the biblical student will find a material aid for faithful and adequate exposition, if he reverently acknowledge both the innate claim to the highest reverence, and the influence of the thousand memories and associations that cluster around the page. The historical system of interpretation is valuable both for the lessons which it teaches and the warnings which it conveys. We should remember both its pre-eminent use and the caution which it requires. The Acts of the Apostles, with those notices in the Epistles that constitute the earliest chapter in ecclesiastical history, especially require and repay historical illustration. We are better able to understand the Athenian audience whom St. Paul addressed, from some knowledge of the Stoic and Epicurean sects. A flood of light has been thrown upon the voyage and shipwreck of St. Paul, by the labours of Mr. Smith, of Jordon Hill; and Dr. Stanley's historical illustrations of the Epistles to the Corinthians are both numerous in the aggregate and important in result. It cannot be a matter of unimportance to realize the modes of life and thought among those to whom the Divine words were originally addressed, and to ascertain, as nearly as we can, the fresh meaning which the words first conveyed to them. The method is not free from a danger of which professor Stanley himself has afforded signal instances. There is the danger that permanent truths should be resolved into what is simply historical and phenomenal. The words which were designed for humanity cannot be restricted to an era or a land. We dare not explain away an eternal meaning by a theory of a local colouring or fugitive allusion. We need scarcely say, that the present editors have strictly borne in mind these necessary limitations. One more principle of interpretation ought, perhaps, to be mentioned, which, though it is not expressly laid down in these pages, is nevertheless consistently observed: we mean that all interpretation is to be subordinated to what, in old and familiar language, is called the regula fidei; the observance of the "proportion of faith" (avaλoyía níoтews). The commentator must always recollect that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, and that one divine truth cannot be antagonistic to another. In the study of all great works, we necessarily assume a unity of design; we are unwilling to believe in contradictions and inconsistencies; and we feel that the work ceases to be great in proportion as these are discoverable. Much more, then, must we assume the consistent harmony of Scripture. Every portion of Scripture must be so explained as to be in harmony with the great summary of truth contained in all other parts. The neglect of this rule is the groundwork of more than half the sectarianism that exists. Huge systems of error have been founded upon texts that have not been interpreted according to the analogy of faith. Let, therefore, Scripture be interpreted according to the regula fidei that has been arrived at by the conclusions of religious thought. On this ground, also, there is no want of a necessity for a correspondent caution. Valuable as is a scientific theology, there is something to be guarded against in dogmatic systems. Scripture is to be interpreted not so much by formularies of faith, or the results of ecclesiastical history, or the accumulative wisdom of holy men, as by Scripture itself. The interpreter must hold himself free from the dominion of preconceptions. He too will guard against the Idola; his investigations will be conducted in the very spirit of the Novum Organon. We subjoin a specimen of the annotation; we select almost at random :: “1 THEss. 2. 5. οὔτε γάρ ποτε ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, καθὼς οἴδατε, οὔτε ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας, Θεὸς μάρτυς, 45. ποτε.... · ἐγενήθημεν] ever, at any time,' i.e., in my whole ministry everywhere. He is speaking generally, as just before (3, 4) and after (v. 6) v λόγῳ κολ. έγενήθημεν] ἐν thus used denotes occupation or position,' Jelf, § 622; 'habit' (v. 3), or characteristic feature,' Green, c. viii.; were in the practice of,' 'were characterized by. Cf. Plat. Phæd. § 5. év piλooopia elva, to study philosophy,' Hdt. ii. 82. οἱ ἐν ποιήσει γενόμενοι, poets. Το 2 C. 3 : 7, 8, ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ... ἔσται ἐν 86, 'characterized by glory.' E. 6: 2, ἐντολὴ.... ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ, characterized by promise. By the λόγος καλαKelas, is meant, speaking pòs dovny, such teaching as panders to the natural corruption of the human heart, to pride, worldliness, sensuality, and which therefore 'pleases men' (v. 4). The Apostle further describes it in R. 16: 18, speaking of those whose exhortation was ἀκαθαρσίας, he says, διὰ τῆς χρηστο λογίας καὶ εὐλογίας ἐξαπατῶσι τὰς καρδίας τῶν ἀκάκων. So Col. 2 : 4, ἵνα μή τις ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν πιθαν Aoyig. He calls such opevanáтai, Tit. 1:10. Cf. 2 P. 2: 3, 18, 19. See Is. 30 10. The expression is illustrated by the whole passage in Plato, Gorg. $42-847, in which Socrates maintains that the art of rhetoric is κολακείας popov. Note especially the definition of κολακεία in 8 45: τοῦ ἡδέος στοχάζεται EVEU TOU BEXTLOTov; and in § 44: TOû μὲν βελτίστου οὐδὲν φροντίζει τῷ δὲ ἀεὶ ἡδίστῳ θηρεύεται τὴν ἄνοιαν καὶ ἐξαπατᾷ (cf. R. 16: 18 supra) ὥστε δοκεῖ πλείστον afia elva. The word . is found here only in N. T. In constr. Aóyos K. is used as λόγος σοφίας λ. γνώσεως, 1. C. 12:8. Kabws vidare] We are not | po to attach these words to the preceding, and Oeds μáprus to those of the next clause severally; he appeals to their knowledge, and to God's, of his innocence of both flattery and covetousness; to their knowledge especially as to his conduct while among them, to God's generally as observing him at all times and everywhere. kab. old. and . μ. here are equivalent to vμeîs μápтupes κ. ὁ Θ., ν. 10. ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας] His behaviour (ἐγενήθημεν) was not a pretext for covetousness. Some would wrongly understand φάσει as the attributive, and render 'concealed, covered covetousness.' So Tynd. 'cloked;' Gen. 'coloured;' reversing the mutual relation of the words in regimine from that in the previous phrase, ev λóy. Koλ., which they translate as in A. V., 'flattering words.' Thus in 2 C. 9 : 13, ἁπλότητι τῆς kowvwvías, 'liberal distribution,' A.V., where, just before, τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας is rendered professed subjection, see n. The genitive is gen. auctoris, expressing the antecedent notion, i.e. the notion which precedes that of the (so-called) 'governing' noun. The Apostle means to say that his whole conduct, and especially his teaching, was not a mere 'pretence arising from covetousness,'' with some pretence which covered our avaricious views,' pretence to a Divine mission proceeding from motives of self-interest. The difference which we perceive between this expression and the former, ἐν λ. κολ., lies not in the syntax, but in the fact that only one of the nouns in the former has a bad sense, in the latter both have; hence we understand the writer as making a double denial in the latter; he was ἐν λόγῳ, but not ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας : his λόγος was not a λόγ. κολ., but he was neither ἐν προφ. πλεονεξ. nor ἐν προφάσει; there was no πρόφασις at all, much less προφ. πλ. It is to be observed that popáre is generally found alone, as in Phil. 1: 18. L. 20: 47, where it is used adverbially, and means by pretence,' hypocritically.' S. Paul, long after this, felt it necessary to defend himself against the imputation of πλεονεξία in reference to his conduct at Ephesus (A. 20: 33) and Corinth (1 C. 11: 18. 2 C. 7: 2. 12: 17, 18), places in which he resided for a considerable time. It was a charge which probably might be truly made against most itinerant teachers among the Greeks. Note the connexion between false teaching and covetousness in Tit. 1: 10, 11. 2 P. 2: 3. Θ. μάρτυς] an ordinary elliptic form of obtestation; so in v. 10. The full form is found in R. 19. Ph. 1: 8. 2 C. 1: 23." At this point we conclude our notice of the work before us. We need scarcely say that there are a multiplicity of points suggested well worth discussion, where the present commentary would be of great value. One of them, which we had noted for especial comment, is the question of the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews, where the editors retain the commonly received belief in favour of the authorship of St. Paul. But we turn aside, heartily commending the work to our readers. For size, price, compass, convenience, they will find it most serviceable for a constant text book, to be supplemented, when necessary, by the use of other works. It is a true saying, that every man is a debtor to his profession; meaning thereby that every man ought to contribute something to its service. This debt the present editors have discharged after a truly illustrious fashion. We cannot conceive any occupation more fraught with usefulness and happiness than has been theirs. We trust their labours will obtain that public recognition and reward to which they are so emphatically entitled. MONTALEMBERT ON MONACHISM. The Monks of the West, from St. Benedict to St. Bernard. By the Count de Montalembert. Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London. 1861. A DEFENCE of Monachism in this the nineteenth century sounds very much like an anachronism. But extinct systems have a tendency, after having slept in the darkness of the grave for a period, to revive, and to "revisit the glimpses of the moon." This is a fact of which we frequently see proofs, and of which the work before us is a signal instance. Some man or other, who seems to have been born altogether out of his own proper age, rises up, and re-asserts a principle, or advocates a system, which we had thought dead and buried, and turned into dust and ashes long ago. He startles us by his paradox; we are astonished at his audacity, and look with an eye of foolish sur prise, for the moment, at the antique novelty which he has presented to our view. We gaze at it, hardly able to believe in the testimony of our senses, till, after a while, our wonder subsides, upon our discovering that it is not a living object we are called upon to contemplate, but only an exhumed mummy. Such, beyond all question, is the whole system of Monkery. In a museum of curiosities, a work in which this is embalmed might find a fitting place; and it is purely as a curiosity we turn our attention (this, at least, is our first feeling) to