(C.) The Eoman Catholic writers often contain much that is useful and little that is objectionable. Happy would it be for the Church of England if all her Clergy knew their Bibles as well as such men as Ferus and ToletusI
(D.) The few German writers that I have consulted appear to me to be far too highly esteemed, with the exception of Bengel and Lampe. Stier is always reve- rential, but tremendously diffuse. As to Olshausen, Tholuck, and Tittman, I have generally laid down their works with unmixed disappointment. What people can mean by telling us that we have much to learn from modern German writers on Scripture passes my com- prehension ! — I can only suppose, from my own acquaintance with them, that many say it without hav- ing read them, or without having read other exposi- tors.
(E.) The Scotch and English commentators I shall pass over in silence, as most of them are well known. I must confess that I think we have little to show in this department of Theological literature. Of our old writers, Rollock, the Scotch divine, is incomparably the best. In fact, I do not know such a "buried treasure" as his Latin commentary on St. John.* — Of modern writers Burgon and Wordsworth strike me as two of the most valuable, though I differ widely from them on such points as the Church and the Sacraments. But I admire their reverential spirit. — Alford is almost always able and clear, but not always in my opinion a safe theological guide. — A thoroughly satisfactory critical
* Rollock was born a.d. 1555, and died a.d. 1598. He was principaj of the University of Edinburgli.
xn PREFACE.
commentary on tlie Greek Testament, in tlie English language, is a great desideratum.
I have only to add that on all points of philology, grammar, ete., I have consulted Flacius, Eavanel, Park- hurst, Leigh, Schleusner, Kaphelius, Suicer, Glass! us, and Winer.
The vexed question of "various readings," I have deliberately left alone. It is not because I have no opinion on the subject. But the real extent to which all the various readings would affect the meaning of Scripture, if they were admitted, is so much exa,ggerated, that it does not seem to me worth while to mix up the question with such a work as that which I have under- taken. The Greek text which I have been content to use throughout is that of the third Edition of Stephens (1550), edited by Scholefield. I do not say for a moment that it is the best text. I only say I have used it.
The occasional short-comings of our authorized Eng- lish translation I have not hesitated to notice. I have frequently pointed out expressions which in my judg- ment are not rendered so literally or accurately as they might have been. There is nothing perfect on earth. Our excellent translators undoubtedly fail occasionally to give the full sense of Greek words,, and are not always sufficiently careful about tenses and the article. But it is useless to expect perfection in any translation. Trans- lators are not inspired, and are all liable to err. The " plenary verbal inspiration " which I firmly maintain, is that of the original text of Scripture, and not of any translation. — I have no sympathy however with those who wish to have a new authorized English version of the Bible. I concede the short-comings of the old ver- sion, but judging by the specimens of "]iew and