the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever!" in the sight of God, only as the ordinary agents of nature; whose operations and effects are entirely the result of the all-pervading providence and power of the Most High. But, with respect to Christ, the same unerring testimony declares him to be really God, his power universal, and his dominion everlasting. Whether this interpretation be the true one or not, it seems to have sense and consistency. It answers the conditions of the argument. It preserves the contrast, and brings out the conclusion, in a manner intelligible and striking to any capacity. It shews that the noblest servants of God, human or angelic, are nothing in themselves, and are as absolutely dependant on him as any part of the inanimate universe; while it exhibits the Messiah as the very Being who "sitteth upon the circle of the earth," and, in comparison of whom, "all nations are as nothing, and are counted to him less than nothing and vanity." 4. Mr. B. needs not to be told that the vocative O, is of extremely rare occurrence in the New Testament and the Septuagint; its place being almost uniformly supplied by Osos, according to the idiom of the Attic, the common Greek, and the Alexandrian.* Not the shadow of a reason * See Note [F] at the end of this Section. exists for preferring the construction wished for, on the ground of grammatical propriety. 5. All the Ancient Versions of the original passage in the Psalms, agree in supporting the common construction, so far as their respective idioms permit a positive conclusion. The Chaldee Paraphrase, the Greek of Aquila, and the Arabic of the London Polyglott, are incontrovertible.* From these considerations, it appears to me perfectly clear, that the only just and fair translation, is that which Jews and Christians, ancient and modern, have almost universally adopted ; Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever!" But, if the first post prove untenable, Mr. B. can retreat to another. Archbishop NEWCOME adhering to the common version, "remarks that the same words are addressed to Solomon." We are, therefore, to understand that all further argument is superfluous. The Calm Inquirer dismisses the cause as determined. * The Syriac corresponds with the Hebrew; the Vulgate, and (as I suppose from the Latin Version) the Æthiopic, with the Lxx. The Arabic prefixes an interjection of invoking, to the word God. The Targum has; "The throne of thy glory, O Jah, standeth for ever and ever!" Aquila (an apostate to Judaism. from Christianity, at the beginning of the second century, and a bitter enemy to the Christian cause), translated the Heb. 'O θρόνος σου, Θεέ, εις 'αιῶνα καὶ ἔτι. Euseb. Dem. Ev. lib. iv. § 15. p. 181. Ed. Col. 1688. If it be admitted that in this Psalm there was an original reference to Solomon, it will also be maintained by those who are not disposed to hold the authority of the New Testament in plain contempt, that such a reference could exist in only a low degree, and that it was designedly subordinate to an infinitely more important and glorious application. The Psalm would, therefore, belong to the kind of composition which Bishop LowтH has so admirably illustrated under the name of the Mystic Allegory:* a kind in which the descriptions, whether drawn in imagery or in plain words, agree to the proximate object in a very reduced and accommodated sense: but to the remote object, which is always the principal, in a sense the most exalted and perfect. That some of the prophecies of the Old Testament are of this class, those must have a singular faculty of trampling upon evidence, who can deny. Supposing the one in question to be such, it would follow, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, that there is the same difference between the meaning of the epithets when applied to Solomon their immediate, and to the Messiah their ultimate, object, as there is between the office and the dominion of the two. * De Sacrâ Poesi Hebræorum, Præl. xi. a work which it would be superfluous to praise: but, as many neglect it who ought to profit by it, it may be allowed me to say that, for elegance of style and importance of matter, few books have a higher claim on the attention of young persons of taste, and especially students in divinity. Hence, in this particular instance, the term God would be attached to Solomon in a sense so far inferior to that in which it was intended for the Messiah, as the limited and temporary kingdom of the former fell short of the extent and duration destined for the reign of the latter. The one reigned forty years over Judea and its dependencies the other possesses "dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages shall serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”— Thy throne O GOD, is for ever and ever! But the whole hypothesis of any reference to Solomon rests upon questionable grounds. The Targum is very good evidence that no such opinion, nor any tradition leading to it, existed among the ancient Jews. The Rabbinical writers are strangers to it.* Equally so are the Christian fathers; who, though rarely to be deemed models of just and rational interpretation, are entitled to be heard in a question on which it is barely possible that traditionary opinions might have reached them. Learned, cautious, and pious commentators since the reformation are by no means unanimous in its favour; and many have advanced *"This Psalm treats of David, or rather of his Son the Messiah, for that is his name: My servant David shall be a prince in the midst of them." (Ez. xxxiv. 24.) Aben Ezra on Ps. xlv. 2. "These verses speak of the King the Messiah." Joseph Ben Mose, ap. Schoetgen. Hor. Hebr. et Talm. t. i. p. 928. strong objections against it.* The critics of the modern German school contend that there are marks of internal evidence, conclusively refuting such an opinion.† Bishop Horsley denounces the conjecture in terms of no tame disapprobation, and curiously assigns its origin to Calvin's want of sensibility to the beauties of poetic imagery, and his consequent disqualification for perceiving the propriety and unity of design in so rich and highly wrought compositions. If internal evidence be consulted, there are important circumstances of objection to the notion of a primary reference to Solomon; or of any other design than a celebration, in the known imagery of prophecy, of the Divine Messiah, the dignity of his person, the power and grace of his kingly office, and the conversion of nations to the "faith which is in him."§ Having, not carelessly, nor, I trust partially, thus examined the question, my conviction rises at every step, that the address so long discussed, is the language of joyful homage to the Lord the Messiah, from his redeemed church;-language congenial with the reason and the feelings of every holy being " on earth and in heaven:" THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOR EVER AND EVER. Blessing and honour, and glory and power, be * See Poole's Synopsis, Cocceius, Peirce's note on Heb. i. 8 and Venema's Prolegomena. + See Rosenmüller, jun. Arg. in Ps. xlv · |