COMMENTARIES ON HOLY SCRIPTURE: NEWLAND'S CATENA.

A practical and exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of S. Paul to the Ephesians in which are exhibited the results of the most learned theological criticisms, from the age of the early Fathers down to the present time. Edited by the Rev. HENRY NEWLAND, M.A., Vicar of S. Mary Church, Devon, and Chaplain to the Bishop of Exeter. Oxford and London: J. H. and Jas. Parker. 1860.

THE present is the first volume of a Catena on S. Paul's Epistles, contemplated by Mr. Newland; but which he did not live to finish. Two Epistles alone were completed by the lamented Author, before death cut short his labours, and he entered upon a more deep and intimate acquaintance with those mysteries of the Kingdom which had of late been occupying his devout thoughts. In him we have lost a useful, true-hearted, Catholic-minded, Christian man; a loving, loyal, devoted son of the Church of England, whose loss she may well deplore.

The Commentary on the Ephesians now before us makes little claim to originality: it is mainly what it professes to be—a Catena; and, as such, partakes of the ordinary merits and defects of productions of that character. The work is thoroughly sound and orthodox; it is compiled with conscientious industry and judicious care; and will possess a permanent interest, from the valuable and apposite extracts it contains from authors of all ages in the ChurchPatristic, Scholastic, Modern-who have in their several periods and varying manners, written, expressly or incidentally, in illustration of this deep and wonderful Epistle. The volume is furnished with very complete indices, and appears in every respect to have been prepared with a view to practical usefulness; as a help to the Clergyman in his preparation for the pulpit, and as offering suggestive matter for private meditation.

A thoroughly healthy tone pervades the book: and earnestly do we trust that works of such a sound and edifying character may be multiplied and read, and may extensively influence and indoctrinate the heart of our Communion; as the general vitality of the whole Body cannot but be thereby materially promoted.

We have said that Mr. Newland's work exhibits the defects which, to a greater or less degree, characterise all Catena: we allude especially to the want of connection and relation between the several constituent parts.

In Commentaries of this description we have too often to complain of the absence of any assimilating principle, pervading and

animating the whole, and imparting to it a consistency and unity. The Commentator, moreover, who finds all his materials ready to his hand, and has no occasion for the patient and laborious exercise of his own exegetical powers, will seldom acquire that subtle sagacity and independence of judgment, that living sympathy with his author, which can alone enable him to balance conflicting interpretations, and seize almost instinctively upon the true meaning; and hence will be apt, not only to become himself bewildered by the various glosses of his several contributors, but also to communicate somewhat of the same feeling of uncertainty to his readers.

In one important point more especially, which should ever characterise the true Commentary, is the Catena likely to fail (a point we may add, which is signally requisite in the case of a profound Epistle like that to the Ephesians)-we mean a lucid analysis of the structure and articulation of the argument, a clear perception of the sequence of thought, and of the mutual relation between the numerous subordinate and auxiliary clauses.

In this important respect-in the unravelling the tangled thread of connection running through certain of the long involved paragraphs in the former portion of this sublime Epistle, and the evolution of the compressed meaning which struggles to find expression in its pregnant and complicated contexture, we have not been able to derive as much assistance from Mr. Newland's Commentary as we could have desired. And herein, as our readers well know, lies the chief difficulty of this marvellous portion of the New Testament.

Mr. Ellicott truly says that "the intertexture of sentences and the connection of clauses, especially in the earlier portions of the Epistle, try the powers and principles of grammatical and logical analysis to the very uttermost."

"In the first chapter especially" (as he most forcibly proceeds) "when we are permitted, as it were, to gaze upon the evolution of the archetypal Dispensation of GOD,-amidst those linked and blended causes that, like the enwreathed smoke of some sweet-smelling sacrifice, mount and mount upwards to the very Heaven of Heavens, in that group of sentences of rarest harmony and more than mortal eloquence, these difficulties are so great and so deep, that the most exact language and the most discriminating analysis seems, as they truly are, too poor and too weak to convey the force or connection of expressions so august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound."—Ellicott; Ep. to Eph. p. xii.

But we have no desire to depreciate the worth of Mr. Newland's work. It makes the modest claim to be only a Catena. As such (although it is really something more; and contains much original matter, and displays considerable independence of thought) it is a remarkably good and useful one. Its extracts are selected with much care and judgment: and the whole forms not only a valuable contribution towards the illustration of this particular Epistle, but

also (thanks to the indices) an interesting and instructive book of reference.

"The Fathers" (he tells us) "form the foundation of the book; and where practicable, it has always been endeavoured to give the interpretation in their words. This will account for some lengthy extracts from their writings. . . . It was thought that these extracts might assist those who would wish it, to use the Commentary for homilitical purposes. The Schoolmen also have been laid under contribution . The works of modern German and other theologians have also been consulted, and much valuable assistance has been gained from them."P. xxiii.

As a work of this miscellaneous character does not offer much scope for review, we will rather add a few words on the subject of Commentaries in general, and on some of their leading requirements. We have nothing new or original to offer: still it may not be wholly without advantage to refer briefly to the subject, as there is an extended and cheering interest awakening throughout our Anglican Communion in this class of Sacred Literature; and it is not amiss that, among readers of such works, no less than writers, some sort of correct estimate should be formed of what are the necessities of a good Commentary.

We will state briefly, as they occur to us (and without any attempt at systematic order), a few of the features which should ever characterise such productions.

1. And first, without dwelling on those qualities of heart without which no really good Commentary can be written, there must be on the part of the author an accurate and intelligent acquaintance with the precise meaning of the text, according to the ordinary rules of grammar. This is absolutely indispensable. A clear insight into, and firm grasp of, the literal interpretation, must precede and underlie and give a substance to all the subsequent labours of the Expositor.

