solomon. This testimony of the Jewish writers, running back nearly or quite to the age of the compilers of the canon, should have great weight. The opening statement of the book is one of the usual forms in which the Hebrew writers introduce themselves to their readers and claim authorship. “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” So we have “The words of Jeremiah” (Jer. 1:1); “The words of Amos” (Amos 1:1). Hence there can be no doubt that the writer intended to represent himself to be Solomon. The reference to his pre-eminent wisdom and to his “setting in order many proverbs” (12:9) bears toward the same result. Throughout the entire range of Jewish history Solomon stands forth pre-eminent for wisdom and the only Jewish author known to the world as “setting in order many proverbs.” Moreover, the account which the author gives of the salient points of his life (2:4-10) identifies him as really being Solomon. All these points concur to show that the writer claimed to be Solomon, and therefore prove either that he was Solomon and said these things in honest truth of himself, or was an impostor. The fact that Solomon styles himself “the Preacher” (Hebrew, “Coheleth”) bears not at all against his being the author. The best criticism sustains this sense of the Hebrew word, given even by the translator of the Septuagint, who translates “Ecclesiastes”—one who addresses a public assembly—a preacher. By the use of this term he meant to indicate that in this book he appears, not in his usual and well-known character of a king on his throne; not as a monarch on the tribunal of justice, but simply a preacher of moral truth. He comes forth with a moral purpose, to exhort his fellow-men to desist from seeking their supreme good in sensual enjoyment. He comes to reason with them of “righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come.” He lays off for the time his robes of royalty, and is simply a preacher. The term therefore is eminently appropriate for Solomon’s use to designate his purpose and character in this book. H. C.

Professor M. Stuart’s Arguments and Admissions.

He says that “the preterite tense in chap. 1:12 (I was king) refers, of course, to a past tense, and conveys the idea that when the passage was written he was no longer king.” But he admits (3:5; 6:10; 7:10) that the same verb in the preter means “what was and still is.” Y.—Besides, if there was some force instead of none at all in this criticism of his, what should forbid the sense—I was king when I made the experiments in pleasure-seeking to which I now call your attention? Just now I am rather the Preacher than the king. Again, he says, “How strange that Solomon should tell his readers that he was king in Jerusalem!” a fact that everybody would know. But this objection disappears when you admit the fact that Solomon wrote, or at least may have written, not for his Hebrew subjects only or even chiefly, but for people in outlying countries and onward in coming ages—a fact of which the book affords very strong if not conclusive proof. When Solomon says (1:16), “I acquired more wisdom than all who were in Jerusalem before me,” Professor Stuart assumes that he must compare himself with kings only, of whom there was but one—David. But what forbids that he should compare himself with all men? And how much is the matter helped on his own hypothesis, which is that some unknown writer in the age of Ezra or Malachi put these words in the mouth of Solomon? H. C.—In chap. 5:1 he says there is something incongruous with the “condition and circumstances of him who had built the temple or made magnificent preparations for offerings.” But on page 18 he says, “The manner in which he (Coheleth) speaks of frequenting religious worship (referring to the same text) shows that he speaks of it in a way which would be familiar to those who frequented the temple-service.” This contradiction puts the argument at rest. Y.—To this objection it is further pertinent to reply that precisely such a development of splendor and attractiveness in the externals of the temple-worship would draw together thousands of heartless men, who would need the very caution which Solomon here gives them. H. C.

Professor Stuart further argues that there are later Hebrew words which show that the book was written after the age of Solomon. But afterward he makes the following admissions: “If one will now call to mind how often abstracts are required in a treatise of philosophy like the present, he will think it nothing strange, and no special proof of later Hebrew, that such nouns are frequent in Coheleth.” He then adduces eight such abstracts as the only ones that are not found elsewhere, and adds: “The easy and obvious formation of these for the writer’s purpose renders it difficult for us to establish anything from them in regard to the age of such forms. The use of them depended obviously and merely on the need of them; for the form is altogether normal and analogous.” Again he says: “We have, after having examined Knobel’s list of the later Hebrew words, only a few remaining. Taking the amount of what is left, we find only some ten or eleven cases which may fairly be brought within the confines of later Hebrew. And some doubt must even hang over these.” With these admissions it seems strange that his arguments should satisfy any mind that Solomon did not compose the Book of Ecclesiastes, or that they should even raise a doubt in the mind of those who read the first verse: “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” Y.

