{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45148/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45148","id":"gutenberg_45148","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45148","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Pharisees"],"text":"Transcriber's Notes:\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by\n  =equal signs=.\n\n  Small uppercase have been replaced with regular uppercase.\n\n  Characters after a carat are superscripts.\n\n  Blank pages have been eliminated.\n\n  Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the\n  original.\n\n  A few typographical errors have been corrected.\n\n\n\n\n  CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY\n\n  VOL. XXXV\n  HERFORD'S PHARISAISM\n\n\n\n\nCrown Theological Library\n\nWORKS ALREADY PUBLISHED\n\n\nVol. I.--BABEL AND BIBLE. By Dr FRIEDRICH DELITZSCH. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. II.--THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST. By PAUL LOBSTEIN. 2S. 6d. net.\n\nVol. III.--MY STRUGGLE FOR LIGHT. By R. WIMMER. 3s. net.\n\nVol. IV.--LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY. By JEAN R\u00c9VILLE. 3s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. V.--WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? By ADOLF HARNACK. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. VI.--FAITH AND MORALS. By W. HERRMANN. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. VII.--EARLY HEBREW STORY. By JOHN P. PETERS, D.D. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. VIII.--BIBLE PROBLEMS AND THE NEW MATERIAL FOR THEIR SOLUTION. By\nProf. T. K. CHEYNE, D.Litt., D.D. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. IX.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT AND ITS HISTORICAL EVOLUTION,\nAND RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE. By the late AUGUSTE SABATIER. 4s. net.\n\nVol. X.--THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF CHRIST: Its Significance and\nValue in the History of Religion. By OTTO PFLEIDERER. 3s. net.\n\nVol. XI.--THE CHILD AND RELIGION. Essays by Various Writers. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XII.--THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION. By L. R. FARNELL, D.Litt. 4s. 6d.\nnet.\n\nVol. XIII.--THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Baron HERMANN VON SODEN,\nD.D. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XIV.--JESUS. By W. BOUSSET. 3s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XV.--THE COMMUNION OF THE CHRISTIAN WITH GOD. By W. HERRMANN.\nRevised and much enlarged Edition. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XVI.--HEBREW RELIGION. By W. E. ADDIS, M.A. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XVII.--NATURALISM AND RELIGION. By RUDOLF OTTO. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XVIII.--ESSAYS ON THE SOCIAL GOSPEL. By Dr ADOLF HARNACK and Dr\nHERRMANN. 4s. net.\n\nVol. XIX.--RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By KARL MARTI. 4s. net.\n\nVol. XX.--LUKE THE PHYSICIAN. By Dr ADOLF HARNACK. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXI.--THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.\nBy Prof. KIRSOPP LAKE. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXII.--THE APOLOGETIC OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By E. F. SCOTT. 4s. 6d.\nnet.\n\nVol. XXIII.--THE SAYINGS OF JESUS. By Dr ADOLF HARNACK. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXIV.--ANGLICAN LIBERALISM. By TWELVE CHURCHMEN. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXV.--THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. By Dr R.\nSEEBERG. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXVI.--THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT. By Dr RUDOLF EUCKEN. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXVII.--THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By Dr ADOLF HARNACK. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXVIII.--MONASTICISM AND THE CONFESSIONS OF ST AUGUSTINE. By Dr\nADOLF HARNACK. 3s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXIX.--MODERNITY AND THE CHURCHES. By Professor PERCY GARDNER. 4s.\n6d. net.\n\nVol. XXX.--THE OLD EGYPTIAN FAITH. By Prof. EDOUARD NAVILLE. 4s. 6d.\nnet.\n\nVol. XXXI.--THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW OF THE CHURCH IN THE FIRST TWO\nCENTURIES. By Dr ADOLF HARNACK. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXII.--THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Dr RUDOLF\nKITTEL. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXIII.--THE DATE OF THE ACTS AND OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. By Dr\nADOLF HARNACK. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXIV.--THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE OF ST PAUL. By Prof. PERCY\nGARDNER. 5s. net.\n\n_Descriptive Prospectus on Application._\n\n\n\n\n  PHARISAISM\n\n  ITS AIM AND ITS METHOD\n\n\n  BY\n\n  R. TRAVERS HERFORD, B.A.\n\n  AUTHOR OF\n  \"CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD AND MIDRASH\"\n\n\n  WILLIAMS & NORGATE\n  14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON\n  NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS\n\n  1912\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nMost of the contents of the following pages were given as lectures in\nManchester College, Oxford, in the autumn of 1911. I have thought it\nbetter to confine myself within the limits of what I then said, rather\nthan to expand and recast the lectures into a complete monograph on the\nPharisees. My aim throughout has been to present and make clear the\nPharisaic conception of religion, the point of view from which they\nregarded it, and the methods by which they dealt with it. It is far more\nimportant that the reader, especially the Christian reader, should\nunderstand the meaning of Pharisaism than that he should be presented\nwith a survey of all the details, theological, ethical, historical, and\nother, included in the wide field of the Pharisaic literature. I am not\nwithout hope that a small book may be read where a large one would be\npassed by, and that the ends of justice--in this case justice to the\nPharisees--may thereby be the better attained. I have not sought to\nwrite a panegyric on them, but, so far as may be possible for one who is\nnot a Jew, to present their case from their own standpoint, and not, as\nis so often done, as a mere foil to the Christian religion. This is one\nreason why I have not referred to the writings of other scholars, except\nin the one case of Weber. He is typical of them all in their attitude\ntowards Rabbinical Judaism. Even the fine work of Oesterley and Box,\n_The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue_, though it is written in a\nspirit of courtesy, and with a sincere desire to understand the\nRabbinical position and to recognise whatever is good in it, yet judges\nit by the standard of the Christian religion. Something was still left\nto be done, by way of treating Pharisaism fairly, that is, without\neither contempt or condescension; and that \"something\" I have tried to\ndo--whether successfully or not, the candid reader will judge.\n\nIn conclusion, I tender my thanks to the Hibbert Trustees, to whom I owe\nthe opportunity of delivering the lectures, and to the authorities of\nManchester College, Oxford, for the invitation to do so.\n\n          R. TRAVERS HEREFORD.\n\n  STAND, MANCHESTER,\n      _April 1912_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAP.                                              PAGE\n\n  1. HISTORICAL SKETCH                         1\n\n  2. THE THEORY OF TORAH                      57\n\n  3. PHARISAISM AND JESUS                    112\n\n  4. PHARISAISM AND PAUL                     173\n\n  5. SOME POINTS OF PHARISAIC THEOLOGY       226\n\n  6. PHARISAISM AS A SPIRITUAL RELIGION      282\n\n  INDEX                                      336\n\n\n\n\nPHARISAISM\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nHISTORICAL SKETCH\n\n\nThe subject to which in the following pages I shall invite the reader's\nattention is one which may seem to promise but little of living\ninterest, and still less of religious worth. The Pharisees are presented\nin the New Testament in no favourable light; and the average Christian\nhas not much further acquaintance with them. Yet, though the name be now\ndisused, the principles of Pharisaism have been maintained down to the\npresent day; and it is these, more than anything else, which have kept\nJudaism as a living religion. That Pharisaism should wear an unpleasing\naspect in the New Testament is not surprising; for it was not in the\nnature of things that the adherents of the old religion should\nunderstand or be understood by those of the new, in the times when they\nparted company. And there has not been much attempt at mutual\nunderstanding in all the centuries since. Christianity could by no\npossibility have remained in union with Pharisaism; what Jesus began,\nand what Paul completed, was a severance as inevitable as it was\npainful. But it was painful because it was the dividing, not of the\nliving from the dead, but of the living from the living. The Judaism of\nthe Pharisees, from which Christianity tore itself away, was no obsolete\nformalism, but a religion having the power to satisfy the spiritual\nwants of those who were faithful to it. The form in which its religious\nideas were expressed is peculiar, and to Christians by no means\nattractive. While, therefore, the Christian has usually but little\ninclination to inquire into the real significance of Pharisaism, and but\nscanty means of informing himself even if he were so inclined, the fact\nremains that such knowledge is necessary if he would rightly understand\nthe attitude of the New Testament to the older religion.\n\nPharisaism is usually judged from the outside, as seen by not very\nfriendly eyes; and, even of those Christians who have studied the\nPharisaic literature and who thus know it to some extent from the\ninside, there are few who seem able to imagine what it must have been to\nthose whose real religion it was. No one but a Jew, of whom it may be\nsaid that the Talmud runs in his blood, can fully realise the spiritual\nmeaning of Pharisaism; but sympathy can show even to a Christian much of\nthat meaning, and it is on the strength of that sympathy that I rest my\nhope of carrying out my present task. Briefly, I wish to show what\nPharisaism meant to the Pharisees themselves, as a religion having a\nclaim to be judged on its own merits, and not by comparison with any\nother. The knowledge thus obtained will throw light upon many passages\nin the New Testament; but it will be chiefly valuable if it helps the\nreader to realise that the Pharisees were \"men of like passions with\nus,\" men with souls to be saved, who cared a great deal for the things\nof the higher life, men who \"feared God and worked righteousness,\" and\nwho pondered deeply upon spiritual problems, though they did not solve\nthem on Christian lines, nor state the answers in Christian terms.\n\nIt ought not to be impossible to do this in compass of a small book; and\nI hope that, when I have done, I shall have left with the reader some\nclear idea of who the Pharisees were and what they stood for, and a more\njust appreciation of them than is indicated by the word \"hypocrites.\" I\ncan at least say how they appear to me, as the result of exploring their\nliterature, which has been to me the fascinating study of thirty years.\n\nIn this first chapter I shall survey the history of the development of\nPharisaism, from its source in Ezra to its final literary embodiment in\nthe Talmud. The following chapter will deal with the theory of Torah,\nand Pharisaism as the system intended to put that theory into practice.\nThen I shall consider Pharisaism in reference, firstly, to Jesus, and,\nsecondly, to Paul. Some general points of Pharisaic theology will be\ndealt with in the fifth chapter; and in the concluding one I shall try\nto present Pharisaism as a spiritual religion.\n\nI proceed now to the historical survey of the development of Pharisaism.\n\nA great Rabbi, Resh Lakish, who lived in the third century A.D., uttered\nthe saying that, \"when the Torah was forgotten, Ezra came up from\nBabylon and re-established it; when it was forgotten again, Hillel came\nup from Babylon and re-established it; and when it was forgotten again,\nR. \u1e24ija and his sons came up from Babylon and re-established it\" (b.