worldling and libertine, and a confession to men rather than God. The extensive harem which he had, displays his inordinate desire for revels and foreign women, which in old age inveigled him into the practice of idolatry. “His wives,” as the Scriptures teach us, “turned away his heart after other gods.” And the last we hear of him is, that “his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.” Is this, then, the man whose love-song is to be regarded as pre-eminently spiritual, and to be exalted as more evangelically rapturous than any other portion of Holy Writ? To what period of his life is this pre-eminent piety to be assigned? If to the latter, that is the period of his greatest degeneracy; if to the former, how are we to reconcile his apostasy with so high a degree of spirituality? It is difficult to conceive of such a mind as that of Solomon brought at any time into sympathy with the prevailing allegorical exposition of this Song. Who can conceive that he who caused an irreparable breach in his kingdom should represent himself as the Prince of Peace, or that he who was the embodiment of the carnal propensities should describe, under the figure of chaste love, the union of Christ and his Church? It is inconceivable. As David was not qualified to build the temple, because he had been a man of war, and had shed blood, so Solomon was not qualified to write in such a spiritual strain concerning Christ and his Church as the prevailing allegorical exposition of this Song, because he had been a man of lust, and had turned aside to idolatry. 4. For the same reason we cannot conceive that any other writer would represent the Messiah as symbolized by Solomon. Is it conceivable that he of whom the whole congregation of Israel complained to Rehoboam, “Thy father made our yoke grievous—now, therefore, make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, light,” would be chosen to represent the Saviour of the world, “whose yoke is easy, and his burden light?” We can understand why the painter of the Judgment Scene, among the celebrated frescoes in the cloisters of the Campo Santo at Pisa, in Italy, in which the righteous and the wicked are gathered in their respective positions, placed Solomon midway between them, as an intimation of his inability to determine to which he belonged; but we cannot understand how an inspired writer could choose Solomon, whose lusts were displayed in the revels of an Eastern harem, and who was seduced to practise idolatry, to represent Him who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” together with the pure and holy union subsisting between him and the Church. 5. In the allegorical interpretation language is attributed to Christ inconsistent with his dignity and purity. It is almost blasphemous to suppose Christ thus to address his Church:—