It is, in truth, matter for melancholy reflection to observe the passion for originality which possesses some minds on religious subjects. In Mr. Thrupp's case the inconsistency is peculiarly glaring. For he adopts, and is prepared to defend against all assailants, the ancient Churchly interpretation of Canticles. But he mars the usefulness of his book by adopting a theory of the authorship as extravagant as can well be.

characteristic of the writings of Solomon. Those belonging to one book must not be considered apart from the others. This would be taking a partial view of the subject, such as could not be justified. The language and style of the three works must together constitute the usus loquendi of Solomon's writings. The analogies subsisting between them cannot have been accidental, not only on account of their singularity, but their number. The opinion that some of them were written in a diction designedly imitative of the other, cannot be allowed by any who read their poetry with a spirit alive to its sublimity and beauty. We must not, therefore, separate these different compositions on account of several things peculiar to each which they contain. They are distinct works written on subjects widely different, and we cannot, therefore, expect complete and constant uniformity in their diction. The object of the inspired writer in the Song of Songs is so uncommon for a treatise of any length, and the mode in which it is handled is conducted with so much poetic beauty throughout, that it is not surprising that the poem should present several expressions and modes of diction unlike any that are found in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. But notwithstanding the dissimilarities, there are still so many points of resemblance, that we are strongly led to conclude that they were composed at the same period, and by the same author. Without stopping to point out their characteristic differences in a lingual respect, we shall show very briefly some of the analogies which exist between them. These analogies, and others which might be pointed out, serve to show that the probability of both works having proceeded from the same author is quite reasonable and well-founded. Now that we are tracing parallelisms in the usus loquendi of different books of the Old Testament, we may extend our view, so as to take in a wider range. The Songs of the inspired Psalmist agree in many respects with those of his illustrious son and successor, whilst the Book of Job may not inaptly be included in the comparison, though earlier written than the Psalms of David. The writings of David, Solomon, and Job may be classed together, as belonging to the same period, and harmonising in point of language to a degree that can only be perceived by him who sits down with his Hebrew Concordance to trace the same word in the different books, and to observe the recurrence of the same expression. We merely stop at present to make the remark, as we do not intend to adduce examples of the truth of our statement. In the Book of Ecclesiastes the Aramæan colouring is stronger than in others. In Job it is very evident also, though quite distinct from the later degenerate Aramæan; and it forms a powerful ingredient of the poetic vigour. The Psalms and Proverbs have fewer Aramæisms than Canticles-a circumstance which may be ascribed, in part, to the higher poetry of the latter, assimilating it to the Book of Job. We now come to speak of the ancient prophetic literature which succeeds the writings of David and Solomon, The division of the tribes, and the decay of the national religion, exerted a prejudicial influence on the literature of the Jewish nation. In all the qualities that are usually thought to constitute the highest excellence of poetry, the writings of the prophets are not to be compared with those which we have last mentioned. We speak merely of the general character of both, for there may, perhaps, be found single passages in the prophets approaching to, or equalling, some part of Job or Canticles. But we must carefully attend to the time in which they wrote, because there is a marked difference between their prophecies. Only the earlier part of the prophetic literature belongs to the golden age of the language.-Lectures on Biblical Criticism, by Dr. S. Davidson, pp. 278-282. Ed. 1839.

Another theory lay so near at hand, that Mr. Thrupp seems almost guilty of a wilful oversight in leaving it unnoticed.

In

The promise of the seed of the woman seemed twice ripe for its fulfilment, when the hope was deferred by the calamities which befell the one daughter of the patriarch Israel, Dinah, and the one daughter of the House of David, Tamar. Solomon, God was pleased to raise up a remarkable type of the Great Prince of Peace; but one whose failure lives to furnish a striking demonstration of the frailty and inherent evil of human nature in its most favoured condition. As the sin of Moses showed the need of a higher and holier Mediator, while his chastisement guarded Israel from worshipping him on his removal from this life, so Solomon's departure from the beauty of holiness may at once have prompted Israel to long for a greater Son of David; and may have secured them against deifying one so wonderful and so wise. His downfal too; may we not reverently suppose that it was somehow connected with his failing to select the best gift that God could give; with his preferring wisdom to rule man on earth, rather than that wisdom which consists in the knowledge of God? However this may be, the Divine love was bestowed upon him in no ordinary degree from his birth. He was Jedediah, the Beloved of God, and we cannot doubt that he was the Beloved of David.

