in general, the reader will find in the essay of Professor Hahn, which is contained in the present number of this work. My design in the above remarks, is merely to give a general sketch of the state of feeling and opinion in the church, in past times, with reference to many parts of the Old Testament Scriptures; and particularly, in regard to such parts as have been supposed to contain a reference to the Messiah.

So long as such a method of interpretation prevailed, we need not wonder that little or no difficulty was found in the explanation of the sixteenth Psalm. David was the person, who was regarded as being primarily and literally meant, throughout most of the Psalm. Now and then, indeed, the writer looked beyond his immediate theme, and cast a prophetic glance on him of whom David was held to be a distinguished type, i. e. the Messiah. In this way it was easy to proceed with the interpretation of the whole Psalm. Whatever might seem to fit David better than Christ, was referred to David; and whatever could not well be applied to him, e. g. more or less of vs. 9— 11, was applied to the Messiah. So, for instance, Calvin does; from whom one might expect better things, since he stands so pre-eminent above all the other commentators of his day, as to acuteness, sound judgement, and nice logical discrimination. But in respect to the sixteenth Psalm, he gives the contents thus: "Initio David se Dei tutelae commendat; deinde ex meditatione beneficiorum ad gratias agendas se accendit. Et tanquam suo cultu nihil Deo commodet, se tamen unice addicit, et a superstitionibus alienum fore testatur. Causam quoque addicit, quia plena et solida sit felicitas, in uno Deo acquiescere, qui nihil suis deesse patitur." In other words, It is David who speaks in Ps. XVI; who commends himself to God, declares his firm adherence to him only in distinction from all idol gods, expresses his thanks for mercies received, and his confidence that it will still be well with him.' In this way, the last three verses of the Psalm, which doubtless presented a difficulty to the mind of the great reformer, are passed by with a simple in uno Deo acquiescere, qui nihil suis deesse patitur.

But let us see how he manages vs. 9-11, when he comes to particulars in his commentary. Vs. 10 he applies wholly to David. "Because," says he," God protects our souls, and also our bodies, David had good reason to represent his flesh as participating in the favour of dwelling in security." Vs. 11 he applies literally to David also, representing its author as declar

ing by it, that 'he confidently expected to be redeemed from the grave, and not to remain always there in a state of corruption.'

So then, the sentiment of the writer is not that the body should not putrefy in the grave, but that it should not always remain there in a state of putrifaction; directly in the very face of Peter, in Acts 2: 29-32, and of Paul, Acts 13: 34-37. But after proceeding thus far, he seems to call to mind that Peter and Paul have commented upon this passage, and to feel his obligation to pay a deference to their opinion. "Unless Christ," says he, "had come forth from the grave, the first fruits of those who rise from the dead, mankind would have always remained in a state of corruption. Hence Peter with good reason draws the inference (Acts 2: 30), that David could not thus have gloried, unless by a prophetic spirit, and in consequence of having respect to the author of life promised to him, who alone was to be endowed with such a privilege," viz. of bringing dead bodies from the grave. Still we see David only, in the text of the Psalm; David expressing a hope, which indeed relies upon the expected victory of the Messiah over the powers of death, but which refers to this tacitly or by implication merely, and not in express words. The difficulty, however, still presses upon the mind of Calvin. He is not prepared to overlook it wholly, or to pass it by without another effort to dispose of it. "That Peter," says he, "in Acts 2: 30, and Paul in Acts 13: 33, contend that this prophecy was fulfilled only in the person of Christ, you must construe thus; he (Christ) was entirely and altogether exempt from the corruption of the sepulchre, that gradually (gradatim) and in a manner accommodated to the condition of each, he might call his members (Christians) to be associated with himself." He then goes on to say, that " as all men go down to the grave, and there are subject to corruption, fulness of life (i. e. full exemption from the corruption of the grave) belongs exclusively to Christ the head; and flows only guttatim et per partes, by drops and limited portions, to the members," i. e. to Christians.

So then, after all, we come to a double sense. 'Entire freedom from corruption, was never had, or to be had, except by Christ alone. Therefore Peter and Paul could apply v. 10 to him.' But if they could rightly do this, then v. 10 must designate entire freedom from corruption; otherwise it belongs only to David, or at most, to all the pious who have the like hopes with

David. If Calvin's real opinion can be gathered, from such confused and dark expressions as those which have now been cited, I should think it must be this: That the whole Psalm, so far as the words are concerned, really and truly applies to David; that at the same time, David could not have thus spoken, unless he had entertained a hope of a resurrection from the grave, through Christ, whom in prophetic vision he anticipated, and foresaw that his resurrection would procure that of his followers. In a high and full sense, (ἐν πληρώσει, ἐν τῷ πληρω ova,) the Psalmist must have intended his words in v. 10 to be applicable only to the Messiah; but in a modified sense, guttatim et per partes, they may be construed of David or any other saint, and David intended them for himself.

This then is a double sense; although it is indeed teaching it by innuendo, or, as the Jewish Rabbins say, or 27, by hint, allusion, in a kind of allegorical or enigmatical way. That Calvin himself had formed any clear and definite idea of the principle of interpretation to be applied here, no one, I think, can well believe, who examines the tenor of his exegesis. That he should have had any difficulty, however, in coming out fully with a mystical interpretation, i. e. with a double sense, I cannot well understand; for in his commentary on the second Psalm, and on the twenty-second, he fully recognizes such a sense, making the literal application to David, and the spiritual one to Christ.

