C. G.Pusey House,July, 1890.
The chief changes of any importance in this edition are (1) the addition of a note at the end of the first essay; (2) the alteration of a few sentences on pp. 289, 296-7 of Essay VII; (3) the alteration of note 2 on p. 345 and note 1 on p. 346 in Essay VIII; (4) the expansion on p. 357, § 6 of the opening sentences; (5) the addition of an appendix onThe Christian Doctrine of Sin.
[3]By the phrase 'to attempt to put the Catholic faith into its right relation to modern intellectual and moral problems' (Preface to First Edition) it was not by any means intended to suggest that the modern problems or the modern sciences were the things of the first importance and the faith only secondary. What was intended was that, as holding the Faith, we needed, as the Church has often needed, to bring that with which we are ourselves identified, into relation to the claims, intellectual and practical, made upon us from outside.[4]Cf. Dr. Pusey,University Sermons, 1864-1879. 'Unscience, not science, contrary to faith,' pp. 18 ff.[5]Cf. the history of the relations of the Church to Aristotelian philosophy: Milman,Latin Christianity, ed. 4, vol. ix. pp. 110 ff.; and later the relations of Christianity to the Copernican astronomy: Salmon,Infallibility of the Church, p. 230.[6]See the tribute to his memory by Mr. G. J. Romanes:Guardian, Jan. 29, 1890.[7]From S. Bernard's most touching sermon (in Cant. 26) on the death of his brother Gerard.[8]See Essay VI. pp. 226-227, 250 ff.; Essay VIII. pp. 324-327; and Essay IX. pp. 384-390.[9]See Preface, p. ix. note 1.[10]Cf. Dr. Westcott's note on 1 S. John iii. 4, ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.[11]Cf. F. Lenormant,Les Origines de l'histoire. Paris, 1880, t. 1, p. 191. 'C'est dans la race de Qaîn que la Bible place l'invention des arts et des métiers. "Les fils du siècle sont plus habiles que les enfants de lumière."'[12]Cf. p. 534.[13]Cf. p. 535, note 1.[14]Cf. F. Lenormant,Les Origines, t. 1, pp. 63-66. It is a pleasure to refer to this work by a distinguished Catholic and man of learning. The Preface is an admirable discussion of the relation of scientific enquiry to belief in Inspiration.[15]Oxford Diocesan Gazette, July, 1890 (Parker, Oxford), p. 91.[16]The summary statements on pp. 351-2 as to the historical character of the Old Testament represent, I believe, a 'conservative' attitude, an attitude towards the history very unlike that, for instance, of Wellhausen.[17]See Ed. Riehm,Einleitung in das A. T.(Halle, 1889), §§ 15-18, 24, 27. F. E. König,Offenbarungsbegriff des A. T.(Leipzig, 1882), t. 11, pp. 321 ff. Cf. alsoHauptprobleme der Altisr.-Religionsgesch.(Leipzig, 1884). F. Delitzsch,Genesis, Clark's trans. (Edinb., 1888), i. 19-38. F. Lenormant,Les Origines, Préface. I venture to think that those who want to study the modern criticism of the Old Testament would be less likely to be prejudiced against it if they were to begin their study with the assistance of Riehm and König, rather than of more rationalistic scholars. I ought to add that while the scholars mentioned above agree substantially as to the analysis of the Pentateuch, they differ as to the position assigned to the Priestly Code, which Dillmann and Riehm hold to be prior to Deuteronomy, Wellhausen, König and Delitzsch subsequent to it.[18]Essay on the place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890, pp. 20, 21. I allude to this essay because it has excited considerable interest, but it has not received favourable notice from critics either English or German. For a review by a very competent critic, see Prof. Nöldeke in theLit. Centralblatt, July 12, 1890.[19]I may say that the motive for what is said about Ps. cx on p. 359 was simply the conviction that our Lord in the passage there in question cannot fairly be taken as giving instruction on a critical question of authorship, not the difficulty of assigning the particular Psalm to the age of David. The solution which I propose, p. 359, as to our Lord's words is however only one of several which are possible even for those who agree with me in the conviction expressed above. See, for instance, Edersheim,Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah(London, 1884), ii. p. 406, and Bp. Thirlwall as quoted in Dean Perowne'sCommentary on the Psalms(London 1871), ii. pp. 302 ff.[20]S. Augustine,Quæst. 73 in Exod.: 'Quamquam et in vetere [Testamento] novum lateat, et in novo vetus pateat.' Quoted by Dr. Liddon,The worth of the Old Testament, p. 28.[21]Cf. Didymusin Psalm.xxi. 19, where he interprets Christ's 'seamless robe,' of the Holy Scriptures which they 'part' who accept one and reject another. 