We may well believe also that he was early trained to touch the harp of Israel. His father, in his twentieth year, if not while yet younger, was the sweet musician who charmed away the demon which tortured the distracted Saul. Already, before he was endowed with supernatural wisdom, Solomon gave evidence of extraordinary qualities, as might have been expected from one educated by the prophet Nathan.1 It is not unreasonable to suppose that at such a time he might have composed the 72d Psalm, a poem embodying his own faith as to the reign of the Prince of Peace, the composition of which might also have drawn, either from David himself, or from the family of Korah, the 45th Psalm, as a companion piece, in which is set forth the energy, as in the former is set forth the repose, of Messiah. There can be little doubt that the two Psalms were produced about the same time, in the golden age of the language, the 72d being a little the earlier of the two. As some of his father's greatest Psalms were composed before he became king, Solomon probably produced all the inspired Songs that have been preserved to us before he succeeded to the throne. As 'the thousand and five' Songs, apparently composed after his

1 2 Sam. xii. 25. Tradidit eum in manum Nathan,' &c. 'Salomonem Nathani educandum miserat.' See note by Bp. Patrick.

becoming king, have perished, it would seem as if the inspiration of divine song had failed him when he was endowed with the divine gift of political wisdom. And the 'free spirit' which prompted the glorious utterance of the 72d Psalm was not, when he was king, established in him. And this view, which dates the composition of the Psalm and the Canticles before his becoming king, is confirmed by the fact that whereas the Proverbs are declared to be the Proverbs of Solomon, the Son of David, King of Israel' (i. 1), and Ecclesiastes (i. 1) opens with The words of the Preacher, the Son of David, King in Jerusalem,' the Psalm and the Song bear only the name of Solomon, a testimony from Scripture itself, which may compensate for the want of direct rabbinical tradition in its favour.1

6

If the evidence of tradition; if the evidence of a style that preserves all the purity of the golden age of Hebrew letters, which is free from those forms which marked the period when the decay of the national religion, consequent on the division of the kingdom, made itself everywhere felt-if these arguments cannot countervail Mr. Thrupp's neological fancy, we believe it capable of demonstration that the poetical conceptions of the Song of Songs belong to the age of David, and are to be found in no succeeding period. It is not too much to say that the ever-recurrent image found among the later prophets of the unchastity and infidelity of the Daughter of Zion are traceable up to the parent image presented by the Song of Songs: in the same way as in the Apocalypse, the one book of Scripture, which in structure and subject-matter resembles, and which does actually resemble very closely, the Canticles, there is the Harlot, or fallen Church; the false wife, who becomes such, having been at first otherwise, whose present condition implies a former period of purity and fidelity-a condition where she might have proved herself a 'glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.' It was of such a bride that the friend of the bridegroom spake, when his joy was fulfilled in the joy of his friend at his espousal (S. John iii. 29). We discover, indeed, in the Old Testament use of the image, the same twofoldness of type which characterises all the mysticohistorical portions of Scripture:-the family of Hagar and the family of Sarah; of the carnal and the spiritual Israels; the

1 But compare Ecclus. xlvii. 17. The countries marvelled at thee for thy Songs and Proverbs.' The unauthorized dates of our Authorized Version give 1015 B.c. as the date of Solomon becoming king, and 1014 B.c as the date of the Canticles. Proverbs B.c. 1000; Ecclesiastes 977. He lived 1034-975. The notion that the poem is the work of some pupil of Elisha can only be matched by supposing S. John, while still continuing a disciple of the Baptist, to have written the first chapter of the Gospel.

twofold results of the espousals in the wilderness, issuing, in the one case, in the worldly bride, the adulteress of Hoshea, and the other prophets, issuing, in the other case, in the beautiful Bride of the Song of Songs. And so, in S. John, the purple-clad adulteress is contrasted with, and makes way for, the exiled and afflicted, but true and faithful, bride, the 'Lamb's wife;' while all the dramatic properties, if we may so speak, which are required by the Song, are supplied by the 45th Psalm. We find in its title words which have nothing to correspond to, or interpret them, in the body of the Psalm, and which have ever been held to refer to the Canticles. From its title we learn that this Psalm is a psalm respecting the Lilies,' and it is a Song of Loves,' or of the loved Virgins,' a twofold designation which connects it directly with the Canticles. More, however, to the point is the fact that only in the Psalms of David do we find anything approaching those passionate ejaculations and those eager outpourings of unsatisfiable love, which give their peculiar charm to the Song of Songs.1 To quote at any length, and to do justice to this statement, would be to transcribe the greater portion of the Psalms of David. Nowhere else in the Scriptures of the Old Testament is the same language to be found of personal human love, spiritualized and intensified by the Holy Ghost. If in any case identity of thought and sentiment can determine the contemporaneousness of two works, the contemporaneousness of David and the author of the Song of Songs-whoever he may be-is most evidently demonstrated. And who so fit as David's beloved son, to sing of the consummated work of the Almighty Son of David?

Before entering on the argument of the book there are still one or two points to be noticed. And first, as to interpretation.

