Vol 04 - LECTURE 1 - A CHAT ABOUT COMMENTARIES

A CHAT ABOUT COMMENTARIES IN order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpistudies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a gloriouarmy, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you caexpound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines anlearned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If yoare of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble oconversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent thattempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men whtalk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think slittle of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not fothese great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy metaught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of latyears to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear thathe expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would bexalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, buthe existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. Thtemptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty osentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectablacquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have savemany an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageouinferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to bmen who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is thopposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is true there are number of expositions of the whole Bible which are hardly worth shelroom; they aim at too much and fail altogether; the authors have spread little learning over a vast surface, and have badly attempted for the entirScriptures what they might have accomplished for one book with tolerablsuccess; but who will deny the preeminent value of such expositions athose of Calvin, Ness, Henry, Trapp, Poole, and Bengel, which are as deeas they are broad? and yet further, who can pretend to biblical learninwho has not made himself familiar with the great writers who spent a life i1explaining some one sacred book? Caryl on Job will not exhaust thpatience of a student who loves every letter of the Word; even Collingewith his nine hundred and nine pages upon one chapter of the Song, wilnot be too full for the preacher’s use; nor will Manton’s long meter editioof the hundred and nineteenth Psalm be too profuse. No stranger coulimagine the vast amount of real learning to be found in old commentarielike the following: — Durham on Solomon’s Song, Wilcocks on Psalmand Proverbs, Jermin on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, Greenhill on EzekieBurroughs on Hosea, Ainsworth on the Pentateuch, King on JonaHutcheson on John, Peter Martyr on Romans, etc., and in Willett, SibbeBayne, Elton, Byfield, Daille, Adams, Taylor, Barlow, Goodwin, anothers on the various epistles. Without attempting to give in detail thnames of all, I intend in a familiar talk to mention the more notable, whwrote upon the whole Bible, or on either Testament, and I especially direcyour attention to the titles, which in Puritan writers generally give in briethe run of the work.

First among the mighty for general usefulness we are bound to mention thman whose name is a household word, MATTHEW HENRY.^f1He is mospious and pithy, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse antrustworthy. You will find him to be glittering with metaphors, rich ianalogies, overflowing with illustrations, superabundant in reflections. Hdelights in apposition and alliteration; he is usually plain, quaint, and full opith; he sees right through a text directly; apparently he is not critical, buhe quietly gives the result of an accurate critical knowledge of the originafully up to the best critics of his time. He is not versed in the manners ancustoms of the East, for the Holy Land was not so accessible as in our dabut he is deeply spiritual, heavenly, and profitable; finding good matter ievery text, and from all deducing most practical and judicious lessons. Hiis a kind of commentary to be placed where I saw it, in the old meetinhouse at Chester — chained in the vestry for anybody and everybody tread. It is the poor man’s commentary, the old Christian’s companiosuitable to everybody, instructive to all. His own account of how he waled to write his exposition, affords us an example of delighting in the law othe Lord. “If any desire to know how so mean and obscure a person as am, who in learning, judgment, felicity of expression, and all advantagefor such a service, am less than the least of all my Master’s servants, camto venture upon so great a work, I can give no other account of it but this.

