The Intercourses of Divine Love Betwixt Christ and His Church, Discourse
A Prefatory Diſcourſe UPON THE SONG of SOLOMON.
Canticles 1. v. 1. The Song of Songs which is Solomons.
HAving undertaken this excellent portion of Holy Writ, for the Subject of theſe Exerciſes, it is reaſonable I ſhould (according to the uſual, and commendable order of Interpreters,) diſcourſe a little, concerning the Divine Authority of it; concerning the Subject matter of it; the Penman, the time, and occaſion of the writing of it, and concerning the form, eſpecially conſidering, that as to ſome or all of theſe, there are ſome difficulties to be aſſoiled, more than concerning other portions of Scripture, and concerning ſome of them, ſome things more peculiar to this, than any other Book.
The firſt Verſe of the Song (which I have now read to you) gives me a ſufficient foundation for the moſt of my diſcourſe of this nature, if in any part of it I ſwerve from my Text, I ſhall yet keep to my buſineſs, which is by theſe previous exerciſes, to prepare you for clearer underſtanding of the ſacred contents of this Spiritual Song.
The Text affords us theſe three propoſitions.
1 Prop. That this Book was Solomon's.
2 Prop. That it is a Song.
3. Prop. That it is a Song of Songs.
1.The firſt will lead us to a diſcourſe of the Penman, and that, to a modeſt Enquiry after the time, and occaſion of his writing it, and (that well known) we ſhall eaſily determine the Author, and both from that advantage, and the auxiliary help of other Arguments conclude concerning its Divine Authority againſt all oppoſers.
2.The ſecond leads me to the conſideration of the form of the writing, being Metrical and Dramatical. What elſe occurreth concerning that, ſhall be there added.
3.The third will lead me to the conſideration of the Matter and Scope. I begin with the firſt of theſe.
1 Prop. The Book of Canticles was Solomon's.
This is ſo plainly aſſerted in the Hebrew Text, (where this is the firſt verſe) that it cannot well be denied, without the denial of the other matter contained in it; the only ground of ſcruple is becauſe of the particle ל prefixed in the Original, which is oft a note of the Dative or Accuſative Caſe, as if it were rather dedicated to Solomon, then written by him: But to clear this, we need not Chriſtopolitanus his fancy, that it is to ſhew us, that Solomon here ſang not of himſelf, but to the true Solomon Jeſus Chriſt, nor yet Delrio's fancy, that it ſignifies as much as ſecundum, The Song of Songs according to Solomon, as we ſay that the Goſpel according to Matthew, which was wrote by Matthew: for the inſtances in the Titles of Davids Pſalms, are ſufficient to evidence the Grammar good enough, in making ל a note of the Genitive Caſe ſometimes.
Taking that therefore upon the Credit of the Hebrew Text. Let us more particularly enquire;
1. Who this Solomon was.
2. At what time he wrote this Sacred Book, and what (probably) gave him the occaſion of it.
Solomon was the Son of David: the King of Iſrael.
Matth. 1. 6.The Son of David by Bathſheba, the Wife of Uriah, born in Hieruſalem, 2 Sam. 5. 14. So named by his Father David, 2 Sam 12. 24. at his Birth, it is ſaid, The Lord loved him. Upon which, v. 25. David ſent by Nathan, and called his name Jedidiah. i. e. beloved of God. (Abulenſis thinks it was not his proper name, nor was he afterward (that we read of) called by it.) Solomon ſignifies Peaceable, he was ſo named before he was born, by Nathan, 1 Chron. 22. 9. and that with reſpect to the peace, and quietneſs of Iſrael in his days. God there Covenanted with David for him, that he ſhould be his Son, and that he would be a Father to him, and the Covenant recorded, Pſal. 89. (made with David) had a ſpecial relation unto him. v. 25. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. He ſucceeded his Father in the Kingdom by his Fathers appointment, 1 Kings 1. 32. and reigned with ſuch an affluence of Divine Bleſſings, as none might compare with him. He loved the Lord, 1 Kings 3. 3. and walked in the Statutes of his Father. God in Gibeon appeared to him, ſaying, Ask what ſhall I give thee, v. 9. He asks a wiſe and underſtanding heart, to judge his people, and to diſcern good and bad aſunder; which ſaying, ſo pleaſed the Lord, that the Lord not only granted what he asked, v. 10. 11, 12, 13. but alſo riches, and honour, ſo as there was none like unto him all his days. He builded the Temple, and the Lord again graciouſly appears to him upon his Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings, ch. 9. The Queen of Sheba, came to admire his wiſdom, for he exceeded all the Kings of the Earth, in Riches, and Honour, 1 Kings 10. 23. Now of this Solomon it is ſaid, That he loved many ſtrange Women, together with the Daughter of Pharaoh: Women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hitties, &c. and v. 6. They turned away his heart from God, when he was old, and v. 5. he went after Aſhtaroth, and Milcom, and built high places, for Chemoſh, and for Molech, v. 7. And here ariſeth a Queſtion, to which it is reaſonable that I ſhould ſpeake ſomething in this place, becauſe this Song is judged to relate much to that action of Solomons life.
Qu. Whether Solomon ſinned in marrying of Pharaoh's Daughter, or whether that firſt match of his was lawful?
1.Theodoret and Suidas conclude that he did ſin, and prove it from 1 Kings 11. 1. where this Marriage of his, together with his later Marriages with the Daughters of the Canaa…etes, ſeem to be condemned; beſides that the law of God ſeems to have been againſt all ſuch Marriages, Deut. 7. 3. and Ezra. ch. 9. 1. reckons it up as the ſin of the people that they had taken to wife the Daughters of the Egyptians, &c.
2.Bellarmine, Cajetan, Soto, Abulenſis and others, think, That he did not ſin in this Marriage, to prove which, they produce, 1 Kings 3. 1. where Solomons making affinity with Pharaoh, and taking of his Daughter is mentioned, and afterward v. 3. it is ſaid. Solomon loved the Lord, I walked in the Statutes of David his Father. Certain it is (allowing no tranſpoſitions) after this, God made his ſignal appearances to him in Gibeon, and upon the dedication of the Temple. Beſides, they urge the Friendſhip between David, and the King of Egypt, and the probability of Davids contracting this Marriage for his Son before his death. They further ſay, that the Law, Deut. 7. 3. did not ſimply, and univerſally forbid Marriages, with the Daughters of Idolaters. Joſeph Married Potiphar's Daughter, Gen. 41. 45. Moſes Married Jethru's Daughter, Exo. 2. 1. Boaz Married Ruth a Moabiteſs. Ruth 2. and Sampſon a Daughter of the Philiſtines, and David, the King of Geſhurt's Daughter, 2 Sam. 3. 2. And there was a particular law directing the formality of ſuch Marriages, when any were taken captive. Deut. 21. 10, 11. Beſides there are that obſerve a wonderful councel of God in it, both to reconcile theſe two contiguous Nations, in a politick alliance: and alſo in regard that Solomon was to be a Type of Chriſt, who was to reconcile Jews, and Gentiles unto God. Others think that the Law, Deut. 7. only reſpected the Canaanites Daughters, who by Gods command were to be blotted out, but that is of no value, for Deut. 21. 10, 11. they might marry Captives. They therefore think that he ſinned not in his marriage of her, but 1. In his multiplying of Wives expreſly contrary to the Law. 2. In his exceſſive love to and fondneſs of her. 3. In his following her to Apoſtacy.
