ings in May, till the last year. The increase of such meetings has, of late, rendered selection necessary; for who possesses physical strength to attend them all? But the anniversaries of the principal Institutions he uniformly frequented; and all who knew him, whether in town, or from the country, were sure to see his benignant countenance animated by the scene he witnessed, and expressing the devout satisfaction which they inspired. He was one of the earliest supporters of these Institutions; and like a powerful conductor, he transmitted the fervour and the feelings that pervaded the meetings of the Parent Societies to his own congregation, and the various circles in which he moved. His return from the metropolis was always a source of delight to those who could not be present at the scenes of excitement in London; and the first Sabbath was devoted to a grateful rehearsal of what God had done for his servants and his cause at home and abroad. Thus our venerated friend cherished the flame of Christian zeal; thus he taught his people to "look not on their own things only, but on the things of others." Thus he laid the foundation of that structure of beneficence, which Manchester churches have exhibited, deep, and broad, and enduring, in the inculcation of great principles, and of self-denying duties; and the duration not only of time, but an endless life, will be impregnated with their holy results.

What I have now stated is not to emblazon the memory of a departed pastor, or to give expression to the feelings of personal friendship, but to "glorify God in him," and render a just tribute of grateful homage to that grace which made him what he was;

which made him what he is; and to which the eternity of his service and his thanksgivings will be consecrated. But though we know that He is casting the crown of his glory at the feet of his Lord, and would imitate that self-renouncing spirit of humility and dependance which was his brightest ornament, let us never forget the value of such an illustration of the influence of grace, as was exhibited in this venerated minister. We may well contemplate that excellence by which God was honoured while he was on earth, and in which he will be glorified for ever. For all the virtues that adorned the character of our friend, and all the usefulness and honour resulting from it, must be ascribed solely to the efficacy of divine grace, and the power of those great principles he inculcated. Every excellence he possessed was the fruit of faith, and hope, and holy love. At the foot of the cross, these virtues grew and flourished. There they found their congenial elements, and thence they derived their loveliness and vigour.

His was a pure and steady radiance; the breath of calumny sullied it not; or if it did, it soon passed away, leaving it in undiminished glory; but all that lustre was reflected, and not self-derived.

He moved in an

orbit that was near the source of all light and splendour; he felt the force of a holy attraction; "he was a burning and a shining light;" but the Sun of Righteousness was the source of that light, and "fed its sacred fires ;" and now, though removed from this "low diurnal sphere," it is exalted to a higher region, where they that be wise shall shine as the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever!"

66

To the Editors.-Having had my attention lately directed to a long note (Note A, page 21, vol. I.) in the New Edition of the above excellent and important work, I have perused it with peculiar, but painful, interest; partly from my high respect and esteem for the learned author, and partly from my fears as to the dangerous tendency of the Note itself, to disturb our confidence in the Canon of Holy Scripture. I have waited in hope that some person more qualified, and less reluctant, would take up the subject; but I am persuaded Dr. Smith himself is one of the last men who would wish to see his own opinions admitted and adopted in such a case, without the most careful scrutiny and serious examination; and I am sure that, if he knew it, he would commend the sacrifice I make of my personal feelings in attempting to prove that he is fallible, and (as I conceive) in this case mistaken-a charge which equally lies against the immortal MARTIN LUTHER, who long rejected the Epistle of St. James, simply because he had the misfortune to misunderstand it.

Much has been said by the enemies of Revelation on the licentious style and character of the book in question; and many have not only rejected it, but branded it as a monument of Solomon's libidinous love. I am happy to say, however, that this is not the case with Dr. Smith. He considers it as "A pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colours of the Asiatic rural scenery and artificial decoration, the HONOURABLE LOVES

"

of a young bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors." (p. 47.) And in this I am aware, that his opinion is supported by Michaelis, Bishop Percy, and other modern writers of great learning and respectability.

The present writer, who has learned to bow to no authority uninspired on such questions, begs permission to state a different opinion, though with becoming diffidence, and not without an humble prayer that he may be guided into all the truth!

What I have to offer, Gentlemen, (in which I shall study brevity as much as possible) may be reduced to the following propositions.-I consider this book,

I. As written by Solomon. II. As written in the early and best part of his life. III. As intentionally allegorical. IV. As containing, in fact, but few figures, and no principles, but what are admitted and asserted by both prophets and apostles. V. As having possessed a place in the sacred Canon from time immemorial. VI. As having been allegorically interpreted by the most eminent commentators from the earliest period to the present time. The answers to objections will be interwoven.