In regard to this question of authorship, it has seemed to me both legitimate and right that my mind should be influenced very considerably in the outset by these considerations—viz., that the book is found in the sacred canon; that it must therefore have been accepted by the original compilers of the canon as in some vital sense inspired; and that they must have known whether the author was in fact Solomon or some nameless writer who set up a claim to be Solomon, but who really lived in their own age and under their own eye. Now I find the utmost difficulty in bringing my mind to believe that Ezra and his associates, or, as some suppose, his successors, placed this book in the sacred Hebrew canon, knowing that it was not written by Solomon in any sense or in any part, but was really written in their own times by some man who tried to personate Solomon. Of all men, he who is inspired of God should be expected to deal honestly and to speak truthfully. It outrages our convictions of God’s eternal veracity and honesty to suppose that He directly inspired some servant of His in the age of Ezra or of Malachi to personate Solomon and claim to be, or to have been, a “son of David” and “king over Israel in Jerusalem.” Nor does it relieve the difficulty to suppose that this nameless writer himself first conceived this notion of passing himself off for Solomon and built his book upon it, and that then the Lord accepted the book as “profitable for doctrine, reproof,” etc., and consequently directed His inspired servants to give it a place in the sacred canon. H. C.—Indeed, this book transcends the power of personation and fictitious conjecture. Its whole tone harmonizes too perfectly with what must have been Solomon’s experience and reflection toward the end of his reign, to be the production of any one but himself. D. F.

The Style or Dialect of Ecclesiastes is quite peculiar. There is no extant Hebrew which very closely resembles it. The writers after the exile present more of its peculiarities than any other books extant; yet even their dialect is quite unlike this. The resemblances, such as they are, have been the staple argument with many learned critics in their attempt to prove that Solomon could not have written this book, and that some unknown author, living between Ezra and the Maccabees, i.e., from fifty to three hundred years after the restoration from Babylon, must have produced it. I have no controversy with the critics here referred to in regard to the fact of a diversity of style between this book and the Book of Proverbs, for example, or the Psalms of David. But I account for this diversity upon an entirely different hypothesis. They say it belongs to a later age. I maintain that it belongs not to a later age, but to another people. The latter years of Solomon’s life brought him into the closest relationship with foreigners, people of outlying lands—Tyre, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Arabia. They constituted his family, his court, and hence his most intimate associates at home; they were in closest correspondence with him abroad. Add to this his knowledge of adjacent dialects gained by foreign travel; for Solomon “went” to Hamath-zobah; “went” to Ezion-geber; and probably located and built Tadmor after personal inspection. (See 2 Chr. 8:3, 4, 17.) It follows inevitably that he would become familiar with their dialect. It does not follow that he lost his vernacular dialect, but only that he became familiar with the dialect of the “outlandish women” (Neh. 13:26), who drew him into sin, and of the outlandish princes and men of trade with whom he was in constant and somewhat intimate association. This being admitted, we may advance another step. Having become familiar with this dialect, and having occasion to write specially for this class of people, Solomon used it. No reason can be given why he should not; there is every reason why he should. But it will be asked, What is the proof that this dialect of the outlying countries in Solomon’s time corresponds with that of Ecclesiastes? First, it is held by all learned critics, and is indeed undeniable, that the Hebrew, or some dialect of it, was the language of all those countries of Southwestern Asia, including the original Canaanites, Philistines, Phoenicians (i.e., the people of Tyre and Sidon), Syria, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Arabia, and even Chaldea. Second, while the spoken dialect changed scarcely at all with the lapse of time among the same people, there were yet provincialisms in different localities, and some variety in the dialects spoken by different tribes and nations. Of these provincialisms we have traces in Jud. 12:3; Neh. 13:23, 24. Again, as between the “Syrian” and the common Hebrew of Palestine, a difference of dialect appears in Isa. 36:11. The language called “Syrian” was that of Assyria, yet not very widely diverse from that of the Jews. The Chaldee proper, the language of Babylon at the time of the exile, was yet further removed from the Hebrew of Palestine, but was of the same family or group of languages. The countries lying nearer to Canaan, e.g., Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Syria, had dialects that were much less remote from the Hebrew of Israel than the Chaldean was. Third, fortunately we are able to adduce evidence little short of demonstration to the point now in question. It happens that some remains of the ancient Phoenician language (that of Tyre and Sidon) have come down to our times. By ancient here I mean as old as the age of Solomon. Gesenius, in a work entitled “Monuments of the Phoenician Language,” says (as quoted by Stuart), “The Phoenician remains are more kindred to the later than to the earlier Hebrew, e.g., the relative ‘ashr’ is abbreviated and only the middle consonant is fully written—an important circumstance for the history of the Hebrew language.” This peculiar use of the relative is one of the most palpable features in the special dialect of Ecclesiastes. Yet Gesenius affirms that precisely this usage of it is universal in the dialect of Tyre in the age of Solomon. And in general the dialect of Tyre in that age is more kindred to the Hebrew of Ezra and Malachi than to the Hebrew of David. In other words, by going over the geographical boundaries of Israel in the age of Solomon, you find very nearly the same dialect which you reach by coming down five hundred years in Judah to the age of Ezra and Malachi. So that there is not the least necessity, nor even occasion to come down to the time of Malachi to find a man who could or who naturally would write in the dialect of the Book of Ecclesiastes. You have him provided in Solomon himself, made familiar with the then current dialect of Phoenicia. Again, Ecclesiastes differs yet more widely from the real Chaldean tongue. Here grammatical forms as well as new words present strong points of diversity. Hence it is worse than vain to search for an author for Ecclesiastes in some geographical location nearer to Chaldea, or in the age of greater Chaldean influence over the spoken Hebrew of Palestine. In fine, this argument might probably be made conclusive if we had before us sufficient specimens of the Hebrew dialect then in use in Tyre, Edom, Moab, and Arabia. It is very much to our purpose that all those remains which are still extant give their whole strength to sustain the theory here assumed. Yet another and distinct argument may be drawn from the choice of a Hebrew name for God. Let it be borne in mind that these names being all significant,

