nature of Rutherford’s Letters.^13 Unfortunately, there is no Protestant counterpart to
Ann Matter’s study of the medieval usage of the Song of Songs for the Puritans.^14
While Protestants and Western Catholics shared a dependence upon the same
Scripture that should not imply that they always derived an identical meaning.
George Scheper distinguishes between the monastic and Puritan usage that while
similar in exegetical approach yielded a different metaphor.^15 Susan Hardman Moore
suggests that a significant distinction between the monastic and Puritan use of Song
of Songs focuses on the increased practice of marriage in the Puritans.^16 While the
monastic and Medieval Church leaders were required to practice celibacy and extol
virginity, many Puritan leaders were married. This would lead to a differing
awareness around gender and the soul. Indeed Puritans encouraged young couples to
think in terms of “double marriage”, looking not only at the prospect of earthly
marriage but also considering the greater joy of heavenly marriage with Jesus.^17 This
theme will be explored in greater depth later in this chapter.
Historical Roots of Spiritual Marriage
McGinn reminds readers that until the twelfth-century the language of union
with God was not particularly common. This change was related to a number of
interacting features including the Dionysian emphasis upon ascent and reaching the
(^13) Coffey, Theology and the Br (^) itish Revolutions, 108-9. Rutherford also used Sg
2:14 14 - 17 for his sermon, Christ and the Doves.
Matter, Voice of My Beloved. Another standard work on the medieval period is
Astell, Song of Songs in Middle Ages. Clarke, Rewriting the Bride, is the best remedy
for this vacuum. cf. Scheper, “Reformation and Song of Songs” and Williams,
“Puritan Enjoyment of God,” 177 15 - 211.
16 Scheper, “Reformation and Song of Songs,” 557-8.^
(^17) See Godbeer, Hardman Moore, “Sexing the Soul,” 179.Sexual Revolution in Early^ America, 74.