390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the palanquin,” to meanthe cross; its “silver legs,” thethirty pieces of silverwhich brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,”the purple garmentin which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,”the crown of thornsput on Christ’s head, &c. &c.650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century, regards the Song of Songs asdescribing what the Logos has done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.673–735. Bede, called thevenerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of Songs, one being merely a copy from[68]Gregory the Great, in which he defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, deliveredeighty-sixsermons upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and the bride.” He divides the Song intothree parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride intothe garden, and in the second he conducts her intothe cellar, and in the third he takes her home intohis apartments. Upon the wordsLet him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.”78Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these sermons, but only lived to deliverforty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprisefour chapters and a half.1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end,the origin[69]of the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.”791538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ, the bridegroom, with the bride,i.e.the Church as a whole, or with the soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory, viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.”801542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He calls the Song of Songs,“Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.”811544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.821585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but always abideth constant, how oft[70]soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.”83This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, thatthis book describes historico-prophetically, the condition of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse, “foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his course to the same mark.”84He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describesthe condition of the Legal Churchfrom the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14,the state of the Evangelical Church, fromA.D.34 to the second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious commentary.A.The Legal Church.Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Churchbefore the captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam; 9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah; 15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other Kings to the last Zedekiah.Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Churchduring the captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7, the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the Church caused by[71]Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6,Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.B.The Evangelical Church.Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church fromA.D.34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito,Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian.Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from 334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ knocking by persecution (A.D.368), in the time of Constance, Julian, and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort (795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure[72]of this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160, to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle; 12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the Florentine, MarsiliusPatavinus, WilliamOckham, and John of Gaunt, boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff (1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague (1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther; 2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year, the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6, the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the[73]conversion of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion; 11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be carried with him into everlasting mansions.As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens of his mode of exposition.I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D.368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices,my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps[74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.14.His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was calledthe first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, WilliamOckham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly,that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus[75]Christ, with joy in the Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded, living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom, and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to be vanity, andin this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not(Luke x. 24; Matt. xiii. 7),so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying, ‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath(Rom. iv. 15),but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the feeling of his love towards her.85The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book, which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to bethe Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to show that this Song isa drama in five acts.1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation[76]could with equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him,celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time also admittedthat theARCANA NUPTIARUMspiritually represent,first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church.86It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no other light than this.1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceiusregards this book as a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the Revelation of St. John.[77]Chapter.1.The period of the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentilesi.–ii.2.The period of the increase of the Church, and persecution from withoutiii.–iv.3.The period of peace from without and danger withinv.–vi. 8.4.The period of the Reformationvi. 9–vii. 10.5.The period of unsettlement after the Reformationvii. 11–viii. 3.6.The period of the persecutionviii. 4–6.7.The period of rest after the sufferings and longing for the spread of the Gospelviii. 7–14.871648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his(i.e.Solomon’s)own time to the last judgment.”88Chap. i. describes the estate of the Church from the days of Solomon to the repair of the temple by Josiah.Chap. ii. describes the estate of the Church from the repair of the temple to the days of the Maccabees.Chap. iii. describes the estate of the Church from the days of the Maccabees to the time of Christ’s sojourning here on earth.Chap. iv. describes the estate of the Church—first, in Christ’s time, under his ministry, ver. 1–6; secondly, after his ascension, under the Apostles, ver. 7–11; thirdly, after their departure, during the first ten persecutions, ver. 12–16.Chap. v. describes the estate of the Church from the time that Constantine entered it to the time of restoring[78]the Gospel and reforming of the Church by the ministry of Luther and other late divines.Chap. vi. describes the state of the Church reformed by the ministry of Luther and other late divines, and the calling in of the Jews.Chap. vii.–viii. 4, describes the estate of the Jewish Church when they shall come to be converted unto the Lord.Chap. viii. 5–14, describes the solicitude which the Church of Judea and Assyria cherished for the growth and establishment of the good people in Egypt, the destruction of the Turks, the union of all Christians, the coming of the Lord, &c.1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is betwixt Christ and the Church.” … “The form of it is dramatical and dialogistical; the chief speakers are, notSolomonand theShulamite, as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or particular Christians.”891688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius, but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book,90“The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John.[79]Rev.Cant.A.D.1.The Church atEphesusii. 1–7i. 5–1733–3702.The,,Church,,at,,Smyrna8–11ii. 1–17371–7073.The,,Church,,at,,Pergamos12–17iii. 1–11708–10454.The,,Church,,at,,Thyatira18–29iv. 1–v. 11046–13835.The,,Church,,at,,Sardisiii. 1–6v. 2–vi. 21384–17216.The,,Church,,at,,Philadelphia7–13vi. 9–vii. 141722–20597.The,,Church,,at,,Laodicea14–22viii. 1–142060 and onwards.1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the wedding.91The following is his division:—Chapter.1st dayi.–ii. 6.2nd dayii. 7–17.3rd dayiii.–v. 1.4th dayv. 2–vi. 9.5th dayvi. 10–vii. 11.6th dayvii. 12–viii. 3.7th dayviii. 4–14.1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words, “Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean “thetwo Sacramentswhich the Church administers to her children;the Font in Baptismbeing represented by the former, andthe Sacrament of the Lord’s Supperby the other part of the figure.”92[80]1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch was,Understandest thou what thou readest?he will have more reason than he had to say,How can I, except some man shall guide me?that the books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another, but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part of Scripture to be madea savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms, “on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we have for the understanding of this book,it appears to be a very bright and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance and communion with him.”931723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I.Her sinful infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3,and also under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5,and almost throughout. II.Under crosses, chap. i. 6,as being ‘a lily among thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2,and also in prosperity, wherein she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III.As deserted and sick of love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5,and again as enjoying her beloved, i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV.As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances, chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5,and also[81]as under carnal watchmen, v. 7.And in all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one, as in the next consideration will be cleared.V.As in private dealing with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16; viii. 1,and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties, going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3,and what she was in fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI.It sets out believers as more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge; and also, as more weak in gifts and grace.VII.And lastly, it holds forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board, for the believers’ edification, to show, 1.What should be, and will be their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame.2.What are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they who are believers, that they may be the more watchful.3.To shew what they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at them when they come.4.That the care and love of Christ to them, in reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition.”94Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear.[82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham remarks on the third:“Thirdly.There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.“Fourthly.The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No(saith he),take them all, evenTHE LITTLE FOXES;for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind(as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),so they are(saith he)foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump(often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as theNovationsandDonatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church),therefore, saith he,hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”951723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,” and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was written by Solomon when he was wicked[83]and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,”96and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected from the sacred canon the better.1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr. Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it.”97In vain do we look even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and philology.1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate, “appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite.… Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was[84]known to be particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind, learned as well as unlearned.”98Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and Annotations, by Thomas Percy,D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting an edifice without a foundation, which,[85]however fair and goodly to the view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”991765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with decency be used or meant concerningSolomonandPharaoh’sdaughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his Church.”1001768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, he maintained that the heroes of the plot are nottwo, as generally believed, butthree—viz.,Solomon, theShulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, andthe daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying aGentileprincess, and making herequal in honour and privilegewith his former Jewish queen, and ofherbeingfrequently mentionedafterwards in history, while the other is passed over intotal silence, resemblesthe conduct of the Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” … “Nothing more, according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the laws of Moses and those that did not.”101[86]The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem, and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7, begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife; viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at the same time there appears no thought ofrenouncing her relationto Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,” concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah, and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still remain adistinct bodyof people, waiting for great events that are to happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in[87]Germany. Michaelis, the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride, to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that this Song describesthe chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love; the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the sacred bond; and then asks,Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness?1021771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, butto celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this[88]conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her humble husband.103However strange the manner in which Jacobi divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the Anonymous Commentary,104have already taken the lovers to bea shepherdandshepherdess, and regarded Solomon asa separateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover.1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell105could still overlook thetwo distinctpersons referred to in this poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics, and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms to be so[89]easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his predecessors had overlooked. And Herr vonPuffendorf’snew theory, therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy. The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days, and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine. As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are represented in prophetical types.”106On the clause,“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the rootעָלַﬦ, whenceעֲלָמוֹת,virgins, is derived, signifiesto be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book.[90]1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and the established laws of language, and maintained thatthis Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.Upon the question, whether there may not beanother senseconcealed under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical, metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a compendium of Christian Church History.”107Herder admits that this book describes the love ofa shepherdand shepherdess, as well as that ofa king; but finding great difficulty to account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets, while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity throughout, and that love is[91]described from its first germs to its full maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.108He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,109was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks oftwowives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”1101789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,111seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,112defended the view thatthe bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with someglimpsesof light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that itcelebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.113[92]1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter.1141803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”115He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.1813. Hug,116rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” meansthe ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” isKing Hezekiah, and the bookdescribes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers(chap. viii. 8, 9)to this re-union.1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem isto celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A[93]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.117Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” isa new colonynear the Jordan, and the bridegroom representsZerubbabel,Ezra, andNehemiah; and thatthe Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.1181826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that“this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.”1191829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation.1201830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem,[94]adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” representswisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing.121Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.”1221839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett123about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine,124in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became[95]stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songscelebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty.1251842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages.126Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.”1271846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs,without any moral or religious design,128and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically,129is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and[96]finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.”1301849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for someChristianmysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored.1311851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view thatthe book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively representthe union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred.1321852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents[97]the Messiah, because at that early period the notion ofa personalMessiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” representsthe kingdom of Israel, and “the bride”Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.”133He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.