These are the points before us, and in their discussion I hope that I shall not be tempted to use any language at all disrespectful to Dr. S. And should I, in any one instance, misconceive or pervert his meaning, it needs only to be pointed out, to be immediately and properly acknowledged. But to proceed :

I. That this book was written by SOLOMON, I infer, without

hesitation, from its title, or rather from the first verse of the book itself; namely, "The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's," or by Solomon;" and I think we can have no more ground to question his being the author of this book, than of the Book of Proverbs, which is ascribed to him in like manner. The author of the first book of Kings, (Chap. iv. 32.) informs us that " his Songs were a thousand and five;" but this seems to be the only one pre served; and that, we may naturally suppose, from its peculiar excellency, which entitled it to be called "The Song of Songs;" and this excellence I consider as arising, not so much from its style and composition, as its mysterious and important subject. Dr. Smith, indeed, conceives that "there are passages in the poem which give a considerable probability to the supposition, that some other than Solomon was its author"—such as "the beautiful episode, (Chap. iii. 6—11.) in which the poet describes one of Solomon's queens as carried in a palanquin," and received by the king, who comes out to meet her. It is so usual, however, for the sacred writers to speak in the third person, that I hardly conceive the Doctor can lay much stress on this circumstance; and to have here introduced Solomon as speaking in the first person, would seem contrary to the whole drift and tenor of the composition.

That in Chapter iv. the royal bride and bridegroom are represented as retiring to enjoy the sweeter comforts of rural and domestic life, to me seems in no degree unnatural; especially if, as some commentators suppose, the scene here be laid in the house of the forest of Lebanon." Royalty, we know, can sometimes indulge N. S. No. 65.

in the luxury of a cottage and rural scenery. (See 1 Kings vii. 2.)

But whether the bride thus introduced were the daughter of Pharaoh, as has been generally, and I think justly, supposed,*_or some distinguished Israelite, as Dr. S. and others conceive, will not, I presume, at all affect the question as to the author of the Poem.

II. I proceed to argue, that it was written by Solomon in EARLY LIFE, and long before he was drawn into idolatry. If it was written upon his marriage with Pharaoh's daughter, this will follow of course; and for supposing this I have two reasons:-1st, She is the only one of his wives distinctly named, and was, doubtless, the most illustrious among them, as being the daughter of the king of Egypt. 2d. She seems plainly distinguished and excepted from those that turned away his heart. The passage to which I now refer is 1 Kings xi. 1-4. "Solomon loved many strange (or foreign) women, TOGETHER WITH Pharaoh's daughter." These women are thus enumerated-Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, Hittites, and Canaanites; but nothing is here said of Egypt, or of

To this there are two principal ob"rose of jections: 1st, She is called a Sharon," in Judea, which is supposed to intimate that she was a native of

Judea: but I humbly conceive this no more implies that she was born in Sharon, than her being called "a lily of the vallies," proves that she was born in the vallies, which is not alleged. 2d. She is called a "Prince's daughter," and not a King's. The original term (Nadib) is, I think, in one instance, Sam. applied to the highest dignity, ii. 8.; but originally, and more frequently, refers rather to dignity of character than birth; (as in Exod. xxxv. 22.) and answers to the Greek term Euergetes,

or

"benefactor," (Luke xxii. 25.) and one of the subsequent kings of Egypt-was in that sense actually assumed by Ptolomy Euergetes.

2 H

Pharaoh's daughter; but "those whom he loved TOGETHER WITH" (or beside) her, turned away his heart in his latter days. She, probably, was a proselyte to Judaism; and when he was seduced to idolatry, might be as much neglected (if, indeed, she were then living) as the God of Israel himself. Moreover, among the idolatries with which he is charged, the gods of Egypt are neither named nor hinted at, which may satisfy us, that if she were then living (which is very doubtful) she was no way concerned in his apostacy.

We read, indeed, of "threescore wives and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number," but these cannot be shown to have been in the court of Solomon. I consider it rather as a proverbial phrase, (quite in the eastern style, see Prov. xxx. 15-31.) referring to the splendour of the surrounding courts, among whom, notwithstanding, no one was to be found comparable to Pharaoh's daughter. (So Bishop Patrick.) That this was not an enumeration of Solomon's wives is farther probable, from there being more concubines than wives; whereas Solomon's wives were afterwards more than double the number of his concubines.

