Tlie theological stand-point which the writer of this Commentary occupies will be obvious to any intelligent reader. Such an one will see at a glance that I belong to that school in the Church of England which, rightly or wrongly, is called " Evangelical." He will see that I have no sympathy whatever with either Komish or Neologian tendencies. He will see that I bold firmly the distinctive theological views of the Eeformers and doctrinal Puritans, and that ^^tally disapprove the loose and broad theology of some modern schools of divines. — But while I say all this, I must be allowed to add, that in interpreting Scripture, I " call no man mas- ter or father." I abhor the idea of wresting and w^arp- ing God's Word in order to made it support party views. Throughout this Commentary I have endeavoured ho- nestlj^ and conscientiously to find out the real meaning of every sentence on which I have commented. I have evaded no difiiculty, and shrunk from no inference. I have simply followed Scripture wherever its words seem- ed to point, and accepted whatever they seemed to mean. I have never hesitated to express my disagreement from the views of other commentators if occasion required ; but when I have done so I have tried to do it with courtesy and respect.
On one point of vast importance in the present day, the reader will see that I hold very decided opinions. That point is inspiration. I feel no hesitation in avow- ing, that I believe in the "plenary inspiration " of every word of the original text of Holy Scripture. I hold not only that the Bible contains the Word of God, but that every jot of it was written, or brought together, by Divine inspiration, and is the Word of God. I entirely disagree with those who maintain that the writers of the