our two inimitable versions, but for the mere object of exhibiting to the eye the poetical structure of these divine poems. It is obvious that in the execution of this plan, many expressions must appear uncouth, and many arrangements awkward; but when the idiom of the language did not positively forbid these, the object of the proposed work required their adoption. But as no point of sacred criticism is wholly insulated, the progress of this partial translation suggested before long, the translation of the whole. Had the essay on Selah continued to be the sole object of the critical part of the work, such a task would have appeared not wholly inexpedient, since that word is a key to poetical construction, which has place in Psalms where Selah is not found, and to the illustration of which the same method of translation as that now described is subservient. But some other cognate topics, which had long laid in his mind, as that of the titles of the Psalms, had meantime suggested themselves, as not altogether unconnected with the primary subject. These were accordingly taken up, and thrown into the form of the succeeding Dissertations in the second volume, all having reference to the direct and obvious interpretation of the Psalms, and to the contemplation of that portion of holy Scripture as one complete and connected book."-(pp. ix.-xii.)

Such is the history of the work. The principle of interpretation upon which it is based is that of Hooker. "I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal interpretation will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst ;" and having avowed this by adopting Hooker's words as the motto of his title-page, the author proceeds in his Introduction to open his views at some length on other principles of interpretation, from which he wholly or in part differs. The discussion is an interesting and important one, and as it will be quite impossible for us to do more than glance at the detail of Mr. Jebb's work, we shall allow ourselves to linger a little on these preliminary matters, which, Mr. Jebb justly remarks, are much spoken of at present, and liable to great misconstruction.

There is first, the mystical method of interpretation, an expression than which, as Mr. J. observes, none has been more variously understood, and the false view of which has contributed more than any thing else to obscure the true sense and just scope of the Book of Psalms. Bishop Van Mildert's classification of the subject, we agree, is much the best. It is thus stated.

"He defines (1) the literal meaning to be that which the words signify in their natural and proper acceptation: (2) the figurative, that which they do not actually denote, but which they nevertheless intend, under some figure or form of speech: a transfer of words from one signification to another. But these belong to the verbal signification, in other words, to the direct and only meaning of the passages in which they occur: (3) the spiritual and mystical (often improperly confounded with the figurative) stand in contradistinction to these: signifying the more recondite or remote sense, founded not on the transfer of words from one signification to another, but on the entire application of the matter itself to a

different subject. He makes here a distinction between mysterious and mystic: the former meaning something above our comprehension, though conveyed in the plainest language and in the literal sense the latter, a sense superadded to the obvious signification."

It is in this sense that Mr. Jebb would be understood as taking the words mystic, and mystical interpretation. He restricts it to typical or allegorical passages, and when he speaks of the literal meaning, he means the type or allegory, that signification of the passage which, whether it be the presentation of a real object, or of a parabolical figure, immediately comes before our notice.

"The definition made by Bishop Van Mildert," he observes, "is best, for the sake of clearness (its etymological accuracy is quite another question.) For if it be applied more extensively to every remote and recondite meaning, great confusion may arise. The prophetical meaning, for instance, of a large portion of the Psalms, was remote and hidden from the Jews before our Lord's Advent, as are a large portion of the yet unfulfilled prophecies to us: and yet these are often expressed as literally and plainly as words can convey them. Such are the prophecies of our Lord's Incarnation in Isaiah, and of his crucifixion and the accompanying circumstances in the Psalms. Therefore, the literal interpretation of these passages must be identical with their prophetical sense: they are not the antitypes of any types: they are actual facts plainly told. In the same manner, the more remote meaning is often the literal one, that which the words in their proximate sense, though not in their proximate application, signify. Such is the passage, 'thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy One to see corruption:' a sense literally fulfilled in our Lord, whose body never underwent the decays of death; and only imperfectly applicable to the prophet who uttered them."

The importance of these remarks will be obvious. Let Mr. Jebb, however, state more particularly their practical application. "It must be admitted," he proceeds, even by the most extravagant upholders of a mystical meaning, even of those who, like the cabalists of old, would understand every the simplest passage of Scripture to contain a mystery, that in order rightly to understand the secondary meaning, we must have a full apprehension of the primary. It is well remarked by Bishop Marsh, that in all cases the literal meaning of a word must be the first object of our enquiry, because its figurative' (or to speak more properly, its symbolical or secondary) meaning is only an applied meaning and to judge of the propriety of the application, we must understand the nature of the thing applied.' This is the plain dictate of common sense. We must measure that which is less known, or less distinct, or more remote, by that which is better known, more palpable, or proximate. We must have a clear conception of those more familiar features with which we are to seek an analogy we must distinctly understand those circumstances of history or of biography which are made the types of things less historical or personal: those incidents of external life and of human nature, that are constituted the measures by which the concerns of the more hidden life and a more ethereal nature are brought to our apprehension. Indeed, unless this accuracy be observed, the study of God's word, the knowledge of his divine mysteries, the knowledge of ourselves and of Him who made us, must be vague and inaccurate in the extreme: we must even become incapable of fixing the foundations of truth itself in our minds. As well might one hope to comprehend the higher branches of science, of astronomy in particular, without having a