390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the palanquin,” to meanthe cross; its “silver legs,” thethirty pieces of silverwhich brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,”the purple garmentin which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,”the crown of thornsput on Christ’s head, &c. &c.650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century, regards the Song of Songs asdescribing what the Logos has done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.673–735. Bede, called thevenerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of Songs, one being merely a copy from[68]Gregory the Great, in which he defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, deliveredeighty-sixsermons upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and the bride.” He divides the Song intothree parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride intothe garden, and in the second he conducts her intothe cellar, and in the third he takes her home intohis apartments. Upon the wordsLet him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.”78Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these sermons, but only lived to deliverforty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprisefour chapters and a half.1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end,the origin[69]of the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.”791538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ, the bridegroom, with the bride,i.e.the Church as a whole, or with the soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory, viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.”801542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He calls the Song of Songs,“Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.”811544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.821585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but always abideth constant, how oft[70]soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.”83This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, thatthis book describes historico-prophetically, the condition of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse, “foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his course to the same mark.”84He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describesthe condition of the Legal Churchfrom the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14,the state of the Evangelical Church, fromA.D.34 to the second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious commentary.A.The Legal Church.Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Churchbefore the captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam; 9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah; 15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other Kings to the last Zedekiah.Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Churchduring the captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7, the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the Church caused by[71]Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6,Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.B.The Evangelical Church.Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church fromA.D.34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito,Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian.Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from 334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ knocking by persecution (A.D.368), in the time of Constance, Julian, and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort (795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure[72]of this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160, to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle; 12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the Florentine, MarsiliusPatavinus, WilliamOckham, and John of Gaunt, boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff (1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague (1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther; 2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year, the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6, the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the[73]conversion of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion; 11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be carried with him into everlasting mansions.As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens of his mode of exposition.I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D.368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices,my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps[74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.14.His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was calledthe first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, WilliamOckham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly,that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus[75]Christ, with joy in the Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded, living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom, and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to be vanity, andin this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not(Luke x. 24; Matt. xiii. 7),so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying, ‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath(Rom. iv. 15),but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the feeling of his love towards her.85The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book, which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to bethe Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to show that this Song isa drama in five acts.1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation[76]could with equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him,celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time also admittedthat theARCANA NUPTIARUMspiritually represent,first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church.86It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no other light than this.1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceiusregards this book as a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the Revelation of St. John.[77]Chapter.1.The period of the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentilesi.–ii.2.The period of the increase of the Church, and persecution from withoutiii.–iv.3.The period of peace from without and danger withinv.–vi. 8.4.The period of the Reformationvi. 9–vii. 10.5.The period of unsettlement after the Reformationvii. 11–viii. 3.6.The period of the persecutionviii. 4–6.7.The period of rest after the sufferings and longing for the spread of the Gospelviii. 7–14.871648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his(i.e.Solomon’s)own time to the last judgment.”88Chap. i. describes the estate of the Church from the days of Solomon to the repair of the temple by Josiah.Chap. ii. describes the estate of the Church from the repair of the temple to the days of the Maccabees.Chap. iii. describes the estate of the Church from the days of the Maccabees to the time of Christ’s sojourning here on earth.Chap. iv. describes the estate of the Church—first, in Christ’s time, under his ministry, ver. 1–6; secondly, after his ascension, under the Apostles, ver. 7–11; thirdly, after their departure, during the first ten persecutions, ver. 12–16.Chap. v. describes the estate of the Church from the time that Constantine entered it to the time of restoring[78]the Gospel and reforming of the Church by the ministry of Luther and other late divines.Chap. vi. describes the state of the Church reformed by the ministry of Luther and other late divines, and the calling in of the Jews.Chap. vii.–viii. 4, describes the estate of the Jewish Church when they shall come to be converted unto the Lord.Chap. viii. 5–14, describes the solicitude which the Church of Judea and Assyria cherished for the growth and establishment of the good people in Egypt, the destruction of the Turks, the union of all Christians, the coming of the Lord, &c.1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is betwixt Christ and the Church.” … “The form of it is dramatical and dialogistical; the chief speakers are, notSolomonand theShulamite, as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or particular Christians.”891688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius, but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book,90“The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John.[79]Rev.Cant.A.D.1.The Church atEphesusii. 1–7i. 5–1733–3702.The,,Church,,at,,Smyrna8–11ii. 1–17371–7073.The,,Church,,at,,Pergamos12–17iii. 1–11708–10454.The,,Church,,at,,Thyatira18–29iv. 1–v. 11046–13835.The,,Church,,at,,Sardisiii. 1–6v. 2–vi. 21384–17216.The,,Church,,at,,Philadelphia7–13vi. 9–vii. 141722–20597.The,,Church,,at,,Laodicea14–22viii. 1–142060 and onwards.1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the wedding.91The following is his division:—Chapter.1st dayi.–ii. 6.2nd dayii. 7–17.3rd dayiii.–v. 1.4th dayv. 2–vi. 9.5th dayvi. 10–vii. 11.6th dayvii. 12–viii. 3.7th dayviii. 4–14.1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words, “Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean “thetwo Sacramentswhich the Church administers to her children;the Font in Baptismbeing represented by the former, andthe Sacrament of the Lord’s Supperby the other part of the figure.”92[80]1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch was,Understandest thou what thou readest?he will have more reason than he had to say,How can I, except some man shall guide me?that the books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another, but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part of Scripture to be madea savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms, “on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we have for the understanding of this book,it appears to be a very bright and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance and communion with him.”931723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I.Her sinful infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3,and also under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5,and almost throughout. II.Under crosses, chap. i. 6,as being ‘a lily among thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2,and also in prosperity, wherein she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III.As deserted and sick of love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5,and again as enjoying her beloved, i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV.As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances, chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5,and also[81]as under carnal watchmen, v. 7.And in all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one, as in the next consideration will be cleared.V.As in private dealing with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16; viii. 1,and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties, going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3,and what she was in fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI.It sets out believers as more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge; and also, as more weak in gifts and grace.VII.And lastly, it holds forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board, for the believers’ edification, to show, 1.What should be, and will be their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame.2.What are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they who are believers, that they may be the more watchful.3.To shew what they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at them when they come.4.That the care and love of Christ to them, in reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition.”94Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear.[82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham remarks on the third:“Thirdly.There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.“Fourthly.The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No(saith he),take them all, evenTHE LITTLE FOXES;for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind(as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),so they are(saith he)foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump(often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as theNovationsandDonatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church),therefore, saith he,hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”951723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,” and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was written by Solomon when he was wicked[83]and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,”96and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected from the sacred canon the better.1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr. Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it.”97In vain do we look even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and philology.1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate, “appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite.… Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was[84]known to be particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind, learned as well as unlearned.”98Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and Annotations, by Thomas Percy,D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting an edifice without a foundation, which,[85]however fair and goodly to the view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”991765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with decency be used or meant concerningSolomonandPharaoh’sdaughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his Church.”1001768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, he maintained that the heroes of the plot are nottwo, as generally believed, butthree—viz.,Solomon, theShulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, andthe daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying aGentileprincess, and making herequal in honour and privilegewith his former Jewish queen, and ofherbeingfrequently mentionedafterwards in history, while the other is passed over intotal silence, resemblesthe conduct of the Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” … “Nothing more, according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the laws of Moses and those that did not.”101[86]The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem, and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7, begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife; viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at the same time there appears no thought ofrenouncing her relationto Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,” concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah, and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still remain adistinct bodyof people, waiting for great events that are to happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in[87]Germany. Michaelis, the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride, to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that this Song describesthe chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love; the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the sacred bond; and then asks,Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness?1021771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, butto celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this[88]conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her humble husband.103However strange the manner in which Jacobi divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the Anonymous Commentary,104have already taken the lovers to bea shepherdandshepherdess, and regarded Solomon asa separateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover.1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell105could still overlook thetwo distinctpersons referred to in this poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics, and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms to be so[89]easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his predecessors had overlooked. And Herr vonPuffendorf’snew theory, therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy. The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days, and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine. As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are represented in prophetical types.”106On the clause,“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the rootעָלַﬦ, whenceעֲלָמוֹת,virgins, is derived, signifiesto be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book.[90]1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and the established laws of language, and maintained thatthis Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.Upon the question, whether there may not beanother senseconcealed under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical, metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a compendium of Christian Church History.”107Herder admits that this book describes the love ofa shepherdand shepherdess, as well as that ofa king; but finding great difficulty to account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets, while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity throughout, and that love is[91]described from its first germs to its full maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.108He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,109was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks oftwowives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”1101789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,111seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,112defended the view thatthe bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with someglimpsesof light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that itcelebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.113[92]1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter.1141803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”115He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.1813. Hug,116rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” meansthe ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” isKing Hezekiah, and the bookdescribes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers(chap. viii. 8, 9)to this re-union.1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem isto celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A[93]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.117Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” isa new colonynear the Jordan, and the bridegroom representsZerubbabel,Ezra, andNehemiah; and thatthe Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.1181826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that“this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.”1191829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation.1201830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem,[94]adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” representswisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing.121Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.”1221839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett123about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine,124in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became[95]stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songscelebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty.1251842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages.126Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.”1271846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs,without any moral or religious design,128and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically,129is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and[96]finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.”1301849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for someChristianmysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored.1311851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view thatthe book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively representthe union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred.1321852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents[97]the Messiah, because at that early period the notion ofa personalMessiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” representsthe kingdom of Israel, and “the bride”Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.”133He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.
390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the palanquin,” to meanthe cross; its “silver legs,” thethirty pieces of silverwhich brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,”the purple garmentin which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,”the crown of thornsput on Christ’s head, &c. &c.650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century, regards the Song of Songs asdescribing what the Logos has done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.673–735. Bede, called thevenerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of Songs, one being merely a copy from[68]Gregory the Great, in which he defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, deliveredeighty-sixsermons upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and the bride.” He divides the Song intothree parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride intothe garden, and in the second he conducts her intothe cellar, and in the third he takes her home intohis apartments. Upon the wordsLet him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.”78Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these sermons, but only lived to deliverforty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprisefour chapters and a half.1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end,the origin[69]of the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.”791538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ, the bridegroom, with the bride,i.e.the Church as a whole, or with the soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory, viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.”801542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He calls the Song of Songs,“Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.”811544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.821585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but always abideth constant, how oft[70]soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.”83This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, thatthis book describes historico-prophetically, the condition of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse, “foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his course to the same mark.”84He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describesthe condition of the Legal Churchfrom the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14,the state of the Evangelical Church, fromA.D.34 to the second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious commentary.A.The Legal Church.Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Churchbefore the captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam; 9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah; 15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other Kings to the last Zedekiah.Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Churchduring the captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7, the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the Church caused by[71]Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6,Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.B.The Evangelical Church.Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church fromA.D.34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito,Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian.Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from 334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ knocking by persecution (A.D.368), in the time of Constance, Julian, and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort (795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure[72]of this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160, to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle; 12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the Florentine, MarsiliusPatavinus, WilliamOckham, and John of Gaunt, boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff (1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague (1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther; 2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year, the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6, the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the[73]conversion of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion; 11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be carried with him into everlasting mansions.As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens of his mode of exposition.I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D.368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices,my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps[74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.14.His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was calledthe first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, WilliamOckham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly,that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus[75]Christ, with joy in the Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded, living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom, and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to be vanity, andin this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not(Luke x. 24; Matt. xiii. 7),so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying, ‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath(Rom. iv. 15),but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the feeling of his love towards her.85The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book, which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to bethe Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to show that this Song isa drama in five acts.1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation[76]could with equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him,celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time also admittedthat theARCANA NUPTIARUMspiritually represent,first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church.86It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no other light than this.1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceiusregards this book as a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the Revelation of St. John.[77]Chapter.1.The period of the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentilesi.–ii.2.The period of the increase of the Church, and persecution from withoutiii.–iv.3.The period of peace from without and danger withinv.–vi. 8.4.The period of the Reformationvi. 9–vii. 10.5.The period of unsettlement after the Reformationvii. 11–viii. 3.6.The period of the persecutionviii. 4–6.7.The period of rest after the sufferings and longing for the spread of the Gospelviii. 