The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s.
by the assistance of God, to open and explain this mysterious part of the sacred writings, it will be proper,
I.To enquire into, and establish the authority of this book.
II.Shew the nature of it; it being a Song.
III.The excellency of it. it being called the Song of Songs
IV.The penman of it; which is Solomon.
I.I shall endeavor to prove the divine authority of this book, and vindicate it from those exceptions which are made against it: and,
1st, It was always received by the ancient Jews, to whom the oracles of God were committed, as a very valuable part of the sacred writings; and has been continued in the canon of the scriptures by the Christians in all ages to this very day The Jews had always a very venerable esteem of it, calling it, the holy of holies; forbidding their children the reading thereof, as well as the first chapter of Genesis, and the beginning and end of the prophecy of Ezekiel, until they were of thirty years of age, because of the mysteriousness and sublimity of it. They say, that Solomon when he was old and near death, the Holy Ghost dwelt upon him, and he composed the books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. Their ancient book of Zohar asserts, that Solomon composed it “by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit;” as does also the Targum upon this book, and R. Solomon Jarchi, and R. Alben Ezra, in their prefaces to their commentaries upon it; the latter of which has these words; “God forbid, God forbid, says he, that the Song of songs should be written or understood of things obscene; but it is entirely parabolical, and had it not been of very great excellency, it had not been written in the catalogue of the holy scriptures; for of it there has been no controversy, that it defiles the hands:” for though there was once a controversy among the wise men concerning the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, who afterwards, as it became them, changed their minds; yet there never was any concerning this, as appears from their Mirnah; where they say that “all the scriptures are holy, but the Song of songs is the holy of holies; and if the wise men have had any controversy, it has been only concerning Ecclesiastes:” so that this book appears to be authentic, according to the mind of the ancient as well as of the modern Jews; and as for the Christians, they have always looked upon it as a part of the holy scripture, a few only excepted, and have all along continued it in the canon as they found and received it. The ancient fathers and councils have always esteemed it sacred and venerable, not to take notice of authorities of a later date. The opinion of Theodorus of Mopsuest, who called the divine authority of this book into question, was condemned in the second council of Constantinople, which was held about the year 553. This book also appears in the catalogue of the canonical books of scripture, established in the council of Laodicea, Can. 59. held about the year 364. It is likewise in Origen’s catalogue, recorded by Eusebius, as well as in that which Melito brought from the East, and sent to his friend Onesimus, who flourished about the year 140. So that thus far, at least, we can trace up the authority of this book among the Christians: Not to take notice of the canons of the Apostles, in which it stands as a part of canonical scripture: nor the Constitutions of the Apostles with the larger epistles of Ignatius, in which citations are made from this book; which, if genuine, would prove the reception of it in the Christian church still more early; but because they are generally looked upon to be spurious, they are not to be insisted on. And it may be farther observed, that not only Origen, but Hippolytus in the third century, Carpathius, Gregory Nyssene in the fourth, and Theodoret in the fifth, and others in the following centuries, wrote commentaries upon this book; and Eusebius ascribes it to Solomon, and so does Athanasius.
2dly, This book was wrote by one that was qeopneusov, divinely inspired; as appears by his being the penman of the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes; for why he should not be under the inspiration of the same Spirit in writing this, as he was in writing those, there appears no reason to conclude. The objection against it, taken from his great fall into lewdness and idolatry, produced by a late author, avails but little; especially, if, as some think, it should appear that it was written before; or if, with others, it is taken to be wrote after his fall, it will lie as strongly against the book of Ecclesiastes, which is generally allowed to be wrote after, as it does against this: Besides, it has pleased the all-wise God, who gives no account of his matters to his creatures, to make use of men, after very great falls into sin, as Amanuenses of his Holy Spirit, and penmen of the sacred scriptures, as David and Peter.
