taining a distinct and visible prominence. In the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, the explanation of the uses of the cases did not commonly involve many points of interest: in this Epistle, the cases, especially the genitive, present almost every phase and form of difficulty; the uses are most various, the combinations most subtle and significant. In the Epistle to the Galatians, again, the particles, causal, illative, or adversative, which connected the clauses were constantly claiming the reader's attention, while the subordination or coordination of the clauses themselves and the interdependence of the different members and factors of the sentence were generally simple and perspicuous. In the present Epistle these difficulties are exactly reversed, the use of the particles is more simple while 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 more particularly, when we are permitted, as it were, to gaze upon the evolution of the archetypal dispensation of God, amidst those linked and blended clauses 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 seem, as they truly are, too poor and too weak to convey the force or connection of expressions so august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound.

It is in this part that I have been deeply con

scious that the system of exposition which I have adopted has passed through its sorest and severest trial, and though I have laboured with anxious and unremitting industry, though I have spared neither toil nor time, but with fear and trembling, and not without many prayers have devoted every power to the endeavour to develop the outward meaning and connection of this stupendous revelation, I yet feel, from my very heart, how feeble that effort has been, how inexpressive my words, how powerless my grasp, how imperfect my delineation.

Still, in other portions of this Epistle, I trust I am not presumptuous in saying that I have been more cheered and hopeful, and that I have felt increased confidence in the system of exposition I was enabled to pursue in the commentary on the preceding Epistle. I have thus (especially after the kind notices my former work has received) studiously maintained in the present notes the same critical and grammatical characteristics which marked the former commentary. The only difference that I am aware of will be found in the still greater attention I have paid to the Greek Expositors, a slight decrease in the references to some modern commentators in whom I have felt a diminishing confidence, a slight increase in the references to our best English Divines which the nature of this profound Epistle has seemed to require. I deeply regret that the limits which I have prescribed to myself in this commentary have prevented my embodying the substance of these references in the notes, as I well know the disinclination to pause and consult other authors which every reader, save the most earnest and truth-seeking, is certain to feel. Yet this I will say, that I think the

student will not often regret the trouble he may have to take in reading those few portions of our great English Divines to which I have directed his attention, and which, for his sake, I could wish had been more numerous. Such as they are, they are the results of my own private reading and observation.

In the grammatical portion of the commentary I must entreat the reader to bear with me, if, for the sake of brevity, and, I might even say, perspicuity, I have been forced to avail myself of the current forms of expression adopted by modern grammatical writers. They will all be found elucidated in the treatises to which I have referred, and of these, every one, to the best of my belief, is well known and accessible, and will probably occupy a place in the library of most scholars.

I must now briefly notice the authors to whom, in addition to those mentioned in the preface to the Galatians, I am indebted in the present Epistle.

Of the patristic commentators I have derived great benefit from some exceedingly valuable annotations of Origen, which are to be found in Cramer's Catena, and which have hitherto scarcely received any notice from recent expositors, though they most eminently deserve it.

Of modern commentators on this Epistle I am deeply indebted to the admirable exposition of Harless, which, for accurate scholarship, learning, candour, and ability, may be pronounced one of the best, if not the very best commentary that has ever yet appeared on any single portion of Holy Scripture. A second edition has long been promised, but as far as I could learn from catalogues, and the foreign booksellers in this country, it had not made its appear

ance when I commenced this Epistle, nor, up to the present time, have I seen any notice of its publication.

The exposition of this Epistle by Dr. Stier under the title of Die Gemeinde in Christo Jesu, is very complete and comprehensive, but so depressingly voluminous as to weary out the patience of the most devoted reader. When I mention that it extends to upwards of 1050 closely printed pages, and that some single verses (e.g. Ch. 1. 23, II. 15), are commented on to the extent of nearly thirty pages, I may be excused if I express my regret that a writer so earnest, so reverential, and so favourably known to the world as Dr. Rudolph Stier, should not have endeavoured to have confined his commentary to somewhat more moderate dimensions. The chief fault I venture to find with Dr. Stier's system of interpretation is his constant and (in this work) characteristic endeavour to blend together two or more explanations, and, in his earnest and most praiseworthy attempt to exhibit the many deeper meanings which a passage may involve, to unite what is often dissimilar and inharmonious. Still his commentary is the production of a learned and devout mind, and no reader will consult it in vain. A review of it may be found in the seventyninth volume of Reuter's Repertorium.

The third special commentary I desire to mention is the full and laborious commentary of Professor Eadie. I have derived from it little directly, as it is, to a great degree, confessedly a compilation from existing materials, and these I have, in all cases, thought it my duty to examine and to use for myself; still I have never failed to give Professor Eadie's decisions my best consideration, and have in some cases

1

felt myself swayed by the devoutness, and, not unfrequently, the eloquence' of his expositions. I trust, however, the learned author will excuse me when I say that I do not think the grammatical portion of the commentary is by any means so well executed as the exegetical, and that I cannot but regard this otherwise able work, as, to a certain extent, an example of the truth of an opinion which I ventured to express in the preface to the Galatians, viz., that theological as well as grammatical learning is now so much increased, that it is hard to find a commentator who is able to satisfactorily undertake, at one and the same time, a critical, grammatical, exegetical, and dogmatical exposition of any portion of the New Testament. In his cumulative representation of the opinions of other commentators, as my notes will occasionally testify, Professor Eadie is also not always exact: with these abatements, however, which candour compels me to make, I can heartily and conscientiously recommend this commentary as both judicious and comprehensive, and as a great and important addition to the exegetical labours of this country.

I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned commentary of Dr. Meyer, has been most carefully consulted throughout, and I must again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned editor. In many doctrinal questions I differ widely from Dr. Meyer, but as a critical

1 May I express a hope that, in a second edition, a few harsh and unusual expressions, 'dubiety' (p. 10), 'to homologate a statement' (p. 44), 'supplement a construction' (p. 157), 'exhale a meaning' (p. 225), 'impartation,' &c. may be altered or expunged.