3.I think Pineda's opinion is trueſt: That it was not by any law given to the Jews ſimply forbidden, to marry the Daughter of an Idolater, provided, that ſhe was firſt proſelyted to the Jewiſh Religion: which was the term which you know the Sons of Jacob put upon Hamor in the caſe of Dinah, viz. That his People ſhould be Circumciſed. Thus ſome of the Jewiſh Rabbies interpret thoſe precepts, Deut. 7. 3. and Exod. 23. 3. Thus the precept, Deut. 21. 10, 11. is eaſily reconcilable to that, Deut. 7. 3. Hence it is very probably concluded that Pharaohs Daughter, upon her marriage, ſubjected herſelf to the Jewiſh Religion, and that of the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 44. 10. favours this opinion.—Forget alſo thine own people, and thy Fathers Houſe—ſo ſhall the King deſire thy beauty. Hence we conclude, that Solomons marriage with Pharaohs Daughter, was lawful: and contracted by him in his beſt ſtate, in the beginning of his Reign: but it afterwards proved inexpedient: we read nothing of Solomons defection, nor the ill influence of this match till he was old, 1 Kings 11. 1. 4. She, and his other Wives, turned away his heart from God, that it was not perfect, as was the heart of his Father David. He groſly fell away, ſo foully, that ſome queſtion whether he ever had a truth of grace: others think his failure, a ſufficient foundation for their ſlippery Doctrine of Total, and final Apoſtacy, and conclude him damned; it is ſomething to our purpoſe to examine that Queſtion alſo.
Qu. Whether Solomons Apoſtacy was total, and final?
Remonſtr. Antiſia. art. 5.The Arminians ſay he fell away Totally, but not finally.) Some amongſt the Papiſts, have ſuſpended their Judgment concerning his final Apoſtacy, witneſs the Arch-Biſhop of Toledo, who had Heaven and Hell pictured in his Chappel, and Solomon half in the one, half in the other. Of this mind are Janſenius, Barradius, Torniellus, Pamelius, Feuardentius, Hoſtienſis, &c. and amongſt the Ancients, Tertullian and Cyprian; to whom alſo amongſt the Proteſtants, Zanchy, and Peter Martyr ſeem to incline. Amongſt the Ancients, Auguſtine, V. Pl. in lib. Pinedae de rebas ſol. l. 8. cap. 1. & ſeq V. De-La Champii vindicias ſolum.Proſper, Baſil, and Theodoret (to whom Pineda reckons Cyprian and Gregory) are thought to favour the more ſevere opinion of Solomons total; and final Apoſtacy. Abulenſis, Toſtatus, Vega, Pererius, and Belarmine, conclude it. The Ancient Jewiſh Writers, and (amongſt the Ancients of the Chriſtian Church) Ireneus, Gregor. Neocaeſar: Hilary, Hierom, Ambroſe, Cyrill of Hieruſalem, and others: amongſt the Papiſts themſelves, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Hugo Cardinalis, Comeſtor, Paulus Burgenſis, Dioniſ. Carthuſ. Genebrard, Damianus, Pineda, Delrio, Serarius, and Lorinus. And with theſe the generality of Proteſtants, conclude he was no reprobate, nor did fall away finally, nor (ſay the Proteſtants) totally. Solomon ſaw a great evil under the Sun, Princes going on foot, while Servants rode on Horſeback. De-La Champius obſerveth a greater Evil than this, in the impudent Jeſuites, whoſe conſciences will ſerve them to reprobate Solomon, and Canonize Traytors, and other open Servants of Luſts; and (as he noteth) what Dr. Willet long ſince obſerved, is in this inſtance verified concerning Bellarmine, That it is ordinary with him, when he finds his own Doctors divided to take in with the worſer part of them.
We conclude for Solomon, that he was a true Child of God, and that although he fell, yet his fall was neither total, nor yet final, but he was reſtored by repentance.
And for this aſſertion, we conceive we have ſufficient Evidence from Scripture, beſides the Authorities of men already cited, declaring their ſentiments, from ſeveral convictions.
1.Hierome, Cyrill, and Pineda urge that Text, Prov. 24. 30. where they conceive Solomon ſpeaking in his own Perſon, and ſaying. I went by the field of the ſloathful, and by the Vineyard of the man void of underſtanding: and loe it was all grown over with Thorns, and Nettles had covered the face thereof, and the Stone-wall thereof was broken down, v. 32. This I ſaw, and conſidered it well, I looked upon it, and received Inſtruction. To which Pineda joins, Prov. 30. 1, 2. which (if with the Jewiſh Rabbines, we could conclude that unknown Agur to have been Solomon) would give ſome auxiliary ſtrength to that in the 24th Chap. to advantage which, Pineda's obſervation of the (ancient) Septuagint, mixing the 24. and 29. and theſe words of the 30th Chap. together as if all were ſpake by the ſame man, and of himſelf, may be worthy of conſideration.
2.Bachiarius, Serarius, and De-La Champius urge a 2d Argument, from 1 Kings 11. 43. and 2 Chron. 9. 31. where it is ſaid, that when he died he was buried, with the Kings of Iſrael, which they think ſtrengthened by their obſervation, that the Scripture mentions the the burial of Ammon, Joram, and Joaſh. (3 Wicked Princes) elſewhere. But we muſt have better Arguments than this, for we are told, that Abiam, 1 Kings 15 8. was buried in the City of David. ſo was Amaziah, 2 Chron. 25. 8. and Rehoboam, 2 Chron. 12. 1. when on the other ſide, Manaſſes, (though reconciled to God before his death,) yet had not the honour of that burial. As the wiſdom of divine providence, hath left the ſurface of the Earth, for a common walk, both for the juſt and unjuſt: ſo nothing appears, but that the will of God, hath left the boſom of it in any part thereof, a common bed for them; nor do I find any ſufficient evidence of any conſecrated burial-places ſo early in the world, which had there been, and had we found Solomons Tomb there, it would have told us no more than the Churches opinion of him, and that uſually to Princes, is very charitable, and queſtionleſs would have been ſo to him who was the greateſt Prince which the Earth ever ſaw.
3.But certainly for that argument which De-La Champius, and Pineda, both bring from the Covenant, made with David concerning Solomon, mentioned 2 Sam. 7. 14. 1 Chron. 17. 13. and Pſal. 89. v. 20, 21, 22, &c. to the 37th v. we may ſay of it as David of the Sword of Goliah. There is none to it: Let us a little view the Text: In the firſt you have the words of God ſpoken to Nathan, going to enquire Gods approbation of Davids deſign to build a Temple; the Lord denies David liberty, but takes his offer kindly, and bids the Prophet tell David;
That when his days ſhould be fulfilled, and he ſhould ſleep with his Fathers, God would ſet up his ſeed after him, which ſhould proceed out of his bowels, and eſtabliſh his Kingdom, v. 13. I will eſtabliſh the Throne of his Kingdom for ever. v. 14. I will be his Father, and he ſhall be my Child. If he commit iniquity, I will chaſten him with the rod of Men, and with the ſtripes of the Children of Men: But my mercy ſhall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul whom I put away before thee. In the book of Chronicles, 1 Chron. 17. you have the ſame thing repeated, only there. v. 14. you have: I will ſettle him in my houſe. In the 89th Pſal. you have a larger account of that covenant, ſo far as concerns David. v. 20. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. v. 29.—His ſeed alſo will I make to endure for ever, &c. If his Children forſake my law, and walk not in my judgments: Then will I viſit theer tranſgreſſion with the rod, and their iniquity with ſtripes: Nevertheleſs, my loving kindneſs will I not utterly take from him. Nor ſuffer my faithfulneſs to fail. My Covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I ſworn by my Holineſs, that I will not lie unto David.
In this Text you plainly diſcern a Covenant made with David, on the behalf of his Seed, and that Seed of his, that ſhould ſit upon his Throne (which was Solomon) as well as on the behalf of himſelf. Concerning him God ſaith: 1. I will eſtabliſh the Throne of his Kingdom. 2. I will be his Father, and he ſhall be my Child. 3. If he ſins, I will chaſten him with the rod of men, and with the ſtripes of the Children of men, Pſal. 89. I will viſit his tranſgreſſion with a rod, and his iniquity with ſtripes. 4. My mercy ſhall not depart from him as from Saul. Pſal. 89. Nevertheleſs my loving kindneſs, will I not utterly take from him. Nor ſuffer my faithfulneſs to fail.
1. God covenants that although Solomon ſhould ſin, yet he would not take his mercy from him. The very term of Mercy ſignifies more, than the continuance of the Crown to him; for (as Tychonius obſerves) David would have underſtood little mercy, for his Son to have enjoyed a temporal Kingdom, and loſt an eternal inheritance.
2. The puniſhment which God threatens to him in caſe of ſinning was but a Rod. The Rod of Men: for if we ſhould allow nothing to Pineda's Criticiſme, upon the term uſed [Enoſh] to ſignify men here, which properly ſignifies a weak old man, who cannot lay on ſtrokes hard, but chaſtiſeth his Child gently, ſo as the Rod of Men here mentioned, ſhould be oppoſed to the grounded ſtaff mentioned Iſaiah 30. 32. which God makes to reſt upon others, yet certainly the termof a Rod; with the adjunct of Men ſpeaks a very gentle chaſtning, with which eternal puniſhment is no way conſiſtent.
3. Add to this; That the Holy Ghoſt, (the moſt certain Interpreter of Scripture) 1 Cor. 6. 18. Applies the very promiſe here made to the Children of God, I will be a Father unto you, and you ſhall be my Sons, and Daughters: I ſay who ſo conſidereth theſe things muſt certainly conclude that Gods obligation by this Covenant extended further, than the continuance of the temporal dominion in his line, which is alſo advantaged, by the conſideration that Solomon in his life time was chaſtened with the Rods of Men, 1 Kings 11. God1 Cor 11. 32. ſtirred up againſt him Hadad: Rezin and Jeroboam, He was doubtleſs chaſtened of the Lord that he might not be condemned with the world.
Nor can any reaſonably think to avoid the dint of the Argument, drawn from theſe Texts, by telling us, That a greater than Solomon is underſtood in them, even he of whom Solomon was but a Type.
For although it be true, that divers of the Ancients favoured that notion, (amongſt whom was Auguſtine, Ambroſe, Tertullian, and Theodoret) and that ſome paſſages in the aforementioned Texts ſeem to be by the Holy Ghoſt himſelf applied to Chriſt, amongſt which that eminent part of this Covenant I will be to him a Father, &c. beſides that others ſeem applicable to no other, as where he promiſeth to eſtabliſh his Kingdom for ever: yet it is as true, that the promiſe I will be to him a Father (as I ſhewed before) is alſo by the Holy Ghoſt applied to believers, 1 Cor. 6. 18. and thoſe who underſtand the Hebrew Idiome, know that the term foreign doth often ſignify leſs, than Eternity ſtrictly ſo called, and it is as certain that Hierome, and divers others of the Ancients apply theſe Texts literally to Solomon. Poſſibly they compound the buſineſs better, who (conſidering Solomon as a Type of Chriſt) divide the Covenant made with David, betwixt Solomon and Chriſt, thinking that part concerneth Solomon, and part concerneth Chriſt. Sure it is, that Solomon built the material Temple not Chriſt, and Solomon alone, (not Chriſt) was in a capacity to forſake the Commandments of God; and for the promiſſory part, if we ſay it concerned Solomon in the letter, and Chriſt in the Myſtery and Antitype: I think we ſhall not much err: nor will this interpretation at all weaken the ſtrength of our argument.
4.I find a 4th Argument for this eminent Perſon, brought from 2 Sam. 12. 24, 25. compared with Neb. 13. 26. and 1 Kings 3. 3. from whence De-La Champius obſerveth 3 things.
1. That it is ſaid God loved him. 2 Sam. 12. 24.—And the Lord loved him. Neh. 13. 26. He was beloved of his God. 2. In token of this love God gave him his name Jedidiah, i. e. beloved of God. 3. The Scripture ſaith, he loved the Lord. The conſideration of the latter makes the plea vain, of thoſe who (to avoid the dint of this Argument) would interpret Gods love of that general favour which he extends to every Creature, diſtinguiſhed from that by which he elevates the Creature to a participation of the Divine Nature: for that love is not ſo efficacious, as to produce a reciprocal love in the Creature to God again, we therefore love him becauſe he loved us firſt, which being granted, unleſs we grant God as mutable as man, and deny what he hath ſaid, that whom he loves, he loves to the End: We muſt allow that Solomon, notwithſtanding his great miſcarriages, was yet beloved of God, and died in a ſtate of Grace.
