But still it may be said that the Epistle to the Romans, more than any other, is a systematic and exhaustive treatise. In one sense, doubtless, so it is. But if by this be meant (as even Mr. Arnold seems to think) that it contains an exposition of the Gospel addressed specifically both to Jew and to Gentile, the assertion seems to us to be directly contrary to fact. The Roman Christians to whom St. Paul was writing were essentially Judaic in their conceptions, and to them alone he addresses himself. They had reached Christianity as Jewish proselytes through the medium of Judaism, and all their ideas of it were tinged with this local colour. Knowing this, and intensely alive to the importance of a Church placed at the very centre of world-wide influence, and exposed to the narrow and mischievous errors which everywhere he so earnestly combated, the Apostle sets himself with all the energy of his powerful mind to expound the doctrines of Christianity. Yet this he does with a care so delicate not to offend the prejudices of his readers, and with an understanding so thorough of those prejudices, as almost to amount to a sympathy with them. Such a treatise, however elaborate, cannot be represented as being equally addressed to those to whom such prejudices are almost unintelligible. And it is because we are now expected by religionists to read the Epistle under a belief in our need of the same arguments as the Romans, that we get into so helpless a state of mind in reading it. Can Can anyone seriously think that St. Paul would have written in the same strain to a Church composed of thoughtful Gentile Romans-men, we will not say like Seneca and Gallio, but even like Julius the centurion? Even to Seneca and such as him, whether in the character of converts or of inquirers, who can doubt but that Paul would have known how to state his message powerfully and persuasively? We have no such specimens of his teaching preserved to us, or at least only short and imperfect summaries of such in the Book of Acts. But assuredly we have an approximation to it in the Epistles to the Colossians, and the Ephesians (so called), and again to the Philippians, rather than in that to the Judaising Romans. Here then, rather than in the latter, we are to look for the fundamental principles of his teaching my Gospel' as he called it elsewhere, that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.' Even here we must guard in some degree against a factitious attitude of mind, producing distorted impressions. We must remember that we read as bystanders (so to speak), not as direct recipients-not as those for whom the words were specially intended, and to whom they were immediately addressed. It is this canon of criticism, long 6 6 neglected under a false conception of the nature of inspired writings, which is now giving such freshness and force to the revived study of the Bible; and in the application of which (hazardous often, we grant, and tending to rationalism) we need divines to guide us endowed with great qualities spiritual and intellectual also. Mr. Arnold deserves our thanks for having in so large a measure drawn out the true ideal of St. Paul from their accidental surroundings, and shown how unlike is his theology to the favourite systems of Puritanism-systems which often arise in fact from distorted reproductions in a modern form of notions which the Apostle shared just so far as to seek to bend them in the direction of Christianity. Our author is severely assailed by his critics for adopting this view of the matter. We were told just now (they say) by Mr. Arnold that the Roman Christians judaised; now he would have us believe that the 'Apostle judaises himself.' Well, who can deny that he does so, unless we contradict his own assertion: To the Jews I 'became a Jew that I might gain the Jews'? Mr. Arnold analyses the Epistle to the Romans, dividing it into what he calls primary, subprimary, and secondary parts (p. 151). Fortified ourselves by the teaching of the three great Gentile Epistles (to which we add also those to the Thessalonians), we see every reason to confirm his conclusions in this respect; we think too that he has truthfully and strikingly described the leading characteristics of St. Paul's mind, as being an enthusiastic longing after righteousness and an overwhelming sense of his natural inability to attain to it. But when we pass with him 'from the sphere of morals into the sphere of religion' (p. 112), Mr. Arnold must pardon us for saying that, in spite of much even here which is beautiful and true in his essay, we are deeply dissatisfied with his exhibition of Pauline doctrine. We cannot accept his conception of faith as at all sufficient (p. 130, &c.); we demur to his merely mystical view of resurrection (p. 146); and when he tells us that science cannot follow theologians into the transcendental distinctions they 'make between Jesus and Socrates' (p. 138), we can only say that such science has little in common with Christianity. These theological questions, however, are not for us to deal with; and we merely notice them now as points in which we think Mr. Arnold's book deserves the blame it has met with; points in which he has either gone too far as an analytical critic, or not far enough as a Christian teacher. And now briefly, in conclusion, let us say that, notwithstanding all discouragements, we cherish the hope of a time ap proaching when Churchmen and Orthodox Dissenters shall coalesce on the basis of a simpler doctrinal system and a broader ecclesiastical constitution; leaving inevitable differences in these matters to be badges, if need be, not of sects but of schools. We are thankful to see so many proofs of the possibility of such a fusion in the expanding views and growing charity of both parties; and if these are more observable on the side of the Church than on that of the separatists, thus much is certainly due from those by whom the wrongs have been chiefly committed, and by whom the exclusive rights are still enjoyed. We will not venture to suggest more definitely the measures by which the desired consolidation might be effected; but in truth it is not so much practical suggestions which are needed now, as an increase of the wish on both sides to reach the desirable end. Our main business' (as Mr. Arnold well remarks elsewhere) is not so much to work away ' at certain crude reforms, of