2. Stuart.—This esteemed writer, after furnish ing examples of solid commentary on the epistles to the Hebrews and Romans, undertook a copious and learned exposition of the Apocalypse, as also of the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. The author has endeavoured to enter fully into the spirit of the sacred writers, evading no difficulty, and tracing the course of their reasoning with considerable suc cess. He has consequently thrown much light on the difficult books he expounds.
3. Hodge has written commentaries on the epis tles to the Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, in which he cannot be said to have gone beyond Calvin, whose theology he seems to follow.
4. Alexander of Princeton has published a very learned and valuable commentary on the prophe cies of Isaiah—the most elaborate exposition of the prophet in the English language. He has also com mented on the Psalms, Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, but less successfully.
5. Henderson.—This writer has published good commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets. In point of learning the works are very respectable, while they are pervaded by a true spirit of theological research.
6. Ellicott has published grammatical and critical commentaries on various epistles of St. Paul, which possess much excellence. The writer is well fitted for his task, and adheres very faithfully to what he proposes. His works are by far the best of their kind in the English language.
7. Eadie has published commentaries on the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philip pians, containing a large amount of good mate rials. Too much, however, of Scotch theology is attributed in them to the apostle, and the esteemed commentator preaches rather often.
8. Stanley.—This able writer is the author of an excellent commentary on the epistles to the Corin thians.
9. 7owett has commented on the epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, with great philosophical ability and theological freedom. The essays or excursus interspersed evince no small exegetical excellence. The learned commentator has indulged in a style of criticism which is fitted to alarm the timid, and even to startle the more cautious theologian at times. His work is at once profound and suggestive.
We cannot characterise other commentators on separate books of Scripture, such as Phillips and De Burgh on the Psalms ; Ginsburg's able volumes on the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes ; Maclean on the Epistle to the Hebrews ; Preston on Ecclesi astes, etc., etc. It would detain us too long even
to enumerate the majority of them. On each book two or three may be selected as the best, and the rest safely neglected.
The modern Germans, prolific as they are in theological works, have seldom ventured to under take an exposition of the whole Bible. Each writer usually confines himself to the task of com menting on a few books. In this their wisdom is exhibited. Yet they do not always excel in good specimens of commentary. They are often ward explainers. In pointing out various readings, in grammatical, historical, and geographical annota tions, as also in subtle speculations respecting the genius of the times in which the writers of the Bible lived, they are at home. In the lower criti cism we willingly sit at their feet and learn. But with regard to the higher—in all that pertains to the logic of commentary, in development of the sense and sequence they are wanting. Refined notions frequently usurp the place of practical piety ; and the ntinutiw of verbal criticism furnish them nutriment apart from the rich repast of theo logical sentiment and sanctifying truth. But there are noble exceptions.
E. F. C. Rosenntiiller.—The Scholia of this laborious writer extend over the greater part of the O. T. Looking to the last editions, they are un questionably of high value. They bring together a mass of annotation such as is sufficient to satisfy the desires of most biblical students. Yet the learned author undertook too much to perform it in a masterly style. Hence his materials are not properly sifted, the chaff from the wheat. He has not drunk deeply into the spirit of the inspired authors. He seems indeed not to have had a soul attuned to the spirituality of their utterances, or im pregnated with the celestial fire that touched their hallowed lips. His father, the author of the Scholia on the N. T., is a good word-explainer for students beginning to read the original. He has not produced a masterly specimen of commentary on any one book or epistle.