Now to theſe Arguments, might further be added, as ſtrong preſumptions in the caſe, yielding at leaſt ſome auxiliary ſtrength. That no Text ſpeaketh ſo deſperȧtely concerning Solomon; that the Scripture, 1 Kings 11. 4. ſpeaking of his falling, ſeems to hint it a ſin of infirmity in his old age, and through the great temptation of his Wives: That he did only tolerate Idolatry, not make it the Religion of the Nation. That he after this (as is at leaſt probably and generally concluded) wrote (in teſtimony of his repentance) the book of Eccleſiaſtes. That he was the Sacred Penman of Scripture. Theſe things may much confirm our charitable opinion in the caſe, for although it be true, that I know no reaſon to the contrary, but that God, who made uſe of the Son of Perdition, to preach his everlaſting Goſpel, might alſo with conſiſtency enough, to the wiſdom of his Providence, make uſe of a Child of Perdition, to write, and ingroſs what his holy Spirit firſt dictated; nor (ſaith Auguſtine) hath God leſs conſulted his own glory in it, for now all the good and glory of the truth revealed in thoſe books will be given to God; Beſide, it is ſaid that Balaams Song is alſo recorded in Scripture, and a piece of holy writ: yet conſidering that no one book of holy writ was wrote by ſuch a withered hand as that of a reprobates; and that the Scripture fixeth no ſuch mark upon this great Perſon, who was the Author of three Books there, and that one of theſe Books, at leaſt appears (let Bellarmine ſay what he will) to be wrote after the days of his Vanity, and hath in it evident marks of his nauſeating his luſts, and former vanities of pleaſure, love, riches, &c. Nor have there been wanting ſome, who have thought ſo of the other two Books alſo, viz. the Proverbs, and the Canticles. And to theſe if we add that he was an eminent Type of our Lord, and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt: I ſay if we lay all theſe things together, we ſhall (I think) neither ſtand in need of the Rabbinical figments, (who tell us formal ſtories of Solomons repentance:) Nor yet of that auxiliary help, (in which Pineda much triumpheth) which Petrus de Caſtro affords; from that Sculpture in leaden Plates, (wrote in ancient Arabick Characters) and firſt diſcovered to James the Apoſtle, afterward, to the aforementioned Biſhop of Granada, who ſought for themV. Pinedam de rebus Solomonis l. 8. cap 1. V. Eman. Theſauri Patriarch. and found them (ſaith Pineda) per altos Granatenſis montis cuniculos, & latebras; in which leaden Plates there ſhould be ingraven in Arabick ſo much concerning Solomon, as in Engliſh ſounds thus.—And he bewailed his ſin with a great lamentation, and it was forgiven him, and he died faithful and in peace. I ſay there will be no need of theſe Apocryphal helps, we have a more ſure word of Prophecy: and ſtronger Scripture arguments: engaging us to conclude Solomon's repentance, and Salvation againſt ſome of the Ancients ſpeaking doubtfully; and the more modern Papiſts, ſpeaking both peremptorily and impudently in the caſe; and muſt conclude that Emanuel Theſaurus ſpeaks like a profane Poet, when he tells us concerning Solomon;
Primu è Chriſti Proavis Stygem coluit,
Et Primus intravit.
Indubio Argumento; nam Idola poſuit non ſuſtulit,
Et Flenda leguntur non fletus.
V. Merceri prefat. in Cantica.Having thus far given you a Character of this great Perſon, who wrote this ſacred Book, and by this digreſſion ſerved my deſign a little, in ſhewing you that there is no ground from his miſcarriages to conclude againſt his being the Penman, either of this or the other pieces of Sacred Writ, to which the Hebrew Text entituleth him, and which the Eccleſiaſtical Juries in all ages, have found his. The next thing we have to enquire, is the time and occaſion of his writing it, concerning which, the Scriptures ſilence hath given Writers the greater liberty to abound in their ſeveral ſenſes; I ſee no greatV. Greg. Magni P…oiog. in Cantica. prejudice, either to Solomon himſelf, or to the Divine Authority of this Sacred Book, from the opinion of thoſe, who think that Solomon wrote this Song in the beginning of his Reign, when he firſt Married Pharaohs Daughter (firſt proſelyted to the Jewiſh Religion) at which time it is ſaid, 1 Kings 3. 3. Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the Statutes of David his Father, and that his Marriage with Pharaohs Daughter gave him the occaſion of this Heavenly Meditation (for which the greateſt ground they have, is that paſſage, ch. 1. v. 9. I have compared thee to a company of Horſes in Pharaohs Chariots.) Nor yet from the opinion of thoſe who think that he wrote it in the cloſe of his life, after his return to fellowſhip, and communion with God. If therefore any ſhall contend that he wrote the BookV. Pinedam in prefat. in Eccleſ. Et Delrio in prolegom, in Cantica. of Proverbs firſt; this Book next, and Eccleſiaſtes laſt of all, grounding their conjecture upon 1 Kings 4. 32. where i… is ſaid that he wrote 3000 Proverbs, and his Songs were 1005. Or if others think that he firſt wrote this Book of Canticles, (which being Poetry, they think beſt ſuited his younger years) then the Book of Proverbs, and laſt of all that of Eccleſiaſtes, (the matter contained in the Book of Proverbs, ſeeming to be the mature iſſue of years, and the matter of Eccleſiaſtes, ſpeaking a contempt of worldly Vanities, like that which is found with gray hairs, that have learned righteouſneſs) I ſhall not contend with either. There are ſome who make an obſervation upon Solomon's calling himſelf in Eccleſiaſtes, King of Hieruſalem; In the Book of Proverbs, King of Iſrael: In this Book only Solomon; whence they conclude that he wrote this Book in the firſt of his years, before he was come to the Kingdom. The Book of Proverbs next, before he came to dwell in Hieruſalem, and that of Eccleſiaſtes laſt, in his more perfect ſtate, but poſſibly their conjecture is better, who think that Solomons ſpiritual contemplation of Chriſt, (with which his heart ſeemeth in this Book to be raviſhed) was the cauſe why (forgetting his Titles of Honour) he calls himſelf by no other name, than that of Solomon, and as through all the Book he ſpeaks to and of Chriſt under no other notion than that of a Beloved, and a friend, ſo he mentions not himſelf under any higher notion than Solomon, and a Love, a Spouſe, &c.V. Bernardi Hom. 1. glorying more in being the Spouſe, and Friend of Chriſt, than a great King in Hieruſalem. Or finally, if any will aſſert that he wrote this Book laſt of all, which ſeems to be the opinion of Bernard, Delrio, Hierome, Bachiarius, Cyrill, &c. I am indifferent to cloſe with either party, only abhorring the opinion which was anciently condemned in Theodorus Mopſueſta, by the Council of Conſtantinople (ſaith Delrio) and which Philaſtrius mentions amongſt the Hereſies, whoſe Author he knew not, viz. That it is but a Love-Song, made Sixtus Senenſis in Biblioth. l. 8. haer. 9.by Solomon, having relation to Pharaohs Daughter, or the Shulamite, to which opinion alſo Caſtalio and Grotius ſeem to encline, and the Anabaptiſts