8. Another defect consists in dwelling on the easy and evading the d^ScuU pasMgm, This feature be- longs especially to those English commentaries which are most current among us. By a series of appended remarks, plain statements are expanded; but wher- ever there is a real perplexity, it is glozed over with marvellous superficiality. It may be that much is said aboui it, but yet there is no penetration beneath the snr&ce ; 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 infer- ences enter largely into our popular books of exposition. They spiritualize, but they do not expound. They sermonize upon a book, but they do not catch its spirit or <»mprehend its meaning. When a writer under- takes 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 eipontion, they are wholly out of place. The simple portions of the Bible are precisely those which require little to be said on tliem, while to the more difficult su- perlative attention should be paid. But the reverse order of procedure is followed by our popular commen- tators. They piously descant on what is well known, leaving the reader in darkness where he most needs assistance. — Kitto, s. v.
4. A very common fault witii modem commentators is the attempt to go over too much ground of text, and thos do the whole work superficially. Many are am- bitious of writing a commentary on the whole Bible, often with very inadequate preparations, or leisure, or research, and thus do but little else than rehearse the conclusions of others, with scarcely any original investigation themselves. The commentator should come to his work only after a long and matured study of the Scriptures as a whole, and then, with great de- liberation, and patient study and balancing of various views and conflicting opinions, proceed step by step with one book at a time ; not hastily run over the en- tire volume, and produce the crude and first-caught materials that he has gathered suddenly and by ope- flided investigations. Hence those annotations are al- most always the best where a writer has confined him- self to a sin^e book or epistle, and has perhaps made it his life-long study, looking at it from every possi- ble point of view, and verifying his conclusions by re- peated comparisons and researches. Commentaries "written to order** have almost invariably been worthless. See American BibUcal Repotkory, January, 1888»art.iv;
lY. We shall briefly review the principal works of this class on the Bible (adopting substantially the crit-
icisms on the older oommentaiieB found in Kitto*s Qr- dopadiaf s. v.).
1. Such as are most accessible by having been writ- ten in English or Latin, or translated hito one of those languages. (See a select list of this kind, with criti- cisms, in the Suppiem. to Jenks's Comprehensive Com" menUtry.')
(1.) J. Calvin {'^ Commentarii,*^ etc. in his Opp,, translated, Edinb. 1845-66, 62 vols. 8vo).— In all the higher qualifications of a commentator Calvin is pre- eminent. His knowledge 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 iNBen well remarked that he chiefly attended to the logic of commentary. He pos- sessed singular acnteness, united to a deep acquaint- ance with the human heart, a comprehension of mind by which he was able to survey revelation in all its features, and an enlightened understanding competent to perceive sound exegetical principles, and resolute in adhering to them. He can never be consulted with- out advantage, although all his opinions should not be followed, especially those that result fh>m his doctrin- al prepossessions.
(2.) T.Beza (" Tert. F«<. c. tdW. TremelMi et Junii, Apocr. c notis Junii, et N. T. c. notis Bez«," fol. Ge- nev. 1576-79, Lond. 1598, and often; ''Bible with An- noUxtions," fol. Gen. 1561-2, and often).— Beza's tal- ents are seen to great advantage in expounding the argumentative parts of the Bible. He possessed many of the best exegetical qualities which characterized his great master. In tracing the connection of one part with another, and the successive steps of an argu- ment, he displays much abOity. His acuteness and learning were considerable. He was better acquaint- ed with the theology than the criticism of the New Tes- tament.
(8.) H. Hammond Q*P<xraphrcue and Annotations^ on the N. T., Lond. 1658, heit ed. 1702 ; on the Psakns, in his TTorb, 4 vols. fol. 1674r-84).— This learned an- notator was well qualified for interpretation, 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 mean- hig of the inspired writers. Many of the most diffi- cult portions he has superficially examined or wholly mistaken.
(4.) M. Poole (''Annotations'* on the whole Bible, Lond. 2 vols. fol. 1700 and before, best ed. Lond. 1840, 8 vols. 8vo). — Poolers 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 re- markable neither for proftindity nor acnteness. Tet he had piety and good sense, amazing industry, and an extensive knowledge of the older commentators.