church, identical in substance, though differing in outward form and dispensation from the Jewish. Though not strictly prophetical of Christ and his Church, therefore, yet it includes the latter as a component part of the one Church of the living God, and the former as the great head of that church in all ages and under every dispensation. As to the idea, entertained by some, that the descriptions in this book represent the relation of an individual soul to Christ, the vital union and mutual love subsisting between Christ and every true disciple of his, we think they can be thus applied only by way of accommodation, and that in making such an application of them the greatest caution is necessary, lest it should lead to mysticism and engender spiritual pride. The Song of Solomon has been objected to by some, as being indelicate in its expressions. But much of this apparent indelicacy is chargeable to the translation, and is not the fault of the original poem; some of it arises from mistaking descriptions of the dress for descriptions of the naked person; and some from a change of manners and customs. It would appear from the statement in 1 Kg. 4: 33, that the natural history of plants and animals was a favorite study with Solomon, and occupied a large portion of his time and attention. His works, however, in that interesting department of knowledge, whatever they may have been, have suffered the same fate as the most of his poems: and had they been handed down to our times, they would doubtless have been valuable rather as a collection of facts than for the development of any important principle. They had no claims on the ground of inspiration or from their importance in a religious or ethical point of view, to be preserved with special care and scrupulous regard by the Jews, and hence, like all except the historical and religious literature of the Hebrews, has long since passed down the stream of time into the ocean of oblivion. But the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes from the pen of the royal scholar have been preserved in the Hebrew and Christian canons to our times, in the former of which is exhibited the ethical wisdom of Solomon, and in the latter his philosophical wisdom. The book of Ecclesiastes, (Heb. np, qocheleth,) or the Preacher, is ascribed to Solomon in the work itself, and was regarded as his composition by the early Jewish interpreters, and the great body of ancient Christian divines. With this opinion the general scope and subject matter of the book well correspond, on the supposition that it was written in the latter part of his life, after he had been brought to true repentance for his sins. Peculiarly truthful, appropriate and impressive does the book become in regard to the emptiness and vanity of all earthly objects, possessions, pursuits and expectations, when viewed from the stand-point of the varied experience and extensive observation of such a king as Solomon, at the close of his mortal career. Doubts respecting the authorship of the book, however, have been entertained in recent times by critics of different schools of theology, chiefly in consequence of its phraseology and style, and from some expressions which incidentally occur in it. The first writer of note who called in question the commonly received opinion respecting the author of the book, was Grotius, who has since been followed by Stuart, Hengstenberg and some other orthodox commentators, to say nothing of those which belong to the rationalistic school. But, we remark, a sentiment so uniform and so long entertained both in the Jewish and Christian churches, is not to be set aside except by the most decisive evidence against it: and it may well be doubted whether much more weight has not been given to the objections urged against it, than a careful consideration of the facts will warrant. The canonical authority of the book is undeniable, whatever doubts or speculations may be thrown in the way of its authorship. Our Lord does not, indeed, quote directly from it in his discourses, but he makes frequent allusions to it. To enter further into the discussion respecting the authorship of Ecclesiastes or to analyze minutely its contents and argument would transcend the scope of the present introduction. Two books classed by the Lutheran and Reformed churches among the Apocrypha, have been attributed to Solomon, viz: "The Wisdom of Solomon," and "The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach." The first has been thought to bear a resem blance to the canonical book of Ecclesiastes. But though it is ascribed to the same author, and contains many sublime ideas respecting the perfections of God, and many excellent moral precepts, it could not have proceeded from his pen, because it exhibits clear and indisputable marks of a later age. It contains, for instance, numerous citations from the prophetical writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah, who did not live till long after the reign of Solomon. The book, moreover, was never extant in the Hebrew language, but was evidently composed in Greek, as we now have it; it was never admitted into the Jewish canon, and appears to have been unknown to Philo and Josephus. It was apparently written by an Hellenistic Jew, residing in Egypt, probably at Alexandria, for the benefit of those of his nation who did not understand Hebrew. But who he was or where he lived, whether before or shortly after the Christian era, is uncertain. It has been admitted into the second canon (Deutero canonical) by the Roman Catholic Church, because found in the Septuagint version, translated from that into the Vulgate, and