in Germany are charged with it by Sixtus Senenſis, which opinion indeed, is deſervedly rejected, and juſtly to be abhorred of all ſober Chriſtians, and there needs no other witneſs in the caſe againſt it, than the great reverence of this Book which the Church of the Jews had, (to whom (ſaith the Apoſtle) were committed the Oracles of God, and who were ſufficiently cautelous what they ſtamped, with that ſacred ſtamp of Scripture Canon) who did not only conſtantly own this Book, as much as any other, (making it a Dialogue between God and their Church, or betwixt their Church, and ſome of their Patriarchs) but alſo barred any from reading of it, until they arrived at their ſacerdotal year; whether for fear of a vain interpretation of it, or in regard of the difficulty they juſtly conceived, as to the expounding the metaphors (with which as with ſo many Stars it is adorned) or fathoming the myſteries, which they conceived lay couched in it, I ſhall not in this place determine. Sure I am, as the Authors of the aforementioned groſs and unhandſome conceptions, have nothing to give countenance to their wanton fancies, beſides the compariſon of the Love here mentioned, to a company of Horſes in Pharaohs Chariots, and the mention of the Shulamite, Caat. 6. 13. with another or two expreſſions of that Nature, upon which expreſſions the Vanity of their hearts only hath hindred them from putting a ſpiritual interpretation: ſo even ſome of theſe expreſſions, with divers others in this Sacred Song, make their impure conceptions highly improbable; for (if the Dialect of times be not ſtrangely altered) it was certainly a ſtrange commendation, for ſo learned and wiſe a man as Solomon, to give of a Woman whom he loved, to compare her to a company of Horſes, her Head to Mount Carmel, and her Eyes to Fiſh Pools, her Noſe to a Tower; her Teeth to a flock of Sheep, &c. all which with divers ſuch (ſeemingly uncouth) expreſſions we have in this Song.
After all this we ſhall find it no difficult thing to determine the Divine Authority of this Book: The Apoſtle ſaith that Holy Men wrote the Scriptures as inſpired by God, we have evinced, that the Penman of this Book was an Holy Man: both in the former and latter part of his life. That he wrote this Book, is univerſally agreed, and that he wrote it by a divine inſpiration, can be as little queſtioned by him, who underſtands aright the Jewiſh reverence of it, and ranking it equally with other Books of the Canon. Beſides that the Churches conſtant poſſeſſion of it, requires ſome force of argument, before it can be rejected; and this hath not yet appeared.
Several witneſſes indeed have come againſt it, but either they have not been agreed, or they have ſpake nothing Cogent in the cauſe.
1.Whereas ſome object the many amatorious expreſſions throughout the Song: It ſignifies little to thoſe who have ſo far obſerved the Scriptures, as to take notice, that as the Apoſtle makes uſe of the Ordinance of Marriage, to repreſent the myſtical Union between Chriſt and the Church, Eph. 5. 32. So Chriſt is expreſly called a Bridegroom, his Church, and the believing Soul in particular, the Bride, Joh 3. 29. And that his preparing the Soul for, and uniting the Soul to himſelf, is called a Betrothing, Hoſ. 2. 14, 15. and the Church is called the Lambs Wife, Rev. 22. and a pure Virgin, 2 Cor. 11. Yea ſo far is this from being an argument againſt the Divine Authority of this ſacred Book, that the uncouthneſs of the ſame expreſſions, is an argument, that it is no meer Woman here intended, for beſides that (which Mercer noteth out of Aben-Ezra) that modeſty would not have allowed Solomon to have left ſuch expreſſions (had they been to have been carnally interpreted) upon publick record to poſterity. Nor was it lawful to the Jews to make their Siſters their Spouſes, (yet is it a phraſe often uſed in this Song, My Siſter, my Spouſe) beſides what I noted before of the ſtrange compariſons uſed, if they were carnally to be interpreted.
2.Whereas it is objected by others that the name of God is not once mentioned throughout the Book. They might as well (upon this account) quarrel at the Book of Eccleſiaſtes out of the Canon, or if not that, yet the Book of Eſther, which are both ſubject to the ſame charge, if any will tell us, that though the name Jehovah be not found in Eccleſiaſtes, yet other names of God are foreign, &c. Beſides that neither thoſe names are peculiar to God, nor yet to be found in the Book of Eſther. We alſo ſay (with Mercer) That there is hardly a verſe in this Song, wherein mention is not made of God, and Chriſt, according to that metaphorical way of expreſſion, in which it pleaſed the Holy Ghoſt to dictate this Sacred Song to Solomon: norV. Sexti Senenſis l. 8. Biblioth. haer. 8. Delrio in Iſag…g. p…aefcom. in Cantica. Bernard. was their need of any further mentioning of God, in a diſcourſe compoſed in this form, than under the notion of a Beloved, &c. in which notion he is frequently mentioned. And certainly, had this objection been of any value, the ſuperſtitious Reverence which the Jews had of the name Jehovah, would have engaged them firſt to have pickt this quarrel: which yet it did not. But Bernard gives another reaſon, (and with him I find Sixtus Senenſis Delrio, and others agreeing) which I confeſs pleaſeth me, Amor loquitur qui Dominum neſcit, &c. God is not indeed made known to us in this Song, under the names of foreign, all which ſpeak, Power, Lordſhip, Soveraignty, Sufficiency, &c.Gregor mag. in Prol. in Cantica. It is love here ſpeaks: Quando vult timeri dominum; quando vult honorari patrem, quando amari ſponſum ſe nominat Dominus. Solomons deſign in this Book, is to ſet out God in Chriſt, reconciled to his Church, and to the ſouls of his People, imbracing them in the arms of loving kindneſs. Thoſe other names of God, Jehovah, Elohim, &c. ſpake the power, and greatneſs of God, which well ſuited the firſt diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace, which was more hard, and rigorous, than the latter diſpenſation of it. So thatDeus ſ…ſe nunc paſtorem, nun… fratrem & amicum, nunc ſponſum, de induſtr…à nominat, non abſque myſterie, &c. Sixtus Senenſis. l. 8. Delrio in Iſag. praef. com. in Cantica the not naming of God under thoſe fore-mentioned notions through out this book, only ſpeaks it a more evangelical portion of Scripture, than ſome other Books of Holy Writ are. Solomons deſign in this Book was to ſet out God in Chriſt reconciled to the Soul, imbracing it in the ſweeteſt arms of loving kindneſs, and tender mercies: The wiſdom of the Holy Ghoſt therefore directeth Solomon to ſpeak in a dialect, proper to the matter he writeth; nor is there any thing more uſual in Scripture, than for Gods people (going to him for mercies) to give him names expreſſive of that ſufficiency which is in him, and of that ſuitableneſs in him, to the neceſſitous ſtate of his people, and readineſs to help him. David praying for Divine Protection, calleth God his Rock, his Shield, his Buckler, his ſtrong Tower: and Chriſt hath taught Gods Children to ſay unto him Our Father!
