mystical end.”^43 However, in practice, even the distinctions between typologies and
allegories could blur.^44
Further, the Puritans recognized that some passages were allegorical in nature,
such as the Song of Songs. Durham distinguished between an “allegoric exposition of
scripture, and an exposition of allegoric scripture: the first is that which many fathers
and schoolmen fail in, that is, when they allegorize plain scriptures and histories,
seeking to draw out some secret meaning, other than appeareth in the words; and so
will fasten many senses upon one scripture.”^45 Therefore, Durham maintains that the
Song of Songs is to be read allegorically.^46 Most Puritans readily agreed with this
assessment^47 , though they also understood that Solomon was a “type” of Christ.^48
This Puritan sensitivity to allegories, figures of speech, and typology unsettles
the assumption that the Protestant Reformation fully embraced the literal sense of
Scripture. Brevard Childs corrects this distorted thinking, “[i]n the post-Reformation
period ... both the orthodox Lutherans and Calvinists had almost immediate difficulty
in maintaining the unity of the literal sense which increasingly was fragmented in
different levels of meaning.”^49 In reality the literal reading of Scripture had been
emphasized by Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) long before Luther’s resistance to
43
Durham, Song of Solomon, 30. Benjamin Keach authored one of the primary works
of typology. Lowance, Language of CanaanTropologia: Key to Metaphors, esp. 16-27.. For an overview to typology see
(^44) Schneiders, “Scripture and Spirituality,” 17. cf. Williams, “Puritan Enjoyment of
God,” 182n117. 45
46 Durham, Song of Solomon, 43.^
47 Durham, Song of Solomon, 30.^
48 Williams, “Puritan Enjoyment of God,” 183 and Knott, Sword of Spirit, 53.^
Lowance, Language of Canaan, 46-7 and Williams, “Puritan Enjoyment of God,”
181n114. (^49) Childs, “Sensus Literalis of Scripture,” 87. (^)