Solomon’s Song -(Preface) John Gill

Exposition

of the

book of

 

Solomon’s Song

 

WHEREIN

The Authority Of It Is Established And Vindicated Against
Objections, Both Ancient And Modern; Several Versions
Compared With The Original Text; The Different Senses Both Of
Jewish And Christian Interpreters Considered, And The Whole
Opened And Explained In Proper And Useful Observations.

 BY JOHN GILL, D. D.

Cantitum canticorum spiritualis quaedam sanctarum est voluptas
mentium, in conjugio illius regis & reginae civiitatis, quod est Christus &
ecclesia; sed haec voluptas allegoricis tegminibus involuta est, ut
desideretur ardentius, nudeturque jucundius, & appareat sponsus, cui
dicitur in codem cantico, aequitas dilexit te, & sponsa quae ibi audit,
charitas in deliciis tuis. AUG. de Civ. Dei, 1. 17. c. 20.

 

Preface

 

following Exposition was delivered in one hundred and twenty-two Sermons, to the
Congregation where God his providence has placed me, and were designed only for their
use, profit, and education. Had I had any thoughts of publishing it to the world when I
entered upon it, perhaps it might have appeared with some little more advantage than
now it does; nor had it appeared now, had not the importunity of the people to whom I
minister, with others, obliged me to it; to which I the more readily complied, considering
that the authority and usefulness of this book are called in question in this loose and
degenerate age; in which, not only this, but all scripture is ridiculed and burlesqued, and
the great doctrines of faith therein contained treated with the utmost sneer and contempt;
and therefore would willingly contribute all I can towards the vindicating of this, or any
other part of the sacred writings; which, being given by inspiration of God, are
“profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.”

I have in the performance of this work, consulted the original text, with the versions of
several learned men; and have taken notice of them where they have differed from our
translation, or have furnished out a proper and useful observation. I have also inspected
several interpreters upon this book, both Jewish and Christian, and have collected their
several senses together; and generally, if not always, have humbly given my opinion
which is the most eligible. The versions which I have made use of, are those of the
Septuagint, the Vulgate Latin, the Tigurine, Junius and Tremellius, Arias Montanus,
Pagninus, etc. The writings and interpreters which I have consulted, of the Jewish, are
Shirhashirim Rabba, Targum, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Alshech and Yalcut Simeoni, together
with the books of Zohar and Rabboth, which are interspersed with the senses of various
passages in this book. Of Christian interpreters, Alcuin, Foliot, Mercerus, Cocceius,
Sanctius, Ainsworth, Brightman, Cotton, Durham, Patrick, etc. from all which I have
received profit and advantage; and from none more than from the short notes of the
incomparable Ainsworth, and the sweet observations of the excellent Durham: I mention
these authors, not by way of ostentation, but as in duty bound to acknowledge by whom I
have profited; for, as Pliny says,[1] Est benignum et plenum ingenui pudoris, fateri per
quos profeceris. Where two or more senses of any passage have offered agreeable to the
analogy of faith, I have considered them all, and have made what improvement of them I
was capable of, leaving the reader to judge for himself, which of them is most preferable;
this I thought to be a much better way than to be too positive and dogmatical in the sense
of a text, especially in such a part of scripture, which is so very mystical and abstruse. If I
should be thought in any part of this work to have stretched the metaphors too far, I hope
it will be imputed to an honest zeal, and a hearty desire to set forth the glory of Christ’s
person; and his exceeding great love to his church and people; to do which, all tropes and
figures, all the flowers of rhetoric fall abundantly short. I have been obliged to contract
what I delivered sermon-wise, lest the work should swell to too large a bulk, but the
substance of it is here contained.

I would only observe, as to this edition[2] of the work, that I have made various additions
to it; having, since the publication of the second edition, met with an objection or two to
the antiquity and authority of the book itself, I thought it necessary to consider them, and

remove them; being unwilling that any thing should lie against a book so grand, so sacred
and useful. I have also given a summary of the contents of each chapter, which was
wanting in the former editions: and though I had in many parts of the work, attended to
the literal sense of passages, yet not so frequently as I have in my shorter notes on this
book-published in my Exposition of the whole Bible: I have therefore inserted from
thence many things relating to the literal sense, with many others added, which will
greatly enrich this edition, and make it more entertaining; and will greatly serve to shew
the propriety of the allusions, figures, and metaphors made use of throughout the whole;
and to illustrate and confirm the spiritual meaning of this sublime and mysterious book. I
have left out at the end of it, the Targum or Chaldee paraphrase, with my notes thereon,
which were in the former editions, they being of little use and benefit; especially to
common readers.

 

ENDNOTES:

[1] Prefat. in Nat. Hist.

[2] Preface to third edition.

Chapter 1

 

In this chapter, after the general title of the book, verse 1, the church expresses her
strong desires and most ardent wishes for some fresh discoveries of the love of Christ to
her, and for communion with him, verse 2, and having tasted of his love, and smelled a
sweet savor in his grace, and enjoyed fellowship with him in his house, verses 3, 4, she
observes her blackness and uncomeliness in herself, and comeliness in him, the trials and
afflictions she met with from others, and her carelessness and negligence of her own
affairs, verse 5, 6, and entreats her beloved to direct her, where she might meet with him
feeding his flocks and giving them rest; to which he returns a kind and gracious answer,
and gives proper instructions where to find him, verses 7, 8, and then commends her
beauty, sets forth her amiableness and loveliness by various metaphors, and makes
promises of more grace and good things to her, verses 9, 10, 11, when she declares what
a value she had for Christ her beloved; and how precious he was unto her, like a bundle
of myrrh, and a cluster of camphor, verses 12, 13, 14, and Christ again praises her
beauty, and particularly takes notice of her eyes, and her modest look, verse 15, and she
returns the encomium back to him, and expresses her pleasure and satisfaction in the
house he had built for her, and the furniture of it, verses 16, 17.

 

EXPOSITION

OF THE BOOK OF

SOLOMON’S SONG,

 

Chapter 1

VERSE 1

The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s.

 

Intending 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,[1] because of the
mysteriousness and sublimity of it. They say,[2] 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[3] 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:”[4] for though
there was once a controversy[5] 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[6] 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,[7] as well as in that which Melito[8] 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,[9] Carpathius, Gregory Nyssene in the fourth, and Theodoret in the fifth,
and others in the following centuries, wrote commentaries upon this book; and
Eusebius[10] ascribes it to Solomon, and so does Athanasius.[11]

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,[12] 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[13] 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[14] 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,[15] 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.

6. Jeremiah, with the Lamentations, but one book.

7. Ezekiel.

8. Daniel.

9. The twelve minor prophets, but one book. See Mark 1:2; Acts 7:42.

10. Job.

11. Ezra and Nehemiah, but one book.

12. Esther.

13. Chronicles 1 and 2 but one book.

In the Hagiographa, which was the third division, stood

These are the four books containing holy hymns and moral precepts, according to
Josephus.

1. Psalms.

2. Proverbs.

3. Ecclesiastes.

4. Solomon’s Song; in all twenty-two.

From hence it appears, that there is no force in this objection; nor has Mr. Whiston any
reason to charge Dean Prideaux with forcing this book of Solomon’s Song into
Josephus’s catalogue; for his twenty-two books cannot be made up without it; though the
Dean had no manner of reason to leave out the book of Chronicles, seeing Ezra and
Nehemiah, which he makes to be two books, are comprehended in one by the Jews,
which he himself also observes.[16] The Jews indeed, at this present time, reckon the
books of the Old Testament to be twenty-four, and that by making Ruth, which is a
continuation of the history of the book of Judges and the Lamentations, which were wrote
by Jeremy; and so properly belong to him, two books distinct by themselves; and even in
this account of theirs of the sacred writings, this book of Canticles keeps its place, nor did
they ever pretend to exclude it.

8. Another argument used by Mr. Whiston, page 29, is, that “our blessed Savior himself
does never once make the least allusion to this book, or to any part of it, on any occasion
whatsoever.” To this I reply, that it appears plain and manifest, that several phrases used
by our Savior bear a near resemblance with, are allusions to, and seem to be taken out of
this book: thus the efficacious grace of God is expressed by drawing, John 6:44 agreeable
to Song of Solomon 1:4. In his discourse with Nicodemus, he compares the Holy Spirit to
the wind, John 3:8 which metaphor is used Song of Solomon 4:16, likewise he seems
manifestly to allude in Matthew 13:52 where the instructed Scribe is said to bring forth
things new and old, to Song of Solomon 7:13 where the very phrase is used: as also his
comparing the church to a vineyard, and letting it out to husbandmen, are very agreeable
to, and are the very phrases used Song of Solomon 8:11, 12. To all which might be
added, several other resemblances and allusions, which are to be found in the evangelic
history, as Matthew 25:1, 5 compared with Song of Solomon 5:2 and Matthew 9:13; John

3:29, where Christ is called the bridegroom, and the disciples the children of the bride-
chamber, agreeable to the several parties in this song.