clear conception of lines and angles, and of those laws of motion which regulate the most humble operations of mechanics in this lower world, as to rightly understand the higher mysteries of God, without having a clear comprehension of those more proximate and inferior objects which he has appointed to be the means of learning first principles."

This is just and forcible reasoning; and though we are far from feeling satisfied in all respects with the tone and tendency of what we have called the Jebb School of sacred Literature, we do think it has rendered great service, in the matter of Biblical interpretation, by fixing attention upon the literality of Scripture, and so eliminating its structure as to lay an arrest upon those intangible dreamings in which so many indulge, especially when reading the Book of Psalms and the kindred effusions of inspired prophecy. Mr. Jebb, though swayed perhaps not a little in some parts of his work by theory and ideal suggestions, is a very model of patient investigation; and were all as careful as he has shewn himself in tracing the actual connexions, the primary sense, and the literal force of the sacred writings, it is impossible to say what progress might not be made in the various branches of Divine. knowledge. But, in truth, as he observes, "the progress of unhealthy mysticism has been such, that self-evident considerations (like the above) require to be distinctly re-asserted at the present hour:" and as a practical illustration of this remark, we have great pleasure in again quoting Mr. Jebb at some length. Having abjured mysticism, he thus shews the connexion of his subject with the mystics, mythists, eclectics, textuaries, and patristics (qu. tractists) of the day. The review is highly important, and will repay attention.

"That unrestrained licentiousness of thought,” Mr. J. observes, or rather of fancy, which deserves to be called by a less exalted name than that of mysticism, so readily assumed, must be in the end auxiliary to rationalism. It has the same tendency to throw into the shade, and even to induce a scepticism of, the facts of Holy Scripture. For he who is so engrossed by the secondary meaning, as to overlook or neglect the historical (as in the events of David's life, so amply exhibited in the Psalms,) will not only thus lose the important lessons which that history directly inculcates, but will learn to regard history itself as a thing of little importance, and may ultimately come to look upon it as a fable; or as a 'myth,' according to the indulgent term invented by the Germans, and introduced into, but it is to be hoped not naturalized in our language. There is, however, another danger attending a similar treatment of those passages whose direct meaning has reference to the wants, the sins, the infirmities of human nature, the progress of repentance, the growth of grace, the advance in holiness, the resistance of temptation: in a word, all that is technically called tropological, all that refers to the moral nature of man. The direct teaching afforded by these passages is continually deserted, in order that their recondite reference, real or supposed, to the future mystery of God's kingdom, to our blessed Lord's ministry, and to his divine and eternal nature, may be sought. Thus will men seek to pry into the higher things of God's spiritual dispensation,

before they have endeavoured to discipline their minds, and prepare themselves for his future kingdom, by following in faith and humility the regular course of teaching, the chain of connected and preparatory instruction marked out in his Holy Word.

"In fact, in much that is now called devotion, there is the most flagrant and wayward wilfulness. Some men are eclectics in the worst sense of the word: that is, they choose what part of Holy Scripture they think most edifying to themselves, to the neglect or disparagement of others. They say, We care not for the circumstances of David's life, or for such or such facts of history we do not want to dwell on the letter, but on the spirit; or, we care not for the imagery or the poetry of Holy Writ: we want the realities to which they refer: on this we dwell;' or, "the fortunes of the Church of Israel, or of the Church at large, are beyond our contemplation: we study what regards our individual salvation:' or, 'the Church and not individuals is the real object of regard' while some will cast every thing else into the shade, in order to satisfy the undefined cravings of a fanatical devotion, or meditation, as it is falsely called.

