ness prevailing in courts of justice, contrasted with the righteous judgment of God. (iii. 15—17.)

SECT. X. Though life, considered in itself, is vanity, for men die as well as beasts, yet, in the end, it will be very different with the spirit of man and that of beasts. (iii. 18—22.)

SECT. XI. Vanity is increased unto men by oppression. (iv. 1-3.) SECT. XII. The vanity of prosperity. (iv. 4.)

SECT. XIII. The vanity of folly, or of preferring the world to True Wisdom. (iv. 5, 6.)

SECT. XIV. The vanity of covetousness. (iv. 7, 8.)

SECT. XV. Though society has its advantages, yet dominion and empire are but vanity. (iv. 9—16.)

SECT. XVI. Errors in the performance of Divine worship, which render it vain and unprofitable. (v. 1-7.)

SECT. XVII. The vanity of murmuring at injustice; for though the oppression of the poor and the perversion of judgment greatly prevail, they do not escape the notice of the Almighty. (v. 8, 9.)

SECT. XVIII. The vanity of riches; with an admonition as to the moderate enjoyment of them. (v. 10-20.)

SECT. XIX. The vanity of avarice. (vi. 1-9.)

PART II. THE NATURE, EXCELLENCE, AND BENEFICIAL EFFECTS

OF WISDOM OR RELIGION.

SECT. XX. Since all human designs, labours, and enjoyments are vain, it is natural to inquire, What is good for man? What is his Supreme Good? (vi. 10-12.) The answer is contained in the remainder of the book.

SECT. XXI. The praise of character and reputation. (vii. 1.)
SECT. XXII. Affliction improves the heart, and exalts the charac-
ter of the wise. (vii. 2-10.)

SECT. XXIII. The excellence of Wisdom. (vii. 11—14.)
SECT. XXIV. An objection, with the answer. (vii. 15. viii. 7.)
SECT. XXV. The evil of wickedness shows the advantage of True
Wisdom. (viii. 8-13.)

SECT. XXVI. An objection, with the answer. (viii. 14. ix. 1.)
SECT. XXVII. An objection, with the answer. (ix. 2. x. 17.)
SECT. XXVIII. The banefulness of sloth. (x. 18.)

SECT. XXIX. The power of wealth. (x. 19.)

SECT. XXX. An exhortation against speaking evil of dignities. (x. 20.)

SECT. XXXI. Exhortation to charity and benevolence. (xi. 1—10.) SECT. XXXII. An exhortation to the early cultivation of religious habits. (xii. 1-7.)

SECT. XXXIII. The conclusion. (xii. 8-14.)1

1 Prelim. Diss. pp. cix. cx. Mr. Des Voeux, in his learned and ingenious work on Ecclesiastes, was of opinion that the royal author's design was to prove the immortality of the soul, or rather the necessity of another state after this life, by such arguments as may be deduced from reason and experience. But Mr. Holden has satisfactorily shown that this is not the primary design of the book in question; though it contains some strong proofs of this article of religious faith. See his Prelim. Diss. pp. xlvii.-lx.

III. Bishop Lowth pronounces the style of this book to be singular; its language is generally low, frequently loose and unconnected, approaching to the incorrectness of conversation: and it possesses very little poetical character, even in the composition and structure of the periods: which peculiarity, he thinks, may be accounted for from the nature of the subject. Leusden says, that in his time (the close of the seventeenth century) the book of Ecclesiastes was read in the Jewish synagogues on the feast of tabernacles; because, as that feast commemorates the gladness and content with which their forefathers dwelt in tents, so this book, while it shows the vanity of all earthly things, inculcates on every one the duty of rejoicing and being content with such things as God in his providence thinks fit to bestow.

SECTION V.

ON THE SONG OF SOLOMON.

I: Author.-II. Canonical authority.-III. Structure of the poemits subject and scope.-the Song of Solomon a sublime mystical allegory.

FEW poems have excited more attention, or have found more translators and commentators, than the Song of Songs: but the learned are not yet agreed respecting its arrangement and design. The majority consider it as an inspired book, and certainly on the best evidence, while others affirm it to be merely a human composition: the former regard it as a sacred allegory; the latter, as a mere amatory

effusion.