7–14.871648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his(i.e.Solomon’s)own time to the last judgment.”88Chap. i. describes the estate of the Church from the days of Solomon to the repair of the temple by Josiah.Chap. ii. describes the estate of the Church from the repair of the temple to the days of the Maccabees.Chap. iii. describes the estate of the Church from the days of the Maccabees to the time of Christ’s sojourning here on earth.Chap. iv. describes the estate of the Church—first, in Christ’s time, under his ministry, ver. 1–6; secondly, after his ascension, under the Apostles, ver. 7–11; thirdly, after their departure, during the first ten persecutions, ver. 12–16.Chap. v. describes the estate of the Church from the time that Constantine entered it to the time of restoring[78]the Gospel and reforming of the Church by the ministry of Luther and other late divines.Chap. vi. describes the state of the Church reformed by the ministry of Luther and other late divines, and the calling in of the Jews.Chap. vii.–viii. 4, describes the estate of the Jewish Church when they shall come to be converted unto the Lord.Chap. viii. 5–14, describes the solicitude which the Church of Judea and Assyria cherished for the growth and establishment of the good people in Egypt, the destruction of the Turks, the union of all Christians, the coming of the Lord, &c.1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is betwixt Christ and the Church.” … “The form of it is dramatical and dialogistical; the chief speakers are, notSolomonand theShulamite, as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or particular Christians.”891688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius, but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book,90“The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John.[79]Rev.Cant.A.D.1.The Church atEphesusii. 1–7i. 5–1733–3702.The,,Church,,at,,Smyrna8–11ii. 1–17371–7073.The,,Church,,at,,Pergamos12–17iii. 1–11708–10454.The,,Church,,at,,Thyatira18–29iv. 1–v. 11046–13835.The,,Church,,at,,Sardisiii. 1–6v. 2–vi. 21384–17216.The,,Church,,at,,Philadelphia7–13vi. 9–vii. 141722–20597.The,,Church,,at,,Laodicea14–22viii. 1–142060 and onwards.1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the wedding.91The following is his division:—Chapter.1st dayi.–ii. 6.2nd dayii. 7–17.3rd dayiii.–v. 1.4th dayv. 2–vi. 9.5th dayvi. 10–vii. 11.6th dayvii. 12–viii. 3.7th dayviii. 4–14.1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words, “Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean “thetwo Sacramentswhich the Church administers to her children;the Font in Baptismbeing represented by the former, andthe Sacrament of the Lord’s Supperby the other part of the figure.”92[80]1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch was,Understandest thou what thou readest?he will have more reason than he had to say,How can I, except some man shall guide me?that the books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another, but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part of Scripture to be madea savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms, “on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we have for the understanding of this book,it appears to be a very bright and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance and communion with him.”931723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I.Her sinful infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3,and also under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5,and almost throughout. II.Under crosses, chap. i. 6,as being ‘a lily among thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2,and also in prosperity, wherein she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III.As deserted and sick of love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5,and again as enjoying her beloved, i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV.As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances, chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5,and also[81]as under carnal watchmen, v. 7.And in all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one, as in the next consideration will be cleared.V.As in private dealing with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16; viii. 1,and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties, going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3,and what she was in fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI.It sets out believers as more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge; and also, as more weak in gifts and grace.VII.And lastly, it holds forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board, for the believers’ edification, to show, 1.What should be, and will be their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame.2.What are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they who are believers, that they may be the more watchful.3.To shew what they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at them when they come.4.That the care and love of Christ to them, in reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition.”94Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear.[82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham remarks on the third:“Thirdly.There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.“Fourthly.The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No(saith he),take them all, evenTHE LITTLE FOXES;for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind(as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),so they are(saith he)foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump(often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as theNovationsandDonatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church),therefore, saith he,hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”951723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,” and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was written by Solomon when he was wicked[83]and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,”96and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected from the sacred canon the better.1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr. Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it.”97In vain do we look even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and philology.1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate, “appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite.… Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was[84]known to be particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind, learned as well as unlearned.”98Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and Annotations, by Thomas Percy,D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting an edifice without a foundation, which,[85]however fair and goodly to the view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”991765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with decency be used or meant concerningSolomonandPharaoh’sdaughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his Church.”1001768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, he maintained that the heroes of the plot are nottwo, as generally believed, butthree—viz.,Solomon, theShulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, andthe daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying aGentileprincess, and making herequal in honour and privilegewith his former Jewish queen, and ofherbeingfrequently mentionedafterwards in history, while the other is passed over intotal silence, resemblesthe conduct of the Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” … “Nothing more, according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the laws of Moses and those that did not.”101[86]The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem, and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7, begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife; viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at the same time there appears no thought ofrenouncing her relationto Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,” concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah, and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still remain adistinct bodyof people, waiting for great events that are to happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in[87]Germany. Michaelis, the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride, to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that this Song describesthe chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love; the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the sacred bond; and then asks,Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness?1021771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, butto celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this[88]conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her humble husband.103However strange the manner in which Jacobi divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the Anonymous Commentary,104have already taken the lovers to bea shepherdandshepherdess, and regarded Solomon asa separateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover.1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell105could still overlook thetwo distinctpersons referred to in this poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics, and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms to be so[89]easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his predecessors had overlooked. And Herr vonPuffendorf’snew theory, therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy. The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days, and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine. As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are represented in prophetical types.”106On the clause,“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the rootעָלַﬦ, whenceעֲלָמוֹת,virgins, is derived, signifiesto be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book.[90]1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and the established laws of language, and maintained thatthis Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.Upon the question, whether there may not beanother senseconcealed under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical, metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a compendium of Christian Church History.”107Herder admits that this book describes the love ofa shepherdand shepherdess, as well as that ofa king; but finding great difficulty to account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets, while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity throughout, and that love is[91]described from its first germs to its full maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.108He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,109was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks oftwowives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”1101789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,111seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,112defended the view thatthe bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with someglimpsesof light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that itcelebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.113[92]1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter.1141803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”115He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.1813. Hug,116rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” meansthe ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” isKing Hezekiah, and the bookdescribes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers(chap. viii. 8, 9)to this re-union.1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem isto celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A[93]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.117Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” isa new colonynear the Jordan, and the bridegroom representsZerubbabel,Ezra, andNehemiah; and thatthe Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.1181826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that“this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.”1191829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation.1201830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem,[94]adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” representswisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing.121Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.”1221839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett123about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine,124in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became[95]stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songscelebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty.1251842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages.126Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.”1271846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs,without any moral or religious design,128and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically,129is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and[96]finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.”1301849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for someChristianmysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored.1311851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view thatthe book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively representthe union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred.1321852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents[97]the Messiah, because at that early period the notion ofa personalMessiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” representsthe kingdom of Israel, and “the bride”Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.”133He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.
390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the palanquin,” to meanthe cross; its “silver legs,” thethirty pieces of silverwhich brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,”the purple garmentin which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,”the crown of thornsput on Christ’s head, &c. &c.650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century, regards the Song of Songs asdescribing what the Logos has done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.673–735. Bede, called thevenerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of Songs, one being merely a copy from[68]Gregory the Great, in which he defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, deliveredeighty-sixsermons upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and the bride.” He divides the Song intothree parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride intothe garden, and in the second he conducts her intothe cellar, and in the third he takes her home intohis apartments. Upon the wordsLet him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.”78Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these sermons, but only lived to deliverforty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprisefour chapters and a half.1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end,the origin[69]of the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.”791538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ, the bridegroom, with the bride,i.e.the Church as a whole, or with the soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory, viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.”801542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He calls the Song of Songs,“Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.”811544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.821585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but always abideth constant, how oft[70]soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.”83This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, thatthis book describes historico-prophetically, the condition of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse, “foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his course to the same mark.”84He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describesthe condition of the Legal Churchfrom the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14,the state of the Evangelical Church, fromA.D.34 to the second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious commentary.A.The Legal Church.Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Churchbefore the captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam; 9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah; 15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other Kings to the last Zedekiah.Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Churchduring the captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7, the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the Church caused by[71]Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6,Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.B.The Evangelical Church.Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church fromA.D.34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito,Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian.Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from 334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ knocking by persecution (A.D.368), in the time of Constance, Julian, and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort (795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure[72]of this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160, to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle; 12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the Florentine, MarsiliusPatavinus, WilliamOckham, and John of Gaunt, boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff (1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague (1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther; 2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year, the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6, the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the[73]conversion of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion; 11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be carried with him into everlasting mansions.As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens of his mode of exposition.I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D.368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices,my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps[74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.14.His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was calledthe first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, WilliamOckham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly,that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus[75]Christ, with joy in the Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded, living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom, and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to be vanity, andin this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not(Luke x. 24; Matt. xiii. 7),so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying, ‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath(Rom. iv. 15),but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the feeling of his love towards her.85The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book, which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to bethe Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to show that this Song isa drama in five acts.1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation[76]could with equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him,celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time also admittedthat theARCANA NUPTIARUMspiritually represent,first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church.86It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no other light than this.1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceiusregards this book as a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the Revelation of St. John.[77]Chapter.1.The period of the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentilesi.–ii.2.The period of the increase of the Church, and persecution from withoutiii.–iv.3.The period of peace from without and danger withinv.–vi. 8.4.The period of the Reformationvi. 9–vii. 10.5.The period of unsettlement after the Reformationvii. 11–viii. 3.6.The period of the persecutionviii. 4–6.7.The period of rest after the sufferings and longing for the spread of the Gospelviii. 7–14.871648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his(i.e.Solomon’s)own time to the last judgment.”88Chap. i. describes the estate of the Church from the days of Solomon to the repair of the temple by Josiah.Chap. ii. describes the estate of the Church from the repair of the temple to the days of the Maccabees.Chap. iii. describes the estate of the Church from the days of the Maccabees to the time of Christ’s sojourning here on earth.Chap. iv. describes the estate of the Church—first, in Christ’s time, under his ministry, ver. 1–6; secondly, after his ascension, under the Apostles, ver. 7–11; thirdly, after their departure, during the first ten persecutions, ver. 12–16.Chap. v. describes the estate of the Church from the time that Constantine entered it to the time of restoring[78]the Gospel and reforming of the Church by the ministry of Luther and other late divines.Chap. vi. describes the state of the Church reformed by the ministry of Luther and other late divines, and the calling in of the Jews.Chap. vii.–viii. 4, describes the estate of the Jewish Church when they shall come to be converted unto the Lord.Chap. viii. 5–14, describes the solicitude which the Church of Judea and Assyria cherished for the growth and establishment of the good people in Egypt, the destruction of the Turks, the union of all Christians, the coming of the Lord, &c.1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is betwixt Christ and the Church.” … “The form of it is dramatical and dialogistical; the chief speakers are, notSolomonand theShulamite, as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or particular Christians.”891688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius, but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book,90“The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John.[79]Rev.Cant.A.D.1.The Church atEphesusii. 1–7i. 5–1733–3702.The,,Church,,at,,Smyrna8–11ii. 1–17371–7073.The,,Church,,at,,Pergamos12–17iii. 1–11708–10454.The,,Church,,at,,Thyatira18–29iv. 1–v. 11046–13835.The,,Church,,at,,Sardisiii. 1–6v. 2–vi. 21384–17216.The,,Church,,at,,Philadelphia7–13vi. 9–vii. 141722–20597.The,,Church,,at,,Laodicea14–22viii. 1–142060 and onwards.1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the wedding.91The following is his division:—Chapter.1st dayi.–ii. 6.2nd dayii. 7–17.3rd dayiii.–v. 1.4th dayv. 2–vi. 9.5th dayvi. 10–vii. 11.6th dayvii. 12–viii. 3.7th dayviii. 4–14.1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words, “Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean “thetwo Sacramentswhich the Church administers to her children;the Font in Baptismbeing represented by the former, andthe Sacrament of the Lord’s Supperby the other part of the figure.”92[80]1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch was,Understandest thou what thou readest?he will have more reason than he had to say,How can I, except some man shall guide me?that the books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another, but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part of Scripture to be madea savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms, “on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we have for the understanding of this book,it appears to be a very bright and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance and communion with him.”931723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I.Her sinful infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3,and also under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5,and almost throughout. II.Under crosses, chap. i. 6,as being ‘a lily among thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2,and also in prosperity, wherein she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III.As deserted and sick of love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5,and again as enjoying her beloved, i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV.As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances, chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5,and also[81]as under carnal watchmen, v. 7.And in all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one, as in the next consideration will be cleared.V.As in private dealing with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16; viii. 1,and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties, going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3,and what she was in fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI.It sets out believers as more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge; and also, as more weak in gifts and grace.VII.And lastly, it holds forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board, for the believers’ edification, to show, 1.What should be, and will be their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame.2.What are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they who are believers, that they may be the more watchful.3.To shew what they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at them when they come.4.That the care and love of Christ to them, in reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition.”94Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear.[82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham remarks on the third:“Thirdly.There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.“Fourthly.The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No(saith he),take them all, evenTHE LITTLE FOXES;for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind(as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),so they are(saith he)foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump(often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as theNovationsandDonatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church),therefore, saith he,hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”951723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,” and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was written by Solomon when he was wicked[83]and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,”96and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected from the sacred canon the better.1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr. Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it.”97In vain do we look even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and philology.1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate, “appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite.… Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was[84]known to be particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind, learned as well as unlearned.”98Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and Annotations, by Thomas Percy,D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting an edifice without a foundation, which,[85]however fair and goodly to the view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”991765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with decency be used or meant concerningSolomonandPharaoh’sdaughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his Church.”1001768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, he maintained that the heroes of the plot are nottwo, as generally believed, butthree—viz.,Solomon, theShulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, andthe daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying aGentileprincess, and making herequal in honour and privilegewith his former Jewish queen, and ofherbeingfrequently mentionedafterwards in history, while the other is passed over intotal silence, resemblesthe conduct of the Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” … “Nothing more, according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the laws of Moses and those that did not.”101[86]The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem, and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7, begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife; viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at the same time there appears no thought ofrenouncing her relationto Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,” concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah, and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still remain adistinct bodyof people, waiting for great events that are to happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in[87]Germany. Michaelis, the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride, to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that this Song describesthe chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love; the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the sacred bond; and then asks,Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness?1021771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, butto celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this[88]conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her humble husband.103However strange the manner in which Jacobi divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the Anonymous Commentary,104have already taken the lovers to bea shepherdandshepherdess, and regarded Solomon asa separateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover.1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell105could still overlook thetwo distinctpersons referred to in this poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics, and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms to be so[89]easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his predecessors had overlooked. And Herr vonPuffendorf’snew theory, therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy. The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days, and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine. As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are represented in prophetical types.”106On the clause,“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the rootעָלַﬦ, whenceעֲלָמוֹת,virgins, is derived, signifiesto be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book.[90]1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and the established laws of language, and maintained thatthis Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.Upon the question, whether there may not beanother senseconcealed under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical, metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a compendium of Christian Church History.”107Herder admits that this book describes the love ofa shepherdand shepherdess, as well as that ofa king; but finding great difficulty to account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets, while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity throughout, and that love is[91]described from its first germs to its full maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.108He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,109was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks oftwowives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”1101789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,111seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,112defended the view thatthe bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with someglimpsesof light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that itcelebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.113[92]1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter.1141803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”115He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.1813. Hug,116rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” meansthe ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” isKing Hezekiah, and the bookdescribes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers(chap. viii. 8, 9)to this re-union.1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem isto celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A[93]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.117Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” isa new colonynear the Jordan, and the bridegroom representsZerubbabel,Ezra, andNehemiah; and thatthe Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.1181826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that“this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.”1191829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation.1201830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem,[94]adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” representswisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing.121Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.”1221839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett123about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine,124in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became[95]stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songscelebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty.1251842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages.126Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.”1271846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs,without any moral or religious design,128and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically,129is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and[96]finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.”1301849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for someChristianmysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored.1311851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view thatthe book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively representthe union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred.1321852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents[97]the Messiah, because at that early period the notion ofa personalMessiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” representsthe kingdom of Israel, and “the bride”Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.”133He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.
390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the palanquin,” to meanthe cross; its “silver legs,” thethirty pieces of silverwhich brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,”the purple garmentin which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,”the crown of thornsput on Christ’s head, &c. &c.650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century, regards the Song of Songs asdescribing what the Logos has done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.673–735. Bede, called thevenerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of Songs, one being merely a copy from[68]Gregory the Great, in which he defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, deliveredeighty-sixsermons upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and the bride.” He divides the Song intothree parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride intothe garden, and in the second he conducts her intothe cellar, and in the third he takes her home intohis apartments. Upon the wordsLet him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.”78Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these sermons, but only lived to deliverforty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprisefour chapters and a half.1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end,the origin[69]of the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.”791538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ, the bridegroom, with the bride,i.e.the Church as a whole, or with the soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory, viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.”801542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He calls the Song of Songs,“Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.”811544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.821585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but always abideth constant, how oft[70]soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.”83This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, thatthis book describes historico-prophetically, the condition of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse, “foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his course to the same mark.”84He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describesthe condition of the Legal Churchfrom the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14,the state of the Evangelical Church, fromA.D.34 to the second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious commentary.A.The Legal Church.Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Churchbefore the captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam; 9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah; 15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other Kings to the last Zedekiah.Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Churchduring the captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7, the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the Church caused by[71]Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6,Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.B.The Evangelical Church.Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church fromA.D.34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito,Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian.Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from 334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ knocking by persecution (A.D.368), in the time of Constance, Julian, and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort (795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure[72]of this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160, to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle; 12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the Florentine, MarsiliusPatavinus, WilliamOckham, and John of Gaunt, boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff (1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague (1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther; 2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year, the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6, the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the[73]conversion of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion; 11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be carried with him into everlasting mansions.As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens of his mode of exposition.I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D.368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices,my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps[74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.14.His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was calledthe first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, WilliamOckham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly,that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus[75]Christ, with joy in the Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded, living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom, and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to be vanity, andin this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not(Luke x. 24; Matt. xiii. 7),so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying, ‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath(Rom. iv. 15),but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the feeling of his love towards her.85The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book, which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to bethe Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to show that this Song isa drama in five acts.1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation[76]could with equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him,celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time also admittedthat theARCANA NUPTIARUMspiritually represent,first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church.86It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no other light than this.1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceiusregards this book as a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the Revelation of St. John.[77]Chapter.1.The period of the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentilesi.–ii.2.The period of the increase of the Church, and persecution from withoutiii.–iv.3.The period of peace from without and danger withinv.–vi. 8.4.The period of the Reformationvi. 9–vii. 10.5.The period of unsettlement after the Reformationvii. 11–viii. 3.6.The period of the persecutionviii. 4–6.7.The period of rest after the sufferings and longing for the spread of the Gospelviii. 7–14.871648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his(i.e.Solomon’s)own time to the last judgment.”88Chap. i. describes the estate of the Church from the days of Solomon to the repair of the temple by Josiah.Chap. ii. describes the estate of the Church from the repair of the temple to the days of the Maccabees.Chap. iii. describes the estate of the Church from the days of the Maccabees to the time of Christ’s sojourning here on earth.Chap. iv. describes the estate of the Church—first, in Christ’s time, under his ministry, ver. 1–6; secondly, after his ascension, under the Apostles, ver. 7–11; thirdly, after their departure, during the first ten persecutions, ver. 12–16.Chap. v. describes the estate of the Church from the time that Constantine entered it to the time of restoring[78]the Gospel and reforming of the Church by the ministry of Luther and other late divines.Chap. vi. describes the state of the Church reformed by the ministry of Luther and other late divines, and the calling in of the Jews.Chap. vii.–viii. 4, describes the estate of the Jewish Church when they shall come to be converted unto the Lord.Chap. viii. 5–14, describes the solicitude which the Church of Judea and Assyria cherished for the growth and establishment of the good people in Egypt, the destruction of the Turks, the union of all Christians, the coming of the Lord, &c.1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is betwixt Christ and the Church.” … “The form of it is dramatical and dialogistical; the chief speakers are, notSolomonand theShulamite, as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or particular Christians.”891688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius, but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book,90“The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John.[79]Rev.Cant.A.D.1.The Church atEphesusii. 1–7i. 5–1733–3702.The,,Church,,at,,Smyrna8–11ii. 1–17371–7073.The,,Church,,at,,Pergamos12–17iii. 1–11708–10454.The,,Church,,at,,Thyatira18–29iv. 1–v. 11046–13835.The,,Church,,at,,Sardisiii. 1–6v. 2–vi. 21384–17216.The,,Church,,at,,Philadelphia7–13vi. 9–vii. 141722–20597.The,,Church,,at,,Laodicea14–22viii. 1–142060 and onwards.1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the wedding.91The following is his division:—Chapter.1st dayi.–ii. 6.2nd dayii. 7–17.3rd dayiii.–v. 1.4th dayv. 2–vi. 9.5th dayvi. 10–vii. 11.6th dayvii. 12–viii. 3.7th dayviii. 4–14.1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words, “Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean “thetwo Sacramentswhich the Church administers to her children;the Font in Baptismbeing represented by the former, andthe Sacrament of the Lord’s Supperby the other part of the figure.”92[80]1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch was,Understandest thou what thou readest?he will have more reason than he had to say,How can I, except some man shall guide me?that the books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another, but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part of Scripture to be madea savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms, “on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we have for the understanding of this book,it appears to be a very bright and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance and communion with him.”931723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I.Her sinful infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3,and also under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5,and almost throughout. II.Under crosses, chap. i. 6,as being ‘a lily among thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2,and also in prosperity, wherein she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III.As deserted and sick of love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5,and again as enjoying her beloved, i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV.As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances, chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5,and also[81]as under carnal watchmen, v. 7.And in all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one, as in the next consideration will be cleared.V.As in private dealing with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16; viii. 1,and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties, going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3,and what she was in fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI.It sets out believers as more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge; and also, as more weak in gifts and grace.VII.And lastly, it holds forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board, for the believers’ edification, to show, 1.What should be, and will be their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame.2.What are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they who are believers, that they may be the more watchful.3.To shew what they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at them when they come.4.That the care and love of Christ to them, in reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition.”94Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear.[82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham remarks on the third:“Thirdly.There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.“Fourthly.The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No(saith he),take them all, evenTHE LITTLE FOXES;for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind(as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),so they are(saith he)foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump(often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as theNovationsandDonatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church),therefore, saith he,hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”951723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,” and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was written by Solomon when he was wicked[83]and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,”96and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected from the sacred canon the better.1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr. Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it.”97In vain do we look even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and philology.1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate, “appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite.… Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was[84]known to be particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind, learned as well as unlearned.”98Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and Annotations, by Thomas Percy,D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting an edifice without a foundation, which,[85]however fair and goodly to the view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”991765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with decency be used or meant concerningSolomonandPharaoh’sdaughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his Church.”1001768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, he maintained that the heroes of the plot are nottwo, as generally believed, butthree—viz.,Solomon, theShulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, andthe daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying aGentileprincess, and making herequal in honour and privilegewith his former Jewish queen, and ofherbeingfrequently mentionedafterwards in history, while the other is passed over intotal silence, resemblesthe conduct of the Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” … “Nothing more, according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the laws of Moses and those that did not.”101[86]The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem, and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7, begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife; viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at the same time there appears no thought ofrenouncing her relationto Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,” concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah, and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still remain adistinct bodyof people, waiting for great events that are to happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in[87]Germany. Michaelis, the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride, to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that this Song describesthe chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love; the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the sacred bond; and then asks,Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness?1021771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, butto celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this[88]conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her humble husband.103However strange the manner in which Jacobi divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the Anonymous Commentary,104have already taken the lovers to bea shepherdandshepherdess, and regarded Solomon asa separateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover.1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell105could still overlook thetwo distinctpersons referred to in this poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics, and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms to be so[89]easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his predecessors had overlooked. And Herr vonPuffendorf’snew theory, therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy. The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days, and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine. As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are represented in prophetical types.”106On the clause,“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the rootעָלַﬦ, whenceעֲלָמוֹת,virgins, is derived, signifiesto be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book.[90]1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and the established laws of language, and maintained thatthis Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.Upon the question, whether there may not beanother senseconcealed under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical, metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a compendium of Christian Church History.”107Herder admits that this book describes the love ofa shepherdand shepherdess, as well as that ofa king; but finding great difficulty to account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets, while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity throughout, and that love is[91]described from its first germs to its full maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.108He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,109was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks oftwowives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”1101789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,111seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,112defended the view thatthe bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with someglimpsesof light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that itcelebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.113[92]1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter.1141803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”115He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.1813. Hug,116rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” meansthe ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” isKing Hezekiah, and the bookdescribes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers(chap. viii. 8, 9)to this re-union.1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem isto celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A[93]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.117Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” isa new colonynear the Jordan, and the bridegroom representsZerubbabel,Ezra, andNehemiah; and thatthe Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.1181826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that“this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.”1191829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation.1201830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem,[94]adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” representswisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing.121Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.”1221839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett123about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine,124in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became[95]stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songscelebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty.1251842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages.126Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.”1271846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs,without any moral or religious design,128and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically,129is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and[96]finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.”1301849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for someChristianmysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored.1311851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view thatthe book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively representthe union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred.1321852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents[97]the Messiah, because at that early period the notion ofa personalMessiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” representsthe kingdom of Israel, and “the bride”Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.”133He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.
