Accordingly he announced to Solomon, probably through Abijah the prophet, that, because he had broken the Covenant by which he held his crown, the kingdom should be rent and divided, and a part of it given to one of his subjects. The tranquility which had hitherto distinguished Solomon's reign, now began to be disturbed by foreign enemies and by intestine feuds. Hadad, a prince of the royal family of Edom, who when a child had escaped from the bloody massacre of his race by Joab, and taken refuge in the court of the Egyptian king, now that he had reached maturity, took up arms, regained possession of his ancestral throne, and commenced a petty and harassing warfare against the Israelites, by which the commerce between the Red Sea and Palestine, which was carried on by caravans through the desert, was greatly impeded. But Solomon neither took effective measures to check the revolt, nor curtailed the insane luxury of his court. On the contrary, as his commerce fell off, and his revenue from that source became diminished, he resorted to heavier and more oppressive taxation of the people. In the north, Razon, a Syrian adventurer, who had been an officer in the army of Hadadezer, seized upon Damascus, established its independence, and made it the seat of the kingdom of Damascene Syria. The internal commerce of Solomon across the Syrian Desert, at least by its natural channels, was thus cut off. A domestic enemy still more dangerous, appeared in the person of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, of the tribe of Ephraim. This man had distinguished himself in the service of the king, in consequence of which, he had been appointed superintendent of the laborers of his

sense of the reader, that applying the rules drawn from the Scriptures and from the immutable principles of morality graven in all hearts, he may pass his own independent judgment on the deed, either excusing or accusing, according to his convictions of right. Nor is the fact of these faults and failings, yea of these great and grievous sins, of men in the main good, though far from being perfect, inconsistent with their position as the bearers in their time of God's promises, and the witnesses for his truth. Such bearers of his word, such witnesses for his truth they were; and as such having indeed a treasure, but having it in earthen vessels, so that it is nothing strange if the earthen vessel should sometimes appear. The truth and transcendeut importance of the moral principles and maxims contained in the books of Proverbs, a e not in the least impaired or shaken by the err s and sins which sullied a portion of the writer's life.

own tribe and that of Manasseh on the public buildings at Jerusalem. A conference with the prophet Abijah, inspired him with more ambitious thoughts and aims. On a certain occasion, they met without the walls of the city, and Abijah tore in pieces a new garment with which one or the other was clothed, and giving ten pieces to Jeroboam, assured him by this symbolical act, that in consequence of the idolatrous conduct of the king and people, the government of ten tribes, after the death of Solomon, should be transferred to him, and be continued in his line, on the same conditions as those on which it had been assured to David. This is the first symbolical action which we meet with in any prophet of the Old Testament; but in after ages instances of the kind were not unfrequent. This significant act of Abijah was soon noised abroad, and the jealousy of Solomon was aroused, which rendered the life of Jeroboam no longer safe in Palestine. Hence he fled into Egypt, where he was hospitably entertained by Shishak, the first king of the Diospolitan dynasty who now occupied the throne. It was the same person who in the reign of Rehoboam invaded the kingdom of Judah, at the head of a large army, and enriched himself with the spoils of the Temple.

It is generally believed that these divine chastisements opened the eyes of Solomon to the enormity of his offences, and that in the evening of his days he truly repented and returned to a better course of life. The strongest proof we have of his repentance is found in the book of Ecclesiastes, which bears the clearest internal evidence of having been written by him in old age, after a long and varied experience. In this book he passes in review the stores of knowledge he had accumulated, the immense wealth which he had possessed, the magnificent works he had constructed, the homage he had received from his subjects, the toils and anxieties he had experienced, and the sins and follies of which he had been guilty, and comes to the wise and pious conclusion and to the humiliating confession that every thing belonging to this world is unsubstantial, unsatisfactory, illusive and vain; and that to fear God and keep his commandments is the whole of man-the sum of his duty and his happiness.

Solomon died B. C. 975, at the close of a peaceful and prosperous reign of 40 years. But the evils which he had brought upon the land by his misconduct in the latter part of his reign were irreparable, and with him expired the glory, power, and integrity of the Hebrew monarchy.

II.

THE WRITINGS OF SOLOMON.

King Solomon appears to have been not only the wisest, but the most learned man of his times. He far excelled all his contemporaries, as a poet, naturalist, philosopher, and ethical writer. He is related to have been the author of a thousand and five songs. Of these, however, none have been preserved except two Psalms and the Canticles, called in Hebrew "the Song of Songs," perhaps because it was regarded as the best of his compositions belonging to that class.*