1. In addition to other divine compositions of Solomon, we are informed (1 Kings iv. 32.) that his songs were a thousand and five, of which the present book is supposed to be one. In the first verse it is called, by way of eminence and distinction, according to the Hebrew idiom (SHIR HASHIRIM) that is, a Song of Songs, or a Song of Loves. Of this antient poem the author is asserted, by the unanimous voice of antiquity, to have been Solomon: and this tradition is corroborated by many internal marks of authenticity. In the very first verse it is ascribed to the Hebrew monarch by name: he is the subject of the piece, and the principal actor in the conduct of it. Allusions are made to the rich furniture of his palace (i. 5.); to the horses and chariots which he purchased of Pharaoh king of Egypt (i. 9. compared with 1 Kings x. 28, 29.); to Aminadab, who was eminent for such chariots, and who married one of Solomon's daughters (vi. 12. with 1 Kings iv. 11.); to his building of the temple under the figure of a palanquin or coach for his bride (iii. 9, 10.); to the materials of which it was formed. In short, all the leading circumstances in Solomon's life, in a religious point of view, appear to be

either alluded to or implied in this antient poem, and therefore render it probable that it was the production of some writer in his age, if it were not his own composition. From the occurrence, however, of a few Aramaan words, some later critics have imagined that this book was written in the latter years of the Jewish monarchy, not long before the captivity; but this conjecture is repelled by the internal evidences above cited in favour of Solomon; and the occasional appearance of Aramæan words will be satisfactorily accounted for when we recollect the extensive commercial intercourse that existed between Solomon and the neighbouring nations. Dr. Kennicott was of opinion that this poem is many ages later than Solomon, from the uniform insertion of the yod in all copies, in spelling the name of David; but this remark is not conclusive, for the name of David occurs but once (iv. 4.) and, after it had been written erroneously by a scribe in the time of Ezra, it might have been inadvertently copied by subsequent transcribers.1

II. If the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was settled by Ezra (which we have already seen was most probably the case), there can be no doubt but that the Song of Solomon is a sacred book; for, to use the strong language of Bishop Warburton, "Ezra wrote, and we may believe acted, by the inspiration of the Most High,' amid the last blaze indeed, yet in the full lustre of expiring prophecy. And such a man would not have placed any book that was not sacred in the same volume with the law and the prophets." 2 In addition to this evidence, the following considerations will authorise us to infer, that the Song of Solomon was, from the most early period, deemed a sacred book, and ranked with the Hagiographa or Holy Writings of the Jews, and thence was received among the canonical books of the Old Testament.

A Greek translation of it is extant, which without contradiction is ascribed to the Jewish authors of the Septuagint, who flourished about two centuries before Christ, and which still forms a part of the Alexandrian version. With the same conviction of the sacred character of the work, it was rendered into Greek, in the second century of the Christian æra, by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo

1 Dr. Kennicott, Diss. i. pp. 20-22. Hewlett's Commentary on the Song of Solomon, Supplementary Observations, in fine. A writer of the present day (Mr. Bellamy) who has distinguished himself by his bold and paradoxical assertions, has stated his opinion to be, that it was a book of great antiquity in the time of the Hebrew king, and is the same which is referred to in the Psalms by the words "dark sayings of old." He thinks it possible that Solomon collected and incorporated the materials of this book, as David did other sacred songs of prophecy and praise, which were in use in the church before his time; but affirms that the idea of Solomon being the author of this Song of Songs is founded on a mis-translation of the Hebrew word Lishlomoh, which occurs in the first verse. As Mr. B. refers to a work not yet published in support of his hypothesis, it is impossible to form correct judgment respecting it: but we may be permitted to observe, that the internal evidences above noticed, which make so strongly against Dr. Kennicott, afford pretty strong corroboration of the universally received version, as well as of the uniform belief of the Jews, who surely were acquainted with their native tongue. See the Classical Journal, vol. xv. p. 190.

2 Bishop Gleig's edition of Stackhouse, vol. i. p. xxiii.

dotion. Origen, who wrote early in the third century, on the authority of those learned Jews who were contemporary with him, and whom he was in the habit of consulting respecting the authority and literal import of their sacred books, inserted it in his Hexapla, and wrote some homilies upon it, explaining its mystical sense, which have in part been translated into Latin by Jerome. Further, that the antient Jews, without exception, considered it as a divinely inspired production, appears from the allegorical signification annexed to it in the Chaldee paraphrase. Josephus, in his answer to Apion, gives a catalogue of the Jewish books, and in the third class of such as related to moral instruction includes the Song of Songs. From the Jewish Synagogue this book was received into the Christian church without any doubt of its divine authority: it occurs in the catalogue of books of the Old Testament made by Melito Bishop of Sardis in Lydia, who is placed by Cave about the year 170, who travelled into Palestine on purpose to learn the number of these books, and who made the first catalogue of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is cited by Ignatius, who had been a disciple of the apostle Saint John about the beginning of the second century, as a book of authority in the church at Antioch. It is enumerated in the list of canonical books occurring in the synopsis attributed to Athanasius, who flourished in the third century, and in the catalogues of Jerome and Rufinus, towards the close of the fourth century, in which also we find it cited in the Apostolical Constitutions, and also in the Apostolical Canons ;3 since which time, the Song of Songs has maintained its place in the sacred canon.