390–444. Cyril of Alexandria, who was born towards the close of the fourth century, and died in 444, went so far as to explain “the palanquin,” to meanthe cross; its “silver legs,” thethirty pieces of silverwhich brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,”the purple garmentin which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,”the crown of thornsput on Christ’s head, &c. &c.
650. The influence of the Chaldee mode of interpretation seems now to become more apparent in the Christian Church. Aponius, who is quoted by the venerable Bede, and must therefore have lived in the seventh century, regards the Song of Songs asdescribing what the Logos has done for the Church from the beginning of the world, and what he will do to the end of it; thus, like the Chaldee, he takes the book as a historico-prophetical description of the dealings of God with his people, only that the Chaldee takes the Jews as the object of the description, but Aponius substitutes the Gentile Church.
673–735. Bede, called thevenerable, who was born at Wearmouth, in Durham, in 673, and died in 735, wrote seven books on the Song of Songs, one being merely a copy from[68]Gregory the Great, in which he defends the doctrine of grace against the Pelagians.
1091–1153. To the scholastics of the middle ages the Song of Songs seemed an unfathomable abyss of mysticism, into whose depths they could dive as deeply as their speculative minds and fertile imaginations prompted them. St. Bernard, who was born at Fountains, in the vicinity of Dijon, in Burgundy, and died in 1153, deliveredeighty-sixsermons upon this book, and this prodigious number comprises the first two chapters only. In the first sermon he says, “The unction and experience can alone teach the understanding of such a Song. It is not to be heard outside, for its notes give no sound in the street; but she who sings it, she hears it and he to whom it is sung, that is the bridegroom and the bride.” He divides the Song intothree parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride intothe garden, and in the second he conducts her intothe cellar, and in the third he takes her home intohis apartments. Upon the wordsLet him kiss me, &c. (Chap. i. 2), which he explains as referring to the incarnation of Christ, he remarks, “O happy kiss, marvellous because of amazing condescension; not that mouth is pressed upon mouth, but God is united with man.”78
Gilbert Porretanus, the disciple of St. Bernard, continued these sermons, but only lived to deliverforty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprisefour chapters and a half.
1270–1340. In the Commentary of the celebrated Nicolas De Lyra, a converted Jew, and a native of Lire, in Normandy, we meet more fully the Chaldee mode of interpretation as adopted by Aponius. Like the Chaldee, De Lyra takes the Song of Songs to be a historico-prophetical book, with this difference, however, that he regards Chap. ii.–vii. as describing the history of the Israelites from their Exodus from Egypt to the birth of Christ, and from Chapter vii. to the end,the origin[69]of the Christian Church, her progress, and the peace which she attained in the days of Constantine. Upon the words, “We have a little sister,” he remarks, “This is the Church humble and abject among the worldly enemies, for so she was till the time of Constantine.”79
1538. The great reformer, Luther, could not reconcile his mind to believe that the Song of Songs describes the conjugal union of Christ, the bridegroom, with the bride,i.e.the Church as a whole, or with the soul of every individual believer. He therefore rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and advanced a new theory, viz., “that the bride is the happy and peaceful State under the dominion of Solomon, and that the Song is a hymn of praise, in which Solomon thanks God for the obedience rendered unto him as a divine gift: for, where the Lord does not direct and rule there is neither obedience nor happy dominion, but where there is obedience or a happy dominion there the Lord lives and kisses and embraces his bride with his word, and that is the kisses of his mouth.”80
1542. John Brentius, the Suabian reformer, adopted the same theory. He calls the Song of Songs,“Carmen encomiasticum, quod de laude regni et politiae suae Solomon conscripsit.”81
1544. Castellio, seeing that Luther had rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Fathers, and propounded a theory of his own equally untenable, maintained that the book has no allegorical meaning whatever, but is merely a “colloquium Salomonis cum amica quadam Sulamitha,” and as such deemed it unworthy of a place in the sacred canon.82
1585. Thomas Wilcocks adhered to the opinion that this book celebrates the marriage between Christ and his Church, and especially “the great love of the bridegroom to his spouse, which is never removed, but always abideth constant, how oft[70]soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.”83This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.
1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, thatthis book describes historico-prophetically, the condition of the Church, and “agrees well-nigh in all things with the Revelation of St. John.” Solomon, in this Song, and John, in the Apocalypse, “foresaw the same events in like times, and either of them directed his course to the same mark.”84He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describesthe condition of the Legal Churchfrom the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14,the state of the Evangelical Church, fromA.D.34 to the second coming of Christ. We give the following analysis of this curious commentary.
A.The Legal Church.
Chap. i.–ii. 2, describes the condition of the Churchbefore the captivity; 1, 2, under David; 3, under Solomon; 4–8, under Rehoboam; 9–11, under Abijah and Asa; 12, under Jehoshaphat; 13, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz; 14, under Hezekiah; 15, 16, under Manasseh and Josiah; chap. ii. 1, 2, under the other Kings to the last Zedekiah.
Chap. ii. 3–14, describes the condition of the Churchduring the captivity; 3, the comforts of the few left in their own country; 4–7, the preservation of the whole in the captivity; 8, 9, the foretold deliverance; 10–13, its approach; 14, and the deliverance from it.
Chap. ii. 15–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Church from the deliverance to the death of Christ; 15, 16, the troublesome time from the restoration of the Church by Cyrus to Alexander the Great; 17, the partial rest under Alexander; chap. iii. 1–3, the desolation in the Church caused by[71]Antiochus Epiphanes, and its effects in driving away the beloved; 4, 5, the finding of the beloved; 6–11, the condition of the Church during Christ’s sojourn upon this earth; chap. iv. 1–6,Christ’s description of her then beautiful aspect.
B.The Evangelical Church.
Chap. iv. 7–11, describes the obedience and perfection of the Church fromA.D.34 to 334; 7, Christ’s return to his disciples after his resurrection, and remaining with them forty days; 8, the preaching of the Gospel by Peter and Philip to the Grecians, Samaritans, and in Gaza; 9, the effects upon Antioch from the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; 10, 11, the marvellous constancy of the martyrs who died under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, &c.; the spread of the Gospel through the faithfulness of these sufferers; the beautiful orations of Dionysius the Areopagite, Quadratus, Aristides the Athenian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito,Apollinarius, Polycarp, &c., and through the setting forth of the sweetness of the garments by Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian.
Chap. iv. 12–v. 16, describes the decayed state of the Church from 334–1510; 12, the declension of the Church after the death of Dioclesian, when many embraced Arianism; 13, 14, her rising again under Constantine; 15, the convocation of the Council of Nice; 16, Europe and Africa defending the truth against Arian heresy; 17, the decayed state of the Church after the demise of Constantine. Chap. v. 1, Christ knocking by persecution (A.D.368), in the time of Constance, Julian, and Valens; 2, the attempt of the Church to obtain justification by good works; 3, the withdrawal of Christ in consequence of the Chalcedon Council refusing to root out heresy according to the exhortation of the Emperor Marcian; 4, the rising of the Church in the time of Leo Isaurus, Constantine his son (755), and Charles the Great, in Frankfort (795), who endeavoured to exterminate image-worship; 5, the failure[72]of this endeavour; 6, the Church smitten and wounded through the excommunication of Leo Isaurus, and the conduct of the Council of Nice under Constantine (788); verse 8 describes how, in 1100, a Florentine bishop, Arnold, a Roman, Hildegarde the prophetess, and Bernard, began to seek the bridegroom; 8, multitudes flocked to Peter Waldo, in 1160, to inquire after the beloved; 9, 10, Christ appearing again in 1200, at the battle of the Albigenses with the anti-christian bands of Innocent the Third; 11, the kingdom almost restored to Christ after the battle; 12, the faithful teaching of Michael Cesenas, Peter de Corboria, and John de Poliaco, who were condemned in 1277 by Pope John; 13, the preaching in 1290 by Robert Trench; 14, the first resurrection, as described in Rev. i. 20, which took place in 1300, when Dante the Florentine, MarsiliusPatavinus, WilliamOckham, and John of Gaunt, boldly declared the truth, when Philip, king of France, and Edward of England despised the authority of the Pope, and when John Wickliff (1370) taught openly; 15–17, the days of John Huss, Jerome of Prague (1415), and the shaking off of the Romish yoke by the Bohemians.
Chap. vi.–viii., describes the Church restored, from 1517 to the second coming of Christ; 1, the teaching of pure doctrine (1517), by Luther; 2, the Church, in the mouth of Melancthon, claims her beloved before Prince Frederick; 3, the unpleasant state of the Church from 1429, when the Argentinenses joined battle with the Helvetians, till the death of Charles the Fifth (1548); and her beauty, when, in the following year, the Reformation spread in Scotland, Geneva, in the Helvetian and German churches, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; 4, the declaration of justification by faith by Luther; 5, the newly-called preachers of the Gospel in 1550, such as Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zwinglius, &c.; 6, the ecclesiastical and civil government of the Church as restored again in Geneva; 7, the splitting of the Church in 1563, by John Brentius and James Andrewes; 8, the excellency of the faithful; 9–12, the[73]conversion of the Jews, who are called princes. Chap. vii., their conversion a blessing to the Church. Chap. viii. 1–4, their zeal; 5–7, the calling in of the Assyrians and Egyptians, and all the nations bordering on the eastern regions, and their glorious condition after their conversion; 11, 12, the care which the bridegroom will exercise over the whole Church; 13, what he requires of her; 14, her longing desire to be carried with him into everlasting mansions.
As Brightman’s Commentary may be regarded as the fullest development of the Chaldee interpretation Christianized, we shall give a few specimens of his mode of exposition.
I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D.368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices,my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps[74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.14.His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was calledthe first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, WilliamOckham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly,that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.
