INTRODUCTORY NOTE ABOUT one-third of the present volume has already seen A the light. The opening essay On, the Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St Johns Gospel was published in the Expositor in the early months of 1890, and has been reprinted since the essay On the Mission of Titus to the Corinthians appeared in the Journal of Sacred and Classical Philology nearly thirty years ago, while the ninth essay On the Structure and Destination of the Episfle to the Romans consists of three famous articles contributed within the years 1869 and 1871 to the Journal of Philology, two by Dr Lightfoot and one by Dr Hort. Beginning with a criticism of M. Renans theory that our present Epistle to the Romans represents no less than four letters addressed to different Churches, Dr Lightfoot proceeded to formulate a countertheory of an original Ietter our complete Epistle addressed to the Church of Rome, and a shorter recension of a more general character reissued by the Apostle at a later period and intended for a wider circIe of readers. This theory did not commend itself to Dr Hort, and his criticism of Dr Lightfoots arguments and Dr Lightfoots reply, which form the second and third of the articles in question, are published herewith, while for a restatement of Dr Horts view the reader is referred to the Notes on Selected Beadings which form an appendix to the Introduction to the edition of the New Testament edited by Drs Westcott and Hortl. A singular pathos attaches to the The New Testament in the original Greek 1881, vol. 2, Appendix, pp. 100 aq. vi republication of these articles in the thought that he who so recently gave his consent to their insertion in this volume, and whose counsel was so reverently listened to by his CO-trustees, has been called to his rest, before the volume has passed into circulation. And the pathos of the situation is only increased as we turn to the main part of the volume, to that which appears in print for the first time. When in 1879 Dr Lightfoot was called away from Cambridge to undertake the Bishopric of Durham, apprehension was felt and expressed in many quarters that the continual claims of diocesan engagements would seriously impair his literary productiveness. How heroically he struggled to belie this anticipation is well known. But the marvellous steadfastness of purpose with which he devoted to literary work every available moment which could be snatched from official duties can be fully appreciated by those only who had the privilege of watching the great bishops life from day to day. By sheer strength of will he conpleted the five massive volumes on the Apostolic Fathers. But the issue of commentaries on St Pauls Epistles was checked absolutely, From time to time rumours were circulated that some particular commentary ivas in progress, nay more, in type and within a measurable distance of publication but alas these surmises were etireIy devoid of foundation. The Bishop was heard more than once to declare that, his edition of the Apostolic Fathers finished, he hoped with what leisure he could secure in two years to be able to bring out a commentary upon any one of the Pauline Epistles on which he had lectured when at Cambridge. But the necessary relief from pressure never came, and after his death it was fouud, as had been anticipated by those who knew his methods, that the notes on the New Testament had remained untouched since the day when he left Cambridge for Auckland Castle. There were moreover gap in the commentaries and in the introductory matter, sketches of work which had never been filled in, and jottings which needed the master-mind of the writer to interpret them adequately...