\nSucc. 20\u00aa). The meaning of that remark is that _Pharisaism_ traced its\norigin back to Ezra; for it was the Pharisaic tradition which counted\nHillel, and R. \u1e24ija, and the Talmudic Rabbis generally amongst its\nexponents. And while no one would say that Ezra was a Pharisee, it is\ntrue that he was the spiritual ancestor of the Pharisees more than of\nany other element in post-exilic Judaism. In the time of Christ, Judaism\nwas represented by Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Apocalyptists,\nHellenists; and all could claim a share in the inheritance of Israel.\nBut the Sadducees had little reason to set up a descent from Ezra; and\nwhat was peculiar to Apocalyptists and Hellenists (two terms which of\ncourse overlap) was entirely unconnected with him. Pharisaism alone was\nthe result of his work; and Pharisaism alone survived, to carry down\nthrough the centuries the spiritual treasure of Israel. Moreover, of all\nthe elements in Judaism, Pharisaism is the one which was least affected\nby foreign influences. What it borrowed, from Greece or Rome, from\nPersia or Egypt, it fused into its own mould, or merely treated as\nunimportant curiosities; it never wavered for a moment in its\nallegiance to its own ground principle, never swerved from the line of\ndevelopment of which Ezra had marked the beginning, and for which he\nmight be said to have stated the formula. The Talmud shows the traces of\ncontact with Greek language and Roman law, gives glimpses of men of many\nnations, from Babylonians to Goths and even Germans (j. Jom. 45^b). But,\nfrom one end to the other, it is the embodiment of a principle which\nEzra was the first to introduce; and like a huge tree it has all grown\nfrom the seed which he planted. If Ezra could have looked forward and\nseen what the Talmud became, the vision would have filled him with\ndelight; also, with deep thankfulness to God that he had been the means\nof giving to Israel what Israel needed.\n\nI will reserve for the next chapter the explanation of the theory of\nTorah, which is the key to the whole system of Pharisaism in general,\nand to the work of Ezra in particular. But without some reference to\nthat theory I cannot show what it was that Ezra did, and that the\nPharisees carried on. If some of the statements I make appear to be\nunfounded or improbable, I ask the reader to suspend his judgment on\nthem till I come to the theory which, as I believe, justifies them.\n\nEzra was the first who seriously took in hand the problem of the future\nof Israel after the great convulsion of the Exile. For nearly a century\nafter the time, 536 B.C., when liberty to return had been given, the\nsmall band of Jews in and around Jerusalem had maintained with\ndifficulty their place as a nation and the religion of their fathers.\nSubjects of the Persian king, like their neighbours, they were exposed\nto dangers, both political and religious, against which they were ill\nable to guard. They had the Temple as the central point of their\nreligion; but the Temple was no protection against the influence of\ncontact with \"the peoples round about,\" nor did the performance of its\nritual give any lead in the direction of a new religious development.\nTill Ezra came, the Jews did hardly more than mark time, if indeed they\nwere not gradually losing ground. If Ezra had not come, it is\nconceivable, and indeed highly probable, that Judaism would have\ndisappeared altogether.\n\nThe significance of the work of Ezra is this, that he stopped the\nprocess by which the religious vitality of Israel was draining away, and\nhe gave a lead, opened a new line of development, turned the thought and\nenergy of his people into a direction where progress was possible almost\nwithout end.\n\nHis reformation was carried out with a severity which would have been\nimpossible unless he had had the support of Nehemiah, armed as governor\nwith the authority of the Persian king. And the success he achieved was\nonly won in the face of bitter opposition, and at a cost of domestic\nsuffering and heart-burning which still makes one shudder as one reads\nof it in the book which bears his name. It was a case in which \"diseases\ndesperate grown, by desperate appliance are relieved.\" Ezra had it\nclear in his mind that if Israel was to survive at all, it must\nresolutely cut itself off from all possible contact with what was not\nIsrael. It must become a closed corporation, a community occupying not\nmerely a political but much more a religious and social enclosure of its\nown, within which it could work out its own salvation. In the\ncatastrophe of the Exile, Ezra read the lesson that indiscriminate\nassociation with neighbouring peoples had corrupted its religious life,\nand brought upon a faithless nation a deserved punishment. If now Israel\nlet itself relapse into the old way of intercourse and alliance with\nnon-Israelites, the result would be the final extinction of Israel.\n\nSuch a prospect might have been tolerable if there had been nothing left\nfor Israel to do. Some of those who opposed Ezra may well have thought\nthat there was nothing which could demand so hard a sacrifice as that\nwhich he would force upon them. Why should they not live in peace with\ntheir neighbours, and do as they did? And why could they not keep their\nold religion, without making it a source of enmity abroad, and a cause\nof grief at home?\n\nBut Ezra had a clear perception of what there was for Israel to do. That\nreligion, which in former times had been mainly the collective\nexpression of the nation's relation to God, must now be realised as the\npersonal concern of each individual. What the prophets had taught about\nGod had so far produced no corresponding result in personal piety and\nconscious service. What had been declared by Moses as the will of God\nhad been by no means fully taken to heart and wrought into the acts of\ndaily life. There was divine teaching in abundance, and had been for\ncenturies; now, the task must be seriously taken in hand of applying it,\nso that each individual might feel that he had a responsibility for\ndoing the will of God, and might know what that will was. The great\ndeclaration: \"Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God the Lord is one,\" was\nimmediately followed by: \"and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all\nthy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.\" If Israel now\nasked how he was to do this, Ezra's answer was that God had taught him\nin the Torah, contained in the five books of Moses. Henceforth let\nIsrael \"observe to do all that is written in this book of the Torah.\"\nThat solemn promulgation of the Torah, described in the book of\nNehemiah, is the central point of the reformation of Ezra, whether it\nwere only the Priestly Code which was then introduced or whether it were\nthe Pentateuch substantially complete. What Ezra did was to set up a\nwritten authority as the guide of personal conduct for each individual\nJew. His demand was for the acceptance of this authority on the part of\nthe nation, and a determined loyalty in carrying out the commands of God\nwhich would shrink from no sacrifice. It was, no doubt, the severity of\nthis demand which for thirteen years delayed its acceptance; and the\nopposition was only crushed by the strong hand of Nehemiah. Whatever\none may think of the method, the result was that Ezra gathered to him\nthose who were prepared to do most and to sacrifice most for the sake of\ntheir religion; he had weeded out the weak and the faint-hearted, the\nindifferent and the lazy, and kept those who could be fanatics, heroes,\nmartyrs, if the occasion should arise.\n\nThe Jewish community having accepted the policy of Ezra, was in this\nposition:--it was separated by its own act from all avoidable contact\nwith those whom we may now call Gentiles; and, within the enclosure thus\nas it were railed off, it was free to work out its national life on the\nlines of the religion of Torah, free also to interpret that religion of\nTorah in such ways as it might see fit. Ezra had secured for it a field\nof action and given to it the task it should perform there. If I say\nthat Ezra was the second founder of the religion of Israel, I do not\nmean to imply that everything in the later Judaism owed its origin to\nhim, still less that what survived from the pre-exilic Judaism was only\nwhat he endorsed and gave out again. The older religion had come down\nfrom a far-distant past; the ancient writings, prophetic, historical,\nlegal, were witnesses of God's former dealings with His people; they\nstill had the memory, as they renewed after the Exile the practice, of\nthe ancient customs and religious rites. And the later Judaism could,\nand did, develop in several directions, taking up, as it were,\nsuggestions from the older religion, and not confining itself to the\nline which Ezra more especially marked out. But the work of Ezra is\npractically the only channel by which whatever survived from the ancient\nreligion passed into the later, and became the Judaism which is properly\nso called.\n\nIn some of its representatives later Judaism departed widely from the\nprinciples of Ezra, and Christianity may be said to be in part a protest\nagainst and a revolt from those principles; but nevertheless, if it had\nnot been for Ezra there would have been no Judaism sufficiently alive to\nprotest, or sufficiently vigorous to produce revolt. Ezra saved the\nlife of the Jewish people, none the less that in later times there were\nJews who cherished ideals which were far different from his.\n\nI am concerned here only with one particular line of development of the\nlater Judaism, the one which in an especial degree was originated by\nEzra. This is the line of the religion of Torah strictly so called,\nmeaning by that the religion which found expression in the intention of\nfulfilling, as a personal duty, the commands of God set forth in the\nScriptures, and especially in the Pentateuch. This is not a full or an\nexact statement of the meaning of the religion of Torah; but it will\nserve for the present purpose, and I shall go into detail about it in\nthe next chapter. Judaism, as the religion of Torah, required that every\nJew should be in a position to know what was contained in the Torah and\nwhat it meant. There must be someone whose business it was to study the\nTorah and explain its contents, and to show how the precepts it\ncontained were to be applied to cases not directly provided for.\nTeaching of that kind, to the extent at all events of giving instruction\nin moral and religious duties, had been given from time immemorial, and\nmainly by the priests. And there were still priests who could, and\nprobably did, perform the same function. But the case was now different\nwhen every Jew was expected to know the commandments of the Torah, and\nwas directly concerned with their bearing upon his own actions. This new\nnecessity of the time was met by the labours of a new class of men, viz.\nthe Scribes (Sopherim). It is significant that Ezra himself is called\n\"the priest the _Scribe_.\" It is also significant that the men who\nassisted him by \"explaining the sense,\" when he first read publicly the\nbook of the Torah, were not priests but Levites. It is natural to\nsuppose that many Levites chose to take up the important, honourable,\nand sacred work of the Scribe, the interpreter of the divine teaching,\nrather than to perform the menial duties of serving the priests in the\nTemple. Whether Ezra definitely organised and founded the order of the\nScribes, I do not know; but the appearance of them is a necessary result\nof his policy, and may well be attributed to him. The term Sopherim is\nvouched for, as extremely ancient, in certain phrases mentioned in the\nTalmud.