XXII; where, after a description of great sufferings, follow declarations respecting the future triumph of the sufferer, in "the seed that shall serve him, in the generation to be accounted to the Lord, in the ends of the earth remembering and turning unto God, and all nations worshipping before him."

If we compare Ps. XL. also, it will be seen there, that in the midst of complaints and supplications for help, there are strong expressions of gratitude and joy, resembling those in Ps. XVI.

The course of thought, therefore, in the Psalm before us, is not singular nor without example. Other Psalms pertaining to the Messiah, (at least I deem them to be such, and on the like grounds as Ps. XVI.) express the like sentiments; with the exception that they are not equally minute and explicit in regard to the resurrection of Christ, and his victory over the grave.

Having thus given the views which I entertain of the contents of Ps. XVI. I shall proceed to assign, more definitely and particularly, the reasons why I feel compelled to refer it to the Messiah, and to him alone.

My principal reason, but not my only one, is, that the apostles Peter and Paul have done the same; and done it in such a way as does not seem to be compatible with any other mode of interpretation, unless we renounce all deference to the apostles as the interpreters of Scripture.

Peter, in addressing the Jews on the memorable day of Pentecost, adverts to the subject of Christ's crucifixion and death, and his consequent resurrection. He then adds (Acts 2: 25): "David speaketh concerning him (Christ), I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also, my flesh shall rest in hope; because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, (bis), eis adny, to the world of the dead,) neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life, thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance." This is a quotation from Ps. 16: 8-11, in the words employed by the Seventy in their version.

Having made the quotation, the apostle proceeds to comment upon the passage. "Men and brethren," says he, “let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David." He was aware that what he was going to say, would be counter to the prejudices and the interpretation of his hearers; and so he begs permission to speak μerà лagóŋoias, with freedom, so as to con

ciliate their attention. The apostle continues: "He (David) is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day;" i. e. David died, and was buried, and remains still buried, for his sepulchre remains to the present time; he has never risen from the dead. All this his Jewish hearers could not deny; and if all this was true, how could the sixteenth Psalm refer to David? The apostle evidently maintains that it did not, and could not; for he goes on to say, that David "being a pro→ phet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, to raise up Christ, from the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, to sit on his throne; he (David) seeing this, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Accordingly the apostle adds, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." He then proceeds to say, that Christ is exalted to the right hand of God, but that David is not ascended into the heavens.

It has been remarked by Michaelis, that the writers of the New Testament very seldom undertake by argument to defend their interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures.' This is true; and the reason of it seems to be, that this interpretation was usually such an one as would not be called in question. But in the case before us, there is evidently an effort on the part of Peter, to defend his interpretation, by shewing the absurdity of the common one, which applied the words of the sixteenth Psalm to David. 'David,' says he, 'died, and was buried, and remains so,' i. e. he has never risen from the dead. But the Psalm in question speaks of a resurrection; and this has been accomplished only in the person of Jesus, whom David, by revelation of the Spirit, foresaw would rise from the dead, and predicted it in the words which I have repeated.'

Two things, then, seem to be clear from all this: (1) That both Peter and the Jews explained this Psalm as having reference to a resurrection; or at least to the body being preserved entire from all the influence of the grave; and (2) That the Jews, in Peter's time, were accustomed to refer Ps. 16: 9-11 to David; which is the reason why the apostle takes so much pains to shew the incorrectness of the then usual interpretation. It does not appear, therefore, that the Jews of that day, although they applied the Psalm to David, once thought of the exegesis which their modern descendants have invented, and which, having been sanctioned by Le Clerc, is now wide spread among rationalist interpreters, viz. that deliverance from great danger and

violent death, is all which the words under consideration mean. There are traces somewhat plain and striking, of the difficulty which the ancient Jews found in the interpretation of Ps. 16: 9 -11 as applied to David, in an ancient traditional saying of theirs, preserved in Jalkut Shimoni fol. 95. Frankf. edit. "Our Rabbins," says this Tract," aver that there are seven persons over whom the (grave) worms have no power." After mentioning these, viz. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, and Benjamin, it proceeds: "Some add David to these, because it stands written of him, My flesh shall rest in safety."

Here then we see, in this singular tradition, an effort of the early Jewish Rabbins to get rid of the difficulty which the sixteenth Psalm forced upon them, when interpreted of David. They never once seem to have thought of the facile expedient of their successors, and of Christian commentators, to get rid of all this difficulty by the simple expedient of calling the language figurative, and applying it to designate merely deliverance from danger and sudden death.

It must be too, that Peter's auditors thought as little of this expedient, as the older Jewish Rabbins who devised the fable above related. If it had been otherwise, if they had supposed that the words of the Psalm applied merely to deliverance from extreme danger, and that Peter might have known this to be so, how obvious would have been the reply to his reasoning or argumentation, which Michaelis says they might well have made: "With all your pretended sincerity, you are a mere hypocrite, and are aiming to blind the unlearned multitude.

pretend that the Psalm has reference to a resurrection, and is capable of no other meaning; whereas it plainly means nothing more than deliverance from great danger; which David, its author, very often experienced." What Peter could have replied to this, it is difficult, assuming the ground of recent interpreters, for me to imagine.

We have sufficiently seen, how far Peter and his contemporaries were, from the modern exegesis of this Psalm. But is Peter the only one of all the apostles who entertained such an opinion? We may be reminded, that there are things related of this apostle, which shew that he was capable of error. Once he denied his master; once he dissembled, and was reproved openly by Paul for so doing, Gal. 2: 11-14. Did Paul agree with him, in the explanation of the passage under examination?

The answer to this question is found in Acts 13: 29-37.

Paul here speaks to the Jews, as Peter did, concerning the resurrection of Christ. He appeals to the same text, vs. 34, 35. He is even more explicit, if this can be supposed, than Peter, in shewing the impossibility of applying that Psalm to David. "David," says he, "after he had served his own generation, by the will of God fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption; but he whom God raised up saw no corruption."

What then is the inference? Why plainly, that the Psalm cannot possibly be applied to David, but is capable of being referred only to the Messiah, over whom the grave had no

power.

Here also, as in the former case, the apostle has clearly to contend against the interpretation of his hearers; for he produces reasons to show the impossibility of such an interpretation as they maintained. Here, moreover, all double sense of the Psalm is entirely excluded. Otherwise the apostle need not have opposed the interpretation of his kinsmen after the flesh. He might have said: True, brethren, the first and obvious meaning of the Psalm, has reference to David; but there is a higher and spiritual sense which can refer only to the Messiah, and was fulfilled only in him. This is the one on which I depend for argument.'

Nor could the Jews of that day have objected to his giving a double sense to the words; for this was a practice so common among them, in many cases, that one cannot well imagine they could have objected to it in the reasoning of Paul.

The double sense of Ps. XVI. then, is as much out of question, if Peter and Paul are to be our guides, as the literal application of it to David is. They admit neither the one nor the other. And indeed, both appear to be equally foreign from the meaning of the Psalmist and his inspired expositors. The latter see only a greater than David, in all that is said.

We may find some good reason to believe, also, that the apostles, at least Peter, derived their interpretation directly from the Saviour himself. After the resurrection of Jesus, he appeared to two of his disciples, as they were going from Jerusalem to Emmaus, and explained to them the Scriptures which have reference to his death and resurrection. "Beginning at Moses, and all the prophets," says the evangelist, "he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself,” Luke 24: 27. Afterwards Jesus appeared in the midst of his disciples, and said: "These are the words which I spake unto you,

while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand the' Scriptures, and said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day," Luke 24: 44-46. Now in what part of the Psalms, or indeed of the Old Testament, is there any passage which has so explicit a reference to the resurrection of Christ, as Ps. 16:9-11? I know of none; and as Peter and Paul apply this directly to his resurrection, and Peter does this only a few days after the exposition of the Scriptures given by Christ as above related, and relies wholly upon it as establishing his point, may we not well suppose, that in the interpretation of the apostle we have that of his Master? I cannot help thinking this to be a very probable and reasonable conclusion.

The matter comes then to this; either we are to give up the apostles and their Master, as guides in expounding the word of God, or we must renounce the interpretation which applies the sixteenth Psalm to David. In other words, we must renounce their inspiration and infallibility in matters of religion, or renounce the old Jewish exegesis, which they have directly controverted. If Le Clerc, Rosenmüller, Eichhorn, Ruperti, De Wette, Gesenius, and others, have chosen, and do choose, the former; I may be permitted to choose the latter.

Let us suppose now for argument's sake, that the words. of the Psalm are in themselves capable of either interpretation, of being applied to David or to Christ,-a supposition which may be admitted without any violent improbability, that can be urged against either part of the alternative, and the question is, What interpretation shall be given to it? In what way are we to come at the decision of this question? Is no weight to be attributed to the opinion of Peter and Paul? I cannot see why we should not pay some deference to it; even if we set aside the inspiration of the apostles, as most of the neological interpreters in fact do. For whatever may be said of the learning of Peter, it will not be contended that Paul, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and most thoroughly versed in all the rabbinical lore of the day, did not understand Hebrew well enough to know what the idiom of the Psalm would bear. I can see no reason why, as a mere Rabbi, as much deference is not due to him, as to Maimonides, and Aben Ezra, and Kim