'This robe of Jesus is also indivisible, for it is seamless. Its unity is not enforced but natural [οὐ γὰρ βεβιασμένην ἕνωσιν ἀλλὰ συμφυῆ ἔχει]; it is 'from above' [from the top, A.V.] because it is inspired; it is 'woven throughout,' because in its whole force it is from above.'[22]S. Matt. v. 17-48, cf. xix. 8: 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,' etc.[23]After S. Paul, S. Augustine is the great exponent of this principle in early days; see esp.de spiritu et littera, xix. (34): Lex ergo data est ut gratia quaereretur: gratia data est ut lex impleretur.[24]See esp. Heb. ix. 8, 'The Holy Spirit this signifying;' and cf. Dr. Westcott on this Epistle, pp. 233 ff.[25]I would venture to recommend Riehm'sMessianic Prophecy(Clark's trans.), as a summary account of prophecy both reverent and critical.[26]Cf. Hooker's account of our grounds for believing that 'Scripture ... is divine and sacred.' 'By experience,' he says, 'we all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God's Church.... Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it.' Later again, as against 'infidels or atheists,' we must 'maintain the authority of the books of God ... by such kind of proofs ... that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true.'E. P.III. viii. 14.[27]The Chronicles and the later historical books, as is well known, were included in the third class of 'Hagiographa' with the Psalmists and Moralists.The truth of this paragraph depends upon (1) the character, (2) the extent of the idealism of Old Testament facts. On this something more is said later on. Here I am only concerned to distinguish an idealism which truly interprets facts, even if it throws their spiritual meaning into high relief, from a merely imaginative treatment which perverts and distorts them. Thus if the Chronicler idealizes, it is by emphasizing, beyond the point of actual fact, the priestly element in the history which at the same time did both really exist and really represent the divine purpose.[28]De Gestis Pelag.v. (15), 'Sicut veteri Testamento si esse ex Deo bono et summo negetur, ita et novo fit injuria si veteri aequetur.' S. Augustine does not perhaps carry out the recognition of this principle as fully as some other of the Fathers: for refs. see pp. 229 ff.[29]S. Matt. xix. 8.[30]See pp. 329 ff.[31]Religion of the Semites.Edinburgh, 1889, p. 4.[32]p. 329, note 2. The passage here added is from S. Chrysost.in Matt.vi. 3. The same idea is discerned by Bp. Lightfoot in S. Paul; see on Gal. iv. 11.[33]I use the word 'myth' for those primitive stories on p. 356. The legitimacy of this use may be disputed, see e.g. Riehm,Einleitung, p. 342. But I endeavour to explain exactly the sense in which the word is used. On Strauss's application of the myth theory to the Gospel narratives, I should quite assent to the remarks of Dr. Mill,Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels(Cambridge, 1861), pp. 97, 98.[34]S. John i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24; 1 S. John i. 1-3.[35]S. Luke i. 1-4.[36]I would call attention in this connection to Dr. Salmon's remarks on S. Jude's use, even in the New Testament canon, of the traditions contained in the Assumption of Moses, and his quotation of the book of Enoch: see at the end of his lecture on S. Jude's Epistle in theIntroduction to the New Testament.[37]Cf. Riehm,Einleitung, i. p. 246: 'Das Gesetzbuch kann nicht erst unter Josia geschrieben sein, sondern es muss spätestens zur Zeit des Hiskia entstanden sein, und zwar bevor dieser König seine Reformation ganz durchgeführt hatte.'[38]A common feature in all traditions is what Wellhausen describes as the main characteristic of the Chronicler, 'the timeless manner of looking at things which is natural to him.' He 'figures the old Hebrew people as in exact conformity with the pattern of the later Jewish community.'Proleg. to Hist. of Israel(Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 190-193. In tradition whatisauthoritative tends to be represented as whatalways has beenauthoritative.[39]Thus the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are properly called forgeries; and the evidence of this would lie in the fact that the author could not have afforded to disclose the method and circumstances of their production.[40]Thus Riehm, whose position is described above on p. xx, has a noble section (Einleit.pp. 349 ff.) on the Pentateuch considered as the record of a Revelation. The conviction of the revelation of God is ascribed in part to 'the immediate impression which the Pentateuch makes. Anyone who reads it, so as to allow its contents to work upon his spirit, must receive the impression that a consciousness of God, such as is here expressed, cannot be derived from flesh and blood.'