\n\nThe duties of the Sopherim would be, in the first instance, to study the\nTorah themselves, then to teach it to others, then to act as\ninterpreters and judges in cases where appeal was made to them to know\nhow, under such and such circumstances, the divine command was to be\nfulfilled. Now it is scarcely conceivable that each individual Scribe\nwould feel himself at liberty to expound the Torah entirely according to\nhis own judgment, without reference to what other Scribes might teach;\nor that such unfettered liberty would have been allowed to him if he had\ntried to use it. There must have been some amount of consultation of the\nScribes with each other; and there must have been some kind of tribunal\nto which appeal could be made, some central authority whose decision\nwould be recognised as final. Otherwise, the whole attempt made by Ezra\nwould have ended in failure almost at the outset; and it did not end in\nfailure. Now the Talmud contains some scanty references to an assembly\ncalled \"The Men of the Great Synagogue,\" to which were attributed\ncertain ancient institutions and sayings. That the statements in the\nTalmud about the Great Synagogue are all historically trustworthy is by\nno means the case. But the Rabbis who are responsible for those\nstatements may well have been right in the main fact, though not in the\ndetails. The Great Synagogue, as they represented it, is clearly based\nupon the description of the assembly in Neh. x. And there is nothing to\nshow that that assembly, or anything like it, became a permanent\ninstitution. But an assembly of some kind, a council of men \"learned in\nthe law,\" is the most natural form which would be taken by such a\ncentral authority as the system instituted by Ezra required for its\nsuccessful working. It must remain an open question whether such a\ncouncil was permanent, its members being chosen for life, or whether it\nwas such an assembly as might be called together, _ad hoc_, from time to\ntime, whether the number of its members was fixed, and on what\nconditions and by whom they were appointed. Upon these points the Rabbis\nof the Talmud had no certain tradition, perhaps no tradition at all.\nThat the conception of the Great Synagogue was modelled upon the pattern\nof the Assembly in Neh. x. only means that the Rabbis had no better\nguide for their imagination in reconstructing what nevertheless must\nhave been. And the same reason which prompted the calling of that\nhistorical council, under Nehemiah, would suggest that the natural\ntribunal from time to time would be a similar council of elders and\nlearned men. This is all that is required to give a historical basis to\nthe traditions concerning the Great Synagogue. Less than this leaves the\nfacts unexplained; more than this opens the way for the discrepancies\nwhich have been used for discrediting those traditions altogether. I\nbelieve we are therefore warranted in retaining the name of the Great\nSynagogue, to mean in the first instance Ezra and those who supported\nhim, and then those who in later times exercised authority on his lines\nand in his spirit.\n\nNow it is nowhere stated in the Rabbinical literature, so far as I know,\nthat the Sopherim of the early times were identical with the Men of the\nGreat Synagogue. But they are closely associated, they seem to stand on\nthe same level of antiquity, and, what is still more important, no\ndistinction is drawn between their several functions, except that the\nMen of the Great Synagogue ordained (_tikk\u0115nu_) certain things, while\nthe Sopherim only taught and expounded. As just stated, there is no\nagreement amongst scholars upon the question whether the Great Synagogue\nwas a real body or not; but of the existence of the Sopherim there is no\nroom for doubt. And the Sopherim are the key (if I am right) to the\nmeaning of the term, \"Men of the Great Synagogue.\" That term represents\nthe Sopherim acting together as a council to decide religious questions;\na council not necessarily permanent, but called together from time to\ntime as occasion might require. But it would be a council of Sopherim,\n_not_ of all the leading men of the nation. The authority in public\nmatters was, under the Persian governor, in the hands of the priestly\naristocracy, whose interests lay in other directions besides that of the\nstudy of Torah. What was done by the Sopherim, and those with and for\nwhom they worked, was done privately and without official sanction. The\nRabbinical tradition which mentions the Z\u016bg\u014dth, or pairs, and calls one\nthe Nasi and the other the Ab-beth-din, and implies that the one was\npresident and the other vice-president of the _Sanhedrin_, is certainly\nincorrect. The Nasi was never the president of the Sanhedrin, in times\nwhen the Sanhedrin was still the great council of the State. But it may\nvery well have been the case that in the meetings of the Sopherim, in\nother words, the Great Synagogue, there were a president and a\nvice-president; and that the names recorded in pairs in the Talmud are\nthe names of some of the later of these officers. I should add that this\nexplanation of the meaning of the term, \"Men of the Great Synagogue,\"\nand the identification with them of the early Sopherim, is only a theory\nof my own; but it is the result of long consideration of the problem.\n\nIn an often-quoted passage from the treatise of the Mishnah called the\nPirk\u00e9 Ab\u014dth, three sayings are ascribed to the Men of the\nGreat Synagogue: \"Be deliberate in judgment; make many disciples; make a\nhedge for the Torah.\" It will be of use at this point to consider these\nsayings, because they throw light upon the development of the religion\nof Torah in the particular direction indicated by the name Pharisaism.\n\nTo prove that these dicta were actually uttered by the Men of the Great\nSynagogue is impossible. But it is admitted that they are very ancient;\nand the tradition which places them at the forefront of the development\nof Rabbinism has this much in its favour, that they logically belong\nthere. Either they date from a time not remote from Ezra, or they\nexpress the opinion of some later teacher as to the aims and methods of\nthose who in that early time were responsible for the training of the\npeople in the religion of Torah. This latter interpretation is possible;\nbut the form in which the brief statement is made clearly shows that the\nRabbis who compiled the Mishnah had no suspicion that the dicta in\nquestion were the utterances of a later teacher. If they had had such a\nthought they would have expressed it thus: \"Rabbi so-and-so said that\nthe Men of the Great Synagogue had said, etc.\" There is no hint that the\nthree maxims are anything else but an old tradition; and the fact that\nthese and no more are ascribed to the Men of the Great Synagogue\nindicates, by its very moderation, some reason for so ascribing them. A\ncapricious inventor would have attributed much more to so ancient an\nauthority, in order to obtain for his inventions the sanction of high\nantiquity. There is really nothing improbable in the transmission, even\nfrom the time of Ezra, of these bare fragments of ancient teaching.\nTheir contents are in keeping with this supposition; and, if they were a\nlater invention, they nevertheless accurately describe what the men of\nEzra's time must chiefly have had at heart. They are instructions to do\ncertain things, and are addressed to persons who had some special\nresponsibility in reference to the Torah. We have seen that the central\nidea of Ezra's reformation was to make the Torah the inspiring and\ncontrolling influence in Jewish life, both national and individual. To\nthis end it was needful that the people should be taught, that they\nmight know what was in the Torah, _i.e._ what God had given for their\ninstruction; also that they should be able to appeal to competent\nauthority for the settlement of doubtful points. The Torah was the\nsource of divine truth and divine justice, and both must be made\naccessible to those whose life as a conscious service of God depended on\nthem. The shrine in which the divine treasure was contained must be kept\nsafe from injury, as if it were protected by a fence.\n\nThe three maxims, ascribed to the Men of the Great Synagogue, were\nintended, as it would seem, for the guidance of teachers and expounders\nof Torah. They were the lines which the Sopherim collectively agreed\nupon, for their own practice as interpreters and judges. Deliberation in\njudgment is the key to the casuistry of the Talmud, and in the main\njustifies that casuistry. For what does it amount to except the desire\nto study a question from every possible point of view, and to take into\naccount every possible, even though improbable, contingency?\n\nTo make disciples, in the sense of imparting knowledge of Torah, has\nalways been the aim and the practice of Rabbinical Judaism; a fact to\nwhich the Talmud bears ample witness. The names, Torah, Talmud, Mishnah,\nMidrash, all imply the idea of teaching and learning--study as regarded\neither by the student or the instructor. In this larger relation, the\nminor one of discipleship to a particular teacher holds but a small\nplace. Equally the ancient Scribe or the later Rabbi was enjoined not to\nmake adherents of himself, but to impart to all whom he could influence\nthe knowledge of divine truth which he possessed.\n\nTo \"make a hedge about the Torah\" is a famous phrase that has been much\nmisunderstood. It certainly does not imply any intention to make a rigid\nsystem of precept in which all the spiritual freedom enjoyed by the\nenlightened soul in communion with God should be lost. The Talmudic\nRabbis, who entirely endorsed the maxim, never read in it any such\nintention, and never supposed that they suffered any such loss of\nspiritual freedom. As in fact they did not. The notion that they did is\nan idea which only exists in the minds of Christians, misreading an\nexperience which, as Christians, they have never known. What was always\nunderstood by the \"hedge about the Torah\" was the means taken to keep\nthe divine revelation from harm, so that the sacred enclosure, so to\nspeak, might always be free and open for the human to contemplate and\ncommune with the divine. And, so far as the Torah consisted of precepts,\npositive and negative, the \"hedge\" was of the nature of warnings whereby\na man might be saved from transgression before it was too late. The\ndetailed mass of precept elaborated in the course of centuries, known as\nthe Halachah (see Chapter II.) or rule of right conduct, and finally\nembodied in the Talmud, was part of the Torah itself made explicit, the\ndivine teaching so far as it related to such and such departments of\nconduct. And even if the Halachah were the rigid and oppressive system\nwhich it is often supposed to have been, but which those who devised it\nand lived under it did not feel it to be, it was not itself the \"hedge\nabout the Torah.\" The religious guides of the Jewish people, from the\nearly Sopherim to the latest Rabbi whose words are incorporated in the\nTalmud, did make a \"hedge about the Torah\"; and did their work so well\nthat, whatever else was torn from Israel in the course of cruel\ncenturies, the Torah remained, and still remains, the peculiar treasure\nof the chosen people.\n\nI have dwelt at this length upon the consideration of the work of Ezra,\nand of those teachers closely associated with him known as the Sopherim\nor Men of the Great Synagogue, because, when once that is clearly\nunderstood, all the subsequent developments are easy to follow. I have\nnot yet mentioned Pharisaism, except here and there in passing. But,\ngiven such a principle as is contained in Ezra's conception of the\nreligion of Torah, Pharisaism was certain to appear sooner or later, and\nthe Talmud itself was the implied, though distant, result of the\nprocess by which that conception was to be worked out.