receive no light from them. I see nothing solid in their arguments, and am utterly unmoved by them. I believe that the want of our age is not more "free" handlino- of the Bible, but more ''reverent" handling, more humility, more patient study, and more prayer. I repeat my own firm conviction, that no theory of inspiration involves so few difficulties as that of " plenary verbal inspiration." To that theory I entirely adhere, and on that theory my readers will find this Commentary is written.
In preparing this Commentary I have made it a point of duty to look through every work on St. John's Gos- pel which I could meet with. I append a list of books, partly because it may be interesting and useful to some readers, and partly because I wish to show that when I differ from the authors, I have not written in ignorance of their opinions.
The commentaries and expository works on St. John which I have looked through are the following : —
I. Of Fathers. Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chry- sostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, and the Catena Aurea.
II. Of Foreign Reformers and their successors^ to the close of the seventeenth century. Melancthon, Zwingle, Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Bucer, Bullinger, Gualter, Pellican, Flacius Illyricus, Musculus, Beza^ Aretius, Chemnitius,^ Diodati, Calovius, De Dieu, Coc- ceius, Gomarus, Nifanius, Heinsius, Glassius,f Critici Sacri.
* The work I here refer to is the Commentary on the " Harmony of the Gospels," begun by Chemnitius, and continued by Lyserus and Gerhard.
f The work of Glassius to which I here refer, is his " Expositions of the Gospels and Epistles appointed for Sundays." It is a collection of Homilies.