Preface

BY THE REV. CHARLES BRIDGES, M.A., RECTOR OF HINTON MARTELL, DORSET. AUTHOR OF AN “EXPOSITION OF PSALM CXIX;” “COMMENTARY ON PROVERBS;” “CHRISTIAN MINISTRY;” “MEMOIR OF MARY JANE GRAHAM,” ETC.

NEW YORK: ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, No. 580 BROADWAY. 1860. Public Domain

PREFACE

THE Book of Ecclesiastes has exercised the Church of God in no common degree. Many learned men have not hesitated to number it among the most difficult Books in the Sacred Canon. Luther doubts whether any Exposition up to his time has fully mastered it. The Patristic Commentaries, from Jerome downwards, abound in the wildest fancies; so that, as one of the old interpreters observes, ‘the trifles of their allegories it loatheth and wearieth me to set down.

Expositors of a different and later school have too often “darkened counsel by words without knowledge” (Job 38:2); perplexing the reader’s mind with doubtful theories, widely diverging from each other. The more difficult the book, the greater the need of Divine Teaching to open its contents. However valuable be the stores of human learning, they will not throw one ray of true light upon the word, without the heavenly influence of the Great Teacher.

Separate from Him, “the light that is in us is darkness.” (Matt. 6:23.)

The Author confesses that he has felt his measure of difficulty as to some of the statements of this Book. But the result of his inquiry into its Divine credentials has been solidly satisfactory. The conclusion therefore was natural, that a Book that ‘had God for its Author,’ must have ‘truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Some of its maxims have indeed been too hastily supposed to countenance Epicurean indulgence.

Nay—even Voltaire and his Monarch disciple have dared to claim detached passages as favouring their sceptical philosophy. But ‘all of them’—as Mr. Scott observes—‘admit of a sound and useful interpretation, when accurately investigated, and when the general scope of the book is attended to. If any difficulties still remain, as Lord Bacon remarks—‘If they teach us nothing else, they will at least teach us our own blindness.

Thus Pascal profoundly remarks on the Scriptures—‘There is enough brightness to illuminate the elect, and enough obscurity to humble them. “All things work together for good” to the elect; even the obscurities of Scripture, which these honour and reverence on account of that Divine clearness and beauty, which they understand.

There is, however, a wide difference between what appears upon the surface, and what a thoughtful mind in a prayerful spirit will open from the inner Scripture. It is most important to study the Bible in the spirit of the Bible—to exercise a critical habit in a spiritual atmosphere. Prayer, faith, humility, diligence, will bring rest and satisfaction to minds exercised in the school of God.

As an able preacher remarks—‘We expect to find some difficulties in a revelation from a Being like God to such a creature as man. We even rejoice in these difficulties. They are the occasion of our growth in grace. They exercise our humility. They are like the leaves and flowers, of which the crown of faith is woven. They remind us of our own weakness and ignorance, and of Christ’s power and wisdom. They send us to Him and to the Gospel.’

Our last testimony on this anxious point we draw from the highest school of instruction—the death-bed. ‘We must acknowledge’—said the late Adolph Monod—‘that in the beginning of the study of Scripture, there are many difficulties, and much obscurity.

Some labour is necessary to dissipate them; and the mind of man is naturally slow and idle; and he easily loses courage, and is satisfied with reading over and over again, without penetrating further than the surface; and he learns nothing new; and the constant perusal of the same thing causeth weariness, as if the word of God was not interesting; as if we could not find some new instruction in it; as if it were not inexhaustible as God Himself.

Let us ever’—he adds—‘beware of thinking these difficulties insurmountable. We must give ourselves trouble. For here, as in every part of the Christian life, God will have us to be labourers with Himself; and the knowledge of the Bible, and a relish for the Bible, are the fruit and recompence of this humble, sincere, and persevering study.

But to come more closely to the difficulties connected with this Book—Besides the objections brought against its principles, the peculiar construction of some of its maxims occasionally gives rise to perplexity. Mr. Holden adverts to the mistake of—‘taking in their utmost extent expressions designed to convey a qualified and limited signification. He wisely remarks—‘General propositions are not always to be received in the strictest sense of the words.