9. He says, page 30, that “when St. John, the beloved disciple, came at the end of his
Revelation, to this very matter of the marriage of the Lamb, or Messias; yet have we not
a word of it; that is, this book, nor the least allusion to it, nor to any part of it,
whatsoever.” That John, in his book of Revelation, refers and alludes to this of
Solomon’s song, seems undeniable; every one may easily observe what a likeness and
resemblance there is between the description which the spouse gives of her beloved in
Song of Solomon 5 and that which John gives of Christ in Revelation 1. Moreover, the
phrase of Christ’s standing at the door, and knocking, Revelation 3:20. manifestly refers
unto and plainly appears to be taken out of Song of Solomon 5:2. where the spouse says,
It is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, etc. Besides, what John
says of the marriage of the Lamb, and the preparation of the bride for it if it is not an
allusion to, yet it is a confirmation of what is said in this book, where the church is
represented as beautifully arrayed and adorned, and as passionately wishing for the
consummation of the marriage; nay, this, is spoken of as completed, Song of Solomon
2:16 and the glory and pomp of the solemnity described, Song of Solomon 3:11 with the
joy that was expressed on that occasion; for there the day of his espousals is called the
day of the gladness of his heart: also it deserves our notice, that those two books of
Revelation and Solomon’s Song, conclude much in the same manner. John closes his
book of the Revelation, and with it the canon of the scriptures, with a passionate wish for
Christ’s second coming, saying, Amen: even so, come, Lord Jesus: and the church
concludes the book of Solomon’s Song thus; Make haste, my beloved, and be thou like to
a roe, or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices.

10. As what he thinks will much prejudice the authority of this book, he says, page 30,
that the writers of the known books of the New Testament, with their earliest companions
the apostolical fathers of the first century; St. Matthew, St. John, St. Peter, St. Paul, St.
Mark, St. Luke, St. James, St. Jude, St. Clement in his epistles, St. Barnabas, that
prodigious allegorizer, and St. Hermas: I may add, says he, and St. Polycarp also, one of
their later companions, do never once cite or allude to this book of Canticles, or to any
part of it, on any occasion whatsoever.” That the evangelists, Matthew and John, either in
using their own, or in recording the words of Christ, have alluded to some passages in
this book, I have already shewn; and the same may be said of the other evangelists, Mark
and Luke, who mention several of the very same things; for which see Mark 2:19, 20 and
12:1; Luke 5:34, 35 and 20:9, and it seems very evident, the apostle Paul has reference to
it in many passages of his writings, as wilt appear from comparing 2 Corinthians 2:14,
15, 16;.17 Ephesians 5:2 with Song of Solomon 1:3 as also Colossians 2:16, 17; Hebrews
10:1 with Song of Solomon 2:17 and 4:6 to which may be added Ephesians 5:27
compared with Song of Solomon 4:7. So that seeing there are so many passages in
several of the writers of the known books of the New Testament, which bear so near a
resemblance, and have so manifest an allusion to some parts of this book, it need not
much concern us that Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and Polycarp take no notice of it.

11. What he thinks will much prejudice the authority of this book, is, “that the
Apostolical Constitutions give no manner of reason to suppose that this book of Canticles
was then looked upon as a book of scripture, but the direct contrary.” Now those books
called The Constitutions of the Apostles, by Clement, Mr. Whiston looks upon to be truly
authentic and apostolical; when they appear manifestly to be spurious, entirely destitute
of apostolical authority, are of a much later date than the times of the apostles, and
contain several things and doctrines directly opposite unto them. As for instance, praying
with the face to the East is enjoined, 1. 2. c. 57. and 1. 7. c. 44. Trigamy is asserted to be
an indication of incontinency; and such marriages as are beyond the third, are called
manifest fornication, and unquestionable uncleanness, 1. 3. c. 2. Anointing with oil in
baptism is enjoined, 1. 3. c. 15, 16, and 1. 7. c. 27, 41, 42. The keeping of the day of
Christ’s nativity, Epiphany, the Quadragesima, or Lent, the feast of the passover, and the
festivals of the apostles, 1. 5. c. 13 and 1. 8. c. 33. Fasting on the fourth and sixth days of
the week, 1, 5. c. 15. Baptizing of infants, 1. 6. c. 15. Singing for the dead, and honoring
of their relics, 1. 6, c. 30. Nay, praying for saints departed, 1. 8. c. 41, 42, 43, 44. As also
crossing with the sign of the cross in the forehead, 1. 8. c. 12. Moreover the Lord’s
Supper is called an unbloody sacrifice, 1. 6. c. 23 and 1. 8. c. 5, 46. It is likewise asserted,
that Christ, in the celebration of that ordinance, mixed wine and water in the cup, 1. 8. c.
12. Nay, concubines, continuing so, are allowed an admittance to a participation of that
sacred ordinance, 1. 8 c. 32 with many other things which appear foreign enough from
the simplicity of the apostolic age, doctrine, and practice. And now who that reads and
considers these things, will ever think that those writings can furnish out an argument
sufficient to prejudice the authority of the book of Solomon’s Song? Had any thing been
said in them, which was expressly against it, it would scarce have deserved consideration,
much less should their silence about it be improved as an evidence against it. And yet
after all, it is pretty to observe how much Mr. Whiston himself is foiled with two
passages in them, which appear to be allusions and references to a passage in this book;
the one is in 1. 6. c. 13. where the false apostles are called alwpe>kwn meridev kai<
camaizh>lwn a<mpelw>nwn ajfanisai, the portion of foxes, and the spoilers of the low
vineyards: And again, in the same book, c. 18. where those same persons are said to spoil
the church of God, wjv ajlw>pekev mikroi> ajmpelw~nav, as the little foxes do the
vineyards; which are manifest references to Song of Solomon 2:15, and over-against the
later of which passages Mr. Whiston himself has placed this text as referring to it in the
edition of the Constitutions which he has published. Now to evade the force of this, he is
obliged to make this part of the work to be of a later date than the rest, even later than the
destruction of Jerusalem; lest this book of Canticles should appear to have obtained
authority too early in the world. He acknowledges that it is in the catalogue of the sacred
writings mentioned in the Canons of the Apostles, Can. 85 which he looks upon to be
genuine and authentic, though he questions its being in the original copies of those
Canons; he allows, that Ignatius, in his larger epistle to the Ephesians, cites Song of
Solomon 1:3, 4, and is very willing to grant it a place in Melito’s catalogue, which I have
before mentioned: So that from the whole it appears, that the Apostolical Constitutions
are so far from making against the authority of this book, that they rather make for it;
though their testimony is good for nothing, the whole being a spurious work, and carries
in it evident marks of falsehood and impiety, and was condemned as false and heretical
by the sixth general synod held at Constantinople[17] about the year 680. Thus have I

considered the several arguments and objections produced by Mr. Whiston to disprove
the sacred authority of this book, which, notwithstanding, appears to have a divine stamp
upon it.There is one objection more made against it, which I think Mr. Whiston has
took no notice of, and that is, that no proper name of God is to be found in this Song. To
which I reply, in the words of Mr. Durham[18]
[19]

1. “That it is so also in other scriptures, as in the book of Esther; the scripture’s authority
doth not depend on naming the name of God, but on having his warrant and authority.

2. This Song being allegorical and figurative, it is not so meet nor consistent with its stile,
to have God named under proper names, as in other scriptures: Yet,

3. There are titles and descriptions here given to an excellent person, which can agree to
none other but Christ, the eternal Son of God; as, The King; O thou whom my soul loveth;
the chief of ten thousands; the Rose of Sharon, and the like; whereby his eminency is
“singularly set out above all others in the world.”

And yet after all, the name of God, Jah, the same with Jehovah, and a contraction of that,
is mentioned in it, which is the greatest of the divine names, and is expressive of the
being, eternity, and immutability of God. It is in chapter 8:6. hyAtbhlç the flame of
God, or Jehovah, which we render a most vehement flame; the sense being increased by
the word Jah being added, as the word God to mountains and cedars, in Psalm 36:6 and
Psalm 80:10 for these are not one word as Ben Asher thinks, but two according to Ben
Naphtali and Aben Ezra; see the exposition of the place.

Since the second edition of this Exposition was published in 1751, I have met with two
learned gentlemen, I am sorry for it, and that I am obliged to take notice of them, who
think that this book is of a later date than the times of Solomon, and so of course none of
his, and which must sap the authority of it. The one observes[20] that the word David, from
its first appearance in Ruth, where it is written drd without the yod, continues to be so
written through the books of Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel, but appears with a yod dyrd in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Zechariah; wherefore he suggests, that if it was customary to write this word without a
yod till the captivity, and with one after it; then he thinks a strong argument may be
drawn from hence against the antiquity of the Canticles, and its being made by Solomon,
since this name is written with a yod in Song of Solomon 4:4 the only place in it in which
it is used: But in answer to this, it must be said, it is not fact that the word is universally
used without the yod in the books mentioned, particularly in the book of Kings: for the
authors of the Masorah have observed on 1 Kings 3:14 that it is five times written full, as
they call it, that is, with a yod, dyrd three of the places in the book of Kings I have
traced out, 1 Kings 3:14; and 11:4, 36 and have found it so written in all the printed
copies I have seen; and so it is read by the Eastern Jews in Ezekiel 37:24 and in several
printed editions of Ezekiel 34:23. This learned man is aware that it is so written once in
Hosea, and twice in Amos; books written two hundred years before the captivity; but then
he observes that in the two last places in Bomberg’s edition it has a little circle (o) to
mark it for an error, or a faulty word, though none over the word in Hosea: But it should

