they would permit a work directed against themselves to be inserted in the sacred canon. With as much reason might it be asserted, that the Pentateuch was levelled against the opinions of the Pharisees and Sadducees as the book of Ecclesiastes.

VI. Obj. "The name of JEHOVAH does not occur throughout the work, which seems to refer its origin to the age of Alexander; about which time the use of the Tetragrammaton was forbidden."* Whenever the superstitious veneration for the name of Jehovah arose among the Jews, it is certain, that the pronunciation alone, not the writing of it, was forbidden, for it is found in some of the Chaldee paraphrases of a much more recent date.

VII. Obj. "Solomon cannot be the writer of the Ecclesiastes; for, if he were, in complaining as he does of oppressions, of unjust judgment, of the elevation of foolish servants to dignity and office, he would have condemned himself."+ Perfection is unattainable in human institutions: in the best regulated governments, much vice, folly, and misery will exist; and, under the administration of Solomon, the wisest prince that ever swayed a sceptre, the great and powerful were, * Jahn, Introduct. § 215. † Jahn, Introduct. ut supra.

doubtless, at times tyrannical, judges were often partial, and men were sometimes preferred to offices for which they were neither fitted by their talents nor their virtues. These evils, which the most consummate wisdom cannot entirely prevent, the king himself might lament, as well as any of his subjects, without being self-condemned. In these complaints, moreover, of oppression and injustice, the royal philosopher may have had an eye to what was passing in surrounding states. A mind of such sagacity and research would ardently inquire into the manners and civil polity of other nations; and it is not improbable, that his remarks on despotic cruelty and perverted justice may have referred to the conduct of governors beyond the boundaries of his empire.

VIII. Obj. "Had Solomon been the author, he would not have said, 'I was, or I am king in Jerusalem,' as it would have been idle to affirm a fact so universally known." As well might it be argued, that the Proverbs are not the work of Solomon, because he calls himself, in the beginning, "king of Israel." The mention of his exalted rank is, in both cases, probably made, the better to recommend his compositions to the attention of mankind; for it has ever been found by experience, that the world is inclined to

* Jahn, Introduct, ad V. T. ut supra.

admire the productions of royal and noble authors, more particularly while the influence of their wealth and dignity remains unimpaired. This natural deference to rank and title would be much augmented in the present case, by characterizing the book as the work of that monarch, who was so renowned for knowledge, and whose wisdom contributed so much to the glory and happiness of his people. It is usual, likewise, with the sacred writers to describe themselves by personal titles and characters, which must have been well known to their contemporaries. Thus Isaiah denominates himself "the son of Amoz;" Jeremiah, "the son of Hilkiah;" Ezekiel, "the priest;" Hosea, "the son of Beeri;" Amos, "the herdman of Tekoa;" St. Paul, "the servant and apostle of Christ." As the addition of such personal designations, though not absolutely necessary, is very common, Solomon might, without impropriety, style himself" the son of David, king in Jerusalem." The assumption, then, of a title, which not only might be used by Solomon, but in the use of which there is a peculiar fitness, cannot form even a colourable objection against his being the author of the Ecclesiastes.

IX. Obj. "The writer says, I was king over Israel in Jerusalem;' (ch. i. 12;) but why is it added in Jerusalem,' unless the book was

D

published when the kings of the Israelites had another royal residence, namely, Samaria?”* David reigned both in Hebron and in Jerusalem; (2 Sam. ii. 11, v. 5; 1 Kings ii. 11;) but Solomon, as it should seem, only in the latter city, which may possibly account for the place of residence being specified. Besides, it is somewhat absurd to infer, because the Preacher is said to be king in Jerusalem, that another king reigned at the same time in Samaria: with as much truth it might be concluded, that a contemporary king reigned in any other place within the borders of Palestine. Solomon was king in, or at, Jerusalem; that city was the metropolis of his kingdom; there he kept his court; there was the seat of his government; and he might, with equal propriety, mention the place of his royal residence, as the fact of his being king over Israel, a title, as above shown, perfectly compatible with his being the author of the book.

X. Obj. "In chapter iv. 15, allusion is made to Solomon's successor, and to his inability to govern the people. Now, supposing the work to be the production of Solomon, he must have foreseen, that his son would be unequal to the task of government; and, in that case, so wise a monarch, instead of wishing him to be his successor, would have taken measures to ensure the

* Doederlein, Scholia in Eccles. p. 171. Eichhorn, Einleitung, § 658.

succession of some fitter person to the throne of Israel. As he did not adopt this course, the only one consistent with the accounts which we have of his wisdom, it is concluded, that the Ecclesiastes was written in a subsequent period."* But, in the passage appealed to, there is, in all probability, no allusion to the successor of Solomon in the royal power; it appears to be only a combination of general remarks upon the vanity of empire and dominion. Or, if even it should be thought to glance at Rehoboam, yet Solomon may be the author, as he might have wished his son to succeed him on the throne, though he had foreseen his incapacity for government; for how often is the judgment of the best and most enlightened men blinded by paternal affection? Solomon, notwithstanding his distinguished wisdom, was far from being a perfect character. Nor would it be easy to prove, what the objection supposes, the utter incompetency of Rehoboam to sway the sceptre of Israel. Though his conduct, immediately after his accession, was the occasion of an extensive, lasting, and ruinous revolt, it was a conduct rather to be ascribed to energy and vigour than to weakness and imbecility. He took time to deliberate, he asked counsel both from the old and youthful senators; and deliberate consultation is not the characteristic of

* Doederlein, Scholia ut supra. Eichhorn, Einleitung, § 658.