1 The 60th Psalm may be taken at random as an illustration of this statement. By its title it is connected with the 45th, and is designated by Hengstenberg as the Lily of the Testimony.' It is, in fact, a prayer for the deliverance of the Beloved, while the Banner,' over the Beloved one, 'to be displayed because of the truth,' is still the same banner of love (ii. 4). Again, the 84th Psalm in its opening verses forms an appropriate commentary on the commencement of the Song. Nowhere but in the Psalms of David, and in the Song of Songs, do we meet the same high-toned language of tenderness, describing the love of the Lord for His elect, and the love of the elect for their Lord. Out of the midst of all his agonies the redeeming sufferer of the 22d Psalm lifts up this matchless supplication, v. 30:—

'Deliver my soul from the sword,

My darling from the power of the dog.' (Cf. Ps. xxxv. 17). The margin renders 'my only one.' (Compare in Tennyson's Maud, ' Ownest own'). It is the prayer of the Bridegroom for His Bride. See the note in Mr. Neale's valuable work on the Psalms, p. 265. As the title of Lilies' connects the 45th and 60th with Canticles, in like manner the connexion between Canticles and Psalm xxii. is indicated by the title Aijeleth Shahar, or Hind of the Morning, ii. 9; viii. 14.

Mr. Thrupp does himself justice in his mode of treating this subject. He courageously and successfully vindicates the ancient traditional Churchly interpretation. His examination of the several endeavours that have been made to evade the purely mystical understanding of the Song will amply repay perusal. It is this mystical significance which mainly assimilates the Book to the Apocalypse. What Luther said of the latter he might have said of the former: Even were it a blessed thing to believe what is contained in it, no man knows what 'that is.' It is the mystery kept hid from the beginning, but now made known through the revelation of Jesus Christ. is wholly mystical 2 and sacramental, quot verba tot sacramenta, or it is nothing. It is worse than nothing. If we adopt the modern new-light notion that the Song is a drama displaying

It

1 'Magna est analogia et similitudo Canticorum cum Apocalypsi 1mo in materia quia utraque describitur ortus, progressus, perfectio, inclinatio, renovatio, et glorificatio Ecclesiæ; 2o in phrasi et stylo, qui utrobique est symbolicus, atque per enigmata et symbola Ecclesiæ sacramenta oblegit et obvelat; 3o in modo: Sicut enim Apocalypsis, capite 7, a primis quinque sigillis ortum et progressum Ecclesiæ strictim significantibus subito, vers. 12, sigillo sixto salit ad tempora novissima, illaque fuse prosequitur ad cap. 15, puta tempora Eliæ et Antichristi ; sic prorsus idem facit Salomon in Canticis; 4o in fine: Sicut enim Apocalypsis clauditur descriptione cœlestis Jerusalem, quasi sponsæ Christi felicissimæ ; sic et Cantica.' Alcazar, in Allusionibus ad Apocalypsim, quoted by Cornel. a Lapid. prol. in Cant. sub fin.

The likeness between the Apocalypse and the Book of Daniel is so great that a likeness might be supposed discoverable between the latter and Canticles. And such a resemblance is to be found between the statuesque description of the Beloved v. 10-15, and the image of King Nebuchadnezzar. Contrasting with the gold, and silver, and brass, and iron of the latter, we have in Canticles gold, and ivory, and marble, and gold. Almonacirius, as quoted by Cornelius a Lapide, arranges these to represent the four epochs of the Church. 1. Aurea,' from Christ to Constantine. 2. 'Eburnea,' from Constantine to S. Gregory. 3. Lapidea,' from S. Gregory to Antichrist. 4. Final conversion of Jew and Gentiles, the two feet of gold representing Enoch and Elias, the final missionaries, the former of Heathendom, the latter of the Jews.

2 The Authorized Version in the chapter-headings bears a full and consistent testimony to the Catholic tradition. And though these are unauthorized they witness to the teaching of the translators. The Vulgate also is very express. Hoc canticum totum est mysticum, Christi erga sponsam suam Ecclesiam ac rursum sponsæ erga Christum incomprehensibilis amoris plenissimum.' We do not see what room this statement leaves for the exceedingly clumsy modern exposition which appropriates to the Blessed Virgin the place and language of the Bride. We call this clumsy because it ill agrees with the supposed prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin, by which she at least is entitled to the place of Christ. We call it modern because, though started in his lifetime, it was wholly unknown to S. Bernard or his illustrious successor. Cornelius a Lapide, in his commentary, goes through the three modes of interpretation. The Sensus Adequatus, Christ and His Church; the Sensus Partialis, Christ and the Soul; the Sensus Principalis, Christ and the Blessed Virgin. As might have been expected, the principal sense is as much out of proportion to the idea of the Book as the theory of Bossuet and Renan. In fact, it is an elaborate and miserable failure, of which we cannot help thinking that the worthy father must himself have been conscious.

In Tyndale's version of the Holy Scriptures the "Ballet of Ballets" is printed ornamentally, as the centre and most heavenly portion of the Bible. Lines of bright red divide the verses and often the clauses of the text.