objections are presented," as coming from those who find fault with the sentiments of the writer, or from the writer's own mind, "some of which are answered forth with, and some after intervening matter has been thrown in, which pressed upon his mind." It is in this way that the Professor accounts for the apparently infidel and Epicurean teachings of the Book. In the third part of the Book, including the ninth and twelfth chapters with those that intervene, the Professor thinks the whole discourse takes a different turn. “The doubts and queries are dismissed." The subject becomes more cheerful, and cheerful enjoyment is commended. A description of old age forms an apposite conclusion, with the return of the spirit to God.

The Professor accounts for the strange sentiments that seem to be taught in various parts of the Book, by supposing them to be the language of an objector, or the language of his own heart in its perplexity suggesting difficulties. This, he thinks, is the only way to account for teachings which seem to be contrary to other teachings found on the sacred pages of inspiration. But Stuart does not suggest any rule by which the reader of Ecclesiastes can ascertain what are the words of the objector and what are the replies of the author. Every one is left to draw his own conclusions. Hence, while one reader may make the sentence, "All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked;" (ix: 2,) the language of an objector; another may make this the sentiment of the inspired penman. Whatever the reader wishes. to be true he receives as divine teaching; whatever he wishes untrue, he ascribes to the objector. And whatever a commentator thinks accordant with his system, he adopts as inspired revelation; and whatever he thinks would interfere with his teachings, he sets down to the account of an objector. This would fill the Book with the greatest uncertainty. And, indeed, there is nothing in Ecclesiastes which would suggest objections and answers. There is nothing similar to the writings of Paul, who introduces the words of an objector by the expression," Thou wilt say then unto me," and follows them by the remark, "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" (Rom. ix: 19, 20). If there were any intimation that an objector is introduced we might thus account for

several passages. There is no need of such a supposition. There is no need for placing any part of the Book in the category of an objection, or of supposing it untrue. With a proper view of the teachings of the Book, every part becomes consistent with every other part. There is no conflict, no infidelity, no Epicureanism. All is truth, wholesome, eternal

truth.

The following views are suggested to the intelligent reader as the design and teachings of Ecclesiastes:

This Book of Ecclesiastes is a discourse or sermon of Solomon. It is about the length of an ordinary modern, sermon. Though a sermon, it is not quite as methodical as some modern sermons, but far more so than many others. Like modern sermons, it commences with a text or theme for discussion. When or where uttered, we are not informed. There are reasons for supposing that it was delivered in the presence of the foreign wise men and princes, who, like the queen of Sheba, came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear his wisdom. "There came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom" (I. Kings, iv: 34), Standing up in the presence of his curious and learned auditors, as Paul did in Athens at a later day, he spoke of God, of his counsels, and of a future judgment. And, indeed, on a careful inspection, this sermon and Paul's address to the Athenians have strong points of resemblance. Both are to us now revealed theology; but they are discourses on natural theology. Paul pointed to the altar erected "to the unknown God." Hence he directs his hearers to God who made the world and giveth life; to God's purposes; and finally to the judgment. So Solomon pointed to nature; to the rising and setting sun, the shifting breeze, the running rivers (i: 5-7). Then he directs the hearers to God's purposes (iii: 14), and to the judgment. "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked" (iii: 17). "For all these things God shall bring thee into judgment" (xi: 9). To argue a future and a judgment seems to be the object of Solomon's sermon. But as his audience were not all familiar with the previously-written Hebrew Scriptures he would not argue from those Scriptures. He would prove another state of exist ence in a new and original way. He would present his own

original investigations on the subject, as he was inspired to do. And he sets out with the inquiry, Of what advantage is this life without another? For this seems to be the true import of the third verse of the first chapter, which is really Solomon's starting point, as will be shown. That verse, which is Solomon's text, reads thus: "What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?" Labor taken "under the sun," is labor for this life without regard to a future. And Solomon uses the phrase "under the sun" no less than twenty-eight times in this short treatise, or sermon, by which it is evident that his mind attached an important meaning to it. He contrasts labor taken for this life, and the rewards of this life, with labor taken for the future world and its glorious rewards. 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. We find a freshness and beauty about it that is truly enchanting. The enigmas and riddles of the Book are all solved; and the treatise stands out prominentan argument for a God, for immortality, for a future reward. If the great object of the sermon is kept in view all the parts harmonize, and constitute a beautiful and connected whole, and vindicate the government of God from the assaults so often made upon it. What seem to be skeptical teachings present themselves as forcible arguments for a future state. What profit is there in this life if there is no other? If there is no other," that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath: so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place: all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

