bride, appears as a mere adorer, overcome by the charms of the other. The union between Christ and the Church is a rational principle, to which impulse of every kind is held in strict subordination. In the production before us, the parties appear as wholly subjected to the principle of earthly love, the creatures of impulse, in whose conduct the rational principle has no place whatever. The union between Christ and the church, has its basis in benevolence and is consummated exclusively for rational, benevolent ends. The union here presented has its basis in mere personal attachment, and is consummated for mere personal gratification. Internal purity, and moral perfection, mutually perceived, is the bond of union between Christ and the church. External charms are the almost if not quite exclusive bond between the parties in this poem. In all its fundamental features, it is a union wholly unadapted to represent that consummated between Christ and the church.

In our general strictures, we have said nothing of particular parts of the production which cannot but be regarded as grossly indelicate. Many, and perhaps all, deeply spiritual minds have found much of the language here presented of the bride towards the bridegroom adapted to express their feelings and sentiments towards Christ. But who would not be more than shocked at the conception of Christ using such language towards the church, as the bridegroom is often in this production represented as using towards the bride?— Whether we contemplate the work in reference to its general features, or descend to its particular parts, we find it wholly unadapted to represent the relations of Christ to his church.

5. We now come to our last and most conclusive argument. If the construction we are combatting is the true one, the Canticles occupy a place in the sacred canon altogether peculiar, a place however no less important than that assigned to any other book of the Old or New Testament. Of its design, all the prophets, and especially Christ and the apostles must have been fully aware, and to that high purpose they must have been all alive. Now on the supposition that the design of the production was to illustrate the union between Christ and the church, how can we account for the fact that no prophet, (all of whom wrote subsequently to the writing of this book) nor Christ himself, nor any of the writers of the New Testament ever make any citations from the book, nor any allusions to it, in any form whatever, either

direct or indirect? In our judgment such facts can never be reconciled with the construction under consideration. A more unauthorized construction, one more manifestly contrary to reason and palpable facts, we venture to affirm, was never given to any production, inspired or uninspired.

The objections adduced against the allegorical construction of this poem, lie in general, with all their weight, against the supposition that it is an inspired elucidation of conjugal love. We freely admit, that this is a theme in itself by no means unworthy of the pen of inspiration. If inspiration, however were devoted to such a theme, it would elucidate it in a form in which it ought to exist, if it exist at all, a union cemented by piety and consummated for a holy and benevolent end. This is, in all respects, the reverse of the form of the principle presented in this book. It is a form of union which inspiration most strongly condemns and reprobates, a union in which piety and benevolence have no place, and the exclusive all-controlling principle of which is, mere worldly impulse. Inspiration surely has never fixed upon such a union, as a proper medium through which to elucidate conjugal love. Nothing more, therefore, needs to be added on this part of our subject.

We have now stated our main objections to the two dis tinct and opposite expositions given by different classes of commentators, of the poem before us. These expositions have been adopted, because Biblical critics have rightly assumed, that it was not inserted in the sacred canon without a reason, and as they were unable to discover any other than one of those above specified, they have, each class, for itself, adopted one or the other as the only true exposition. As we dissent, and as we judge for reasons abundantly sufficient, from each of these modes, our readers may very properly require us to present some other and more satisfactory exposition. This we will now attempt to accomplish. If we should fail, however, the objections above adduced to the common expositions will remain, in all their force, and we should simply be left in a state of ignorance of the design of the insertion of the production in the canon of inspired writings. We hope that our readers will not be left in this painful condition, but that a satisfactory explanation will be given of the design of the book, an explanation which will reveal a design altogether worthy of the high purposes of Inspiration. In accomplishing this object, we remark,

1. That the poem contains a real revelation of the attitude of Solomon's mind, and that of his royal bride in relation to each other. In their early union at least, they loved each other to absolute idolatry, and this production reveals the fact in all its naked deformity, just as it is. As such a revelation, it answers the purpose of any other veritable record of an important historical fact.

2. The state of mind here revealed, constituted the first great sin of Solomon's recorded life, and that which led to all the other melancholy and gross abominations which characterized his old age. He sinned, first, in the selection, contrary to the express teachings of inspiration, of a heathen wife, and then in surrendering himself to an idolatrous worship of the woman he had thus unlawfully taken to his bosom. Here also was the "breaking forth of waters" which desolated the latter part of his reign. Hence we remark,

3. That the manifest design of Inspiration, in the insertion of the poem into the sacred canon, was to give to the world a revelation of this state of mind, constituting as it did the first great sin of Solomon's reign, the sin which was the basis and cause of his subsequent apostacy into the grossest abominations of heathenism. Solomon had written a poem in which he had himself given a full and glowing representation of this state of mind just as it was. Inspiration directed its insertion in the sacred canon, as a revelation of that state. There are three great eras in the recorded life of this individual—the period of his wisdom and piety-the period in which he lost his wisdom and piety both, in his love and adoration of "outlandish women"-and that of his open apostacy consequent on those sinful alliances. Proverbs represent the operations of his mind in the first era: Canticles those in the second, and Ecclesiastes those in the last.Such, as we suppose, is the true exposition of the spirit and design of Solomon's Song, the true exposition of which has been a subject of so much embarrassment. We have been led to the adoption of this construction for the following reasons, among others.