Verse 11 he applies to the resurrection of the Psalmist and of the pious to everlasting life, through Christ their head, in the like manner as v. 10 is explained.

How convenient such a method of interpretation is, too many critics have long since discovered. Whatever one cannot well apply to David the type, may of course be referred to Christ the antitype. Where it would cost much study and trouble, and demand an extensive and accurate knowledge of the Hebrew language and idiom, in order to determine the precise nature and value of an expression in the Old Testament, the interpreter, who is hastening his work, or shrinks from protracted labour and minute investigation, or is wanting in that knowledge of the Hebrew which will enable him to pursue an investigation to its ultimate sources, makes use of the very simple expedient of applying one part of a passage to some individual in a literal sense, and another part to Christ, in a high and spiritual sense. The commentator is the more contented

with all this; because he can plead the example of ancient days, and of a great multitude of expositors in every age of the church. He is insensible, perhaps, at the same time, that the difficulty of making out another exegesis, which would refer a Psalm wholly to David, or wholly to Christ, has in reality been with him the most persuasive and powerful argument.

Can we believe that Grotius, who has been accused of 'finding Christ no where' in the Old Testament, adopts more fully than Calvin, the double sense of the sixteenth Psalm? Read a part of his note on v. 10. "Sensus historicus (latet enim mysticus, sublimior, ut in plerisque Psalmis,) est hic: Quanquam undique opprimor a Saule, tamen certus sum, ex promissione regni mihi facta, non fore ei potestatem me interficiendi." That is, the historic or literal and primary sense of the verse is, not that the Psalmist should be raised from the grave, or that he should not be suffered to putrefy there, but that he should not be permitted at all to be brought there; in other words, that although he might be in great danger, yet he should certainly be preserved from death. At the same time, this distinguished commentator says, that "a mystical and more sublime sense lies hid under the words " of this Psalm; and adds, that "such is the case with most of the Psalms."

It does appear to me, that this last declaration of Grotius developes something which is not altogether ingenuous, an accommodation to the prevailing opinions of his day, which ill became such a man. If most of the Psalms have a 'mystical and more sublime sense' than what appears by the letter of them, then why has not Grotius intimated this, in his notes upon them? And why has he generally interpreted the Old Testament, and of course the Psalms along with the rest, in such a way as to leave no small room for the saying so often repeated, that he found Christ no where?'

6

The hint of Grotius, that the historical sense of vs. 9-11, applies only to the exemption of David from imminent danger, and the bestowing on him subsequent peace and happiness in the present world, has been taken up by others, and has now become the predominant exegesis of neological commentators.

Le Clerc, as one might expect, treads in the steps of Grotius his predecessor and favourite model. "Hæc (says he) de Davide intellecta, hoc tantum sibi volunt, non passurum fuisse Deum ut occideretur, ac proinde in sepulchrum conjectus illic relinqueretur, ita ut caro ejus in eo jaceret ;" i. e. preservation from danger merely, not a resurrection from the dead, is meant.

But the secondary sense, what says Le Clerc to this? He says, "that it is evident the ancient Jews so interpreted the prophecies, that when they were fulfilled only in certo sensu eoque dilutiore, and contained something which might be applied in a higher sense to Christ, they were accustomed to make this latter application. This usage the apostles followed, as in Acts 11. and xiii. Inasmuch as the words of this Psalm are ἐμφατικώτεροι, and something greater than the literal sense is intended, Peter (in Acts 11.) applies them to the resurrection of Christ." He then refers to other interpreters, in order that the reader may satisfy himself about this point; and adds at the close, "de primo sensu potissimum agere aggressi sumus."

There is then, even according to this very liberal commentator, a secundus sensus, which he (pro pace cum eruditis?) admits in a cursory way, but on which he cannot spend time to dwell; all which is rather less ceremonious than the demeanour of Grotius, and I fear about equally sincere.

In Grotius and Le Clerc's first and historical sense, one finds, as has already been intimated, the kernel of all that the later commentators of the liberal school, have avowed and maintained respecting the Psalm in question. For substance, Ruperti, Rosenmüller, De Wette, and Gesenius, with a multitude of less distinguished writers, have embraced and maintained the same sentiment. It is a matter of some curiosity and interest, to see how these critics dispose of the commentary of Peter and Paul, in Acts II. and XIII.

Ruperti, in an exegesis published in the Commentationes Theologica by Velthusen, Kuinöl, and Ruperti, (Vol. I. 104 seq. Vol. II. 199 seq.) speaking of referring Ps. XVI. to the Messiah, says: "Quae interpretatio non modo ab orationis poeticae, Ebraeorum in primis, indole et natura abhorret, sed ne notioni quidem Messiae, qualem Judaei ab omni tempore sibi informabant, respondet. Hi enim Messiam sibi heroem, victorem, regemque potentissimum, non sacerdotem vel hominem, cum adversa fortuna multisque aerumnis conflictantem, fingebant." He then goes on to say, that "if any one without prejudice, and who is endowed with a relish for Hebrew poetry, and unacquainted with what the New Testament teaches, and what ancient and modern commentators have inculcated, should read the sixteenth Psalm, he would venture to bet any thing, (quovis pignore contendere ausim,) that such an one would scarcely find any ground of persuasion in it that the Messiah could be