upon the subject; and in this way may lead to some improvement, in the end, of this very important species of writing.

I have already stated, what characteristics a popular commentary should have in common with a learned one; and also where the dividing line begins between them. The main question that remains is, how far theologizing and practical remarks are to be indulged in, when one is writing this species of composition.

Here again, if the practice of some writers, and of some who have been very popular, is to be the standard by which this matter is to be estimated, we might conclude, that the maxim of Horace respecting "certain metes and bounds," could hardly be current among us. But the popularity of preaching commentary has hitherto depended more upon the wants of the community, than upon a careful and studied examination of the subject. A commentary on the whole Bible, brought within moderate bounds of expense, is surely an interesting book to every serious reader, who desires to be well acquainted with the Scriptures. When it is proffered him, under the sanction of names in which he has confidence, and with assurances of the writer's piety, ability, and success in interpretation, how natural, and how laudable also, for him eagerly to embrace the opportunity to purchase it.

The task of criticising the popular commentaries now before our public, is too delicate, and involves too many important interests of individuals, to be undertaken at present. A few questions, directed to the reflecting portion of the public; and then I shall dismiss the topic.

How can any man study and understand the whole Bible, and write commentary on it all? When I see a life devoted to a few books, I am inclined to believe that something important may have been achieved, if the writer was earnest, and persevering, and well instructed, and discriminating, and patient of minute and almost endless investigation. But when I take up a commentary by one man, on the whole Scriptures, I am instinctively led to ask: 'Did he live to the age of the antediluvians? for nothing short of this would seem to be adequate to such a purpose. How then can he have commented on the whole Bible?'

The question always to be asked respecting any commentator is: Did he critically study the original Scriptures? Was he capable of judging in cases of idiom, and of nice and difficult

construction, depending entirely on the genius of Greek or Hebrew? Was he well versed in ancient history, antiquities, geography, etc.? Were the laws of exegesis familiar to him, so that he could easily apply them on all occasions of doubt and of difficulty? Did he study for himself; draw from his own resources; depend on the efforts of his own mind to see and understand and judge, first of all; and then consult others, not for the sake of being led, but of being enlightened, aided, and confirmed, or dissuaded? Has he shown, in his productions, that such was the actual course of his labours?

If these questions must be answered in the negative, then what follows? It must of course follow, that you have not the commentary of the man whose name is prefixed to his books; but a composite substance, made up of a great many different elements, taken from sources that are very diverse. Or if the commentator thought and wrote for himself mainly, without a critical knowledge of his original, how is it possible that he should avoid a great number of mistakes? Let his mind be ever so solid and judicious, still it cannot be supposed, by any one who understands the nature of critical study, that the avoidance of many mistakes is possible, in such a case. Fact establishes this, beyond all doubt.

Our popular commentators, one and all, have made a great many mistakes on this ground, and from this cause. They were men for whom I cherish the most unaffected reverence and esteem. Henry, Doddridge, Scott, are names which cannot be pronounced without veneration, by such as are acquainted with the whole worth of their characters. And this I might say of others, whose names are not so much, at present, before our public. But how great a part of all their works is proper commentary? It is surprising how small a quantity of actual commentary there is. The rest is preaching, i. e. practical and other remarks, shewing the use to which the passage, on which they are making remarks, is to be put.

I do not object to more or less of this, in a popular commentary. But when I lose myself in a boundless field of remarks, which any sensible and judicious man may just as easily make for himself, I am instinctively led to ask, Why not leave the reader to make these remarks? When one sits down to read the Bible, in a devotional way, (which all men should do every day of their lives,) and has but little time, as being a man of business, which he can spend upon the reading; which is it best

for him to peruse? Scott and Henry, or Paul? Yet he can hardly get a taste of the food which Paul himself proffers, he is obliged to eat along with it so many other viands. Why not explain what Paul says, as briefly and perspicuously and solidly as possible, and then leave the reader to enjoy him; or at most, merely suggest heads of reflection and instruction?

My objection to sermonizing commentary lies not against sermonizing; but against doing it when the Scriptures are to be allowed directly to speak for themselves. Good sermons are excellent, I may say, indispensable means of popular instruction. But they should ever be in their place. When I desire to hear Paul, instead of a preacher of the present day, why not gratify me, and let me hear him? Surely there is nothing unreasonable in my request. But how can I hear him, when another, instead of simply explaining him, is talking to me in a strain, in which any sensible man is as well able to indulge as himself.

Nor is it unjust to say thus much; certainly it is not claiming much for one's self. It is plainly true, that most men of tolerable education, and even many who have been but slightly educated, are capable of making a very large proportion of the remarks or reflections, which are found in Henry or in Scott. How then are such men instructed by then?