\n\nDevotion to Torah, and the duty of regulating life, whether individual\nor national, according to its precepts, were of the essence of the\nJudaism which took its character from Ezra. This was the principle; and\nthose who adhered to it sought to apply it over the whole range of\naction, public as well as private. The Sopherim would have their opinion\nas to the way, for instance, in which the Temple ritual should be\nperformed; but it is likely enough that the priests would keep the\ncontrol of such matters in their own hands, so that the Sopherim would\nhave their main influence as the teachers of the people in the ordinary\nwalks of life. Through the Synagogue, of which I shall have more to say\nin the next chapter, the Sopherim came into close touch with the\nindividual Jew in his private capacity, and acquired there an influence\nwhich was never afterwards shaken. In this way, the religion of Torah,\non the lines of Ezra, was made the religion of the majority of the\nnation. And, while it was held with varying degrees of understanding and\nattachment, we may note that there were two institutions or usages which\nmark the points where the religion of Torah took deepest and strongest\nhold upon the national mind. These were the rite of circumcision and the\nobservance of the Sabbath. I do not mean that circumcision had not been\npractised, nor the Sabbath observed, in times previous to Ezra, but that\nthese became especially prominent after his time as the _sine qua non_\nof Judaism, essentials to be maintained at any cost. The institution of\nthe Synagogue provided a means of developing the spiritual life of the\npeople in a way that the Temple ritual hardly could and certainly did\nnot do. And although, as long as the Temple stood, that was regarded as\nthe most sacred shrine and most glorious embodiment, or rather\nculmination, of the national religion, yet the religion of Torah learned\nto do without the Temple, but it never dreamed of doing without the\nSynagogue. With the Synagogue were associated the devotional outpourings\nof the Psalmists, and the earliest liturgy, also the regular reading of\nthe Scriptures. These, together with exhortation or instruction, gave\nsubstance and meaning to the idea of public worship, which, in a form\nhitherto unknown in the ancient world, was in itself one of the most\nimportant of Jewish institutions. The study of Torah produced in course\nof time new practices which became traditional, or gave a new sanction\nto old ones; while the principles of exposition by which these results\nwere produced--in other words, the teachings of the Sopherim--were\naccepted and recognised as legitimate by those for whose guidance they\nwere given.\n\nSo far as the religion of Torah is concerned, the process of its\ndevelopment may be conceived to have gone on with no interruption, upon\nsuch general lines, during the centuries between Ezra and the Maccabees.\nWhen that period was reached, 167 B.C. and onwards, the main lines of\nJudaism were clearly defined, and the chief things known which were\nincumbent upon the Jew if he would be true to his religious profession.\nHe knew not only what he should do, by way of service to God, but why he\nshould do it. The ideal before him was the thought of that service, not\nas an irksome task imposed on him, but as a willing and glad devotion of\nhimself and all his powers to God. That every individual Jew could or\ndid rise to the height of that ideal, no one would maintain. In the\nnature of things the spiritual energy, which was mighty in Ezra, could\nnot continue with unimpaired force through the centuries after he was\ngone. In fact, there is no one to compare with him in this respect until\nR. Akiba, at the end of the first Christian century. But it is far from\ntrue to say that the spiritual meaning of the religion of Torah, as\nabove described, was lost sight of, or even greatly obscured, in the\ngenerations which succeeded Ezra. If that had been the case, there\nwould have been no Maccabean revolt. For the tenacity of adhesion and\nthe fierceness of resistance cannot be explained merely by blind loyalty\nto a tradition whose inner meaning was no longer understood and its\nspiritual power no longer felt. There must have been a real allegiance\nto the religion of Torah, in principle though not extending to minor\ndetails, on the part of the majority of the nation, a conscious\nacceptance of the essentials, though often without the zeal or perhaps\nthe power to follow out those main principles to their conclusion. There\nwould naturally be considerable difference in the degree of attachment\nto the religion of Torah, on the part of different individuals or\nsections of the nation, varying from enthusiastic devotion to a\ncareless, almost nominal allegiance, that could easily transfer itself\nto some other religion whose demands were less severe and whose worldly\nadvantages were greater than those of Judaism.\n\nFor a considerable time after Ezra, the nation was, in regard to its\nreligion, homogeneous in this sense, that there was not, unless in\nindividuals here and there, any question of another religion than\nJudaism. While the Jews were under Persian rule, the Persian religion\nmay have influenced the Jewish religion in some respects; but there was\nnever any question of a secession from Judaism to the religion of\nPersia. Within the range of Judaism the worship of the God of Israel was\nthe only worship; and while some might be zealous and others lukewarm,\nsome might be more concerned with the pomp and circumstance of the\nTemple, and others with the more homely piety of the Synagogue, yet all\nalike owned the religion of Torah as their religion, and felt themselves\nunited as brethren in spite of fraternal discords.\n\nBut when, after the fall of the Persian Empire (332 B.C.), the influence\nof Greek ideas and practices began to be felt, a serious danger arose\nwhich threatened the very existence of Judaism. Whether it was the\nSyrian or the Egyptian king who for the time held possession of Judea,\nthe result was the same in giving a strong impetus to the adoption of\nGreek civilisation. Greeks settled in the chief towns in large numbers,\neither as officials of the government or for trade. Greek art and\nlearning had their representatives. Greek builders erected temples and\ntheaters to be the visible symbols of a foreign religion, and of\npractices alien to Jewish ideas of morality. The Greek met the Jew at\nevery turn; and the Jew would not have been human if he had been wholly\nunaffected by that close association. The brilliance of Greek culture\nmade it attractive both on its good and on its bad side, its exquisite\nsense of beauty and its shameless gaiety of vice. Its natural\nfascination was increased by the fact that it was actively promoted by\nthe influence of the court. The road to royal favour and civil\nadvancement lay through the adoption of Greek manners and customs, and\neven dress. A Greek sovereign might think it prudent to tolerate the\npeculiarities of his Jewish subjects; but he had no sympathy with them,\nand could not understand them. He would welcome every indication of a\ndesire to replace Jewish ideas and practices by Greek ones, and would\nuse his influence accordingly.\n\nDuring the hundred and sixty years from the fall of the Persian Empire\nto the revolt of the Maccabees, the virus of Hellenism was infecting the\nJewish nation; perhaps for good, certainly for evil. Probably no class\nof society was wholly immune from it. Its effects were most conspicuous\nin the ranks of the wealthy and powerful, the nobles and the priestly\naristocracy who came into closest relations with the court and depended\nmost upon the royal favour. But Hellenism had its attractions for all,\nhigh or humble; its outward signs could be seen all over the land,\ninviting a comparison between the gaiety and freedom of Greek life and\nthe moral restraints and sober seriousness of the Jewish.\n\nWhat gradually resulted was, _not_ a division between the upper classes\nand the lower, as if all the former went over to Hellenism while all\nthe latter remained faithful to Judaism, but a decline towards\nHellenism, on the part of a minority in which all classes were\nrepresented. Probably the number of those who went entirely over to\nHellenism was only small, compared with the whole Jewish population. But\nthere were many whose hold upon Judaism was more or less weakened; and\nthere were only a few who remained unflinching in their loyalty to the\nancestral faith. That this was really the case, is shown by the fact\nthat a special name was applied to those who thus rigidly adhered to the\nprinciples and maintained to the fullest extent the practices of Judaism\nas the religion of Torah. If they had been the majority of the nation\nthey would not have needed or received any special name. These faithful\nfew were the \u1e24asidim, the Assideans of the Books of Maccabees. Thus\nHellenists and \u1e24asidim represented the Extreme Left and the Extreme\nRight of the Jewish nation, with moderates of various shades in\nbetween. The name \u1e24asid, which is a common word in Hebrew, indicates a\ntype rather than a party.[1] The use of the word in the Psalms, where\nmost of the instances of its occurrence in the Old Testament are found,\ndoes not warrant us, other reasons apart, in assuming that there is a\nspecial reference in those passages to the men who became conspicuous\nunder Judas Maccab\u00e6us.\n\n     [1] A close parallel to the term \u1e24asid, as denoting a type rather\n     than a party, is afforded by the term Saint in the language of the\n     extreme Puritans in the time of Cromwell.\n\nThe rebellion against Antiochus Epiphanes was, of course, in the main a\nreligious revolt, and, as such, it had the support of all in the nation\nexcept the avowed Hellenists. But there was this difference in the\nmotive of the insurgents, that Mattathias and his sons, who started the\nrebellion, were fighting for political freedom as well as for their\nreligion. The \u1e24asidim only fought for their religion. It was dire\nnecessity which turned them from passive resisters into active fighters.\nThey joined Mattathias and his companions because only by fighting\ncould the Torah now be defended, for whose sake hitherto they had been\nwilling to suffer and die. Mattathias rebelled because the royal power\nwas being used to undermine the national religion, and he wished to\nthrow off the royal power. He would not have been content with\npermission to practise his religion undisturbed. He was as staunch,\nthough not as strict, an adherent of the religion of Torah as any of the\n\u1e24asidim; but he would have the Jews free to serve God, independent of\nany permission from a foreign ruler.\n\nIn the earlier stages of the war the political and the religious motives\nwere too closely blended to be distinguished. But it is to be noted that\nthe \u1e24asidim were the first to desire peace (1 Macc. vii. 13). And later\non, when the Maccabean princes reaped the fruits of the war in\nsuccessful sovereignty, they were regarded with increasing ill-will by\nthose to whom the religion of Torah was of supreme importance.\n\nI cannot, of course, attempt to follow in detail the history of the\nJewish people under the Maccabean princes. But the significance of the\nrebellion for my present purpose can be very soon explained.\n\nThe result upon the Jewish people generally was to renew its hold upon\nthe religion of Torah. Hellenism for a time was greatly weakened. There\nwas now at the head of the Jewish state a Jewish prince, able to hold\nhis own against foreign powers. The religion of Torah was, nominally at\nleast, the religion of all Jews, from the palace to the cottage; and it\nshould be observed that the special name of the \u1e24asidim dropped out of\nuse.\n\nBut gradually a divergence appeared, not wholly unlike that which had\nled to the rebellion. The princes of the Maccabean house naturally\nlooked for their supporters in the great families to whom belonged the\nchief positions of rank and wealth, especially those connected with the\nTemple. The religion of Torah was mixed up with politics to a degree\nwhich displeased those who did not belong to the governing class. There\nwas, therefore, again a movement towards a stricter interpretation of\nthe Torah and a more thorough-going obedience to its requirements, on\nthe part of a minority on the one side, to correspond with the movement\ntowards what might be called \"worldliness\" on the part of a minority on\nthe other side. These two extremes had names by which they were\ndistinguished. Those who formed the governing class, the great families\nand the chief priests, were the Sadducees. Those who maintained the full\nstrictness of the religion of Torah were the Pharisees. They were\nvirtually the \u1e24asidim over again, under another name. They were in a\nminority, when compared with the whole nation; but the sympathy of the\npeople in general was with them as against the Sadducees.\n\nThe particular reason why they were called Pharisees (_Pher\u016bshim_,\nseparated), was that they formed themselves into separate societies\npledged to observe certain rules in the matter of meat, drink, clothing,\netc., according as these were clean or unclean, allowed or forbidden.\nThey thereby \"separated\" themselves from such as were less strict, or\nwho at least did not take their pledge as a guarantee of strictness. But\nit is clear that there was practically nothing new in what the Pharisees\ndid or in the religion they held, except the mere fact of association in\npledged companies. The religion which they thus set themselves to\nrealise in its full extent was essentially the religion of Torah as Ezra\nhad moulded it. Successive generations of Sopherim had worked out into\nfuller detail the implicit contents of the Torah, as changing\ncircumstances called for further interpretation of the original\nprecepts. But there was no breach of continuity between Ezra and the\nPharisees, either in principle or even in the means by which that\nprinciple was worked out. For there were in every generation the\nteachers and expounders of the Torah, as there were always those who\ndepended on the guidance of such teachers. The name of the Men of the\nGreat Synagogue had passed out of use, as it was believed that the\ninstitution itself came to an end. But the Rabbinical tradition recorded\nthe names of those who successively handed on the teaching in which the\nmeaning of the Torah was unfolded, and its application to new conditions\nindicated. The line of this descent is through the Pharisees and not\nthrough the Sadducees. Not because the Sadducees did not care about the\nreligion of Torah; but because the Pharisees, strange as it may sound,\nkept the religion of Torah as a living principle, capable of being\nadapted and needing to be adapted to fresh developments of religious\nlife, while the Sadducees held to the letter of the original scripture,\nand refused innovations. The practical bearing of this appears in the\nfact that the Sadducees kept in their own hands, as long as they could,\nnot merely the governing authority, but the judicial power in criminal\ncases. And the hostility between Pharisees and Sadducees was expressed\nin a long struggle for the mastery. The Pharisees never obtained\npermanently the political mastery. But they did gain, for some of their\nrepresentatives, a place in the Sanhedrin, the great assembly of the\nleading men of the nation. And, what was more, they did obtain a control\nover the Temple, to this extent that the ritual there was performed\naccording to the requirements of the Pharisees, the Sadducean priests\nconsenting to this as the condition on which they held their office. It\nis stated in the Mishnah (Joma iii. 5) that representatives of the\nBeth-Din, _i.e._ Pharisees, administered an oath to the High Priest on\nthe day of atonement, saying to him: \"'Sir, High Priest, we are the\ndelegates of the Beth-Din, and thou art our delegate and the delegate of\nthe Beth-Din, and we adjure thee, by Him whose name dwells on this\nhouse, that thou wilt not alter a thing of all that we have said to\nthee,' and he departs, weeping, and they depart, weeping.\" A singular\ntouch, expressive, as it would seem, of mutual distrust.\n\nThe Pharisees also succeeded at last in wresting from the Sadducees the\npower of judicial decision in criminal cases; and the ancient calendar,\nknown as Megillath Taanith, marks the 14th Tammuz (July) as a festival,\nbecause on that day the Sadducean penal code was abolished. This same\ncalendar, which is a Pharisaic document, contains several other\nanti-Sadducean references.\n\nThe Pharisees, then, represent that element in the Jewish nation which\nwas most zealous for the religion of Torah, and most thorough-going in\nthe application of its principles. So long as the Sadducees existed, the\nname Pharisee also remained.\n\nWith the downfall of the Jewish state, after the war of A.D. 70, the\nSadducees disappear from history. The Pharisees remained, as\nrepresenting all that was left alive of Judaism; but the name was no\nlonger needed, and seldom if ever used. The Jewish remnant were not\nindeed all Pharisees, in the strict sense of the term; but they were on\nthe whole in sympathy with them, as they always had been.\n\nIf I have clearly indicated the relations of the Pharisees and Sadducees\nto each other, and to the mass of the nation, it will be easy to\nindicate the place of two other classes of persons bearing well-known\nnames. The Essenes stand apart from the main body of the Jewish people;\nthey were ascetics and recluses, of more than Pharisaic strictness (for\nasceticism was not a characteristic feature of Pharisaism either in\npractice or theory), and they combined with the religion of Torah\ncertain mystical doctrines of their own. Whatever influence they may\nhave had upon other elements in Judaism, they had little if any upon\nPharisaism.\n\nThere remains the class called \"Am-ha-aretz,\" or \"the people of the land\n\"--the \"people that knoweth not the law\" (John vii. 49). This title\ndenotes, not a definite division, but simply those amongst the people\nwho in fact were least influenced by the Pharisees, and least drawn to\nthem. Such would be not only the careless and indifferent, but also\nthose who, for higher reasons, did not readily fall in with the\nPharisaic system, or to whom religion as presented by them was not\nacceptable. It is these mainly who are referred to when it is said that\nJesus saw the people \"as sheep without a shepherd\" (Mark vi. 34). And it\nis only likely that those would most gladly hear him who were least\ninclined to follow the Pharisees.\n\nFrom this sketch of the composition of the Jewish nation, in the time of\nChrist and thereabouts, it will be seen that the main line of\ndevelopment is represented by Pharisaism. It comes down from the time of\nEzra, as the religion of Torah, expounded and administered by approved\nteachers, known from the first as Sopherim. The names \u1e24asidim and\nPharisee denote its most zealous representatives at two different\nperiods; but they imply no change of principle, or even of method. What\nchange there was is seen in the growth of a body of teaching, the\ndecisions and interpretations of successive exponents of Torah, handed\non and repeated from memory, for the instruction of those who should\ncome after. This is what is known as the Tradition of the Elders,\nreferred to in Mark vii. 5 and elsewhere. And when I come to deal with\nthe theory of Torah in the next chapter, I shall show how this Tradition\nof the Elders was a sign of the continued vitality of the religion of\nTorah, not the gradual strangling of it. At present I am only concerned\nwith the fact, not with the meaning of it. The Tradition of the Elders\ncan be traced in the Mishnah up to the time of the early Sopherim, not\nfar distant from Ezra; it is the thread which binds together the\ndevelopment, through \u1e24asidism and Pharisaism, of the Jewish religion.\nAnd it marks the course of the main stream of Judaism far on through the\ncenturies. The Essenes vanished. The Sadducees were swept away when the\nTemple was destroyed. It was the Pharisees who alone could or did\nweather that storm, and carry the divine treasure of the religion of\nTorah into safety. Already, in the time when Jesus was a boy, Hillel the\nBabylonian had applied his genius to the interpretation of Torah in ways\nwhich gave it a fresh power of ministry to spiritual wants. And when,\nseventy years later, the catastrophe came, the man was ready who should\ngo forth from Jerusalem, and establish for the ancient religion a\n\"temple not made with hands.\" Jo\u1e25anan ben Zaccai was that man. When he\nsaw that the city was doomed, he went to the Emperor Vespasian, and made\nhis submission to the force that could no longer be resisted (b. Gitt.\n56^b). The Emperor asked what he should give him, though he sought no\nreward. \"Give me Jabneh and its wise men\"--Jabneh being a town on the\ncoast, where already there were some of the leading Pharisaic teachers.\nThe request was granted, and Jo\u1e25anan b. Zaccai gathered in Jabneh the\nremnants of the learning and wisdom of Judaism. There he and his\ncolleagues repaired the shattered fabric of the religious life of their\npeople, and adjusted it to the new conditions. The Temple with all that\nbelonged to it was gone for ever. But the Synagogue and the College\nremained, as the home both of worship and study; and the religion of\nTorah probably gained rather than lost by being finally cut loose from\nassociation with the Temple cultus. The assembly at Jabneh took up the\ntask of developing the religion of Torah, and carrying forward the\nTradition of the Elders, where it had been interrupted by the war. The\nteachers to whose hands that task was now committed were henceforth\nknown as the Wise; the names Sopherim and Pharisee were seldom used, but\nthe essential features of their work remained unchanged, and it was\ncarried on in the ancient spirit.\n\nIn the interval between the capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the\nalmost greater disaster in A.D. 135, when the revolt of Bar Coch'ba was\nstamped out, the assembly of the Rabbis met from time to time in\nJabneh, or Lydda; and even during the persecution which followed on the\nfailure of the last rebellion, when the Jewish teachers were hunted up\nand down, and Akiba, the greatest of them, was tortured to death, there\nwere still left those who would carry on the tradition of their\nreligion. These were young men who received ordination as Rabbis, when\nit meant death to be a Rabbi at all, if he should fall into the hands of\nthe Romans. It is told (b. Sanh. 14\u00aa) of R. Jehudah b. Baba, that he\ntook six of his disciples into a secluded spot and there ordained them,\nand that he had hardly finished before he was discovered by the\nsoldiers, and fell, stabbed with Roman spears. The six young men all\nsurvived to become the teachers of the next generation. They handed on\nwhat had been committed to them as a sacred trust, the religion of\nTorah, and the tradition in which its meaning and contents were set\nforth in growing fulness and clearness.\n\nThis takes us out of the period covered by the New Testament. But I add\nthe few words necessary to round off the bare account I have given of\nthe development of Judaism through the Pharisees.\n\nThe Tradition of the Elders, as I have said, increased in volume and\ncomplexity as each generation of teachers added something to it. The\nnecessity, therefore, gradually made itself felt of arranging and\nsystematising the great mass of traditional matter. This was attempted\nfirst by the R. Akiba just mentioned, then by R. Meir, one of the six\nyoung men ordained in the time of the persecution. But it was only\ncarried to completion, after long years of labour, by R. Jehudah\nha-Kadosh, commonly called \"Rabbi,\" _par excellence_. He collected all\nthat he could find of the decisions and opinions of earlier teachers,\nsorted them out under different heads, noted those which were\nuniversally admitted and those which were doubtful, and thus framed a\ncode of law for the guidance of all Jews. This collection is the\nMishnah; and the text as we have it now represents, in the main, the\ncode of Rabbi. There are, of course, interpolations and additions to it.\nThere is another great collection known as Tosephta, containing a good\ndeal of the same material; it is nearly contemporary, but it has never\nhad the same authority as the Mishnah. The date of the Mishnah can be\nput at about the year 210. Rabbi died in 219. The Mishnah became in its\nturn the subject of study in the Rabbinical schools, and two fresh lines\nof tradition begin from this point, each of them starting with a\ndisciple of Rabbi. One of them is the line of development of the Mishnah\nin the Palestinian schools, of which the chief seat was Tiberias; the\nother was the line of development of that same Mishnah in the Babylonian\nschools--Sura, Nehardea, Pumbeditha, and others. The result of each\nprocess was a mass of commentary on the Mishnah, and not merely\ncommentary but accretions of every kind having any sort of connection\nwith Judaism as a living religion. This development of the Mishnah is\nin each case called Gemara. And Mishnah plus Gemara is the Talmud. There\nis only one Mishnah, but there are two Gemaras, differently named\naccording to the land of their origin. And it is usual to speak of the\nPalestinian Talmud and of the Babylonian Talmud respectively.\n\nNeither of these two was ever completed. The Palestinian schools, at the\nend of the fourth century, had no one left who was capable of carrying\non the work; and in Babylonia, though much more was done, a final\ncompletion was never reached. After the beginning of the sixth century\nnothing more was ever added to the Talmud; and even of what was in\nexistence then, not all survives now.