Elohim looks specially to the natural attributes of God; Jehovah, to His moral attributes. Elohim is God thought of as Almighty, the Lord of nature, the great God who is infinitely above all the false gods of the heathen; but Jehovah is the God of the promises, forever the same, forever faithful and true, forevermore the God of His covenant people. With this distinction in mind, let us consider the fact that in the Book of Proverbs the name Elohim occurs but five times; the name Jehovah about ninety times, showing that when writing for his own people, Solomon naturally used the latter name. But in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the name Elohim appears thirty-nine times; the name Jehovah, not once. The people of the outlying lands knew not this sacred name. To them its special significance as a God of promise—a God of covenant—was utterly unknown. Hence the fact that Solomon, writing specially for their reading, never uses this name. Yet further, the facts concerning the use of these names of God are in point to explode the favorite Neological theory of the date and author of this book—viz., that it was written after the restoration from Babylon, to comfort the Hebrew people under their national affliction. But let Ecclesiastes be compared, in respect to its use of the names of God, with the known writings of that age. In the Psalms of that period (mostly 91-150), the name Jehovah occurs almost exclusively. In the three prophets of the restoration, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, Elohim occurs in its absolute form five times; Jehovah no less than two hundred and fourteen times. Yet Ecclesiastes, claimed by the Neologists to bear the same date and to have the same general purpose, gives the name Jehovah not even once! H. C.

