Spurgeon on Commentaries and Commentators
On Commentaries
In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, 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 can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is true there are a number of expositions of the whole Bible which are hardly worth shelf room; they aim at too much and fail altogether; the authors have spread a little learning over a vast surface, and have badly attempted for the entire Scriptures what they might have accomplished for one book with tolerable success; but who will deny the preeminent value of such expositions as those of Calvin, Ness, Henry, Trapp, Poole, and Bengel, which are as deep as they are broad? and yet further, who can pretend to biblical learning who has not made himself familiar with the great writers who spent a life in explaining some one sacred book? Caryl on Job will not exhaust the patience of a student who loves every letter of the Word; even Collinges, with his nine hundred and nine pages upon one chapter of the Song, will not be too full for the preacher's use; nor will Manton's long metre edition of the hundred and nineteenth Psalm be too profuse. No stranger could imagine the vast amount of real learning to be found in old commentaries like the following:--Durham on Solomon's Song, Wilcocks on Psalms and Proverbs, Jermin on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, Greenhill on Ezekiel, Burroughs on Hosea, Ainsworth on the Pentateuch, King on Jonah, Hutcheson on John, Peter Martyr on Romans, &c., and in Willett, Sibbes, Bayne, Elton, Byfield, Daille, Adams, Taylor, Barlow, Goodwin, and others on the various epistles. Without attempting to give in detail the names of all, I intend in a familiar talk to mention the more notable, who wrote upon the whole Bible, or on either Testament, and I especially direct your attention to the titles, which in Puritan writers generally give in brief the run of the work.
On Matthew Henry
First among the mighty for general usefulness we are bound to mention the man whose name is a household word, Matthew Henry. He is most pious and pithy, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and trustworthy. You will find him to be glittering with metaphors, rich in analogies, overflowing with illustrations, superabundant in reflections. He delights in apposition and alliteration; he is usually plain, quaint, and full of pith; he sees right through a text directly; apparently he is not critical, but he quietly gives the result of an accurate critical knowledge of the original fully up to the best critics of his time. He is not versed in the manners and customs of the East, for the Holy Land was not so accessible as in our day; but he is deeply spiritual, heavenly, and profitable; finding good matter in every text, and from all deducing most practical and judicious lessons. His is a kind of commentary to be placed where I saw it, in the old meeting house at Chester--chained in the vestry for anybody and everybody to read. It is the poor man's commentary, the old Christian's companion, suitable to everybody, instructive to all. His own account of how he was led to write his exposition, affords us an example of delighting in the law of the Lord.
If any desire to know how so mean and obscure a person as I am, who in learning, judgment, felicity of expression, and all advantages for such a service, am less than the least of all my Master's servants, came to 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 study from my constant preparations for the pulpit, to spend it in drawing up expositions upon some parts of the New Testament, not so much for my own use, as purely for my own entertainment, because I know not how to employ my thoughts and time more to my satisfaction. Trahit sua quemque voluptas; every man that studies hath some beloved study, which is his delight above any other; and this is mine. It is that learning which it was my happiness from a child to be trained up in by my ever honoured father, whose memory must always be very dear and precious to me. He often minded me, that a good textuary is a good divine; and that I should read other books with this in my eye, that I might be the better able to understand and apply the Scripture.
You are aware, perhaps, that the latter part of the New Testament was completed by other hands, the good man having gone the way of all flesh. The writers were Messrs, Evans, Brown, Mayo, Bays, Rosewell, Harriss, Atkinson, Smith, Tong, Wright, Merrell, Hill, Reynolds, and Billingsley--all Dissenting ministers. They have executed their work exceedingly well, have worked in much of the matter which Henry had collected, and have done their best to follow his methods, but their combined production is far inferior to Matthew Henry himself, and any reader will soon detect the difference. Every minister ought to read Matthew Henry entirely and carefully through once at least. I should recommend you to get through it in the next twelve months after you leave college. Begin at the beginning, and resolve that you will traverse the goodly land from Dan to Beersheba. You will acquire a vast store of sermons if you read with your notebook close at hand; and as for thoughts, they will swarm around you like twittering swallows around an old gable towards the close of autumn. If you publicly expound the chapter you have just been reading, your people will wonder at the novelty of your remarks and the depth of your thoughts, and then you may tell them what a treasure Henry is. Mr. Jay's sermons bear indubitable evidence of his having studied Matthew Henry almost daily. Many of the quaint things in Jay's sermons are either directly traceable to Matthew Henry or to his familiarity with that writer. I have thought that the style of Jay was founded upon Matthew Henry: Matthew Henry is Jay writing, Jay is Matthew Henry preaching. What more could I say in commendation either of the preacher or the author?
