Jones speaks doubtfully in reference to the existence of sacred allegory in ordinary Oriental poetry, Dr. KITTO remarks that the practice of setting forth spiritual subjects under the emblem of love is not confined to Arabian countries, but is found in Persia, India, and among the Rabbinical Hebrews; and gives it as his opinion that the allegorical or spiritual interpretation of the Song of Solomon is not only the right one, but the only possible one; and that, if the poem have any historical basis, the circumstances are so modified as to suit the spiritual purpose of the allegory, but would have been most unsuitable in a real history.

The reader will observe, that like some other expositors, I have divided the Song into parts, and these again into separate scenes. There can be no reasonable doubt that, while the remotest idea of performance is of course entirely out of the question, the poem is scenic or dramatic in its structure; exhibiting, as it does, without formally announcing it, a variety of characters in dialogue, in various situations, and under various circumstances; while, in the general presence of the daughters of Jerusalem,' a resemblance may even be seen to the chorus of the ancient Greeks. The separating of the parts of the poem, however, and the assigning to the speakers their proper place in the dialogues, while highly important to the right understanding of the passages, is often one of the most difficult tasks of the expositor. The speaker is indeed often, though not always, indicated either by the title given to the party addressed, or by the grammatical form of some of the words, apparent in the original, but not in an English translation.

None who is familiar with the Psalms of David and the writings of the prophets, will wonder at the language of ardent love and longing mutually expressed in the Song by the Bride and Bridegroom, viewed as representing the Lord Jesus Christ and His redeemed people. It may well be asked, why should earthly love be less ardent than that which is Divine and heavenly? and why should perfect excellence, and boundless, unmerited, self-sacrificing love be regarded with less ardour and affection, and be spoken of in colder terms, than that which is unspeakably inferior? Is it too much to say that the ardent language of many a Jacobite song, in reference to a prince who at best afforded but a specimen of fallen and imperfect humanity, might put to the blush many who profess attachment to the Prince of Life?

The Author is aware that, in some quarters, the Divine Book on which he has been engaged lies under a prejudice, as if unsuited for homiletical use. He trusts, however, that the attempt, now very imperfectly made, to Tf either the preacher provide a help in that direction, may not be in vain.

H

of the Gospel should derive benefit in his arduous but blessed and important employment from the commentary now prepared, as the writer is thankful to learn has been the case with that on Job or if the Christian reader should find himself assisted by it in his meditation on that portion of the inspired Word which the author has found so precious to himself, he will feel abundantly rewarded for the labour it has cost him. He prayerfully commends it, with all its imperfections, to the blessing of Him whose aid has been invoked in its preparation, and who has graciously promised in regard to His own Word: IT SHALL NOT RETURN UNTO ME VOID.'

Morpeth.

August 13th, 1877.

HOMILETIC COMMENTARY

ON

THE SONG OF SOLOMON.

Introduction.

I. Authorship. The poem generally regarded as the work of King Solomon. Perhaps, though not certainly, indicated by the title. See on chap. i. ver. 1. Reasons in favour of this view:-1. General consent both of Jewish and Christian writers, ancient and modern. 2. The prevailing circle of images and references to facts and things; indicating the author to have lived in the time of Solomon, and to have been well acquainted with natural history, as Solomon is known to have been (Kiel). 3. The author well acquainted with all parts of the land of Israel, and greatly susceptible of impressions from the beautiful (Delitzsch). 4. Solomon known to have been largely employed in poetical composition (1 Kings iv. 32). 5. A relationship with the Book of Proverbs, known to be Solomon's, indicated by the language (Hengstenberg).

II. Canonicity and Inspiration. All but universally admitted. Formed part of the Jewish canon in the time of the Saviour, and always received as inspired Scripture by the Christian Church. Independent arguments for its inspiration;-The majesty of the style; the sublimity of the matter; its harmony with the rest of Scripture, especially in the leading idea of the bridal relation of the Church to Jehovah or the Messiah; its power, felt in all ages, in moving the affections towards the Divine Saviour.

