II. There are two kinds of commentary which we shall notice, viz. the critical and the popular. 1. The former contains grammatical and philological remarks, unfolds the general and special significations of words, points out idioms and peculiarities of the original lan- guages, and always brings into view the Hebrew or Greek phraseology employed by the sacred writers. It dilates on the peculiarities and difficnlties of con- struction which may present themselves, referring to various readings, and occasionally bringing into com- parison 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 shrinks not fh>m employing the technical language common to scholars. Extend- ed dissertations are sometimes given, in which the Ian- ~^ge is made the direct subject of examination, and
the aid of lexicons and grammars called in to tvpfvit or confirm a certain interpretation. 2. Popmlar um- mentary states in perspicuous and nntechnical pfante- ology the sentiments of the holy writers, nsoally widh out detailing the steps by which that mesinng his been discovered. It leaves philological obaerrsdoss to those whose taste leads them to sach atndira. JUl scientific investigations are avoided. Its grest 0(9^ is to present, in an attractive form, the tbcnigbts (rftk sacred authors, so that they may vividly impress the mind and interest the heart. It avoids every thisf that a reader unacquainted with Hebrewr and Greek would not understand, and occupies itsel/ stAtkf with the theology of the inspired authors — that holy sesae which enlightens and saves mankind. This, bowerer, is rather what popular commentary should do^ this what it has hitherto done.
The limits of critical taid popular oommestary are not so wide as to prevent a partial unioa of both. Their ultimate object is the same, viz. to present the exact meaning which the Holy Spirit intended to ex- press. Both may state the import of wtvds and phrases ; both may investigate the course of though pursued by prophets and aposties. They may devd- op processes of argumentation, the scope of tiie writ> ers' remarks, the bearing of each partieolar on a cer- tain purpose, and the connection between different por> tions of Scripture. Tet there is much difiicolty is combining their respective qualities. In popmUBrisiag the critical, and in elevating the popular to tfw stand- ard of intelligent interpretation, there is room fbr the exercise of great talent. The fcnrmer is apt to degen- erate into philological sterility, the latter mto trite re> flection. But by vivifying the one, and solidifying the other, a good degree of affini^ would be efiRscted. Critical and antiquarian knowledge should only be regarded as a means of arriving at the trath taaght Geographical, chronological, and historical lemarii should solely subserve the educement or confirmstiM of Jehovah's will.
III. The prominent Sefictt of existing commesta- ries.— 1. ProUxity. This defect chiefly applies to ^ older works ; hence their g^at size. It is not m- common to meet with a large folio volume of 000- mentary on a book of Scripture of moderate extent Thus Byfield, on the Epistie to the Colossians, fiUs a folio volume ; and Yenema, on Jeremiah, two quartos. Peter Martyr*s "most learned and fruitAil oommes- taries upon the Epistie to the Romans** occupy a folio, and his "commentaries upon the book of Judges" an- other 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 Tolmses quarto, the latter to two goodly folioe. It is almoEt superfluous to remark that such writers wander away, without confining themselves to exposition. We 60 not deny that even their extraneous matter may bt good and edifjring to those who have the patienee to wade through its labyrinths, but still it is not coiuia^ tarif. It is very easy to write, currente aJtmta, any thing however remotely connected with a pssssge, or to note down the thoughts as they rise ; but to tkmh otU the meaning of a place, to exercise ind^Mndent mental effort upon it, to apply severe and rigtd exam- ination to each sentence and paragraph of tiie origin- al, is quite a different process. To exhibit In a Indd and self-satisfying manner the reeulta of deep thoogbl and indomitable indnstiy, is fur from the intention of those prolix interpreters who, in their apparent anxie- ty to compose aysff commentary, present the reader with a chaos of annotations, and bniy the holy sease of the inspired writers beneath the rubbidi of their prosaic musmgs.
2. Some commentators are fond of detailing varioae opinions without sifting them. They procure a nao^ ber of former expositions, and write down out of eadk what is said upon a text. They tell what one and
COMMENTARY
429
COMMENTARY
inothflT learned annotator affinns, but do not search jT scratinize his affirmations. No doabt an array of aames looks imposing ; and die reader may stare with iorprise at the extent of research displayed ; but noth- ing is easier than to fill up pages with snch patchwork, md to be as entirely ignorant of the nature of com- mentary as before. The intelligent reader will be in- clined to say, What matters it to me what this rabbi bas said, or that doctor has stated? I am anxious to know the true sense of the Scriptures, and not the va- rying opinions of men concerning them. It is a work of supererogation to collect a midtitude of annotations from Yarious sources, most of which the industrious col- lector knows to be improbable or erroneous. It is iblly to adduce and combat interpretations from which the common sense and simple piety of tlie unsophisticated reader turn away with instinctive aversion. If plau- sible views be stated, they should be thoroughly ana- lysed. But in all cases the right meaning ought to be a prominent thing with the commentator, and promi- nently should it be manifested, surrounded, if possible, with those hues which Heaven itself has f^ven it, and qoalified by such circumstances as the Bible may fur- nish.