4. We shall very briefly refer to the principal commentators on the Bible.
Calvin.—In all the higher qualifications of a commentator Calvin is pre-eminent. His know ledge of the original languages was not so great as that of many later expositors ; but in developing the meaning of the sacred writers, he has few equals. It has been well remarked that he chiefly attended to the logic of commentary. He pos sessed singular acuteness, united to a deep ac quaintance with the human heart, a comprehension of mind by which he was able to survey revelation in all its features, and an enlightened understand ing competent to perceive sound exegetical prin ciples, and resolute in adhering to them. He can never be consulted without advantage ; although all his opinions should not be followed. His works present 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 possessed many of the best exegetical qualities which characterised his great master. In tracing the connection of one part with another, and the successive steps of an argument, he dis plays much ability. His acuteness and learning were considerable. He was better acquainted with the theology than the criticism of the N. T.
Hammond—This learned annotator was well qualified for interpretation. His paraphrase and annotations on the N. T. possess considerable value ; and many good specimens of criticism are found in his notes. Yet he has not entered deeply into the spirit of the original, or developed with uniform success the meaning of the inspired writers. Many of the most difficult portions he has superficially examined, or wholly mistaken.
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 acute ness. Yet he had piety and good sense, amazing industry, and an extensive knowledge of the older commentators.
Poll Synopsis Criticorum.—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. Such a chaos of remarks is apt. to confuse the mind. Whoever has time, patience, and discri mination, may find correct exegesis scattered through the whole ; but simpler and more direct commentary is much to be preferred.
Grotius.—This very learned writer investigates the literal sense of the Scriptures with great dili gence and success. He had considerable exegeti cal tact, and a large acquaintance with the heathen classics, from which he was accustomed to adduce parallels. His taste was good, and his mode of unfolding the meaning of a passage, simple, direct, and brief. His judgment was sound, free from prejudice, and liberal beyond the age in which he lived. As a commentator he was distinguished for his uniformly good sense. But he wanted the depth and acuteness of Calvin. It has been said without reason, that he found Christ nowhere in the O. T. It is true that he opposed the Coc ceian method, but in this he should be commended. His chief defect is in spiritual discernment. Hence he sometimes rests in the literal meaning, 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. From his richly stored mind he could easily draw -illustrations of the Bible both pertinent and just. Yet he was very defective in theological discrimination. Hence, in the prophetic and doctrinal books, he is unsatis factory. It has been thought, not without truth, that he had a rationalistic tendency. It is certain that he exalted his own judgment highly, and pro nounced dogmatically where he ought to have manifested a modest diffidence.