* Two Psalms are ascribed to Solomon in the titles prefixed to them, viz., the seventy-second and the one hundred and twenty-seventh. With regard to the latter there appears to be but little difference of opinion among critics. Nearly all seem disposed to concede its authorship to the w se king. It is a short psalm belonging to the Psalms of Degrees, and was probably composed for the purpose of being sung at the dedication of the Temple. It may have been written by Solomon during the preparation for building that sacred edifice, or while its construction was in progress; and seems to have been intended as an expression of the well known maxim of Solo mon, "A man's heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his steps." Prov. 16: 9. Comp. also Prov. 10: 22. With regard to the authorship of the former Psalm there is far less unanimity of opinion than with respect to the latter. The preposition lamed is sometimes the sign of the genitive, indicating possession, property, and then is properly translated of; at other times it is the sign of the dative, and then denotes to, for, or concerning. Some critics maintain that the latter is the import of the preposition here, and that the Psalm was composed by David near the close of his life, concerning his son, on the delivery to him of his kingdom, in which he invokes the divine blessing upon him and predicts the prosperity and splendor of his reign. Others suppose that David, having written the psalm on his dying bed, committed it to Solomon to be inserted in the Collection of Psalms which he had prepared for the public services of the sanctuary. Against t: ese opinions there lies this weighty ob jection, that the preparation lamed in every other place where it occurs in the titles prefixed to the Psalms without any thing to limit its application, always indicates the author. This is conceded by those who advocate the Davidic origin of the psalm. It would be contrary to all philological propriety to make this an exception to the general usage, unless the exigency of the place, arising from internal evidence, im. periously demands it. But this has never been satisfactorily shown; for, although the Psalm is of such a character, as that it might have been written by David re

The united voice of antiquity and the concurrent testimony of all generations ascribe this poem or collective series of idyls to Solomon; and internal evidence strongly corroborates that testimony. "The whole hue of the book," says Pareau, "and its exquisite poetic elegance seem to us to point so strongly to the very splendid age of that king, and to his genius wholly disposed to florid diction, such as he has shown in the book of Proverbs, e. g., in chap. vii. 10-15, that though his name were not inscribed in the commencement of the book, we should readily suspect that he was its author." The book has always been classed among the Canonical and inspired writings of the Old Testament, and, though not quoted in the New Testament, it unquestionably formed a part of the Jewish • Scriptures, (Josephus' Antiq. viii. 2, 5, and Contr. Ap. 1, 8,) was translated by the authors of the Septuagint Version into the Greek language, is included in all the ancient catalogues of sacred books, and expressly attested by Melito in the second century, Origen in the third, Jerome near the close of the fourth, and in the fifth by the Jewish Sargum and Theodoret, bishop of Cyprus. With regard to its scope and design, a great variety of opinions have been entertained. The subject of the book is confessedly Love; but what kind of love, and between what parties, are questions which have greatly perplexed critics. Some

specting Solomon, yet there is nothing in it to preclude the idea that it was written by Solomon himself, and therefore rightly ascribed to him The circumstance that at the end of the psalm there is appendid the superscription, "the prayers of David are ended," does not in the least militate against this opinion; for this superscription announces nothing more than that David is to be regarded as the principal author of the first book or collection of Psalms of which this psalm forms the conelusion; because there are several psalms in this collection which were undoubtedly composed by others. The Messianic character of the 72d Psalm is admitted by all the best commentators, either in a primary or secondary sense. Those who adopt the latter view suppose that it was written primarily with a view to celebrate the splendid reign of Solomon, and that only in a secondary and remote sense is it descriptive of the Messiah and his kingdom. But even if we should admit the principle of a two-fold appl.cation and double sense in any case, we see no good reason why, according to some of the most judicious interpreters, this psalm should not be regarded as applicable immediately and exclusively to the Messiah, and as entirely prophetic of him. Interpreted as a prediction of his glorious and universal reign, it is clear and free from all exaggeration; applied to Solomon, it is replete with immeasurable hyperbole. The most ancient Jewish Rabbies interpreted it of the Messiah, and the greatest violence must be employed to adapt it to any other subject. The imagery of the psalm is undoubtedly borrowed from the peaceful and brilliant reign of Solomon, as is that of the second psalm from the martial and triumphant reign of David.

C*

maintain that the subject of the poem or poems is physical love; that the poem is a mere amatory song, descriptive of wedded love; an epithalamium or nuptial dialogue in praise of marriage, and especially of monogamy: that it was composed on the occasion of the marriage between Solomon and the princess of Egypt, and was designed to celebrate that event; that Solomon and the princess are the characters introduced into it, and that it has no religious element or object. Others suppose that the chaste mutual love of two young persons antecedent to marriage is here celebrated. But the great body of oriental scholars and Biblical critics, both those who have denied the inspiration of the poem, and those who have regarded it as an inspired composition, maintain that it is an allegory. The Jewish writers from the earliest times have always regarded it as such, and it is hardly probable that on any other supposition it would have been admitted into the sacred canon. Some commentators, however, hold that its primary and literal sense has reference to the event of Solomon's marriage, while in a deeper secondary and mystical sense it is allegorical. Others, however, maintain that it is simply and purely a sacred allegory, without any historical basis whatever, and without having been even suggested by any particular event in the life of Solomon; but that it is descriptive of the mutual love which subsists between Jehovah and his ancient people, or prophetically between Christ and his Church, or Christ and each individual Christian, clothed in figures borrowed from the ardor of human passions. There can be no reasonable doubt that it is a sacred allegory, having only a single sense, though the style, language and form of the poem may have been suggested to Solomon's mind by his own marriage with the Egyptian princess. It is intended, we think, to describe the covenant relation and attachment of Jehovah to his ancient people; but not in such a sense as to exclude Christ and the Christian church. The Jehovah, whose love to his people under the old covenant is depicted, is also no other than Christ, the divine logos, who, in all times has revealed to mankind the will and glory of God, and who offered himself in a human form a sacrifice to redeem and purchase to himself a glorious