If any of all these things is neglected in a commentary, then something is left out which ought to be comprised in it, in order to adapt it to the highest measure of usefulness.

On the other hand, a popular commentary may be, and in some respects should be, of quite a different cast. All that is not capable of being understood by the reader who has no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, should be omitted. It would be an empty and useless parade, yea even a matter of offence, to insert it. But after all, I do not feel by any means certain, that it does not require more talent and more acquisition, in order to write popular commentary as it should be, than to write what in the technical sense may be called learned commentary.

It is related somewhere of archbishop Usher, that on one occasion of visiting the clergy in his diocese, he gave out beforehand, that he was going to preach on a special subject, and wished a full meeting. The clergy, who had a high reverence for him, assembled in great numbers. His sermon was one on a plain, practical, experimental topic, very serious, very discriminating, and very earnest. After the service was ended, one of bis friends expressed his astonishment that such a subject should have been chosen; adding, that all of the clergy preached on such topics. The archbishop heard him very patiently, and replied, that "any one could preach a learned sermon; but it was not the province of every one to present old truths in a manner that was new and interesting."

So in writing commentary; to put on the appearance at least of learning, is a matter very easy to be accomplished by even a smatterer in philology. But to give the results of extended critical study; and to give them divested of all that is technical in criticism, and make them intelligible to a common reader; is no easy task. A thorough philologist, if asked to make out a commentary on a difficult passage, so that it might be at once solid, discriminating, and popular, would be very apt to say: "Sir, I can make out a volume on the text you ask me to explain, for the use of scholars; but to say all that ought to be said in order to explain it in a satisfactory way to intelligent readers, unacquainted with Greek and Hebrew, is indeed a task that I should be slow in engaging to perform."

The question why readers in general need a commentary, has, I trust, been made so plain, that no more is necessary to be said respecting it. The question why different classes of readers need commentaries of different characters, can be made equally

plain. Their need respectively, is the result of the different objects which they have in view. The man whose object is philological study, must have helps that are truly and properly philological. Here is ground which another class of men, who have no proper concern with philology, cannot possibly occupy, while in this condition. Whatever of this nature should be said, would, so far as it was technical and appropriately philological, be unintelligible to them. It would be incongruous, therefore, for a popular commentary to put on a costume of such a descrip

tion.

Still, nothing can be plainer, than that the most important features of a good commentary belong, after all, in common both to a popular and a learned commentary. These are, first, the logic, or course of thought and reasoning. To attain this, is the high and ultimate end of all commentary. All study of language and criticism, all antiquarian research and literary acquisition, are mere handmaids to this great object. In themselves they are of little worth; but viewed as a means of obtaining an important end, they must be regarded as highly valuable. Still they are means only, and are not to be put in the place of the end itself.

The meaning of the sacred writers constitutes revealed religion, or theology in its highest and most holy sense. Το trace out and disclose this meaning, then, whether for the sake of the learned or unlearned reader, is the ultimate and highest end of all efforts at commentary. The aid of philology and criticism may be called in, and should be summoned, in order to assist the interpreter in ascertaining what this is. This being done, the result of his investigation may be stated, without necessarily involving any thing at all of technical language. The end which the sacred writer has in view; the means by which he attains them, i. e. the arguments or declarations by which his positions are supported; in a word, the whole course of thought may be, and should be, so explained, that the reader, whether learned or unlearned, may easily understand it.

In the second place, the mutual connexion of the writer's thoughts with each other, and the relation which they bear to the main scope of his discourse, and to other truths of revealed religion, should be pointed out; and this whether the commentator designs his book for popular use or for a critical one. All this should be common ground.

Thirdly, the meaning of particular words and phrases ought to be given, in both kinds of commentary, divested of technical

language as far as the nature of the case admits. But in a popular commentary, results only can be given, in many cases; in a learned one, the process by which we come to them, is in substance to be laid before the reader.

This brings us now to the place, where the popular commentator begins to diverge from the path of the critical one. Both should investigate in the same way; both should use all the means appropriate to aid them in ascertaining the meaning of the original text; both should represent plainly and intelligibly the things that have just been named; and both should give the result of all their investigations, whether philological or of a different character. But in presenting the detail of their labours, the critical commentator spreads before you the grammatical principles of the original; the idioms; the special and general meanings of words; the grounds of departure from common usage in particular cases, which depend on special rules of interpretation and of language; and other things of the like nature. He tells you, in addition to all this, and as a matter of course, what the result of all is, in respect to the sentiment of the writer. The popular commentator goes through the same process in all respects, in regard to his own individual labours; but all which be records is, the result to which he comes, i. e. the sentiment of the writer expressed in our own language and idiom. It should be so expressed, that every intelligent man may easily understand it.

