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, (εν πληρώσει, ἐν τῷ πληρωova,) 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

of

with all this; because he can plead the example of ancient days, and of a great multitude of expositors in every age 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?'

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 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 1. 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, (quoris pignore contendere ausim,) that such an one would scarcely find any ground of persuasion in it that the Messiah could be

meant; much less could he be compelled to believe that he is actually meant." He then proceeds to describe quam misere se torserint' the interpreters, who have given it an interpretation referring to the Messiah.

:

In the sequel he states, that no one probably would have thought of such an explanation, if the apostles Peter and Paul had not led the way in it. He then adds: "That this is not sufficient to weaken the sentiment which we have advanced respecting the object of the Psalm, needs not now to be proved by a multitude of words." He then refers to Eichhorn, Biblioth. II. 947 seq. III. 920 seq. Eckermann, Theol. Beiträge Fasc. I. II. Paulus, Memorabilien, IV. 96. Behn, Lehrart Jesu, and others, as having rendered it unnecessary to lay out any more strength in order to shew, that the exegisis of Peter and Paul is no guide for critics of the present day.

After adverting to Grotius, Le Clerc, Dathe, and others, as holding to the double sense of this Psalm, and requesting the reader who wishes to see trifling of this sort in abundance, to read commentaries on the Canticles, he proceeds thus: "Quis enim non sentit, his argutiis, quibus ad mysticam allegoriam seu Siloyiar (double sense) omnia revocantur, pulcherrima poetarum phantasmata deleri, omnem eorum suavitatem, elegantiam, ac vim infringi, et perspicuum saepe sensum obscurari?.... Cur caecutire malumus in incertis, quam in certis et perspicuis adquiescere ?"

Having briefly, but (as he supposes) thoroughly, prepared his way, he advances to the exegesis of the Psalm, agreeably to the above principles, in which he displays a good degree of learning

and acuteness.

If now one inquires, whether Is. LIII. Ps. XXII. and XL. were not adapted to give the Jews some expectation of a suffering Messiah; and whether Ps. cx. was not intended to represent him as a priest as well as a king; the answer to all this is, that none but mystical commentators could so explain these portions of the Old Testament; and that when Christ and the apostles seem to adopt the exegesis in question, they must be regarded as doing so, merely in the way of accommodation to the prejudices of the Jews in their day, who were accustomed to refer a multitude of passages in the Scriptures to the Messiah, which were never designed by their original author to have relation to this subject.

Such is, for substance, the argument of those writers, to whom

Ruperti appeals, as having shewn that the interpretations of the apostles are not binding upon us. They are not so, because they were made κατὰ συγκατάβασιν, or merely by way of accommodation to the prejudices of their Jewish brethren, and not ex animo, or agreeably to their own real opinions with respect to the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. Consequently, so often as we find any interpretation by the New Testament writers, which seems to be at variance with the reasonable principles of hermeneutics, (i. e. such as we deem to be reasonable,) so often We may understand them to be merely κατὰ συγκατάβασιν.

Rosenmüller, in his Commentary on Ps. xvI. merely quotes from Ruperti a part of what has already been exhibited above, expresses his concurrence, and adds in a marginal note a quotation from Maimonides, a Jewish Rabbi of the twelfth century, to shew that it was not expected by the Jews, that the Messiah would rise from the dead. The passage runs thus: "The Messiah will die, and his son and grandsons will reign after him; for that he will die, is predicted in Is. 42: 4."

I intentionally pass by an examination into the grounds of these and the like assertions and views, for the present. I shall have something to say respecting them in the sequel. I only remark here, that it is indeed somewhat singular, that the testimony of a bigoted Jew, so late as the very last part of the twelfth century, living in the midst of Christians, and violently contending at every opportunity against them; of a Jew as little skilled in the opinions of the New Testament times as many a commentator is, who explains away the declarations of Peter and Paul, because he thinks he understands the disputes and theology of their times better then these apostles did;-I say it is passing strange that such a sentence as that quoted, from such a Jew, should sweep away the whole fabric erected by him who was that rock on which the church was to be built, and of him who sat at the feet of Gamaliel, and was a most perfect adept in all the rabbinical lore of the day.

In respect to Gesenius, I have no other index of his opinions, excepting the notes of a friend, who has been a hearer of his lectures, and has an abstract of his course on the Psalms. By this abstract, it appears that he construes the Psalm as relating to a pious man in danger, who casts himself on God, with a grateful sense of past mercies, and a confident hope of future protection; especially (in v. 10) does he express a hope not to be given up to his eneinies, so as to suffer a premature and vio