that there is a certain solemnity in the style of our translators that, in general, excellently comports with the character of an inspired work. This done, my translation was submitted to half a dozen, or more, literary friends; all of whom have more or less improved it by their corrections and remarks.

Having compared these, and corrected my translation, the next object was to subjoin a body of notes to justify its propriety; and in this, I have never affected to be original but when necessary: considering any authority superior to my own. In the few notes which are original the reader will find the motives which have determined me.

My next and most arduous undertaking was to give a practical and evangelical exposition of the allegory; such as might interest the most pious reader, without disgusting the most judicious, and without running into the excesses which I have censured in other writers.

The general hypothesis I have adopted is that of Bishop Lowth, Mr. Henley, Mr. Harmer, and other of the most judicious modern expositors on the allegorical plan: but, as in some particulars I have differed from each of them, I think it unfair to avail myself of their name and authority, without stating those differences.

Bishop LowTH observes, in a passage already. cited, that the sacred writers consider JEHOVAH as the husband of the church, the church as married to him, and matrimony as a sacred symbol of their covenant relation. This I conceive just and true;

but I think farther, that in such passages regard is

in general had personally to our Lord Jesus Christ; and that, on account of his assumption of humanity and near relation to us, it is more reverential, decent, and consistent, to refer such passages to him, as is done by the writers of the New Testament, and even by our Lord himself, who tells us plainly that he is the Bridegroom, and his church the Bride.

Nor is this inconsistent with the opinions of the antient Jews, who found their Messiah almost every where in the Scriptures, as well as Paul and other Christian writers. Indeed they always be lieved their economy to be peculiarly under the protection of Messiah, in some one or other of his characters, as the great Angel of the Covenant, the King of Israel, or the Son of God. In particular, they applied to him the 45th Psalm (which of all scripture most resembles the Song of Solomon) for the Chaldee paraphrase on the 2d verse says, 'Thy fairness, O King Messiah! exceedeth 'the sons of men.'

In the same manner they applied the 72d, 110th, and various other psalms, as well as many passages of the prophets.

So far I believe his Lordship would not object, but in some of the following remarks we are not perfectly agreed. 'Concerning the explanation ' of this allegory, I will only add that, in the first 'place we ought to be cautious of carrying the 'figurative application too far, and of entering into

'a precise explication of every particular. Again 'I would advise that this production be treat'ed according to the established rules of alle'gory in the sacred writings, and that the author 'be permitted to be his own interpreter. So far have I been guided by his lordship's excellent admonitions. He adds, In this respect the errors of critics and divines have been as numerous "as they have been pernicious. Not to mention ' other absurdities, they have taken the allegory, "not as denoting the universal state of the church, but the spiritual state of individuals; than ' which nothing can be more inconsistent with the very nature and ground-work of the allegory it'self, as well as with the general practice of the Hebrew poets on these occasions'.'

But here, as I have ventured so far to differ from this excellent prelate as to apply many parts of the allegory to the spiritual circumstances of individual believers, I think myself obliged to offer some apology. And,

1. I consider the church as composed of individual believers, and that there is an analogy between the dealings of God with his church in general, and with individuals, which analogy is, I think, plainly pointed out, in many parts of the New Testament. Sometimes the sacred writers compare the whole body of believers to a temple, in which they form living stones, being builded on the only foundation, Christ Jesus; at other

1 Lect. xxxi.

Q

times they consider individual saints as temples of the Holy Ghost'. So sometimes they speak of the church as one-the Bride the Lamb's wife; and at other times of distinct churches, or individual believers, as severally married to the Lord".

It is in this manner, I think, that St. Paul allegorizes the History of Hagar and her mistress, referring to the two dispensations, while at the same time he makes a practical application of it to the consciences of the Galatians: Now we brethren, ' as Isaac was, are children of the promise3.'

2. As to the prophets, or 'Hebrew poets,' as his lordship calls them, they were certainly experimental preachers. David was a prophet, and the Book of Psalms may be considered as his diary, relating the frames of his mind under varying circumstances, both spiritual and temporal. Many of these passages our Lord applies to himself; but not, I conceive, so exclusively as to prevent the appropriation of them by believers in general, except in such passages as refer peculiarly to his divine character and work. This remark might in a degree be extended to the other prophets, though it must be confessed that the more sublime of them were chiefly engaged with predictions relative to the church and to the world at large.

3. I consider the allegory to be designed for purposes of piety and devotion, which cannot be so well answered without such an application. This may appear a weak argument at first view,

1 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. Ephes. ii. 20–22.
Rev. xxi. 9. 2 Cor. xi. 2.

3 Gal. iv. 22-31.

but will be strengthened when we consider the doctrine of the New Testament, that' whatsoever 'things were written aforetime were written for

our learning;' and that their grand design is to 'make us wise unto salvation, through faith ' which is in Christ Jesus.' This shews both the propriety and importance of a particular application of scriptural truths to the circumstances and experience of individuals. Religion is a personal thing, and that professor is a hypocrite, the feelings of whose heart are not influenced by it, as well as the actions of his life.

Mr. HARMER, who admits an allegorical sense to this poem, considers the introduction of two wives of Solomon, as best adapted to figure the different states of the Jewish and Christian church; and particularly the former, as provoked to jealousy by the conversion of the latter; and I freely confess that the idea at first struck me as beautiful, and was chiefly rejected for want of evidence. However, at the suggestion of a friend I have reconsidered, and now deliberately reject it, for the following reasons, which I submit to the candour of my friend, and of the public.

1. I conceive that Polygamy, though it might be winked at, or tolerated, in some particular instances under the Old Testament, was yet ne ver sanctioned by the divine law, much less in the excess practised by Solomon. It therefore does not appear to me probable that this circumstance should be made the ground of so sublime a mystery as the calling of the Gentiles.