cidental coincidence The Book takes its name from the spiritual sense: The Song of Songs, i. e. The most sublime song. It appears, then, from sufficient proof, that the spiritual interpretation of the Song of Solomon is the correct one. The common objection, that those who explain it allegorically differ so much from one another, is not to be charged to the Book itself, but to its interpreters. This difference has arisen from the fact that these persons misapprehending the figurative character of the Old Testament, and destitute of practical feeling, without any fixed principle, have explained every figure as if they had found in it an allusion to some event in history, or to the state of experimental religion among God's people. This mode of interpretation is inconsistent with the character of the Song of Solomon, in which there is so much ornament. We cannot find for every individual figure, a correspondent reality, but we must collect them into one grand picture, and then we may easily discover what is referred to. Thus, in the representation of the beauty and loveliness of the Beloved, we need go no farther for an explanation, than to an expression of the love of God to his people. A comparison of other oriental poets, who in like manner represent the love of God by human affection, would be instructive. If any one will interpret this Poem, upon such principles as we have advanced, he will avoid the arbitrary manner in which both early and late critics have, so improperly, explained it; and the difference of interpretations, so often urged as an argument against the allegorical method, will disappear entirely. If, then, the spiritual interpretation of the Song of Solomon be the correct one, it is certainly worthy of a place *In the German Bible. the name of the Song of Solomon is The High Song. in the Sacred Canon, from which some would, on various accounts, reject it. While, however, some thus seek to degrade this Book, others, in early times, went so far in praise of it, as to place it before every other one in the Old Testament. If this preference be proper, why is it that it is never expressly quoted either by our Saviour or his apostles? Although we are far from questioning the inspiration of the Song of Solomon, we cannot but rank it beneath the prophetical writings. It may possibly appear that the figurative is too abundant in this Poem. The Prophets make use of the same comparisons, but the object, to wit, the moral relation of Jehovah to the Jews, is ever obvious; in the Song of Solomon, the figures may, on the contrary, be too far-fetched for perspicuity. Finally, it is a disputed point among those who interpret this Book allegorically, whether it is the object, to represent the relation which the Almighty sustained to the Jewish nation, or that of Christ to the whole church, or his relation to every soul. It may be gathered from our defence of the allegorical interpretation, on which side the truth is found. Most of the arguments which favour such an explanation, go to show that the relation of Jehovah to the Jewish nation is the subject of the allegory. The question, whether the relation of Christ to his Church is represented, must be answered negatively, if it be asserted that the Poem has no reference whatever to the Old Testament times; negatively too, when it is taken entirely out of its historical connection, and made to refer prophetically to the love of Christ for his New Testament Church. It may, on the other hand, be answered affirmatively, inasmuch as the God, of whose love to his people in the ancient church we have a representation, is the same as Christ who, in all ages, has revealed the glory of the Godhead to men, and who, to lay the foun dation of the new covenant, shed his own blood for them. Affirmatively too, inasmuch as the church of the Old and New Testament stands in the same relation to Christ; and as sin, and grace, backslidings, and returns, the subjects represented by the figurative language of the Song of Solomon, are constantly repeated in both. This Poem may represent the relation of Christ to every Christian, only so far as the history of the Children of Israel is the history of every believing soul. It can thus be accommodated to the relation of an individual soul to Christ, and in no other way. Great care is here necessary: a false interpretation of the Song of Solomon may lead to the invention of a mysticism, or may be applied to the adorning of one already existing, which has more affinity with the doctrines of the Persian Soofies than with the gospel; thus degrading holy things, while it perverts the moral relation of Christ to the soul into something romantic, creating thus a kind of spiritual intoxication, destructive to Christian humility and self-denial. It is certainly, not without design, that in the Holy Scriptures, the relation of God or Christ to the individual soul, is never represented under the figure of a marriage. For although the relation to His church and to the individual members may be substantially the same, in the former case, there would be much less room for abuse than in the latter. |