23]
24]
be known, that that circle in hundreds of places is not used to point out any thing faulty in
the copy, but is only a mark referring to the margin, and to what is observed there: and be
it, that it does point out an error or a faulty word, the same circle is over the word in
Canticles, and consequently shews it to be faulty there, and to be corrected and read
without the yod, which observation destroys the argument from it; and so it is read in that
place in the Talmud[21] without it, and in the ancient book of Zohar;[22] and indeed it
seems as if it was read without the yod in the copies seen by the authors of the Masorah,
since in their note on 1 Kings 3:14 besides the five places where it is written full, or with
the yod, they say it is so written throughout the Chronicles, the twelve minor prophets,
and Ezra, which includes Nehemiah, but make no mention of Solomon’s Song; which
one would think they would have done, had it been so written there in the copy or copies
before them: so that upon the whole, the argument, if it has any force in it, turns out for,
and not against the antiquity of Solomon’s Song. But this matter stands in a dearer light
by observing the larger Masorah on 1 Kings 11:4 and on Ezekiel 34:23 in which the five
places are mentioned where this word is written full, 1 Kings 3:14 and 11:4, 36, Song of
Solomon 4:4, Ezekiel 34:23, in which places this word was originally so written, as well
as throughout Chronicles, the twelve prophets, and Ezra; so that in all these places it is
marked not as a faulty word, but as rightly written, though different from what it is in
other places. The other learned man[forms his argument from the use of the word
tbhlç in Job 15:30, and in this Song, chapter 8:6 his words are, “I am much deceived
if this word be not a strong proof of the age of this poem, (the book of Job) for it is not
found but in Ezekiel and the Song of Solomon, the one written during the captivity, and
the other after it.” This proceeds upon a false piece of criticism in a twofold respect; for
he adds, “its construction which is evidently ç for rça, and tbhl the constructive
form of hbhl flamma, shews very clearly its age; since that manner of abbreviation is
not found in the books undoubtedly written before the captivity.” For, 1st, this
abbreviation appears in books much more ancient than that, not only in the book of
Solomon’s Song, the antiquity of which is not to be set aside by this observation, but
frequently in the book of Ecclesiastes, undoubtedly written by Solomon, and in the
Psalms of David his father before him; for it is not only in psalms without a title, all
which are supposed by some to be David’s, as in Psalm 129:6, 7; 135:2, 8, 10; 136:23,
and 146:5 but also in psalms which bear his name, as in Psalm 122:3, 4; 124:2, 6; 133:2,
3 and 144:15; yea it was in use long before the times of David, even in the times of the
Judges. Deborah has it in her song, ytmqç ytmqç d[, Judges 5:7 and in other places in
that book, chapter 6:17 and 7:12 and 8:26. 2dly, It is a mistake that the construction of the
word tbhlç is ç for rça; and tbhl; for ç; in that word is not servile, but radical, as
Aben Ezra and Ben Melech observe; it is an addition to the Hebrew word after the
Chaldee manner, and has its derivation from a root in the Chaldee or Syriac language,
bhlç, which signifies to kindle, inflame, and burn, as appears, not only from all the
Syriac and Chaldee Lexicons, but from the frequent use of the word in the Syriac version
of the Old Testament; nor is this the only Chaldee or Syriac word in Solomon’s Song; see
chapter 1:17 and 2:11. Though perhaps as this writer from[the Chaldaisms, Syriasms,
and Arabisms in the book of Job, argues its being a production of a later age than what is
usually assigned to it; so another of the same way of thinking and reasoning may
conclude from some Chaldee words used in Solomon’s Song that it must be of a later age

than his: but why may not Solomon be thought to make use of Chaldee or Syriac words
as wall as his father David, who makes use of words in the Syriac signification of them,
as in Psalm 51:4 compared with Romans 3:4 and Psalm 60:4 and with Syro-chaldaic
affixes, Psalm 103:3, 4, 5 and 115:7, 10? and why may not David and Solomon be
thought to understand Chaldee or Syriac as well as Hezekiah’s courtiers? See 2 Kings
18:26 and certainly Solomon must understand it, if what is said of him is true, though I
lay no stress upon it, that he wrote the book of Wisdom in the Chaldee languagethough not by inspiration. Moreover, since the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, etc. are
supposed to be dialects of the same language, why may not a word in one dialect less
frequently, used in a book appear in it without determining the age of it? since one dialect
may be as early or nearly as early as another, and can be no evidence of a book being of a
later production than is generally thought, or of its being written when the purity of the
Hebrew language began to decline, and after the dispersion of the Jews throughout the
East, when it began to receive a taint of the other dialects, as this writer suggests; for
what taint of the other dialects, as he calls it, did the Hebrew language receive in the
captivity, and by the dispersion of the Jews? what appearance is there of Chaldaisms,
Syriasms, etc. in the book of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, excepting the names of the
months, books written after the captivity, more than in any books before, or even so
much? are they not written in as pure Hebrew as any of those books, which may be
thought to be written when that language was in its greatest purity? and if so, a few words
in another dialect here and there in a book, is no rule to judge of a book by, and
determine the age of it. Upon the whole, it is irresistibly clear, that the sacred and divine
authority of this book remains firm and unshaken, notwithstanding the above objections
made against it; nor is there any reason for persons to scruple it, much less to reject it
from the canon of the scriptures, nor to question in the least the antiquity and authenticity
of it. I proceed,
[25]

II. To consider the nature and subject of this book; it being a Song in which the bride and
bridegroom, with their friends and companions, the daughters of Jerusalem, bear their
several parts; and it being a divine song, is, no doubt, intended for the glorifying of
Christ, the cheering and refreshing of his church, and also the edification of others; for it
is the duty of saints to be teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns,
and spiritual songs; singing with grace in their hearts to the Lord. I shall not enter into
the consideration of the controversy, whether singing of the praises of God vocally, is an
ordinance to be used under the New Testament, though I firmly believe it to be so; nay,
that it is one of the most noble, and most glorious branches of religious worship, it being
that which comes nearest to the employment of saints in a glorified state; and what
requires a great deal of light, knowledge, experience, faith, and love to perform in a right
way and manner; nor shall I need to observe those several cases of conscience concerning
singing, which have a very good solution from this tong; such as these, namely, whether
the distressed cases of God’s children may be sung, or they sing when in distressed
circumstances: whether complaints of their sins, failings and infirmities, may be put into
their songs: whether eases different from theirs, yea, such as they have not attained unto,
may be sung; as also whether it is lawful to sing the praises of God in mixed assemblies;
all which may be answered in the affirmative, and for which this song affords a sufficient
foundation; the church here bringing net sorrows and distresses into this song as well as

her comforts and privileges, chapter 1:6 and 3:1 and 5:7; nay, her sins and failings,
chapter 1:5, 6 and 5:2, 3, 4. Very different cases are also here sung; yea, such, which, if
taken in a strict sense, she had not fully attained to, as in chapter 8:12. Moreover, she
sings in the presence of, and joins with the virgins, the daughters of Jerusalem, who
seemed in a great measure to be ignorant of Christ, chapter 5:8, 9 and 6:8, 9, 10, all
which are largely and judiciously insisted upon by the excellent Mr. Durham, in his
Exposition of this place, to which I refer the reader: I proceed more particularly to
consider the nature and subject of this song; which,

1st, Is not a celebration of the amours between Solomon, and Pharoah’s daughter, which
has been the opinion of some, as has been already observed; for there are some things in
it which are spoken of this bridegroom, which cannot be applied to Solomon, as that he
was both a king and a shepherd, as in chapter 1:4 compared with 5:7 that he was his
wife’s brother, and she his sister, chapter 5:2 and 8:1. Nor is it likely that Solomon would
ever give such commendations of himself, as are mentioned in chapter 5:10, etc. There
are also many things spoken of the bride, which by no means agree with Pharoah’s
daughter, as that she was a keeper of the vineyards, chapter 1:6 and yet a prince’s
daughter, chapter 7:1 that she should be represented as running about the streets in the
night, unattended, chapter 3:2 and be exposed to the blows and contempt of the
watchmen, chapter 5:7; besides, several of the descriptions here given of her, if taken in a
literal sense, would rather make her appear to be a monster than a beauty, as chapter 4:1-
5 and chapter 7:1-5 all which agree very well, when understood of Christ and his Church.
Nor,

2dly, Is it typical, that is to say, this book does not express the amours and marriage of
Solomon and Pharoah’s daughter, as typical of that inexpressible love and marriage-
union between Christ and his church; it is true, there is some resemblance between
natural and spiritual marriage, as is manifest from Ephesians 5:23, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32 nor
is it altogether to be denied, that Solomon was a type of Christ, in some respects, in his
marriage of that person; but that this book is an epithalamium, or nuptial song composed
by him on that occasion, and that in such a manner, as at the same time also to be
expressive of the love of Christ to his church, must be denied; for Solomon’s marriage
with Pharoah’s daughter was at least twenty years before this book was wrote, as appears
from chapter 7:4 where mention is made of the tower of Lebanon, by which seems to be
meant, the house of the forests of Lebanon: or some tower near unto it; now he was seven
years in building the temple, 1 Kings 6:38 and thirteen more in building his own house, 1
Kings 7:1 after which he built this, 5:2. From hence it may be reasonably concluded, that
this book was not penned on any such occasion; for Solomon would never write a nuptial
song twenty years after his marriage, which should have been sung the same night he was
married. M. Bossuet[26] has an ingenious conjecture, though it seems to be without a solid
foundation, that whereas the nuptial feast with the Hebrews was kept seven days, this
song is to be distributed into seven parts, a part to be sung on each day during the
celebration. The first day, chapter 1:1 - 2:6, the second day, chapter 2:7-17, the third day,
chapter 3:1 - 5:1, the fourth day, chapter 5:2 - 6:9, the fifth day, chapter 6:10 - 7:11, the
sixth day, chapter 7:12. - 8:3, the seventh day, chapter 8:4-14. Nor,

