Calmet.—Calmet is perhaps the most distin guished commentator on the Bible belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. In the higher qua lities of commentary his voluminous work is very deficient. It contains a good collection of histori cal materials, and presents the meaning of the ori ginal where it is already plain ; but his historical apparatus needs to be purified of its irrelevant, erroneous statements ; while on the difficult por tions no new light is thrown.
Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, and Whitby.—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. Whitby presents a remarkable compound of excellencies and imperfections. In philosophy he was a master. In critical elucidations of the text he was at home. Nor was he wanting in acuteness or philosophical ability. His judgment was singularly clear ; and his manner of annotat ing straightforward. Yet he had not much compre hensiveness of intellect, or a deep insight into the spiritual nature of revelation. The sublime har mony of the N. T. was but dimly seen by him. In the spirit of a high relish for the purity of the Gospel he seldom mounts up into its mysteries. Deeply baptized in the Spirit's influences he could not have been, else many of his expository notes would have been different.
Henry.—The name of this good man is vener able, and will be held in everlasting remembrance. His commentary does not contain much exposition. It is full of sermonising. It is surprising, how ever, to see how far his good sense and simple piety led him into the doctrine of the Bible, apart from many of the higher qualities belonging to a successful commentator. In thoroughness and solidity of exposition he is not to be named with Calvin. His prolixity is great. Practical preach ing is the burden of his voluminous notes.
Gill.—The prominent characteristic of Gill's commentary is heaviness. It lacks condensation and brevity. The meaning of the inspired authors is often undeveloped, and more frequently dis torted. It has the lumber and rubbish of learning, without learning itself.
Doa'dridge.—The taste of this pious commen tator was good, and his style remarkably pure. He had not much acumen or philosophy in his nature ; but he had an excellent judgment, and a calm mode of inquiry. His paraphrase leaves
much unexplained, while it dilutes the strength of the original. It is too discursive and sermonis ing. The notes are few, and ordinarily correct.
Scott.—The prevailing characteristic of Scott's commentary is judiciousness in the opinions ad vanced. The greater portion of it, however, is not proper exposition. The pious author preaches about and paraphrases the original. His simpli city of purpose generally preserved him from mis takes ; but as a commentator he was neither acute nor learned. He wanted a competent acquaint ance with the original, power of analysis, a mind unprepossessed by a doctrinal system, and penetra tion of spirit.
A. Clarke.—In most of the higher qualities by which an interpreter should be distinguished, this man of much reading was wanting. His historical and geographical notes are the best. But he had no philosophical ability. His prejudices warped his judgment. His philology is not unfrequently puerile. Acuteness and penetration are not seen in his writings. There is no deep insight into the mind of the sacred writers.
The Greek Testament of Alford contains a criti cal and exegetical commentary now completed. This is a very valuable work. The learned author has produced a good commentary, pervaded by sound sense, skill, theological perspicacity, and spiritual perception. The labours of those who have preceded him, especially of De Wette and Meyer, have been freely used ; nor has Stier been forgotten in the Gospels. But the writer has everywhere exercised his own independent judg ment, and stamped the whole with the impress of a reflecting mind. The work is an immense ad vance upon the three volumes of Bloomfield, or his Recensio Synoptica with its ill-digested gatherings.
In addition to these commentaries on all Scrip ture, or one of the Testaments, there are nume rous expositions of separate books, which should not be omitted. A few are worthy of mention :— r. Kalisch has commented on Exodus and Genesis learnedly and copiously. Few works in English can be compared to these expositions in thorough ness and ability. We trust that the learned writer may be spared to complete his gigantic task of going through the O. T. in the same way.