to Christ as the true expiatory victim, rather than to the sacrifices prescribed by law. It was altogether accordant with the general tenor of the passage which he was citing, and the conclusion which he was to adduce from it. But he does not make (as we have seen) the force of his argument to depend upon it. Were this the fact, and were we to suppose, (and we have no critical evidence for believing the contrary), that the Hebrew text stood in his day as it now stands; it would be a case in point to prove the extent to which the sacred writers have deemed it proper to employ the argumentum ad hominem, and adapt their reasonings to the modes of explaining the Scriptures practised by their readers. As it now is, I do not feel that much dependance can be placed on it, to establish a proposition of this nature; for on the whole, I must view the employment of the phrase, thus found in the Septuagint, as rather incidental than essential to the writer's purpose. Still, thus much is clearly decided by the case before us, viz. that the apostles did not feel under obligation in all respects to adhere to a literal use of the sacred text, but quoted ad sensum rather than ad literam. Even σõua zatηotio∞ uoɩ may be brought within the general limits of an ad sensum quotation, as Storr has remarked; for preparing a body in this case, is preparing it for an offering, i. e. to be devoted to the service of God. Now this is a species of obedience of the highest nature. If a body were given to the Saviour which he voluntarily devoted to death, Phil. 2: 8, then were his ears indeed opened, or he was truly obedient. The implication of the phrase σua xarηoriσo uo, in the connection where it stands, is, that this body was to be a victim instead of the legal sacrifices; of course, a devotedness of the highest nature is implied. Ad sensum then, in a general point of view, the text may be regarded as cited; and this, oftentimes, is all at which the New Testament writers aim. One more difficulty however remains. It is alleged, that Ps. XL. cannot well be applied to the Messiah. It rather belongs to David himself. How then could the writer of our epistle appeal to it, for a proof that the obedience unto death of the Messiah, was to accomplish what the Jewish sacrifices could not accomplish, viz. a removal of the penalty due to sin?

That there are difficulties in the way of interpreting this Psalm as originally having had direct respect to the Messiah, every intelligent and candid reader must allow. For it may be asked, (1) What was the deliverance from impending destruction, which Ps. 40: 2-3 [1, 2] describes ? On what occasion was the song of gratitude for deliverance uttered? vs. 4-6 [3-5]. (2) How could the iniquities of him "who knew no sin," take hold of him? v. 13 [12]. (3) How could the Messiah anticipate such troubles, as are alluded to in vs. 12—14 [11–13]; and particularly, How can he, who when suspended on the cross prayed that his enemies might be forgiven, be supposed to have uttered such imprecations as are contained in vs. 15, 16 [14, 15]?

To avoid the difficulties to which these questions advert, some have supposed that the first and last parts of the Psalm in question relate to David, while vs. 7-9 [6–8] contain a prediction respecting the Messiah ; at least, that they are spoken concerning him. But it is not easy to conceive how more than one person can be spoken of throughout the Psalm, it being all of the same tenor, and throughout appearing to be made up of

words spoken by a suffering person, who had indeed been delivered from some evils, but was still exposed to many more.

Others have maintained that the whole Psalm relates only to David; and consequently, that the writer of our epistle accommodates his argument to the Jewish allegorical explanation of it, probably current at the time when he wrote. Among these are some, whose general views of theology are far from coinciding with those of the neological class of critics. But there is a difficulty in regard to this, which must be felt by every reflecting and sober-minded man. How could the apostle employ as sound and Scriptural argument adapted to 'prove the insufficiency of the Jewish sacrifices, an interpretation of Scripture not only allegorical but without any solid foundation? And how could he appeal to it as exhibiting the words of the Saviour himself, when David was the only person whom it concerned? If the Old Testament has no other relation to the Messiah, than such as is built upon interpretations that are the offspring of fancy and ingenious allegory; then how can we shew that the proof of a Messiah deduced from it, is any thing more than fanciful or allegorical? And was it consistent with sound integrity, with sincere and upright regard to truth, to press the Hebrews with an argument which the writer himself knew to have no solid basis? Or if he did not know this, then in what light are we to regard him, as an interpreter of Scripture and a teacher of Christian principles?

Considerations such as these questions suggest, render it difficult to admit the opinion under examination, without abandoning some of the fundamental principles on which our confidence in the real verity of the word of God rests.

