INTRODUCTION TO THE SpNG OP SOLOMON.
throughout the whole, though the persons who speak and act are not formally introduced. There are so many touches in the form and manner of this Song like those in the Comas of Milton, that it leads me to doubt whether the English poet has not taken the idea of his mask from the Jewish. -.
As to the persons, chiefly concerned,/ it is ^nerally believed that Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter are the bridegroom and bride; with their proper attendants, viz., companions of the bridegroom, and companions of the Iwide, with certain mutes, who only appear, or arc mentioned by others, >vithout taking any particubr part in the transactions.
But it is much more easy to be satisfied on the species of comj)Osition to which this book belongs, than on the meaning of the book itself. Is it to be understood in the obvious manner in which it presents itself? And are Solomon and his bride,' their friends and companions, tQ be considered as mere dramatis persontz? Or are they typical or representative persons?.Does this marriage. represent)a celestial union 1 Do the speeches of each con* lain Divine doctrines? Are the metaphors, taken firom earthly thin"gs, to be understood of spiritual matters? In a word, does Solomon here represent Jesus Christ?, Is the daughter of Pharaoh the Christian Church; qx, according to some Roman Catholics, the Virgin Mary? Are watchmhn, trineyard^keepers, • shepherds, i&c., the ministers of the Gospel! Wine and various fruits, the influences and graces of the Divine Spirit? &c., &c. How. multitudinous and positiug are the affirmative answers to these questions! And yet, thoagh the many agree in the general principle, how various their expositions of the different parts of the piece! And where, all this time, is the pwof that the principle is not misunder- Ktood? As 16 conjectures, they are as uncertain as they are endless; and what one pious or learned man may tfunk to be the mea,ning) is no prooif to. anyotherth^t he should make up his mind in the same way.
Let us for a moment consider the different opinions held on this book, without entering into the discussion of their propriety or impropriety* They are the following: —
I. It is a plain epiihalamium on the niarriage of Soldmon with the daughter of Pharaclk, king of Egypt; and is to be understood in no other way.
II. It is an allegory relative to the conduct of God towards the Hebrews, in bringing them out of Egypt through the wilderness to the Promised Land.
IIL It is intended to* represent the incarnation of Jesus Christ, or his marriage with human nature, in reference to its redemption.
IV. It represents Christ's love to the Church or elected souls, and their love to him.
VI. It is a collection of sacred idyls; the spiritual meaning of which is not Jlgreed on. Now each of these opinions has its powerful supporters, and each of these has reasons to offer for the support of the opinion which is espoused; and nothing but a direct revelation from God can show us which ot these opinions is the correct one, or, whether any of them are correct.
The antiquity of an opinion, if that be not founded on a revelation from God,^ is no enV dence of its truth;' for there are many migodly opinions which are jnore than a thousand years old. And as to great men and great names, vve find them enrolled and airanged on each side of all controversies. It may be asked, V^hat do Christ and his apostles say of it?. ' '.
1. If Jesus Christ or* any of his apostles had referred to it as an allegory, and told us the subject which it pointed out, the matter Would have been plain: we should then have had data, and had only to proceed in the way of elucidation. But we find nothing of tliis in the New Testament.
2. If they had referred to it as an allegory, without intimating the" meaning, then we should be justified in searching everyvirhe're for that meanipg; Sind conjecture itseU vfould have been legal, till we had arrived at some self -testifying issue.
3. If they had referred to it at. all, in connection vrith ispiritwd subjects, then we' should have at once seen that it -was to be spiritually understood; and, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, we must have humbly sought fot its spiritual interpretation. ' 4. Had the Supreme Being been introduced, or referred to in any of his essential cettrpbutesj or by any of the names which he has been pleased to assume in his revelations to men, we should have then seen that the writer. was a spiritual man, and wrote probably in reference to a spiritual end j «nd, that we should pass by or through his. letter, in order to get to the spirit concealed undet it. But none of these thmgs appear in this book: the name of God is not found in it; nor is it quoted in the New Testament, As to. certain references which its allegorical expositors suppos^e ase made to it, either in the Gospels,^ Epistles, or Apocalypse^ they are not express, and do not,, by any thing in or connected with them, appear unequi' vocally to point out this book. And after ^ that iias been said, I -am fully of opinion it is not once Veferred to in the New Testament. But this is no proof of its not being canonical, as there aire other books, on which there is no doubt, that are in the' same predi*- cament. But stilf, if it refer so distinctly to Christ and his Church, as some suppose, it certainly would not have been passed over by both evangelists and apostles without pointed and 'especial notice; and particularly if it points out the love of Christ to his Churchy and the whole economy of God's working in reference to the salvation of the souls* of men.
From all this it will appear to the* intelligent reader, that the spiritual meaning of this bpok cannot easily be made out: 1. Because we do not know that it is an allegory. 2. If oije, Xhe, principles on which such allegory is to be e5q)lained do nowhere appear.
