classes the forbidding to marry among the doctrines of devils.

"In a similar manner have misconceptions of the doctrine of the royal preacher been produced and perpetuated. The monastic views of christian holiness having had the ascendancy in schools, colleges, and pulpits, during so long a course of ages, still tinge the opinions and prejudices of many religious persons of various churches, to a degree of which the individuals themselves are often unconscious. Those who refused to distinguish between the use and abuse of temporal things, and who were for sending believers to the hermitage, the monastery, or the desert, as the only scenes in which christians could be kept unspotted from the world, were equally disposed, by the same sweeping precipitance of judgment, to assume that Solomon, in his repeated declarations of the vanity of worldly schemes of happiness, was altogether of their mind. But when they found that in the same book a temperate and thankful use and enjoyment of the bounty of Providence was not only not reprobated, but actually recommended, their reluctance to admit that the voice of inspiration could be against them, stimulated them to invent the theory, that such passages were inserted as the observations of a worldly character, whom they supposed to be holding debate with the Preacher, pleading the uncertainty of the invisible and future state of man, and advising to make the most of present advantages, as the only ascertained realities."

This latter opinion, as to the structure of this book, seems worthy of regard, from the considera

tion, that in other parts of the Holy Scripture, when the inspired writers introduce the words of an objector, they generally premonish us of it; as for example, when the words of an atheist are introduced, they are exhibited as the words of a fool-" the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." (Ps. xiv. 1.) So also, when the objections of an unbeliever in the ressurrection of the dead are brought forward, the Apostle warns us beforehand by saying, "But some man will say, how are the dead raised up?" &c. (1 Cor. xv. 35.) On this latter theory, therefore," the supposition of a second speaker in this book is gratuitous."

THE SONG OF SOLOMON.

Great diversity of sentiment prevails among critics and commentators relative to the character of this poem. The majority consider it as an inspired book, while others regard it as a merely human composition: some regard it as a sacred allegory, shadowing forth the intimate relation between Christ and his church, something like the forty-fifth Psalm; but others say it should only be regarded in its literal meaning, as referring to the marriage of Solomon with the princess of Egypt. Nor are those who concur in viewing it as a mystical allegory, agreed as to its precise meaning. Bishop Lowth restricts it to the universal church, and conceives that it has no reference whatever to the spiritual states of individuals; while others interpret it as referring to the individual members who compose that church.

It is astonishing to see what influence creeds have upon the interpretation of this book. Good Dr. Gill, a high toned Calvinist, thought that it concerned Christ and the elect only, and for the comfort of the elect, preached one hundred and twentytwo sermons on it; while Dr. A. Clarke, a conscientious Arminian, who was of a widely different opinion, advised ministers, and especially young ministers, never to meddle with it, in the way of preaching. Amidst this conflict of opinion, supported as each is, by the highest names for piety and talents, it is extremely difficult to decide on the right.

That Solomon was the author of this poem, is affirmed by the concurrent testimony of both the Jewish and Christian churches. He is also mentioned as its author in the poem itself, (ver. 1); and the several allusions to his works and character, fix it indubitably to the period of his reign. That it is an inspired composition has been inferred from its finding a place in the Hebrew canon, and its translation into the Septuagint version.

6

But in opposition to this opinion, Whiston, the translator of Josephus, has endeavored to disprove its divine authority from a passage in which that Jewish writer gives an account of the divisions of their books, being twenty-two in number, instead of twenty-four, as at present. His words are, We have only twenty-two books which are deservedly believed to be of divine authority, of which five are the laws of Moses. The prophets who were the successors of Moses, have written thirteen. The remaining four contain hymns to God, and docu

ments of life for the use of men. These four seem to be, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.

Probably the Jews, out of veneration to the author, and from a desire of preserving so striking a model of the marriage union, as well as from the fact that the covenant of God with their fathers was often symbolized by the figure of the marriage union, took the liberty to append it to their sacred books. It does not appear that either Christ or his apostles ever quoted it; and if we are to judge of its inspiration by the tenor of St. Paul's words (2 Tim. iii. 16,) it is difficult to perceive wherein it is "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, or for instruction in righteousness, &c." unless it be by way of allegory, for the true understanding of which we still want the key of an inspired apostle, or of the Master himself. The fact that the Jews did not suffer their children to read it until they were thirty years of age, and the assertions of Christian ministers, that 'It is impossible that a natural or unconverted man, should understand this book,' if they have any weight in them, seem to say that it should have been bound up with those of the Apocrypha, rather than among those which are esteemed canonical.

LECTURE IV.

ON THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS.

"For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

"THIS division of the books of the Old Testament is called prophetical, because the subjects thereof are chiefly, though not exclusively, of that charac

ter.

"If we take up the prophetic part of the divine volume, we find that it really distinguishes itself into two parts, which may be called the moral or doctrinal, and the predictive. It is not a series of mere predictions, far from it-it abounds in matter of another kind; the continued strain of moral doctrine, which runs through it; that doctrine which is founded upon a knowledge of God, his attributes and his will, with a sense of man's direct, personal, and responsible relation to Him. Accordingly, the most frequent subjects of the prophets are the laws of God; his supreme dominion; his universal providence; the majesty of his character; spirituality of