It has long been my practice, what little time I had to spare in my studfrom my constant preparations for the pulpit, to spend it in drawing uexpositions upon some parts of the New Testament, not so much for mown use, as purely for my own entertainment, because I know not how temploy my thoughts and time more to my satisfaction. Trahit sua quemquvoluptas; every man that studies hath some beloved study, which is hidelight above any other; and this is mine. It is that learning which it was mhappiness from a child to be trained up in by my ever honored fathewhose memory must always be very dear and precious to me. He ofteminded me, that a good textuary is a good divine; and that I should reaother books with this in my eye, that I might be the better able tunderstand and apply the Scripture.” You are aware, perhaps, that thlatter part of the New Testament was completed by other hands, the gooman having gone the way of all flesh. The writers were Messrs, EvanBrown, Mayo, Bays, Rosewell, Harriss, Atkinson, Smith, Tong, WrighMerrell, Hill, Reynolds, and Billingsley — all Dissenting ministers. Thehave executed their work exceedingly well, have worked in much of thmatter which Henry had collected, and have done their best to follow himethods, but their combined production is far inferior to Matthew Henrhimself, and any reader will soon detect the difference. Every ministeought to read Matthew Henry entirely and carefully through once at least. should recommend you to get through it in the next twelve months afteyou leave college. Begin at the beginning, and resolve that you wiltraverse the goodly land from Dan to Beersheba. You will acquire a vasstore of sermons if you read with your notebook close at hand; and as fothoughts, they will swarm around you like twittering swallows around aold gable towards the close of autumn. If you publicly expound the chapteyou have just been reading, your people will wonder at the novelty of youremarks and the depth of your thoughts, and then you may tell them what treasure Henry is. Mr. Jay’s sermons bear indubitable evidence of hihaving studied Matthew Henry almost daily. Many of the quaint things iJay’s sermons are either directly traceable to Matthew Henry or to hifamiliarity with that writer. I have thought that the style of Jay wafounded upon Matthew Henry: Matthew Henry is Jay writing, Jay iMatthew Henry preaching. What more could I say in commendation eitheof the preacher or the author?

It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you thimportance of reading the expositions of that prince among men, JOHCALVIN!^f2I am afraid that scant purses may debar you from theipurchase, but if it be possible procure them, and meanwhile, since they arin the College library, use them diligently. I have often felt inclined to crout with Father Simon, a Roman Catholic, “Calvin possessed a sublimgenius”, and with Scaliger, “Oh! how well has Calvin reached the meaninof the prophets — no one better.” You will find forty two or more goodlvolumes worth their weight in gold. Of all commentators I believe JohCalvin to be the most candid. In his expositions he is not always whamoderns would call Calvinistic; that is to say, where Scripture maintainthe doctrine of predestination and grace he flinches in no degree, buinasmuch as some Scriptures bear the impress of human free action anresponsibility, he does not shun to expound their meaning in all fairness anintegrity. He was no trimmer and pruner of texts. He gave their meaning afar as he knew it. His honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and thGreek originals as accurately as he possibly could, and then to give thmeaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and Hebrewords: he labored, in fact, to declare, not his own mind upon the Spirit’words, but the mind of the Spirit as couched in those words. Dr. King vertruly says of him, “No writer ever dealt more fairly and honestly by thWord of God. He is scrupulously careful to let it speak for itself, and tguard against every tendency of his own mind to put upon it a questionablmeaning for the sake of establishing some doctrine which he feels to bimportant, or some theory which he is anxious to uphold. This is one of hiprime excellences. He will not maintain any doctrine, however orthodoand essential, by a text of Scripture which to him appears of doubtfuapplication, or of inadequate force. For instance, firmly as he believed thdoctrine of the Trinity, he refuses to derive an argument in its favor frothe plural form of the name of God in the first chapter of Genesis. It wereasy to multiply examples of this kind, which, whether we agree in hiconclusion or not, cannot fail to produce the conviction that he is at leasan honest commentator, and will not make any passage of Scripture speamore or less than, according to his view, its divine Author intended it tspeak.” The edition of John Calvin’s works which was issued by the CalviTranslation Society, is greatly enriched by the remarks of the editorconsisting not merely of notes on the Latin of Calvin, and the Frenctranslation, or on the text of the original Scriptures, but also of weightopinions of eminent critics, illustrative manners and customs, anobservations of travelers. By the way, gentlemen, what a pity it is thapeople do not, as a rule, read the notes in the old Puritan books! If yopurchase old copies of such writers as Brooks, you will find that the notein the margin are almost as rich as the books themselves. They are dust ogold, of the same metal as the ingots in the center of the page. But treturn to Calvin. If you needed any confirmatory evidence as to the valuof his writings, I might summon a cloud of witnesses, but it will suffice tquote one or two. Here is the opinion of one who is looked upon as higreat enemy, namely, Arminius: “Next to the perusal of the Scripturewhich I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse CALVIN’commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich^f3himself; for affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripturand that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that ihanded down to us by the Library of the Fathers; so that I acknowledghim to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other mewhat may be called an eminent gift of prophecy.”

