iv. It is urged that the 45th Psalm, which cele bmtes allegorically the union of the Messiah and the Church, plainly shows the allegorical im port of the Song of Songs. But this Psahn itself is simply a congratulatory nuptial song, composed to celebrate a king's marriage with a princess of Tyre, and there is nothing in it which compels us to understand it allegorically. The quotation of the seventh.and eighth verses in Heb. 8, 9, only proves that tbese verses refer in a higher sense to the Messiah, but not that the whole psalm is de scriptive of him. Who would think of allegorising the 8th chapter of Isaiah because vers. 17 and 18 are quoted in the same epistle (Heb. 13) ? But granting that Ps. xlv. is an allegory, the two cases are still essentially different. In Ps. xlv. 7 the bridegroom is addressed as God, and this verse is quoted in the N. T., whereas there is nothing of this kind in the Song of Songs.
v. The pantheistic poetry of the Mohammedan Sufis, in which religious and devotional feelings are allegorically expressed, is adduced as another argument in support of the allegorical theory. But in the Islam and Hindoo poems the name of the Deity is distinctly mentioned, which is not the case in the Song of Songs ; besides, some of the poems in question were allegorised at a later period, when the literal interpretation began to give offence.
B. We shall now give some of the reasons against the allegorical interpretation :— i. In every allegory or parable employed in the Scriptures, as in every good human composition, something is wrought into its texture to indicate most unmistakably its allegorical design ; that under the garb of an immediate representation is conveyed one more remote (comp. Judg. ix. 7-20 ; 2 Kings xiv. 9, 10 ; Ps. lxxx. 8-16 ; Is. v. ; Ezek. xvi., xxxvii. 1-14 ; also the parables of Christ, Acts x. ro-17 ; Gal. iv. 22-31). If, therefore, the author of this poem had intended it to be understood alle gorically, he would have given some indication to that effect, especially as the allegories occasionally used in this very book (Song iv. 12 ; V. I ; 7, 8) are rendered plain and obvious. As there is, however, not the slightest intimation in the whole of this lengthy poem that it is designed to be alle gorical, we are not warranted in assuming it. To take one entire book of the Scriptures to be alle gorical, without even an obscure hint of its alle gorical import in the book itself, is to violate the established laws of language, and to expose all other volumes of Holy Writ to a similar treatment. If one chooses to allegorise one portion without any internal evidence, another may choose to alle gorise another portion.
ii. The fact that our Lord and his apostles never once refer to this book is against its allegorical in terpretation. If this song, according to the first and last allevrisers, celebrates the glories of the Messiah, and all the mercies which through him flow to the people of God,' it is more spiritual and more evangelical than any other portion of the O. T., surpassing even the writings of Isaiah, who is called the fifth Evangelz:rt, and is, in fact, what Origen calls it, The Holy of Holies.' Is it possible that our Saviour and his apostles, who in their dis potations with the Jews so frequently quote the prophecies of Isaiah, and other passages of the O.
T. which are far less evangelical and Messianic, would never refer to the Cbristology of this book I Is it possible that the apostle Paul, who so fre quently describes the relation of Christ to tbe church by the union subsisting between husband and wife (2 Cor. xi 2 ; Rom. vii. 4 ; Eph. v. 23 32), would be totally silent about the book which, above all others in the O. T., sets forth this nnion I Solomon is not the man from whom a pro duction of such preeminent spirituality and evan gelical truth can be expected. In looking at the Scriptures we see the same agreement between the inspired authors and their respective productions which exists between ordinary writers and their works. Inspiration, like Providence, selected the fittest instruments for its work. Thus between the history of Moses and his writings, of David and his writings, of Paul and his writings, of John and his writings, there is a natural uniformity. Accord ingly we have not only to suppose Solomon to have been more spiritually-minded than any saint of the Jewish economy, but to have stood upon a level with the most enlightened and Christ-loving under the present dispensation, to have written in such a strain. Where is any such qualification in Solo mon even remotely intimated in any part of the Scriptures ? The wisdom which he asked, which he received, arid for which he gained celebrity, was that displayed in his civil government, and the first fruits of which were given in the decision upon the litigation of the two mothers, The fact that the poetry which lie wrote upon natural history, con sisting of too5 songs, was not deemed worthy of a place in the canon, shows that his muse did not in dulge in a devotional strain. The extensive harem which he had displays his inordinate desire for foreign women, who in old age inveigled him into the worship of idols. Is he the man whose love song is to be regarded as preeminently spiritual, and to be exalted as more evangelically mpturous than any other portion of Holy Writ ? Who can conceive that he who caused an irreparable breach in his kingdom should rqsresent himself as the Prince of Peace, or that he who was the embodi ment of carnal propensities should describe under the figure of chaste love the union of Christ and his church ? As David was not qualified to build the temple because be bad been a man of war and shed blood, so Solomon was not qualified to write in suds a stmin about Christ and his church as the allegory presupposes, because he had been a man of lust and had turned aside to idolatry. This argu ment urged in our commentary weighed so heavily with Mr. Thrupp, one of the most recent allego risers (Introd to his Comment. p. 2, etc.), that he was obliged to give up the Solomonic authorship rather than abandon the allegory ; forgetting how ever that in relinquishing the former, which has been handed dosvn to us by the unanimous voice of both the synagogue and the church, he there with sacrificed the only cogent argument for the allegorical interpretation—viz. that it has been tra ditionally transmitted by the church universal.