[41]De fide Catholica.The treatise is ascribed to Boethius: see Boetii,Opuscula Sacra(Teubner Series), p. 178. On the fresh evidence of the authorship of those treatises supplied by theAnecdoton Holderisee Hodgkin'sLetters of Cassiodorus, London, 1886, pp. 80-1.[42]See the account in Manning'sTemporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, London, 1877, pp. 156-160, and p. 166. Cf. also Newman's words below, p. 350.[43]pp. 359-60.[44]Nothing—except, on the customary interpretation, His reference to Psalm cx. This does seem to lay stress on David's authorship, unless it be regarded, as it certainly seems to me fair to regard it, as a question, rather than as positive instruction at all—a question simply calculated to lead the Pharisees to examine their own principles. Unless it be so interpreted it does seem to depend, as an argument, on personal authorship, because unless it be by David, it seems very difficult to suppose it written in David's person. It would naturally be a Psalm in whichthe King is addressed.[45]S. John v. 46-47.[46]S. Luke i. 17; S. Matt. xi. 14; xvii. 12.[47]Nineteenth Century, July, 1890, p. 20. The bulk of his argument is directed against a position different from mine. Here I am only concerned with a single point.[48]The proper name 'Lazarus' is presumably used because of its meaning. It should be noticed that the story is not aparableproper like that of the Sower or the Prodigal Son.[49]It may be remarked that to regard 'the flood' as a representative or typical expression of a whole class of divine judgments, helps us in interpreting S. Peter's use of it in 1 Peter iii. 19-20. There is no reason for an exceptional treatment of those who perished in one particular flood, but there is every reason why 'the Gospel should have been preached to those who died' under God's physical judgments of old times, supposing these, as we must suppose them, not to represent God's final moral judgment on individuals: see 1 Peter iv. 6.[50]These words are Bishop Steere's: see theMemoirof him by R. M. Heanley, London, 1888, p. 404. He admirably characterizes the true function of the Bible in the Church. It is (1) a criterion, not a teacher; (2) a record of the proclamation of the revelation, not the revelation itself.[51]See pp. 29 ff., 229 ff., 337 ff.[52]Cp. pp. 338-341, where this is explained. The 'logical' order of belief is often no doubt not the order of experience. The Bible can draw men to itself, and through itself to Christ, before they take any heed of the Church. But to feel the power of inspiration is a different thing from having reasoned grounds for calling certain books inspired.
[3]By the phrase 'to attempt to put the Catholic faith into its right relation to modern intellectual and moral problems' (Preface to First Edition) it was not by any means intended to suggest that the modern problems or the modern sciences were the things of the first importance and the faith only secondary. What was intended was that, as holding the Faith, we needed, as the Church has often needed, to bring that with which we are ourselves identified, into relation to the claims, intellectual and practical, made upon us from outside.
[4]Cf. Dr. Pusey,University Sermons, 1864-1879. 'Unscience, not science, contrary to faith,' pp. 18 ff.
[5]Cf. the history of the relations of the Church to Aristotelian philosophy: Milman,Latin Christianity, ed. 4, vol. ix. pp. 110 ff.; and later the relations of Christianity to the Copernican astronomy: Salmon,Infallibility of the Church, p. 230.
[6]See the tribute to his memory by Mr. G. J. Romanes:Guardian, Jan. 29, 1890.
[7]From S. Bernard's most touching sermon (in Cant. 26) on the death of his brother Gerard.
[8]See Essay VI. pp. 226-227, 250 ff.; Essay VIII. pp. 324-327; and Essay IX. pp. 384-390.
[9]See Preface, p. ix. note 1.
[10]Cf. Dr. Westcott's note on 1 S. John iii. 4, ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.
[11]Cf. F. Lenormant,Les Origines de l'histoire. Paris, 1880, t. 1, p. 191. 'C'est dans la race de Qaîn que la Bible place l'invention des arts et des métiers. "Les fils du siècle sont plus habiles que les enfants de lumière."'
[12]Cf. p. 534.
[13]Cf. p. 535, note 1.
[14]Cf. F. Lenormant,Les Origines, t. 1, pp. 63-66. It is a pleasure to refer to this work by a distinguished Catholic and man of learning. The Preface is an admirable discussion of the relation of scientific enquiry to belief in Inspiration.
[15]Oxford Diocesan Gazette, July, 1890 (Parker, Oxford), p. 91.
[16]The summary statements on pp. 351-2 as to the historical character of the Old Testament represent, I believe, a 'conservative' attitude, an attitude towards the history very unlike that, for instance, of Wellhausen.
[17]See Ed. Riehm,Einleitung in das A. T.(Halle, 1889), §§ 15-18, 24, 27. F. E. König,Offenbarungsbegriff des A. T.(Leipzig, 1882), t. 11, pp. 321 ff. Cf. alsoHauptprobleme der Altisr.-Religionsgesch.(Leipzig, 1884). F. Delitzsch,Genesis, Clark's trans. (Edinb., 1888), i. 19-38. F. Lenormant,Les Origines, Préface. I venture to think that those who want to study the modern criticism of the Old Testament would be less likely to be prejudiced against it if they were to begin their study with the assistance of Riehm and König, rather than of more rationalistic scholars. I ought to add that while the scholars mentioned above agree substantially as to the analysis of the Pentateuch, they differ as to the position assigned to the Priestly Code, which Dillmann and Riehm hold to be prior to Deuteronomy, Wellhausen, König and Delitzsch subsequent to it.
[18]Essay on the place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890, pp. 20, 21. I allude to this essay because it has excited considerable interest, but it has not received favourable notice from critics either English or German. For a review by a very competent critic, see Prof. Nöldeke in theLit. Centralblatt, July 12, 1890.
[19]I may say that the motive for what is said about Ps. cx on p. 359 was simply the conviction that our Lord in the passage there in question cannot fairly be taken as giving instruction on a critical question of authorship, not the difficulty of assigning the particular Psalm to the age of David. The solution which I propose, p. 359, as to our Lord's words is however only one of several which are possible even for those who agree with me in the conviction expressed above. See, for instance, Edersheim,Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah(London, 1884), ii. p. 406, and Bp. Thirlwall as quoted in Dean Perowne'sCommentary on the Psalms(London 1871), ii. pp. 302 ff.
[20]S. Augustine,Quæst. 73 in Exod.: 'Quamquam et in vetere [Testamento] novum lateat, et in novo vetus pateat.' Quoted by Dr. Liddon,The worth of the Old Testament, p. 28.
[21]Cf. Didymusin Psalm.xxi. 19, where he interprets Christ's 'seamless robe,' of the Holy Scriptures which they 'part' who accept one and reject another. 'This robe of Jesus is also indivisible, for it is seamless. Its unity is not enforced but natural [οὐ γὰρ βεβιασμένην ἕνωσιν ἀλλὰ συμφυῆ ἔχει]; it is 'from above' [from the top, A.V.] because it is inspired; it is 'woven throughout,' because in its whole force it is from above.'
[22]S. Matt. v. 17-48, cf. xix. 8: 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,' etc.
[23]After S. Paul, S. Augustine is the great exponent of this principle in early days; see esp.de spiritu et littera, xix. (34): Lex ergo data est ut gratia quaereretur: gratia data est ut lex impleretur.
[24]See esp. Heb. ix. 8, 'The Holy Spirit this signifying;' and cf. Dr. Westcott on this Epistle, pp. 233 ff.
[25]I would venture to recommend Riehm'sMessianic Prophecy(Clark's trans.), as a summary account of prophecy both reverent and critical.
[26]Cf. Hooker's account of our grounds for believing that 'Scripture ... is divine and sacred.' 'By experience,' he says, 'we all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God's Church.... Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it.' Later again, as against 'infidels or atheists,' we must 'maintain the authority of the books of God ... by such kind of proofs ... that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true.'E. P.III. viii. 14.
[27]The Chronicles and the later historical books, as is well known, were included in the third class of 'Hagiographa' with the Psalmists and Moralists.
The truth of this paragraph depends upon (1) the character, (2) the extent of the idealism of Old Testament facts. On this something more is said later on. Here I am only concerned to distinguish an idealism which truly interprets facts, even if it throws their spiritual meaning into high relief, from a merely imaginative treatment which perverts and distorts them. Thus if the Chronicler idealizes, it is by emphasizing, beyond the point of actual fact, the priestly element in the history which at the same time did both really exist and really represent the divine purpose.
[28]De Gestis Pelag.v. (15), 'Sicut veteri Testamento si esse ex Deo bono et summo negetur, ita et novo fit injuria si veteri aequetur.' S. Augustine does not perhaps carry out the recognition of this principle as fully as some other of the Fathers: for refs. see pp. 229 ff.
[29]S. Matt. xix. 8.
[30]See pp. 329 ff.
[31]Religion of the Semites.Edinburgh, 1889, p. 4.
