He, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption." How imposing is this argument! How plausible it appears! And yet it is irrelevant, as Dr.Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save the credit of the apostle by the convenient principle of accommodation! The whole force of Peter's reasoning depends upon the word "corruption." David did see corruption; therefore, he could not mean himself, but "being a prophet," &c., he meant Jesus Christ.

Now, the whole of Peter's argument is grounded upon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated "corruption," here signifies "destruction, perdition;" and in the next place, instead of being "thy holy One," in the singular, it is in the Hebrew "thy saints," in general.

The passage is quoted from the 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from the original, which will make the propriety or impropriety of Peter's quotation perfectly obvious.

The contents and import of the Psalm, according to the English version, are as follow; "David, in distrust of his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to God for preservation, He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of life everlasting." And the passage in question, according to the original, reads thus:--"I have set the Lord always before me: Because he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory [i.

e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope.