The view started by Abravanel and Leon He brmus, that the bride represents wisdom, with whom Solomon is conversing, was now also intro duced into the Christian church by no less a person than Rosemmiller (Scholia, ix. 270). In England, however, Mr. Thrupp, one of the latest allegorists (1862), has returned to the early patristic alle gory, whilst Mr. Dunn, the last allegoriser (1865), espouses a modified form of Abravanel's view— namely, that the Song celebrates 'the union of the soul and divine -,visdom, and the blessedness there from arising.' iii. The Typical or Mystical School.—The view of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that the bride in this Song is Pharaoh's daughter, which was evidently derived from those literalising Jews who questioned the canonicity of the book, seems to have been traditionally preserved in the East since the Jaco bite primate, Abul-Farja (1226-1286) describes it in his Arabic history as a matter of course, that ..‘utwardly the Song is a dialogue between Solomon and his bride, Pharaoh's daughter. This typical theory gained special favour among our English Reformers, as is evident from the headings in the various editions of what is called Matthew's Bible 0537, 1549, J551, etc.), which are as follows : A mystical device of the spiritual and godly love be tween Christ, the spouse, and the church or con gregation, his spouse. Solomon made this ballad or Song by himself, and his wife, the daughter of Pharaoh, under the shadow of himself, figuring Christ, and under the person of his wife, the church.' This view, which evidently owes its origin to the want felt by the allegorisers of a literal basis whereupon to rear their speculations, was defended by the celebrated Grotius 0635-1645)9 the learned Bishop Bossuet (1690), and Calmet 0726), in France; and by Bishop Lowth (1753), Bishop Percy (1764), Durell (1772), Hodgen (1786), Williams (18or), etc., in England ; whilst in Ger many, where the arguments of Calovius prevented this theory from taking root, Delitzsch 0851) offers a compromise, maintaining that the Song poe tically describes a love-relationship formed by Solo mon, that the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,' and that it may figuratively represent the union of God with his people.
5. The Arguments for and against the Allegorical Interpretation.—A. The following arguments are urged in support of the allegorical interpretation :— i. The insertion of this book in the sacred canon premises its spiritual import, since it would be contrary to the genius of the Bible, which breathes religious feelings filled with theocratic views of things, to suppose that it describes human love. But granting that it simply depicts the ten der affections subsisting between a sacredly-espoused couple, we have only to quote the admission of an able allegorist, that a passion so strong, so uni versal, so essential to happiness—to the very ex istence of the human race—is worthy of a place in a revelation from God to man. It would be strange, indeed, if one of the most important and never absent phenomena in the moral and physical crea. tion of man should never be noticed in a revelation to him from his Creator ' (Dr. Stowe in Kitto's Yournal of Sacred Lit. 1852, p. 83t, etc.) Surely the pleasures of chaste love cannot be deemed less worthy of record than the sorrows arising from be reaved friendship (2 Sam. i. 17, etc.) The design of the book, however, as already shown, is not merely to celebrate love, but to record an example of virtue.
ii. It is urged that the lang-uage put by the sacred writer into the mouth of the bride shows that this poem is an allegory, because in its literal sense such language would be contrary to nature and the modesty of women. But if it be true that the language of this poem would outrage female decency and modesty, if taken to be addressed to human love, surely it must be far more outrageous when put into the mouth of a humble, penitent, and submissive church, as addressing the Lora' of lords. Besides, the perusal of Oriental compositions of a similar nature will show that this poem is in perfect harmony with the habits and tastes of the peop/e ; and no less authorities than Bishop Bossuet and Bishop Lowth, scholars of the highest culture and most refined taste, have bestowed unlimited praise on the truthfulness and beauties of the Song, regarded merely as a relic of ancient erotic poetry.
iii. The language and imagery employed in this Song, and the bridegroom and bride here intro duced, are, it is said in other parts of the Bible, applied to the Lord and his people. Thus Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16 ; Lev. xx. 5, 6 ; Num. xv. 39 ; Deut. xxxi. 16 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 13 ; Ps. lxxiii. 27 ; Ezek. vi. 9, represent Israel as affianced to the true God, whom they could not leave for idols without incur ring the guilt of adultery. In Is. liv. 5 God calls himself husband. Israel is called his bride in Is. lxii. 4, 5 ; comp. also Is. 1. r ; Jer. 1-rt ; xvi. ; Hos. i.-iii. ; Matt. ix. 15 ; John iii. 29 ; 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Eph. v. 22-32 ; Rev. xix. 9 ; xxi. 27 9 ; xxii. 17. But This only shows that if we had indubitable proof, as in the passages cited, that a whole book in the sacred canon is entirely devoted to symbolise, under the figure of husband and wife, the covenant-relationship subsisting between God and his people, it would be nothing strange but rather in harmony with these passages. Because some passages of Scripture distinctly tell us that in them the terms husband and wife symbolise the relationship between God and his people, are we therefore to attach this symbolical meaning to these terms whenever they are employed, and when their tropical use is not indicated ? ii. The image of mar riage was never used before the days of Solomon to denote a spiritual relationship. The phrase, 'to go a whoring- after other Gods,' to which reference is made, does not mean that Israel, by worshipping idols, commits spiritual adultery against the true God to whom they were affianced, thus presupposing God to be their husband and Israel his wife. It describes a literal fact, the libidinous orgies and prostitutions connected with the worship of idols (Num. xxv. ; Hos. iv. 13, etc.), as is evident from Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16, where this phrase first occurs, and where it is applied to heathen women worshipping their OW12 Gods. These women did not stand in such covenant-relationship to the God of Israel, and therefore could not incur the guilt of spiritual adultery, yet they are described as 'whor ing after THEIR Gods.' But even admitting that it does suggest a marriage relationship, the distance between a suggestive phrase of this kind and an entire book of marital descriptions is so great, that the one cannot reasonably be supposed to have sug gested the other. And iii. There is no analogy whatever even between the language used by the prophets after the days of Solomon in the passages cited and that of this poem. In the former, the wedded relation forms the comparison; in the latter, ante-nuptial is the theme. In the former, the general idea of the figure is briefly used, without any particulars of the accompaniments ; in the latter, particulars of the person, dress, scenery, etc., are minutely described. In the former, God is represented as the High and Holy One inhabiting eternity, and in his infinite condescension and com passion, loving, with the tenderness of a husband, Israel, who is represented as an unlovely, ungrateful, and unfaithful wife ; in the latter, the bridegroom and the bride are placed upon an equality ; nay, the bridegroom declares that his heart has been ravished by the charms and faithfulness of the bride. In the former we are a'istinctly told that the husband means the Lord, and the wife the people of Israel, so that the most superficial reader is com pelled to perceive it ; in the latter we have no inti mation whatever that the lovers are intended to re present God and his people, and no reader would ever gather it from the poem.