ed characteristic of the educated men of Germany. They will overwhelm you with stores of argument and illustration on all topics of religion, morals, philosophy, and classical or oriental philology; but if asked a question relative to the ordinary affairs of life, or in general history, or in geography, they are often compelled to be silent. It may probably be truly said of the character of the German mind, that, as a nation, they delight more than any other in abstraction, in pushing their reasonings to the utmost limits, regardless of consequences; and hence have speculated oftener and wider beyond the limits of the human faculties, than any other people. Nothing is more true than that, in the words of their own Jean Paul, they hold the empire of the air,' and have had more strange conceits and fancies than any other nation. The general causes of this state of things seem to have been, in part at least, the condition of society and the system of education among them, by which so many are trained up remote from the active duties of life, and thus lose all relish for practical objects. Of the 15,000 pupils at the universities, the greater part can never have the opportunity of becoming practical men; while they yet are taught to think, and their intellectual powers are urged to a high state of cultivation. In this way they are compelled to build their speculations, without any foundation of experience and practical common sense. What wonder, then, that these speculations should often prove baseless; the mere dreams of busy intellect, without the guidance of practical wisdom.

In closing this first part of the present article, we may properly recur again for a moment to the question alluded to in the early part of it: Whether it would be practicable or advisable, in our country, to establish institutions on the German plan. After the facts already spread before him, the reader will be able to form a judgment on this question for himself. Institutions of a similar kind might no doubt be established here; but could they be expected to flourish, with any degree of success corresponding to those of Germany? Where are our preparatory schools, which shall furnish students for such institutions? We have none but our colleges; and will our young men, after having spent four years at one of these, and received its honours, as a general rule, repair voluntarily to an university? The avenues to influence and reputation and emolument are, with us, too many and too easy of access, to permit us to indulge this expectation. Where then is the power, either in our states or in our

general government, that can compel them to such a step? that can make the tenor of office, or of professional employment, depend on a residence at any university? Where too is the individual, or the state, or the congress, that will annually appropriate fifty thousand dollars, or the moiety of that sum, for the support of such an institution? In this land of civil freedom, we can use no legal force to compel young men to obtain an education. We can bring only a moral influence to bear; and when this shall have been long enough employed; when the moral wants of community shall demand other institutions; they will no doubt spring into existence, of a rank and nature adapted to the exigencies of the case. In the mean time, the safety of our nation, the security of our civil rights and the duration of our free. government, depend upon the exertions which shall be made, to diffuse the blessings of knowledge and religion among the people. It is here that the duties of the Christian and the patriot meet together; and the momentous question is thus brought home to the business and bosoms' of the present generation of the American churches, Whether they will gird themselves for the work of the Lord, and by their exertions secure the permanence of our free institutions; or whether, by their inactivity, they will suffer vice and irreligion to become triumphant ; knowing that when that time shall come, the light of liberty, which has so long beamed upon us and scattered its rays on distant climes, must, in all probability, go down in darkness and be quenched in blood.

ART. II. INTERPRETATION OF PSALM XVI.

By M. Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover. It has been said, as characteristic of the commentaries on the Scriptures of the Old Testament by Cocceius and Grotius, that the former found Christ everywhere in them, and the latter nowhere. This is not, indeed, literally true; nor was it intended to be so understood. But the substance of what is asserted in this often repeated declaration, is correct. Cocceius was a strenuous advocate of the double sense of Scripture. In other words, he believed that a multitude of texts and passages in the Old Testament were intended to convey a literal sense, as their primary and obvious meaning; while at the same time

the sacred writers designed, or at least the Spirit of God who guided them designed, also to convey a mystical, allegorical, spiritual, or secondary sense, which usually has relation to Christ or to his church. Thus, according to him, many a Psalm has relation primarily to the literal David, the ancient king of Israel, and should be so interpreted throughout, when our object is merely to develope the primary and literal sense of it. But such a meaning is nothing more than the shell. The nut itself is concealed beneath this envelope, and can be truly discovered by those only, who know how to strip off the shell with dexterity. But such as understand the true secret of this, have the key to unlock boundless treasures of spiritual wealth in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. All Scripture (in this way) becomes truly profitable for doctrine, for correction, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness.' In this way only can the 'man of God be perfected, and thoroughly furnished unto every good work.'

The friends of such a method of interpretation aver, moreover, that it is in this way only, very much which is contained in the Old Testament, can be made profitable to readers under the Gospel dispensation. They plead also the example of nearly all the ancient commentators, back even to the very age of the apostles. They are careful to suggest, that such a method of interpretation, existing at so early a period, and being so general in the Christian church, must in all probability have been derived from the apostles themselves; who, of course, would follow the method of their divine Master. Nay, they assert directly, that such is plainly the method of the New Testament writers; that we have numerous examples where they have given another and secondary sense, such as conveys a spiritual and Christian meaning, to words which, as they stand in the Old Testament, can never be made to have such a meaning, provided we confine ourselves merely to a literal interpretation or a primary sense. In their estimation, therefore, the Jewish Scriptures are made truly Christian by giving them very frequently, if not throughout, what they would call an evangelical sense; and in so doing, we only walk in the steps of apostles and ancient saints, who evidently admitted a double sense, and commended the practice of giving it by their own example.

My present object will not permit me to examine at length the correctness of these allegations. Some excellent thoughts respecting the subject of mystical and allegorical interpretation

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 be well applied to him, e. g. more or less of vs. 911, 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 accuteness, sound judgment, 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 putrefaction; 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.

'Entire free

So then, after all, we come to a double sense. dom 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