४८

III. Unity of the Book. The poem generally regarded as a united whole rather than a collection of independent odes. Arguments in favour of its unity:-1. The title—a Song," not Songs. 2. The same persons introduced throughout, and in the same character; as-the King, called also Solomon, appearing as the friend and beloved of the virgin; the Virgin herself, called more definitely Shulamite, who appears throughout as the Fair One, the love, sister, and bride of the king; the Daughters of Jerusalem. 3. The same commencements and conclusions of long passages or divisions of the book; as at iii. 6; vi. 10; viii. 5; ii. 6, 7; iii. 5; viii. 3, 4. 4. The recurrence of the same ideas, and even of whole sentences, as in ii. 10--13 compared with vi. 11, vii. 12—14; iii. 1-4 with v. 2—8; iv. 1—3 with vi. 5-7; iv. 5 with vii. 4; i. 15 with iv. 1. 5. The same language throughout, even to the smallest peculiarities (Hahn). 6. Unity of scene. 7. The plan and tendency of the whole (Ewald).

IV. Internal Character of the Composition. An allegory, with a probable foundation in some historical fact or event in Solomon's life, as the occasion of it; the brida] relation between the Church and Christ being exhibited under the figure of a similar relation between King Solomon and Shulamite, a beautiful and pure-minded rustic maiden. Arguments in favour of the allegorical nature of the poem :-1. The general belief of both the Jewish and the Christian Church, both in ancient and modern times. 2. The unity and harmony of the Book, on this supposition, with the rest of Scripture. 3. The apparent reference to it in this sense by the writers and speakers of the New Testament, as Matt. ix. 15; John iii. 29; Rom. vii. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 23-32; Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 9; xxii. 17 compared with Song iii. 11; iv. 8, 9, 10, 11; v. 1; and vii. 10; Matt. ii. 1 with iii. 2, and v. 6; Matt. ii. 11 with iii. 6; Matt. xviii. 12, 13, and Luke xv. 4-7 with ii. 2, 8, and vi. 3, 9. 4. The undeniable resemblance of the Song to the 45th Psalm, about whose allegorical meaning all are agreed. 5. Apparent indications in the poem itself; for example: "Shulamite" apparently used as a symbolical name (viii. 10), and as the name rather of a plurality in unity than of a single person (i. 3, 4; ii. 9, 15; v. 1; vii. 13; viii, 8, 12). "Baalhamon” not the name of any known real place, but apparently expressive of the world and its peoples as in a state of unrest and dispeace (Ps. xlvi 4, 7; Isaiah lvii. 20). 6. The acknowledged difficulty of giving a satisfactory explanation on the merely natural or historic theory, as indicated by the great want of unity among those who have adopted it.

V. The External Character or Form of the Composition. A dramatic poem, or a poem in the nature of a drama, embracing a variety of scenes and characters; these characters sometimes speaking in dialogue, and sometimes alone; with a subordinate party generally present and often taking part in the dialogue, in some respects corresponding to the Chorus of the ancient drama. The form of the poem thus in some degree resembling that of Job; the difference being that in Job each speaker is formally announced by the poet, which is not the case in the Song, the change and personality of the speakers being left to be inferred by the reader from the speeches themselves-a cireumstance often rendering the interpretation more difficult, but greatly contributing to the energy and liveliness of the composition.

VI. The Object of the Book. Various objects probably contemplated by the Divine Author, whatever may have been the design of the human one. The leading object justly regarded as being to exhibit the intimate relation subsisting between the Church, whether viewed as a whole or in each of its true members individually, and its Divine covenantHead and King, the Messiah, or Son of God in human nature; the relation being that of a Bride and Bridegroom-a relation constantly recognized in the Prophets in especial reference to the Church of the Old Testament (Isaiah liv. 5, 6; Jer. ii. 2; iii. 14; xxxi. 32; Hos. ii. 19, 20; iii. 3; Ezek. xvi. 32-38); and in the Evangelists and Apostles in reference to the Church of the New (Matt. ix. 15; John iii. 29; Rom. vii. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 23, 32; Rev. xix. 7-9; xxi. 9; xxii. 17). As a part of this object, the Book designed to shew the amazing love of God in Christ as implied in that. bridal relation; the transcendent excellence of the Divine Bridegroom; the privileges, duties, and responsibilities connected with this relation on the part of the Church as His Bride; the injury sustained by her from a conduct unbecoming it, and, on the other hand, the blessedness and honour connected with a faithful observance of its duties and improvement of its privileges. Practically, the edification of the Church the object of this as of the other parts of Scripture