Quaint Robert Robinson said of him, “There is no abridging thisententious commentator, and the more I read him, the more does hbecome a favorite expositor with me.” Holy Baxter wrote, “I know no masince the apostles’ days, whom I value and honor more than Calvin, anwhose judgment in all things, one with another, I more esteem and comnearer to.”

If you are well enough versed in Latin, you will find in POOLE’S SYNOPSIS, a^f4 marvelous collection of all the wisdom and folly of the critics. It is a largcyclopaedia worthy of the days when theologians could be cyclopean, anhad not shrunk from folios to octavos. Query — a query for which I wilnot demand an answer — has one of you ever beaten the dust from thvenerable copy of Poole which loads our library shelves? Yet as Poolspent no less than ten years in compiling it, it should be worthy of youfrequent notice — ten years, let me add, spent in Amsterdam in exile fothe truth’s sake from his native land. His work was based upon an earlier compilation entitled Critici Sacrcontaining the concentrated light of a constellation of learned men whhave never been excelled in any age or country.

MATTHEW POOLE also wrote ANNOTATIONS^f5upon the Word of God, iEnglish, which are mentioned by Matthew Henry as having passed througmany impressions in his day, and he not only highly praises them, budeclares that he has in his own work all along been brief upon that whicMr. Poole has more largely discussed, and has industriously declined whais to be found there. The three volumes, tolerably cheap, and easily to bgot at, are necessaries for your libraries. On the whole, if I must have onlone commentary, and had read Matthew Henry as I have, I do not knobut what I should choose Poole. He is a very prudent and judicioucommentator; and one of the few who could honestly say, “We have nowillingly balked any obvious difficulty, and have designed a just satisfactioto all our readers; and if any knot remains yet untied, we have told oureaders what hath been most probably said for their satisfaction in thuntying of it.” Poole is not so pithy and witty by far as Matthew Henry, buhe is perhaps more accurate, less a commentator, and more an expositor.

You meet with no ostentation of learning in Matthew Poole, and that fothe simple reason that he was so profoundly learned as to be able to givresults without a display of his intellectual crockery. A pedant who is foever quoting Ambrose and Jerome, Piscator and OEcolampadius, in ordeto show what a copious reader he has been, is usually a dealer in smalwares, and quotes only what others have quoted before him, but he whcan give you the result and outcome of very extensive reading withousounding a trumpet before him is the really learned man. Mind you do noconfound the Annotations with the Synopsis; the English work is not translation of the Latin one, but an entirely distinct performance. Strangto say, like the other great Matthew he did not live to complete his worbeyond Isaiah 58:1-14; other hands united to finish the design. Would it be possible to eulogise too much the incomparably sententiouand suggestive folios of JOHN TRAPP?^f6Since Mr. Dickinson has renderethem accessible,^f7I trust most of you have bought them. Trapp will bmost valuable to men of discernment, to thoughtful men, to men who onlwant a start in a line of thought, and are then able to run alone. Trapexcels in witty stories on the one hand, and learned allusions on the other.

You will not thoroughly enjoy him unless you can turn to the original, anyet a mere dunce at classics will prize him. His writings remind me ohimself: he was a pastor, hence his holy practical remarks; he was the heaof a public school, and everywhere we see his profound scholarship; hwas for some time amid the guns and drums of a parliamentary garrisoand he gossips and tells queer anecdotes like a man used to a soldier’s lifyet withal, he comments as if he had been nothing else but a commentatoall his days. Some of his remarks are far fetched, and like the far fetcherarities of Solomon’s Tarshish, there is much gold and silver, but there aralso apes and peacocks. His criticisms would some of them be the cause oamusement in these days of greater scholarship; but for all that, he whshall excel Trapp had need rise very early in the morning. Trapp is mespecial companion and treasure; I can read him when I am too weary foanything else. Trapp is salt, pepper, mustard, vinegar, and all the othecondiments. Put him on the table when you study, and when you have youdish ready, use him by way of spicing the whole thing. Yes, gentlemeread Trapp certainly, and if you catch the infection of his consecratehumor, so much the better for your hearers. A very distinguished place is due to DR. GILL.^f8Beyond all controversGill was one of the most able Hebraists of his day, and in other matters nmean proficient. When an opponent in controversy had ventured to calhim “a botcher in divinity”, the good doctor, being compelled to become fool in glorying, gave such a list of his attainments as must have coverehis accuser with confusion. His great work on the Holy Scriptures igreatly prized at the present day by the best authorities, which is conclusivevidence of its value, since the set of the current of theological thought iquite contrary to that of Dr. Gill. No one in these days is likely to bcensured for his Arminianism, but most modern divines affect to sneer aanything a little too highly Calvinistic: however, amid the decadence of hiown rigid system, and the disrepute of even more moderate CalvinisGill’s laurels as an expositor are still green. His ultraism is discarded, buhis learning is respected: the world and the church take leave to questiohis dogmatism, but they both bow before his erudition. Probably no masince Gill’s days has at all equaled him in the matter of Rabbinical learning.