3dly, The dignity and sublimity of the matter contained herein, shew it to be no human composure; for never man spake or wrote like unto it; it is therefore called the Song of songs, being the most excellent of Songs; which cannot be equaled by any, but surpasses all others, not only human but divine; it is preferred to all scriptural songs, which, as one observes, would be blasphemous to do, was it not of a divine rise and authority.
4thly, The majesty of its style bears a testimony to the divine original of it, which cannot be equaled by the most elaborate performances; it defies all the art and wisdom of man to come near it; and plainly shews itself to be the language of God himself, whose voice is powerful and full of majesty.
5thly, The power and efficacy which it has in and over the hearts of men, is another evidence of its being the word of God; which is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. This book has been profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; which are so many arguments of its being given by inspiration of God; it effectually works in them that believe; it has been useful to thousands who have had their spiritual senses exercised, for the comfort of their souls, the raising of their affections, the increase of their faith, and their instruction in divine things: the reading and expounding of this excellent portion of scripture have been owned by God for the good of multitudes, who are so many sealing evidences of the authority of it.
6thly, The impartiality of it is another evidence of its divine original: the bride is here frequently introduced proclaiming her own weaknesses and infirmities, as in chapter 1:5, 6. and 3:1. and 5:2, 3. Now was it a mere human composure of Solomon’s, celebrating the amours between him and Pharaoh’s daughter, would it be reasonable to suppose, that he should so manifestly and openly declare the defects and imperfections of his bride? But to consider it as a divine poem, expressing the mutual love between Christ and his church, it agrees very well with the other parts of the sacred writings, wherein the infirmities of God’s own people are not concealed; not even of those who were themselves the penmen of them; which is a strong proof of their divine authority.
7thly, There is a very great agreement between this and other portions of scripture. Now this has been always looked upon as a considerable evidence of the authority of the sacred writings, that though they have been delivered at sundry times, and in divers manners, yet there has been always an entire harmony between them; the which also appears in this part of scripture; for though it is delivered in a mysterious and figurative style, yet it admits of senses which are very agreeable to the proportion or analogy of faith; nay, in many places of the New Testament, there seems to be manifest allusions to this song, as will be hereafter more particularly observed: but notwithstanding all these evidences of its divine original, there have not been wanting persons who have called in question its sacred authority; as Theodorus of Mopsuest, whose opinion was, that it was not wrote by inspiration, but was only designed by Solomon to celebrate his amours between him and Pharaoh’s daughter; which opinion of his was condemned in the sixth century by the second council of Constantinople, as has been before observed: Castalio in the sixteenth century was condemned for the same opinion, by the senate of Geneva, and was ordered to depart the city upon it: Grotius in the last century seemed to be much of the same mind; and Mr. Whiston in this has attempted in a set tract to weaken the authority of it, and make it appear to be a loose, profane and amorous song: His proposition is this; “The book of Canticles is not a sacred book of the Old Testament; nor was it originally esteemed as such, either by the Jewish or Christian church;” with what truth this is asserted, will in some measure appear from what has been already said. The arguments by which he endeavors to confirm and establish this proposition, are as follow, which I shall particularly consider.
1. Because as he asserts, “It was not written in his younger days, or when he was the good, the wise, the chaste, and the religious man; but long afterwards, when he was become wicked and foolish, and lascivious, and idolatrous.” And he affirms, that there are some very plain and particular chronological characters in this book, which determine it to belong to the latter and worser part of his life, and to that only. And,
The first passage in it, which he mentions to confirm this, is Song of Solomon 1:9. where the church is compared to a company of horses in Pharaoh’s chariots; which he imagines refers to those horses and chariots which Solomon, contrary to an express command, Deuteronomy 17:16 had brought unto him out of Egypt, 1 Kings 10:28, 29 when he began to degenerate from his former piety: In answer to which, it may be replied, that the comparison in the text under consideration, is not made to a company of horses brought out of Egypt, which ran in Solomon’s chariots; but to a company of horses in Egypt, which ran in Pharaoh’s chariots; so that this text falls very much short of proving what it is produced for.