And particular observations must not be stretched beyond the intention of the writer. This results from the inherent imperfection of language, that his expressions ought to be interpreted with such restrictions, as are necessarily required by common sense, and the scope of the context.

If several expressions in the Ecclesiastes, which have been condemned, be understood in this qualified sense—a sense clearly suggested by truth and reason—they will be found in every respect worthy of the inspired Author, from whom they proceed.’

But with all its difficulties, we must admit the book to be fraught with practical interest. It teaches lessons peculiarly its own—lessons, which we are too slow to learn; and yet, which we must thoroughly learn for our own personal profit and happiness. They are essential, as preparatory to our enjoyment of the Gospel. The precise place of the Book in the Sacred Canon is somewhat remarkable.

Its juxtaposition with ‘The Song’ illustrates a fine and striking contrast between the insufficiency of the creature and the sufficiency of the Saviour. ‘What a stimulus to seek after the true and full knowledge of Christ is the realized conviction of the utter vanity of all things else without Him. To “drink and thirst again” is the disappointment of the world. To “drink and never thirst” is the portion of the Gospel. We must not however linger upon particular points.

Some preliminaries yet remain to be noticed, ere we enter upon a detailed Exposition. A few words upon—

I. The Writer of this Book. —This we should have thought had been a matter placed beyond controversy. The words of the Son of David—King of Jerusalem—seem to point with absolute precision to Solomon—the only Son of David who was the possessor of that royalty. (Eccl 1:1, 12.) But some critics of name4—from the difference of style—the use of a few words of supposed later origin—the introduction of incidental matters not—as they think—falling within the ken of Solomon’s vision—on these and other grounds they have determined the writer to belong to some later era.

The arguments, however, in favour of this hypothesis, amount only to theoretical doubts or plausibilities; while they involve a supposition utterly unworthy of Inspiration—namely—that some unknown writer has palmed upon the Church in the Sacred Canon his own thoughts and words under the deceptive cover of the name of the Son of David—King of Jerusalem.

A part from this conjectural hypothesis—if any weight be due to the unanimous consent of all the Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions—confirmed by the concurrent voice of Jewish Tradition—we must without doubt or hesitation acknowledge the wise Son of David to be the Preacher in this Book.

II. The date of this Treatise is a matter of much interest. ‘He seemeth’—says Bishop Reynolds—‘to have written it in his old age, when he took a more serious view of his past life—the honour, pleasure, wealth, and wisdom he had so abundantly enjoyed—the errors and miscarriages he had fallen into—the large experience, and many observations he had made of things natural, moral, domestical, sensual, Divine—the curious and critical inquiry he had made after true happiness, and what contributions all things under the sun could afford thereunto.

All internal evidence confirms this date. It could not have been written before his fall—that is—before that awful state of madness, which he so graphically describes. Neither could it have been penned at the time, since it evidently is a record of the past reviewed in penitence. We are thrown back therefore upon the later date with clear conviction.

Add to which—he mentions his great works (the building of which employed upwards of twenty-five years of his life) (Ecclesiastes 2:4–10; 1 Kings, 9:10)—his immense riches (Ecclesiastes 2: with 1 Kings, 10:20, 25) and multiplied sources of sensual pleasure (the gathering and enjoyment of many years); his revolt from women—doubtless with the poignant remembrance of his sinful connexion with them (Ecclesiastes 7:26–28 with 1 Kings 11:3.) His exquisite picture also of old age (Ecclesiastes 12:1–6) bears the mark of personal identity.

And altogether, ‘he writeth in such sort, as if he had learned the doctrine of the vanity of earthly things by very great experience and long use. Assuming therefore the later date to be accurate, the circumstances remind us of his father’s example—the one writing a Psalm (Ps. 51.) the other a Book—as a solemn and perpetual testimony in the face of the Church of their godly repentance.