Say what you will about that lore, it has its value: of course, a man has trake among perfect dunghills and dust heaps, but there are a few jewelwhich the world could not afford to miss. Gill was a master cinder sifteamong the Targums, the Talmuds, the Mishna, and the Gemara. Richly dihe deserve the degree of which he said, “I never bought it, nor thought inor sought it.”

He was always at work; it is difficult to say when he slept, for he wrot10,000 folio pages of theology. The portrait of him which belongs to thichurch, and hangs in my private vestry, and from which all the publisheportraits have been engraved, represents him after an interview with aArminian gentleman, turning up his nose in a most expressive manner, as ihe could not endure even the smell of freewill. In some such a vein hwrote his commentary. He hunts Arminianism throughout the whole of it.

He is far from being so interesting and readable as Matthew Henry. Hdelivered his comments to his people from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence theipeculiar mannerism. His frequent method of animad-version is, “This texdoes not mean this”, nobody ever thought it did; “It does not mean that”, only two or three heretics ever imagined it did; and again it does not meaa third thing, or a fourth, or a fifth, or a sixth absurdity; but at last he thinkit does mean so-and-so, and tells you so in a methodical, sermon likmanner. This is an easy method, gentlemen, of filling up the time, if you arever short of heads for a sermon. Show your people firstly, secondly, anthirdly, what the text does not mean, and then afterwards you can go bacand show them what it does mean. It may be thought, however, that onsuch a teacher is enough, and that what was tolerated from a learnedoctor would be scouted in a student fresh from college. For good, sounmassive, sober sense in commenting, who can excel Gill? Very seldodoes he allow himself to be run away with by imagination, except now anthen when he tries to open up a parable, and finds a meaning in evercircumstance and minute detail; or when he falls upon a text which is nocongenial with his creed, and hacks and hews terribly to bring the word oGod into a more systematic shape. Gill is the Coryphaeus of hypeCalvinism, but if his followers never went beyond their master, they woulnot go very far astray.

