and the Rabboth: to which he might have added David Kimchi, and a few others, which he consulted, perhaps only occasionally. The books of Zohar and Rabboth are not comments on this book, yet they afford many occasional illustrations in the Jewish manner. These writers, who are all disposed to allegorize, are by no means more unanimous than the Christian commentators; with whom also they agree in generally turning the figures as much as possible in honour of their church and priesthood: ex. gra. They tell you the eyes of the church intend its doctors, as if the laity were always blind. Blessed be God, he permits and encourages us to see with our own eyes.

The Canticles were pretty early a favourite book with the fathers, and (as then understood) suited the genius of Origen to a tittle. He wrote copiously on this book, and in the comment translated by Jerome, he is said, by that father, as much to have excelled himself, as in his other works he did all contemporary writers; which was certainly intended as a compliment.

Gregory, of Nyssa, wrote fifteen homilies, containing an allegorical exposition as far as the middle of the sixth chapter. He was followed by Eusebius, Cyprian, and others, who were fond of this book, apparently, because it gave them a favourable opportunity to display their wit and ingenuity in allegorizing.

St. Bernard wrote eighty-six sermons on the two first chapters, of which the best I can say is,

that they are commended by Erasmus, doubtless for their piety and unction.

I

CALMET has given a long list of authors of the middle ages, who have attempted to explain this book; of whom little is known but that they exist in some ecclesiastical libraries; even the names of the following only seem worth enumerating.

Venerable Bede wrote seven books on this subject, or rather six, for the seventh is copied entirely from Gregory the Great. This work was intended as a defence of the doctrines of Grace against the Pelagians!

The commentary of Foliot, bishop of London in the 12th century, with the compendium of Alcuin, was printed in 1638, and is repeatedly referred to by Dr. Gill. Of Thomas Aquinas' comment, the only thing I know remarkable is, that it is said to have been dictated on his deathbed.

Scotus is favourably spoken of by Poole as not one of the last to be named of this period2.

Genebrand, a learned benedictine, wrote two comments, a larger and smaller, both in the lat ter part of the sixteenth century and his work is distinguished by collections from the Rabbins. He was a zealous advocate for the church of Rome, and died Bishop of Aix, A. D. 1597.

1 Biblioth. sac. art. 5. in 3d. volume of his great dictionary.

2 Syn. Crit. vol. II. Pref.

Gasper Sanctius (or Sanchez) a very laborious Spanish jesuit, who wrote critical notes on most of the old Testament, and particularly on the Canticles, died in 1628, aged 75.

Bossuet, Bp. of Meaux, was the first writer, I believe, who divided this book into seven parts, answerable to the seven days of the Jewish weddings he has also some critical remarks on the beauty of Solomon's imagery, literally considered. This eloquent prelate lived to the beginning of the 18th century.

Mercerus, or Mercier, is a very learned commentator on this song, and the book of Proverbs, whose notes are chiefly critical. He was professor of Hebrew at Paris; and died in 1562.

Cocceius, professor of theology at Leyden, was a learned and evangelical man; but strongly addicted to allegorical exposition. This writer hath been placed in contrast with Grotius; and it has been said, that the former found Christ every where in the Scripture, and the latter no where. He died in the close of the 17th century.

Hufnagel and Dathe are foreign writers, which I have not seen, but have been favoured with some beautiful extracts by a friend.

Bochart, though not a commentator on this book, hath learnedly explained such passages as refer to its natural history and geography. Of English commentators the following are the most considerable :

Thomas James, D. D. published a curious exposition of this book at Oxford, in 1607, which was entirely extracted from the fathers, with whom

he was well acquainted, and had good opportuni ties of consulting, being, if I mistake not, public librarian at Oxford.

Henry Ainsworth's learned, though concise comment on this book, was first printed in England, in 1626; and at Franckfort, in the German language, 1693. This is a most valuable expositor, and one of the first of our countrymen that paid a proper attention to the literal meaning of the Old Testament, which he illustrated by quotations from the Rabbins.

James Durham printed his exposition first at Edinburgh, in 1668, at London in 1695, and at Utrecht in 1681. His remarks are sweet and savery, and he was the model of most succeeding expositors, who have treated this book rather with a regard to the spiritual improvement of the reader, than with a critical view to the genuine meaning of the writer.

In 1609 the pious bishop Hall published an open and plain paraphrase' upon this book, in which I confess the allegory is treated with more modesty and judgment than by some later divines.

Bishop Patrick produced his paraphrase and annotations on this song in 1700. Beside investigating the literal sense, with considerable pains, he has, in the paraphrase, allegorized the whole, in which the Rabbins and the fathers are his avowed guides.

A host of English writers have indeed written commentaries and sermons on this book, the most considerable of whom, beside the above, are John Dove, John Trapp, Arthur Jackson, and Dr. Collinges, whose writings, especially the last's,

are evangelical and practical; but throw little light, in my humble conception, on the true meaning of the book.

Though the learned Dr. John Owen is not a professed commentator on this song, in his Com⚫ munion with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' he has given one of the best spiritual explications of the most interesting passages.

We come now to the present century. At the head of this must be placed the learned and laborious Dr. Gill, whose praise is in all the churches.' His Exposition was first printed in 1728, and here the Dr. hath collected every thing valuable he could find, critical or spiritual, either in Jewish or Christian writers. This was improved and enlarged in successive editions, of which the fourth has been lately printed.

But with all due deference to so great a name, this work appears to me to have capital defects :1. It confounds and intermixes the literal and allegorical senses, so as to give neither distinct nor complete. 2. It collects (like the fisher's net) such a quantity of observations, good and bad, as appears to me rather to confuse than to instruct. 3. By applying the several figures to so great a variety of objects, it leaves us still to seek the right. But my chief objection is, 4. To the minute dissection of the allegory, which appears to me to destroy both its consistency and beauty, and expose it far too much to the ridicule of profane minds'.

1 I have omitted mentioning, The Fair Circassian, a poem imitated from the Song of Solomon,' printed in 1720 and written by Dr. Croxall in early life, which is indeed

Р