This date is a matter of some anxiety clearly to ascertain, as bearing upon the momentous point of Solomon’s final salvation. If we admit, that Scripture hath pronounced no certain judgment upon this matter, we yet contend, that the balance of testimony and inference lies strongly upon the favourable side. His name given to him at his birth—“Beloved of the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:24, 25)—was surely the seal and pledge of unchangeable love.

The covenant made with his father concerning him before his birth included—not the temporal kingdom only—but the privilege of personal adoption and mercy (2 Sa 7:14, 15; 1 Chron. 22:10). His express designation as a type of Christ (Ib. with Heb. 1–5. Comp. also Ps. 72.) leads us naturally to ask—‘Could an apostate represent the Saviour—the inexpressible glory of the Son of God?

The notice of “the rest of his acts”—his last days—speaks of his “wisdom” (1 Kings 11:41), as if it had returned to him—as if he had spoken wise words (might it not have been this very Book?) after his fall, as he had done before it. A posthumous record also links his “way” with that of his penitent father (2 Chron. 11:17), which surely could not have been, if he had not a fellowship with him in the way of repentance.

One thing is clear—he has not written a line in this book that tends to give one particle of palliation of his sin. The whole treatise has a sad character about it—a mournful commentary—mainly a book of confession. The brighter exercises of Evangelical repentance are but dimly exhibited.

Upon the whole therefore we judge of him as a child of that covenant, which provided a rod for his backslidings (Comp. 2 Sam. 7:14, 15, with 1 Kings, 11:25, 26); while it secured a happy issue in the end. If his sun set in a cloud, might not this be the chastening of the child—not to be cast off?

But we pass from this interlude—too important however to be omitted—to mark

III. The Divine Authority of the Book .—We admit that the writers of the New Testament have not given any express reference to it. But we know it to have formed a part of that canon, which by special Providence has been preserved to us—authenticated by the most ancient nation in the world (Rom. 3:2)—and yet more, attested by our Lord and his Apostles as the final appeal—“the Scripture that cannot be broken.

The Old Testament as a whole having received this undoubted sanction, the stamp of authority affixed to the whole Book obviously attaches to every part of it—to this Book of Ecclesiastes, as a component part of the Divine whole.

Nor have the corrupt propensities of the writer any influence in deteriorating its real authority, which depends—not upon the instrumentality employed, but upon the dignity of its great author, and the truthfulness of the testimony.

There is therefore no solid ground to question, that this book—like every other part of “Scripture—is given by inspiration of God.” (2 Tim. 3:16.) Many surface objections may be produced; but all—as we have observed—are grounded upon misconception, and admit of easy refutation. It may be noted here—as it has been observed generally of religion—‘It presents few difficulties to the humble, many to the proud, insuperable ones to the vain.

To believe the word, because God hath spoken, is the one and true resting-place of faith. Every other course is “going from hill to mountain, and from mountain to hill, having forgotten the resting-place.” (Jer. 1:6.) We advert lastly to

IV. The main scope and object of the Book. —It may be simply stated—to solve the problem, ‘which from the day when Adam fell has been the great enquiry among men;’ and on which philosophy could throw no light—“Who will show us any good?” (Ps. 4:6.) It is to bring out into clear view the chief good—the true happiness of man, in what it does not consist—not in the wisdom, pleasures, honours, and riches of this world—in what it does consist—the enjoyment and service of God.

Beggars we are, with all the riches of the Indies, without Him. He is the substitute for everything. Nothing can be a substitute for Him. The world is full of gaspers—and, alas! they gasp in vain. They only draw in air. They know not where the true substance lies—in Him the supreme good and satisfying portion—in His service—no hard and gloomy exercise—but full of liberty and joy. We give a testimony of some interest.—‘Began expounding the Book of Ecclesiastes.

Never before had I so clear a sight either of its meaning or beauties. Neither did I imagine, that the several parts of it were in so exquisite a manner connected together, all tending to prove that grand truth, that there is no happiness out of God.

If we are living at the Fountain Head in communion with Him, we shall realize this summum bonum, or ‘true wisdom—not including a single particle of that which is worldly and carnal; but that which is holy, spiritual, and undefiled, and which in the writings of Solomon is but another word for religion. Guided by this clue, we can easily traverse the intricate windings and mazes, in which so many commentators upon ‘The Ecclesiastes’ have been bewildered.