Nor thirdly, Is their quarrel againſt this Sacred Book conſiderable, who have this to object againſt it, That no place of it is quoted in the New Teſtament, for beſides that by the ſame allegation, they may blot out the Book of Judges, Ruth, 2 Sam. 2 Chron. Eccleſiaſtes, and divers of the ſmall Prophets, out of the Canon of Scripture, I ſay beſides this, there are ſome phraſes in the New Teſtament, which (in the Judgment of Beza and others,) ſeem to be borrowed out of this Sacred Song, ſuch as thoſe, Joh. 6. 44 No man cometh to the Son but he whom the Father draweth, compared with Can. 1. 4. Saint Paul tells his Corinthians, that his deſire was to preſent them to Chriſt as a Chaſt Virgin, which correſponds with Chap. 5. v. 2. of this Song, where Chriſt calls his Spouſe Undefiled.
From what hath been ſaid appeareth, that although the Penman of this Book was Solomon, yet a greater than Solomon was the Author of it, Solomon (an holy Man) ſpake in it, as he was inſpired by God. I proceed to the 2d Propoſition.
2. Prop. That this Book is a Song.
1.This argues it a piece of Hebrew Poetry: wrote (originally) in Meeter, upon which account it differs from moſt of the other Books of Holy Writ. But more particularly I ſhall open this in 4 or 5 particulars: 1. It is I ſay a Song, one of thoſe which the Apoſtle, Eph. 5. calls Spiritual Songs, it may be too hard a task for me to determine, why it pleaſed the Holy Penman of this Scripture to write it in this, rather than in any other form, I ſhall by and by ſhew you that it was a Song of Love, and (poſſibly) the holy Penmans deſign being to diſcourſe the Souls Communion with Chriſt (here) under that Metaphor might be one cauſe, (Marriage-Songs being very ancient.) 2. To this I ſhall only add the obſervation, which ſome have made of that ſingular vertue, which the compoſing and ſinging of Songs, hath had to excite and inflame the affections. I remember our Divine Poet tells us, That he was moſt with God; while he was exerciſed in his Divine Poetry, Beſides, the ſuitableneſs that a Song hath unto the natures of others, the ſame Author obſerves,
—That a verſe may hit him who a Sermon flies,
And turn delight into a Sacrifice.
Whether Solomons conſideration of theſe, or any of theſe things, might rather incline him to write in this, than in any other form; I ſhall not undertake to determine.
1.Secondly, It is a Song of Love. I noted to you before, the ancient cuſtom of ſinging Songs at Marriages, in praiſes of the parties ſo joined together. Theſe Songs were called foreign & foreign a The Argument of them uſually, was the (ſuppoſed) mutual deſires of the Bridegroom, and Bride; and they were alſo filled with the reſpective praiſes of each of them; with the praiſes of their Garments, Beds. &c. Solomon guided by the holy Spirit of God (who often reſembled the Spiritual and myſtical Union between the Church and the believing Soul, and Chriſt ſo, of a Marriage) maketh choice of this kind of Song, in this Book; of this Nature is the 45th Pſal. and that Song, Iſaiah 51, 2, 3. (though the Argument of that differs.)
….Thirdly, It is a Spiritual Song. The Loves which are here ſang, are no Carnal Loves, but Spiritual, it is not as ſome profanely fancy, a diſcourſe of Love betwixt Solomon and Pharaohs Daughter: or Solomon and the Shulamite, I have heretofore ſhewed you the vanity of that conceit, it is Sponſa myſtica, a myſtical Spouſe that is here repreſented to us under that notion; I have ſaid enough before to prove this.
4.Fourthly, It is Dramatical, or foreign a Song of parts compoſed after the form of a Dialogue, which was very uſual in their Songs of Love; Here are in this Song 3 ſorts of Perſons, which have their parts. 1. One who is repreſented under the Notion of a Beloved. 2. Another who is repreſented under the notion of a Spouſe, a Love, a Siſter, &c. 3. The third ſort are the friends of the Bride-chamber, ordinarily in this Song repreſented under the notion of the Daughters of Hieruſalem: who they are repreſented under theſe diſguiſes is matter of our further enquiry.
1.Abating thoſe (whoſe profane fancy we have already rejected) who think that Solomon is the beloved here mentioned (making the whole book but a wanton Love-Song) I think the generality of Interpreters are reaſonably well agreed, that God himſelf, or more particularly the Lord Jeſus Chriſt (the 2d Perſon in the Trinity conſidered as mediator,) is he who is in this Song ſet out to us under this notion of the Beloved.
2.It is almoſt as univerſally agreed, that, The Church of God in the general, and the particular Servants of God, Members of that Church, are thoſe here repreſented to us, under the notion of the Spouſe, but whether it were the Church of the Jews, conſidered diſtinctly, from the Goſpel Church, or the Church of the Gentiles, diſtinct from the Jewiſh Church, or the Church, and People of God in all ages, concerning this there are ſeveral opinions, according to the particular fancies, and affections of Interpreters, or according to their different notions, and apprehenſions, concerning the matter of this book, which ſome will have to be hiſtorical, and make it little more than a Narrative of what God had done for the Church of the Jews, of which mind is the Calder Paraphraſt, and the moſt of the Jewiſh Doctors. Others will have it prophetical, amongſt whom are Luther, Alſted, Brightman, Aquinas, and Mr. Cotton, &c. Others again Doctrinal, inſtructing us in that near Communion, and Fellowſhip betwixt Jeſus Chriſt and his Church, and every particular believing Soul, and ſetting out that nearneſs of relation, and affection, which is betwixt them, together with their mutual apprehenſions each of other; yet it cannot be denied, but there are ſome particular paſſages in it, prophetical, and more ſpecially relating to the Church long after Solomons time.
By the friends of the Bride-chamber called, the Watchmen, the Daughters of Hieruſalem, &c. in this Song, are undoubtedly to be underſtood, the Miniſters of the Church in reſpective ages, with the chorus fidelium, the whole company of Believers, &c.