I have placed next to Gill in my library ADAM CLARKE,^f9but as I have ndesire to have my rest broken by wars among the authors, I have placeDoddridge between them. If the spirits of the two worthies could descento the earth in the same mood in which they departed, no one house woulbe able to hold them. Adam Clarke is the great annotator of our Wesleyafriends; and they have no reason to be ashamed of him, for he takes ranamong the chief of expositors. His mind was evidently fascinated by thsingularities of learning, and hence his commentary is rather too much oan old curiosity shop, but it is filled with valuable rarities, such as none bua great man could have collected. Like Gill, he is one sided, only in thopposite direction to our friend the Baptist. The use of the two authormay help to preserve the balance of your judgments. If you consider Clarkwanting in unction, do not read him for savor but for criticism, and theyou will not be disappointed. The author thought that lengthy reflections were rather for the preachethan the commentator, and hence it was not a part of his plan to write sucobservations as those which endear Matthew Henry to the million. If yohave a copy of Adam Clarke, and exercise discretion in reading it, you wilderive immense advantage from it, for frequently by a sort of side light hbrings out the meaning of the text in an astonishingly novel manner. I dnot wonder that Adam Clarke still stands, notwithstanding his peculiaritiea prince among commentators. I do not find him so helpful as Gill, but stilfrom his side of the question, with which I have personally no sympathy, his an important writer, and deserves to be studied by every reader of thScriptures. He very judiciously says of Dr. Gill, “He was a very learned angood man, but has often lost sight of his better judgment in spiritualizinthe text”; this is the very verdict which we pass upon himself, only alterinthe last sentence a word or two; “He has often lost sight of his bettejudgment in following learned singularities”; the monkey, instead of thserpent, tempting Eve, is a notable instance. As I am paying no sort of attention to chronological order, I shall nowander back to old MASTER MAYER,^f10a rare and valuable author. I havbeen in London a long time now, but I have only of late been able tcomplete my set. The first volume especially is rare in the extreme. The sivolumes, folio, are a most judicious and able digest of feathecommentators, enriched with the author’s own notes, forming altogetheone of the fullest and best of learned English commentaries; not meant fopopular use, but invaluable to the student. He is a link between the moderschool, at the head of which I put Poole and Henry, and the older schoowho mostly wrote in Latin, and were tinctured with the conceits of thosschoolmen who gathered like flies around the corpse of Aristotle. Happears to have written before Diodati and Trapp, but lacked opportunitto publish. I fear he will be forgotten, as there is but little prospect of threpublication of so diffuse, and perhaps heavy, an author. He is a very Alof learning, but cold and lacking in spirituality, hence his lack of popularity. In 1653, ARTHUR JACKSON,^f11Preacher of God’s Word in Wood StreeLondon, issued four volumes upon the Old Testament, which appear thave been the result of his pulpit expositions to his people. Valuable hiworks would be if there were no better, but they are not comparable tothers already and afterwards mentioned. You can do without him, but his a reputable author. Far more useful is NESS’S HISTORY AND MYSTERY othe Old and New Testament,^f12a grand repository of quaint remarks upothe historical books of Scripture. You will find it contained in four thifolio volumes, and you will have a treasure if you procure it.

Need I commend BISHOP HALL’S CONTEMPLATIONS^f13to your affectionatattention? What wit! What sound sense! What concealed learning! His stylis as pithy and witty as that of Thomas Fuller, and it has a sacred unctioabout it to which Fuller has no pretension.

HAAK’S ANNOTATIONS^f14come to us as the offspring of the famous Synoof Dolt, and the WESTMINSTER ANNOTATIONS^f15as the production of still more venerable assembly; but if, with my hat off, bowing profoundly tthose august conclaves of master minds, I may venture to say so, I woulobserve that they furnish another instance that committees seldom equathe labors of individuals. The notes are too short and fragmentary to be oany great value. The volumes are a heavy investment.

Among entire commentators of modern date, a high place is usuallawarded to THOMAS SCOTT,^f16and I shall not dispute his right to it. He ithe expositor of evangelical Episcopalians, even as Adam Clarke is thprophet of the Wesleyans, but to me he has seldom given a thought, and have almost discontinued consulting him. The very first money I evereceived for pulpit services in London was invested in Thomas Scott, and neither regretted the investment nor became exhilarated thereby. His worhas always been popular, is very judicious, thoroughly sound and gracious: but for suggestiveness and pith is not comparable to Matthew Henry. know I am talking heresy, but I cannot help saying that for a minister’s usScott is mere milk and water — good and trustworthy, but not solienough in matter for full grown men. In the family, Scott will hold hiplace, but in the study you want condensed thought, and this you muslook for elsewhere. To all young men of light purses let me recommend THE TRACT SOCIETY’COMMENTARY,^f17in six volumes, which contains the marrow of Henry anScott, with notes from a hundred other authors. It is well executed, and fopoor men a great Godsend. I believe the Society has some speciaarrangement for poor students, that they may have these volumes at thcheapest rate.

Gentlemen, if you want something full of marrow and fatness, cheering tyour own hearts by way of comment, and likely to help you in giving tyour hearers rich expositions, buy DR. HAWKER’S POOR MAN’COMMENTARY.^f18Dr. Hawker was the very least of commentators in thmatter of criticism; he had no critical capacity, and no ability whatever aan interpreter of the letter; but he sees Jesus, and that is a sacred gift whicis most precious whether the owner be a critic or no. It is to be confessethat he occasionally sees Jesus where Jesus is not legitimately to be seen.