The Preacher’s object—as the learned Whitaker has determined—is, ‘not to allure men to the pleasures of the world, but rather to deter them from such pleasures, and exhorts them with a Divine eloquence to despise the world.

After having disputed through the whole book against those, who desire to satisfy themselves with such good, he at the close teaches them that happiness consisteth not in things of this kind, but in true piety—and thus concludes, Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole of man.

This is not the judgment of an Epicurean, but of an holy prophet, withdrawing foolish men from the pursuit of worthless objects, and recalling them into the true path of a pious and happy life. Nor is the great object of the Book limited to any age or nation. It is not, like many of the prophetic messages, the burden of this or the other nation—a distinct message to a distinct people.

The book, with all its lessons and illustrations, is the property of the Church and of the world in every age. The Preacher—as upon a former occasion—lifts up his voice, and causes it to be heard amid the din and dissipation of a careless world—“Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of men.” (Prov. 8:4.) Is there not in our hearts an awakened conviction of an evil course?

Then let the voice be heard once more in tender seriousness—Moreover, by these, my son, be admonished. (Ecclesiastes 12:12.) On no account therefore could we have spared this book from the canon. It has its own sphere of instruction—and that—as we have before hinted—of no common value. Does not its full development of this world’s delusions excite us to search for the true rest?

The water of gall, springing up from the “broken cisterns,” stirs up the search for “the Fountain of living waters. May it not be, that we are permitted to taste the bitter wormwood of the earthly streams, in order that, standing by the heavenly Fountain, we may point our fellow-sinners to the world of vanity we have left, and to the surpassing glory and delights of the world we have newly found? At all events success is the sure issue of the persevering search.

The desponding cry—“All is vanity!” is now changed for the joyous burst of experimental confidence—“Precious Saviour! be thou my portion. All without thee is vanity. All with thee—all in thee—is true substance. ‘My blessed hope’—said a dying Christian—‘is worth a thousand worlds.’—This is the grand discovery—the summum bonum indeed.

How does this discovery once made and enjoyed, become the living principle of every godly grace—“perfecting holiness in the fear of God!” (2 Cor. 7:1.) The Writer has only to add a few words relative to his own labour. The various commentaries on this book would fill a large compass. A few only need to be mentioned, that have been more prominently useful. Bp. Reynolds’ Annotations are richly fraught with scriptural instruction.

Dr. Wardlaw’s Lectures are a fine specimen of exposition. Dr. Hamilton’s Royal Preacher sparkles with brilliant imagination, perhaps sometimes with a colouring too gorgeous for the pure simplicity of Scripture. The Rev. G. Holden’s Commentary stands foremost for the accuracy of critical exegesis. Scott’s Notes in solid weight of instruction rarely disappoint. Henry brings out from his lively store original and profitable thought.

Other commentaries less known—Ancient and Modern—Romish and Protestant—Home and Foreign—will be found to have been consulted. A few may be wanting from the list, not having come across the Author’s path. In the use of them sometimes a train of thought has been suggested, where exact quotation inadvertently may not have been given. Practical instruction and Christian edification have been considered, rather than novelty or originality.

The Author has felt warranted to expound this Old Testament treatise as “a minister of the New Testament”—to expound Solomon by Christ; not forcing an unnatural interpretation, but feeling that both the Testaments, like our two eyes, mutually assist and enlighten each other. Or—to use another figure. The Book of Ecclesiastes—as a component part of the Revelation—is the germ of what the Gospel more fully develops.

It is the same God—the same creature—the same duties and obligations. We cannot therefore fully enforce and apply Ecclesiastes, except by the aid of Gospel light. He does not presume to have swept away all obscurities from the sky. But possibly a few rays of light may have been cast upon the dark clouds. For instances of failure in interpretation he would crave forbearance. For success he would give the glory where alone it is due.

He has endeavoured to place before him the apostolical rule—As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Pet. 4:10, 11.)

Hinton Martell Rectory, Wimborne, Dorset. December 10, 1859.