rnay s11,fely conclude that the langnage of our book exhibits no trace oi Greek parentage. An apparently strong case has been produced by those who see evidences of Greek philosophy in Ecclesiastes. Echoes of Stoical teaching are heard in the language that speaks of the endless recurrence of the same phenomena in the life of man (eh. i. 5-7, 11, etc.), which is paralleled by the i;heory of the cycles of events presented by history, as M. Aurelius says (xi. 1), " There will be nothing new for posterity to gaze at, and our ancestors stood upon the same level of observation. All ages are uniform and of a colour, insomuch that in forty years' time a tolerable genias for sense and inquiry may acquaint himself with all that is past and all that is to come.'' There ie similarity, doubtless, in the idea(of these authol'B, but no greater than might be expected in two thinkers writing of a consideration of facts which struck them in reviewing the past. The thought of the vanity of man's life and labour, his aims and pleasures, ie deemed to be derived from the apathy of the Stoic and hie contempt for the world; whereas it springs from the teaching of bitter experience which needed no foreign stimulus to animate its expression. The fatalism characteristic of Stoic doctrine, which to a superficial reader seems to obtrude itself constantly, is really not found in our book. The writer ie too religious to fall into any such error. The sad refrain," Vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit bath a man of all his labour P " seems to some to savour of that philosophic fatalism which regards man as the prey of blind destiny. Now, the things of which Koheleth predicates vanity are wisdom, wealth, pleasure, power, specula- tion ; and why? Not because they are the working of irresponsible and uncontrollable destiny, but because they fail in themselves to bestow that for the sake of which they are pursued, or accrue only to those persons whom Providence thus blesses. He recounts his own experience and his attempts to find satisfaction in various pursuits, and he concludes that all such strivings are vain, in so far as all are conditioned by the dispensation of God, who permits enjoyment and possession according to his good pleasure. The things themselves cannot secure and are not the cause of any happiness which accompanies them; this is solely the gift of God. Man, too, does not know what is beet for him, and often seeks eagerly for what is pernicious; Providence overrules his efforts and controls the final result. Providence governs the most minute as well as the most important events of man's life (eh. iii. 1-8); everything is thus regnlated according to mysterious rules which are beyond our ken. But this profound conviction does not lead Koheleth to regard man as a mere machine, possessed of no free-will, whose liberty of action is entirely controlled by higher power, who is as completely under the rule of necessity as the external physical world. He does allow that, as there are laws that direct the forces of material nature, so there are laws that control man's intellectual and moral nature ; and it is from his obedience or disobedience that happiness or pain ensues. The infringement of these laws does not always bring punishment xxvi IN'l'RODUCTION '1'0
in this world, nor their observance reward, but retribut.ion is certain in the life beyond the grave (eh. xi. 9); and the Preacher couns~ls men to fear God and to practise piety and virtue, not as though they were. the victims of cruel destiny, but as responsible beings who in many respects had their life in their own hands. The second division of the book (eh. vii.-ix.) contains a collection of practical suggestions how to make the best of the present in remembrance of the omnipotent control of Providence. If the fatalist pronounces that all is left to chance, and that God hides his face and cares nought for human concerns, Koheleth warns against the error of supposing that, because retribution is delayed or falls in some unexpected way, Heaven takes no interest in mundane matters. Moral govern:inent does certainly exist, and seeming exceptions only show that we qanncit understand its course, while we must submit to its decrees. If, agai~, unbelief asserts that human efforts are vain al!,d sterile, the Preacher, on the contrary, urges men to do their part with energy, to u1;1e with profit th~. time granted to them, to make the best of their position; not that they can: always command success, but generally wisdom is more powerful than· physical force, and at any rate diligence and aeGion are .man's duty, and results may be left in higher hands. The vexed question of- free-will and omniscience is not handled; man'.s liberty and God's decree are both mai~~ tained, bnt their compatibility is not explained. r:J;hey are set.side by side, and both are taken into account, but there .is no formal attempt at recon- cil.iation; it is enough to hold, on the one hand, .that P:r;ovidence rules supreme, and, on the other, that piety and wisdom are better worth tha~ folly or greatest natural power. The bitter and reiterated cry of "Vanity" does not argue disbelief in man's free-will or in God's providential care; it issues from a soul that has learned its own weakness. and its dependElnce upon God; that has learned that happiness is his gift and is dispensed according to his good· pleasure.. Another loan from Stoic teaching is supposed to be found in the frequent combination of " madness and folly " (eh. i. 17 ; ii. 12, etc.), which is com7 pared with the view that regarded all weaknesses and delinque_ncies as forms of insanity. Bat Koheleth is offering no ,definition :of human frailty; his intention is to show how he pursued his investigation. As contrar-iis. contrar·ia intelligU1ntur, he learned, wisdom by watching the results . 0£ unwisdom, confusion of thought aod purpose (" madnes~ "); that he thas designates moral error is natural to one taking a philosophical view of human na.tare. Wb.y he should have borrowed the expressi<;m from the Stoics is hard, indeed, to see. • The alleged· Epicureanism is equally unfounded. That parallels. are .met with can 8urely be explained without supposing that the Preacher "drank; from a common source" with Lucretiu_s -and Horace. With regard tQ pLysical science, had Koheleth to go to Epicurus that he might loam.the mystery of the daUy rising and set.ting of the sun, or that rivers flow into the sea, or that the waters somehow find t},ieir way l>ack again P Theo.e ECCLESIASTES; OR, 'l'HE PREACHER. xxvii I