The silence selfe of night agast my sprite.

Neither of idle shews nor of false charmes aghast. ast. }

So sore him dread agast.

With shuddering horrour pale and eyes aghast.

Stout Glo'ster stood aghast in speechless trance.

Fuller uses the ex

Milton's use favours the derivation from gaze. pression, stood a gaze. Shaks. Henry VI., Part I.:

All the whole army stood agaz'd on him.

is commonly taken as fut. hiphil from, to sprinkle. Against the rendering, he shall sprinkle,' there are two main objections: (i) its apparent incongruity; and (ii) the usage of the word, which means to sprinkle water, &c. upon...; never, to sprinkle... with. The Targum, adopting the former of these constructions, renders, by 7', 'he shall scatter' (sc. like drops of water) the persons spoken of. The rendering of the text harmonises with the LXX, Oavμáσovraι, which the majority of commentators now seek to arrive at by different devices. The strength of the conviction that some such rendering is required, is best shewn by the various conjectures to which it has led: e. g. 1. sic mirabuntur, &c. ó', 'Non male, nam mirari est veluti aspergi fulgore alicujus.' 2. Persperget stupore. 3. He shall make them jump (the rendering now commonly received). 4. To sprinkle, is used for to surprise and astonish, as people are that have much water thrown upon them. And this sense is followed by the LXX. 'This is ingenious,' adds Lowth, 'but rather too refined. Dr Durell conjectures that the true reading may be, they shall regard, which comes near to the avμávovraι of the LXX, who seem to give the best sense of any to the place.' Hereupon follows a suggestive citation from Dr Jubb: "I find in my papers the same conjecture which Dr Durell made from avμáσovrai in the LXX. And it may be added that is used to express 'looking on any thing with admiration' (Ps. xi. 7; xvii. 15; xxvii. 4; lxiii. 2; Cant. vi. 13). It is particularly applied to 'looking on God' (Ex. xxiv. 11; Job xix. 26). G. Cuper, in Observat. Lib. ii. 1, though aliud agens, has some observations which shew how nearly ópáw and favμálo are allied, which (with the peculiar sense of the verb above noted) add to the probability of Oavμáoovrai being the version of in the text. Οἱ δέ νυ λαοὶ Πάντες ἐπ ̓ αὐτὸν ὁρῶσι

(Hesiod.), i. e. cum veneratione quadam admirantur. Hinc ópáw et θαυμάζω junxit Themistius Or. 1. : εἶτα παύσονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι πρὸς σὲ μόνον ὁρῶντες, καὶ σὲ μόνον θαυμάζοντες. Theophrastus, in Charact. Cap. 111. : Ενθυμῇ ὡς ἀποβλεποῦσιν εἰς σε οἱ ἄνθρωποι. Hence the rendering of this verse seems to be, 'So many nations shall look on him with admiration,' &c." The conjecture in the text embodies the chief part of Dr Jubb's suggestion, but avoids any departure from the reading of the Hebrew. The word is a softened form of in, and expresses, accordingly, a refinement of its meaning. The latter means simply to regard; the former, to stare vacantly. The participle, in Is. lvi. 10 (the only other place where the root occurs), is variously rendered: ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι (LXX), φανταζόμενοι (Aquila), opaμariotaí (Symmachus). These 'sleepy starers,' be it remarked, are both blind and dumb; just as the kings and nations (Is. liii. 15) stand 'aghast in speechless trance.'

B. Rosenmüller urges that cannot be construed with a simple accusative, and renders: 'Quod attinet ad coævos suos, quis meditatur: quando excisus esset,' &c. But Hengstenberg cites

If Rosenmuller's objection ודברי נפלאתיך אשיחה ,5 .Ps. cxlv

were valid, we might still render, 'As for his generation-who could tell, or form any conception' sc. of it? [Prepositions are often thus omitted when the verb follows its case.] The rendering adopted by Rosenmüller is harsh in respect of ", who of them? and is not favoured by the use of the future, instead of either preterite or participle. The explanation, 'Who of them would have thought that he was cut off.. for the transgression of my people,' would require (by the law of emphasis) a different arrangement: 'Who would have thought that for the transgression of my people, &c.'