He allows his reason to be mastered by his affections, which, vice as it is, inot the worst fault in the world. There is always such a savor of the LorJesus Christ in Dr. Hawker that you cannot read him without profit. He hathe peculiar idea that Christ is in every Psalm, and this often leads hitotally astray, because he attributes expressions to the Savior which reallshock the holy mind to imagine our Lord’s using. However, not as substantial dish, but as a condiment, place the Plymouth vicar’s work othe table. His writing is all sugar, and you will know how to use it, nodevouring it in lumps, but using it to flavor other things.

“ALBERT BARNES”, say you, “what, do you think of Albert Barnes?” AlberBarnes is a learned and able divine, but his productions are unequal ivalue, the gospels are of comparatively little worth, but his other commentare extremely useful for Sunday School teachers and persons with a narrorange of reading, endowed with enough good sense to discriminatbetween good and evil. If a controversial eye had been turned upoBarnes’s Notes years ago, and his inaccuracies shown up by somunsparing hand, he would never have had the popularity which at one timset rival publishers advertising him in every direction. His Old Testamenvolumes are to be greatly commended as learned and laborious, and thepistles are useful as a valuable collection of the various opinions olearned men. Placed by the side of the great masters, Barnes is a lesselight, but taking his work for what it is and professes to be, no minister caafford to be without it, and this is no small praise for works which weronly intended for Sunday School teachers.^f19

Upon the NEW TESTAMENT DODDRIDGE’S EXPOSITOR^f20is worthy of a famore extensive reading than is nowadays accorded to it. It is all in the forof a paraphrase, with the text in italics; a mode of treatment far frosatisfactory as a rule, but exceedingly well carried out in this instance. Thnotes are very good, and reveal the thorough scholar. Our authorizeversion is placed in the margin, and a new translation in the paraphrase. The four evangelists are thrown into a harmony, a plan which has itadvantages but is not without its evils. The practical improvements at thend of each chapter generally consist of pressing exhortations and devoumeditations, suggested by the matter under discussion. It is sadly indicativof the Socinianism of the age in which this good man lived, that he feelcalled upon to apologize for the evangelical strain in which he has written.

He appears to have barely finished this work in shorthand at the time of hideath, and the later books were transcribed under the care of Job Orton. No Life Insurance Society should accept the proposals of a commentatoon the whole of either Testament, for it seems to be the rule that sucstudents of the Word should be taken up to their reward before their task iquite completed.

Then, of course, gentlemen, you will economize rigidly until you havaccumulated funds to purchase KITTO’S PICTORIAL BIBLE. You mean ttake that goodly freight on board before you launch upon the sea omarried life. As you cannot visit the Holy Land, it is well for you that theris a work like the Pictorial Bible, in which the notes of the most observantravelers are arranged under the texts which they illustrate. For thgeography, zoology, botany, and manners and customs of Palestine, thiwill be your counselor and guide. Add to this noble comment, which is solat a surprisingly low price, the eight volumes of KITTO’S DAILY READINGS. ^f21They are not exactly a commentary, but what marvelous expositions yohave there! You have reading more interesting than any novel that waever written, and as instructive as the heaviest theology. The matter is quitattractive and fascinating, and yet so weighty, that the man who shall studthose eight volumes thoroughly, will not fail to read his Bible intelligentland with growing interest. THE GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, BY JOHN ALBERT BENGEL,^f22ithe scholar’s delight. He selected the title as modest and appropriatintending it in the sense of a pointer or indicator, like the sundial; his aibeing to point out or indicate the full force and meaning of the words ansentences of the New Testament. He endeavors to let the text itself cast itshadow on his page, believing with Luther that “the science of theology inothing else but grammar exercised on the words of the Holy Spirit”. Theditor of the translation published by Messrs. Clarke, says in his prefac“It is quite superfluous to write in praise of the Gnomon of Bengel. Evesince the year in which it was first published, A.D. 1742, up to the presentime, it has been growing in estimation, and has been more and morwidely circulated among the scholars of all countries. Though modercriticism has furnished many valuable additions to our materials for NeTestament exegesis, yet, in some respects, Bengel stands out still ‘facilprinceps’ among all who have labored, or who as yet labor in thaimportant field. He is unrivalled in felicitous brevity, combined with whaseldom accompanies that excellence, namely, perspicuity. Terse, weightand suggestive, he often, as a modern writer observes, `condenses mormatter into a line, than can be extracted from pages of other writers.’” .....