3dly. Is this book prophetic, expressing the state of the church and kingdom of Christ in
the several ages of the world, with regard to particular historical facts and events, which
had befell or should befall it, either under the Old or New Testament-dispensation; this
way indeed go most of the Jewish interpreters, as the Targum, R. Solomon Jarchi, and R.
Aben Ezra; who have been followed by many Christian writers, though with more
judgment and greater regard to the analogy of faith, as well as to the times of the New
Testament: and who consider this book as describing the state of the church of God,
whether the church under the legal dispensation, from the times of David and Solomon;
and before, and in, and after the captivity to the birth and death of Christ; or the church
under the gospel-dispensation,, in its beginning, progress, various changes, and
consummation, as Brightman and Cotton. Others interpret this book as pointing to the
several ages and periods of the Christian church, in agreement with the seven churches of
Asia, as Cocceius, and those that follow him, Hor-chius, Hofman, and Hennischius;
which last writer makes this distribution of them: 1. The church at Ephesus, Song of
Solomon 1:5-17 from the ascension of Christ to heaven, A.C. 33 to 370. 2. The church at
Smyrna, Song of Solomon 2:1-17 from A.C. 371 to 707. 3. The church at Pergamos,
Song of Solomon 3:1-11 from A.C. 708 to 1045. 4. The church at Thyatira, Song of
Solomon 4:1 to chapter 5:1 from A.C. 1046 to 1383. 5. The church at Sardis, Song of
Solomon 5:2 to chapter 6:8 from A.C. 1384 to 1721. 6. The church at Philadelphia, Song
of Solomon 6:9 to chapter 7:14 from A.C. 1722 to 2059. 7. The church at Laodicea, Song
of Solomon 8:1-14 from A.C. 2060, and onwards. But hereby the book is made liable to
arbitrary, groundless, and uncertain conjectures, as well as its usefulness for the
instruction and consolation of believers, in a great measure, is laid aside; for then such
and such parts of it, which regard the church and believers, in such an age or period of
time, can only be applied to them that lived at that time, and not to others; whereas all,
and every part of this song, the first as well as the last, is applicable to believers in alleges
of the world, which is a manifest proof that it cannot be historical, or prophetical. But,

4thly, The whole is figurative and allegorical, abounding with a variety of lively
metaphors, and allusions to natural things; and so may be illustrated by the various things
of nature, from whence the metaphors are taken, and to which the allusions be, and by the
language and behavior of natural lovers to each others and which are to be observed in
love-poems, though here expressed more decently and beautifully. This divine poem sets
forth in a most striking manner the mutual love, unions 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 here is something in this song suited to their experience: which serves
much to recommend it to believers, and discovers the excellency of it. Which,

III. Comes next to be considered, it being called the Song of songs, for this reason,
because it is the most excellent of songs; so the holy of holies is used for the most holy,
and the King of kings and Lord of lords, for the greatest King and chiefest Lord. This
song. is more excellent than all human songs; there is no comparison between them,
either in the subject, stile, or manner of composition: it has the ascendant of all those
thousand and five songs which Solomon himself made, of which we read 1 Kings 4:32
nay, is preferable to all scriptural songs; the subject of it being wholly and purposely the

love of Christ to his church, its stile is lovely and majestic; the manner of its composition
neat and beautiful; and the matter of it full and comprehensive, being suited to all
believers, and their several cases: This song indeed contains all others in it, and has
nothing wanting and deficient therein. The Jews say in their ancient book of Zohar[27] that
“this song comprehends the whole law; the whole work of the creation; the secret of the
fathers; the captivity of Egypt, and the coming out of Israel from thence; the song that
was sung at the sea; the covenant of mount Sinai; the journey of the Israelites through the
wilderness; their entrance into the land of Canaan; the building of the temple; the crown
of the holy name; the captivity of Israel among the nations, and their redemption; the
resurrection of the dead; and the sabbath of the Lord, which is, and which was, and which
is to come.”

IV. The author or penman of this song is said to be Solomon; the Song of songs, which is
Solomon’s, that is, which is of, or concerning Solomon,[28] as the words may be rendered;
and so respect the subject of this song, which is Christ, the true Solomon, of whom
Solomon was an eminent type, as is at large shewn in several particulars, on chapter 3:7.
Now it is he that this song treats of; the transcendent glories and excellencies of his
person; his inexpressible love unto, care of, and concern for his church and people,
together with the nearness of access unto and sweet communion and fellowship with
himself, which he indulges them with, are here particularly expressed and set forth; so
that it may well be called the Song of songs, which is concerning Solomon; though,
perhaps, the words may regard Solomon as the author and penman of it, who was used by
the Holy Ghost as his amanuensis therein, which was no small honor to him; his wisdom,
riches, and grandeur, did not set him above an employment of this nature; nay, his, being
concerned herein, was a greater honor to him than all the rest: and it may not be amiss to
observe, that his royal title, as king of Israel, is here omitted, which yet is put at the
beginning of both his other books, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes; the reason may be, either
because such a title, expressive of majesty, would not so well have suited a song of loves;
or else it is purposely omitted, lest he should be thought to be the king, so frequently
spoken of in this song; or rather because that the subject of this song is the King of kings;
and therefore, whilst he is speaking of the things which he had made, touching the Mug,
he lays aside his own royal title, veils his majesty, and casts his crown at the feet of Him,
by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice. The time of his writing this book does
not appear very manifest; some think that he wrote it in his youthful days, the subject
being love, and the manner of its writing being poetry, both which the youthful age
mostly inclines to, and delights in; but it appears from what has been already said, that it
was not wrote until twenty years after his marriage, when he could not be a very young
man; and so might be written in the middle part of his life, when in the most flourishing
circumstances as to body, mind, and estate. Dr Lightfoot[29] is of opinion it might be
written in the thirtieth year of his reign, about ten years before his death, after he had
built his summerhouse in Lebanon, to which he supposes he alludes in chapter 4:3 and
7:4 and upon his bringing Pharaoh’s daughter to the house prepared for her, 1 Kings 9:24.
The Jewish chronologer[30] says, that the books of Proverbs, the Song of songs, and
Ecclesiastes, were all written in his old age, as indeed the last seems to be; and perhaps
he wrote this also a little before his death, after his fall and repentance, when he had had a
larger discovery of the love of God unto his own soul, notwithstanding all his sins,

failings, and infirmities; and so a proper person for the Holy Ghost to use in setting forth
the greatness of Christ’s love to his people, and the several different states, conditions,
cases and circumstances, which they are, at one time or another, brought into in this life,
of which he had had a very great experience. But from the title, I shall now proceed to the
consideration of the book itself; which thus begins,

 

ENDNOTES:

[1] Hieron. Praefat. in Ezekiel. Origen. Prolog. Cant. Cantic.

[2] Seder Olam Rabba, p. 41.

[3] In Exodus fol. 59. col. 3 Edit. Sultzbac.

[4] Vide T. Bib. Megillah. fol. 7. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Abot Hatumaot, c. 9. sect. 6.

[5] Vide Vorit. not in Maimon. Yesode Hattorah, c. 6: sect 12.

[6] Tract Vadaim, c. 3. sect. 5.

[7] Ecclesiastes Hist. 1. 6. c. 25.

[8] Ibid. lib. 4. c. 26.

[9] Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. 6. c. 22. 32.

[10] Contra Marcellum, 50:1. c. 2,

[11] Synopf. S. Script. 1. 16.

[12] Mr. Whiston’s supplement to his essay toward restoring the text of the Old Testament,
p. 11. 12.

[13] Durham, Clay. Cant. p. 5.

[14] Contr. Apion. I. 17

[15] Buxtorf. Tiberias, c. 11.

[16] Connection of the history, of the Old and New Testament, part 1. book 5. p. 332. 8vo.

[17] Vide Carranzae Summ. Concil. Conc. Constantinop. 6. Can. 2.

[18] Since I wrote this, I have met with an answer to these arguments of Mr. Whiston by
the very learned Carpzovius, Professor of Divinity in the University of Leipsick,
published in his critics Sacra, par. 3. which was printed in the year 1728, the same year
my Exposition of this Book first came out. In the year 1729 was published a translation
of the Critica Sacra into English, so far as it is concerned with Mr. Whiston, by Moses
Marcus, a converted Jew.

[19] In Clav. Cant. p. 5.

[20] Dr. Kennicot, Dissert. 1. p. 20 etc.

[21] T. Bab. Beracot. fol. 30. 1.

[22] In Genesis fo1, 114. 3.

[23] Heath, Comment. On Job 15:30.

[24] Preface, ibid. p. 11.

[25] R. Azarias, imre Binah, c. 57. fol. 175. z.

[26] Vide Lowth. de Sacr. Poes. Hob. Praelct. 30. p. 393, 394. & Not. Michael, in ibid. p.
156-159.

[27] In Exod fol, 59, col. 3.

[28] hmlçl de Solomone Cocceius so Midrash in loc.

[29] See his works, vol. 1. p. 76.

[30] In Seder Olam Rabba, c. 15. p. 41 to Shir Hashirim. fol. 3. 3.

EXPOSITION

OF THE BOOK OF

SOLOMON’S SONG,

 

Chapter 1

VERSE 2.

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth;
for thy love is better than wine.

