made of it. No doubt, if we look above the historical, or natural, or litern.ry aspects of the book, it is easy to find in it the meanings which we may be tempted to put there ; but the same thing may be said of the Lord's parables and of all Scripture. The historical, literary, and spiritual aspects blend in one, e.nd that interpretation which is given to the language is most likely to be e.fter the mind of the Spirit, which follows his own method e.nd harmonizes with that which he inspired the man of God to set before us, e.nd his Church to hand down to us with the seal of its appro- bation upon it. 'l'he commentary must always justify, or otherwise, its own main principle; e.nd if as a whole it satisfies the language, it cannot be very far astray. It has been objected by some that we ought not to employ Solomon as in any sense a type of God or of Christ, because he was a sensual man; but such a principle would simply exclude all types, for they must be inferior in worth to that which they typify. The patriarchs were far from perfect men in their moral features, but they were plainly employed in Scripture typically as well e.s historically. David himself, the leading typical character and norm of the Old Testament, was guilty of great sins. Moreover, while Solomon appears in the poem itself as a sensual Eastern monarch, there is no reference to the sensuality of his life. Nor need we doubt that, sensualist as he became, and degraded as he was in the latter part of his life, he would in the earlier portion of his manhood be capable of the sincere attachment portrayed in the songs. At the same time, it may be allowed that the facts are idealized. Fundamentally they am historical. For a religious purpose they are lifted up into the region of poetry. To a considerable extent the same may be said of the Book of Job, which builds a splendid poem on a basis of facts. ' There remains, then, only, in conclusion, to justify this typical interpre- tation by showing that it is in analogy with other parts of Scripture. It will not be denied by any one, however much opposed to allegory or type, that the metaphor of marriage is common through the Old Testament in connection with the exhortation to covenant faithfulness. This is so familiar in the prophetical writings that it is quite unnecessary to adduce instances. The fifth, fiftieth, and sixty-second chapters of Isaiah and the first few chapters of Hosea, with the opening words of Malachi, will suffice to remind the reader that it was an illustration which all the sacred w1·iters made use of. It should again be remembered that we have in the forty-fifth psalm an instance of what the title describes as a "Song of Loves," or Epithalamium, which no one doubts was composed on the occasion of Solomon's marriage, or on some similar occasion in Israel. It is only a very extreme rejection of typical interpretation which would refuse to such a psalm any higher application thau that which appears upon the surface, especially with such language in it as ver. 6, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right aceptre." Admitting that such terms might be a.t first employed ouly as nii IN'J'HODUCTION TO
royal adulation and homage, it can scarcely be doubted that thei~ place in the \Yord of God is due to the fact that the Israelitish king was 1·egarded as the type of him who was called by the believing "Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile," "the Son of God, the King of Israel" (John i, 49}. The reference to Messiah was certainly believed by the Jews themsel~es, as we see from the introduction of it into the Chaldee paraphrase and 0thers of the Jewish writings, and as such it is cited in Hebrews (i. 8, 9). Ko satisfactory explanation of the psalm can be made out on any other ,·iew. If we deny a Messianic reference in such a case, while the New. Testament confirms it, our position must be that of dealing with the whole, of the Old Testament only as a fragmentary Jewish literature, withoqt, proper unity and without inspired authority. In that oase we are thrown back upon far greater difficulties than any which the older view meets, for: we cannot el,..l)lain the history and character of the Jewish people as a. whole, and we must be prepa'red to answer the full force of the ..Apostle Paul's emphatic statement, that "to them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. iii. 2). Such bold rationalism is now completely out of date, and we must be at the pains to study the language of the Old Testament: with a reverent acknowledgment of the purpose of God in unfolding th~- secrets of his mind and will. Hengstenberg bases his argument fof the• allegorical interpretation of Solomon's Song on the fact that, .Solomon. himself is the author, and that we cannot otherwis~ account, for th\'ttitle and place given to the work. Had it been a mere collection o~ love-songs, it would be a. dishonour to the Word of God to c~.l.Lit ,by such a name and. place it side by side with the sublime inspired ·songs of Moses, Miriam,: Deborah, Hannah, and David. There is certain1y co_nsiderable· for,ce in that Yiew. And the close correspondence between the:" Song of;Lo.ve$/~ the forty-fifth psalm, and the "Song of Songs" seems. to confirm .the typical character of both. We :find, for instance/ such language as this, apparently adopted as a religious phraseology, "fairest among the childt!;in, of men" (Pa. xlv. 3), "chiefest among ten thousand" (Cant. v. 10). . "The: king," as the highest object of praise; "lilies,'~ as the emblems of ,virgin purity and loveliness; lovelinesB of the lip, as representing excellence of discourse; heroic might, majesty, and glory in the, king; the .idea which 11ervades both, of conjugal fidelity, with other minor resemblances, lend considerable weight to the suggestion that the forty-fifth psalm was a kind of adaptation of the Canticles for performance by the sons of Korab in tLe temple. Hengstenberg mentions many instances in the prophetical Scriptures in which he traces allusion to the language or metaphors of the Song of Solomon, but they are not sufficiently clear to be relied upon as evidence. And the same may be _said of the instances whicih he ,ad_d:uces frum the New Testament, which he thinks is "pervaded with references all of them based uu tlie supposition that the book is to be .interpreted Eq,iritually." Our Lord referis to" Solomon in all his glory;" can we safely allirm that he alluue1,1 to the description in Canticles? Hengstenberg 'l'HE SONG OF SOLOM.O~. xxHi