I sleep, but my heart, &c. chap. v. 1.—The negligence of the Church lying thus is declared first by her drowsiness, then by his enticing call, and lastly by the slight causes of her excuse. Sleep caused her outward senses to be benumbed, that she neither regarded nor considered how superstitions arose, as it happened to the householder in Matt. xiii. 25. Neither could it be otherwise (when the bridegroom left the garden and his friends or fellows drunken with prosperity, wholly gaping after riches and honours, all common good despised), but sleep would overcome the spouse, wherein outwardly she should not differ from a dead woman, however the heart should move and live, the seed of faith not altogether quenched. This drowsiness crept in, in the time of Constantine, when a gaping heaviness, with a continued desire of sleeping, so oppressed the spouse, that the sharpest-sighted pastors could not use their outward senses: not perceiving how ambition crept in among the bishops, and not only that, but how they began to consecrate temples to saints, earnestly to seek their reliques, to worship them with prayers, and to believe that prayers made in the honour of saints at their sepulchres did profit much. Who could now tell whether the Church were sleeping or waking? who neither loathed nor perceived such things. When Constantine was dead, Christ found the Church asleep, and sought by all means to stir her up both by knocking and calling. He knocked by persecutions in the times of Constance, Julian and Valens, of whom though Julian were a professed enemy, (A.D.368,) yet the other two exceeded him in cruelty. After their tyrannous reign God stirred up Valentinian in the west parts, by whom Christ lovingly called his spouse, that, returning unto her former integrity, she should open and let him in. Then taking away Valens, he called more earnestly at both doors (as it were) as well in the west as in the east, by Gratian and Theodosius the elder; after by Arcadius and Honorius, then by Theodosius the younger, and Valentinian the third. And lastly, (that there might be four pair as it were answerable to the four voices,my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled one,) by Marcion alone in the east. These emperors studied and laboured very religiously to defend and enlarge true religion; but the Church was in all the fault, who having these helps[74]prepared, would not use them to recover her former brightness. To this readiness of the emperors was added the voice of the most excellent bishops, and best learned men of that time; as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine and others, the lights of that time. But seeing his profession of love could nothing move her, he tried what his shutting out of the doors at night would do.
My head is filled with dew, &c.—The locks of hair signified, before the congregation of the faithful, among whom true religion was now so much deranged by new and foolish ceremonies, borrowed partly of the Jews and Gentiles, and partly invented of their own idle brains, that the grass is scarce more covered with drops of dew in the night, than the Church was at that time with superstitions.
14.His hands are as gold rings, &c.—Hitherto hath the bridegroom been set forth to the world in some special members, from Frederick the second to Robertus Gallus by almost 100 years. The hands are the instruments of action, and in scripture they figuratively signify works. The gems included in the rings seem to signify the ministers of the word, which elsewhere Christ carried as stars in his right hand (Rev. i. 20). But these times yielded not such splendour. These things show a change and alteration of that which Christ would bring to pass by the labour of his ministers, as it happened about the year 1300, which was calledthe first resurrection of the dead. For now the thousand years were ended wherein Satan was bound, and the dead raised from their graves. Very many began now more boldly to set forth the truth, as Dante the Florentine, Marsilius Patavinus, WilliamOckham, John of Gaunt, and many others. Philip the French king despised Pope Boniface, Lewis of Bavaria strove long time with these most humble servants of servants for the rights of the empire. Edward of England made show unto many how little he esteemed the pope’s authority.
His belly is as bright ivory, &c.—By the belly or bowels, bright as ivory overlaid with sapphires, may be understood the two Sacraments. For the word of God is open to the view of every one, as the mouth and countenance, neither is it wont to be hid from strangers; but the Sacraments serve only for the household, as the bowels, which are appointed only to that body whose members they are, but serve to no use for strangers. These things therefore as it were, with the finger, point to those times of John Wickliff (1370), who taught openly,that the substance of the material bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the altar; the accidents of bread remain not without the subject in the same Sacrament; Christ is not really in the Sacrament, in proper presence corporally. Berengarius spoke against this wicked error 200 years before, but the time was not yet come wherein the hands of the bridegroom should be seen full of rings, whence his empire wanted success.
How different to this is the opinion of Henry Ainsworth, the celebrated Nonconformist divine, who regards this “book as treating of man’s reconciliation unto God, and peace by Jesus[75]Christ, with joy in the Holy Spirit!” “In Solomon’s days,” says Ainsworth, “the Church before Christ’s coming had the greatest glory, having the temple builded, living under that most wise, rich, and peaceable King; the Israelites being as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating, and drinking, and making merry, and dwelling safely, every man under his vine and under his fig-tree.” (1 Kings iv. 10, 25.) Notwithstanding Solomon, being a prophet, foresaw the ruin of his house and kingdom, and in his book of Ecclesiastes proclaimed all things under the sun to be vanity, andin this Song prophesieth of the Church and Kingdom of Christ. And as he, with many other prophets, and kings, and righteous men, desired to see Christ, and to hear his words, but did not(Luke x. 24; Matt. xiii. 7),so here he manifesteth the desire of himself and of all the faithful to enjoy the blessings and graces of Christ, saying, ‘Let him kiss me.’ Whereby the Church desireth to have Christ manifested in the flesh, and to have the loving and comfortable doctrines of his Gospel applied unto her conscience, that she might not be always under the schoolmaster of the law, which worketh wrath(Rom. iv. 15),but might be prevented with the grace of Christ, and have the feeling of his love towards her.85
The difference of opinion respecting the interpretation of this book, which obtained after the Reformation had laid open the Scriptures to all Protestants, and had established the right of private judgment, did not, however, as yet affect the Romish Church. Her followers not only adhered to the allegorical interpretation, but, unlike their predecessors of the middle ages, took the bride of the Song to bethe Virgin Mary. Thus Michael Ghislerius and Cornelius à Lapide. The latter is especially to be noticed, since he was the first who endeavoured to show that this Song isa drama in five acts.
1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation[76]could with equal facility be made to describe the history of the Jewish nation and that of the Virgin Mary, awakened the suspicion of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated statesman, philosopher, and divine. He, therefore, adhered to the literal sense of the book, which, according to him,celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, but at the same time also admittedthat theARCANA NUPTIARUMspiritually represent,first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church.86It will be remembered that Origen was already of opinion that this Song primarily celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter, though with him the literal meaning was of no importance, and that Theodoret mentions some who viewed the Song in no other light than this.
1603–1699. It was to be expected that John Cocceius, the founder of the theological school bearing his name, whose doctrine was, that the whole history of the Old Testament is a mirror, accurately reflecting the transactions and events that were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world, would find in this Song something in accordance with his views. Enlarging upon Aponius’ and De Lyra’s mode of interpretation, and, like Brightman, still more approaching the Chaldee, in a manner peculiar to himself Cocceiusregards this book as a prophetical narrative of the transactions and events that are to happen in the Church, and divides the whole into seven distinct periods, similar to the seven trumpets and seven seals in the Revelation of St. John.[77]
Chapter.1.The period of the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentilesi.–ii.2.The period of the increase of the Church, and persecution from withoutiii.–iv.3.The period of peace from without and danger withinv.–vi. 8.4.The period of the Reformationvi. 9–vii. 10.5.The period of unsettlement after the Reformationvii. 11–viii. 3.6.The period of the persecutionviii. 4–6.7.The period of rest after the sufferings and longing for the spread of the Gospelviii. 7–14.87
1648. Strange as this mode of interpretation may appear, yet, as we have seen, it is not confined to a single individual or country. John Cotton also affirms that Solomon in this book “describes the estate of the Church towards Christ, and his respect towards her from his(i.e.Solomon’s)own time to the last judgment.”88
1650. John Trapp, however, adhered to the more general view, and regarded this Song as “a treasury of the most sacred and highest mysteries of Holy Scriptures, streaming out all along, under the parable of a marriage, that full torrent of spiritual love that is betwixt Christ and the Church.” … “The form of it is dramatical and dialogistical; the chief speakers are, notSolomonand theShulamite, as Castellio makes it, but Christ and his Church. Christ also hath associates (those friends of the bridegroom), viz., the prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers, who put in a word sometimes; as likewise do the fellow-friends of the bride, viz. whole churches or particular Christians.”89
1688. Hennischius not only adopted the view of Brightman and Cocceius, but even exceeded it, and called his commentary upon this book,90“The Apocalypse in the Canticles.” He found in the Song of Songs seven periods of the Church described, answerable to the states of the seven Asiatic Churches in the Revelation of St. John.[79]
Rev.Cant.A.D.1.The Church atEphesusii. 1–7i. 5–1733–3702.The,,Church,,at,,Smyrna8–11ii. 1–17371–7073.The,,Church,,at,,Pergamos12–17iii. 1–11708–10454.The,,Church,,at,,Thyatira18–29iv. 1–v. 11046–13835.The,,Church,,at,,Sardisiii. 1–6v. 2–vi. 21384–17216.The,,Church,,at,,Philadelphia7–13vi. 9–vii. 141722–20597.The,,Church,,at,,Laodicea14–22viii. 1–142060 and onwards.
1693. The profound scholarship and exquisite taste of Bossuet, though a Roman Catholic Bishop, would not allow him to follow these extravagant theories. Presuming that the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh is the primary object of this Song, and that the nuptial feast among the Jews was hebdomadal, Bossuet divides the poem into seven parts, corresponding to the seven days of the supposed duration of the wedding.91The following is his division:—
Chapter.1st dayi.–ii. 6.2nd dayii. 7–17.3rd dayiii.–v. 1.4th dayv. 2–vi. 9.5th dayvi. 10–vii. 11.6th dayvii. 12–viii. 3.7th dayviii. 4–14.
1700. Bishop Patrick, however, would not admit any literal meaning, but found, almost in every word, some delightful mystery. Even the words, “Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies,” (chap. vii. 2,) at which so much umbrage has been taken, this pious prelate says, may mean “thetwo Sacramentswhich the Church administers to her children;the Font in Baptismbeing represented by the former, andthe Sacrament of the Lord’s Supperby the other part of the figure.”92[80]
1710. Shortly after the publication of this commentary appeared the Exposition of Matthew Henry. And though Henry confessed, “on the one hand, that if he who barely reads this book be asked, as the eunuch was,Understandest thou what thou readest?he will have more reason than he had to say,How can I, except some man shall guide me?that the books of Scripture history and prophecy are very much like one another, but that this Song of Solomon is very much unlike the Songs of his father David; here is not the name of God in it; it is never quoted in the New Testament; we find not in it any expressions of natural religion or pious devotion; no, nor is it introduced by vision, or any of the marks of immediate revelation; thus it seems as hard as any part of Scripture to be madea savour of life unto life.” Yet he affirms, “on the other hand, that with the help of the many faithful guides we have for the understanding of this book,it appears to be a very bright and powerful ray of heavenly light, admirably fitted to excite pious and devout affections in holy souls, to draw out their desires towards God, to increase their delight in him, and improve their acquaintance and communion with him.”93
1723. Durham tells us the import of the Song of Songs much more positively and dogmatically than either Patrick or Henry. “The great scope of this Song is to set out that mutual love and carriage that is between Christ and the Church in five distinct branches. It holdeth out the Church’s case, and Christ’s care of her, in all her several conditions, and under all dispensations; such as, I.Her sinful infirmities, and failings in duties, chap. i. 6; v. 2, 3,and also under liveliness in duties, chap. i. 2, 3, 4, and v. 5,and almost throughout. II.Under crosses, chap. i. 6,as being ‘a lily among thorns,’ and hated of the world, ii. 2,and also in prosperity, wherein she is commended as terrible, vi. 10. III.As deserted and sick of love, chap. iii. 1, 2, and v. 4, 5,and again as enjoying her beloved, i. 4; iii. 4, 5. IV.As under faithful shepherds and lively ordinances, chap. i. 4; iii. 4, 5,and also[81]as under carnal watchmen, v. 7.And in all these, her various conditions, in all ages, are painted forth, before Christ’s incarnation, as well as now, without respect to any particular time or age; for ceremonial things are not here meddled with, but what was spiritual; besides the Church then and now is one, as in the next consideration will be cleared.V.As in private dealing with Christ, and longing after him and praying for him, chap. iv. 16; viii. 1,and almost throughout, and also what she was in public duties, going to the watchmen, chap. v. 7, and iii. 3,and what she was in fellowship with others, v. 8, 9; vi. 1, 2. VI.It sets out believers as more strong, and it furnishes a greater measure of grace and knowledge; and also, as more weak in gifts and grace.VII.And lastly, it holds forth the same believers as more and less lively in their conditions.