. Nor does that scheme of interpretation which admits a double sense of Scripture, relieve our difficulties. This scheme explains so much of the Psalm as will most conveniently apply to David, as having a literal application to him; and so much of it as will conveniently apply to the Messiah, it refers to him. Truly a great saving of labour in investigation, and of perplexity and difficulty also, might apparently be made, if we could adopt such an expedient! But the consequences of admitting such a principle should be well weighed. What book on earth has a double sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas! And even this has but one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say: Aio te, Pyrrhe, Romanos posse vincere; but can such an equivoque be admissible into the oracles of the living God? And if a literal sense and an occult sense can, at one and the same time and by the same words, be conveyed, who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense is? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged? By none that belong to human language; for other books than the Bible have not a double sense attached to them.

For these and such like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty, and casts us upon the boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture without rudder or compass.

If it be said that the author of our epistle was inspired, and therefore he was able correctly to give the occult sense of Ps. 40: 7-9 [6–8]; the

answer is obvious. The writer in deducing his argument from these verses, plainly appeals to an interpretation of them which his readers would recognize, and to which, he took it for granted, they would probably consent. Otherwise the argument could have contained nothing in it of a convincing nature to them; as the whole of it must have rested, in their minds, upon the bare assertion and imagination of the writer.

May not the whole quotation, then, be merely in the way of accommodating the language of the Old Testament, in order to express the writer's own views? Such cases are indeed frequent in the New Testament. God says, by the prophet Hosea: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt, 11: 1." Now this is not prediction, but narration. But when Matthew describes the flight of Joseph and Mary and the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says: "This took place, so that this passage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an accomplishment, ivà лingóły x. T. .' Now here is evidently nothing more than a similarity of events; so that what is said of Israel, God's son in ancient times, might be affirmed of his Son Jesus in later times, in a still higher sense and in a similar manner. May not the writer of our epistle have accommodated the language of Ps. XL. in a similar way? May he not have merely expressed his own views in language borrowed from the Old Testament, without intending to aver that (as it stands in the original Scriptures) it has the same meaning which he now gives to it?

This would indeed relieve in a great measure the difficulties under which the passage labours, if it could be admitted. But the nature of the writer's argument seems to forbid the admission of it. He had asserted, (which was entirely opposed to the feelings and belief of most Jewish readers), that "the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin." What was the proof of this? His own authority; or that of the Jewish Scriptures? Clearly he makes an appeal to the latter, and argues, that by plain implication they teach the inefficacy of Jewish sacrifices, and the future rejection of them. Consequently, we cannot admit here a mere expression of the writer's own sentiments in language borrowed from the Old Testament.

Another supposition, however, remains to be examined, in regard to the subject under consideration; which is, that Ps. XL. relates throughout to the Messiah. This is certainly a possible case. I mean that there is no part of this Psalm, which may not be interpreted so as to render its relation to the Messiah possible, without doing violence to the laws of language and interpretation. To advert to the objections suggested on page 381; it may be replied to the first, that the enemies of the Saviour very often plotted against his life and endeavoured to destroy it, and that he as often escaped out of their hands, until he voluntarily gave up himself to death. The thanksgivings in the first part of Ps. XL., may relate to some or all of these escapes. If it be replied, that the writer of our epistle represents the Psalm as spoken when the Messiah was sioεozóμevos is tov xóσuov, coming [i. e. about to come] into the world, and therefore before his birth; the answer is, that the phrase by no means implies of necessity that the Messiah uttered the sentiments here ascribed to him before his incarnation, but during it. Eloegzóuevos, entering, being entered,

or when he had entered into the world, he said: Ovσia 2. 1. h. Entering into the world may mean being born; but it may also mean, and probably does here mean, entering upon the Messianic office, coming among men as the promised Messiah.' That the Saviour prayed to God, gave thanks, made supplications and deprecations, as men do, need not be proved to any reader of the Evangelists. On what particular occasion in the Messiah's life, the words in Ps. 40: 7-9 were uttered, it is needless to inquire. Indeed, that they were ever formally and ad literam uttered, it is quite needless to shew; inasmuch as all which the Psalmist intends by the expression of them is, that they should be descriptive of his true character; which would be such that we might well suppose him to utter them, or that they would be appropriate to him. In a word, the Psalmist represents the Messiah as uttering them, merely in order to exhibit the true nature of the Messiah's character.