In 1838 Herzfeld, who also believed (though on different grounds) that the book is the work of a late writer, showed that most of the so-called Aramaisms are not peculiar to Ecclesiastes and later books, but exist in such books as the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and the Psalms; and he reduced the total to eight or ten Chaldee, and eleven or fifteen late Hebrew words. In 1856 Herzfeld’s strictures on Knobel’s list were confirmed by the independent criticism of L. Von Essen. In 1864 Dr. Pusey (“Daniel,” p. 325), taking up the question where it had been left by Herzfeld, showed that many of the words regarded by him and by Knobel as distinctly Chaldee are common to other Semitic dialects, and therefore are useless as evidence of the Chaldee origin or late date of the language of Ecclesiastes; and that many of the expressions designated as late Hebrew by Herzfeld either have earlier precedents overlooked by him, or are used to denote ideas not expressed in earlier writings. Dr. Pusey’s conclusion is that not one word has been found in Ecclesiastes to characterize a later age than Solomon’s. Among more recent critics Dr. Tayler Lewis and Dr. B. Schäfer conclude in favor of the authorship of Solomon. On the whole, it would appear that every word quoted from Ecclesiastes as impossible to be used before the captivity has been shown either to be used in books written, as is generally believed, before the captivity, or to be formed from words and by a grammatical process in use before the captivity, or to be represented in such books by a derivative, or to be undoubtedly common to other Semitic dialects besides Chaldee, and therefore presumably to Hebrew before the captivity, although not found in extant writings of earlier date than Ecclesiastes. And thus the allegation that the language of this book shows distinct traces of the Chaldean invasion, of the Babylonian captivity, or of any later event which affected the Hebrew tongue, appears to have been sufficiently answered. It is not to be denied that in the list of writers who maintain that the languages of Ecclesiastes could not have been used by a Jew in Solomon’s age are to be found the names of some of the most eminent Hebrew grammarians to whom is mainly due the advance of Hebrew philology in the last hundred years. But when they proceed to define the time at which, according to their principles of criticism, the book must have been written, they diverge so widely from one another as to suggest a serious doubt whether such grammatical knowledge of Hebrew as is now attainable ought to be allowed all the weight that is claimed for it in deciding the date of the composition of this book. The various dates assigned to Ecclesiastes by thirty-seven modern critics reach from 699 to 8 years before Christ. W. T. B.

The number of Aramaic or Syriac words and forms in the Book of Ecclesiastes is the chief argument for its late origin and parable form. According to the view often taken, the language in which it is written could not have been in use when Solomon was king. But the antiquity of the dialect in which the author wrote is unknown. Only one thing is certain about the language. It was a cross between the Hebrew tongue and that of the Syrians on the north and east of Palestine. But wherever those who used the former came in friendly contact with those who used the latter, the dialect of which we are speaking might originate. This or something similar took place in Nehemiah’s time, when the children of Jews, who had married women of Ashdod, “spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language.” What happened at that late period in the history may have happened five or six or seven centuries before under similar circumstances. As friendly intercourse between men who spoke Hebrew and others who spoke Syriac did not begin during the Babylonian captivity, a theory which rests on the idea that it did then begin has no foundation in fact. Their intercourse dated almost from the settlement of Israel in Palestine. The dialect which thus arose may have been spoken for ages along the borders of Ammon and Damascus. To assign the rise of the dialect used in Ecclesiastes to the Babylonian captivity is to shut one’s eyes to the facts of history. To this day in Palestine “the peasant dialect proves to be much nearer to Aramaic (which Jerome says was the native language in his time) than to modern literary Arabic.” History, so far as it is known, thus shows no respect to a theory which pronounces it impossible for Solomon to have written in any language but the pure Hebrew of his own age. At that very time “a memorial tablet in the language of Babylon” was set up in the Nile Valley by a king of Assyria. And in those very days “a multitude of Aramaic” (i.e., Hebrew or Syriac) “words were introduced into Egypt, and it even became the fashion to give an Aramaic form to native words.” Besides, the language in which the scribes of Nineveh recorded the events of history was altogether different from that spoken by the people around them. A fact so well ascertained needs no proof. Solomon, speaking pure Hebrew in his own court, and writing a dialect of it in a philosophical treatise, which was modelled on the conversation or writings of thinkers who may have used the same or a kindred form of speech, is not a singular feature in the world’s history of that age. It was a common thing. And, since then, the fashion was followed for ages by the scholars of modern Europe, who preferred Latin or French to their mother tongues. Solomon may thus have adopted a custom sanctioned by ancient custom or philosophic caprice. The language of the Book of Ecclesiastes cannot, therefore, be held to disprove Solomon’s authorship.