[32]p. 329, note 2. The passage here added is from S. Chrysost.in Matt.vi. 3. The same idea is discerned by Bp. Lightfoot in S. Paul; see on Gal. iv. 11.
[33]I use the word 'myth' for those primitive stories on p. 356. The legitimacy of this use may be disputed, see e.g. Riehm,Einleitung, p. 342. But I endeavour to explain exactly the sense in which the word is used. On Strauss's application of the myth theory to the Gospel narratives, I should quite assent to the remarks of Dr. Mill,Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels(Cambridge, 1861), pp. 97, 98.
[34]S. John i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24; 1 S. John i. 1-3.
[35]S. Luke i. 1-4.
[36]I would call attention in this connection to Dr. Salmon's remarks on S. Jude's use, even in the New Testament canon, of the traditions contained in the Assumption of Moses, and his quotation of the book of Enoch: see at the end of his lecture on S. Jude's Epistle in theIntroduction to the New Testament.
[37]Cf. Riehm,Einleitung, i. p. 246: 'Das Gesetzbuch kann nicht erst unter Josia geschrieben sein, sondern es muss spätestens zur Zeit des Hiskia entstanden sein, und zwar bevor dieser König seine Reformation ganz durchgeführt hatte.'
[38]A common feature in all traditions is what Wellhausen describes as the main characteristic of the Chronicler, 'the timeless manner of looking at things which is natural to him.' He 'figures the old Hebrew people as in exact conformity with the pattern of the later Jewish community.'Proleg. to Hist. of Israel(Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 190-193. In tradition whatisauthoritative tends to be represented as whatalways has beenauthoritative.
[39]Thus the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are properly called forgeries; and the evidence of this would lie in the fact that the author could not have afforded to disclose the method and circumstances of their production.
[40]Thus Riehm, whose position is described above on p. xx, has a noble section (Einleit.pp. 349 ff.) on the Pentateuch considered as the record of a Revelation. The conviction of the revelation of God is ascribed in part to 'the immediate impression which the Pentateuch makes. Anyone who reads it, so as to allow its contents to work upon his spirit, must receive the impression that a consciousness of God, such as is here expressed, cannot be derived from flesh and blood.'
[41]De fide Catholica.The treatise is ascribed to Boethius: see Boetii,Opuscula Sacra(Teubner Series), p. 178. On the fresh evidence of the authorship of those treatises supplied by theAnecdoton Holderisee Hodgkin'sLetters of Cassiodorus, London, 1886, pp. 80-1.
[42]See the account in Manning'sTemporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, London, 1877, pp. 156-160, and p. 166. Cf. also Newman's words below, p. 350.
[43]pp. 359-60.
[44]Nothing—except, on the customary interpretation, His reference to Psalm cx. This does seem to lay stress on David's authorship, unless it be regarded, as it certainly seems to me fair to regard it, as a question, rather than as positive instruction at all—a question simply calculated to lead the Pharisees to examine their own principles. Unless it be so interpreted it does seem to depend, as an argument, on personal authorship, because unless it be by David, it seems very difficult to suppose it written in David's person. It would naturally be a Psalm in whichthe King is addressed.
[45]S. John v. 46-47.
[46]S. Luke i. 17; S. Matt. xi. 14; xvii. 12.
[47]Nineteenth Century, July, 1890, p. 20. The bulk of his argument is directed against a position different from mine. Here I am only concerned with a single point.
[48]The proper name 'Lazarus' is presumably used because of its meaning. It should be noticed that the story is not aparableproper like that of the Sower or the Prodigal Son.
[49]It may be remarked that to regard 'the flood' as a representative or typical expression of a whole class of divine judgments, helps us in interpreting S. Peter's use of it in 1 Peter iii. 19-20. There is no reason for an exceptional treatment of those who perished in one particular flood, but there is every reason why 'the Gospel should have been preached to those who died' under God's physical judgments of old times, supposing these, as we must suppose them, not to represent God's final moral judgment on individuals: see 1 Peter iv. 6.
[50]These words are Bishop Steere's: see theMemoirof him by R. M. Heanley, London, 1888, p. 404. He admirably characterizes the true function of the Bible in the Church. It is (1) a criterion, not a teacher; (2) a record of the proclamation of the revelation, not the revelation itself.
[51]See pp. 29 ff., 229 ff., 337 ff.
[52]Cp. pp. 338-341, where this is explained. The 'logical' order of belief is often no doubt not the order of experience. The Bible can draw men to itself, and through itself to Christ, before they take any heed of the Church. But to feel the power of inspiration is a different thing from having reasoned grounds for calling certain books inspired.