(c.) In addition to this, the train of thought or reasoning pursued throughout an entire book or epistle, the various topics discussed, the great end of the whole, with the subordinate particulars it embraces, the digressions made by the writer— these and other particulars of a like nature should be pointed out by the true commentator. The connection of one argument with another, the con sistency and ultimate bearing of all the statements advanced—in short, their various relations, as far as these are developed or intimated by the author, should be clearly apprehended and intelligently stated. There is a plan or purpose that pervades every book, epistle, or prophecy of the sacred writers ; a plan which does not indeed wholly ex clude, but usually takes precedence of, other ob jects to which the book may be subservient. To trace such a plan, as it is carried out by the original writer, and to unfold the particular mode in which it promotes the highest interests of mankind, is one of the chief characteristics of commentary.
(d.) Another characteristic of commentary is, that it presents a comparison of the sentiments con tained in one book, or one entire connected portion of Scripture, with those of another, and with the general tenor revelation. A beautiful harmony pervades the Bible. Diversities, indeed, it exhibits, just as we should expect it a priori to do; it presents difficulties and mysteries which we cannot fathom; but, with this variety, there is a uniformity worthy of the wisdom of God. All his works are distin guished by the same kind of arrangement ; and the revelation of his will forms no exception. A com mentator should therefore bring into juxtaposition the various portions of the divine word, and point out their divine symmetry. He should be able to ac count for diversities of sentiment, in reference to the same topic, that appear in the pages of books written at different periods, and addressed to indi viduals or communities whose circumstances, in tellectual and physical, were dissimilar. An ex position that fails to do this is deficient in one of its highest qualities. Without it, religious truth will be seen in disjointed fragments ; no connected system, progressive and harmonious in its parts, will meet the eye. The adaptation of the entire scheme of revelation to the salvation of mankind will be dimly apprehended, while there is no com prehensive survey of its fair proportions.
From what has been stated in regard to the con stituents of commentary, it will also he seen that it differs from translation. The latter endeavours to find in another language equivalent terms expressive of the ideas which the words of the Ilebrew and Greek languages were framed to convey. It seeks
to embody the same sentiments as are contained in the Scriptures, by means of phraseology closely corresponding in its symbolical character to the diction of the Bible. It is easy to see, however, that in many cases this cannot be done ; and that in others it can be effected very imperfectly. There are and must be a thousand varieties of conception expressed in the original languages of Scripture, of which no other can afford an adequate representa tion. The inhabitants of the countries where the sacred books were written lived amid circumstances in many respects diverse from those of other people. These circumstances naturally gave a colouring to their language. They affected it in such a way as to create terms for which there are no equivalents in the languages of tribes who are conversant with different objects, and live amid different relations. Translation fails in numerous instances, just because the language of one people contains words and idioms to which that of none other presents fit counterparts. In such a case, no expedient is left but circumlocution. By the help of several phrases, we must try to approximate at least the sentiment or shade of thought which the inspired writers de signed to express. Where exact representatives can not be found, we bring together various terms which may give as vivid a representation of the original as can be effected through the medium of the lan guage in which the interpretation is given. Conunen taly is thus more diffuse than translation. Its ob ject is not to find words in one language corres ponding to those of the original languages of the Scriptures, or nearly resembling them in signifi cance, but to set forth the meaning of the writers in notes and remarks of considerable length. Para phrase occupies a middle place between translation and commentary ; partaking of greater diffuseness than the former, but of less extent than the latter. It aims at finding equivalent terms to those which the sacred writers employ, accompanied with others that appear necessary to fill up the sense, or to spread it out before the mind of the reader in such a form as the authors themselves might be supposed to have employed in reference to the people to whom the paraphrast belongs. Scholia differ from commentary only in brevity. They are short notes on passages of Scripture. Sometimes difficult places alone are selected as their object ; at other times they embrace continuously an entire book. In every case brevity is, or ought to be, their dis tinguishing feature.