 

Having considered the title, now follows the song itself, which begins with these words;
and it being dialogue-wise, where several parties are concerned, and do interchangeably
speak, it will be therefore necessary, in order to explain them, to consider,

I. Who the person is that speaks and begins the song.

II. To whom this speech is directed.

III. The nature of the request that is made. And,

IV. The reason of it.

I. Let us consider who the person is that speaks; it appears dearly to be the church and
bride of Christ, who here begins and continues speaking to verse 8. She first directs her
speech to Christ, in this and the two following verses; in verses 5, 6 she turns herself to
the daughters of Jerusalem; and then again to Christ, in verse 7 she begins the song,
which,

1st, Does not suppose that she was first in her love to Christ: she was not beforehand with
him, neither in her love nor in the expressions, and manifestations of it; for he had loved
her with an everlasting love, and therefore had thus sweetly drawn her with the bands of
love, to himself. Christ is first, both in his love and in the discovery of it; for we love him
because he first loved us; it is the manifestation of Christ’s love to our souls, which
causes us to love him again, and in some way or other to shew it.

2dly, Neither does it suppose, that her love to Christ, and desires of his presence and
company, were more ardent than his were to her; for as Christ’s love is prior to ours, so it

far exceeds, and is much superior to it; neither can believers be more desirous of Christ’s
company than he is of theirs. But,

3dly, It shews that she was impatient of delay, and could not bear his absence any longer;
she was sick of love; for hope deferred maketh the heart sick; she had, perhaps, been
hoping, waiting for, and expecting his presence a considerable time, and he was not
come; therefore growing impatient., breaks out in this abrupt manner, Let him kiss, etc.
or, “O that he would kiss me with one of the kisses of his month! I cannot be easy unless
he does.”

4thly, She speaks as one who had had experience of Christ’s love; she knew how sweet
the kisses of his mouth were, and how delightful his company had been to her in time
past; she, had tasted that the Lord was gracious; and therefore was so earnestly desirous
of the returns of these love-visits, venting her heart and soul in these passionate wishes
and desires. And,.29

5thly, Though Christ gives the first discoveries of love on his part; yet when the church is
espoused unto him, it highly becomes her to shew an affectionate regard unto him, and
strong desire after his company.

II. It will be proper to take notice of the person to whom this speech is directed, and that
is Christ; and the form of speech here used, is also worthy our regard; here is no
particular mention made of any person; no one particularly named, whose company she
desired; but only him, let him kiss me, etc. it is a relative without an antecedent, of which
we have many instances in scripture, as Psalm 87:1, Isaiah 53:2, Lamentations 3:1 unless
we suppose that the antecedent to it is Solomon, in verse 1, let him, that is, Solomon, or
Christ, who is Solomon’s antitype, whose song this is, and who is the subject of it; Let
him, I say, kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; though the connection seems rather to be
with the thoughts of her heart, than with any words before expressed: she had had him so
much in her thoughts, and her love was so fixed on him, she knew him so well, and had
had so much converse with him, that she thought there was no need to mention his name;
but that every one must very well know who she designed; as Mary Magdalen, at Christ’s
sepulcher, when Jesus said unto her, “Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?”
she supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, “sir, if thou have borne him hence,
tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away,” (John 20:15). Suppose he
had been the gardener, how should he have known who this him was she meant? But she
was much in the same frame as the church is here, who speaks of Christ as if there was no
other in the world besides him; and indeed he is a nonsuch, the most eminent person in
the world, in the believer’s esteem; whose language is, “Whom have I in heaven but
thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee,” (Ps. 73:25). Christ then is
the person here spoken of, whom she intends, and to whom she directs her speech.

III. Having taken notice of the person speaking, and to whom this speech is directed, we
will now consider the request itself, which is here made, “Let him kiss me,” etc. and this
may be considered, either,

First, As the request of the church under the Old Testament. And that,

1st, For the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; than which nothing was more
passionately longed for, and earnestly desired; many kings and prophets greatly desired
it; yea, all the Old Testament saints did more or0 less pray, as David did, “O that the
salvation of Israel were come out of Zion,” (Ps. 14:7) and this they were so vehemently
desirous of, because they knew hereby redemption from all evil would be obtained, the
curse removed, and all spiritual blessings procured for then; Christ’s incarnation being,
like kisses, a pledge and indication of his love, was very desirable to the church, and as
appears by her expressions, would be exceeding grateful to all those who were “waiting
for the consolation of Israel:” He had sent his prophets, and by them had spoken unto her
“at sundry times, and in divers manners;” yet she is not easy and contented herewith, but
would have greater displays of his grace, by his appearing in his own person to kiss her
with the kisses of his mouth.

2dly, For the doctrines of the gospel, in opposition to the law. Most of the Jewish[1]
writers understand, by the kisses of his mouth, the words of the law, which God spake to
the people face to face; but that dispensation was not so desirable an one, for “they that
heard that voice of words, intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more;
for they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak
with us, lest we die,” (Ex. 20:19). The words of the law contain sharp and severe rebukes
for sin; pronounce the sinner guilty before God; curse and condemn him, and are the
killing letter to him; therefore these are not the kisses of Christ’s mouth, which the church
here desires; but rather they are the sweet and comfortable doctrines of the gospel, which
may be so called,

1. Because they come from him; they are the words of his mouth, which drop from him
“like sweet smelling myrrh;” he is the author of them, he has spoke and delivered them;
they proceed alone from him, and it is he that owns, blesses, and makes them useful to
men.

2. As kisses they carry in them intimations of his love to souls, to whom they come in
power, and in the Holy Ghost; the love of Christ is the great subject of the gospel; it fills
all the doctrines thereof, which give a noble display of it, and lead into a farther
acquaintance with it.

3. As the kisses of a friend, they are grateful and acceptable to believers; they are more
valuable to them than their necessary food, and are preferred by them to all that is dear in
life, yea, to life itself, however they are slighted and despised by the men of the world.

4. As kisses, they raise the affections and fill the soul with love to Christ; kisses, as they
are indications of, so they are incentives to love. When the truths of the gospel come with
power upon a sinner’s heart, they let in, not only a great deal of light, but also a large
measure of love; faith comes hereby, and that works by love, both to Christ and to his
gospel. Or,

Secondly, We may consider this request as the request of the church, or of every
particular believer, for the enjoyments and manifestations of Christ’s love. The
manifestation of Christ’s love is very desirable to believers, who would always have it if
they could; this is their heaven on earth, and the beginning of glory to them; this comforts
them in all their troubles, and is preferred by them to all earthly enjoyments; and may be
called the kisses of Christ’s mouth,

1st, Because kisses are evidences and pledges of love amongst nearest relations: Christ
stands in, and fills up all relations to his people, and has affections for them suitable to
them all; he is a kind and indulgent father, a tender husband, an affectionate brother, and
loving friend; of all which he has given, and continues to give, full, and incontestible
proofs; of which the kisses of his mouth are plain and undeniable evidences.

2dly, Kisses are tokens of reconciliation and agreement. Now though reconciliation is
made by the blood of Christ, and believers have the comfortable application of it to their
souls; yet every time that Christ withdraws his presence from them, they are ready to
think that he is angry with them, and is not reconciled unto them; but when he shews
himself again, and manifests his love, then they can behold him, and God in him, as
reconciled unto them.

3dly, Kisses are incentives to love: there is nothing raises believers love higher to Christ,
than the flowing in of his love into their souls; this warms it when cold and chill, raises it
to a flame, quickens it when dull, puts it in motion, and sets it at work.

4thly, By this expression the church intends that nearness and familiarity in communion
with Christ, which her soul wanted; which was not only to shew himself to her, feed and
feast her, and take his walks with her; by all which phrases communion with Christ is
sometimes expressed; but to be kissed with the kisses of his mouth, which is yet nearer
still: well may the saints be said to be “a people near to the Lord;” what wondrous and
surprising grace is this, that Christ should condescend to kiss such vile and sinful
creatures as we be! to receive us into such near communion with himself! It is a bold
request the church makes, and yet she is in it no bolder than welcome. These are called
kisses, in the plural number.

1. To shew the various ways Christ has to manifest his love, sometimes by one
providence, and sometimes by another! sometimes in one ordinance, and sometimes in
another; he is not tied to one way, but has divers ways, and makes use of various means
to shew himself unto his people; he is never at a loss when he thinks fit to do it.

2. To denote the frequent and repeated actings of his love to her soul which she was
desirous of; she was for having, not one kiss, but many; one discovery and manifestation
of his love and grace after another; yea, many visits from him, until she arrived to the full
enjoyment of his love, with himself, in glory. Or,

3. The words may be read thus, Let him kiss me with one of the kisses of his mouth.[2] See
chapter 4:9 and then the sense is, “O that I had but one glimpse, one view, one discovery

more of his love and grace unto my soul, but one kiss more from his mouth, which is
most sweet, and altogether lovely; how great a satisfaction would it be to me, could I
have but this request granted!” which way of speaking shews how exceeding grateful the
manifestations of Christ’s love are to believers. Moreover it may be observed, that kisses
with the ancients were not frequent, but rarely used, and but once when persons were
espoused, and as a token of that; and then they were reckoned as husband and wife;[3] on
which account it may be it is here desired; since it was after this we hear of the spouse
being brought into the nuptial chamber, and of the keeping of the nuptial feast, verse 4-
12. Again, These are also said to be the “kisses of his mouth;” which is not to be looked
upon as a mere Hebraism, or as a redundancy in expression; but this heaping up of words
shews,

(1.) The vehemency of her affection, how much her heart was set upon, and how eagerly
desirous she was of, communion with Christ; and therefore pours out words, that she
might fully express her mind; “for out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth
speaketh.”

(2.) She mentions the kisses of “his mouth,” in contradistinction to any other; she valued
the kisses of no other mouth but Christ’s: the kisses of any mouth were not desirable to
her, none but the kisses of his mouth were.