But, though the Song of Songs has come down to us thus strongly recommended by the voice of antiquity, its divine authority has been questioned in modern days. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, a bold critic, and a determined foe to allegorical interpretations, in the fourth and fifth centuries, is said to have spoken in disrespectful terms of this poem, as well as of the book of Job: but, as those accounts appear among the charges and accusations of his enemies, Dr. Lardner, with great propriety, doubts the accuracy of such representation. In the early part of the last century, Simon and Le Clerc questioned its authenticity, but were refuted by the elder Carpzov; and subsequently the eccentric writer Whiston boldly affirmed it to be a dissolute love-song, composed by Solomon when advanced in years and dissolute in practice, and that consequently it ought to be excluded from the canon of the sacred books. This

1 Josephus cont. Apion, book i. c. 8. Eusebius, following the Jewish historian, makes the Song of Songs the fifteenth of the number of canonical books. Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 25.

2 Eusebius has preserved this catalogue of Melito's in his Eccl. Hist. lib. iv. c. 26. 3 Constit. Apostol. lib. vi. c. 13. 18. tom. i. pp. 345. 351. Edit. Amst. 1724. Canon. Apostol. No. lxxvi. Ibid. p. 453. Both these productions, though pretending to be of apostolical origin, are spurious compilations of the fourth century. See Dr. Lardner's Works, vol. iv. pp. 320-354. 8vo. ; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 421-441.

4 Jortin's Remarks on Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 157, 2d. edit. Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 509, 510.; 4to. vol. ii. p. 528.

preposterous notion (for nothing like proof has been offered in its support) has, with some slight modification, been adopted by several later writers; and Semler, among others, declines taking any notice of it, as a work manifestly spurious. These objections, however, are sufficiently counteracted by the strong internal evidences of the authenticity of the Canticles, as well as by the uninterrupted current of Jewish and Christian antiquity.

III. That this book is a poem, all critics and expositors are agreed; though they are by no means unanimous to what class of Hebrew poetry it is to be referred. Michaelis, to whose profound researches biblical students are so deeply indebted, is of opinion that the object of this poem was simply to inculcate the divine approbation of marriage; and Mendelsohn, a learned German Jew, considers it as a representation, by Solomon's son, of a trial of skill between a shepherd and shepherdess; but the ideas of Mr. Harmer2 appear much more rational, who, though unwilling to give it the name of an epithalamium or nuptial dialogue, considers it to be a nuptial song, which will be best explained by compositions of a similar nature in Eastern countries. Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, is of opinion that this song is a regular drama, which is to be explained by the consideration that the Jews were wont to celebrate their nuptials for seven days together, distinguished by peculiar solemnities. He accordingly divides it in the following manner :

Calmet, the late Bishop Percy, and Mr. Williams, agree with Bossuet. Bishop Lowth, indeed, who has devoted two of his learned and elegant lectures to an examination of this poem, adopts the opinion of Bossuet, not as absolute demonstration, but as a very ingenious and probable conjecture upon an extremely obscure subject. He therefore determines it to be a sacred pastoral drama, though deficient in some of the essential requisites of a regular dramatic composition.

1 Apparatus ad liberalem Vet. Test. Interpretationem, pp. 209-214.

2 Outlines of a commentary on Solomon's Song. (8vo. London, 1768, reprinted in 1775.)

3 Calmet, Commentaire Littéral, tom. v. pp. 68, 69.

4 In his "Song of Solomon, newly translated from the original Hebrew, with a commentary and annotations." 12mo. 1764.

5 In "The Song of Songs, which is by Solomon: a new translation, with a commentary and notes." 8vo. 1801.

6 There is, however, one circumstance in which Bishop Lowth thinks the Song of Songs bears a very striking affinity to the Greek drama; the chorus of virgins seems in every respect congenial to the tragic chorus of the Greeks. They are constantly present, and prepared to fulfil all the duties of advice and consolation: