been of this character. True indeed it is that neither was it perhaps altogether necessary, in their case, that he should have discussed such questions with them. But then, did not his Gospel require a Commentary? If Jews required to have their understandings opened, (e) in order that they might understand the writings of the Old Testament, do not Christians require some enlightenment in order that they may understand the writings of the New? What kind of remarks, then, (to repeat the question,) are we to suppose that the inspired Evangelist St. John would have made upon his own Work? Would he not rather have explained to His disciples the prophetic import of our SAVIOUR'S Miracles? and the meaning of certain of His Discourses? and why he had himself made such emphatic mention of the Water and the Blood which flowed from the wounded side of his Lord? and something about our SAVIOUR's appearances after He was risen from the dead? In short, we are prone to believe concerning St. John, that if he made any Commentary on his own Gospel at all, his remarks were made in the way of Interpretation of it.

4. And this brings us naturally to the notice of that truest style of Commentary which attempts to interpret the difficult places of Holy Scripture; or, at least, never fails to call attention to them. He alone, in strictness, deserves the name of a Commentator, who interprets the profounder statements of the SPIRIT: who is at least suggestive, where he cannot be altogether explanatory; or admits that there is something in the sacred text which calls aloud for explanation, even while he confesses himself unable to explain it. Such a writer will gratefully avail himself of all subsidiary helps; but he will endeavour to keep steadily in view that the labours of critics and philologers are but means to an end; not the end itself. It is manifest then, that we are now making allusion to a style of Commentary entirely different from either of the former. We are, in short, describing such a Commentary as few indeed are capable of producing for it demands, in the first place, entire familiarity with the writings of either Covenant; and a large acquaintance with what our Fathers in the faith have delivered on the subject of Holy Scripture;-requirements which, in themselves, imply considerable learning. Next, there should be a vigorous yet chastened imagination, corrected by a sound and impartial judgment. There is needed besides, above all things, a holy life; freedom from party prejudice; and a submissive spirit, capable of prolonged and calm investigation. When all these qualifications are united, very little will yet be achieved, unless there be present a certain amount of that Theological instinct, in which it must be confessed that the moderns are, for the most part, lamentably deficient. Without this instinct, this attribute of a Theological mind, learning does but encumber imagination does but mislead: modesty, candor, even holiness itself, must all prove unavailing.

5. There is yet another class of readers who resort to Holy Scripture neither to criticize its historical statements, nor to acquaint themselves with its linguistic difficulties, nor yet to have its hard places explained to them. They read the Gospel chiefly for their souls' health. They regard it as their daily

(e) St. Luke xxiv. 45.

bread, and depend on it for their daily portion. They rather shrink from a dissertation upon a difficulty, as they would from a domestic quarrel. They do not care to be told about the idiom of the Evangelist; and are rather annoyed than otherwise, at finding that the English Version of his Gospel requires correction. They are quite content with it, as it is. But if it must be corrected, (say they,) let it be done only in case of great emergency: and then, in the fewest possible words. In their simplicity, perhaps in their ignorance, they do but desire to lay their hand on the Book of Life, as the poor woman laid her hand on the hem of CHRIST's garment; and they know that virtue must come forth to heal them. Nay, they only value the elucidation of a mystery, as it is made thus to minister to edification. Those readers who, till lately, were generally driven to the pages of Doddridge or Scott, may be considered to represent, in excess, the class of readers of whom we are more particularly speaking. They read in a devotional spirit, and look for practical remarks on the sacred text; or at least they wish to be assisted in drawing inferences from it which may influence their own daily life and conversation.— This, then, is a fifth and a distinct kind of Commentary; and we will not attempt to define any further.

Of the five classes which we have described, the three first are essentially modern in their spirit; the growth of a late age and a remote country: while, under the two latter heads, conjointly, all ancient expositions of Scripture may be classed. A Commentary which should exhibit in perfection the conjoined characters of all five, might perhaps be called complete: but no such Commentary will ever be written; nor, if it could be written, would it be generally read. It would, in the first place, be so exceedingly lengthy; and, in the next place, it would be so exceedingly miscellaneous. The scholar would complain that what he was in search of was lost amid remarks and reflections for which he had no leisure: the devotional reader would complain that he was forever interrupted by learned discussions for which he had no relish. Students of the approved modern school would call everything that was not either exceedingly dry, or exceedingly shallow, fanciful and ridiculous. It is conceivable that their own business-like method would be yet more rudely characterized in return; and perhaps, with better show of reason. In short, it is impossible to contrive a Commentary which shall meet the requirements of every class of readers; and he who undertakes the difficult task of writing a Commentary at all, must make up his mind beforehand as to whom he proposes to teach; and what sort of information he intends chiefly to convey.

