much clearness, as, by very example, to exhibit the leading principles upon which textual criticism depends. It is because of these things, and because the book is full and copious on many other matters than those we have mentioned, that we call it a representative book; so faithfully does it mark the progress which modern learning and research have made in the illustration of an ancient document. We think that, fairly and honestly, we have spoken as a scholar and a critic of Dr. Lightfoot's book as it deserves; and if his text had been the De Republica of Cicero, or the Oration of Hyperides, or the Philosopheumena of S. Hippolytus, our notice could have been in a continued strain of praise. But Dr. Lightfoot is editing a sacred and inspired and a canonical book of Holy Scripture; and for this not merely classical attainments and general learning-nay, not even theological learning will suffice if the theological spirit be absent. Professor Lightfoot's book is unhappily representative in a theological point of view. Το what school can we assign the book? Luther and the Reformation are spoken of in glowing terms, but the great principles for which the Reformers lived, and for which they died, are neither clearly nor enthusiastically taught in its pages. The Fathers, again, are cited on every important point of doctrine; their concordant or discordant testimony is ably and carefully weighed; yet we dare not say that Professor Lightfoot holds in any reverence or authority the patristic and traditional teaching of the Church. Winer and the German school of grammarians are called in, to settle knotty points of construction, yet the author is no implicit follower of Bishop Ellicott. He reverences Luther's Commentary on this Epistle, reverting to it in terms of the highest praise again and again; yet he acknowledges again, at the same time, his obligations to Professor Jowett, "who has made the habits of thought in the Apostolic Age his especial study." It is a matter much to be regretted that comprehensive scholarship should ally itself unconsciously, as it were, with a false literatism; that in the keenness of its criticism, and in its search after manifold authorities, it should weaken the grasp which it ought to have, of definite and positive dogmatic truth. The one thought comes home to us with an earnestness which cannot be gainsayed, that copious material is not all that is wanting to thoroughly illustrate an author. Besides the readings from the Scholiasts, the poetic spirit is needed to comment rightly upon Homer or Theocritus. The most extensive notes from the writings of the Neo-Platonists, Jamblicus included, could never form a true expositor of Plato unless the philosophical spirit energized as an interpreting power. If this be true in

regard to poetry or philosophy, how much rather must the rule hold good as applied to the interpretation of a book of the inspired Canon! The careful student of Professor Lightfoot's elaborate book would be able to solve all the knotty points which an examination upon the Epistle might suggest. He would hardly be confused by any piece of construing which he might be called upon to explain, at the same time he would be armed upon the chronology, history, and geographical relations of "the Galatians." As far as the letter is concerned, we have represented in the pages before us the very latest results of modern scholarship. It is when from the letter we turn to the spirit, that the great want makes itself felt, for we fail to catch the mind of the Apostle: the spiritual and doctrinal part of the epistle seems to disappear under the burden of so much scholarship; and to be eliminated by the overwhelming mass of secular illustration. It is a very hard task to combine exegesis with devotion; but it is a grave question whether, in an inspired writing, the devotional element ought not to occupy the first place; and the exegetical a secondary and far less prominent position. Professor Lightfoot's book is anything but devotional; it is latitudinarian in its teaching; it is cold and dry when called upon to unfold the mysteries of Divine Grace. The note on Gal. ii. 21, will illustrate what we mean. "I have been crucified with Christ," &c. A new aspect is pointed out by these words of the suffering Apostle with his once-suffering but now glorified Lord. They connect themselves with "the marks of the Lord Jesus," which the Apostle bore about with him, not only in the body scarred and defaced by rough usage, by stripes and imprisonment, but much more impressed upon the soul on which, as graven by an iron pen, were the lineaments of the suffering life of Christ on earth. The fellowship of suffering-that near and dear communion which the faithful hold with the High Priest who is touched with the feeling of their infirmities-that very sacrament of sorrow and pain, finds no place in Professor Lightfoot's exposition of the passage. We ask our readers to muse upon the verse a little while, and when they have just caught its spirit then they will feel how alien it is to the commentary upon it which we find in this book.

"A new turn is thus given to the metaphor of death. In the last verse it was the release from past obligations; here it is the annihilation of old sins. The two, however, are not unconnected. Sin and law loose their hold: at the same time the sense of feebleness, of prostration, to which a man is reduced by the working of the law, the process of dying, in fact, is the moral link which unites the two applications of the image.

See Rom. vi. 5, 9, 11. Thus his death becomes life. Being crucified with Christ, he rises with Christ, and lives to God. The parallel passage in the Romans best illustrates the different senses given to death. See also for a similar and characteristic instance of working out a metaphor, the different applications of huépa in 1 Thess. v. 2-8." The correlative idea of rising and reigning with Christ is equally common in S. Paul."-Yet not I. "When I speak of living, I do not mean myself-my natural being. I have no longer a separate existence: I am merged in Christ."-(pp. 121-22).