(3.) She hereby expresses the singular satisfaction she should take herein; “Let him kiss
me with the kisses of his mouth;” “his mouth, which is sweet and delightful to me; his
mouth, whom my soul loves, whom I value and esteem above all others, and in the
enjoyment of whom I place my chiefest happiness.” Or,

(4). It may point out that particular way and manner in which she was desirous that he
would manifest his love unto her, that is, by his word of promise in the gospel; as if she
should say, “O that he would manifest himself, and break up his love and grace to my
soul, in some kind promise or other, which may drop from his mouth, and be brought
home unto me by the Spirit of grace.”

IV. She assigns a reason for this request, “for thy love is better than wine;” here is a
sudden change of person, from the third to the second; before she said, “let him kiss me,”
etc. now she says, “for thy love,” etc. the reason of which, perhaps, is, because he was
absent before, but now present; she had lost sight of him, and speaks of him as at a
distance from her; but now he is in view, at the very sight of whom her faith is increased,
and her soul fired with love; and having greater nearness to him, grows in her familiarity
and boldness with him.

Here we shall, 1. Take notice of the love of Christ, and give some account of the nature
and excellency, of it: And, 2. Shew in what respects it is preferable to wine.

First Let us consider this love of Christ, which is so highly commended by the church; in
the Hebrew text it is in the plural number, loves[4] to shew,

1st, The various ways in which Christ has discovered it; he shewed it by his suretyship-
engagements for the elect in the everlasting covenant of grace and peace, of which he is
the surety, mediator, and messenger; he showed it in his assumption of human nature in
time; he has given a full display of it, in laying down his life for the sheep, in giving
himself a ransom for many, and in offering himself a sacrifice for the sins of all his
chosen ones; he has loved them and died for them, loved them and shed his precious
blood for them, and in that blood, has washed them from all their sins; he now shews that
he loves them, by appearing in the presence of God for them, acting as an advocate with
the Father, and preparing glory for them; and he will, ere long, come again to take them
to himself, that where he is, there they may be also.

2dly, It may intend the various effects of it; all the blessings of grace flow from it, such as
vocation, sanctification, justification, adoption, and glorification; all spring from this
boundless and matchless love of Christ.

3dly, Being in the plural number, may denote the aboundings of it; it is superabounding
love; love that has heights, and depths, and lengths, and breadths; it is immeasurable and
unconceivable; it passeth the perfect knowledge of men and angels.

4thly, The frequent discoveries of it, which are made to the saints; and which, like the
waters in Ezekiel’s vision, increase and rise from the ankles to the knees, and from the
knees to the loins, and from thence become waters to swim in, a river, an ocean of love
which cannot be passed over.

5thly, The great esteem the church had of Christ’s love, which she shows by calling it
“loves,” in the plural number, as well as by saying that it was “better than wine:” the
excellency of which will farther appear, if we consider the nature and properties of it,
which are as follow:

1. As to the original of it, it is free and sovereign; it does not take its rise from any thing
in us, or done by us, nothing of this nature moved him to it, but he loved us, because he
would love us; nothing out of himself moved him to it; it was not because we were better
than others, for we are by nature children of wrath, even as others; he loved us when
unlovely; he died for us while we were yet sinners, and ungodly in ourselves, and
enemies to himself; our love to him is not the cause of his loving us, but his love to us is
the cause of ours: in this he is entirely free and sovereign; he has pitched his love and
grace on whom he will, and these he loves freely; he was not moved or influenced by
foreseen faith or works, or any deservings of ours whatever; for we neither deserved nor
desired his love, neither indeed could we have expected it.

2. As to the time of its commencement, it is from eternity; before the mountains were
formed, and the highest part of the dust of the earth was made, he was “rejoicing in the
habitable part of his earth, and his delights were with the sons of men:” that he loved his
people from eternity, is manifest from his engaging as a surety for them; his becoming
the mediator of an everlasting covenant; in which he agreed to take care of their persons,
and by dying to redeem their lives from destruction, and to bring them to eternal glory; as

also from his receiving all grace for them before the world began; all which manifestly
shew that he had a love for them; for all the after-actings of his love and grace are but the
openings and breakings forth of this love of his, which he bore towards them from
everlasting.

3. As to its duration, it is to eternity; “having loved his own, which were in the world, he
loved them unto the end,” (John 13:1) his love is invariable, unalterable, and
unchangeable; it is like himself, “the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever;” all the waters
of sin and corruption cannot extinguish it; nor can any creature in heaven, earth, or hell,
separate his people from it.

4. As to the degree of it, it is the greatest love, “greater love hath no man than this, that a
man lay down his life for his friends,” (John 15:13) but Christ’s love is greater than this,
for he hath laid down his life for enemies, and even whilst they were such: here is great
love for great sinners, shewn by a great person, one who “thought it no robbery to be
equal with God:” and this he shewed by giving himself a ransom for them; such is the
greatness of this love, that it cannot fully be expressed by men or angels.

5. As to the quality of it, it is the nearest; that of the nearest relations and friends to each
other as of a parent to a child, of an husband to a wife, of brothers, or friends, to each
other, are but faint resemblances and mere shadows of this; all fall short of painting and
expressing to the life the nature of this love.

6. As to the pattern or form of it, it is as the Father’s love to him; “as the Father hath
loved me; (says he) so have I loved you,” (John 15:9) as the Father loves Christ, as
mediator, with an everlasting, unchangeable, and inseparable love, so does Christ love his
people. What surprising grace is this, that Christ should love us with such a love! when
there is no comparison between him, who is the object of the one, and them, who are the
objects of the other; when we contemplate this amazing love, conceptions fail us to
comprehend it, words fall short of expressing it; in eternity only will those surprising
mysteries of grace be unfolded to us.

7. As to any instance of love, none can be compared: with it, it is unparalleled; that of
Jonathan’s to David, of one friend’s dying for another, and of those brave Romans who
died for their country, which history furnishes us withal, can by no means equal or come
near it; scarcely for a righteous man will one die, peradventure for a good man some
would even dare to die, says the apostle, Romans 5:7, 8 where he alludes[5] to the division
of the Jewish nation into three parts, which were these; First, There were µyqydx, or
righteous persons, who kept to the external letter of the law, and did, as they imagined,
what that required, but would do no more. Secondly, There were others called µydysj,
or good men, who were bountiful and liberal to the poor, and did more than the law
required in repairing the temple and maintaining of sacrifices, etc. But, Thirdly, there
were another sort who were called µy[çr, or wicked and ungodly persons, who had no
regard to the law, profligate wretches, the refuse of the people. Now for one of these
righteous ones, says the apostle, scarce any would die, because what he had done, he was
obliged by the law to do; peradventure for one of these good men, one to whom he had

been kind and liberal, a person would even dare to die; but who will die for the other sort,
the wicked and ungodly? not one; but God commendeth his love towards us, in that
while-we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; O matchless and unparalleled love!

8. As to its effect upon the hearts of sinners, it is surprising, comfortable, and rejoicing;
for souls, when but just let into it, begin that wonder which will last through out an
endless eternity; they now place an ecce, a behold before it, and say as the Jews did of
Christ, in regard to Lazarus, behold how he loved him! O how has he loved me, and me!
says one and the other; what manner of love is this! it is surprising, wonderful, passing
the love of women, as David said concerning Jonathan’s; and it being shed abroad in the
heart by the Spirit of God, fills the soul with an universal pleasure, with a joy
unspeakable and full of glory; the manifestations and discovery of it bear up the soul
under all the trials of life, and make it long to be in glory, that it may have its fill thereof,
wherefore it is no wonder the church here prefers it to wine, which,

Secondly, We shall now consider, The church had a real value for Christ’s person, and
therefore must needs esteem his love; his person being, to her, the chiefest among ten
thousands, his love must be preferable to all others; she hath tasted a real sweetness in it,
and hath seen the vanity and emptiness of all earthly enjoyments, and therefore prefers it
to wine; by which. is intended the most sumptuous banquet, with all the dainties, and
delightful entertainments thereof: nothing is so valuable as the love of Christ; O how
excellent is thy loving kindness! says the Psalmist, it is better than life, Psalm 36:7. and
63:3. and all the comforts, pleasures, and profits thereof. I will now endeavor to shew, in
a few particulars, wherein this love of Christ is better than wine.

1st, It is preferable to it for its antiquity; good old wine is accounted the best; and
therefore Christ says, No man having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new: for he
saith, the old is better, Luke 5:39. Age makes wine better, but not oil, as Plutarch
observes.[6] Now no wine is comparable to this of Christ’s love, for its antiquity; for, as
has been already shewn, it is a love which commences from everlasting; it does not bear
date with time, but was before time was, and will be when time shall be no more. The
Jews[7] often speak of wine, that has been reserved in the grape ever since the creation of
the world, which, they imagine, they shall drink in the earthly kingdom of the Messiah;
but this wine of divine love was laid up and reserved in the heart of Christ long before the
creation of the world: this excels all other wine for its antiquity.

2dly, It is preferable to wine for its purity; no wine so pure and unmixed as this of
Christ’s love; it is wine on the lees well refined, free from all the dregs of deceit,
hypocrisy, and dissimulation; it is a love unfeigned, a pure river of water of life.

3dly, It is better than wine, and is preferable to it for its freeness and cheapness; wine is
not every one’s liquor, every one’s purse cannot reach it, especially in some countries;
but this wine of Christ’s love, is to be had without money, and without price, than which
nothing can be cheaper; nor is any thing freer, for it is freely shed abroad in the hearts of
God’s people, by the Spirit.

