lent death. Verse 11, thou shewest me the path of life, means, thou disclosest to me the way out of danger. The remainder means, Near thee is great joy, thou dispensest blessings with thy hand.'

To the like purpose De Wette speaks, in the third edition of his Commentary on the Psalms, published in 1829. "That the apostles Peter and Paul," he remarks, "explain the four last verses of our Psalm not merely by way of accommodation, but from real conviction,-since they aver directly that this passage cannot be understood of David,-cannot influence us, who stand on the ground of historical exegesis, to alter our views."

So then, here is at least a departure from Eichhorn, Eckermann, Paulus, Ruperti, and others of the older school of neologists, who would fain have it, that the apostles explained Ps. xvi. in reference to the Messiah, merely by virtue of accommodation, xaza ovyzaráßaow. But De Wette, (with whom Rosenmüller agrees, as appears by a note in his Commentary,) comes out very honestly, and avers, (what indeed one would very naturally think to be true of such men as Peter and Paul,) that the apostles really believed what they said. At the same time, this, he thinks, is no reason why we should change our views, and believe the apostles to be in right.

The mystery in all this, if there be any mystery to the reader not conversant with the rationalist critics, is merely, how it can be reconciled with the acknowledgment of the divine veracity and integrity and correctness of the Scriptures. The fact is simply, that none of these writers believe in this. If the reader needs proof of such an assertion, I refer him to declarations of Dr. Röhr, in the essay of Prof. Hahn contained in the present number of this work, and to the Institutiones of Wegscheider, which have been so popular that the sixth edition has already been printed, during the author's life time. Wegscheider and Röhr, each in a different way, may be considered as the present Coryphaei of the neological party in Germany.

Little prepared, as we in general are in this country, for such avowals with regard to the sacred writers, still, I deem them far preferable to the fashionable accommodation doctrine of the generation now passing off the stage in Germany. We know where to meet those who openly make such avowals; and although we cannot agree with them in opinion, we may commend their frankness and honesty.

De Wette, however, seems after all to have some relentings

in respect to the position which he has taken. In the sequel he goes on to say, that "the writer of this Psalm looked indeed no farther than to the danger of an early and violent death, and to deliverance from it; and so the hopes of the pious, in ancient days, were in general of a mere earthly nature. But Christianity has taught us to look to eternal things, and cherish correspondent hopes. Now all hopes are fulfilled in Christ. And as earthly hopes comprehend heavenly ones, inasmuch as they are an index to them and the image of them; so the apostles understood and explained the hopes expressed in this Psalm. Their explanation of it amounts to this: the full, entire, deep truth or reality of the Psalmist's hope, is fulfilled and rendered sure, only in Christ. This, he adds, is not accommodation, but ideal interpretation; which the apostles every where follow, when they apply to the Messiah passages of the Old Testament."

After all, then, we are virtually brought back to the double sense of ancient times, the very one admitted by Grotius and Le Clerc. What a strange mixture of scepticism and mysticism De Wette often exhibits!

Turn we now from this view of commentary in modern times, to the ancient critics. Eusebius of Caesarea, the celebrated church-historian, is the first to whom I would direct the attention of the reader, because he evidently gives the usual exegesis of the day, and also that which was current in the church among writers of preceding times. His Commentary on the Psalms, which has become a rare book, may be found in Vol. I. of Montfaucon's Nova collectio Patrum et Scriptorum Graecorum, Par. 1706, the editio princeps of the work in question.

Eusebius observes, that if the inquiry be made, to whom the things said in Ps. xvI. are to be referred, Peter the apostle is a teacher worthy of our confidence.' He then cites the words of Peter in Acts 2: 29-32; after which he proceeds to say, that "it would be superfluous to inquire any further to whom this Psalm is to be applied, since we have the testimony nizovτov uάorvoos. The Seventy, he adds, have entitled this Psalm μάρτυρος. ornioygapia, inscriptio, monumental inscription, because it contains the victory over death obtained by Christ when he rose from the dead."

In accordance with this, he appropriates the whole Psalm to the Messiah, without admitting any mystical or secondary sense in the ordinary way. However, he admits a kind of qualified sense, when he expounds vs. 3 and 4. He supposes the Mes

siah to speak here of the saints, as comprehended in his own person ; δύναται ιδιοποιούμενος τὰ πάθη τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ, τὰ προκείμενα ἐξ αὐτῆς λέγειν. Το these verses he gives the following turn: The saints formerly multiplied their idols; but after they were taught the truth by my wonderful deeds among them, they hasted away from all their abominations, etc.' This if it be not very solid exposition, may at least put in some claim to the praise of ingenuity.

To the same purpose almost exactly, does Jerome explain the Psalm before us. "The Psalm pertains to Christ, who speaks in it..... It is the voice of our King, which he utters in the human nature that he had assumed, but without detracting from his divine nature. David means Christ. The Psalm pertains to his passion." The third and fourth verses, he explains in the same way as Eusebius. We see nothing at all of David in the whole Psalm. Vox Christi, vox Christi ad Patrem, is often repeated by Jerome, throughout his commentary. Brev. in Psalterium, p. 151.