“This book, in its matter, is a comprehensive sum of all those particulars formed in a song, put together, and drawn as on a board, for the believers’ edification, to show, 1.What should be, and will be their carriage, when it is right with them as to their frame.2.What are their infirmities, and what they use often to fall into, even they who are believers, that they may be the more watchful.3.To shew what they meet with, that they may make for sufferings, and not stumble at them when they come.4.That the care and love of Christ to them, in reference to all these, may appear, that they may know upon what grounds to comfort themselves in every condition, and may have this Song as a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition.”94
Upon the words “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines,” &c. (Chap. ii. 15), Durham remarks:
“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear.[82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”
“This fifteenth verse contains the last part of Christ’s Sermon; wherein, as he had formerly given directions in reference to her particular walk, so here he evidenceth his care of her external peace. That Christ speaks these words, the continuation and series of them with the former, the scope (which is to make full proof of his case), and the manner how the duty here mentioned is laid on, to wit, by way of authority, makes it clear.[82]There are three things in them, 1. On external evil incident to the Church, and that is, to be spoiled by ‘foxes.’ 2. A care given in a direction, ‘Take them,’ &c. 3. He gives reasons to deter all from cruel pity in sparing of them, ‘For,’ &c.”
Having descanted at large upon the first and second heads, Durham remarks on the third:
“Thirdly.There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.“Fourthly.The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No(saith he),take them all, evenTHE LITTLE FOXES;for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind(as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),so they are(saith he)foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump(often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as theNovationsandDonatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church),therefore, saith he,hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”95
“Thirdly.There is a motive to press, implied, while he (i.e. Christ) saith this; ‘Take us,’ which words insinuate that it is service both to him and her, and that ministers are his servants, and the Church’s for Christ’s sake. It shows also his sympathy in putting himself, as it were, in hazard with her (at least mystically considered), and his love in comforting her, that he thinks himself concerned in the restraint of these foxes as well as she is.
“Fourthly.The direction is amplified, to remove an objection (say some) ‘All heresies, or all heretics are not equal; some comparatively are little to be regarded, and it is cruelty to meddle with these, that seem to profess fair.’ ‘No(saith he),take them all, evenTHE LITTLE FOXES;for though they be but little, yet they are foxes; though they be not of the grossest kind(as all scandals in fact are not alike, yet none is to be dispensed with),so they are(saith he)foxes, and corrupt others; for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump(often small-like schisms, or heresies, such as theNovationsandDonatists, &c., have been exceedingly defacing to the beauty of the Church),therefore, saith he,hunt and take them up.’ How small a friend is our Lord to toleration! and how displeased is he with many errors, that the world thinks little of! Magistrates, ministers and people may learn here, what distance ought to be kept with the spreaders of the least errors; and how every one ought to concur, in their stations, for preventing the hurt that comes by them.”95
1723. Whether this commentary, with its affirmation that “this Song is a little magazine, for direction and consolation in every condition,” and whether the doctrine of intolerance palmed upon Chap. ii. 15 of the Song were published in time to be seen by Whiston, who was neither convinced by Durham’s arguments nor daunted by his appeal to the magistrates, ministers, and people; or whether they appeared too late to be seen by him, I cannot tell. But, in the same year that Durham’s commentary was published Whiston’s Essay appeared, in which he declares that he finds in the Song of Solomon, “from the beginning to the end marks of folly, vanity, and looseness,” and assures us that “it was written by Solomon when he was wicked[83]and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,”96and that the sooner this immoral book is rejected from the sacred canon the better.
1728. About five years afterwards appeared the bulky Exposition of Dr. Gill on Solomon’s Song, consisting of one hundred and twenty-two sermons, which the Doctor delivered to his congregation. In this confused mass of accumulated learning Gill warmly refutes both Whiston and others who had written against this book. He acknowledges “the profit and advantage” which he had received from “the sweet observations of the excellent Durham,” and affirms that this divine poem is wholly allegorical; “and sets forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, union and communion, which are between Christ and his Church; also expresses the several different frames, cases, and circumstances which attend believers in this life, so that they can come into no state or condition, but there is something in this Song suited to their experience; which serves much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it.”97In vain do we look even here for an exposition based upon the sound rules of grammar and philology.
1753. It was reserved for Bishop Lowth to commence in this country a new era in the interpretation of this book. Two of his admirable “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” are devoted to the investigation of the import and interpretation of this Song, and the conclusion he arrived at is almost the same as that of Grotius and Bossuet. “The subject of the Canticles,” says this learned Prelate, “appears to be the marriage-feast of Solomon, (who was, both in name and reality, the Prince of Peace); his bride is called Shulamite.… Who this wife of Solomon was, is not clearly ascertained; but some of the learned have conjectured, with an appearance of probability, that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, to whom Solomon was[84]known to be particularly attached. May we not, therefore, with some shadow of reason, suspect that, under the allegory of Solomon choosing a wife from the Egyptians, might be darkly typified that other Prince of Peace, who was to espouse a church chosen from among the Gentiles?”
As to the explanation of the allegory, this learned prelate properly advises, “that we ought to be cautious of carrying the figurative application too far, and of entering into a precise explication of every particular; as these minute investigations are seldom conducted with sufficient prudence not to offend the serious part of mankind, learned as well as unlearned.”98
Bishop Lowth also takes this poem to be of a dramatic form, and adopts the division of Bossuet into seven parts.
1764. The excellent and judicious remarks of Lowth were followed by an elegant version of Solomon’s Song, with a brief Commentary and Annotations, by Thomas Percy,D.D., Bishop of Dromore. The author vindicates the theory of Grotius, Lowth, &c., that this poem literally describes the nuptials of Solomon; and, like Bossuet and Lowth, divides it into seven parts, answering to the seven days of the supposed duration of the nuptials, which are distinguished from each other by different solemnities. In terms, even more severe than those of Bishop Lowth, Percy censures those commentators, “who have been so busily employed in opening and unfolding the allegorical meaning of this book as wholly to neglect that literal sense which ought to be the basis of their discoveries. If a sacred allegory may be defined a figurative discourse, which, under a lower and more obvious meaning, delivers the most sublime and important truths; then it is the first duty of an expositor to ascertain the lower and more obvious meaning. For till this is done, it is impossible to discover what truths are couched under it. Without this all is vague and idle conjecture. It is erecting an edifice without a foundation, which,[85]however fair and goodly to the view, will be blown down by the slightest breath of true criticism.”99
1765. Wesley, however, opposed this theory. He maintained that “the description of this bridegroom and bride is such as could not with decency be used or meant concerningSolomonandPharaoh’sdaughter; that many expressions and descriptions, if applied to them, would be absurd and monstrous; and that it therefore follows that this book is to be understood allegorically, concerning that spiritual love and marriage which is between Christ and his Church.”100
1768. Harmer advanced a new theory. Whilst advocating with Grotius, Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., that this Song in its literal and primary sense celebrates the nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, he maintained that the heroes of the plot are nottwo, as generally believed, butthree—viz.,Solomon, theShulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, andthe daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon afterwards married, with which the Jewish queen was exceedingly displeased, and looked with jealousy upon the Gentile wife as an intruder. “This event of Solomon’s marrying aGentileprincess, and making herequal in honour and privilegewith his former Jewish queen, and ofherbeingfrequently mentionedafterwards in history, while the other is passed over intotal silence, resemblesthe conduct of the Messiah towards the Gentile and Jewish Churches.” … “Nothing more, according to that,” says Harmer, “is to be sought for of the mystic kind, than the making out the general resemblance between Solomon’s behaviour with respect to his two queens, and the situation of affairs between the Messiah and the two Churches; of those that observed the laws of Moses and those that did not.”101[86]
The following analysis is gathered from Harmer’s singularly confused work. Chapter I. describes Solomon and his attendants meeting the Egyptian bride and her companions; ii. 1–iii. 5, describes the complaining language of the Jewish queen; iii. 6–v. 1, resumes the account of Solomon’s journey with the Egyptian bride up to Jerusalem, and describes the consummation of the marriage; v. 2–vi. 3, relates Solomon’s conversation with his Jewish wife; vi. 4–9, Solomon’s conversation with the Egyptian wife in the garden; vi. 10–viii. 7, begins with Solomon’s astonishment at his being surprised by his Jewish wife whilst in the garden with the Egyptian wife, and the ensuing conversation between them; viii. 8, describes the imaginative hope of the Jewish wife that Solomon’s marriage with the Egyptian would not be consummated, and that she would, therefore, not be treated as a wife; viii. 9, gives Solomon’s reply, that the Egyptian princess should be treated with the highest honours; viii. 10–12, contains a smart reply of the Egyptian princess to the Jewish queen, in which she at the same time also notices the addition her marriage had made to the King’s possessions; viii. 13, states Solomon’s appeal to the Jewish queen in the presence of all to give her final thoughts respecting her future conduct; viii. 14, gives her resolution to keep her distance; but at the same time there appears no thought ofrenouncing her relationto Solomon on her part, as “there was not on his.” “Such actually,” concludes Harmer, “is the state of things with respect to the Messiah, and the two churches of Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish Church persists in not receiving the Gentiles as fellow-heirs, but they renounce not their relation to the Messiah, nor has he utterly excluded them from hope. The state of distance has long continued, but as they still remain adistinct bodyof people, waiting for great events that are to happen, so the New Testament leads us to expect their reconciliation.”
1770. Different to these strange outlines of Harmer were the effects which Lowth’s remarks upon this Song produced in[87]Germany. Michaelis, the celebrated professor at the Göttingen University, in his edition of the Praelectiones, took a more advanced and decided step in the interpretation of this book. He not only rejected the allegorical interpretation, as unsupported by internal evidence, but denied the theory, defended by Lowth, &c., that this poem celebrates the nuptials of Solomon, because there is no direct mention made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance attending it; no time appearing appropriated to the nuptial banquet itself, the bride and the bridegroom being separated from and in quest of each other, wishing and enjoying solitude, always showing themselves in the street or field when conversing together, or with the virgins, and never found with the guests or at the banquet; because it cannot be possibly imagined that a bridegroom would be so necessitated to labour as not to be able to devote the few days of his nuptial week to the celebration of his marriage; that he would be compelled immediately to quit his spouse and his friends for whole days in order to attend his cattle in the pastures; and especially because we could not imagine that the bridegroom would at this time of the festival leave his bride, to whom he professes to be so deeply attached, alone and unhappy, and not return at night. The learned professor, therefore, concludes that this Song describesthe chaste passion of conjugal and domestic love; the attachment of two delicate persons who have been long united in the sacred bond; and then asks,Can we suppose such happiness unworthy of being recommended as a pattern to mankind, and of being celebrated as a subject of gratitude to the great Author of happiness?102
1771. The honour, however, of first elucidating the true design of this book is due to J. T. Jacobi; notwithstanding the imperfections of his attempt. He showed that the importance of this Song is not to describe the chaste passion of conjugal love, butto celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this[88]conjugal fidelity is the Shulamite, the heroine of the book. This humble woman was married to a shepherd. Solomon, being struck with her beauty, tempted her with the luxuries and splendour of his court to forsake her husband and enter the royal harem; but the Shulamite spurned all the allurements, and remained faithful to her humble husband.103However strange the manner in which Jacobi divides this book, and the interpretation of separate passages, it must be acknowledged that he was the first in Germany who showed that Solomon was not the object of the Shulamite’s affections, and that the beloved was a humble shepherd from whom the King endeavoured to separate her. It will be remembered that Ibn Ezra, Immanuel, and the Anonymous Commentary,104have already taken the lovers to bea shepherdandshepherdess, and regarded Solomon asa separateperson, whom the rustic maiden adduces in illustration of her sincere attachment to her shepherd, affirming that if this great King were to bring her into his court, and offer her all its grandeur and luxuries, she would still rejoice in her humble lover.
