the order of the solemnities celebrated in the temple; and Augustine, while he acknowledges that he could not discover the mystery of the disposition of the Psalms, thought that every fiftieth has relation to the vocation, the justification, and the glorification of the saints.* Chrysostom and a host of others maintain, in defiance of all external and internal evidence, that all the Psalms were composed by King David, and one writer classes among heretics all who denied it; in which number Athanasius himself would be included, since he assigns only seventy-two Psalms to the royal poet. A learned controversy has moreover been carried on respecting the titles of the Psalms, whether genuine or not, and whether, if added by Ezra, they are to be considered as having the authority of inspiration. Another question has been raised in more modern times, whether they were originally composed in metre, whether these sublimest of poems are entitled to the name of poetry. But the most important, and indeed the only interesting controversy relates to the double sense of which a large proportion of the Psalms are doubtless susceptible. In establishing the higher or mystical sense, a class of interpreters, among whom it is with regret that we rank Horsley, not only lose sight of a literal or primary meaning, but even deny their having any reference to the trials and experience of humanity. The characteristic boldness of the learned Prelate verges on impiety in one place, where he argues, that the Spirit of Jehovah would not be requisite to enable a mere man to describe his own sufferings just as he felt them, and his own escapes just as they happened. Therefore, the suppliant is a mystical personage,' the enemies are mystical,' the sickness spoken of is mystical, the deliverance mystical; they have no bearing on the spiritual life or outward trials of the Christian. This most perilous scheme of interpretation, which locks up the meaning of the Scriptures as effectually from the common people, as the Papists do the letter in a foreign tongue, would indeed go very far to justify the utmost reserve in putting the Bible into the hands of the uninformed laity. Very different was the opinion of the judicious Calvin: Librum hunc non abs re vocare soleo avaroμn omnium anima partium; quando • nullum in se affectum quisquam reperiet, cujus in hoc speculo non ' reluceat imago. Imo omnes hic dolores, tristitias, metus, dubitationes, spes, curas, anxietates, turbulentos denique motus quibus jactari solent humana mentes, Spiritus Sanctus ad vivum representavit. Reliqua Scriptura continet quæ Deus servis suis

6

*See Calmet's Dict. Psalms.

* mandata injunxit ad nos perferenda. Hic vero Prophetæ ipsi cum Deo loquentes, quia interiores omnes sensus retegunt, quemque nostrum vocant aut trahunt ad proprium sui examen, nequid ex tot infirmitatibus quibus sumus obnoxii, totque vitiis quibus sumus referti, occultum maneat."

6

'*

The value of these sacred compositions as a rule and model of prayer, which this admirable Commentator proceed s to point out, is obviously nullified by the Hutchinsonian scheme of interpretation. In fact, this practical purpose, we might almost gather from Bishop Horsley's declaration, he deemed unworthy of Inspiration. We are far from imputing to that learned, acute, but paradoxical writer, an antinomian contempt for personal sanctity; and yet, it is but too evident, that he had little taste for spiritual and practical Christianity. On this account, he was but ill qualified to appreciate the devotional beauty of the Psalms of David; and to this circumstance, taken in connexion with his preference for the hypothetical and the paradoxical, may be ascribed his adoption of a scheme of interpretation which levels him, as an expositor, with Eyles Pierce and Dr. Hawker,-a system which, as Andrew Fuller pointedly observed, erects the Gospel on the ruins of common

sense,

If Calmet's remark was just, that nothing can be a stronger proof of the obscurity of the Book of Psalms, than the vast number of commentaries, the proof must be admitted to have gained strength since his time. He reckoned that above a thousand writers had undertaken to illustrate the Psalms, and more modern times have greatly added to the list. Yet, we seem as far from having an unexceptionable and perfectly intelligible translation of this portion of Scripture, as ever. Nor are we aware of any English commentator since Ainsworth, who has contributed to throw much light on the obscurities of

*Not without reason have I been accustomed to call this book the anatomy of all the parts of the mind, since there is no emotion of which any one can be conscious, that is not imaged here as in a glass. In fact, whatever pains, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, solicitudes, or turbulent emotions of any kind, are wont to agitate the minds of men, the Holy Spirit has here represented to the life. The other parts of Scripture contain the commandments which God enjoined upon his servants to be delivered to us. But in this part, the Prophets themselves communing with God, inasmuch as they lay open all their inmost thoughts, call or allure every one of us to the examination of his own heart, so that of the various infirmities to which we are liable, the various faults with which we abound, nothing may remain concealed.'

the sacred text. No part of the Old Testament so much requires in the critical expositor, the rare combination of philological learning, cool judgement, fervent devotion, and poetical taste, as the Book of Psalms. To the elegant criticisms of Bishop Lowth on Hebrew poetry, the Christian world are under deep obligations; but his translation of Isaiah, with all its beauties, has but served to illustrate the various difficulties of the high emprise. We are inclined to think that Dr. Watts united in himself more of the qualifications of a translator than most who have undertaken it. Whether he was sufficiently accomplished as a Hebrew scholar, we know not; but in catching the spirit of the text, no writer, perhaps, has been on the whole so happy; and his metrical version, free and imperfect as it professedly is, and faulty in many respects, is nevertheless the most instructive commentary on the Psalms that we possess. Nor has any single work so powerfully contributed to promote the cultivation of sacred poetry and the devout use of the inspired originals. That Bishop Mant should not have had magnanimity enough to pay a just tribute of encomium to that learned and accomplished Nonconformist, cannot be wondered at, when it is recollected, that even the amiable Bishop Horne has not noticed his version, though he has cited Merrick and Ogilvie.