declared canonical by the third council of Carthage. But Jerome calls it pseudepigraphal and refrained from correcting the old Latin version of it, inserted in the Vulgate, because, as he says, he desired only to amend the Canonical books, The Book entitled "The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach," or "Ecclesiasticus," has been attributed to Solomon from its marked resemblance to the Book of Proverbs, of which it is in part a designed imitation. It is cited as his by several of the fathers; the Councils of Hippo, (A. D. 393,) and Carthage, (A. D. 397,) pronounced it the work of Solomon, and their decision was adopted by the Council of Trent, It is accordingly placed by the Romish Church among the Deutero canonical books. It is unquestionably a work of great value, much admired for the excellence of its political, moral and religious precepts, and regarded as not inferior in many respects to the Proverbs. Still on critical grounds it has no claim to be regarded as the work of Solomon, or as an inspired production. It was indeed originally written in Hebrew, and Jerome says that he had met with it in that form; but the original has long since perished, except some - forty passages preserved in the Jewish Rabbinical writings. It must have been composed long after the time of Solomon. For that monarch, together with the succeeding prophets that flourished before and after the Captivity, is here mentioned (ch. 27: 13, etc.). The High Priest Simon, who lived a little before the Maccabees, is spoken of (ch. 1: 1–21). The words of the Prophet Malachi are cited (ch. 48: 10, from Mal. 4: 6); and the author describes himself in circumstances that could not have occurred to Solomon. (vid. ch. 34: 10, 12. 51: 6.) And, finally, it virtually disclaims the idea of Solomon's being the author; for it professes to be the production of one Jesus, the Son of Sirach. (vid. Title and ch. 50: 27.) Of the real author we know nothing more than what he has himself disclosed. The present Greek translation was made by the grandson of the author, bearing the same name, who lived about B. C. 131.* It was probably written about B. C. 180. But there is no evidence that it ever formed a part of the Jewish canon, or was written by divine inspiration, and consequently is very properly placed with the "Book of Wisdom," by Protestant Christians, among the Apocryphal books, useful to be read for edification, but having no peculiar authority. The pre-eminent wisdom of Solomon was promulgated to the world partly in brief aphorisms, sententious and prudential maxims and proverbial sayings, clad in the pleasing and attractive garb of poetry. And if David is the first and most successful writer of psalmodical poetry, Solomon is on the other hand, the first and most successful writer of proverbial poetry. Of proverbs he is said to have spoken three thousand. . 1 Kg. 4: 32, A part of them (about 500) have been preserved and transmitted to our times in the Book which we have attempted to explain in the following pages. This species of ethical and didactic composition obtained among the Ilebrews the general appellation of Mashal, (, p.). for which the English language furnishes no term of exactly equivalent power. The Hebrew verb (,) from which the * According to Winer, the Greek translator belongs to the time of Evergetes the second, who reigned in the second half of the second century before Christ, noun is derived, signifies 1. to rule, to govern, 2. to compare, to liken, to assimilate. From the latter of these two general significations are derived the collateral meanings to speak a parable, to utter a proverb, to discourse in figurative language. Hence the kindred noun Mashal came to signify a similitude, a comparison, a parable, a proverb, a fable, an allegory, a pithy sentence or sententious saying, an apothegm, the gnome (rvd) of the Greeks, a parallelistic distich or poem. The same latitude of signification is found in the corresponding Syriac and Chaldee terms. Thus we see that the Hebrew noun embraces within the comprehensive scope of its generic meaning the apa Bolt and the napojía of the Greeks, and the English parable and proverb. Accordingly we find the Greek term ɑɑ ia, the Latin proverbia, and the English proverb employed in the Scriptures in the wide Hebrew sense of parable, moral similitude, sententious maxim, allegory or figurative discourse, and didactic instruction. In the New Testament, apaßoký and napoia are used interchangeably. What the first three Evangelists call παραβολαί (parables), St. John calls παρο pia (proverbs). See John 16: 25. 10: 6. This book is denominated “the Proverbs (?, apoipia, proverbiæ,) of Solomon." A proverb is a short pithy sentence, which embodies a well known and admitted trɩ th, or common fact, ascertained by experience or observation, and which passes current among the masses of society. Being founded on a self-evident truth, or on a fact established by general experience and observation, the whole force and pungency of the Proverb lies in its application, and not in the depth and ingenuity of the original form. It has been briefly and pertinently defined as "one man's wit, and all men's wisdom." À maxim is a principle generally received or admitted as true. A proverb therefore . is a maxim, but a maxim does not necessarily become a proverb. It must first pass the ordeal of universal suffrage, before it can obtain a place in the proverbial literature of a nation. And in order to this, it is requisite that it should meet a general want and accord with the popular taste and feeling. A maxim may be just and important; but if its circulation is |