here; and fo, to avoid a harsh ambiguity to common readers, it would be better to tranflate it. If you want to have this explained, the apostle goes on to do it for you. The word, fays he, or wifdom was made, or was (flesh), a man, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the wellbeloved of the father, full of grace and truth: i. e. The divine wifdom was in the man Christ Jefus, and by him dwelt among us ; being communicated to him in a degree never before communicated to mortals: and we (his apoftles) faw his glory, were witneffes of the extraordinary gifts of a divine power beflowed upon him; the glory as of the well-beloved of the Father; i. e. fuch high divine communications as befpoke him to be most highly approved by, and beloved of the fupreme Father of all.

In the fame difcourfe, p. 204, Dr. Horne fays; The apoftle to the hebrews, writing on the fubject of the incarnation, thus expreffeth himself, he taketh not hold of angels, but he taketh hold of the feed of

• Abraham;

< Abraham; i. e. he took or affumed the 'manhood into God.'

One is concerned to fee fuch an intire want of attention to the real meaning of the fcripture, and right interpretation of it. For fo far is the apostle from writing here upon the fubject of the incarnation, that there is nothing that indicates that he had ever any idea of such a thing in his mind here, or any where. What may be fuppofed to have led Dr. Horne into fuch a mistake, is his implicitly following our very wrong english translation of this and the foregoing verfe, which a scholar and one that undertakes to teach truth to others should not have done. I have put our common english and the true verfion in the margin (w) in oppofite columns; from

which you will perceive that the apoftle is fo far from treating of what Dr. Horne calls the incarnation, that he in exprefs words afferts, that Jefus was a human creature, like all the rest of us. I have also fubjoined (*) Hardy's notes on the two verfes, to the fame purpofe, because he generally favours the divinity of Chrift in his interpretations, and therefore will be the lefs fufpected of partiality.

Of Dr. Horne's commentary on the pfalms.

Difficulty of the prophetic writings. A caution concerning them. Dr. Horne's wrong method of interpretation. Various inftances of it. Remarks on them.

OUR author's other work, on which I am to make fome obfervations, feems to have

'(x) Ver. 14. Ipfe fimiliter particeps factus eft eorundem, i. e. mortalis homo, et miferiis obnoxius. Ver. 16. λapCanota proprie aliquem manu apprehendere, fignificat, et hinc ad opitulationem fignificandum commode transfertur.

have been a very popular one, from its having come to a third edition. But although composed by him with a good design, it is liable to vaft objections, from his very wrong method of interpreting the scriptures, and from his drawing afide and mifleading his readers, from the worship of the true God. It is intituled;

• A commentary on the book of psalms.'

• In which their literal or historical sense, as they relate to king David, and the people of Ifrael, is illuftrated; and their application to Meffiah, to the church, and to individuals, as members thereof, is pointed out; with a view to render the use of the pfalter pleafing and profitable to all orders and degrees of chriftians.. By George Horne, D.D. &c.'

It is affuredly a most becoming employment for a divine, and doing a real service to christianity, to endeavour to illuftrate fuch of these facred hymns as contain prophecies of Chrift, and really relate to him. But too much caution cannot be used upon a fubject, where there is fo great danger of being deluded by a warm imagination. And therefore in the interpretation of this part

of

of the facred writings, as indeed of all others whatsoever, we fhould take it as a thing certain, that no writer has any more than one subject in his thoughts at a time to difcufs, and one fenfe to be fixed to his words; (unless he himself, or fome one properly authorized indicate the contrary :) and this one fenfe, which his words plainly convey we are to find out by the help of just criticifm, and adhere to and reft in it.

This is acting in agreement with that golden rule of interpretation, as Mofheim well files it, vol. iv. p. 21. inculcated by Luther; viz. that there is no more than one fenfe annexed to the words of fcripture, throughout all the books of the Old and New Tefta

ment.

But Dr. Horne forfaking thefe wife cautions and directions from the first, and paying little regard to the plain and literal meaning of the pfalms, employs himself in exhibiting their fecret meaning and reference to Christ, intirely as it fhould feem from the fund of his own imagination: for he gives no proof that any fuch myftic fenfe. was intended. by their respective writers. In this way of interpreta