\n\nIn the Talmud is contained the main source for the knowledge of what\nPharisaism meant; because it was made the storehouse in which all, or\nnearly all, that was held to be valuable in the Tradition of the Elders,\nthe explicit religion of Torah, was stored up. There is a huge\nliterature contemporary with the Talmud, to which the general name of\nMidrash is given; all of it is traditional, and all of it bears on the\nreligion of Torah, in one way or another. This is the written deposit of\nPharisaism, the mark which it has left upon the literature of the world.\nIt is there, and not in the writings of those who did not understand its\nideals or share its hopes, that its real meaning can alone be found.\nThose ideals and hopes first dawned in Jewish minds under the influence\nof Ezra. The Talmud is the witness to show how some of his countrymen,\nsome of the bravest, some of the ablest, some of the most pious and\nsaintly, and a host of unnamed faithful, were true to those ideals and\nclung to those hopes; and how, through good report and ill report,\nthrough shocks of disaster and the ruin of their state, ground down by\npersecution, or torn by faction, steadily facing enemies without and\nenemies within, they held on to the religion of Torah. They have not\nsought, and they certainly have not found, the praise of men for their\nsteadfastness. For these are the Pharisees, and the world has for them\nonly a contemptuous gibe. Who was it that said: \"For every idle word\nthat men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of\njudgment\"?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE THEORY OF TORAH\n\n\nIn the preceding chapter I sketched the historical development of\nPharisaism from its source in the work of Ezra to the time when it had\nfound its literary expression in the Talmud and the Midrash. I said that\nfrom first to last what was developed was the religion of Torah. It is\ntherefore essential to the understanding of Pharisaism that the reader\nshould, first, obtain a clear conception of the meaning of Torah, and,\nsecond, that he should bear that conception always in mind in his\nfurther study of Pharisaism. It will be my task in the present chapter\nto show what Torah meant, and what form the religion of Torah actually,\nand perhaps necessarily, assumed. If I succeed, then the reader will\nunderstand how it was that Rabbinical devotion to Torah could express\nitself quite naturally in terms which to the unenlightened Gentile\nappear to be extravagant--as, for instance, when it is said that God\nstudies Torah for three hours every day (b. A. Zar. 3^b).\n\nThere would be no particular difficulty in understanding what is meant\nby Torah, if it were not that it is commonly supposed that the word\n\"Law\" is the just equivalent of it. The Greek, alike of the Septuagint\nand of the New Testament, renders \"Torah\" by \u03bd\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; and while\nthe translators of the New Testament rightly rendered \u03bd\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 by\n\"Law,\" they nevertheless perpetuated what was a misconception on the\npart of those who used the Greek word to represent \"Torah.\" It is to\navoid that misconception that I have already used, and shall continue to\nuse, the word \"Torah\" untranslated, as a technical term whose full\nimplication cannot be expressed in any one English word. It is true that\nthe word \"torah\" is simply and correctly translated by the word\n\"teaching\"; but, as used in the later Judaism, it denotes a particular\nkind of teaching, and also the sum-total of what was taught as well as\nthe vehicle or medium by which it was given. It further denotes any\nparticular portion of that teaching. In short, it is a word into which\nthe Rabbis compressed more meaning than can be found in any other word\nin their language; and we shall more readily grasp that varied meaning\nif we keep to the word Torah, as being unspoiled by erroneous\nassociations.\n\nThe original meaning, then, of the word Torah is simply \"teaching,\" any\nkind of instruction given by any person to any other person; for\ninstance, Prov. i. 8, \"Forsake not the 'torah' of thy mother.\" More\nspecifically, it was religious teaching, conceived as given either by\nGod to Israel, or by man to his fellow-man. Thus, Isa. li. 7, \"the\npeople in whose heart is my Torah\" (where the speaker is God); and, for\nhuman instruction, Deut. xvii. 11, \"according to the tenor of the\n'Torah' which they shall teach thee,\" \"they\" being the priests. This\nlast passage gives the clue to the further developments of the word. It\nhad been for ages the custom in Israel for the priests to give\ninstruction to the people upon matters connected with religion,\nexplanations of duty, decisions of disputes, intimations of the will of\nGod. This was, of course, Torah; and it was Torah which was regarded as\nbeing given by God through human agency. The Torah which the Lord gave\nby the hand of Moses would not originally imply any code or book, but\nsimply such ancient sayings, precepts or otherwise, as were\ntraditionally ascribed to Moses as the great teacher of Israel in the\ndays of old. The connection of Torah with Moses, though others might\nhave given Torah as well as he, had this result, that gradually a body\nof traditional teaching was accumulated, ascribed to him and bearing his\nname; and the several attempts to collect and codify these are to be\nseen in the various strata of the Pentateuch. They are mostly in the\nform of precept and command, as was only likely, since they were\nintended for the guidance of conduct. But that was not why they were\ncalled Torah. If Moses had taught something that was not commandment at\nall, it would still have been Torah, because it was taught.\n\nIn this sense, Israel had never been without Torah; and the prophet no\nless than the priest owned that in it God had continually taught His\npeople. Prophecy itself was only a form of Torah, for the prophet spoke\nthe word of the Lord.\n\nNow, whatever else Ezra introduced that was new, it was not Torah. If he\nhad religious teaching to give, as of course he had, he only followed in\nthe train of the prophets and priests from Moses downwards. And when he\noffered Torah to the people, they knew what he was referring to. Nor did\nthe novelty consist in the fact that Ezra made known to them a larger\nbody of Torah than they had previously been acquainted with. It does not\ngreatly matter, for the present purpose, whether the book which Ezra\nread to the people was the Priestly Code, or the whole Pentateuch\nsubstantially, though not finally, complete. For even if the earlier\ndocuments had not been as yet welded into one whole with the Priestly\nCode, they were nevertheless in existence, and were already owned as\nTorah of Moses.\n\nWhat Ezra did was to lay a much greater emphasis upon the need of\nobedience to what was contained in the book of Torah (or the books) as\nbeing the duty of every Israelite. What was in fact the collected\naccretions of centuries, was regarded by Ezra, and by all Israel, as\nTorah from God communicated by Moses, and therefore entitled to\nprecedence over any Torah imparted to anyone else. The book, or books,\nin which it was recorded contained all that God had chosen to reveal for\nthe instruction of His people. The five books of Moses were the written\nform of the Torah. They were not the Torah itself. It is only for\nconvenience that the Pentateuch is often called the Torah. The two are\nnot identical. The Pentateuch differs from the Torah as the vessel\ndiffers from its contents, even though there be but one unique vessel in\nwhich those contents are preserved. Ezra, then, offered for the\nacceptance of Israel, in the book that he read to them, what he believed\nto be the full revelation which God had made. But he went beyond those\nwho had preceded him, beyond even those who had carried through the\nreform of which the book of Deuteronomy is the manifesto, by reason of\nthe stress which he laid upon personal and individual acceptance of it.\nDeuteronomy, no doubt, contained over and over again the demand, \"Thou\nshalt observe to do\" according to all these commandments, and it\nenforced the demand by the appalling catalogue of curses upon the\ndisobedient which may be read in the 28th chapter. But Deuteronomy was\nwritten before the Exile, and Ezra lived after it. The priests had given\nTorah, and the prophets had proclaimed God's revelation of His nature\nand of man's relation to Him and consequent duty. They had been\npre-eminently preachers of righteousness. But yet, in spite of the zeal\nof the prophets and the teaching of the priests, the bitter lesson of\nthe Exile had proved that Israel had not served his God as he ought to\nhave done. It was Ezra's function to apply the lesson of the Exile and\nto direct the religious life of Israel into such lines that no similar\ndisaster should again be experienced; or rather, that no such sin should\nagain be committed as had led to that disaster. Ezekiel, indeed, had\nbeen the first to perceive the necessity of a change in the direction of\nIsrael's life; but he had lived at a time too early for a real beginning\nto be made. Yet it can hardly be doubted that the seed, which Ezekiel\nsowed among the captives in Babylonia, bore fruit in the ideas which\nunderlay the reformation of Ezra. When Ezra came forward with the book\nof the Torah, he did so not in any sense as an opponent of the prophets,\nor as making a breach between their ideas and his own. He came forward\nto enforce their teaching, to apply it, and to get from it a larger\nresult of practical righteousness than it had produced in their time. It\nwas just because the prophets had so splendidly revealed God to Israel,\nhad proclaimed to him the full grandeur of his privilege, that Israel\nmust now be taught to do his part as he had never done it before. The\ngreater the privilege the greater the responsibility. So far from being\nat variance with the ideas of the prophets, Ezra was the one to complete\nthem, or at least to put his people in the way of completing them. There\nis a difference of method between Ezra and the prophets; there is no\ndifference of principle. And as the Pharisees and the later Rabbis did\nbut carry out the method and the principle of Ezra, they stand in the\nsame line with him as the legitimate successors and continuators of the\nprophets.[2] It may be said with truth that of the later types of\nJudaism--Hellenism, Apocalyptic, and Rabbinism--the last, and only the\nlast, carried on and handed down the inheritance which the prophets had\nleft. What Hellenism and Apocalyptic had to give went to Christianity,\nso far as it survived at all.\n\n     [2] This claim is made in the Talmud, b. B.B. 12\u00aa, where it is said\n     that prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Wise,\n     _i.e._ the Rabbis, and that it has not been taken from them.\n\nThe purpose of Ezra was to lay stress on the embodiment, in the\npractical life of the individual Jew, of the teaching of the prophets\n(including Moses) concerning God and Israel. The main point for Ezra was\nthat God had taught certain things--knowledge of Himself, knowledge of\nHis will. What had been taught must be learned and taken to heart, and,\nso far as it was of the nature of precept, must be carried out in\npractice. It was not enough to _know_; the Israelite was required to\n_do_ and to _be_.\n\nThe practical application of this idea needed the acceptance of it on\nthe part of the people, and further, a definite undertaking to make\ncertain changes in their manner of life. And, before all, it was\nnecessary that they should, so far as possible, separate themselves from\nthe \"peoples of the lands\" in whose midst they found themselves, on\nreturning from the Exile. This is, of course, the meaning of the putting\naway of the foreign wives, and the forbidding of such marriages for the\nfuture. The general programme of the reform is set forth in Neh. x.,\nwhich is nothing more than the logical corollary of the acceptance of\nTorah. Among the points there specified, besides the prohibition of\nintermarriage with foreigners, are the observance of the Sabbath, the\npayment of the tax for the service of the house of God, and the duty of\nbringing first-fruits and tithes. Of course these provisions do not\ncover the whole duty of the Jew, and they were not intended to do so.