"Combined with these fatal mistakes, there is one into which the extreme holders of very opposite opinions are prone to fall: that is, a disregard of the literal context of Holy Scripture. They become mere textuaries: for they, in fact, make the passages of God's Word mere pegs whereon they may hang their own incoherent or fanciful speculations, with which the passages in question can have but a very remote or obscure connexion. Instead of tracing the outline afforded by Holy Scripture, and learning from connecting the text with its context to gain consistent ideas upon points of doctrine, of morals, and of religion, whether practical or internal, they treat the passages of inspiration as the men in early ages did the stars of heaven, which they reduced to the fanciful constellations of lions, bears, and serpents, by connecting star with star by means of an imaginary line, choosing at their own discretion the angles and curves which defined these figures of their fancy. Such are the connecting lines of thought in which modern mysticism delights; so that it continually happens, that those results which are falsely represented as being deduced from the Word of God, are in fact nothing more than the mere creations of the most presumptuous private judgment.'

Mr. Jebb's inference is a most just and important one

"The only safe way of studying Holy Scripture is, to receive what is therein written, in the method and order in which it is given to us by the Spirit: not choosing for ourselves this path or that, but following implicitly his guidance. If the reason, the imagination, or the affections, are appealed to, such an appeal is an intimation that they must be severally cultivated: if restrained and checked, we must therefore learn to keep them within legitimate bounds: if the facts of history, if the laws of God's moral dispensation are placed before us, then these must be recognized as essential parts of Christian education in a word, if we would walk by faith, we must cordially and humbly receive every component element as a part of that Scripture which was written for our learning."

But what says Mr. Jebb to "the favourers of an exclusive or extreme mystical interpretation," who "appeal to the Catholic principle, and to the examples of the Fathers for their vindication?" We cannot say that he fully satisfies us on this point. The Fathers, in our opinion, might and ought to have been placed on a still lower pedestal, as interpreters of Holy Writ; and it appears to us very necessary to exhibit them in their true character

as undisciplined expositors, and therefore, in this and other respects, unsafe guides. On the whole, however, we feel obliged to Mr. Jebb for his frank deliverance on so delicate a subject, and should be glad to think that the following view were more general, and more practically influential in directing theological study than we fear it is. In quoting the passage, however, let us premise that we see more and more reason to distrust that ignis fatuus, "the Catholic principle," and that we are well content, on all scriptural questions, to fortify ourselves by a less magniloquent appeal than is implied in that now unmeaning phrase. But we must not digress. Mr. J. observes on this point

"Now it is acknowledged that mystical interpretation is a Catholic principle. It is recognized by the Church Universal, plainly because it is taught in Holy Scripture by our Lord and his Apostles. And it is well remarked by Archbishop Leighton, who was no friend to the abuse of this method, that there are many things in the Psalms and other parts of the Old Testament, applied by the Apostles to Christ, which but for their authority, perhaps no one would have considered as referring to Him.' And by using, with all discretion and sobriety, the key afforded by them, according to the analogy of wise interpretation, the prophetical application of many passages may be successfully vindicated. But though the principle is recognized by all Christendom, the measure and degree of its application has never been determined or defined. The Fathers are not at unity among themselves upon this matter. And to appeal to the opinion of any one, or even of many, as decisive on the point, is to abuse the true doctrine of Catholic authority, which is, to receive the aggregate testimony given by those of the ancient Church, as witnesses to the fundamental verities of the faith, in strict subordination to the written Word of God.

"But the Fathers are not only at variance upon the degree of this mode of interpretation (as for instance St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom,) but they have been acknowledged by the many sober theologians of later times to be frequently wanting in profound critical knowledge, and to have a bias towards allegorical and fanciful meanings, often inconsistent with the context, and with the analogy of Scripture. And although no sound churchman can derogate from their aggregate authority, as witnesses of primitive and Catholic truth, a function which of course none but the earlier ages of the Church can discharge, yet we must not so derogate from the influence of the Spirit of God, and the powers of the Church of Christ, as to conceive that no illumination has visited it in later times. While the verities of the faith remain unaltered and unmolested, we may believe that in later times a more accurate critical knowledge has been granted, introducing no new doctrines or principles, but more amply illustrating and reducing to a more harmonious order those which have ever been received, and must ever unchangeably stand.

"Yet here let it be considered, that the annotations on the Psalms, which form so large a department of patristic theology, are generally less to be regarded as formal commentaries, than as the vehicles for containing sound Christian doctrines, practical exhortations, and food for religious meditation, not always strictly connected with the text. In fact they are more to be regarded as collections of homilies than as regular treatises. So that by them the texts of the Psalms are treated as suggestive of reflections and principles which the other parts of Holy Scripture more fully confirm. They are used continually as accommodations. (?) Very different, however, are the uses made of these passages of Scripture, however loose and fanciful may be their