of wood and stone? Believe this who will; but when the opposers of credulity, the rationalists of our times, lay such a tax as this upon our understandings, for one I must decline to pay it. I revolt, if it be at the expense of being regarded as superstitious. I am yet, and for aught that I can find, am still likely to be, a great way off from believing that the people of God were so much inferior to their idolatrous and heathen neighbours, that they did not even indulge the expectation of immortality.

It is to be hoped, after all the severe remarks we have heard and read about dogmatic prejudice, that the Christian public will sooner or later see, that prejudice is not confined to one party, nor to those who believe in the reality of a divine revelation.

Fulness of joy, then, the holy Redeemer expected, when he should "ascend to his Father and our Father, to his God and our God." There he has gone, "far above all heavens ;" there he experiences "the joy that was set before him;" there" he ever liveth to make intercession for us ;" there, crowned with everlasting glory, and highly exalted on account of his merits and sufferings, he experiences "fulness of joy," which no heart can conceive, no tongue describe.

-at thy right hand are pleasures everlast ; נְעָמוֹת בִּימִינְךָ נֶצַח

ing, or in thy right hand. The latter rendering is adopted by Ruperti, Rosenmüller, Gesenius, and even admitted by Michaelis. That it is a possible one, need not be said even to a tyro in Hebrew. The often indicates such a relation as the rendering in thy right hand would shew. The meaning of this would be, Thou hast power to bestow lasting favours, or thou art ready to bestow unceasing happiness,' i. e. unceasing so long as the present life endures; for so the recent commentators are obliged to

נֶצַח qualify

But the other rendering is equally possible, AT thy right hand; for what is more common than before nouns which indicate place where? It is one of its leading significations, and is so arranged by Gesenius himself, in his lexicon; e. g. "The Philistines encamped 7, by the fountain, at the fountain of Jezreel, not in it surely, 1 Sam. 29: 1. So 1 Kings 5: 13, "The hyssop which shooteth up, by the wall. So signifies coram, in conspectu, before, in presence of, in view of; and accordingly the

before or in presence of the, בִּפְנֵי, בְּאָזְנֵי, בְּעֵינֵי,Hebrews said

eyes, ears, face. In just the same way would they say, 7, at the right hand, by the right hand. The only question then in the present case, is, what method of interpretation is

most congruous with the context? To this I must answer, the latter; for in this case, 2 will correspond to 7-n, both designating place where. This seems to me the most natural, facile, and congruous construction.

If, moreover, the Psalm does truly predict the resurrection of Jesus, his triumph over hell and the grave, then what more natural than to suppose, that it also predicts the ascension of the Prince of life to heaven, and his being placed there on the right hand of the Majesty on high?' Michaelis rejects this meaning; but if the interpretation which refers the Psalm to the Messiah be retained, I see no good reason why we should reject it. Certainly we are not compelled by philology to do so.

Thus have I gone through this difficult Psalm, in a manner more copious, perhaps, than my readers will approve. It is only when one has before him all the difficulties that have been made in respect to its interpretation, that he can know how much is necessary to be said in order to meet them all. On the candour of those who are able to judge in such a way, I would cast myself without any fears.

If I have rightly interpreted the Psalm, it contains an exhibition of the Messiah, in view of his approaching sufferings and death, rejoicing in God, as his portion and supporter, expressing his deep abhorrence of all departure from him, his love to those who are devoted to his service, his joyful hope of a triumph over death and hell, and of a glorious, blessed, and everlasting state of happiness at the right hand of the Majesty on high.' So Peter and Paul seem plainly to have viewed and interpreted the Psalm. I would fain inquire how they have led the way, and follow on in their steps, not doubting that they conduct to truth and happiness.

It remains only that I should, agreeably to the plan proposed, briefly canvass the principal objections made against such an interpretation.

OBJ. 1. Verse 3 seems to indicate that the writer was in a foreign land, and expresses his longing after the society of the pious. Were not these the words of David, respecting his own feelings, when he was banished from Judea by the persecuting zeal of Saul?

This objection depends entirely on the mode of translating and interpreting v. 3. The method of translating which I have adopted, and which agrees with that of Gesenius, De Wette, and Rosenmüller, removes all difficulty in applying the words to

the Messiah, and renders the interpretation just proposed altogether needless.

OBJ. 2. The reading in v. 10, on in the plural number, shews that the Psalmist is speaking, in this verse, of the saints in general, and not of the Messiah in particular.

The answer to this has already been given. Overwhelming evidence speaks against the plural form of this word. Even Fischer and Stange, who strenuously contend for it, make it nothing more than a pluralis intensivus, a plural of intensity, which has reference only to the Saviour. Not so, however, those interpreters, who find here no allusion to a Messiah. They, with the modern Jews, contend that David is speaking in the whole verse, merely of deliverance from danger and sudden death, and that the word (for so they point and read it) refers to all the pious, who enjoy the promises of special favour from God. But it may well be asked, supposing the reading in question had been, and Peter, Paul, all the ancient versions, 236 manuscripts, the sense of the passage itself, i. e. its congruity with the rest of the Psalm, had exhibited and required, whether they would have hesitated to receive it? Such is the mighty difference which is made in a question of criticism, by previous views and wishes, even among those who believe themselves of all men to be most free from prejudice!