His other chronological evidence of this book’s belonging to the loose and vicious part of Solomon’s life, is Song of Solomon 7:12. where mention is made of the chariots of Amminadib; in which he supposes there are more proofs than one of what he contends for; the first is, that here are chariots referred to, as used in Judea, which, he says, we only meet with once before, since the days of Moses, namely, 2 Samuel 8:4 though that appears to be a mistake; for Absalom prepared himself chariots and horsemen, 2 Samuel 15:1 as did also Adonijah, 1 Kings 1:5 both which were before Solomon’s accession to the throne. His other proof from this text is, that this Amminadib was one of the twelve rulers of provinces, who married Taphath the daughter of Solomon, 1 Kings 4:11 and therefore he concludes that Solomon could not be a very young man when he wrote this book. To which I answer,
1st, That it is not Amminadib but Abinadab, that is there mentioned.
2dly, That it was not Abinadab, but the son of Abinadab, that married Solomon’s daughter.
3dly, It is not likely that King Solomon’s son-in-law should be a chariot driver, as this Amminadib is thought to be by many interpreters, who was famous for his skill, courage, and swiftness in driving.
4thly, This is not the proper name of any person, but are two words, as R. Aben Ezra, and R. Solomon Jarchi observe, and should be rendered, the chariots of my free or princely people; and therefore afford no chronological character of any part of Solomon’s life whatever.
The last chronological evidence he mentions, page 10, and which he takes to be the principal and most evident one, which shews in what particular time of Solomon’s life this book was written, is chapter 6:8, 9 where mention is made of sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and virgins without number; which he thinks refers to Solomon’s wicked practice of polygamy, expressly forbidden Deuteronomy 17:17. To which I reply,
1st, That the allusion does not seem to be made to the number of Solomon’s queens and concubines, but to the custom of some princes in the East, which Solomon had in view; for the number of queens and concubines here does not agree with the number of Solomon’s, recorded 1 Kings 11:3 where he is said to have seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, which is vastly different from the account which is given here: and if it should be said, that though when he wrote this book, he had not arrived to that prodigious pitch of wickedness in the practice of polygamy, to which he afterwards did; yet he had begun, and gone a great way in it, and had at the time he wrote it, such a number of wives and concubines as are here mentioned, which he refers to. I answer,
2dly, That it is not likely that Solomon should prefer one of his wives, and praise her above all the rest; which would have been the way to have alienated their affections from him, and made her the object of their envy, as well as have raised such domestic feuds and quarrels; which would not easily be laid. Besides,
3dly, It does net seem reasonable to suppose that those other queens and concubines of Solomon’s should speak so much in the praise and commendation of his lawful wife, as these are said to do here; which is not usual for such sort of persons to do. As to those other texts referred to, namely, chapter 1:3, 5 and 2:7 and 3:5, 10, 11 and 5:8, 16 and 6:9 and 8:4, 6, 7 produced by Mr. Whiston, to prove that the person, who is the bridegroom in this song, loved many other women and virgins, of which his spouse is jealous; I need only say, that those texts do indeed express the love of the daughters of Jerusalem to him, and the notice which the spouse took of them, for whom she appears to have a very great value and affection, to whom she often points out her beloved, and directs them to observe the transcendent excellencies and beauties of his person, as well as strictly charges them to give him no disturbance: yet she also signifies her very great love and regard to him; but no where insinuates any wandering affection or wanton love in him unto others, or that she was jealous of him upon that account.
2. His next reason, page 12, 13 is, “that there is no foundation for an allegorical, or mystical sense of this book; there being not the least sign of a sober, virtuous, or divine meaning therein, nor any thing that in the least concerns morality or virtue, God or religion, the Messiah or his kingdom;” which, if true, would indeed go a great way against the authority of it; but I hope the following Exposition will make it appear that there is a good foundation in it for a mystical or allegorical sense, agreeable enough to the analogy of faith; as well as shew that there are many things in it which encourage morality and virtue, promote the cause of God and religion, and concern the Messiah and his kingdom; and Mr. Whiston has not thought fit to give any one instance which discover, the contrary.
3. He says, page 13, that 12 “the introduction of double or mystical senses of scripture among the Jews, is much later than the days of Solomon, and cannot therefore be supposed to belong to any book of his writing:” but this does not appear to be true, for surely the speech of Jotham to the men of Shechem, recorded in Judges 9 must be understood in an allegorical or mystical sense; and Nathan’s parable, 2 Samuel 12:1 which was delivered before Solomon’s time. Moreover, the forty-fifth Psalm is of the very same strain, and bears a very near resemblance with this song, which was wrote by David, Solomon’s father: besides, suppose this allegorical and mystical way of writing had not been used before by the inspired writers, it is no argument that it should not be used now, as it was afterwards in the writings of the New Testament, as Mr. Whiston confesses, page 22.
4. Another reason which he produces, page 23, is, that “neither the contemporary nor succeeding writers of the Old Testament, ever quote or allude to this book of Canticles, nor to any part thereof, upon any occasion whatsoever.” The same may be said of many other books of the Old Testament, whose authority was never yet called in question; nor can this be looked upon by judicious persons, a sufficient reason why any of them should.
5. He says, page 24, “The apocryphal writers of the Old Testament, never quote nor allude to this book, nor to any part thereof, upon any occasion whatsoever.” Which I persuade myself, wilt he no wars shocking or stumbling to any thoughtful Christian, nor belooked upon by them as a sufficient objection against the authority of it; had they expressly opposed it, it could not have been very considerably improved against it, much less will their silence have any force to explode it; and yet after all, in Ecclesiastes 47:18. Solomon is admired for his Songs, Proverbs, and Parables.
6. He urges, page 25, that “Philo, the eminent Alexandrian Jew, who was contemporary with Christ and his earliest apostles, and who was prodigious fond of mystical or allegorical senses of scripture, does yet never cite nor allude to this book of Canticles, nor to any part of it, on any occasion whatsoever.” Be it so, that it is not once cited or alluded to in his writings; for though they are voluminous, there are but few citations of scripture in them; yet it does not follow from thence that it must be spurious. Many books in the canon of scripture, whose authority is unquestionable, would yet stand upon a very precarious foundation, if citations out of them and allusions to them in human writings, were absolutely necessary to their continuance in it.
7. What he lays a considerable stress upon, and makes the main foundation for the exclusion of this book, is, that Josephus not only neither cites nor alludes to it, but has also left it out in his catalogue of the sacred writings. That he should neither cite nor allude unto it, in writing a history, need not be wondered at; but if it can be made to appear that it is not to be found in his catalogue, it will indeed be a considerable objection against it. Now the account which Josephus gives of the sacred writings among the Jews is only this, namely, that they had only two and twenty books, five of which are books of Moses, thirteen wrote by the prophets, and the other four contained holy hymns and moral precepts. Now in this account he seems to have regard to the division of the books of the Old Testament into three parts, used by the Jews: which was first, the Law; secondly, the Prophets; and thirdly, the Hagiographa; which our Lord also takes notice of, Luke 24:44 where he saith, These are the words which I spake unto you: while 1 was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me; where by the Psalms is meant the whole third part called the Hagiographa, because it began with that book; which also contained the most plain and manifest testimonies, of the person, office, and sufferings of Christ; more than any other book in that part did. Now the order of the books, according to this division of them, which Josephus has a regard to, was this, namely,
In the Law, which was the first division, stood
These are the five books of Moses, according to Josephus.
1. Genesis.
2. Exodus.
3. Leviticus.
4. Numbers.
5. Deuteronomy.
In the Prophets, which was the second division, stood
These are the thirteen books of the prophets, according to Josephus.
1. Joshua.
2. Judges, with Ruth; which make but one book.
3. Samuel 1 and 2 but one book, hence Samuel is called a prophet, Acts 13:20.
4. Kings 1 and 2 but one book.
5. Isaiah.