4thly, For the plenty of it, it is preferable to wine; wine, as it is dear, so it is scarce in
some places; but this, as it is cheap, and to be had freely, so there is plenty of it: in the
marriage at Cana of Galilee, there was want of wine; but there is no want thereof in this
feast of love, which Christ has made for his spouse and bride: this is a river, nay, an
ocean of love, which flows forth in plentiful streams to poor sinners.

5thly, It is preferable to wine in the effects of it.

1. Wine will revive and cheer a man that is of an heavy heart, and therefore it is advised
to be given to such, Proverbs 31:6, yet it will not bring a man to life that is dead; but such
is the nature of Christ’s love, that when it is conveyed into the heart of a sinner, dead in
trespasses and sins, it makes him alive; for whenever it is a time of love to a poor sinner,
it is also a time of life; nay, it not only conveys life, but it maintains and supports it and
keeps souls from dying; he that has had it shed abroad in his heart, by the Spirit, shall
never die the second death.

2. Wine may remove a worldly heaviness, or a sorrow on the account of worldly things,
the things of time; but not of spiritual heaviness, or a sorrow on the account of the things
or another world, the things of eternity; but the manifestation of Christ’s love to the soul,
can remove this sorrow and heaviness, and fill it with a joy unspeakable and full of glory,
and give him that ease, comfort, and satisfaction of mind, he is wishing for:

3. If a man drinks never such large draughts of the wine of Christ’s love, it will never hurt
him, when other wine, with excessive drinking of it, not only wastes the estates, but
consumes the bodies, and destroys the health of men; but of this a man may drink freely
and plentifully, without doing himself any hurt; nay, it will be of considerable advantage
to him, and therefore says Christ, in chapter 5:1. Eat, O friends, yea, drink abundantly, O
my beloved.

No wonder then that the church was so desirous of enjoying Christ’s presence, and
having the manifestations of his love to her soul, seeing his tore is thus better than wine;
besides, it may be observed that she makes use of this as an argument with him to obtain
her request; and in so doing, shews what a value she had for the love of Christ, how much
she esteemed it, as also what it was she expected and sought after, in desiring communion
with him.

 

ENDNOTES:

[1] Midrash, Targum, R. Sol. Jarchi, and K. Aben Ezra, in loc.

[2] whyp twqyçnm uno tantum, vel altero de osculis oris fui, Michaelis. So Gusset.
Comment. Hebrews p. 446.

[3] Salmuth in Pancirol. Memorab. Rer. par. 1. tit. 46. p. 215.

[4] zydwd amore tri, Pagnius Mentanus, Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, etc.

[5] Vide Godwin’s Moses and Aaron, 1. 1: c 9.

[6] Sympos. 1. 7. p. 702

[7] Tarquin in Song of Solomon 8. 2. and Zohar in Genesis fol. 81, 4.

EXPOSITION

OF THE BOOK OF

SOLOMON’S SONG,

 

Chapter 1

VERSE 3.

Because of the savor of thy good ointments, thy name is as ointment poured
forth; therefore do the virgins love thee

 

The church having mentioned the excellency of Christ’s love, as the reason why she
desired such intimate communion with him, proceeds in these words to take notice of his
savory ointments and precious name; which were both so delightful, fragrant, and
odorous, that even the Virgins, those chaste creatures, were ravished, and had fallen in
love with him; and therefore it was no wonder that she, who was his spouse and bride,
should express her love to him, and be so desirous of his company. In these words we
have,

I. The savor of Christ’s ointments expressed.

II. The fragrancy and preciousness of Christ’s name declared:

III. The influence that all this has upon the hearts of the virgins, in attracting their love to
Christ: therefore do the virgins love thee.

I. The savor of Christ’s ointments is here expressed by the church, as having knowledge
of them herself, and as having observed the effect of them upon the hearts of others. By
ointments we are to understand the graces of the Spirit of God, that oil of gladness with
which Christ, as mediator, is anointed above his fellows; this was poured out without
measure upon him; it is like the precious ointment upon Aaron’s head, that ran down
upon his beard, and went down to the skirts of his garments; for this being poured upon
Christ, the head, descends to all his members, from him they receive that anointing,
which teacheth all things. In explaining these words, I will endeavor,

First, To shew why the graces of the Spirit in Christ, or in his members, are compared to
ointments.

Secondly, Why they are called Christ’s ointments.

Thirdly, In what sense they are said to be good. And,.40

Fourthly, What is meant by the savor of them.

First, I shall endeavor to shew why the graces of the Spirit, either in Christ or in saints,
are compared to ointments.

1st, With the holy anointing oil, which was made according to a divine prescription and
direction, kings, priests, and prophets were formerly anointed, and thereby installed into
their several offices: thus Saul, David and Solomon were anointed to be kings; thus Aaron
and his sons were anointed to be priests; and thus E1isha was anointed prophet in the
room of Elijah: now, as with this anointing oil these were anointed, and thereby installed
into their offices; so Christ, with the anointing oil of the Spirit, was anointed, and thereby
installed into those offices which he has taken upon him, and bears for the good of his
people; it is with this he is anointed to be king, and is set over God’s holy hill of Zion; it
is with this he is consecrated a priest for evermore, to offer sacrifice, and make
intercession for transgressors; and this same Spirit being upon him, he is anointed
therewith a prophet to “preach good tidings to the meek.” Christ: as the glorious God-
man, was anointed and installed into his office as mediator, from eternity; his human
nature was anointed with the Holy Ghost, at the time of its conception in the virgin’s
womb; and more visibly at his baptism, when the Spirit descended upon him as a dove;
and still more gloriously at his ascension to, and session at the Father’s right hand, when
he received from him the promise of the Spirit, and was made or declared to be both Lord
and Christ: and it is with the same unction that saints are by him made kings and priests
unto God; kings, because grace reigns in their hearts now, and they shall reign with
Christ in glory, for ever hereafter; priests, “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to
God by Jesus Christ.”

2dly, With this holy anointing oil, all the vessels of the tabernacle were anointed and
made fit for use; to which saints may be compared, who are chosen vessels, vessels of
mercy, that were fore-ordained for glory; now these, in their natural state, are not fit for
their master’s use; yet when anointed with this unction, they are not only fit for their
master’s present use here,, but are prepared for glory hereafter; the saints having the oil
of grace, as well as the lamps of profession, are ready to go in with the bridegroom,
whenever he comes and calls for them.

3dly, Anointing with oil was made use of for ornament; “it makes the face to shine,” as
the Psalmist says, Psalm 104:15. Christ, as man and mediator, is adorned with the grace
of the Spirit; he is “fairer than the children of men;” and the reason is, because “grace is
poured into his lips;” he has a larger measure of this “oil of gladness” than others, and
therefore is “the perfection of beauty;” he is “white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten
thousand;” and as Christ is, so the saints are adorned herewith, and become beautiful in
his eye, being “all glorious within:” by this grace they are purified and prepared, and so
presented as a chaste and beautiful virgin to Christ.

4thly, Anointing with oils or ointments was used for cheering and refreshing guests at
festivals, being very useful for this purpose in hot countries; the smell of which was very
delightful and pleasing;[1] hence Solomon says, “Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart;”
(Prov. 27:9) and for this reason Mary brought ointment and anointed the feet of Jesus, to
cool and refresh them while he sat at meat: these ointments, or graces of the Spirit, are
the oil of gladness, both to Christ and to his people; in the exercise of them, he, as man,
was delighted and refreshed, and so are his saints; the grace of the Spirit is, to them; the
oil of joy for mourning; he, by his sweet influences and delightful operations on their
souls, powerfully draws forth grace into exercise, and thereby administers much comfort
to them; they are oftentimes filled with joy and peace in believing, being made to abound
in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost.

5thly, Ointments are useful for mollifying and healing wounds, Isaiah 1:6. these being
applied, soften hard tumors, break them, and then heal them; the hearts of sinners are
hard and obdurate, being swelled with pride, vanity, and conceit of themselves; bat the
ointments of divine grace being applied, softens them, breaks these hard swellings, makes
their hearts contrite, and then heals them: Christ, the great physician, acting herein, like
the good Samaritan, who had compassion on the wounded man, and bound up his
wounds, pouring in oil and wine.

Secondly, We will now consider why these ointments are said to be Christ’s.

1st, They are of his making; as he is God, he has an all-sufficiency of grace in himself,
underived from any other, and is the author of all grace; this excellent composition is all
his own; this ointment is made and prepared by his own hand; the holy anointing oil,
though of God’s prescribing, yet it was not of his making, though according to the
composition of it, no other was to be made; but these ointments are not only prescribed,
but made by him, that is God; and none can make, according to the composition thereof;
which shews the excellency of them.

2dly, He is the subject of them; as God, he is the author and maker, but, as mediator, they
are communicated to him; they are poured into him, and upon him without measure; it
pleased the Father, that in him should all fullness dwell; they are his, not only because
made by him, but because they are in his possession; he is anointed with them above his
fellows.

3dly, They are his, because he has a right to dispose of them; they are his own as God,
being the maker of them; and they are his own as mediator, being given to him;
wherefore he may do what he will with them, as indeed he does; he gives these ointments
to whom he will, and he gives them freely and plentifully; he has a fullness of all grace in
himself, and from thence saints receive grace for grace. This ointment being poured
plentifully upon the head, runs down freely to all the members; these ointments are first
Christ’s, and then they are ours; he composed them as God, for our use and service, and
they were given to him as mediator, for that purpose; grace in Christ, and grace in us, are
of the same nature, though not of the same degree: grace in us is as in its streams, but
grace in Christ is as in its fountain; it is but a small measure we have, but it is an infinite,

and inexhaustible fullness that is in him; which may serve to recommend Christ to us, and
direct us where to go for these oils or ointments.

