WHISTON, Who lays great stress upon them, and knew how to do them justice. I shall reduce them to two or three.

I. That there is no foundation for an allego'rical 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: nay farther, 'that the use and introduction of double 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"."

:

What foundation there is for an allegorical sense in this book I have endeavoured to shew above and if this be admitted, then is the book full of morality and virtue, God and religion, 'the Messiah and his kingdom,' as will appear in the subjoined commentary.

The objection to the antiquity of allegory is evidently unfounded. Solomon employs it both in his Proverbs and Ecclesiastes'; Nathan's parable to David was earlier, and that of Jo

1 Some writers have added, that the name of God does not occur in this book, as an additional objection to its inspiration. But this is, 1st. childish and nugatory; neither does it occur in the book of Esther, which is much longer : 2d. It is false; the name JAH (a contraction of Jehovah) Occurring in chap. viii. 6. Not to say that the Messiah is designated throughout as a bridegroom, as by the prophets. 2 Supplement to his Essay toward restoring the Text of the Old Testament, p. 12, 13, 22.

3 Prov. viii. Eccles. xii.

4 2 Sam. xii. 1.

tham' still more ancient; not to appeal to the writings of Moses, nor to the 45th psalm above considered.

As a kind of supplement to this objection, another writer observes, that in all other allegories 'there is something to fix the design, and to as'sist us in finding out their meaning;' as well as 'to oblige us to allegorize' in explaining them : whereas this affords no key to the allegory, and admits a literal exposition2.

But neither of these assertions is correct and true. Nathan's parable had so little in it that appeared allegorical, that David took it for a true narrative and Solomon's allegory in Ecclesiastes has been much disputed. The keys to most allegories are to be found in their history, when no explanation is subjoined. The key of this song is to be found in the 45th psalm and other parts of scripture, where the like imagery is employed in the same way. The necessity of allegorizing this book, if not apparent in the book itself, is sufficiently evident from the arguments in favour of its allegorical design: and the difficulty of otherwise accounting for its admission and con. tinuance in the Canon. Nor can this be accounted for, as this writer pretends, from the Jews' partiality to Solomon and his writings; otherwise, why did they not insert the Book of Wisdom, and other ancient pieces which bear his name? Nor is it likely that the Christians should adopt it out of complaisance to the Jews, sincc

1 Judges ix. & Dissertation on Solomon's Song, 1751.

the first Christians were above this suspicion, and the later ones would rather have rejected than received it on that account. But to return to Mr.. Whiston; he objects,

2dly. That neither the contemporary nor succeeding writers of the Old Testament, ever quote or allude to it :-neither the apocryphal writers -neither Philo nor Josephus-neither Christ nor his apostles-nor any writers of the first century, though many of these were much given to allegories and allegorical interpretation.—In this objection I have condensed several of my authors, and therefore must answer them distinctly.

I am not certain that any of the other sacred writers expressly cite, or transcribe from this canticle but the same may be said, not only of many of the psalms, and perhaps of Job, but of Esther, Nehemiah, and some other books; and is therefore of no force. Yet it is most certain, as already shewn, that other sacred writers, both of the Old Testament and the New, employ the same figures, borrow many of the expressions, and allude, it is probable, to many passages, as may be seen by references in the margin", and more fully in the commentary. And if this po

1 So Dr. Durell, (Remarks on Canticles) It is not quoted, or most distantly alluded to, in the sacred wri'tings.'

2 Besides the passages above cited compare the following: Cant. i. 4. with John vi. 44.

sition be disputable, it can only be from the similarity of style in the sacred books, which makes it doubtful what passages are referred to, and forms therefore an argument in favour of our hypothesis.

The like may be said of the apocryphal writers, and others named in the objection, as might be shewn, if it were worth while to be minute. The evidence of Josephus has been considered; and Philo has few quotations from the scriptures. As to the fathers, if some of them have omitted quoting this book, we have its authority expressly allowed by Melito, and Origen was one of its most celebrated early commentators: and though we consider the apostolical constitutions, so highly praised by Mr. Whiston, as an imposture, it may be worth observing, that this author twice speaks of the little foxes which destroy the vineyards, in allusion to this book; and these passages seem to have given him no little trouble'.

SECTION VII.

FORMER COMMENTATORS, WITH THE PLAN OF THE FOLLOWING WORK.

MY last object is to give a kind of historic sketch of the expositions of this book, and a hasty view of the principal writers on it; noticing par. ticularly such as I have consulted; and pointing out to the reader the method adopted in this work. It must not be expected, however, that in any class I should enumerate them all, for their name is legion.

The Jewish commentators shall take the lead; and first, the TARGUM, or Chaldee paraphrase on this book, which is very full and copious, and supposed to have been written by Joseph the blind, or one-eyed. That this is not of the high antiquity which some of the Jews pretend, is evident from its containing the notion of two Messiahs, which is modern; as well as from its mention of the Talmud, which was not completed till about A. D. 500. A translation of this was added by Dr. Gill to the first edition of his Exposition.

The Jewish commentators mentioned, and consulted by Dr. Gill' (a master in this walk of learning,) are, beside the Targum, Shirhashirim, Rabba, Sol. Ben Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Alshech, and Talkut Simeoni, with the books of Zohar

1 Pref. to Expos