The Historical References in Ecclesiastes are also believed to prove its late origin. According to the view frequently taken, Israel was then under foreign kings, who gave much occasion for complaint, and to whom the people paid an unwilling obedience. But all this is matter of suspicion or imagination. Not a word is said in the book itself which can fairly be held to justify these views. Kings are spoken of, and princes, and provinces, and people. But the writer is thinking of kings and people generally, as a philosopher would; and not of foreign kings ruling over his countrymen, or of Jews bowed beneath a hateful tyranny. The narrowness of vision, which sees nothing but Palestine or a part of Palestine in the book, cannot do justice to the work or its author. If Solomon wrote it, his acquaintance with the nations of the civilized world enabled him to take a breadth of view, and to support his conclusions by a range of historical examples, which are far above the narrowness of his most distinguished critics. Whoever, then, was the author of Ecclesiastes, and whatever was his object, Solomon is not excluded by any of the arguments which have been urged against his claims. Sime.

It may be considered as a kind of inquiry into the chief good; an inquiry conducted on sound principles, and terminating in a conclusion which all, on mature reflection, will approve. One great object of Solomon appears to have been, from a comprehensive consideration of the circumstances of human life, to demonstrate the vanity of all secular pursuits. He endeavors to illustrate, by a just estimate, the insufficiency of earthly enjoyment; not with design to excite in us a disgust at life, but to influence us to prepare for that state where there is no vanity. Gray.

The utter vanity of all earthly things when sought as the chief good of man stands out strongly in the opening sentence as the text of this sermon; it reappears repeatedly during the discourse; it is made emphatic in the conclusion (12:8). To prove this to his readers and to impress it upon their mind and heart, he adduces his own exhaustive experience; he also draws largely from his observation of other men; he takes up in detail numerous forms of earthly good which men are wont to seek, his eye sweeping the range not of Israel alone, but of the “provinces”—those other tribes and countries with which his readers and himself were familiar—all converging to the same grand conclusion. His argumentation is not tied down to the rules of modern logic. His strain is usually discursive and not closely consecutive, so that it is often difficult, perhaps sometimes impossible, to trace with certainty any logical connection between his successive topics. The state of the author’s own mind and the views of those for whom he adapted his argument need to be known somewhat thoroughly in order to see the pertinence, beauty, and force of his book. Hence the personal history of Solomon up to the time when he wrote this book should be carefully studied in connection with the book itself as the legitimate means of obtaining the clew to his special aim and purpose in writing it. The heart of Solomon became a pleasure-loving heart; his life a pleasure-seeking life. He sought pleasure in wealth and splendor; he sought it in fame and honor; he sought it in all forms of sensual enjoyment. The immense resources at his command were lavishly expended upon this one object. Such pleasure-seeking swept him away from the fear and service of God. It was to him, we may fairly assume, “the root of all evil.” It led him on to those associations which ensnared him into idolatry. A gracious providence spared Solomon to live till he became convicted, even if not radically penitent. After so much guilty wandering, he “came to himself and thought on his ways.” It cannot be said on authority that he ever saw clearly the guilt of his idolatry, but it is plain that he saw the folly of his pleasure-loving life and felt the solemn obligation resting on all rational beings “to fear God and keep His commandments” as their supreme duty. Having reached these convictions, it was inevitable that he should feel the importance of undoing, so far as he might be able, the mischiefs he had done. For this purpose he became “the Preacher,” and wrote this book. H. C.

Viewed from another standpoint, from the purpose of the inspiring Spirit, this sublime sermon presents the transcendent fact of a future life, as a necessary and essential complement to the present. Regarded in this higher aspect, it dwells upon the emptiness and failure of all things earthly, the inscrutable character of human events, and the impartial, irresistible onset of decay and death. These facts it presents as arguments to enforce the necessity of a future existence, where the unsatisfied cravings of man’s heart may be met, where all problems of the Divine acting may have fitting solution, and where life may be forever unmarred by decay, and be unsubject to death. And it further employs the same fact to impress the reality of an ultimate judgment, of a fixed character, and a lasting destiny. So it is that this book, in its direct and implied teachings, really contrasts the present unreal, fleeting, stationary, and unsatisfying life, with one that is real, abiding, progressive, and satisfying. And its one chief aim is earnestly to commend such a wise, right use of the life that now is, as will ensure the possession and enjoyment of that blessed life to come. B.

The doctrine of a future retribution forms the great basis and the leading truth of this book. In it the royal Preacher expatiates on the transitory condition of mankind, if considered as confined to the present state of existence; the vanity and vexation of spirit attending all present human enjoyment, which his own experience had so abundantly proved; the apparent inequality of Providence, by which there appears one event to the righteous and to the wicked. But in all the difficulties and perplexities, all that vanity and vexation of spirit, which this partial view of human nature implies, the royal Preacher brings forward the prospect of a future life and just retribution, as the solution and the remedy, the consolation and the cure. Graves.

