The other thing you have to remember is that in many commentaries a verse is mentioned and then the commentator goes off on a tangent, Matthew Henry and John Wesley really do that a lot.
Note the lack of support for the claim.
Have you never read Matthew Henry, come on look at the quote you gave from him.
Here's the Bible verses Matthew Henry is commenting on:
5In that day shall
the LORD of hosts be for a crown of
glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto
the residue of his people,
6And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and
for strength to them that turn the
battle to the gate.
7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon
precept;
line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the
weary to rest; and this is the
refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon
precept;
line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. 15Because ye have said,
We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made
lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
Here's his comment:
"The prophet next turns to Judah, whom he calls
the residue of his people. Happy are those alone, who
glory in
the Lord of hosts himself. Hence his people get wisdom and
strength for every service and every
conflict. But it is only in Christ Jesus that the holy God communicates with sinful man.
And whether those that teach are drunk with wine, or intoxicated with false doctrines and notions concerning the kingdom and salvation of the Messiah, they not only err themselves, but lead multitudes astray. All places where such persons have taught are filled with errors. For our instruction in the things of God, it is needful that the same
precept and the same
line should be often repeated to us, that we may the better understand them. God, by his word, calls us to what is really for our advantage; the service of God is the only true rest for those
weary of the service of sin, and there is no
refreshment but under the easy yoke of the Lord Jesus. All this had little effect upon the people.
Those who will not understand what is plain, but scorn and despise it as mean and trifling, are justly punished. {my emphasis} If we are at peace with God,
we have, in effect,
made a covenant with death; whenever it comes, it cannot do us any real damage, if we are Christ's. But to think of making death our friend, while by sin we are making God our enemy, is absurd. And do not they make
lies their refuge who trust in their own righteousness, or to a death-bed repentance? which is a resolution to sin no more, when it is no longer in their power to do so."
1) It appears that Matthew Henry is sticking pretty close to the text.
2) You said "many commentaries" go "off on a tangent"; last I checked, one is not many.
Oh and this is interesing:
Quote:
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament were printed between 1765-6. He relied upon Matthew Henry, but stated openly that he had edited out all Henry's references to the doctrine of "absolute, irrespective, unconditional predestination." Wesley also relied on the commentary of Matthew Poole. -- John Wesley's Commentary on the Bible Reviewed by Dr. Vic Rasoner
Interesting, yes; but, not relevant to this discussion. John Wesley also edited his brother's hymns to make sure that they were theologically correct.
). The 1700's and on are well within the modern era of understanding for most of the Bible doctrines. I'm not saying they had it all correct but a lot can be learned from 17th and 18th century Biblical scholarship. 