which we have already sketched 'the scheme in our own mind, as to create a frame of mind out ' of which really fruitful reforms may with time grow' (Culture and Anarchy, p. 253). On the part of the Church, however, some of these reforms are more and more generally felt to be necessary; and if effected, would assuredly do much in opening the way to reconciliation and union. Limits doubtless there must be, after all, to any possible combination between conscientious men earnestly persuaded of the intrinsic importance of their respective tenets. But even at the point where fusion is no longer possible, federal union may be carried further still. And, certain as it seems to be that modern thought will take more and more the direction in too many cases of departure from Christian faith, it behoves all who have the same sacred cause at heart to unite in defending the truths which they hold most precious, and in maintaining for the country that national profession of Christianity which they believe to be in all things essential to its welfare. ART. V.-The Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, including various Additional Pieces from MS. and other sources. The Text carefully Revised, with Notes and a Memoir. By WILLIAM MICHAEL ROSSETTI. 2 vols. London: 1870. THAT HAT a new and carefully-revised edition of Shelley's works was needed has long been admitted, and even insisted on, by the students and critics of his poetry. In all existing editions the text, it is well known, had numerous inaccuracies and corruptions, some of which seriously affect both the metre and the sense. The late Professor Craik, in noticing Mrs. Shelley's four-volume edition of her husband's poems, gives from the first volume alone a long list of errata affecting a number of lines in several of Shelley's most exquisite pieces. Some of these, such as the blue Egean girls' instead of 'the blue gean girds,' are obvious misprints corrected in subsequent issues. But the majority of corrupt passagessome, it is true, involving nice points of criticism-reappear in the one-volume editions, and have continued to disfigure the text. Supposing the number of errors in the three other volumes of Mrs. Shelley's edition to be no greater than those pointed out in the first, there would still be in Shelley's poems upwards of a hundred lines and passages requiring critical revision. But recent discussions on the subject show that the actual difficulties of the text are both more numerous and more important than earlier critics had supposed them to be. Mr. Swinburne, who has taken an active part in these discussions, hardly exaggerates when he says, 'It is seldom that the work of a scholiast is so soon wanted as in Shelley's case it has been. His text is still a matter of debate and comment, as though 'he were a classic newly unearthed. Certain passages begin to be famous as crucial subjects for emendation, and the master singer of our modern poets shares with his own masters and ⚫ models the least enviable proof of fame-that given by corrupt readings and diverse commentaries.' It was his intimate knowledge of these imperfections that led Mr. Rossetti to undertake the task of editing Shelley's poetical works, and in executing this task he has directed his attention mainly to the text. The new edition contains, it is true, a number of early poems and fragments not previously included in the collected works, with some that have never yet been printed. Many of these are of indifferent merit, but they are all of some interest and value, as helping to illustrate the growth and development of Shelley's poetical genius. There is also prefixed to the first volume a memoir by the editor which condenses the known facts of Shelley's life into a clear and readable narrative, and deals with the disputed points of his history in a spirit of candour and impartiality. But the most important feature of the new edition is the careful revision of the text, on which a good deal of minute critical labour has evidently been expended. The editor has done his best to recover and turn to account the materials still available for the correction of Shelley's text. These, it must be confessed, are not very abundant, or of much authority. The manuscripts of the more important poems are not known to exist, and in these cases the first printed editions--especially those published under Shelley's own eye-are the only sources available for critical comparison and revision. These have supplied a few improved readings, and removed some of the more obvious corruptions of later texts. But the most critical use of first editions leaves the great mass of difficult passages untouched, and for the correction of these Mr. Rossetti has had to fall back on conjectural emendation. It is, perhaps, useless to expect anything like general agreement in relation to this most difficult part of an editor's work, and we certainly cannot accept many of Mr. Rossetti's suggested corrections. Still, some of his readings are happy, and in wielding the two-edged weapon of critical conjecture, he displays in the main both caution and skill. His work is, indeed, marked throughout, not only by intelligence, but by unflagging zeal and enthusiasm in the execution of his chosen task. As a natural result, we have in the volumes before us a completer collection and more accurate text of Shelley's poetical works than has hitherto been given to the world. It is a curious psychological problem how it is that amongst modern poets Shelley should be distinguished by his comparative neglect of minute verbal accuracy; how it comes to pass that the text even of poems which he himself carefully revised should be so extremely imperfect. Mr. Rossetti's solution of this problem, while true as far as it goes, appears to us hardly satisfactory or sufficient. Strictly speaking, indeed, it can scarcely be called an explanation at all, being little more than a detailed and elaborate statement of the fact:- 'If we inquire why Shelley has suffered so much in the printed form of his poems, we shall find that the responsibility rests upon three defendants-Shelley himself, Casualty, and Mrs. Shelley. Shelley was essentially careless as a writer. Spite of his classical education and tastes, and his cultivated perceptions of many kinds, he was at all times capable of committing, and incapable of avoiding, slips of grammar and |