\nTheir purpose was to set up the Jews as a closed corporation, distinct\nfrom the surrounding peoples, and to provide for the maintenance of the\nJewish cultus. Within the limits thus drawn, this enclosure marked off\nfrom the Gentile world, the Jew was to live his whole life, and the\nTorah was to be his guide in doing so. The limits were drawn in order to\nmake it possible for the Jew to live up to the Torah. The limits\nthemselves are not part of the Torah; and hence it follows that a Jew\ncould live with complete loyalty to the Torah, and yet be but little\nconscious of the limits within which he enjoyed his spiritual freedom\nand privileges. Unless occasion reminded him of the fact of separation\nbetween him and the Gentiles, he could give his whole mind to the\nimmediate concerns of his religious life--meditation, prayer, and the\ndoing of his duties towards God and man. His thought was not taken up\nwith a painful study of precepts, but was free to range over the whole\nrelation in which he stood towards God. The Torah was his guide to the\n_whole_ meaning of that relation, not merely to the performance of\nspecified duties. And therefore, when Ezra prevailed on the Jews to\nbecome a separate community, he was not condemning them to a life of\nbarren legalism, cutting them off from a free communion with God; he\nwas providing for them a means whereby they could enjoy that free\ncommunion, defended against the dangers which, in the past, had been so\ndisastrous to the religious life of the people. It is, of course, true\nthat in doing so he was at the same time cutting the Jews off from free\nintercourse with their fellow-men of non-Jewish race, and thereby\nrestricting their development as human beings. And the Jews ever since\nhave paid a heavy price for that separation. But in Ezra's time free\nintercourse with non-Jewish peoples did not seem at all a desirable\nthing, if the Jewish people were to survive. It is indeed difficult to\nbelieve that they would have survived, if the policy of Ezra had not\nbeen carried out. And if they had not, what would have become of the\nJewish religion? And how would the great spiritual treasure of the\nprophets (to say nothing of the Torah itself) have become available for\nthose who, in a later age, were to depend so largely upon it? Whether\nthe policy of separation is to be for ever kept up, is a question which\nthe future must decide. But that Ezra saved the Jewish religion and the\nJewish people is hardly open to dispute.\n\nEzra, then, provided for the Jews an enclosure, marked off from the\nGentile world, within which to live their religious life; and he gave\nthem the Torah, as being the full revelation which God had made through\nMoses, for their guide in the life they should thenceforth live there.\nClearly, no one would enter that enclosure, or remain within it, unless\nhe really and seriously meant to live on the lines of Torah. And that is\nwhy, from the time of Ezra, the importance of Torah becomes so marked,\nand insistence on it so emphatic; why, in short, from that time, the\nTorah dominates the whole field of religion for those who followed the\nlead of Ezra. They virtually declared that they would stand or fall by\nthe Torah. For them, the Torah was the medium through which religion\nbecame real to them; as it were, the glass through which they viewed\nall the dealings of God with their own race in the past, and with\nmankind in general. This will be more fully seen when we come to what\nthe Talmud has to say about Torah. But that is only the expansion in\ndetail, as pious imagination dwelt upon the theme, of the idea which\nEzra planted in the mind of his people, that of the supreme importance\nof Torah as the revelation which God had made, the perfect guide, the\nsource of all that could be known or required to be known, by him who\nwould \"love God with all his heart, and with all his strength, and with\nall his might.\"\n\nThe Jew who followed the lead of Ezra was, as before, a member of the\ncommunity of Israel; but he was, in a far greater degree than before,\naware of his own responsibility for the right living of his life in\nrelation to God, the doing and the being of what was pleasing to Him.\nThe Torah was given to Israel; but it was none the less addressed to\neach Jew. And that, not merely in regard to particular precepts but in\nregard to the religious teaching as a whole. It may be true that\nnothing in the Pentateuch rises to the height of spiritual grandeur\nattained by the great prophets. It may be true that their free\ninspiration denoted a power and fulness of religious life greater than\ncould be developed by the Torah as a body of teaching, or even regarded\nas a final revelation. But however sublime the religion of the great\nprophets had been, the religion of the ordinary Israelite had by no\nmeans attained to the same degree of power and fulness. If it had done\nso, there would not have been the collapse of national religious life\nwhich brought about the Exile. The effect of making the Torah the guide\nof life, the seat of authority in religion, was to deepen the spiritual\nlife of the ordinary Jew; it gave him a stronger sense of personal\nresponsibility, and opened out to him regions of religious experience of\nwhich he had seldom if ever been aware. The effect of thus exalting the\nTorah was not, as it is so often said to have been, to cramp and harden\nthe spiritual nature of the Jew, by confining it within definite limits\nand oppressing it by precise commands. I would not say that this never\nhappened; because it is not wise to assert a universal negative. But it\ncertainly was not the primary or the usual effect. The Torah made the\nreligion of Israel personal and individual to a far greater degree than\nit had been before; and it did so by conveying to the individual Jew not\nmerely the legal precept but the prophetic fervour, the joy and the\ninspiration of personal communion with God as well as the high privilege\nof serving Him. The introduction of the Torah was not the signal for a\ndecline in the national religious life, but the beginning of a new and\nstrenuous advance; and whereas, before, the prophets had towered high\nabove the mass of the people, who had remained at a comparatively low\nlevel of spiritual attainment, henceforth there is a great development\nof the spiritual nature of the ordinary people, the individual Jew.\nThere were no more prophets, because there was no further need of any\nprophets. Their work was done; and in respect of that part of their\nwork where they had failed, Ezra and his followers succeeded. The\nprophets had declared the full meaning of the religion of Israel, its\nglorious hopes, its triumphant certainties, its boundless possibilities.\nThe people had heard, but had too little heeded. Ezra, by means of the\nTorah, and expressly and intentionally by that means, drove all this\nhome to the heart of the individual Jew, and so wrought it into the very\ntexture of his religious nature that it has remained there ever since.\nIt is high time to put away altogether, as one of the exploded errors of\nhistory, the notion that Ezra, by the exaltation of the Torah to the\nsupreme place in Jewish religion, set that religion upon the down-grade.\nI believe it to be nearer the truth to say that after Moses, and Isaiah\n(or perhaps Jeremiah), Ezra is the third greatest man in the Old\nTestament.\n\nIt can scarcely be too often repeated that the Torah, as Ezra understood\nit, meant divine teaching upon all and everything that concerned\nreligion. It was not confined to commands, positive or negative, but\nincluded everything that bore upon religion at all. This is evident on\nthe face of it; because the contents of the Pentateuch (which is the\nwritten embodiment of the Torah) include much else beside precept. As a\nRabbi pointed out, long afterwards, if the Torah had been only precept,\nit would have been sufficient to begin it at Exod. xii. 2, where the\nfirst precept occurs. \"And why was it written (Gen. i. 1), 'In the\nbeginning, God created the heavens and the earth, etc.'? To show the\npower of His might\" (R. Jitz\u1e25ak, in Tan\u1e25 4\u00aa). The meaning of which is\nthat the Torah is a revelation of more than the divine will.\n\nThe view that the Torah, as recorded in the Pentateuch, is the supreme\nrevelation which God made to Israel, and that it covers the whole extent\nof the religious life, theoretical as well as practical, is implied in\nthe position which it held in Judaism from the time of Ezra onwards, and\nunderlies all that the Talmud says about it. There is no point in the\nlong line from Ezra to the closing of the Talmud, at which it can be\nsaid: \"Here the conception of the Torah was narrowed into the meaning of\nmere legal precept.\" It was at no time thus narrowed. And if, as is\noften admitted, Judaism, after Ezra and before Christ, allowed of a\nconsiderable degree of spiritual attainment on the part of those who\nwere under the Torah, there is no ground for denying the possibility of\nsuch spiritual attainment on the part of Jews in or after the time of\nChrist, because the conception of the Torah remained the same in\nessence. What change there was, between Ezra and the Pharisees and the\nlater Rabbis in the Talmud, was in the opposite direction to that of\nrestriction of its meaning. They realised far more than Ezra did, or\ncould do, the fulness and richness of the Torah as a divine revelation;\nand while they took a delight in glorifying it on its imperative side,\nas embodying divine commands, they never dreamed of saying that the\nTorah was precept and nothing more.\n\nIn his well-known book, _Die alt-synagogale Theologie_, p. 24, Weber\nsays: \"If we have to admit that this praise of Torah (in the Talmudic\nliterature) is entirely in accord with similar praise of Torah in the\nPsalms, we must nevertheless not forget that here (_i.e._ in the Talmud)\nthe Torah is praised as Law, while in Scripture the conception of Torah\nis wider and includes all revelation, alike of law and of salvation.\"\n\nThe opposition here alleged does not exist; and the statement that it\ndoes is the cardinal error of Weber's mischievous book. For the right\nunderstanding of Pharisaic Judaism, the fact that Weber is the usually\naccepted guide is well-nigh fatal. It will be observed, however, that\nWeber admits the wider conception of the Torah in the later books of the\nOld Testament, especially in the Psalms; and that is all that matters at\npresent. It is of importance to realise that the spiritual life of\nIsrael not merely ought to have done, but actually did increase and\ndevelop under the influence of that Torah which Ezra had exalted to the\nsupreme place. There are two very important indications of the truth of\nthis statement; one is the rise of the Synagogue, and the other is the\ngrowth and completion of the book of Psalms. It will be no digression,\nbut an appeal to evidence directly bearing on the subject, to speak at\nthis point of both these.\n\nThe origin of the Synagogue is to this extent unknown, that no precise\ndate can be assigned at which it was first instituted. But it did not\nappear in Palestine before the time of Ezra, and it was already ancient\nand immemorial in the time of the Maccabees. It is possible, and even\nprobable, that it arose amongst the captives in Babylonia. It is certain\nthat it spread through the whole Jewish community in Palestine when it\nwas introduced. The Synagogue, Beth-ha-keneseth, \"meeting-house,\" was a\nplace where Jews assembled for religious purposes. It is reasonable to\nsuppose that what first led to the establishment of such places, by the\ncaptives in Babylonia, was the fact that they were cut off for an\nindefinite time from their native land, and the Temple of their God. It\nwas not only that they were prevented by distance from \"going up to the\nTemple to pray\"; it was that the Temple itself was destroyed, and its\nservices no longer performed. There was thus no national worship of God\nat all. Yet God was still there, to be worshipped. Trust in Him had not\ndied out from Jewish hearts when Jerusalem fell. What more simple and\nnatural, for all that it was in fact an unheard-of innovation, than that\nhere and there a company of brothers in exile should meet together, and\npray to the God of their fathers? So far as I know, there had never\nbeen, in the world's history, any form of congregational worship till\nthe Synagogue appeared. Till then, worship had usually been performed in\nsome temple or local shrine, and consisted in the offering of some gift\nor sacrifice, usually through the medium of a priest, and accompanied no\ndoubt by some prescribed prayer. This was done in the Temple in\nJerusalem, while the Temple yet stood. And the Synagogue did not set out\nto do the same thing on a small scale, but to do something entirely\ndifferent. The time came when the Temple service was restored, and the\nancient sacrifices offered again with the fullest pomp of ritual. But\nthe Synagogue did not on that account suspend its operations, or show\nthe least sign of declining in popular favour.