points to the metaphor in eh. ii. 1, "I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of Iha valley," but unfortunately he has put those words into the lips of Solomon instead of the bride, which defeats his reference. Most of the other instances are equally unsatisfactory. At the same time, it must be admitted that the use of metaphors formed from the marriage relation and from the language of human affection, in application to the highest intercourse of the soul with the objects of faith, is common both in our Lord's discourses and in the writings of the apostles. It is especially prominent in the Apocalypse. The Church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. Would such metaphors be employed by the Apostle John unless he hoo found them already in the Old Testament? Would the Apostle Paul have spoken as he does of the mystical meaning of marriage as setting forth the union between Christ and his Church, unless the Scripture8 hacl familiarized the people of God with the symbol? We entirely sympathize with that revulsion of feeling with which healthy minds turn away from the extravagant fancifulness and arbitrari- ness of the allegorical school of commentators. But we refuse to follow those who, in their avoidance of one extreme, fly to the other. The book cannot be a mere literary product. We must find for it some true place in the sacred volume. "Shall we then," asks Mr. Kingsbury, in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' "regard it as a mere fancy, which for so many ages past has been wont to find in the pictures and melodies of the Song of Songs types and echoes of the actings and emotions of the highest love, of love Divine, in its relations to humanity; which, if dimly discerned through their aid by the synagogue, have been amply revealed in the gospel to the Church ? Shall we not still claim to trace, in the noble and gentle history thus presented, foreshadowings of the infinite condescensions of incarnate love ?-that love which, first stooping in human form to visit us in our low estate in order to seek out and win its object (Ps. cxxxvi. 23), and then raising along with itself a sanctified humanity to the heavenly places (Eph. ii. 6), is finally awaiting there an invitation from the mystic bride to return to earth once more and seal the union for eternity (Rev. xxii. 17)? With such a conception of the character and purpose of the poem, we may at any rate sympathize with the glowing language of St. Bernard concerning it. This Song excels all other songs of the Old Testament. They being, for the most part, songs of deliverance from captivity, Solomon for such had no occasion. In the height of glory, singular in wisdom, abounding in riches, secure in peace, he here by Divine inspiration sings the praises of Christ and his Church, the grace of holy love, the mysteries of the eternal marriage, yet all the while like Moses putting a veil before his face, because at that time there were few or none that could gaze upon such glories" (vol. iv. p. 674). It is unworthy of any devout interpreter of such a. book to despise and disparage the spiritual element in it. What so many of God's people have recognized must be substantially the mind niv INTRODUCTION TO THE SONG OF SOLOMON:
of the Spirit. No doubt, as Delitzsch has observed, "no other book of Scripture ba.s been so much abused by an unsoientifio spiritualizing and an over-scientific unspiritual treatment." But the errors of commen- tators are generally gropings towards the light. The truth is morn likely to be found in the mean between the two extremes. The allegorist gives the reins to his fanoy and ends in absurdities; the literalist shuts himself up in his naturalism and forfeits the blessing of the Spirit. We trust that the following Exposition will show that there is a better way. THE SONG OF SOLOMON.