2. There are two kinds of commentary which we shall notice, viz., the critical and the popular. The former contains grammatical and philological re marks, unfolds the general and special significations of words, points out idioms and peculiarities of the original languages, and always brings into view the Hebrew or Greek phraseology employed by the sacred writers. It dilates on the peculiarities and difficulties of construction which may present them selves, referring to various readings, and occasion ally bringing into comparison the sentiments and diction of profane writers where they resemble those of the Bible. In a word, it takes a wide range, while it states the processes which lead to results, and does not shrink from employing the technical language common to scholars. In this way the meaning of the original is brought out. Extended dissertations are sometimes given, in which the language is made the direct subject of examination ; and the aid of lexicons and grammars called in to support or confirm a certain interpretation. Popu lar commentary states in perspicuous and untechni cal phraseology the sentiments of the holy writers, without usually detailing the steps by which that meaning has been discovered. It leaves philologi cal observations to those whose taste leads them to such studies. All scientific investigations are avoided. Its great object is to present, in an at tractive form, the thoughts of the sacred authors, so that they may vividly impress the mind and in terest the heart. It shuns all peculiarities that might repel the simple-minded, reflecting reader of the Bible, and endeavours to adduce the truth of God without minute details or tedious digressions. It avoids everything that a reader unacquainted with Hebrew and Greek would not understand ; and occupies itself solely with the theology of the inspired authors—that holy sense which enlightens and saves mankind. This, however, is rather what popular commentary should do, than what it has hitherto done. We have described the appropriate sphere of its duty, rather than the province which it has actually occupied.
The limits of critical and popular commentary are not so wide as to prevent a partial union of both. Their ultimate object is the same, viz., to present the exact meaning which the sacred writers intended to express. 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 particu lar on a certain purpose, and the connection be tween different portions of Scripture. In these respects critical and popular commentary may sub stantially coincide. Perhaps the union of both presents the best model of commentary, provided the former be divested of learned parade or repul sive technicalities ; and the latter be perspicuously full. Yet there is much difficulty in combining their respective qualities. In popularising the criti cal, and in elevating the popular to the standard of intelligent interpretation, there is room for the ex ercise of great talent. The former is apt to de generate into philological sterility ; the latter into trite reflection. But by vivifying the one, and solidifying the other, a good degree of affinity may be effected. The results which learning has at tained, by processes unintelligible to all but the scholar, may surely be presented to the unlearned reader so as to be understood and relished. And what are the results which it is the great object of every commentator to realise ? They are simply the ideas which the inspired writers designed to set forth. These constitute theology. They are em phatically the truth. They are the mind of God, as far as he has thought fit to reveal to men—the pure and paramount realities whose belief trans forms the sinner into the saint. The commentator
who comes short of this important end, or fails in exhibiting the whole counsel of God in its gradual unfoldings, is not successful. It matters little whether he possess profound learning, if he cannot exhibit in all their strength and richness the exact thoughts of the holy men who wrote. To this all his erudition should be subordinate. Critical and antiquarian knowledge should only be regarded as a mean of arriving at such an object. Geographi cal, chronological, and historical remarks should subserve the purpose just stated. The building about which they are employed they should raise, strengthen, or consolidate. As long as they contri bute nothing to the rearing or cementing of its parts, they are useless lumber. The grand ques tion with every commentator should be, what did the Holy Ghost mean to express by such a phrase or sentence ? What train of thought does the in spired writer pursue? what truth does he design to teach, what doctrine to embody, what duty to in culcate ? Am I exhibiting as the mind of the Spirit what I have sufficient reason to believe to be really such ? Have I examined everything within my reach, which could be supposed to throw light on the original, or aid in understanding it ? Has every known circumstance been taken into ac count ? These and similar questions should never be lost sight of by the intelligent commentator. In proportion as he is actuated by the motives they imply will he produce a solid and safe exposition, such as the sacred original was truly meant to ex hibit.
3. The prominent defects of existing commen taries.
(a.) Prolixity. This defect chiefly applies to the older works : hence their great size. It is not uncommon to meet with a large folio volume of commentary on a book of Scripture of moderate extent. Thus Byfield, on the Epistle to the Co lossians, fills a folio volume ; and Venema, on Jeremiah, two quartos. Peter Martyr's ' most learned and fruitfull commentaries upon the Epis tle to the Romans' occupy a folio, and his ' com mentarie upon the book of Judges,' another tome of the same extent. But Venema on the Psalms, and Caryl on Job, are still more extravagant, the former extending to no less than six volumes quarto, the latter to two goodly folios. It is almost super fluous to remark that such writers wander away, without confining themselves to exposition. We do not deny that even their extraneous matter may be good and edifying to those who have the patience to wade through its labyrinths ; but still it is not commentary. It is not a simple elucidation of the meaning which the sacred writers intended to ex press. To say everything that it is almost pos sible to say on a passage, or to write down what first comes up in the mind, and nearly in the same form in which it suggests itself, is far from giving the true sense, which ought ever to be the one ob ject in view. It is very easy to write, currente cala me, anything however remotely connected with a passage, or to note down the thoughts as they rise ; but to think out the meaning of a place, to exercise independent mental effort upon it, to apply severe and rigid examination to each sentence and para graph of the original, is quite a different process. To exhibit in a lucid and self-satisfying manner the results of deep thought and indomitable industry, is far from the intention of those prolix interpre ters, who, in their apparent anxiety to compose a pill commentary, present the reader with a chaos of annotations, burying the holy sense of the in spired writers beneath the rubbish of their prosaic musings.