So far our way is plain; and thus much is all which properly belongs to commentary as such. When the meaning of a writer is ascertained, and fairly and plainly stated, the appropriate duty of a commentator is at an end. But shall he do no more? Shall the critical commentator stop here? And if this be conceded, is the popular commentator bound to confine himself within these limits?

Practice seems to have determined both of these questions in the negative; if indeed practice can be appealed to as settling principle. There are critical commentaries which abound in preaching as well as commentary; and there are scarcely any popular commentaries, within my knowledge, which are not made up principally of preaching.

As to the first; I know of no rule which would hinder a critical commentator, if he chooses so to do, to admit doctrinal discussions to a certain extent, provided they are conducted in a critical manner; for thus much the nature of his work would

In the present state of the church, I know not that any thing can be done more than is done, viz. to leave the whole matter to the efforts of individuals, and to patronize them as they may prove themselves worthy of patronage. The great objects of missionary effort and the educating of young men for the ministry, take the precedence of all others; and they ought to do so. But may we not hope the time will come, when the church will have her Biblical Institute; in which a corps of men shall be devoted, as the great business of their lives, to the study and explanation of the Scriptures? Let them teach; for this is the best of all the means to learn. Let them be directly useful in training up pious youth for the ministry of the gospel; but let them have only enough of this to do, to keep alive all their active powers and their christian sympathies, and let the rest of their time be all consecrated to the study and explanation of the Bible. They must be men of God, well versed in pastoral duties, not given to speculation, warm-hearted, judicious, sober, discriminating, persevering; in a word, with all their heart and soul entirely devoted to their work.

Do you ask, How long would it take some ten or twelve men to accomplish such an object? My answer is, that it would take several generations of them, to accomplish all that needs to be done; but one generation might do the most essential part of the work. A popular and a learned commentary might go on, hand in hand; which is just what ought to be done. Many persons might be employed in gathering materials; one in arranging them for publication. But the joint concurrence of all such labourers, and their united deliberations and judgment, if they were men of candour and ability, would help to give the world a commentary, such as has not yet been seen.

The proposal of such an object by such means, will seem to many as visionary. I dare not indulge the hope that any such thing will be accomplished in my day. But the generation to come may be blessed with such an Institute. Possibly the reading of these pages may give birth to a desire, on the part of some individual, to commence the plan of such a work. If so, it will not be in vain, that I have written, or he has read, these pages. May that God, who gave his Holy Word to be a light to our feet, and a lamp to our paths, speedily cause its blessed light to spread over the whole earth, and chase away forever the darkness which has so long rested upon

VOL. III. No. 9.

it!

24

ART. V.-LITERARY NOTICES.

I. Extract from a Letter to the Editor, from M. KOPITAR, Custos of the Imperial Library at Vienna.1

VIENNA, AUSTRIA, SEPT. 3, 1832.

"As a notice for your Repository,—a work which cannot fail to be of high utility in your country,-permit me to offer as the most recent intelligence, that we have at length received from Ofen (Buda) a catholic translation of the Scriptures in the Servian dialect; the first satisfactory version in this language of five millions of people of the Slavonic race. The translator is the late Franciscan monk and professor Katancsich; but the printing of it was brought about by the deceased primate of Hungary, cardinal Rudnay.-Inlike manner, in consequence of this step, the Slowaki, [or Slovenes, the Slavonic portion of the Hungarian people,] who have heretofore made shift to help themselves with the Bohemian version, as being the most intelligible to them, have now been induced to undertake the printing of a pure Slovenian version of their own, made by the canon Palkowitsch. Consequently, at present, of all the Slavonic tribes, only the provincial Croatians still remain without the Bible in their own dialect. And even they have several versions lying in manuscript; which are only waiting for some Mæcenas, or for some favourable conjuncture, in order to make their appearance.-The version of Katancsich needs only to be printed in the alphabet of Cyril, in order to come into use also among the Greek Servians.The Bulgarians, finally, as well as the Albanians, are still almost without any literature; yet the latter, since 1827, have had in their hands the New Testament, through the aid of the British and Foreign Bible Society."

II. American Works in Press.

1. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. By EDWARD ROBINSON. Revised Edition. Andover, Flagg, Gould, & Newman.-See Bibl. Repos. Vol. I. p. 553.

2. BUTTMANN's Larger Greek Grammar, for the use of Universities and High Schools. Translated from the 13th German edition, by EDWARD ROBINSON. Andover, Flagg, Gould, & Newman.This work is expected to contain about 500 pages large octavo, and will probably be ready for publication early in the spring. Price in boards, $2,50.

1 M. Kopitar is highly distinguished in Germany, for several publications, exhibiting a very extensive and profound acquaintance with the languages and literature of the various Sclavonic nations.