A review of other Puritan Song of Songs commentaries further substantiates this
understanding.^31
Further, there is some debate whether the usage of ravishment declined in
prominence in the later half of the seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century.
On the one hand, Godbeer asserts the “references to Christ as husband and lover
became more frequent and more vividly detailed in the late seventeenth century” and
into the eighteenth-century.^32 Conversely Winship maintains “this imagery grew far
more restrained ... after the turn of the eighteenth century.”^33 While the usage
appears to have greatly diminished in writings of those who remained faithful to the
Church of England, this does not hold true for nonconformist sources as evidenced by
the popular eighteenth-century commentaries of Matthew Henry and John Gill.^34 In
summary, while the Puritans in general and Ambrose in particular were clearly
indebted to Bernard and other medieval sources these writings were read through the
lens of the Protestant Reformation.^35
Desire and Motivation
Ambrose understood the great importance of “befriending our desires”^36 and
this topic occupies a major place in his contemplative-mystical writings. Moreover,
his emphasis upon desire and yearning for God was a theme present in Bernard,
31
(^32) Godbeer See for example Ainsworth, Sexual Revolution, 56, 355n58. cf. Rambuss, Solomons Song of Songs, n.p.Closet Devotions^ , 134-5.
(^33) Winship, “Behold the Bridegroom Cometh”, 171. cf. Belden Lane, “Two Schools
of Desire,” 401. While some of this debate is specifically focused on bridal imagery
this was always closely connected with the use of ravishment. 34
Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible and Gill, Exposition of Song of Solomon
consisted of 122 sermons preached on this book. 35
See Williams, “Puritanism: Piety of Joy,” 6n17. cf. Williams, “Puritan Enjoyment
of God,” 15. (^36) Sheldrake, (^) Befriending Our Desires, 17, cf. 47.