The present writer, then, did not design his work in the first instance for critical readers: still less did he feel that he was addressing scholars, on their own ground: least of all will his pages prove congenial to those who study the Gospel in a controversial spirit. Without by any means consciously avoiding real difficulties of any kind, or (as he hopes) overlooking the results of sacred criticism, he desired rather to exhibit the results of learned inquiry, than to expose the process by which those results may be arrived at. He chiefly aimed at affording unlearned readers some real insight into the Gospel: and he

called his work "a Plain Commentary," not because it pretends to make everything in the Gospel plain; nor yet because the language is always such as a wholly uneducated person can understand: but because it contains no words of Greek or Latin,—no allusions which are beyond the reach of an educated person.

Next, to mark his intention yet more fully,-the writer ventured to add that his Book was "intended chiefly for devotional reading." He meant thereby, that although he wished that what he wrote might prove useful to learned and unlearned readers, alike; to old and young, wise and simple, the teacher and the taught;-his notes were yet chiefly intended for those who study the Gospel in a devotional frame of mind; who read it in order to live by it; and desire, while they read, to have their attention aroused, their heart informed, and their curiosity in some degree gratified.

It will be seen, from what has thus been offered, that the writer's design was chiefly to exhibit the combined features of those Commentaries which belong to the fourth and fifth classes above described. He has already stated that the elder expositors of Scripture seem to have all written with the same intention; and he likes to believe that his labours will be found to bear some general resemblance to theirs, as well in respect of matter as manner.-As for the manner of those writers, it was,-to avail themselves freely of existing materials to interweave the words of others with their own: to illustrate Scripture by a large use of Scripture: to be concise in the discussion of technical difficulties, to be diffuse where important doctrine was involved; or where, in the course of the narrative, they encountered statements which could be turned to the reader's profit. They never slumbered on holy ground. To detect remote allusions, to evolve unsuspected meanings,-to vindicate the importance of supposed trifles;-this was all their care. They did not append to the inspired pages a series of unconnected notes, to be referred to by the reader, or not, at his pleasure: but rather, they discoursed upon the Gospel, connectedly,-breaking off only to introduce the words of Inspiration; and proceeding again with their running comment.

As for the matter of the ancient writers,—it was, to say the truth, seldom altogether new. Novelty, in fact, seems to have formed no distinct part of their plan. Truth,-the handing down of Divine Truth,-was their great object. To transmit, pure and unpolluted, the current of primitive doctrine; and to extend and enlarge Man's knowledge of the Divine Oracles; was the business of each of the Fathers in turn. To the very full did they admit, (as their writings prove,) that striking sentiment of a great modern Doctor, that "it is not at all incredible that a Book, which has been so long in the possession of mankind, should contain many truths as yet undiscovered."(f) Far from being servile copyists, the most famous of them were great and original thinkers: bold in their speculations, often to the verge of rashness; so singular in their interpretations, as sometimes to incur the charge of extravagance or puerility. But they knew how to make amends for their occasional falls, by many a flight (f) Bishop Butler.

like the eagle's. In the meanwhile, they showed clearly by the general resemblance of their method of handling Divine Truth, that they were not solitary and independent dreamers,-like the modern Germans, and the disciples of the German School among ourselves. Reverence, not timidity; sound Theological training, not imbecility of wit; made them-what they are. All this admits of easy illustration; and the subject is at once so interesting and so important, that we shall venture to invite the reader's attention to the following extract from Jerome's preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew :—

"You ask me, my dearest Eusebius, to furnish you with a brief exposition of St. Matthew's Gospel, which you may carry with you in your approaching journey to Rome,-like victual for the voyage. Your pertinacity in requesting such a Commentary, limited in extent yet pregnant in matter, surprises me; and sure am I that, had you remembered the answer I made you, you would never have invited me thus to attempt in a few days to execute a task which demands the labour of years.

