(2) Popular. Popular commentary states in perspicuous and untechnical phraseology the sen timents of the holy writers, usually without de tailing the steps by which that meaning has been discovered. It leaves philological observations to those whose tastes lead them to such studies. All scientific investigations are avoided. Its great object is to present, in an attractive form, the thoughts of the sacred authors, so that they may vividly impress the mind and interest the heart.
The limits of critical and popular commen tary are not so wide as to prevent a partial union of both. Both may state the import of words and phrases; both may investigate the course of thought pursued by prophets and apostles. They may develop processes of argumentation, the scope of the writers' remarks, the bearing of each par ticular on a certain purpose, and the connection between different portions of Scripture. In these respects critical and popular commentary may substantially coincide. Perhaps the union of both presents the best model of commentary, provided the former be divested of learned parade and re pulsive technicalities, and the latter be perspicu ously full. The results which it is the great ob ject of every commentator to realize are simply the ideas which the inspired writers designed to set forth. These constitute theology. They are emphatically the truth. They are the holy mind of God, as far as he has thought fit to reveal it to men—the pure and paramount realities which metamorphose the sinner into the saint. The com mentator who comes short of this important end, or fails in exhibiting the whole counsel of God in its harmonious proportions, is not successful.
(5) Earlier Commentaries. The following are some of the earlier commentators on the Bible: Calvin.—In all the higher qualifications of a commentator Calvin is pre-eminent.
It has been well remarked that he chiefly at tended to the logic of commentary. He possessed singular acuteness, united to a deep acquaintance with the human heart, a comprehension of mind by which he was able to survey revelation in all its features, and an enlightened understanding com petent to perceive sound exegetical principles, and resolute in adhering to them. He can never be consulted without advantage, although not all his opinions should be followed. His works pre sent specimens of exegesis that deserve to be ranked among the best extant, because they are occupied with the spiritual essence of the Bible— with the theology of the inspired writers.
Beza.—Beza's talents are seen to great advan tage in expounding the argumentative parts of the Bible. He was better acquainted with the theol ogy than the criticism of the New Testament.
Hammond.—This learned annotator was well qualified for interpretation. His paraphrase and annotations on the New Testament possess con siderable value; and many good specimens of criticism are found in his notes.
Poole.—Poole's annotations on the Holy Bible contain several valuable, judicious remarks. But their defects are numerous. The pious author had only a partial acquaintance with the original. He was remarkable neither for profundity nor acuteness.
Pali Synopsis Critieorum.—In this large work, the annotations of a great number of the older commentators are collected and condensed. But they are seldom sifted and criticised, so that the reader is left to choose among them for himself.
Grotius.—This very learned writer investigates the literal sense of the Scriptures with great dili gence and success. He had considerable exe getical tact, and a large acquaintance with the heathen classics, from which he was accustomed to adduce parallels. His chief defect is in spirit ual discernment. Hence he rests in the literal meaning in many cases, where there is a higher or ulterior reference.
Le Clerc.—Excellent notes are interspersed throughout the commentaries of this author, which the younger Rosenmiiller transcribed into his Scholia. His judgment was good, and his mode of interpretation perspicuous.
Calmet.—Calmet is perhaps the most distin guished commentator on the Bible belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. In the higher qualities of commentary his voluminous work is very de ficient. It contains a good collection of historical materials, and presents the meaning of the original where it is already plain.
Patrick, Lowth, Arnold and 1Thitby.—Bishop Patrick had many of the elements belonging to a good commentator. His learning was great when we consider the time at which he lived, his method brief and perspicuous. Lowth was inferior to Patrick. \Vhitby presents a remarkable com pound of excellences and imperfections. In phil osophy he was a master. In critical elucidations of the text he was at home. Nor was he wanting in acuteness or philosophical ability. His judg ment was singularly clear, and his maner of an notating straightforward. Yet he had not much comprehensivenes of intellect, or a deep insight into the spiritual nature of revelation.