Thirdly, They are said to be good ointments, or oils; some oils are better than others, and
some places produced better than others: Tekoah was the chief place for oil in Judea, and
the next to it was Regab beyond Jordan;[2] no doubt but Solomon had the best. The oils or
ointments of the true Solomon are best of all. And of ointments there were various
sorts,[3] as of roses, lilies, almonds, nard, myrrh, saffron, etc. and Syria, a neighboring
country to Judea, was famous for some sorts of ointments, from whence Solomon might
be supplied.

1st, They are good in their own nature — are an excellent composition, there is no
ingredient in them but what is good; grace, as wrought in us, is called some good thing
toward the Lord God of Israel; it is a good work, which being begun, shall be performed
until the day of Christ.

2dly, These ointments are both made, and applied by a good hand; for he that has made
them,, and he that anoints us with them, is God: The ingredients are net only good, but
they are put together by a skillful hand; this unction is made by, and received from the
Holy One.

3dly, They are good in their effects: they are good to make the face to shine, to adorn the
saints, revive and refresh them; they are good to soften hard hearts, and heal wounded
spirits; they are good to anoint the eyes with, and thereby recover, continue, and increase
sight.

4thly, They are good in the believers esteem; they have had experience of their nature and
effects; and can write probatum est upon each of them; and therefore highly value them,
and with very good reason. For,

5thly, These ointments are exceeding rich and costly. The holy anointing oil was rich and
costly, being made of the. principle spices, but not to be comps, red with these; the
ingredients of which are preferable to gold and silver, to rubies, and all things that can be
thought of or desired; these are precious, rich, and costly ointments indeed.

6thly, Which makes them still more valuable, they never lose their efficacy; dead flies
cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor; corrupt it so that it
loses its virtue, and becomes good for nothing; grace cannot be lost and perish in the
saints; the anointing, which they receive, abides in them; it is. an immortal seed, a well of
living water, springing up into eternal life; and notwithstanding the dead flies of their sins
and corruptions, yet they cannot make the ointment of grace send forth a stinking savor;
corruptions do, but grace never will; it is not indeed always in exercise, but it never will
lose its nature or its virtue; the saints lamps shall never go out, being supplied with oil
from that fullness of it that is in Christ;

Fourthly, These ointments are said to have a savor in them; precious ointments have a
fragrancy[4] a sweet savor in them, very delightful; a greater savor has the grace of Christ
to a believer, who savors not the things of men, but the things of God; for, as the natural
man, he receiveth not, that is, he savors not, the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness, unsavory and insipid things unto him: these ointments can no more be savory
to a carnal man, than food can be relishing to a man of a vitiated taste, or music be
delightful to a deaf man, or colors pleasant to one that is blind; for as the one wants his
taste, the other his hearing, and the third his sight, so this man wants his smelling, and
therefore these ointments cannot be savory to him; but they are so to the believer, who
has his spiritual smelling; now by the savor of these ointments, is intended the
manifestation of Christ’s grace unto the soul; the sense and perception which souls have
of it, and their interest in it, fill them with pleasure and delight; and it was this which
made the virgins love Christ, and the church so desirous of his company. There is an
emphasis on the word thy; thy good ointments, none so odorous, so savory, and of so
grateful a smell as his; as lovers used to admire and commend each others ointments, by
which they sought to recommend themselves.[5]

II. The church in these words declares the fragrancy and preciousness of Christ’s name,
when she says, that his name is as ointment poured forth. It will be proper to enquire
what is intended by the name of Christ, and in what sense that may be said to be as
ointment poured forth.

1st, By the name of Christ may be meant his person, this being not an unusual way of
speaking in the scripture; thus in Revelation 3:4. “Thou hast a few frames,” that is,
persons, “even in Sardis,” etc. and in Matthew 12:21 “and in his name shall the Gentiles
trust,” that is, in the person of Christ shall the Gentiles trust; so here thy name is as
ointment poured forth, that is, thy person is as delightful, grateful, and odorous to me, as
the pouring forth a box of ointment; thou art altogether lovely to me, thy whole person is
so; every thing in thee is engaging, and thou hast every thing to render thee desirable to
me; all beauty, power, wisdom, and grace, are in thee, that it is no wonder the virgins
love thee; for not only thy mouth, but all of thee is lovely and desirable.

2dly, By it may be intended some one, or any of those names by which he is called. As,

1. The Messiah or Christ, which signifies anointed. So that in comparing it to ointment,
there may be an allusion to the signification of the name itself, and may more particularly
point out which name is intended, even the name Messiah, to which Christ, in the New
Testament, answers; which, though not very frequently met with in the Old Testament,
yet was well known to the ancient Jews, as appears from their Targums, where it is made
use of in upwards of sixty places, in which the Redeemer is treated of;[6] and as it was
well known, so it was highly esteemed of by them; they expected him who was to redeem
Israel, under this title and character; and when he was come, and had revealed himself
unto some, in an exulting manner they said one to another, We have found the Messiah,
which is, being interpreted, the Christ; that name had been always precious to the saints,
who waited for the consolation of Israel, and was then like a box of ointment poured
forth, exceeding grateful, delightful, and refreshing to them.

2. Another name by which Christ is called, and which may be said to be as “ointment
poured forth,” is the name Jesus, which signifies a Savior, and was given him, because he
“saves his people from their sins.” Christ is, in the everlasting gospel, revealed as a
Savior; it is therein declared, that the design of his coming into the world was to save
sinners, and that he has obtained eternal salvation for them, and is both able and willing
to save the chief of them; the discovery the gospel makes of him is exceeding delightful
and pleasant to awakened sinners. This name Jesus, a Savior, how sweet is it to such who
have seen the exceeding sinfulness of sin, themselves lost and undone thereby, and in a
perishing state and condition! the news of a Savior are good news and glad “tidings of
great joy” unto them; the discovery of it is like the breaking open a box of ointment, and
pouring it out; it at once removes the filthy stench of sin from the sinners nostrils, and
that sadness and sorrow of heart which arise from the guilt of it upon the conscience.

3. Christ’s name, Immanuel, may be said to be as “ointment poured forth,” which
signifies “God with us;” and there are two things in it which make it like “ointment
poured forth,” that is, exceeding odorous and grateful to believers.

(1.) That he is God; hence they know, and are well assured, that he is able to save them;
that the work is not too heavy for him; that he has not undertaken that which he is not
able to accomplish, which they would have reason to believe, if he was only a creature:
from hence they comfortably conclude, as well they may, that all he did was efficacious,
and answered the purposes for which it was done; as that his sacrifice was effectual to
atone for and expiate sin; his blood to procure the pardon of it, and thoroughly cleanse
from it; his righteousness to justify from all sin, and render them acceptable in the sight
of God; and all this, because they are the sacrifice, blood, and righteousness of one that is
God. From this name they also gather, that he having taken the care and charge of them,
is able to keep them from falling; and that none is able to pluck them out of his hands, no
more than they can separate them from his heart, which they could not be so assured of,
was he a creature.

(2.) Another thing which makes this name like “ointment poured forth,” is, that he is
“God with us;” God dwelling and conversing with us, God in our nature, God manifest in
the flesh; hence it appears, that he who is the great God, and our Savior, is near akin to
us, and we to him; being “flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone,” we are both of one
and the same nature, and therefore he is not ashamed to call us brethren; and his
assuming our nature, gives him a right, as well as makes him a proper person to be our
Goel or Redeemer, whereby all the blessings, which he procured in this nature, are
communicated to us, and not to angels; now what makes this name still more sweet,
savory and delightful, is, that he, who is Immanuel, God with us, God in our nature, is,
and will be on our side; and if God be with us, and for us, who shall be against us?

4. Christ’s name, “the Lord our righteousness,” may be said to be as “ointment poured
forth,” by which he is called, Jeremiah 23:6 this is exceeding grateful, sweet and precious
to a poor sinner; one who has seen his own righteousness as filthy rags, and as an unclean
thing, how does he value Christ as the Lord his righteousness! he counts all things but
loss and dung, in comparison of him, and desires only to be found in him, and in his

righteousness, and not in his own; but what makes this so exceeding precious to him, is,
because it acquits from all sin, and secures from all wrath and condemnation, and renders
him spotless, unblameable, and irreproveable in the sight of God.

5. Any, or all of those names of Christ, in Isaiah 9:6 may be said to be as “ointment
poured forth,” they being exceeding precious and delightful to believers; such as
wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, and prince of peace.
Christ’s name “Wonderful,” is so; he being wonderful in his incarnation and grace, in his
person and offices, in his works, relations and characters; this emits a sweet odor to
believers, even like a box of ointment opened to them: and so is his name “counsellor;”
under which character he acted from everlasting, consulting with the other two persons,
our eternal welfare in the ancient council of peace; and still continues to Bear this
character, which he makes good, by giving to us the best advice and most wholesome
counsel, and this he does freely and faithfully: his name, “the mighty God,” carries in it
as much sweetness and comfort to the believer, as it does greatness and majesty; and that
endearing title, the “everlasting Father,” who, as such, loves his children with an
everlasting love, and has made everlasting provisions for them, and takes everlasting care
of them, fills those he stands thus related to, with the utmost pleasure: and that noble
character, the “Prince of Peace,” which he bears on the account of his having, obtained
peace by “the blood of his cross,” for rebellious sinners, so sweetly diffuses the odor of
his grace, that it charms and captivates the believer’s heart. The names of true lovers are
dear to each other, to which the allusion is; they love to hear their names mentioned,
which are as precious ointment, as delicious nectar.[7] Or else,