But if the sixty queens, and eighty concubines were really those of Solomon's harem, this must have been in the early part of his reign; for afterwards the sixty queens were more than ten fold multiplied-they were 700! beside 300 concubines: but I have no more idea that King Solomon cohabited with a thousand women than that he rode the 40,000 horses for which he provided stables. (1 Kings iv. 26.) The fact is, that being taken so much notice of by foreigners, he acquired an unhappy predilection for

every thing foreign; and his foreign wives being (with one exception) idolaters, seduced him. into idolatry: but it is well known that eastern princes kept multitudes of women, as well as horses, for state and vain glory. From this rapid increase of Solomon's wives latterly, however, Dr. M. Good calculates that when he wrote this book, supposing this to be the then number of his wives and concubines, he could not be more than 25 or 26 years of age.

III. My next proposition is, that the poem was intended to be ALLEGORICAL, and founded upon principles current through both Testaments. Without this being understood, it is, I conceive, very difficult to account for its introduction into the sacred canon; and still more to suppose that if it had crept in, our Saviour would not have corrected and reproved an error so important.

But what was the general outline of the Allegory? The very learned and judicious Bishop Lowth, at the same time as he avows his opinion to be in favour of its divine authority, thus explains the foundation of the Allegory. "In the first place, I confess that by several reasons; by the general authority and consent of both the Jewish and Christian churches, and still more by the nature and analogy of the parabolic style, I feel irresistibly inclined to that side of the question, which considers this poem as an entire Allegory. Those, indeed, who have considered it in a different light, and who have objected against the inconsistency of the imagery, seem to be but little acquainted with the genius of the parabolic diction."

His Lordship then proceeds to state, that the figures here used belong to the class anthropopathy, or

the application of human passions and affections to the divine Being. "This figure (he adds) is not in the least productive of obscurity; the nature of it is better understood, than that of most others; and though it is exhibited in a variety of lights, it constantly preserves its native perspicuity, A peculiar people of the posterity of Abraham, was selected by God from among the nations, and he ratified his choice by a solemn covenant. This covenant was founded on reciprocal conditions; on the one part, love, protection, and support; on the other, faith, obedience, and worship, pure and devout. This is that conjugal union between God and his church; that solemn compact so frequently celebrated by almost all the sacred writers under this image. In this form of expression God is supposed to bear exactly the same relation to the church as a husband to a wife; God is represented as the spouse of the church, and the church as the betrothed of God. Thus also the piety of the people, their impiety, their idolatry, and rejection, stand in the same relation with respect to the sacred covenant, as chastity, modesty, immodesty, adultery, divorce, with respect to the marriage contract,"

The worthy prelate then goes on to give instances from the prophe tic writings, of which (for brevity sake) we quote only the following. "For thy husband is thy Maker, JEHOVAH, God of hosts, is his name. For as a young man weddeth a virgin, So shall thy Restorer wed thee. And as the bridegroom rejoiceth in his bride,

So shall thy God rejoice in thee."

(Isa. liv. 5; lxii. 5.)

in two parables. xvi. and xxiii)

(chap. If these parables (which are put into the mouth of God himself) be well, considered, I am persuaded that the Song of Solomon (which is in every part chaste and elegant). will not appear unworthy of the divine sense in which it is usually taken, either in matter or style; or in any degree inferior, either in gravity or purity, to the other remains of the sacred poets. To these instances, I may add the 45th Psalm, which is a sacred Epithalamium, (or Song of Loves) of the allegorical application of which, to the union between God and the church, I do not find that any doubt has hitherto been entertained; though many suspect it, and, we think, not without good reason, to have been produced upon the same occasion, and with the same relation to a real fact, as the Song of Solomon. Neither ought we to omit, that the writers of the New Testament have freely admitted the same image in the like allegorical sense with their predecessors, and have consecrated it by their authority."*

IV. I am bold to say that this book, (which I have endeavoured to prove was Solomon's) uses FEW figures, and advances NO principles, but what are admitted and asserted by both prophets and apostles. The full proof of this assertion would lead us to expound the whole poem; but we will briefly run through the several chapters, and notice the most prominent images and allusions.

Chapter i. The very name of Solomon (the peaceable) points to him whom the Scriptures call our peace"-the Prince" and "the Lord of peace." (Ephes. ii.

66