The second objection appears, at first view, more formidable. How could the sinless Messiah be represented as suffering for his own iniquities? Plainly, I answer, he could not be. The iniquities of others might be laid upon him; as the Scriptures plainly testify that they were, 1 Pet. 2: 24. Heb. 9:28. Is. 53: 4, 5, 12; i. e. he might suffer on account of the sins of others, or in their stead; but as to sins of his own, he had none to answer for. The whole strength of the objection, however, lies in the version of the word "ni (Ps. 40: 13), which the objector translates my iniquities, sins, transgressions. But who that is well acquainted with the Hebrew idiom, does not know that means punishment, calamity, misfortune, as well as iniquity, etc.? David, when he was chased away from Jerusalem by his rebel son, calls his calamity his 7i. Perhaps the Lord, says he, will look favourably, on my calamity, 2 Sam. 16: 12; for his SIN it was not, in this case. Comp. Ps. 31: 11. Is. 5: 18. A Concordance will supply other cases, particularly cases where the meaning is penalty, punishment. Analogous to the case of is, we have seen to be that of N and 2; see on chap. 9: 28. Excurs. XIX. In Ps. 40: 13, then, may, agreeably to the usus loquendi, be translated, calamities, distresses; and that these came upon the Messiah (177) will not be doubted.

So in 2 Cor. 5: 21, àμagtiav éñoinos, i. e. God made Christ a sin-offering or subjected him to calamity; and in Heb. 9: 26, åέtnoir áμaprias means a removing of the calamitous consequences of sin.

The third objection may be very briefly answered. Nothing can be easier than to suppose the Messiah might, at any period of his public life, have anticipated severe trials and have deprecated them; as we know full well how strongly he deprecated his final sufferings when he was in the garden of Gethsemane. That he should formally and literally use the identical words of the 40th Psalm, was not necessary; but that be should have been in a condition such as the language there describes, is all that is necessary to justify the application of the Psalm to him.

In regard to the last objection, which has respect to the imprecations contained in the latter part of Ps. XL.; they may be, and probably are, viewed in a different light by different persons. Considered as simple maledictions, they would be unworthy of the Psalmist or of the Messiah.

But as denunciations against the impenitent and persevering enemies of God and of David, or of Christ, they present themselves to the mind in a very different light. David did frequently utter denunciations against his enemies. So did Christ against his; e. g. against the Scribes and Pharisees, against Jerusalem, and against the Jewish nation. Yet who will say that this was for want of tenderness in him, or of benevolent feelings towards those who were his enemies? No one can say this, who considers the whole of his character as represented by the Evangelists. If then he might and did in fact utter denunciations against his enemies and persecutors, he might be represented as doing this by the Psalmist, without any error committed in so doing.

The objections, then, do not appear to be of a conclusive nature, which are made to the application of the 40th Psalm to the Messiah. Still I freely acknowledge, that had not the New Testament referred to this Psalm as descriptive of the work of the Messiah, I might perhaps have been satisfied, in general, with the application of it to David himself, or even to the people of Israel collectively considered. Yet a minute consideration of vs. 7, 8 [6, 7] certainly might serve to suggest some difficulty, in respect to such an application. Obedience is there represented as the substitute for sacrifices. So the writer of our epistle understood it. And it is said to be written in the sacred volume, that this would be the case respecting the individual whose obedience is there described. Is this any where written respecting the obedience of David? Is the obedience of the Jewish nation any where represented as a substitute for sacrifices? Rather, did not a part of their obedience consist in offering them?

After all, however, the whole passage might, perhaps, be construed as merely affirming that obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice; and this is so declared in other Scriptures, comp. 1 Sam. 15: 22. Micah 6:6. Ps. 50: 9 seq. Is. 1:11 seq. Matt. 9:13. 12:7. At least, this mode of interpretation must be admitted to be a possible one.

Let us grant, then, what cannot fairly be denied, that the 40th Psalm, according to general laws of interpretation, might be applied to David. Is it not equally plain, that there is nothing in it which may not, without doing any violence to the laws of language, be applied to David's Son, in a still higher and nobler sense? After what has been suggested in respect to this application, I shall venture to consider the application itself as possible.

Here then is presented a case of the following kind. A Psalm composed by an inspired writer, is (in itself considered, i. e. the words or diction being simply regarded), capable of an application to David, or to the Son of David, the Messiah. To whom shall it be applied by us? If there be nothing but simply the Psalm itself to direct our interpretation, the answer must be: 'To David;' for the natural application of the words of Scripture, (which in themselves are not necessarily predictions), is to the persons in being when they were written. But if we have a good reason for making the application of them in a prophetic sense to some future personage, then ought we to make such an application. Consequently the question in respect to the application of the 40th Psalm depends