In the like manner does Augustine also explain the Psalm. "Rex noster," says he in quoting the title," in hoc Psalmo loquitur ex persona susceptionis humanae, de quo titulus regalist (he refers to n which the Seventy render ornλoyoaqia) tempore passionis inscriptus eminuit." In the explanation of vs. 3 and 4, he also agrees for substance with Eusebius.

We see then, that there is no foundation for charging the ancient commentators, at any rate the most distinguished and conspicuous among them, with giving a double sense to the Psalm under consideration. They do not apply it at all to David. He does not seem to have even entered their minds as the object of the Psalm, but merely as the author of it. Of course, those modern interpreters, who, like Calvin, Grotius, Le Clerc, Dathe, and many others, find a primary and secondary, or a historic and spiritual or ideal meaning in the sixteenth Psalm, cannot make their appeal for support to the distinguished commentators of the ancient church. Mistake on this subject, however, has been so common, that I hope the true exhibition of the ancient exegesis, as made above, will not be regarded as superfluous.

If now we must declare, which of the various views that have been presented respecting the design and meaning of this Psalm we should choose, for one I should answer, that I agree with none of them; I mean, that there is no one among the whole, which I could adopt as my own, and be satisfied with

it throughout on critical and hermeneutical grounds; although for substance, I should agree with the ancient commentators.

I cannot admit the double sense. There is a host of difficulties which rise up against this, too numerous to be particularly recounted on the present occasion. I can merely hint at some of the leading ones. If there be an occult sense to the words of Scripture, not conveyed by the language itself, to be attained in some way independent of the laws of language; then it would follow, that he who reads the Scriptures, and applies to them the laws of interpretation common to all other books, can have no security, that he has arrived at the principal and most important meaning which they were designed to convey. If there be an occult meaning, couched under the words of Scripture, a second inspiration is needed for the readers, in order to determine it with any good degree of satisfaction; for when the laws of language cease to be the guide, (as of course they most in the case before us,) then some substitute worthy of equal or greater confidence, must come in their place. But a substitute must be either conjecture, or inspiration. The first surely cannot lay claim to much certainty; it is subject to no laws; it has no bounds. A second inspiration then is needed, in order to understand a second or occult revelation, i. e. a second sense of words.

When God speaks to men, he speaks in a language which they understand. Otherwise a revelation so called, would not in fact be one. Nothing is revealed, which is not understood, or at least which is not intelligible. And when a communication is made by the use of language, how can it be understood, unless language is employed in the same way as men are accustomed to employ it? For example, how could one who understands only the English language in its ordinary use, be able to expound a communication in which English words should be employed, but a sense given to them by the writer entirely foreign to the usus loquendi of the language? It would manifestly be as impossible, in such a case, for a writer to be understood, as it would be if he were to make his communication in Sanscrit or Chinese.

It follows of necessity, that a revelation, in the true and proper sense of this term, which is made by the use of words, must be made by employing those words in a manner that accords with the usus loquendi of the language employed. And. if this be true, it seems to decide the whole question; for there

is no other book on earth, (if you except books of riddles, and some of the old heathen oracles,) where language has, or can have, a double sense. All men, who do not design to deceive or mislead, attach but one meaning to words, i. e. but one meaning to the same words in the same place. Even a book of riddles in reality does this; the enigmas have but one true meaning, and were not designed to have any more; although from the manner in which words are employed, it may be difficult to decipher it.

If I admit a double sense, then, in the Old Testament Scriptures, I admit that they are not to be interpreted according to the laws of human language. What should we think of a man, who should construe the classics, ancient or modern, in this way? What should we think of the sobriety and integrity of a speaker, who should design to attach more than one meaning to his words? And if I must come to the conclusion, that the Old Testament is not to be construed according to the laws of human language, then I must come to the conclusion that a second inspiration is necessary in order to understand it. If so, how did the first inspiration communicate a revelation?

I have only to add, at present, that whenever any interpreter will give me satisfactory proof of his being inspired, I will bow with implicit submission to his exegesis; but until he does this, I must believe that we are to come at the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures, through the instrumentality of language employed in its ordinary way, according to its usages among men.

There are no limits to this second sense of the Scriptures. The man who adopts it, is cast at once upon a boundless ocean, without rudder or compass. He must himself be inspired, in order to know with any security, whether his interpretation is correct. But as I find no promise of such inspiration to writers of the present day, I must hold to the laws of language, as one of the indispensable means of investigating the true and only sense of the Scriptures.

That a double or mystic sense is unnecessary, the reader may see illustrated in the remarks of Prof. Hahn, to which I have already referred. Of course it seems, on all these grounds, to be inadmissible. The appeal to the writers of the New Testament in order to sanction it, I must think to be entirely without any good grounds. Consequently I cannot hold with Calvin, Grotius, Le Clerc, Dathe, Bishop Lowth, and many others, that the sixteenth Psalm has a historic sense applicable