It were easy to draw out the respective characteristics of these writers, and of Doddridge and others; but the nature of my undertaking calls on me to state principles, rather than to review authors as individuals.

The simplicity and elegance of Doddridge's style and diction, must long continue to give him a high place as a popular commentator. He had, moreover, a fine classical taste, and only wanted opportunity to become a thorough adept in the business of commentary.

I rejoice most sincerely, that so much good has been done by each and all of the popular commentators whom I have named; and named because they are the most prominent, at present, before our religious public. But that they come a great way short of doing all that is to be done, or should be done, in way of popular commentary, seems as certain to my mind as any thing whatever in relation to this whole subject. And if this be true, how can a commentary made up out of all of them, and composed of such diverse, not to say heterogeneous materials, really advance the cause of sacred and popular interpretation among us?

A reflecting man, who has given any serious attention to the

business of interpretation or commentary, is often constrained, when reading or hearing one of the popular commentaries of the present time, to stop and ask, "What can be the object of a commentary? If it is to explain the works of another writer, then how much of what I am reading or hearing, is properly commentary? If it is intended to be a book of sermons, or of reflections and meditations on Scripture, then let it come out plainly and openly under that title. Sermons and meditations may be exceedingly useful; but it is meet that things should be called by their right names, and then we may all know what to depend on. When I take up a book, purporting to be a commentary on the Scriptures, I have a right to expect, that in the main it is explanation, not sermons. When I wish to read ser

mons, I like to find them under that title. In this way I can meet my wishes and satisfy my wants, without disappointment. When I thirst to know the sentiments and feelings of David, and Isaiah, and Paul, and John, I do not wish to be put off with those of a recent writer; who, be he ever so pious and sensible, is not an inspired man, and therefore cannot open for me those fountains of living water, which are the only ones that can quench the thirst of my soul. 'My soul thirsteth for God; yea for the living God! When shall I come and appear before him?" "

Why now should we blame feelings like these? Are they not natural to an upright and well informed and pious mind? I think we may venture to call them so. Nor can I see any just ground of complaint or of suspicion against them.

I cannot help relating a remark here, from a pious, judicious, and well educated friend of mine, in answer to a question which I once put him, respecting one of the popular commentaries of the day. "I do not know that I can answer your question satisfactorily," said he, "for I do not read it." Why not? said I.. "Because," said he, "when I want a cordial which will revive and cheer my languishing frame, I do not like to have the person who administers it, first mix it with a large vessel of water, and then give me some to drink. It does not answer the exigencies of the occasion."

This was an unbiassed judgment, and from one who never wrote commentaries, and therefore was free, at least, from any ground of suspicion as to a rival or jealous spirit. I cannot help thinking, that it accords with the unbiassed judgment of multitudes, if they would venture to speak what they feel, when they read commentaries on the Bible.

These remarks, however, are very far from any design to

prejudice the public mind against the popular commentaries that are before them. Most of these are filled with excellent sentiments; the fruits of great experience and much religious feeling. In a department so interesting, important, and difficult, it was not to be expected that all would be done at once, or even in a considerable time, which needed to be done. "There remaineth yet much land to be possessed." Some has been won, and well occupied. Who shall win the remainder? It is a glorious enterprise, one worth many and many a life. May the great Head of the church speedily provide for all the need of his flock!

The different plans devised to satisfy the popular need of commentary, and the somewhat restless state of the public mind in relation to this subject, which seems not to be wearied with trying new experiments, betoken that more effort is necessary, and that more will therefore be inade, before general satisfaction is obtained. The more intelligent, who study our present popular commentaries, soon find their want of something deeper and more substantial in the way of explanation. Hence they subscribe for the next new one that is offered, in hope of obtaining what they wish; and especially will they do this, when the proposal comes sanctioned by venerable names, in which the public has great reason to put confidence. This is a very delicate subject indeed to be touched; but one remark may be permitted without offence, where no offence surely is intended. Is it not best to examine, and to examine well and thoroughly, before a man of character, in whom the public confide, gives his name by way of recommendation to any book? How can a specimen of a page or two, wrought with great effort, like the travelling sermons of some preachers, be a warrant for recommending a whole book? And much more; how can the theory of a plan, the execution of which has not been seen or examined at all, justify any man of sobriety and intelligence, for giving his name in this way

?

In fact, the public have come at last, as we might expect them to do, to place little or no confidence in a string of recommendations to a book; which commonly cost no more than to go round with a paper, and to solicit the approbation of various individuals; who not unfrequently give it, in order to get rid of the importunity of the applicant.

IV. It remains only to say a word on my last head, respecting the MEANS of supplying the public with commentaries adequate to their wants.