Whom then are. we to follow in the interpretation of this very singular book? The ^Targumist, who applies it to God and the Hebrews, in their joumeyings from Egypt to the pronaised land? Origen, who made it a Christian allegory? Apponius, who spiritualized it? Gregory the Ghreat, who in the m^in copied them? The gopd man,- who in 1717, at Paris, so illustrated it as "to induce men to devote themselves toJesus.Christand the Virgin JUary?" Mr. Durham, Mr. Robotham, Mr. Ainswortli, Mr,- Romaine, and Dr. Gill, who endeavoured to piove that it concerns Christ and the- elect? Or Mr. Harmef- and others, who acknowledge it to be an inimitable composition, and to be undejrstodd only of Solonaon and Pharaoh's daughter? "Or, finally, Dr. Mason Good, vfho considers it a collection of sacred idyls, the - spiritual interpretation of which is not agreed on?
I had for a long time hesitated whether. I should say any thing on this book; not because I did not think I understood its chief design and general meaning, for of this I really have no doubt, but because I did not understand it as a spiritual allegory, representing the loves of Christ and his Church, I must own I see no indubitable ground for this opinion. And is it of no moment whether the doctrines drawn from it, by those who allegorize and spirituaKze it, be indubitably founded on it or hot? The- doctrines may be true in themselves, (which is indeed more than can be said of those of most 'of its interpreters,) but is it not a very solemn, and indeed awful thing to say, TTiis is the voice of Christ to his Church, This is Uie voi£e of the Church to Christ, Sec, &d., when there id no proof from God, nor from any other portion of his Word, that these things are so? •.
tt is much better, therefore, if explained or illustrated at all, to take it in its literal meaning, and explain it in its general sense. I say general sense, because there ai'e many passages in it which should not be explained, if ta'ken literally, the references being too delicate; and Eastern phraseology *pn Isuch subjects is too vivid for European imaginations. Let any sensible and pious medical man read over this book, and, if at all acquainted with Asiatic phraseology, say whether it would be proper, even in medical language, to explain tUl th^ descriptions and allusions in this poem.
. After what I have said on the difficulty of interpreting this book in a spiritual way, it would not be fair to withhold from the reader the geneml ^arguments on which the theory of its allegorical meaning is founded. The principal part of the commentators on this book, especially those who have made it their separate study, have in general taken it for granted that their mode of ihterpietatibn is incontrovertible; and- have proceeded to,spiritadi|io'-i^T^
^figure and every verse as if they had a Divine warrant for all they have said. Their conduct is dangerous; and the result of their well-intentioned labours has been of very little sendee to the cause of Christianity in general, or tpUie interests of true morality va particular. By their mode of mterpretation an undignified^ not to say mean and carnal, language has bcca propagated among many well-meaning religious people, that has associated itself too much with selfish and animal affections, and created feelings that accorded little with the dignified spirituality of the religion of the lK)rd Jesus. 1 speak not from report;* 1 9peidi from observation and experience, and observation not hastily made. The conviction on my mind, and th6 conclusion to which I have conscientipusly arrived,vare the result of frequent examination, car0ful reading, and -close thinking, at intervals, for nearly ^ify years; and however I may be blamed by some, and pitied by. others, I must say, and I say it as fearlessly as I do conscientiously, thai in ibis inimitably fine elegant Hebrew ode I see nothing of Christ and his Cliurch, and nodiing that appears to have been intended to be 2^ understood; and nothing, if applied, in tlyb way, that, per se, can promiete the interests of vital godliness, or cause the simple and sincere not to '' know Christ after the fiesh.^. Here I conscientipuslj jltand. May God help me!. '. -
The most rational view of the subject that I have seen is that taken by Mr. Harmer, who has indeed detailed and strengthened 1^ arguments of his prec^essors who ha?e declared for the spiritual meaning. In his ^' Outlines of a Comment upon Solomon's ^ong," he supposes that the Soi^ refers to Solfmion^s marriage with the daughter of Pharqph; and that he had a Jewish ^een, who b frequentif jtafeired to jn die work; ^nd that, unless this be allowed, there are several important passages, ip the book that cannot be understood; ^and indeed it is on this principle that he finds his chief ground for ^spiritual and allegorical interpretation....
" Whatever was the intention of God,** says ho, " in bringing about this marriage, and in causing it to Be celebrated in suclyan extraordinary manner, hy songs that were directed to be placed among the sacred writings, it is certain' there never was any resemblance mort striking between' the circmnstances and/transactions of any of the remarkable personages of the Old Testament and those of Messiah, thaii the likeness we may observie -between Solomon marrying a Gentile princess, and making her" eguaZ in honour and privilege^ with his former Jewish queen, and in her htingfrfquently mentioned afterwards in history, while the other, is passed over in total silence,. Bxvi the conduct of the. Messiah towards the Gentik and Jewish Churches.
*' The two remarkable things in the conduct of the Messiah towards,the two Churches are the making the Gentiles /e/Zoto heirs of the same body and partakers of the promises^ without any difference;. nnii \h<e gnfing up to neglisctihe Jew^ Church, while that of the Gentiles has long flourished in great honoiu-, and l^en the subject of many a history. St Paul takes notice of botfi these circumstances with particular solemnity; of the fir^t, in^e third chapter of Ephesians, and dsewhere; of the Qther, in the eleventh chapter of Romans. They are. points, then, that deserve great attention..