5.The laſt thing which is obſervable, as to the form of this Song is the figurative dialect in which it is written; Beſides the continued Allegory of two lovers, running quite through the Song, the Spiritual myſteries of it are expreſſed with a greater variety of Metaphors, than are found together in any other part of holy writ; which make it more difficult to be underſtood, and which poſſibly might be one reaſon why the reading of it was reſtrained in the Jewiſh Church. This made that devout man long ſince cry out; Hic Bernard. in hom. 1. in Cantica.panis coleſtis, quis vero frangit? non equidem mihi iſtud temere arrogandum, ſic expectetis a me, ut non expectetis, nam & ego unus ſum de expectantibus. Here is heavenly bread! but who can break it? I cannot raſhly arrogate ſuch a faculty to my ſelf expect it from me, as not expecting, for I my ſelf am expecting the revelation of it. And thus much ſhall ſerve for the ſecond thing. The third follows.
3. Prop. It is the Song of Songs foreign—
1.The Song of Songs, (as ſome think) becauſe it conſiſts of ſeveral Songs relating to one and the ſame Subject, compacted togegether in one, and the ſame book.
2.Or (as others) becauſe it is the moſt excellent Song; The Hebrews haveſeveral ways, by which they expreſs the ſuperlative degree, one is by appoſition of Subſtantives, (as here, the Song of Songs.) V. Merceri ad loc.putting the latter Subſtantive in the Genitive Caſe Plural. So that by the Song of Songs is meant the moſt excellent Song, now this is ſo called.1. (1) Either relating to the other Songs which Solomon made, for 1 Kings 4. 32. he made a Thouſand and five; of all his Songs2. this was the moſt excellent: Or elſe (2.) relating to the other Spiritual Songs in Scripture, you read of the Song of Moſes; of the Song of Miriam, and Deborah, of the Songs of David, &c. but no Song like this: This is the Song of Songs; of all the other Songs Solomon made in Holy Writ, this is the moſt excellent, not in reſpect of the Antiquity of it (as ſome have fancied) for doubtleſs the Song of Moſes, Aaron, and Miriam, was far more ancient; nor yet becauſe of the noble Author of it, who was the wiſeſt man upon the Earth. But in reſpect of the Spiritual matter of it. Look (ſaith Bernard) upon all the other Authors of Songs in Scripture, and their reſpective Songs.—Sane omnes (ni fallar) ceciniſſe reperies pro percepto ſuo, vel ſuorum commodo.—hic verò divinitus inſpiratus Chriſti, & Eccleſiae laudes, & ſacri amoris gratiam, & aeterni connubii cecinit Sacramenta. Other compoſers of Songs you will find ſang them upon receit of ſome outward mercy conferred upon them, and theirs: But Solomon (here) inſpired by God, ſings the praiſes of the Church, and Chriſt, he ſings concerning the Seals of ſacred love, and the Eternal Marriage. Thoſe are the excellent Songs, which ſet cut the Excellencies of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt. This Book is wholly Evangelical, wholly Spiritual. But I have ſpoke enough alſo to this third Propoſition. Give me leave to make ſome application of this diſcourſe.
Ʋſe 1.In the firſt place, Let me ſpeak to all of you, who ſhall hear my further diſcourſes concerning any part of this Book, (as once God ſpake to Moſes at the Burning Buſh) Put off thy Shoes from off thy Feet, for the place whereon thou ſtandeſt is holy ground. While I ſhall be opening thoſe figurative expreſſions, by which it pleaſeth the Holy Ghoſt (by Solomon) to diſcourſe theſe Spiritual Loves;—Procul O procul eſte profani. Saint Paul (to Titus) ſaith, Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled, and unbelieving; there is nothing pure but even their minds, and conſciences are defiled. I am ſure it may be ſaid ſo of every line of holy writ, to the pure heart, every line there is pure: not ſo to the impure, the reaſon is becauſe their own minds, and conſciences are filthy, and impure. Here is no wantonneſs in theſe ſacred lines, they contain indeed diſcourſes of loves, but altogether Divine and Spiritual, (though under carnal diſguiſes.) Oh let not your wanton hearts bring hither any unclean thoughts.
Ʋſe 2.Secondly, Methinks much of what I have ſaid, may engage your minds to attention to me, while I ſhall indeavour to unfold the Spiritual myſteries in this Book.
1.The Penman of this Book was Solomon. The name of a King, (amongſt men) carries with it a great reverence, and authority, but Solomon was no ordinary King, the Lord gave him ſuch a degree of wiſdom, that none before or after him, were ever like unto him, 2 Chron. 1. 12. The Queen of Sheba thought it worth her travel to come from the utmoſt parts of the world, to be his auditor, and went away, admiring his wiſdom; nay more, he was one whom the Lord loved, thence he had his name Jedidiah, 2 Sam. 12. 24, 25. we may therefore expect to hear the ſecrets of the Lord from his mouth, rather than from another man; When the diſciples, Joh. 13. 23. were at loſs for an interpretation of what Chriſt ſaid, they beckned to the Diſciple whom he loved, to inquire his meaning, and were preſently ſatisfied: further yet, he was an eminent Type of Chriſt. It is Solomon that ſpeaks, but he ſpeaks as the Organ of Chriſt, foreign, ſaith Greg. Nyſſen. Chriſt uſeth Solomon as his inſtrument, and by him ſpeaks to us. But this brings me to a ſecond Conſideration as much engaging you to attention, and far more than the former.
2.A greater than Solomon is here. Solomon ſpeaks in this Song in the Perſon of Chriſt, and Chriſt by him here ſpeaketh unto you: Solomon's hand holds the Pen, but Chriſt guides his hand to every letter in this ſacred Song.
3.Nor was this holy Song (as you have heard) compoſed in Solomons time of deviation from God, that indeed would have weakned the authority of it; but either in the former part of his life before he went aſtray from God: or in the latter part, when he was again returned unto him; be it which it will, we are by it ſtrongly engaged to the ſtudy, and underſtanding of it, as it from a great experience informeth a gracious ſoul, to what degree of communion with God it may arrive, and what ſweet intercourſes (even in this life) betwixt Chriſt and a believing Soul are attainable by that Soul that followeth after them, whether in its Virgin State, before it hath more notoriouſly eſtranged itſelf from God, or upon a true repentance after eminent backſlidings.
