Chapter VIII: Section V: Historical Sketch of the Exegesis of the Book (3)

There are some, says this prelate, who do not admit that the Song of Songs has a spiritual sense, and make of it such a texture of fables, which is unbecoming even to the insane. Some maintain that Solomon is here celebrating himself and the daughter of Pharaoh; others take the Shulamite, not as Pharaoh’s daughter, but as Abishag; and others, again, considering the thing with a little more reverence, call this book a Royal address, and take “the bride,” to be the people of Israel, and “the bridegroom” the king. I have, therefore, found it necessary, before proceeding with the interpretation, first, to refute this false and pernicious interpretation, and then to fix the obvious design of this book.

1. These people, he submits, ought to remember that those holy fathers were much wiser, and had more spiritual minds than they had, that this book was incorporated in the sacred writings, and that the Church revered it for its spiritual meaning, &c.

2. Through Manasseh and the destruction of Jerusalem, the writings of the Old Testament were lost, but the Holy Spirit restored them to Ezra by inspiration. Now the Holy Spirit could not have inspired any other than a divine book.

3. Because the holy fathers saw this, they have either written devotional commentaries on the entire book, or filled their writings with its thoughts, as for instance, Eusebius and others, who were near the apostolic age. Now, are we not to believe these holy fathers? not believe the Holy Ghost? not obey the voice of God rather than our own opinions? We must so deal with the sacred Scriptures as not to regard letters merely, but draw out the hidden spirit from obscurity.

“The bridegroom” is Christ, “the bride” his church; “the daughters of Jerusalem” are pious, but still unfinished souls (young in a Christian sense), which have not as yet attained the perfection of the bride, but imitate her example; “the companions of the bridegroom” are either the angels or the prophets.

The following is a specimen of his commentary:—

1. The Song of Songs, &c. This book is called The Song of Songs,
because all other songs in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and
Psalms are made for this song, which is not amatory, but a song
about the marriage of the Divine Bridegroom with the Church.

2. Let him kiss me, &c. This is the language of the spouse offering
a petition to the Father of the Bridegroom; for she has known both
the promises made to Abraham and the prophecies of Jacob; as well
as the prophecies of Moses, respecting her beloved, and the
description of his beauty and power as given in the Psalms; “Thou
art more beautiful than the sons of men,” &c.; she has learned that
her beloved, who is adorned with beauty and grace, is both God and
the eternal Son; “For thy throne, Oh God, is for ever and ever,”
&c. Having recognised the beauty, strength, riches, dominion, and
power of the bridegroom which he displays above all things, world
without end, she draws nigh to him to embrace him and to kiss him
in Spirit. Let none whose spirit is low, and who only tastes that
which is earthly, be misled by the expression “kisses.” Let him
remember that we ourselves embrace and kiss the limbs of the
beloved at the mysterious time (the Lord’s Supper), and that which
we see with our eyes, store up in our hearts, and, as it were, feel
ourselves in conjugal embraces; so that it is with us as if we were
with him, embracing and kissing him, after, as the Scriptures say,
“love has driven away fear.” Therefore it is that the Bride wishes
to be kissed by the Bridegroom himself.

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 mean the cross; its “silver legs,” the thirty pieces of silver which brought Christ to the cross; the “purple cushion,” the purple garment in which the Saviour was mocked; “the nuptial crown,” the crown of thorns put 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 as describing 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 the venerable, 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 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, delivered eighty-six sermons 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 into three parts; in the first part the bridegroom leads the bride into the garden, and in the second he conducts her into the cellar, and in the third he takes her home into his apartments. Upon the words Let 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 deliver forty-eight, which extend to Chap. v. 10; so that the one hundred and thirty-four sermons only comprise four 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 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 soever she fall away, and seem, as a man would say, to forsake her husband.” [83] This commentary, which is rare, contains many useful remarks.

1600. Thomas Brightman, however, adopted the view of Aponius and De Lyra, that this 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.” [84] He divides the book into two parts; the first, chap. i.–iv. 6, describes the condition of the Legal Church from the time of David to the death of Christ; and the second, chap. iv. 7–viii. 14, the state of the Evangelical Church, from A.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 Church before 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 Church during 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 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 from A.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 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, Marsilius Patavinus, William Ockham, 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 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 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 called the 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, William Ockham, 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 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, and in 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 be the 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 is a drama in five acts.

1583–1645. The fact, that the allegorical interpretation 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 admitted that the ARCANA NUPTIARUM spiritually represent, first, the love of God to the Israelites, and then the love of Christ to the Church. [86] It 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 Cocceius regards 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.

Chapter.
1. The period of the preaching of the Gospel to
Jews and Gentiles i.–ii.
2. The period of the increase of the Church, and
persecution from without iii.–iv.
3. The period of peace from without and danger
within v.–vi. 8.
4. The period of the Reformation vi. 9–vii. 10.
5. The period of unsettlement after the
Reformation vii. 11–viii. 3.
6. The period of the persecution viii. 4–6.
7. The period of rest after the sufferings and
longing for the spread of the Gospel viii. 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]

Chap. 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 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, not Solomon and the Shulamite, 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.

Rev. Cant. A.D.

1. The Church at Ephesus ii. 1–7 i. 5–17 33–370
2. ,, ,, ,, Smyrna 8–11 ii. 1–17 371–707
3. ,, ,, ,, Pergamos 12–17 iii. 1–11 708–104
4. ,, ,, ,, Thyatira 18–29 iv. 1–v. 1 1046–138
5. ,, ,, ,, Sardis iii. 1–6 v. 2–vi. 2 1384–1721
6. ,, ,, ,, Philadelphia 7–13 vi. 9–vii. 14 1722–2059
7. ,, ,, ,, Laodicea 14–22 viii. 1–14 2060 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. [91] The following is his division:—

Chapter.

1st day i.–ii. 6.
2nd day ii. 7–17.
3rd day iii.–v. 1.
4th day v. 2–vi. 9.
5th day vi. 10–vii. 11.
6th day vii. 12–viii. 3.
7th day viii. 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 “the two Sacraments which the Church administers to her children; the Font in Baptism being represented by the former, and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by the other part of the figure.” [92]

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 made a 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 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. 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, even THE 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 the Novations and Donatists, &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 and foolish, and lascivious and idolatrous,” [96] and 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.” [97] In 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 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, 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 concerning Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter; 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 not two, as generally believed, but three—viz., Solomon, the Shulamite, who is the principal wife and a Jewish queen, and the 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 a Gentile princess, and making her equal in honour and privilege with his former Jewish queen, and of her being frequently mentioned afterwards in history, while the other is passed over in total silence, resembles the 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]

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 of renouncing her relation to 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 a distinct body of 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 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 describes the 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, but to celebrate fidelity. The pattern of this 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. [103] However 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, [104] have already taken the lovers to be a shepherd and shepherdess, and regarded Solomon as a separate person, 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 Durell [105] could still overlook the two distinct persons 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 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 von Puffendorf’s new 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.” [106] On 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 root עָלַﬦ, whence
עֲלָמוֹת, virgins, is derived, signifies to 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.

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 that this Song celebrated true and chaste love in its various stages.

Upon the question, whether there may not be another sense concealed 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 of a shepherd and shepherdess, as well as that of a 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 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. [108] He 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, [109] was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks of two wives, 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, [111] seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus, [112] defended the view that the bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.