The last sentence in a slight degree atones for the coldness of the former treatment. Lanfranc takes the crucifixion of Christ in the flesh to be type and earnest of the crucifixion of our sins and lusts: or, as Origen so very beautifully explains it-" By the old man is understood our former life which we passed in sin, and of which we made a certain end and destruction wher we received in ourselves the death of the cross of Christ, by which the body of sin is destroyed." And again: "If we have been planted together in the death of Christ in the winter of this present time and life, we shall be found in the future spring bearing the fruits of righteousness from the same root." "If any man be dead through the cross of Christ, he is changed into a new man which is created after God." "I am crucified with Christ," says S. Jerome, "bearing His cross and following Christ, and imploring mercy through the Passion itself: Remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom;' and immediately hearing, 'to-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.' If any man shall be conformed to the death of Christ, with their earthly members mortified and being dead to the world, he is crucified with Jesus, or he affixes the memorial of the victory of his mortification in the words of the Dominical Passion." S. Thomas Aquinas, with his usual fulness, gives two interpretations of the passage: the one is the explanation of the glossa, "that as we are by nature children of wrath, so by the Cross the agedness of sin is taken away, the newness of spiritual life is given, which is renewed by Christ, who gives a new power of doing good works which is not according to the flesh. The other meaning is more refined. A man is said to live in that upon which he concentrates his affections and desires; such an one lives seeking only his own, he lives to himself alone. When a man concentrates himself, his life, his affections upon the Cross, he becomes crucified with Christ; he glories in the Cross; and Christ died that men should not live unto themselves, but unto Him who died and rose again." John v. 15. Peter de Blois, "on Christ liveth in me," ob serves: We had cleaved so to Christ that we had become

one spirit with Him." Christ lived in him, according to S. Jerome, in wisdom, peace, joy, courage, and other virtues. It is one thing, he adds, to be in the flesh and another thing to live in the flesh. They who are in the flesh cannot please God, whence it is said of those living well, "But ye are not in the flesh.' Lanfranc, on "Christ liveth in me," writes, "For he lived his mortal life in hope." S. Austin treats it in his own peculiar way. "Does Christ live in me-and how ?" Deny yourself, be unwilling to live in yourself. What is it to be unwilling to live in yourself, except to do not your will but the will of Him who dwells in you? Such we consider to be the evangelical unfolding of the crucifixion with Christ, and of the life that flows from our union with Him crucified. Is mere verbal and grammatical criticism a means or an end? If it be a telos, then Professor Lightfoot's commentary is all that can be desired. If it be but a means, then the end and final purpose of it is not attained in the present volume. It will be our endeavour, on three important passages of the Epistle, to give the drift-in a loose rough way it may be of Dr. Lightfoot's expositions, and then to compare them with the teachings of S. Thomas Aquinas, in particular, and some few of the most important Fathers in general. Our readers will then be in a position to judge for themselves as to the value of the system which is adopted in the volume before us. The University Library was at the disposal of Professor Lightfoot: he had an almost infinite range of authors to select from. He has made his selection, and the principle upon which he made it affords a fair ground for legitimate criticism.

In addition to the passage that has been quoted we will take three other passages from Dr. Lightfoot's book, and compare-or rather place before our readers for their own comparison-the illustrations which are given by some earlier writers, especially by S. Thomas Aquinas.

First we notice that Gal. i. 15, 16, in which S. Paul speaks of Almighty God's special dealings with himself, are regarded by Dr. Lightfoot as indicating three successive stages in his conversion. "Then came my conversion. It was the work of God's grace. It was foreordained before I had any separate existence. It was not therefore due to any merits of my own; it did not spring from any principles of my own. The revelation of His Son in me, the call to preach to the Gentiles, were acts of His good pleasure. Thus converted, I took no counsel of human advisers. I did not betake myself to the elder Apostles, as I might naturally have done. I secluded myself in Arabia, and when I emerged from my retirement, instead of going to Jerusalem, I returned to

99

Damascus." Such is the paraphrase of these verses in the volume before us. In detail we find such translations as "who set me apart" explained by "who devoted me to a special purpose.' Observe how words are accumulated to tell upon the one point on which he is insisting the sole agency of God as distinct from his own efforts. "From before my birth," "before I had any impulses or any principles of my own.' Three separate stages in the history of the Apostle's consecration to his ministry seem to be mentioned here. First, The predestination to his high office which dated from before hist birth; Secondly, The conversion and call to the Apostleship which took place on the way to Damascus, Acts ix. 3 et seq. Thirdly, The entering upon his ministry in fulfilment of this call, Acts ix. 20. The distinction of these three stages seems well marked, and, if so, this determines the meaning of év épot. It does not speak of a revelation made inwardly to himself but of a revelation made through him to others. The preposition év is used in preference to dia, because S. Paul was not only the instrument in preaching the Gospel but also in his own person bore the strongest testimony to its power. He constantly places his conversion in this light-see verse 24, 1 Tim. i. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 3. The rendering of év épou "within me," i.e., "in my heart," seems neither to meet the context so well nor to be so natural in itself."-(pp. 80, 81.) Dean Alford has not been much departed from by Professor Lightfoot; he dwells upon this conversion as being "God's actdetermined at his very birth, and effected by a special calling,' but he does not reason away the ev euoi, "in me," strictly within me. "The revelation shining through his soul," Chrysostom. The context here requires that his own personal illumination should be the first brought out."-(N. T. Eng. Read., vol. ii. Pt. i. p. 324.) Lanfranc joins the verses together "But when it pleased God to reveal His Son in me," adding, that he proves that he did not receive the Gospel from man, neither before his conversion, for then he was fighting against it; not after his conversion; for it is written "I conferred not;" not after three years; and not after fourteen years; so it is manifest that at another time he received the Gospel. He takes away those things of which he was suspected. Peter de Blois makes very much of the revelation of the Son in S. Paul: speaking of God giving testimony in heaven, of Him Who spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, now speaking unto us by His Son, he continues: "The Father gives when He reveals His Son in us;" and then he quotes Gal. i. 15, 16 (Op. p. 306). In another place (in his Sermon to the Priests, Ser. iv.), he con