“The circuits of thy thighs are like ornaments, The work of a master’s hand. Thy navel is a round goblet, Let not spiced wine be wanted in it! Thy growth is like a palm tree, And thy bosom like its clusters: I long to climb this palm tree, I long to clasp its branches. May thy bosom be unto me As the cluster of the vine, And the odour of thy breath As that of apples.”—Chap. vii. verses 2, 3, 7, 8. This is the language of seduction, but it is blasphemous when put into the mouth of Him who spake as never man spake. 6. The fact that three individuals are the principal persons represented in this Song, and not two, is subversive of the allegorical theory. That the poem speaks of three individuals, a shepherd, a shepherdess, and a king, and that the shepherd, and not the king, is the object of the maiden’s affections, will be evident to every unbiassed reader of the book, and has been recognised by some of the Rabbins of the middle ages. For the sake of avoiding repetition, we refer the reader to the commentary, where the passages pointing out the distinctions of persons are dwelt upon at large. THE TYPICAL INTERPRETATION. The defenders of this view maintain that this book records an historical fact; that it celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, or some other heathen princess; and that this marriage typically represents the union of Christ with the Gentiles. REASONS AGAINST THIS NUPTIAL THEORY. As we concur with those who seek “nothing more than a general resemblance” between the history recorded in this poem and the experience of the people of God, we have merely to state here our reasons for rejecting their view of the narrative. No direct mention is made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance connected with it. The bride is described as a shepherdess and keeper of the vineyards (chap. i. 6; ii. 15; viii. 12, &c.); as walking in the streets in the night to seek her beloved, and as being beaten by the watchmen (iii. 1–4; v. 6, &c.); which are incompatible with the notion that she was Pharaoh’s daughter, or any other princess. Besides, the bridegroom is not a king, but a shepherd; Compare chap. i. 7, ii. 8, and v. 2–4. These, and other considerations which might have been mentioned, are entirely subversive of this nuptial theory. SECTION VII.—AUTHOR, DATE, AND FORM OF THE BOOK.