Dr. Watts's version was an immense improvement in English psalmody, and, to a certain extent, an excellent exposition of the Psalms. Still, he was cramped, as well by his design of accommodating the language of David to the purposes of Christian worship, as by the scanty limits of the metres to which it became requisite to confine himself. If the Psalms are to be sung by Christian congregations, this would seem the only rational plan that can be adopted to preclude the singing of what, to the performers, must be virtually nonsense, or worse. Accordingly, Dr. Watts's example has been slowly and reluctantly followed by almost all who have subsequently undertaken to give a metrical version of any of the Psalms. The absolute impossibility of accommodating all the Psalms to this purpose might, however, long ago have suggested a doubt as to the fitness of many of them for Christian worship. Why the prophecies of David, rather than those of Isaiah or Jeremiah, should be sung by a Christian congregation, it seems difficult to tell. Not, surely, because they are recorded in the form of poetry. No part of Scripture is in a higher strain of poetry than some whole chapters of Isaiah; nor does the song of Moses or of Deborah less partake of the lyric character. The mere title of Psalms, even admitting, what it is hard to admit, that they were all originally written for

musical recitation, cannot supply a sufficient reason that they should be indiscriminately adopted into Christian worship. But both the old and the new metrical versions of the English Church, the Scotch Psalms, and, to a great extent, the Psalms of Dr. Watts, recognise the Book of Psalms as a whole in the light of a formulary of public devotion. The error is corrected in practice. There are many of these Psalms which have perhaps never been sung. But their appearance in these collections implies the principle of their adoption and indiscriminate use,- -a principle at variance, as it seems to us, with a right view of their true character and purpose.

The sacred poems comprised in what we denominate the Book of Psalms, (in the Masoretic copies and the Syriac Version, they are divided into five books*,) are the productions of inspired men who lived at very different periods; and they differ not less as compositions in their specific character. When first collected, no attention appears to have been paid to either their chronological order, the circumstance of authorship, or the subject-matter and occasion of the poem. If any principle of arrangement determined their order, it has become impossible to detect it. But it may be suspected, that the original order has been disturbed in some places, in the process of transcription, possibly by being divided among several transcribers, while additions appear to have been made of distinct books, as others of these sacred compositions were collected. The first book, comprising Psalms ii. to xli., may be pronounced, with tolerable certainty, the entire composition of the royal Psalmist, to whom all the titles ascribe them, with the exception of the second (more properly the first) Psalm, which we know to be his from Acts iv. 24., the tenth, and the thirty-third. Psalm i. is supposed to have been prefixed by Ezra to the complete canonical collection. Even in this first book, however, we find nothing like chronological arrangement. The second Psalm, which contains one of the most distinct and sublime predictions of the kingdom of Messiah, appears to have been written after David had fixed the seat of his government at Jerusalem: it could not be the first Psalm he had composed. The third Psalm is referred, by the title, to the period of Absalom's rebellion, while the eighteenth was composed on David's deliverance from Saul. The eighth, the

* Some have argued that the Psalms must have formed but one book, because they are styled in the New Testament (Luke xx. 42,) "the book of Psalms." But so are the prophetical writings termed, "the book of the Prophets." (Acts vii. 42.)

twenty-third, and the twenty-seventh were probably written at a still earlier period of his life. Of the Psalms comprised in the second book (Psalms xlii. to lxxii. inclusive), the first eight are inscribed to (or for) the Sons of Korah, with the design, it is supposed, of their being performed by them.* These psalms were evidently written for music, but the Author is wholly uncertain. Psalm xlii-iii. has been ascribed to David, the allusions being understood of his banishment by the rebellion of his son; there are some expressions, however, which are scarcely reconcileable with this hypothesis. The xlivth must clearly be referred to a later date, as well as the xlviiith. The xlyth is supposed to have been composed on the occasion of Solomon's marriage, if not by that monarch himself. Psalm 1. is one of Asaph's. The remaining twenty-two psalms in this book all bear the name of David, with the exception of the lxvith, Ixviith, and lxxist, and the last of these is probably his. The third book, comprising Psalms lxxiii. to lxxxix. bear marks of a later era: one only is ascribed to David, eleven to Asaph, and four are inscribed for the sons of Korah, their author being doubtful. The fourth book (Psalms xc. to cvi.) begins with a psalm ascribed to Moses, but the 10th verse affords a presumption against the genuineness of the inscription. The Talmudical writers ascribe to their great lawgiver, Psalms xc. to xcix., although, in the last, mention is made of the prophet Samuel, who was not born till nearly three hundred years after the death of Moses. The cist and ciird bear the name of David, and the xcvth is known to be his all the rest are anonymous. The fifth and last book comprises fortyfour psalms, of which fifteen are ascribed to the royal Psalmist, one to Solomon, and twenty-eight have no author's name. Some of these (e. g. the cxxvi. and cxxxvii.) were evidently written either during or subsequently to the captivity. This book was probably collected, therefore, at a later period. Fifteen of them are entitled Songs of Degrees, which Calmet explains as signifying Songs of ascent, i. e. of Israel from the captivity of Babylon.' Unfortunately, however, four of these, if the inscriptions are of any authority, were composed by David. Mr. Charles Taylor's suggestion is much more probable, that these songs of ascent' were intended to be sung or recited by the tribes who went up to Jerusalem to worship, on their way, or at their resting-places. Understood in this light, the cxxist will possess a new beauty, if we sup

6

* The Chaldee, Ainsworth says, expounds the title thus: To laud with good understanding by the hands of the Sons of Korah.'