On John Calvin
It would not be possible for me too earnestly
to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions
of that prince among men, John Calvin! I am afraid that scant
purses may debar you from their purchase, but if it be possible
procure them, and meanwhile, since they are in the College
library, use them diligently. I have often felt inclined to cry
out with Father Simon, a Roman Catholic, Calvin possessed a
sublime genius
, and with Scaliger, Oh! how well has Calvin
reached the meaning of the prophets--no one better.
You will
find forty two or more goodly volumes worth their weight in gold.
Of all commentators I believe John Calvin to be the most candid.
In his expositions he is not always what moderns would call
Calvinistic; that is to say, where Scripture maintains the
doctrine of predestination and grace he flinches in no degree,
but inasmuch as some Scriptures bear the impress of human free
action and responsibility, he does not shun to expound their
meaning in all fairness and integrity. He was no trimmer and
pruner of texts. He gave their meaning as far as he knew it. His
honest intention was to translate the Hebrew and the Greek
originals as accurately as he possibly could, and then to give
the meaning which would naturally be conveyed by such Greek and
Hebrew words: he laboured, in fact, to declare, not his own mind
upon the Spirit's words, but the mind of the Spirit as couched in
those words. Dr. King very truly says of him:
No writer ever dealt more fairly and honestly by the Word of God. He is scrupulously careful to let it speak for itself, and to guard against every tendency of his own mind to put upon it a questionable meaning for the sake of establishing some doctrine which he feels to be important, or some theory which he is anxious to uphold. This is one of his prime excellences. He will not maintain any doctrine, however orthodox and essential, by a text of Scripture which to him appears of doubtful application, or of inadequate force. For instance, firmly as he believed the doctrine of the Trinity, he refuses to derive an argument in its favour from the plural form of the name of God in the first chapter of Genesis. It were easy to multiply examples of this kind, which, whether we agree in his conclusion or not, cannot fail to produce the conviction that he is at least an honest commentator, and will not make any passage of Scripture speak more or less than, according to his view, its divine Author intended it to speak.
The edition of John Calvin's works which was issued by the Calvin Translation Society, is greatly enriched by the remarks of the editors, consisting not merely of notes on the Latin of Calvin, and the French translation, or on the text of the original Scriptures, but also of weighty opinions of eminent critics, illustrative manners and customs, and observations of travellers. By the way, gentlemen, what a pity it is that people do not, as a rule, read the notes in the old Puritan books! If you purchase old copies of such writers as Brooks, you will find that the notes in the margin are almost as rich as the books themselves. They are dust of gold, of the same metal as the ingots in the centre of the page. But to return to Calvin. If you needed any confirmatory evidence as to the value of his writings, I might summon a cloud of witnesses, but it will suffice to quote one or two. Here is the opinion of one who is looked upon as his great enemy, namely, Arminius:
Next to the perusal of the Scriptures, which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy.
Quaint Robert Robinson said of him, There
is no abridging this sententious commentator, and the more I read
him, the more does he become a favourite expositor with me.
Holy Baxter wrote, I know no man since the apostles' days,
whom I value and honour more than Calvin, and whose judgment in
all things, one with another, I more esteem and come nearer
to.
On John Gill
A very distinguished place is due to Dr. Gill.
Beyond all controversy, Gill was one of the most able Hebraists
of his day, and in other matters no mean proficient. When an
opponent in controversy had ventured to call him a botcher in
divinity
, the good doctor, being compelled to become a fool
in glorying, gave such a list of his attainments as must have
covered his accuser with confusion.