“In the passages which form the subject of controversy between Calvinistand Arminians, Bengel takes the view adopted by the latter, and in thirespect I do not concur with him. But whilst he thus gives an unduprominence, as it would seem to me, to the responsibility and freedom oman in these passages, yet, in the general tenor of his work, there breathsuch a holy reverence for God’s sovereignty, and such spiritual unctiothat the most extreme Calvinist would, for the most part, be unable tdiscover to what section of opinions he attached himself, and as to thcontroverted passages would feel inclined to say, ‘Quum talis sis, utinanoster esses.’”

Men with a dislike for thinking had better not purchase the five preciouvolumes, for they will be of little use to them; but men who love braiwork will find fine exercise in spelling out the deep meaning of Bengel’excessively terse sentences. His principles of interpretation stated in hi“Essay on the Right Way of Handling Divine Subjects”, are such as wilmake the lover of God’s word feel safe in his hands: `Put nothing into thScriptures, but draw everything from them, and suffer nothing to remaihidden, that is really in them.” “Though each inspired writer has his owmanner and style, one and the same Spirit breathes through all, one granidea pervades all.” “Every divine communication carries (like the diamond) its own light with it, thus showing whence it comes; no touchstone irequired to discriminate it.” “The true commentator will fasten his primarattention on the letter (literal meaning), but never forget that the Spirimust equally accompany him; at the same time we must never devise more spiritual meaning for Scripture passages than the Holy Spiriintended.” “The historical matters of Scripture, both narrative anprophecy, constitute as it were the bones of its system, whereas thspiritual matters are as its muscles, blood vessels, and nerves. As the boneare necessary to the human system, so Scripture must have its historicamatters. The expositor who nullifies the historical ground work oScripture for the sake of finding only spiritual truths everywhere, bringdeath on all correct interpretations. Those expositions are the safest whickeep closest to the text.” His idea of the true mode of dying touched me much when I first saw it.

He declared that he would make no spiritual parade of his last hours, but ipossible continue at his usual works, and depart this life as a person in thmidst of business leaves the room to attend to a knock at the door.

Accordingly he was occupied with the correction of his proof sheets as aother times, and the last messenger summoned him to his rest while hihands were full. This reveals a calm, well balanced mind, and unveils manof those singular characteristics which enabled him to become the laboriourecensor of the various M.S.S., and the pioneer of true Biblical criticism. THE CRITICAL ENGLISH TESTAMENT.^f23A Critical New Testament, scompiled as to enable a reader, unacquainted with Greek, to ascertain thexact English force and meaning of the language of the New Testamenand to appreciate the latest results of modern criticism.” Such is thprofessed aim of this commentary, and the compilers have very fairlcarried out their intentions. The whole of Bengel’s Gnomon is bodiltransferred into the work, and as one hundred and twenty years havelapsed since the first issue of that book, it may be supposed that much hasince been added to the wealth of Scripture exposition; the substance othis has been incorporated in brackets, so as to bring it down to the presenadvanced state of knowledge. We strongly advise the purchase of thibook, as it is multum in parvo, and will well repay an attentive perusal.

Tischendorf and Alford have contributed largely, with other German anEnglish critics, to make this one of the most lucid and concisCommentaries On The Text And Teachings Of The New Testament.

ALFORD’S GREEK TESTAMENT,^f24“for the use of Theological Students anMinisters”, is an invaluable aid to the critical study of the text of the NeTestament. You will find in it the ripened results of a matured scholarshithe harvesting of a judgment, generally highly impartial, always worthy orespect, which has gleaned from the most important fields of Biblicaresearch, both modern and ancient, at home and abroad. You will not loohere for any spirituality of thought or tenderness of feeling; you will finthe learned Dean does not forget to do full justice to his own views, and iquite able to express himself vigorously against his opponents; but for whait professes to be, it is an exceedingly able and successful work. The lateissues are by far the most desirable, as the author has considerably revisethe work in the fourth edition.