1. Objections absolutely insuperable lie against all other principles of exposition hitherto proposed. This has been abundantly shown in the preceding part of this article.

2. This exposition is perfectly obvious and natural. The book does, as a matter of fact, contain a revelation of Solomon's idolatrous love of "outlandish women." This exposition makes the work a revelation of that melancholy fact.

In other words, it explains the production just as it is, what all other and different principles of exposition have totally failed to do.

3. In this exposition we have a reason worthy of inspiration for the insertion of the production in the Sacred canon. The sin of Solomon, in thus yielding to such unhallowed indulgences, was a crime in itself of infinite aggravation. Its influence, as developed in his own, and the subsequent history of the nation over which he was appointed of God to rule, was no less fearful. How important that the world should possess a revelation of that sin, just as it was. How becoming the spirit of Inspiration to direct the insertion of the book containing that revelation in the Sacred canon.

4. This exposition, while it is in itself perfectly natural, is also wholly free from those fundamental objections to which other modes of exposition are subject. Much, that is found therein, may, it is true, be applied to express and elucidate the love of the believer to Christ, as well as the nature of conjugal love in its appropriate forms. Very much that is found in the production, however, every one is shocked at applying to the elucidation of such sacred subjects. In our explication both classes of passages have their appropriate place. A mind such as Solomon's never gives utterance to its thoughts on any subject, without adopting many forms of speech in themselves exceedingly beautiful and proper. At the same time, the attiude of his mind towards the objects of his unhallowed attachments was such, that he would not fail to express thoughts and adopt forms of speech perfectly revolting to any pure mind, when applied to the elucidation of subjects sacred and important. All such thoughts and forms of expression have their appropriate place accord ng to the exposition which we have given. Indeed the book is, in all respects what we should conceive it to be, were the design of its insertion in the Sacred canon what our exposition supposes. The common exposition makes Inspiration directly responsible, for the truth and intrinsic propriety of all that is found therein. According to the exposition before us, Inspiration is responsible for no such things. The passion, the unhallowed attachment therein developed, it holds up only as an object of reprobation, just as it does most of what is found in the book of Ecclesiastes. This is just what every pure mind, whatever its theory pertaining to the book may be, cannot but feel ought to be the case.

5. Solomon's Song, we remark finally, has a very important moral attached to it, according to this exposition. Instead of teaching us, as the common exposition makes it, what that love which constitutes the basis of the marriage union, ought to be, it teaches us precisely the opposite lesson. It teaches us what it cannot be, without a loss of the Divine favor. By our Saviour we are taught, that if we love husband or wife, or any finite object more than Him, we cannot be his disciples. Let any one read Solomon's Song in the presence of those solemn declarations, and he will have distinctly revealed to him a state of mind, into which he cannot come in respect to any creature or finite object, without having other gods before Jehovah.

"Whatever passes as a cloud between
The eye of faith and things unseen,
Causing that brighter world to disappear,
Or seem less lovely, or its hopes less dear,
This is our world, our idol, though it wear
Affection's impress, or devotion's air."

A question demanding a passing notice naturally arises in view of the exposition under consideration, to wit, was Solomon inspired when writing this Song? For ourselves we think not. We suppose he wrote it for his own gratification, and that of the inmates of his harem, particularly that of the daughter of Pharaoh. Inspiration performs no work of supererrogation Solomon's natural powers, and state of mind being given, is all that is requisite to account for the existence of the Song. But as it revealed a great fact in the history of its author, a fact which the world needed to understand as it was, Inspiration directed its insertion in the Sacred canon, to preserve the record for the instruction and warning of mankind.

Such, as we suppose, is the design of the Canticles, together with the lesson which it teaches. If this exposition together with that given of Ecclesiastes in former numbers be received as the true one, then, as we have said above, we have a clear understanding of the relation of the recorded writings of Solomon, to his eventful, and in many respects, melancholy history. In Proverbs we have a revelation of the operations of his mind in the days of his purity and peace: in Canticles, when the love of God was supplanted in his heart by the love of "outlandish women:" and in Ecclesiastes, when the evil was consummated in open apostacy from the worship of the true God.