earlier tenet, has flowed forth both in England, America, and Germany. The array of writers on both sides is enormons. The discussion has evoked the energies of innumerable controversialists, though the opponents of Solomon have in late years far outnumbered his supporters. If the more ancient opinion is upheld by Dr. Pnsey, Bishop Wordsworth, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Bullock, Motais, Gietmann, etc., the later view is strongly supported by Keil, Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, Vaihinger, Hitzig, Nowack, Renan, Gins- burg, Ewald, Davidson, Noyes, Stuart, Wright, etc. The question cannot be settled by the authority of writers on either side, but must be calmly examined, and the arguments adduced by both parties must be duly weighed; Let us e.ee what are the usual arguments for the Solomonic authorship. We will endeavour to set them forth very brieiy, but fairly and intelligibly. I. The first and most potent is the unanimous verdict of all writers who have mentioned the book from primitive times to the days of Luther, whether Christian or Jewish. The common opinion was that the three works, Canticles, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, were composed by Solomon; the first, as some said, being the production of his earlier days, the second written in his maturity, and the third dictated at the close of life, when he had learned the vanity of all that he had once valued, and bad repented of his evil ways and turned once more to the fear of the Lord as the only stable comfort and hope. St. Jerome, in his 'Commentary,' gives the opinion which was prevalent in his da,y: "Itaque juxta numernm vocabu- lorum tria volumina edidit : Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, et Cantica Canticornm. In Proverbiis parvulum docens et quasi de officiis per sententias erndiens; in Ecclesiaste vero maturoo virum ootatis instituens, ne quicquam in mundi rebus putet ease perpetunm, eed caduca et brevia universa qWB cernimus; ad extremum jam consummatum virum et calcato smcnlo prooparatum, in Cantico Canticorum sponsi jungit amplexibus." 2. The book purports to be written by Solomon ; the writer speaks con• tinually in the first person ; and as the work is confessedly inspired and canonical, any doubt as to the literal accuracy of the inscription throws discredit on the truth and authority of Scripture. In a treatise of this nature it is altogether unlikely that the author should attribute his own sentiments to another. 3. There is nothing in the contents which militates against the Solomonic authorship. 4. There is nothing in the language which is not compatible with the time of Solomon. 5. It is a composition· of such consummate skill and excellence that it could have proceeded from no one but this wisest of men. 6. There are such a multitude and variety of coincidences in expression and phraseology with Proverbs and Canticles, which are confessedly more or lees the work of Solomon, that Ecclesiastes must proceed from the same o,uthor. Iv INTRODUCTION TO
Snch are the grounds upon which Ecclesiastes is attributed to Solomon, The opinion has a certain attraction for all simple believers, who are content t.o take things on trust, and, provided a theory makes no very violent demands on credulity, to accept it with unquestioning confidence. But in the present case· the arguments adduced have not withstood the attacks of modern criticism, as will be seen if we take them seriatim, as we proceed to do. 1. The universal consensus of uncritical antiquity concerning authorship is of little value. What was not questioned was not specially examined ; the conventional opinion was regarded as certain; what one writer after ,mother, and Council after Council, actually or virtually stated, was accepted gener!lly and without any controversy. So the authorship, being taken fo1• granted, was never criticized or investigated. Of how small importance in such a matter are the opinions of the Fathers, we may learn from their view of the Book of Wisdom. Unhesitatingly many of them attribute this work to Solomon. Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Origen, Didymus, and others express no doubt whatever on the subject; and yet no one nowadays hesitates to say that they were absurdly wrong in holding such an opinion. Similarly, many Councils decreed the canonicity of Wisdom, from the third of Carthage, A.D. 397, to that of Trent; but we do not give our adhesion to their decision. So we may reject tradition in discussing the question of authorship, and pursue onr investigation independently, untrammelled by the ntterances of earlier writers. As to the assertion that Solomon penned this treatise in sorrowful repentance for his idolatry and licentiousness and arrogant selfishness, it mnst be said that there is no trace of any such change of heart in the historical books ; as far ae we are told, he goes to his grave after he had turned away from the Lord, in that hard, unbelieving temper which his foreign alliances had produced in hi.m. Not a hint of better things is anywhere afforded; and though, from the commendation generally accorded to him, and the typical character which he possessed, one would be inclined to think that he could not have died in his sins, but must have made his peace with God before he departed, yet Scripture supplies no ground for such an opinion, and we must travel beyond the letter to arrive at such a conclusion. He records his experience of evil pleasure, relates how he revelled in vice for a. time, took hie fill of luxury and sensuality, with the view, as he says, of testing the faculty of such excesses to give happiness ; but he never hints at any sorrow for this degradation; not a word of repentance falls from his lips. " I turned, and tried this and that," he says; but we find no confession of sin, no remorse for wasted talents. He learns, indeed, that all is vanity and vexation of spirit; but this is not the cry of a broken and contrite heart; and to ground hie repentance upon this declaration ie to raise a structure upon a foundation that, will not bear its weight. 2. There can be no doubt that the writer intends to assume the name and characteristics of Solomon. He calls himself in the opening verse "son of David" and "King in Je:ruealem," Su<,:h a descri:ption afpliqs 1WCLE1SIAB1'ES; OR, THE PREACHl<!R. V