(b.) Some commentators are fond of detailing various opinions, without sifting them. This also we reckon a defect. They procure a number of former expositions, and write down out of each what is said upon a text. They tell what one and another learned annotator affirms ; but do not search or scrutinise his affirmations. No doubt an array of names looks imposing ; and the reader may stare with surprise at the extent of research displayed ; but nothing is easier than to fill up pages with such patchwork, and to be as entirely ignorant of the nature of commentary as before. The intelligent reader will be inclined to say, What matters it to me what this rabbi has said, or that doctor has stated ? I am anxious to know the true sense of the Scriptures, and not the varying opin ions of men concerning them. I long to have the refreshing truths of the Bible presented to me in their native purity, just as they are found in the pages of inspiration. Do not perplex me with the notions of numerous commentators, many of whom were utterly incompetent for their task ; but let me see the mind of the Spirit fully and fairly exhibited, without the artificial technicalities of scholastic theology. It is a work of supererogation to collect a multitude of annotations from various sources, most of which the industrious collector knows to be improbable or erroneous. It is folly to adduce and combat interpretations, from which the com mon sense and simple piety of an unsophisticated reader turn away with instinctive aversion. If plausible views be stated, they should be thoroughly analysed. But in all cases the right meaning ought to be a prominent thing with the commentator ; and prominently should it be manifested, sur rounded, if possible, with those hues which Heaven itself has given it, and qualified by such circum stances as the Bible may furnish.
(c.) Another defect consists in dwelling on the easy and evading the difficult passages. This fea ture belongs especially to those English commen taries which are most current among us. By a series of appended remarks, plain statements are expanded ; but wherever there is a real perplexity, it is glazed over with marvellous superficiality. It may be that much is said about it, yet there is no penetration beneath the surface ; and when the reader asks himself what is the true import, he finds himself in the same state of ignorance as when he first took up the Commentary in question. Pious reflections and multitudinous inferences enter largely into our popular books of exposition. They spirittuzlise but do not expound. They sermonise upon a book, without catching its spirit or compre hending its meaning. All this is out of place. A preaching; spim?ualising commentary does not de serve the appellation of commentary at all. When a writer undertakes to educe and exhibit the true sense of the Bible, he should not give forth his own meditations, however just and proper in themselves.
Put in the room of exposition, they are wholly out of place. The simple portions of the Bible are precisely those which require little to be said on them ; while to the more difficult superlative at tention should be paid. But the reverse order of procedure is followed by our popular commentators. They piously descant on what is well known, leav ing the reader in darkness where he most needs as sistance.
The intelligent part of the public are beginning to see that no one man, be his industry what it may, is competent to write a commentary on the whole Bible. Let him possess vast learning, great abilities, sound judgment, mental acumen, and in defatigable zeal, he will still find it impossible to produce a solid commentary on all the canonical books. It is true that one person may write what is commonly styled a commentary embracing the entire Bible, but how little of independent inquiry does such a work present! How feebly does it trace out the course of thought pursued by each of the inspired writers, the numerous allusions to manners and customs, the whole meaning of the original. Much, very much, is left untouched by it. It pursues an easy path, and difficulties vanish before it, because the highest object of the right minded interpreter, so far from being attained, is not sought to be realised. There may be a great amount of writing—the thoughts of preceding com mentators may be given in another costume with appended reflections ; but, in all this, there is no profound or satisfying investigation. The mere surface of revelation is skimmed. The work is performed perfunctorily. Nothing of value is added to former interpretations. The essence and spirit of the original are to a great extent unper ceived. The shades and colourings of thought are unreflected. Two or three books are quite suffi cient for one man, to whatever age he may attain. By intelligently expounding them, he will do more to advance the cause of sacred interpretation, than if he were to travel over the entire field of the Bible. We prefer a sound and able commentary on one book, to a prosing expansion of stale remarks on all. It displays more real talent, as it exhibits more independent thought. We value highly the labours of those men who devote themselves to a few books, with an honest deter mination to ascertain their true meaning, and with such qualifications intellectual, moral, and literary, as have been already noticed. If they be men of the right stamp, we may expect great benefit from their investigations. As for those who have the self-confidence to undertake the exposition of all Scripture, we are inclined to pass by their harmless drudgery, never looking to it for true exposition. They are mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. They collect the observations of others ; but it will be found that sermonising- and discursive annotations fill up their lengthened pages.