The time, we trust, is for ever passed, when intelligent readers are to remain content with the loose, inaccurate, uncritical interpretations which have too long satisfied the religious world; when Holy Scripture may be deemed patient of almost any possible meaning; when it may be tacitly assumed that the language of Inspiration is constructed on no fixed principles, that Greek prepositions (for instance) are employed by the Sacred Writers quite indiscriminately, and cases put one for another in an equally arbitrary fashion; when it may be deemed a sufficient account of any apparently anomalous or difficult construction that it is a " Hebraism," and, as such, capable of yielding any meaning which may chance to accord with the theological or other subjective bias of the Commentator; and when the careful study of the grammar of the New Testament may be esteemed a superfluous expenditure of time and trouble.

The invaluable services of Mr. Ellicott in the department of New Testament criticism and grammar will, we trust, have contributed much towards the familiarising our English students with this too much neglected domain of sacred hermeneutics, towards making these all-important studies more popular, and thus putting an end, amongst ourselves, to the careless and irreverent dealing with the words of Holy Scripture, which has been far too prevalent. It is absolutely impossible that the real "spirit" of Holy Writ can be caught, where there is a pious, or rather impious, indifference to the "letter."

The same remarks, mutatis mutandis, must apply to Commentaries on the Old Testament. In the latter, as in the former case, there must be, before everything else, a clear apprehension, on the part of the expositor, of the strict and literal meaning of the words, in order to insure that his interpretation be really deduced from the original, not forced upon them. The thoughtful reader, we conceive, should be able to ascertain to some extent from the Commentary (especially in the more recondite passages) what is the primary import of the words, and then how the literal meaning is modified by the exigencies of the context, in order that he may be in a position the better to appreciate the full significance of the resulting exposition, and the force and beauty of any ulterior spiritual and mystical senses wherewith holy men may have discerned the passage to be instinct.

The want of due attention to the primary and literal meaning, is a material drawback to the value of many Commentaries otherwise admirable and unexceptionable. The beautiful Commentary on the Psalter, now in progress, by Mr. Neale, may serve as an example. Who can but feel how much the value of that excellent and attractive work would be enhanced, if more reverent anxiety were manifested by the writer to ascertain the exact meaning of those words of the HOLY GHOST he undertakes to elucidate; to discover the primary aim and object of the successive Psalms, and thus to make it evident that the ulterior spiritual senses are the real, genuine offspring of the literal? The intrinsic beauty and value of any mystical interpretation will never compensate for its failing to substantiate its claim to be the legitimate growth of the passage or Psalm to which it is affiliated. It may have been associated with it by some pious or imaginative writer in bygone times: but this accidental circumstance can, of itself, give it no claim to re-production in a Commentary, as the regular and natural outgrowth of the text, except it commend itself on other and deeper grounds.

The "spirit" of Holy Scripture is the "letter" transfigured: and according to the precise form and structure of the latter will be the particular glory and beauty of the former. Hence great labour, rigorous self-control, keen and profound spiritual intuition must be needed on the part of the mystic exegete, in order that each sepa

rate Psalm may gleam with its own, individual and distinctive radiance, and that the halo with which it is invested be not a mere adventitious lustre introduced from some extraneous source. Α luxuriant fancy, a powerful imagination, varied and extensive reading, great fluency and readiness-these are some of them important subsidiary aids to the supra-literal interpreter, but, at the same time, if not kept under strict rule, great snares-as tempting him to neglect those slower but surer processes whereby alone he can make the "letter" give out its real and proper spiritual significance, and shine with its own, its true, mystic light.1

2. Subordinate to this requisite of a good Commentary—viz., a reverent regard to the letter of the Original, and a minute and critical attention to its exact meaning-or rather, we should say, preliminary to this requirement, there must be (as perhaps it is hardly necessary we should add) a rational and conscientious certainty on the part of the Commentator, as to the correctness of the text. The faithful Commentator must take intelligent pains and care that he is not treating the errors of some careless transcriber, or the fancies of some opinionated glossator, as the words of GOD the HOLY GHOST.

3. There must be moreover, on his part, a strict and relentless determination by the help of GOD, to allow no subjective bias whatever to colour or modify the integrity of the Divine Revelation which he has taken upon him to interpret. And with the view of correcting and testing all individual leanings and private imaginings, there should be a comprehensive acquaintance with the mind of the Church-the alone true witness and Interpreter of Holy Writ-whenever that mind is fairly ascertainable; a lowly and teachable regard paid to, though not necessarily a blind unreasoning adoption of, the expositions of Fathers and Saints of bygone times.

The absence of this jealous control over private fancies and prejudices, and humble subordination of them to the teaching of the Church, is at times sadly to be deplored. Let a single example suffice, from the valuable notes on the Greek Testament now in course of publication, by one, of whom no English Churchman has a right to speak but in terms of gratitude and respect, Dr. C. Wordsworth.

1 As we have incidentally noticed Mr. Neale's work, we may repeat an opinion previously expressed in these pages, that Dr. De Burgh's Commentary on the Psalms, now completed, furnishes a very valuable complement to Mr. Neale's. Dr. De Burgh aims at putting his readers in full possession of the literal and primary meaning of the Psalms, wherever ascertainable. He ignores the mystical meanings far too much; but deals largely with the prophetic element, which unquestionably pervades a great portion of the Psalter. The two Commentaries are utterly dissimilar in aim, style, execution, in fact in every conceivable respect. But it is this very dissimilarity, coupled with the real merit which each possesses in its own domain, which makes them convenient auxiliaries and useful mutual checks-the two balancing each other, and supplying each other's deficiencies.

VOL. XXII.

30