After stating that he had seen the tribunals of justice filled with oppression and wickedness, the writer says (3:17) that “God will judge the righteous and the wicked,” and that He has appointed a time in which all will come under the judicial cognizance of His tribunal. Again, there is One higher than the highest earthly ruler (5:8)—namely, One who will punish oppressors, One who will vindicate the oppressed, that have no comforter here (4:1). The young may indeed rejoice in their blessings, but they are always to keep in view the judgment to come (11:9). “God will bring to judgment every work, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (12:14). Even Knobel acknowledges that this last passage indicates, beyond all doubt, a future retribution. Thus much for passages bearing directly on the idea of a judgment to come. Intimately and necessarily connected with these are those passages which speak of a just retribution. God is to be feared (3:14). Sin makes Him angry (5:6). Why feared? And what will His anger do? Those that fear God shall experience deliverance (7:18). Wickedness shall not deliver those who are given to it (8:8). “It shall be well with them who fear God” (8:12). “It shall not be well with those who do not fear Him” (8:13). “Remember thy Creator” (12:1; with the implication of reward in case of obedience). “Fear God, and keep His commandments”

(12 : 13 ; with the same implication). Thus the doctrine of a retribution for good and evil, and of a time when every action will be scanned and judged, lies scattered through the whole Book of Coheleth. It is impossible reasonably to doubt the state of his mind in regard to these things. But in order to cast farther light on his meaning, it is necessary to take into view other things which he has said in relation to this subject. He has, in different ways, fully developed the sentiment that retribution is not made in the present life. All experience the same evils ; all die alike ; all are subject to the same disappointments ; the lot which the righteous deserves often falls to the wicked, and so vice versa ; the righteous perish not only in their righteousness, but because of it ; and so the wicked prosper by reason of their wickedness. Time and chance happen to all alike ; there is one event or destiny to the righteous and to the wicked, to the clean and to the unclean. We assume it as a plain doctrine in Coheleth, that (since the facts cannot be denied) retribution, adequate and final, does not take place in the present world. Indeed, the testimony of all ages unites in the confirmation of this position. We are, then, fully at liberty to make out the following syllogism : First, retribution, adequate and just, of good and evil, will certainly be made ; second, it is not made in the present world ; therefore, third, it must be made in a future world. If there be any way of properly shunning or avoiding this conclusion, it is unknown to me. M. S.

This belief and persuasion of the certainty of a future life arose from the common sense that men have of the difference of good and evil, and of every man’s being accountable for the things done in this world, as the least degree of observation will enable men to see—they concluded, or rather they felt, from the very force of reason and conscience, that there was an account to be given hereafter. Such an internal argument as this, which springs up in the heart and from the heart of every man, has a greater weight in it than all the reasonings of philosophy put together, and will tie men down, if not to hope for, yet at least to fear, a future immortality ; either of which is the silent voice of nature testifying the reality of a life to come. It is not the expectation of living that makes men infer the reasonableness or necessity of a judgment, but it is the reasonable and natural expectation of judgment which makes them infer the necessity and reality of a future life. Bishop Sherlock.

Keeping in view that the Book of Ecclesiastes is a treatise on the question, What profit is there in this life if there is no other? and that this question is preparatory to the great doctrine of a future life and a future judgment, which Solomon eventually declares, we find the difficulties of the book cleared up. The enigmas of the book are solved, and the treatise stands out prominently as an argument for a God, for immortality, for a future reward. Young.

The subject of the entire book may be expressed in a single sentence thus (compare Eccl. 1 : 2 with 12 : 13, 14) : It is that great day when “God shall bring every work into judgment,” which alone redeems “all” things—man and his affairs and the world in which he spends his brief existence—from being regarded as an inexplicable mystery, or as the greatest “vanity” imaginable. J. M. M.—After revolving all the difficulties in his mind, the writer comes out from them with a lofty tone of morality, with an unshaken confidence in future judgment and retribution, and with high, adoring, submissive confidence in God, and in His wisdom, goodness, and power. Fear God and keep His commandments is the final, the grand result of all. M. S.