OBJ. 3. The Psalm agrees with others, viz. Ps. LVI. LVII. LIX. which have the same title, , and which were written during David's exile from his country. It is probable, therefore, that Ps. xvI. was written during the same period, and has reference to the dangers and distresses of David during that period, and his hope of deliverance.

So Rosenmüller. But De Wette acknowledges that he does not perceive the resemblance alleged, between the Psalms in question; and it would be difficult, I believe, to make out any greater resemblance in this case, than exists between Ps. LVI. LVII. LIX. and many other Psalms where complaints are uttered. An allegation of this nature should have strong support, to render it worthy of very serious regard.

OBJ. 4. În v. 10, biny?.......big; a means, Thou wilt not deliver me To Sheol or the grave, i. e. Thou wilt not suffer me to go there or to be at all within its power; so that big is the terminus ad quem, the boundary to which the writer of the Psalm was not to come.

So Hufnagel, in his dissertation on this Psalm. But the dif

ficulty here is, that philology will not support the criticism. The verb, followed by,,, means to give over to, to abandon to, to give up to, the power or disposal of another; e. g. Ps. 49: 11, Their wealth they give over

to others, i. e. they leave it to their disposal; for the Psalmist is here speaking of those who die, and leave their property to their children. So Ps. 10: 14, The wretched... leaves himself to thee, or gives himself over to thee. Surely the terminus ad quem is out of question here. So in Ps. 16: 10, ...i means, to give up to the power of, to abandon to the disposal or dominion of; all which is explained by the succeeding orzos, "Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption," i. e. to putrefy or consume in the grave.

OBJ. 5. In v. 10, nn comes from, and means grave, pit. So Rosenmüller, Gesenius, De Wette, Ruperti, and others, after the Jewish commentators. I have already examined this, in my remarks on the verse in question. I only add here, that nn, in the sense of wasting or destruction, has a clear parallelism in Job 17: 14, as Gesenius and Winer both acknowledge; and the case is almost equally clear in Ps. 55: 24, Thou wilt bring them (men of blood) down ny, to the pit of destruction, not the pit of the pit; although this last form of expression is not an impossible one in Hebrew. Rosenmüller himself, with an inconsistency rather to be wondered at, here makes to mean destruction. Si naturam furcâ expellas, usque recurret.'

OBJ. 6. In v. 4, the writer expresses his abhorrence of idolatry. This shews that he was surrounded by it; and how can this be put into the mouth of the Messiah, in whose times there was not a vestige of idolatry among the Jews.

So Knapp and Jahn. The answer has already been given in the commentary above. Nothing could be more appropriate, in order to present a picture of perfect devotedness to God, to the men of David's times, than to present the pattern of such devotedness as abhorring every thing connected with idols and idolatry. Such a picture v. 4 presents. And did not he, who came to redeem almost the whole of the human race from the service of idols, abhor idolatry?

OBJ. 7. But the Jews expected a victorious conqueror, a mighty hero, in their Messiah; not a persecuted, despised, suffering, and dying man.

True; the Jews of Christ's time had such an expectation.

But was it well grounded? Is there any good reason in their Scriptures, in favour of such an opinion? So Jesus did not think; for, from the first to the last of his ministry among the Jews, he contended against their erroneous views relative to this very point. He often rebuked his disciples for the same extravagant and ungrounded expectations. Let us hear him, when addressing them, after they had expressed their disappointment on account of his death, by saying, "We trusted this had been he who would have redeemed Israel," i. e. from the yoke of the Romans. "O fools," said he, " and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" Mark the sequel: "Then beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself." And again, when addressing all his apostles: "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day." Luke 24: 25—27, 46.

So Paul also thought and reasoned. "Paul.... reasoned with them (the Jews) out of the Scriptures; opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead," Acts 17: 2, 3. So thought all the apostles, after they had become truly enlightened. But it would be useless to accumulate evidence, in regard to a point so perfectly plain.

The question now is, not what bigoted and misled Jews, groaning under a foreign bondage, puffed up with pride on account of their descent and privileges, and filled with darkness, thought and believed. The true question is, What did the sacred writers of the Old Testament Scriptures teach; and how did Christ and the apostles understand and explain them? If a candid Jew could read Ps. XXII. and Is. LIII. and not find in it a suffering Messiah, it would seem strange indeed. In fact, so generally has this been acknowledged among the Jewish Rabbins, that in modern times the fiction of two Messiahs has been invented; the one the son of David, who is the reigning and conquering prince; the other, the son of Joseph, who is the suffering and dying Messiah.

Such a fiction as this arose, no doubt, from deference to the opinion of the ancient Rabbins, who so clearly held to a suffering Messiah, that their opinion could not be overlooked or fairly set aside. Such for example are the following views: "In tres partes divisae sunt omnes castigationes et poenae; unam sustinuerunt David et patriarchae; alteram, generatio nostra ;