C. The first clause of ver. 8 (as on p. 76) implies that what 'they appointed' was not carried out. But it might perhaps signify no more than that they executed him as a criminal, without reference to any formal burial; in like manner as a person is said ipso facto to find his grave,' wherever he may chance to die. 'Lucem accipiet hic locus ex Nahum i. 14: Domum ejus ponam sepulchrum tuum: non quod ibi sepultus est Sennacherib, sed quod ibi occisus' (Poole, Synops. III. 519). The next clause speaks of an actual tomb, if the rendering in the text be the true one. Ewald e. g. considers that (as he would point it) scheint nothwendig [See Is. xxii. 16.] There may be two

für Grabhügel zu stehen.

pointings of this word, as of 'DD Gen. xl. 7; Esth. ii. 21. Aben Ezra mentions the rendering tomb or monument, which is perhaps preferable; the plural being appropriate in describing a complex superstructure. See Poli Synops.

,רשעים parallel and nearly synonymous with עשיר Some make

arguing that the ideas of riches and violence are usually conjoined in scripture. But such connexion is fortuitous and non-essential.

In Eccl. x. 20, y is parallel to, and (it may be repeated) the speakers in the verse before us are taken to be heathen kings. Rich rather than righteous would be the prophetic designation of a heathen dignitary. Riches, again, naturally associate themselves with honourable burial. The rich man dies and is buried (Luke xvi. 22), Kings, and princes that have gold, build desolate places (mausoleums) for themselves (Job iii. 14, 15). It may be added, that the words for rich man and wrong-doers contain the same root-letters; and that paronomasia commonly implies contrast rather than mere parallelism. The change of number favours the rendering of the

text.

D. There is little difficulty in connecting the meanings, dwelling, manner of life. Compare Conversor. (1) To abide, live, dwell somewhere. (2) To live somehow, pass one's life.' So oikéw, which refers properly to dwelling (in the local sense), comes to be applied to the manner of living, and in this sense is susceptible of the modifications (olkov) ev, kakŵs (oikeîv). In Hebrew, may be used in describing a condition, or a quality. Thus: lay mine honour in the dust' (Ps. vii. 5); 'I wisdom dwell with prudence [Kateσkývwσa Bovλýv], and find out knowledge of witty inventions' (Prov. viii. 12). Compare the derived usage, πόῤῥω ἐσκήνωται [ἐσκήνηται] τοῦ θανάσιμος elvai (Plato, Rep.).

κακῶς

CHAPTER VI.

The sure Mercies of David.

Is. lv. 3; Acts xiii. 34.

THIS citation may be taken as the characteristic of two apostolic addresses', wherein the Resurrection of JESUS is described as consummating the 'sure mercies' of which David was, in some sense, the object. It is not indeed adduced by St Peter, but a cognate citation is common to the two addresses. St Paul continues (Acts xiii. 35): 'Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.' And St Peter (Acts ii. 25-28) quotes more at length from the same place: 'For David speaketh concerning him, 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, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance' (Ps. xvi. 8-11). The citation from David, equally with that from Isaiah, deals with mercies of David,' which are apostolically referred to JESUS: but, more than this, there is a verbal similarity (not apparent to the English reader) which links the two passages still more closely to one another. Isaiah speaks

1 By SS. Peter and Paul respectively: Acts ii 14—40; xiii. 16—41.

of the 'sure mercies of David':' David represents himself as 'Thy favoured one,' the recipient of God's mercies. These citations are a natural starting-point for various critical and theological discussions, to which it is proposed to give some attention in the present chapter.

(1) It is needful, as a preliminary, to inquire in what cases a reference in the New Testament to the Old is to be taken as (directly or indirectly) testifying to the authorship of the passage cited. Is David declared to be the author of a passage because it is introduced by some such formula as 'David saith'? If not, under what circumstances does the mention of a name amount to a declaration of authorship? (2) What is the internal evidence for the Davidic authorship of Ps. xvi.? This question leads up to a discussion of the vexed title Michtam, by which Ps. xvi. is designated, in common with five others (lvi.-lx.). (3) Supposing Ps. xvi. to have been written by David, and with a reference to Christ, what was the nature and extent of the writer's prophetic consciousness? (4) What is the relation between the so-called primary and secondary applications of the second Psalm (Acts xiii. 33) and of other passages to which a DOUBLE SENSE has been assigned?

I. The Authorship of Passages cited.

In his comment on Prov. xix. 5, R. Shalom ben Abraham has some reflections upon Truth and Falsehood:-If you observe the spelling of the word for truth, you will find that it contains the first, middle and last letters of the alphabet, shewing that truth is the groundwork of all society: whereas the word for falsehood has its letters consecutive, to intimate that false witnesses cannot make their accounts mutually confirmatory, without first meeting together, and agreeing upon what they shall say. Faithful witnesses on the contrary, however widely scattered, simply make up their minds to