"In the first place, it is difficult to go through all the authors who have written about the Gospels. Far more difficult, secondly, is the effort of judgment which is required to make a selection of what is best in each. I admit that I have read, (but it is a great many years ago,) Origen's twenty-five books of Commentaries on St. Matthew; together with his Homilies, being as many in number, and his Scholia. I have also read the Commentary of Theophilus of Antioch, and of Hippolitus the martyr; those of Theodorus of Heraclea, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and Didymus of Alexandria :-besides, of the Latins, the short works of Hilary, of Victorinus, and of Fortunatianus. And certainly, even a little, picked out of the Commentaries of such writers, would well deserve attention. But you require me, in the space of two weeks,-towards the close of Lent, while the winds are blowing,-to dictate: thus allowing no time for the labour of writing, of correcting, of transcribing, especially in the case of one like myself, who for three months have been so ill that I have scarcely yet begun to walk about again. The length of time allowed me is not adequate to the magnitude of the undertaking.

"The result has been, that, laying aside all consideration of ancient authorities, (whom I have no opportunity either to read or to follow,) I have merely attempted a brief historical exposition; (the thing which you said you wished for most;) into which I have occasionally interwoven the flowers of spiritual interpretation. A perfect work I reserve for a future opportunity." So far Jerome.

The inferences which may be drawn from this single passage are neither few nor inconsiderable.

For (1st,) here is one writing a short Commentary on St. Matthew, in A. D. 398, whose direct qualification for the task is found to consist in his acquaintance with what six Greek and three Latin Fathers have already written on the same subject; and he insinuates that, under ordinary circumstances, he should have felt it his duty to study all the Commentators, before venturing to put forth a new Commentary of his own.

2dly, Jerome further implies that in the composition of such a Commentary, his special business would have been to exhibit the cream of what others had written. His labour would have lain rather in the judicious selection of ancient materials, than in the invention of fresh ones.

3dly, The writers which he enumerates flourished from about A.D. 175 to about A.D. 370. There is therefore nothing to prevent the oldest of them, (Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch,) (g) from having conversed in his youth with a man who for many years had been a disciple of St. John. That the next in order of time, (Hippolytus,) had conversed with Irenæus, who remembered St. John's disciple, Polycarp,-is matter of history.

4thly, It is observable that the writers whom Jerome names were even more widely severed in respect of locality, than in respect of date. Thus Origen studied at Alexandria,-over the catechetical School of which famous city, Didymus also presided. Theophilus was Bishop of Antioch in Syria; Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus, near Rome; and Theodorus filled the see of his native city, Heraclea, in Thrace. Apollinarius, again, presided over the Church of Laodicea, in Asia Minor. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, is a noble representative of the teaching of the Gallican Church. Victorinus and Fortunatianus were Africans; but the latter was also Bishop of Aquileia in Italy. Although five of these writers therefore may be regarded as Jerome's contemporaries, it cannot be thought that their several productions were the growth of a single school. The reverse is the fact.

5thly, It should be observed, in the last place, that of the nine Commentaries thus enumerated, only one, (that of Hilary,) and part of another, (namely, Origen's,) are any longer known to be in existence.

We hesitate not to avow, that the general impression which we derive from such a survey of a single instance, is highly favourable to the claims of ancient expositions of Holy Scripture on our reverent attention. We entertain no extravagant theory on this subject. We are well aware that the Fathers had no authoritative Tradition, to guide them in the general work of Interpretation. Concerning Doctrine, indeed, there was such a prevailing Tradition: concerning the meaning of single texts, there was not. The Fathers are observed to reason about the sense of Scripture exactly as we ourselves reason at the present day they never pretend to knowledge derived from any private source; and, of really difficult places, (such as abound in the Discourses of our LORD,) there are not unfrequently to be met with as many expositions as there are expositors.(h) But while all this is freely granted, it is yet claimed as equally true that a general consent of Fathers on great subjects is observable as the reverence of St. John iii. to Holy Baptism, (i) and even of St John vi. to the Holy Eucharist. Yet further, where the Fathers are not unanimous as to

(g) The general argument will not be at all affected by the admission,—which ought perhaps in fairness to be made,-that it has been doubted whether the work which Jerome here alludes to was the genuine production of the Father whose name it bore.

(h) E.g. on St. John xiii. 34: xx. 17.

(i) "Of all the ancients," (says Hooker,) "there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either expound or allege the place than as implying external Baptism."