If there is no other life, "All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked." If there is no other life, "Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise: why shouldst thou destroy thyself?" Why be a martyr for principle, and receive no reward?

If there is no other life, generation succeeds generation, and

passes away like the rising and setting sun, the shifting breeze, the running rivers. Like these, human life is but a coming and going, or labor without satisfaction, accomplishing nothing worthy of the great Author of life. There is no profit-— no new thing to satisfy the soul. From all this a future is inferred. But till the third chapter a future is not distinctly announced. In the third and subsequent chapters the judgment is distinctly declared.

But, it may be asked, why consider the third verse and not the second of the first chapter, the text or theme? In reply the following views are presented :

The first and second verses of the first chapter, and the twelfth chapter from the eighth verse to the conclusion, seem to have been inserted by a different person from the writer of the treatise. He was equally inspired, it is true; but there are strong evidences that another person (call him, if you please, the editor of Solomon's work) wrote the first and second verses as an introduction, and the last seven verses of the last chapter as a suitable conclusion of the Book of Ecclesiastes. It is not uncommon for the sacred books to be supplemented by some one besides the writers of them. Of the books written by Moses, Numbers and Deuteronomy seem to have been thus supplemented. In Numbers xii: 3, we read: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth." This verse was evidently not written by Moses; for he would not thus speak of himself. It is put in parenthetically, perhaps by the prophet Samuel. The last chapter of Deuteronomy was added by some other person; for Moses did not write an account of his own death. Joshua probably wrote the Book called by his name. But, if so, he could not have written the last five verses, for they give an account of his death. They were, therefore, inserted by some other inspired person. Some other passages in Joshua seem also to have been inserted by another. (See iv: 9, and xv: 63.)

The first Book of Samuel to the end of the 24th chapter, seems to have been written by the prophet Samuel himself. But the remaining seven chapters, and the second Book, could not have been written by him; for they record events which took place after his death. Indeed, the two Books of Samuel

seem to have been written by the three prophets, Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. (See I. Chron. xxix: 29.)

The Book of Nehemiah was written by Nehemiah; as is evident from his using the first person singular in relating things connected with himself. But in that Book is a passage containing twenty-six verses, which seems to have been inserted by another. Horne says: "The insertion of the greater part of the register in xii: 1-26, may be accounted for by supposing it either to have been added by some subsequent author, or perhaps by the authority of the great synagogue; for it seems to be unconnected with the narrative of Nehemiah, and if genuine, must ascribe to him a degree of longevity which appears scarcely credible."

The Psalms were written by ten different authors; and yet they are called "the Psalms of David," because David was the principal author. The Book of Proverbs is ascribed to Solomon; and the Book starts out with the announcement, "The Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel." And yet the thirtieth chapter is by Agur, the son of Jakeh; and the thirty-first is by King Lemuel. Also the first six verses of the first chapter seem to be by another. The first verse of the Song of Solomon seems also by another, simply stating who the author was.

So the Book of Ecclesiastes is a sermon of Solomon, with a preface and an appendix by another. The following may be assigned as reasons for the opinion:

(1.) Like Nehemiah Solomon uses the first person singular when speaking of himself in this Book. But the verses supposed to be added, speak of him in the third person, calling him "the Preacher."

(2.) The Preacher is complimented as wise, and as teaching the people knowledge, which Solomon would hardly have said of himself in this form.

(3). It would be perfectly natural for a person, in putting a preface and an appendix to another's sermon, to commence the appendix with the same words with which he left the preface, to show to the reader where his own remarks had been left off and then resumed again. He prefaces with the sentence, "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; vanity of vanities; all is vanity." And, then, after laying the sermon