4.The exceeding ſweetneſs, and ſpirituality of the matter, highly commends it to every ſpiritual heart: There is no part of the Word of God, but is exceedingly ſweet, and precious, the hiſtorical part of it is ſo, for if it be pleaſant to read the Hiſtories of Nations; and Kingdoms, &c. how much more ſweet ſhould it be to every gracious Soul, to read and underſtand the ſeries of Divine Providences towards that People, whom (above all the Nations of the Earth) he ſet apart for himſelf, whom he miraculouſly conducted, and for them made his holy Arm ſo eminently bare in the ſight of all the Nations of the world: The preceptive part of the Word of God (which we call the Law) is alſo exceeding precious to a gracious Soul (it was ſo to David, ſweeter than the Hony, or Hony-comb, &c.) and St. Paul (as to his inward man) delighted in it. But of all the portions of holy writ, the Goſpel part is moſt ſweet. That which reveals, a God in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelf, which tells you what Chriſt is in himſelf, conſidered as Mediator, God-man, &c. which diſcovereth the Excellencies and deſirableneſs of him who is Totus deſideria; altogether deſires. Thoſe parts of Scripture which let us know what Chriſt is to his poor people, how tender of them, how jealous for them, how condeſcending, and kind to them, and how dear and precious they are to him: Of all the portions of holy writ Experience ſpeaks thoſe moſt exceeding ſweet to us, where Chriſt is ſet out in the pantings of his heart, and yernings of his bowels towards his poor Children. Such is this portion of holy writ: when we ſhall have taken off the Vail of Metaphors, with which this ſacred portion of holy writ is covered, we ſhall find that there is ſcarce any portion of holy writ, wherein thoſe ſweet, and ſpiritual myſteries of the Souls union, and Communion with Jeſus Chriſt, are more fully, and affectionately deſcribed.
5.The more ſpecial form of it as a Song, doth likewiſe commend it to our attention, there is a ſecret vertue in Poetry, engagine Peoples hearts, and affections to attention. If a wanton Love-Song, which diſcourſeth the vertues, and beauty of Creatures, can lay ſuch an hold upon our Ears, and Hearts; what ſhould this Song do! which diſcourſeth the Excellencies of him who is the faireſt amongſt the Sons of Men, the chiefeſt of ten thouſand, altogether deſires, and his particular indearments to the Souls of his Creatures, which have no comelineſs but what he puts upon them; certainly the hearing of theſe diſcourſes muſt raviſh every ſpiritual heart. This is the Song of Songs.
6.Finally the Metaphors with which this excellent Song is clothed, muſt needs give it a great advantage with every ingenuous Soul, which naturally deſires the underſtanding of what is hid from it, we may ſuppoſe God therefore to have thus phraſed this Spiritual Song, that we might have greater deſires kindled in us to underſtand the mind and will of God revealed in it. The harder the Shell is, the ſweeter the Nut will be found, when once the Shell is crack'd.
Uſe 3.Laſtly, What you have heard; may ſerve you as a Key for the unlocking this whole portion of Scripture, and guide you in the underſtanding of my future diſcourſes. By the Beloved ſpeaking in this Song, you are to underſtand the Lord Jeſus Chriſt. By the Spouſe (whom he ſometimes calleth his love) you may underſtand the Church, and more particularly every truly believing Soul. By the Watchmen, the Miniſters of the Church, whom God hath ſet to watch for Souls. By the Daughters of Hieruſalem (ſometimes mentioned) either the Members of the Church, or the Neighbours of it. The two firſt have the greateſt ſhare in the Song, the others ſometimes ſpeak, and are ſometime ſpoken to, But this is enough to have ſpoken by way of preface, 'Tis time to leave the threſhold, and to enter in to this pleaſant Houſe.
Only give me leave as an Epilogue to this diſcourſe to ſubjoin the Judgment of Ludovicus de Ponte (though a Papiſt, yet a learned Man) who hath copiouſly interpreted this Spiritual Song, and (allowing him the Popiſh Devotion for the Sacred Virgin, which makes them all think they ſee her in every Text) hath done much in it well. It is prefix'd to his Latine Commentary. To this purpoſe.
The Book of Solomon (which from the nobleneſs of the Argument is called the Song of Songs) is, a ſpiritual conference betwixt that God, who is three and yet one, or betwixt Chriſt who is true God, and Man, and his Church, whether ancient or modern: and every gracious Soul which is a Member of that Church. In which diſcourſe God hath a double part, and perſonateth two ſeveral Perſons: The perſon of a moſt wiſe Inſtructer or Maſter: delivering to his Diſciple the ſublime Doctrine of Faith and Holineſs. 2. The Perſon of a moſt endeared lover, extolling and courting his moſt beloved Spouſe, with wonderful praiſes; and enriching her with great gifts and favours: The Church alſo repreſents a double Perſon. 1. The Perſon of a Diſciple, or Spouſe, towards God, or the Perſon of a Miſtreſs, or companion towards other Souls which ſhe calls the Daughters of Hieruſalem.
The Argument of this Conference, as well became ſuch Perſons, is ſublime, pleaſant, profitable, and abundantly copious, for whatſoever the ancient Prophets ſang, whatſoever the Evangeliſts afterwards related; or the Apoſtles Preached, whether relating to the myſteries of faith, or to holineſs, and Goſpel perfection, it is all in this Song comprehended in the ſtyle of lovers; (the ſtyle being Spiritual not Carnal.) But becauſe the Metaphors and Similitudes, which fill this whole Book, are taken from Carnal Marriages. We muſt pill off the bark, that the letter might not kill. That being once taken off, the ſpiritual part lying within, will enlighten the Soul, and quicken, and inflame and perfect it. For according to our Saviours words, it is the Spirit that quickneth, the fleſh profiteth nothing: and the words of this Song are Spirit, and life, to thoſe who do ſincerely conſider them. For as the Ancient PrieſtsMacch. 1. 20. of the Jews (as we read in the Book of Macchabees) when they looked for the ſacred fire, which they had hidden, found nothing but thick water, which water (to the admiration of all) when the Sun ſhined out of the Cloud again, was turned into fire: ſo he who looks upon the Book of Canticles with carnal Eyes, will only find the puddle-water of words, which the outſide letter ſeemeth to ſhew, which will fill his heart with darkneſs inſtead of light, with a carnal chilling inſtead of ſpiritual heat. But if the divine Sun inlightens, that which ſeemed puddle water, will become coeleſtial fire, wonderfully inlightning the underſtanding, and inflaming the will.—
But although the whole Book of Canticles containeth 8 Chapters, and by Interpreters be divided into three, five, or more parts, yet I believe the firſt, and ſecond Chapters are a ſum, or breviary of all thoſe myſteries of Faith, which are contained in the ſix other Chapters; which is evidenced from this, that the cloſe of the ſecond and of the laſt Chap. are much the ſame, to ſhew us, that the narration of matter is finiſhed in the ſecond Chapter, and that from the third Chapter beginneth a new diſcourſe of the ſame myſteries under new Metaphors, and Similitudes.