The Monks of the West, by the Count de Montalembert. There is, however, another feeling that springs into existence at the name of the author. When a writer of such note comes before us, whether it be to defend an old system or to propose a new one, we are bound, by the laws of critical justice, to give him a candid and respectful hearing. Difficult as it is not to prejudge in a question that has been so long closed, it is but right that we should open our minds afresh, to give reception to truth, if truth there be which we have not before seen, lest haply we should all this while have been in error. Monachism has been universally condemned of late days, (that the Count de Montalembert admits,) but not, he argues, upon sufficient grounds. It has merits and wholesome uses, he maintains, which have been overlooked. Judgment has gone against it in error; and what the illustrious Frenchman asks of the present more unprejudiced generation is, to be heard in appeal. It is in the very nature of Englishmen to accord him a hearing, though it is equally in the nature of Englishmen not to be swayed by a writer's enthusiasm, or the splendours of his theory, but only by the balance of dry, hard, unelastic facts. If he can show that we have been mistaken in our judgment of the monastic system, and that it is, after all, as he styles it, "one of the greatest institutions of Christianity," we must, of course, reverse our opinion, mortifying as it may be to be obliged to do so. Prejudice is strong, but Truth ought to be stronger. Surprising as may be the fact, there is too much truth in our author's statement that "in the nineteenth century the religious Orders everywhere reappear." (p. 7.) In our own country, at least, monasticism is reviving. Monasteries and nunneries are springing up in all directions; and this furnishes an additional and most cogent reason why we should not pass by unnoticed such a work as "The Monks of the West," or refuse to examine, candidly and honestly, into the principle upon which the monastic institute is based. If it can be proved to be, as the author, in another place, terms it, "the living image of Christianity," that proof, we may be certain, will be made clear and incontrovertible by so able an advocate. This remarkable work is dedicated "to Pope Pius IX.," in whom the Count de Montalembert " reveres the minister of in fallible truth"-a euphemism, we must suppose, for the infallible minister of truth; since the Count de Montalembert is himself an ultramontane Papist. Coming to us through such an infallible channel, we have a right to expect in it something that approaches very near to truth infallible. It is a very unfortunate circumstance, to begin with, for the system of life which the Count de Montalembert would vindicate, that from the death of the righteous Abel to the birth of the ardent Peter, there is no solitary example of it recorded in Holy Writ. For though the case of Elijah the Tishbite, or of John the Baptist, or of Samuel and the school of the prophets, may look something like it, upon examination it will be found to be something very different. Neither of these holy men shut himself up in a monastery, or inflicted upon himself bodily macerations, though each of them may have worn a rough garment. And when we look in the face of Christianity, with its mild, domestic, home-loving smile, we are the more struck with the contrast between this and the monkish system to which the Church of Rome has given her high sanction. "Can it be possible," we say to ourselves, "that a system so against Nature, so gloomy, so repulsive, can have derived its origin from the religion exhibited to us in the New Testament?" That it has prevailed in Christendom to an almost universal extent, is undeniable; that it exists still, though with greatly diminished glories, and is even reviving, is to us a melancholy, though to some others it may be a hopeful, fact; and we cannot refuse, if we would, to look at that fact in the light in which it presents itself to us in this the illumined nineteenth century. Let us be candid. Perhaps, after all, we have been mistaken. From almost the earliest days of Christianity down to the present time, the marriage of the clergy has been regarded by some as polluting to religion, and by many as improper. Celibacy, though certainly not instituted in Paradise, has long been exalted into the highest of virtues, and, not being human, has been represented as angelic. Among the ecclesiastical heroes of the many centuries that followed the first up to the sixteenth, it was scarcely possible, we frankly admit, to point to one who was not, in this respect, an imitator of Paul rather than of Peter. All the ecclesiastical writers of those ages were in the habit, more or less, of lauding the superior sanctity of the unmarried to that of the conjugal state. This prevailing sentiment ripened finally, in the eleventh century, into a law under the pontificate of Hildebrand the Energetic, and was henceforth enforced by edicts and anathemas, by rewards and penalties. But at length, in the sixteenth century, nature triumphed over factitious piety, and proved too strong for Councils and for Popes. The clergy, following Luther's example, took to themselves wives, and lived as did Adam and St. Peter. It is only, however, in the communities of |