His great work on the Holy Scriptures is greatly prized at
the present day by the best authorities, which is conclusive
evidence of its value, since the set of the current of
theological thought is quite contrary to that of Dr. Gill. No one
in these days is likely to be censured for his Arminianism, but
most modern divines affect to sneer at anything a little too
highly Calvinistic: however, amid the decadence of his own rigid
system, and the disrepute of even more moderate Calvinism, Gill's
laurels as an expositor are still green. His ultraism is
discarded, but his learning is respected: the world and the
church take leave to question his dogmatism, but they both bow
before his erudition. Probably no man since Gill's days has at
all equalled him in the matter of Rabbinical learning. Say what
you will about that lore, it has its value: of course, a man has
to rake among perfect dunghills and dust heaps, but there are a
few jewels which the world could not afford to miss. Gill was a
master cinder sifter among the Targums, the Talmuds, the Mishna,
and the Gemara. Richly did he deserve the degree of which he
said, I never bought it, nor thought it, nor sought
it.
He was always at work; it is difficult to say
when he slept, for he wrote 10,000 folio pages of theology. The
portrait of him which belongs to this church, and hangs in my
private vestry, and from which all the published portraits have
been engraved, represents him after an interview with an Arminian
gentleman, turning up his nose in a most expressive manner, as if
he could not endure even the smell of freewill. In some such a
vein he wrote his commentary. He hunts Arminianism throughout the
whole of it. He is far from being so interesting and readable as
Matthew Henry. He delivered his comments to his people from
Sabbath to Sabbath, hence their peculiar mannerism. His frequent
method of animad-version is, This text does 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
mean a third thing, or a fourth, or a fifth, or a sixth
absurdity; but at last he thinks it does mean so-and-so, and
tells you so in a methodical, sermon like manner. This is an easy
method, gentlemen, of filling up the time, if you are ever short
of heads for a sermon. Show your people firstly, secondly, and
thirdly, what the text does not mean, and then afterwards you can
go back and show them what it does mean. It may be thought,
however, that one such a teacher is enough, and that what was
tolerated from a learned doctor would be scouted in a student
fresh from college. For good, sound, massive, sober sense in
commenting, who can excel Gill? Very seldom does he allow himself
to be run away with by imagination, except now and then when he
tries to open up a parable, and finds a meaning in every
circumstance and minute detail; or when he falls upon a text
which is not congenial with his creed, and hacks and hews
terribly to bring the word of God into a more systematic shape.
Gill is the Coryphaeus of hyper-Calvinism, but if his followers
never went beyond their master, they would not go very far
astray.
On Adam Clarke
I have placed next to Gill in my library Adam Clarke, but as I have no desire to have my rest broken by wars among the authors, I have placed Doddridge between them. If the spirits of the two worthies could descend to the earth in the same mood in which they departed, no one house would be able to hold them. Adam Clarke is the great annotator of our Wesleyan friends; and they have no reason to be ashamed of him, for he takes rank among the chief of expositors. His mind was evidently fascinated by the singularities of learning, and hence his commentary is rather too much of an old curiosity shop, but it is filled with valuable rarities, such as none but a great man could have collected. Like Gill, he is one sided, only in the opposite direction to our friend the Baptist. The use of the two authors may help to preserve the balance of your judgments. If you consider Clarke wanting in unction, do not read him for savour but for criticism, and then you will not be disappointed.
The author thought that lengthy reflections
were rather for the preacher than the commentator, and hence it
was not a part of his plan to write such observations as those
which endear Matthew Henry to the million. If you have a copy of
Adam Clarke, and exercise discretion in reading it, you will
derive immense advantage from it, for frequently by a sort of
side light he brings out the meaning of the text in an
astonishingly novel manner. I do not wonder that Adam Clarke
still stands, notwithstanding his peculiarities, a prince among
commentators. I do not find him so helpful as Gill, but still
from his side of the question, with which I have personally no
sympathy, he is an important writer, and deserves to be studied
by every reader of the Scriptures. He very judiciously says of
Dr. Gill, He was a very learned and good man, but has often
lost sight of his better judgment in spiritualising the text
;
this is the very verdict which we pass upon himself, only
altering the last sentence a word or two; He has often lost
sight of his better judgment in following learned
singularities
; the monkey, instead of the serpent, tempting
Eve, is a notable instance.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
I must also add to the list A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments. Of this I have a very high opinion. It is the joint work of Dr. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and Dr. David Brown. It is to some extent a compilation and condensation of other men's thoughts, but it is sufficiently original to claim a place in every minister's library: indeed it contains so great a variety of information that if a man had no other exposition he would find himself at no great loss if he possessed this and used it diligently.
From: Commenting and Commentaries: Two Lectures Addressed to the students of The Pastors' College, Metropolitan Tabernacle.