cloxy of the final verses could not be questioned, the inspiration of the work was acknowledged, and it bas ever since been received alike by the Jewish and Christian Ohurcbes. 'l'hat it is not quoted in the New Testament, and is thus far deprived of the authorization afforded by such reference, detracts in no respect from its Divine chnracter, nor is this affected by the trans- ference of its authorship from Solomon to an unknown writer. The grounds on which it has been admitted into the sacred canon are inde- pendent of any such external confirmation, and the Holy Spirit compels recognition at the hands of the Church by evidence that is self-revealing and.indubitable. It is clear also that, in our Lord's time, Ecclesiastes formed one of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Scripture, most of which were endorsed by citation, and a virtual sanction was thus given to the rest of the collection. . The unity and integrity of our book have been called in question, chiefly by those who have noted the apparent contradictions which it contains, and have failed to apprehend the author's standpoint, and his reason for the introduction of these anomalies. Thus exception is taken by some against the seeming want of connection between eh. iv. 13, 14 and verses 15, 16; others have discovered. dislocations in various passages, and wished to arrange the work in different fashion, according to their view of the writer's intention. Others, again, have detected interpolations and later additions. Thus Cheyne, having made up bis mind that Koheleth did not believe in future retribution, strikes out as spurious all passages that favour the idea of a coming judgment; in a similar spirit Geiger and Noldeke affect to see late insertions in eh. xi. 9 and xii. 7. But a.II this is surely uncritical. There is no pretence of proving that the incriminated passages differ toto ccelo in language and treatment from the rest of the work, or that they could not have been written by the author. An opinion concerning Koheleth's dogma is adopted and boldly asserted, and any expression which opposes this idea is at once attributed to a later editor, who foisted his own sentiments into the text. If this free handling ot ancient- documents is allowed when they seem to be in advance of what a perhaps shallow criticism deems to be the spirit of the age, how are we to maintain the genuineness of any unfettered thinker's work? Con- cerning the epilogue, however, there is a little more difficulty made by those who do not look upon it as the crown and conclnsion of the whole, withont which the work would be unsatisfactory and lack completion. The objections to this paragraph are twofold-linguistic and dogmatic. It is said that it contains oxpressions deviating from those that occur in the former parts. The discussion seems to end at ver. 8 of the last chapter; and the final passage differs in style and other particulars from the rest. But an examination of the language shows that it can be paralleled in every particular from the earlier pages, and the difference in style is necessitated by the subject. In this appendix, or postscript, the writer reveals himself, in propria persona, no longer under the veil of xxxvi INTRODUCTION TO
Solomon, but tal-ing the reader, as it were, into bis confidence, showing wba.t he really is, and bis claim to attention. Far from being superfluoni:1, the addition puts t,be seal to the whole production. Speaking of Koheleth in the third person, he virtually acknowledges the fictitious use of Solomon's authority. At the same time, he maintains that the work has not lost its value because it cannot vindicate its authorship at the hands of the great 1..-ing. He himself has been inspired to write it; the same "Shepherd" who guided the pens of Solomon and other wise men directed him likewise. As to the momentous conclusion, every one who thinks with us concerning the religious views of the writer, and the design of his work, will agree that it is most apposite, and is the only conceivable summing-up that satisfies the requirements of the treatise. It is also in full accord with what has preceded. The solution of the anomalies in life, offered by the fact of a future judgment, has been intimated more than once in other parts of the book; it is here only presented again with more emphasis and in a more striking position. We may add that no doubt concerning the genuineness of the epilogue was ever raised by the Jewish schools which hesitated to allow full inspiration to Ecclesiastes. Indeed, it was the undoubted orthodoxy of the closing verses which finally overcame all opposition.
§ 5. LITERATURE. The literature connected with Ecclesiastes is of enormous extent. We can here only enumerate a few of the most useful commentaries and kindred works. Among the Fathers we have these: Origen, 'Scholia;' Gregory Thaumaturgus, ' Metaphrasis;' Gregory N yssen., ' Conciones;' Jerome, Version and ' Commentary; ' Olympiodorus, 'Enarratio.' The medireval and later expositions are innumerable: Hngo .A. S. Victore, 'Homilire;' the Jews, Rashi, Rashbam, and lbn Ezra; Luther, • .Annotationes;' Pineda, 'Commentarii;' Cornelius a Lapide; Grotius, '.Annota- tiones;' Reynolds, '.Annotations;' Smith,' Explicatio;' Schmidt, 'CommentariW! ;' Mendelssohn,' D. Buch Koheleth;' Umbreit, 'Uebers. und Darstell.,' and' Koheleth Scepticus;' Knobel, 'Comment. ; ' Herzfeld, 'Uebers. und Erlaut.;' Hitzig, 'Erklar- una •' Stuart, 'Commentary;' Vaihinger, 'Uebere. und Erklar.;' Hengstenberg, 'Au~legung;' Ginsburg, 'Koheleth;' Plumptre, 'Ecclesiastes;' Wright, 'Book of Koheleth;' Tyler, 'Ecclesiastes; ' Renan, 'L'Ecclesiaste Tradnit;' Zockler, in Lauge's 'Bibelwerk,' and edited by Tayler Lewis; Delitzsch, in Clarke's 'For. Library;' G rii,z, ' IC0helet; ' Gietroann, in ' Cursus Script. Sacr.' (1890); Motais, 'Solomon et l'l~cclcsiaste,' and in 'La Sainte Bible avec Commentaires;' Nowack, in 'Kurzgef. Exerr. Handbucb ;' Volek, in' Kurzgef. Kommentar' (1889); Bishop Wordsworth,' Bible witl~ Notes;' Bullock, in 'Speaker's Commentary;' Salmon, in Bishop Ellicott's 'Commentary for English Readers;' Cox, 'Expository Lectures,' and' Book of Ecclesi- aotcs' (1891).
§ 6. DIVISION INTO SECTIONS, The attempts to dissect the book and to arrange its contents methodi- cfl lly Lare been as numerous as the editors themselves. Every exegeto ECCLESIASTES; OR, 'rHE PREACHER. XXX\ ii