What I have said of his Greek Testament applies equally to ALFORD’S NETESTAMENT FOR ENGLISH READERS,^f25which is also a standard work.

I must confess also a very tender side towards BLOOMFIELD’S GREETESTAMENT,^f26 and I am singular enough to prefer it in some respects tAlford; at least, I have got more out of it on some passages, and I think idoes not deserve to be regarded as superseded. The Commentary by PATRICK, LOWTH, ARNALD, WHITBY, AND LOWMA^f27 is said by Darling to be of standard authority, but you may do without iwith less loss than in the case of several others I have mentioned. Thauthors were men of great learning, their association in one commentary iremarkable, and their joint production has a place in all complete libraries.

DR. WORDSWORTH’S HOLY BIBLE, WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTIONS,^f28 is a valuable addition to our stores, but it is rendered much more bulky anexpensive than it needed to be by the printing of the text at large. It givemany precious hints, and much of the choicest thought of mediaevawriters, besides suggesting catch words and showing connections betweevarious passages. although it is occasionally marred by the characteristiweaknesses of the Bishop, and has here and there foolishnesses at whicone cannot but smile, it is a great work, such as only an eminent scholacould have produced.

I am not so enamoured of the German writers as certain of my brethreappear to be, for they are generally cold and hard, and unspiritual. As Dr. Graham says, “there are about twenty or thirty names in the literary worlwho have gained a conspicuous place in theological circles; and in Germacommentaries these are perpetually introduced. In some of them the bulof the work is made up of these authoritative names, and quotations frotheir works. This gives their writings the appearance of prodigious learninand research. Every page is bristling with hard words and stranglanguages, and the eye of the common reader is terrified at the verappearance, as the peaceful citizen is at the pointed cannon of a fortress.” do, however, greatly prize the series lately produced under the presidencof DR. LANGE.^f29These volumes are not all of equal value, but, as whole, they are a grand addition to our stores. The American translatorhave added considerably to the German work, and in some cases thesadditions are more valuable than the original matter. For homileticapurposes these volumes are so many hills of gold, but, alas, there is drosalso, for Baptismal Regeneration and other grave errors occur. THE SPEAKER’S COMMENTARY^f30is issued (August, 1875) as far as thLamentations. It is costly, too costly for your pockets, and I am thereforsomewhat the less sorry to add that it is not what I hoped it would be. Ocourse it is a great work, and contains much which tends to illustrate thtext; but if you had it you would not turn to it for spiritual food, or fofruitful suggestion, or if you did so, you would be disappointed. The objecof the work is to help the general reader to know what the Scriptures reallsay and mean, and to remove some of the difficulties. It keeps to its desigand in a measure accomplishes it.

I must also add to the list A COMMENTARY, CRITICAL, EXPERIMENTAAND PRACTICAL, ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.^f31Of this I have very high opinion. It is the joint work of Dr. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, anDr. David Brown. It is to some extent a compilation and condensation oother men’s thoughts, but it is sufficiently original to claim a place in everminister’s library: indeed it contains so great a variety of information that ia man had no other exposition he would find himself at no great loss if hpossessed this and used it diligently.

Several other works I omit, not because they are worthless, or unknown tme, but because for scant purses the best will be best. I must not omit upothe New Testament the goodly volume of BURKITT.^f32If you can get hicheap, buy him. He is the celebrated “Rector” whom Keach “rectified” ithe matter of infant baptism. Burkitt is somewhat pithy, and for a moderrather rich and racy, but he is far from deep, and is frequently commoplace. I liked him well enough till I had read abler works and grown older.

Some books grow upon us as we read and reread them, but Burkitt doenot. Yet so far from depreciating the good man, I should be sorry to havmissed his acquaintance, and would bespeak for him your attentive perusal. The best commentators, after all, are those who have written upon onlone book. Few men can comment eminently well upon the whole Biblthere are sure to be some weak points in colossal works; prolixity in svast an undertaking is natural, and dullness follows at its heels — but a lifdevoted to one of the inspired volumes of our priceless Bible must surelyield a noble result. If I find myself able to do so, at some future time I wilintroduce you to a selection of the great one book writers. For the presenthis much must suffice.