1772. It seems unaccountable that though the increased attention paid in this country to the sound exegesis of the Scriptures compelled expositors to propound the literal meaning of this book, that Durell105could still overlook thetwo distinctpersons referred to in this poem, viz. the King and the Shepherd, and maintain that the Song of Songs is an epithalamium on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter.
1776. It was not to be expected that the opposition of sound critics, and much less the newly propounded view of Jacobi, would at once subvert the old allegorical theories, or check fertile imaginations from inventing new speculations. The Song of Songs was too darling an object of those whose minds were addicted to allegories and mysticisms to be so[89]easily surrendered to the simple meaning of the text. So far from being surprised, we rather expect that every one who rejects the obvious sense of the Song will find in it some new view which his predecessors had overlooked. And Herr vonPuffendorf’snew theory, therefore, only realises our expectations. He explained this Song hieroglyphically, and by a process of reasoning as sound as that of the other allegorisers, found his interpretation corroborated by analogy. The sacred picture language constituted the wisdom of Solomon’s days, and was therefore used among all nations to express everything divine. As Solomon was more versed in the Egyptian mysteries than any of his contemporaries, he would necessarily write the divine mysteries contained in this book in hieroglyphics, in accordance with the custom of those days. According to the deciphering of these hieroglyphics by Puffendorf, “this much disputed Song treats almost exclusively of the sepulchre of the Saviour, and his death, and the communion of believers, especially of Old Testament saints; but it also describes their longing for his Advent, whereby, however, the condition of the New Testament community, and even the resurrection from the dead, are represented in prophetical types.”106On the clause,
“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the rootעָלַﬦ, whenceעֲלָמוֹת,virgins, is derived, signifiesto be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”
“The virgins love thee.” Puffendorf remarks, “These are the pure and chaste souls which are locked up in the dark sepulchre, and wait for the light;” and in a note says, “the rootעָלַﬦ, whenceעֲלָמוֹת,virgins, is derived, signifiesto be concealed, as those souls were. The Egyptian Neitha, or Minerva, was the tutelar deity of pious souls, and was covered with a veil, which none were allowed to uncover. The virgins, concealed in the same manner, have to expect that through marriage they will emerge into light. Thus the souls are here represented, which in the dominion of darkness wait for salvation and light.”
The curious reader must consult the Commentary itself to see how this extraordinary mode of exposition is carried through the book.[90]
1778. About two years after the publication of the deciphered hieroglyphics of this Song, the allegorical interpretation sustained some most severe blows from the eminently pious and celebrated poet Herder. He denounced the allegorisers as violating common sense, and the established laws of language, and maintained thatthis Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.
Upon the question, whether there may not beanother senseconcealed under the obvious and literal meaning, Herder remarks—“When I read the book itself I do not find the slightest intimation, or even the faintest trace that such a sense was the design of the author. Were I to admit it, I should also expect to find it in the Song of Ibrahim, in the odes of Hafiz, and in all the oriental erotic poems which in form entirely resemble this Song. In the life of Solomon I discover still less reason for this concealed sense, be it historical, mystical, metaphysical, or political. For Solomon’s wisdom did not consist in mysticism, much less in metaphysics, or scholastic church history. His wisdom was displayed in his common sense, as seen in his view of the things of this life, in his acute penetration and extensive knowledge of nature. Subsequent Arabian tradition has indeed attributed to him also the art of sorcery, and of driving out evil spirits, but never did even this tradition ascribe to him the downcast look of a mystic, or represent him as indulging in airy speculations, or as writing a compendium of Christian Church History.”107
Herder admits that this book describes the love ofa shepherdand shepherdess, as well as that ofa king; but finding great difficulty to account for this, he divides the book into separate songs, or amorets, while at the same time he acknowledges that there is a marked unity throughout, and that love is[91]described from its first germs to its full maturity, its ripened fruit, and its first regermination.
1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.108He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.
1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,109was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks oftwowives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.
1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”110
1789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,111seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,112defended the view thatthe bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.
1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with someglimpsesof light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that itcelebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.113[92]
1801. In this country those who paid more regard to the established laws of language, and were therefore constrained to admit a literal sense, mostly adhered to the opinion that this poem is a nuptial song. Thus Williams maintained that it celebrates the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter.114
1803. Mason Good could not acquiesce in this opinion, because the matrimonial connexion of the Hebrew monarch with the Egyptian princess was of an exclusively political character, without any preceding personal intimacy or interchange of affection; whereas, the connexion celebrated in this Song, “proceeded from reciprocal affection, from the gentleness, modesty, and delicacy of mind, which are uniformly and perpetually attributed to this beautiful and accomplished fair one.”115He, therefore, regards this book as celebrating in distinct amorets, the reciprocal attachment of Solomon and a female, who was a native of Sharon, which was a canton of Palestine; conveying also a spiritual allegory.
1813. Hug,116rejecting the literal interpretation, exercised, like the rest of the allegorisers, the right of introducing a new theory. According to him, “the bride” meansthe ten tribes, and “the bridegroom” isKing Hezekiah, and the bookdescribes allegorico-politically the longing of Israel after the destruction of Samaria to be re-united with Judah, and the opposition of the citizens of Judah, represented under the image of the brothers(chap. viii. 8, 9)to this re-union.
1820. The feeble arm raised by Jacobi, Ammon, &c. in the defence of the true design of this book against the mighty host of allegorisers, was greatly supported by the learned Umbreit. In the introduction to his exposition of this Song, Umbreit maintains that the design of the poem isto celebrate the conquest of virtue in humble life over the allurements of royalty. A[93]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.117
Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.
1825. We must, however, not suppose that the allegorisers, though considerably diminished in number, had exhausted their inventive faculties. Kaiser maintains that “the bride” isa new colonynear the Jordan, and the bridegroom representsZerubbabel,Ezra, andNehemiah; and thatthe Song celebrates their restoration of the Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.118
1826. The little band, who struggled hard for the defence of the true design of this book, could now rejoice at the accession of a mighty leader to their ranks. The celebrated Ewald showed in a masterly manner that“this poem celebrates chaste, virtuous, and sincere love, which no splendour is able to dazzle, nor flattery to seduce.”119
1829. Döpke, in his elaborate philologico-critical commentary, though not espousing this view, materially aided the combatants for the literal interpretation.120
1830. It is surprising that the sharp-sighted Rosenmüller, who could not follow the allegorical interpretation of the church, instead of adhering to the obvious sense of the poem,[94]adopted the view of Abrabanel, Leon Hebraeus, &c., that “the bride” representswisdom, with whom Solomon is described as conversing.121
Whilst the battle between the allegorisers and literalists was being waged on the continent, the few champions who came forward in England to defend the literal interpretation received an important addition to their number in the person of Dr. Pye Smith, who denounced this method of treating Scripture as contrary to all laws of language, and dangerous to real religion. He regards this Song as “a pastoral eclogue, or a succession of eclogues, representing, in the vivid colour of Asiatic rural scenery, with a splendour of artificial decoration, the honourable loves of a newly married bride and bridegroom, with some other interlocutors.”122
1839. The controversy between Drs. Pye Smith and Bennett123about the Song of Songs produced a salutary effect, inasmuch as it added considerably to the number of those who in this country defended the literal interpretation. A version of Chap. ii. 8–17 appeared in the Congregational Magazine,124in which the translator boldly affirms that “it celebrates the beautiful scenery of the spring, the attachment of two individuals to each other, and their meeting in that season of nature’s gaiety and loveliness.” He, moreover, declares that he can “see no more reason for the spiritual interpretation which Mr. Williams, Mr. Fry, and others give it, than for its application to the revival of letters, the termination of feudalism, or any other gratifying circumstance in civil or political life.”
1840. Whilst the ranks of the literalists grew stronger in England, the band that defended the true design of this poem in Germany, also under the able leadership of Ewald, became[95]stronger, and Hirzel now contended for the view that the Song of Songscelebrates the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty.125
1842. The learned but “lynx-eyed” Magnus, however, could see in this book nothing else than a collection of various erotic pieces, some perfect, others imperfect, some amended, others interpolated, all the work of different authors, and written in various ages.126Yet his commentary is full of learning, and well deserves to be mentioned in this historical sketch.
1845. Entirely different is the opinion of Professor Stuart, the great Biblical scholar of America, who says, “It seems better and firmer ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which characterises chaste affection between the Jews.”127
1846. It must not be supposed that all the American Professors were of the same opinion. Dr. Noyes, Professor of Hebrew, &c. in Harvard University, published a translation of the Canticles with notes, shortly after the appearance of Stuart’s work, in which he maintains that it is a collection of erotic songs,without any moral or religious design,128and most powerfully opposes the allegorical interpretation.
1847. Another Professor, Dr. Stowe, affirmed that “the general idea of the book, which has just been pronounced ‘as injurious to morals and religion,’ if interpreted allegorically,129is descriptive of the mutual love of God and his people; the vicissitudes, the trials, the backslidings, the repentings, and[96]finally the perfect and eternal union of the church with its Lord and Saviour.”130
1849. Though not entirely defeated, yet the ranks of the allegorisers were materially thinned, and they were driven to adopt a different course. They no longer sought for someChristianmysteries and doctrine in every chapter, verse, and word of the Song, but satisfied themselves with a general allegorical idea, which may be seen both from the above article of Dr. Stowe, and Keil’s “Introduction to the Song of Songs.” Dr. Keil submits that it allegorically describes the mutual love subsisting between God and his chosen people, and how this communion was in various ways interrupted through the unfaithfulness of Israel, and how, through their return to the true covenant-God, and through his unchanging love, it was again restored.131
1851. Not even this mild view of the allegory, however, could conciliate Delitzsch. This learned author, after having interpreted the book as representing “the mutual love subsisting between Solomon and Wisdom,” was at last constrained to reject every allegorical interpretation as untenable. Though adopting the view thatthe book poetically describes a love-relationship formed by Solomon, and that “the idea of marriage is the idea of the Song,” and may figuratively representthe union of God with his people, he frankly confesses, that amongst other views, that which regards the poem as celebrating the victory of virtuous love in humble life over the allurements of royalty, is to be preferred.132
1852. Immediately after the publication of this commentary, containing some of the most cogent arguments against the allegorical interpretation, a new translation appeared with an allegorical exposition by Hahn. Denying that Solomon represents[97]the Messiah, because at that early period the notion ofa personalMessiah was not yet developed in the minds of the people, this commentator advances a new theory, that “the bridegroom” representsthe kingdom of Israel, and “the bride”Japhetic heathenism, and that the poem describes, allegorically, “the kingdom of Israel as destined, in God’s service, eventually to overcome heathenism with the weapons of justice and love, and to bring the Heathen into a state of fellowship and love with itself, and consequently with God.”133He takes the Song to be a dramatico-didactic poem, divisible into six sections.