\n\nThe idea of the Synagogue was twofold; it was a place of worship, _i.e._\ncongregational worship, and it was a place of teaching, _i.e._ religious\nteaching. It has kept that twofold character ever since, or at all\nevents kept it till long after the Talmudic period. For the Synagogue\nhad come to stay, and it has continued down to the present day. Of all\nthe institutions that man has ever devised, the one with the longest\ncontinuous history is the Synagogue. And that it answers to a real and\npermanent religious need is shown by the fact that the Christian\nreligion took over both the idea and the form of the Synagogue, in\norganising its own meetings for worship, and has retained them ever\nsince; except where sacrificial ideas, derived partly from the Temple\nworship and partly from pagan ritual, have interfered with and spoiled\nthe simplicity of the Synagogue type of service. It is highly remarkable\nthat the same elements which are familiar in Christian worship--hymn,\nprayer, Scripture reading, and sermon--are found in the earliest\nSynagogue services so far back as the records go. And the reason why\nthey have been retained, practically unaltered, is surely this, that\nthey have been found to answer their purpose so well that no change was\nfelt to be needed. Whoever first devised the form of the Synagogue\nservice came, no doubt unconsciously, upon one of the fundamentals of\nthe spiritual nature of man, made one of the discoveries which determine\nthe future development of the race for all time. The Synagogue perhaps\ngrew up rather than was intentionally created; and it was accepted\nbecause it so exactly met the needs of those who first made use of it.\nDuring some twenty-three centuries it has served the purpose of common\nworship, both in its Jewish and its Christian form; and when it is\nconsidered how enormous has been the influence of the practice of\nmeeting for common worship, such as the Synagogue first provided and\nmade possible, then it becomes highly significant that the Synagogue\nappeared in close connection with the labours of Ezra and the new\nemphasis laid on the Torah. Whether, on the supposition that the\nSynagogue arose on Babylonian soil, it owed its origin to the conception\nof Torah as Ezra understood it, we have no means of knowing. But it is\ncertain that its rapid spread in Palestine took place when the idea of\nTorah was already made dominant. And the Synagogue was naturally adapted\nto embody that idea. As the Torah was the revelation which God had made\nto Israel, the study of it and the practical application of it were\nboth associated with the \"house of meeting.\" To study it was to ponder\nthe meaning of the revelation. And to practise it was, amongst other\nthings, to worship the God who had given it. The Synagogue was intended\nto develop through religious fellowship the whole nature of those who\nmet there, spiritual and moral, and by no means only intellectual. And\neven if the Torah which they studied had been nothing but precepts, yet\nthese included a personal devotion to the service of God which was\npractically unthinkable without worship of Him. It was as natural that\nthose who met in the Synagogue should join in prayer together, as that\nthey should read or hear the book of the Torah, and should edify one\nanother by expounding its contents. That is what they did; and the\nSynagogue did not fail to become a most important factor in deepening\nand strengthening the spiritual life of the people at large.\n\nNow if the effect of the exaltation of Torah, due to Ezra, had been, as\nit is usually said to have been, gradually to harden and cramp the\nspiritual freedom of the Jewish mind, then either the Synagogue would\nhave ceased to minister in any way to spiritual needs, or else it would\nhave represented a protest against the deadening influence of Torah. But\nin actual fact there has never been, at all events till quite recent\nyears, any such opposition between the Synagogue and the religion of\nTorah. On the contrary, it was precisely the religion of Torah which the\nSynagogue, through all these centuries, has existed to promote; and it\nwas the Synagogue, so inspired, which served as the type and model of\nChristian worship. The Synagogue is one of the first-fruits of that\nJudaism which, under the lead of Ezra, took its stand upon the Torah.\n\nFurther evidence in the same direction, namely, that the tendency of the\nreligion of Torah was not towards spiritual decline, is afforded by the\nbook of Psalms. That evidence would be more cogent than it is, if it\nwere possible to fix with certainty the date of every Psalm. That\ncannot be done; but the fact remains that the collection of the Psalms,\nand the use of that collection as a lyrical expression of devotion,\nbelong to the time after, and not before, the age of Ezra. It is often\nsaid that the book of Psalms is the hymn-book of the second Temple; and\nI do not challenge the general correctness of that statement. But some,\nat all events, of the Psalms seem to be less adapted to the Temple\nservice than to that of the Synagogue. I mean that those utterances of\nintensely personal devotion which make the Psalms so wonderful a\ntreasure of spiritual experience, are much more in keeping with the\nsimple worship of the Synagogue than with the stately and official\ncelebrations of the Temple. It might indeed be said that some of the\nPsalms are too personal even for the congregational worship of the\nSynagogue, if we did not know, from common usage, that hymns of that\ncharacter are constantly sung in Christian worship. There is hardly any\none of the Psalms which could not have been quite well sung in the\nSynagogue; while there are many which have no obvious fitness for the\nservice of the Temple. But, in any case, it was not until after Ezra had\nmade Torah the dominant factor in Judaism that the book of Psalms was\ncollected and arranged, and in part composed, as we have it now. It\ncontains hymns of an older date, in some cases perhaps a much older\ndate. And it is possible that some smaller collections had been made in\ntimes before Ezra. But there are several Psalms which quite clearly owe\ntheir origin to the idea of Torah as the supreme revelation, besides\nothers which bear witness to the influence of that idea; while the\ncollection of the whole is best explained as due to the need, first\nbrought to the Jewish consciousness by the Synagogue, of some means of\ngiving united expression to the thoughts and feelings of a worshipping\nmultitude. Of course it is not here implied that the collection or\nproduction of the book of Psalms took place immediately after the time\nof Ezra. The collection may have only been completed as late as the\nfirst century B.C. But the point is that the whole was collected, and\nmuch of it composed, under the influence of the religious ideas\nassociated with Ezra and the Torah. And it should be observed that the\nlater be the date assigned to the composition of some of the Psalms, and\nthe final collection of the whole of them, the stronger is the evidence\nthat the religion of Torah was not the unspiritual formalism that it is\noften supposed to have been.\n\nI shall have more to say about the Psalms, as evidence for the meaning\nof the religion of Torah, in the last chapter, in which I shall deal\nwith Pharisaism as a spiritual religion. For the present enough,\nperhaps, has been said to show that the Judaism to which Ezra gave its\ndistinguishing character by raising the Torah to its supreme place\nthere, was thereby enriched and not impoverished on its spiritual side;\nit did not sink but rise, it became not more shallow and poor, but more\nfull and deep, with greater power than it ever had before as a\ndetermining factor in individual life.\n\nIt may be objected, at this point, \"All this may be very true, in regard\nto the religion of Ezra, as conditioned by Torah; but does it hold good\nin regard to the religion of the Pharisees, of whom, in this chapter,\nnothing has as yet been said? Ezra may have been such as has been\ndescribed; but it is the Pharisees who are commonly said to have been\nmere legalists in their ethics, and formalists in their worship.\" I am\nquite ready to meet that challenge; and it was for the purpose of\npreparing to meet it that I have been so careful to make clear the\nconception of Torah implied in the work of Ezra, and its effect upon the\nreligion of those who followed his lead.\n\nAs has been said already, there was no divergence in principle between\nEzra and the Pharisees. Both accepted with entire assent the conception\nof the Torah as the supreme revelation made by God to Israel; and they\nowned in like manner, with entire assent, the duty of conforming in\nthought, word, and deed to the divine teaching therein contained. In\nwhat, then, did the Pharisees differ from Ezra? In what directions was\ndevelopment possible from the idea of Torah as he conceived it? And in\nparticular, what line of development was still open to the Pharisees\nwhen they first became a distinct element in the Jewish national life?\n\nIn the time between Ezra and the Maccabees that provision had been made\nof the Synagogue worship, to which reference has already been made; and\nwithin the lines of a liturgy whose simple beginnings are ascribed to\nthe Men of the Great Synagogue, and which was further enlarged by the\npiety of later generations, that piety continued to find expression in\npublic worship. Private prayer never confined itself to stated forms;\nand private prayer was always an essential element in the religion of\nTorah. It must never be forgotten, that in all the developments of\nPharisaism and Rabbinism on the lines of theology and the practical\nconduct of life, the spiritual and devotional side is always involved.\nThe men who built up the huge fabric of Talmudic casuistry were men who\nprayed to their Father in Heaven (calling Him by that name), and who, in\nsimplicity of heart, \"worshipped him in spirit and in truth.\" If this is\nchallenged, (though it would not be challenged by anyone who really\nknows the Rabbis), then I ask, were the great men who built up the\nequally huge fabric of Christian doctrinal theology men in whom the\nspiritual nature was atrophied? Let Augustine answer for his brethren\namong the Christians; and if his answer be allowed, (and no one who has\nread the _Confessions_ will dispute it), then let it be allowed that R.\nAkiba, a double-dyed Pharisee if there ever was one, and a master of\nHalachah, may also have known \"the deep things of God,\" and \"walked in\nthe light of His countenance.\"\n\nThe development of the religion of Torah from Ezra to the Pharisees, and\non to the Talmud, took place along two main lines, it being understood\nthat through all the spiritual and devotional side was ministered to.\nThe two lines of development are indicated by two words, of which I have\njust mentioned one--H\u0103l\u0101chah and H\u0103gg\u0101dah. To grasp the significance of\nthese terms is essential for the right understanding of Pharisaism. I\nwill not give a definition of them, just at this point, but will rather\ndescribe the two methods by which the Torah was interpreted, and for\nwhich these two names were chosen.\n\nThe Torah, as recorded in the Pentateuch, was set up by Ezra as the\nsupreme revelation made by God to Israel. It was Teaching intended to be\nlearned. Now one of the first things that must be learned by any man who\nwould serve God is _How_ he shall serve Him. What shall he refrain from\ndoing? How shall he know, if he is in doubt, whether he ought to do\n_this_ or _that_? And again, many things are done as being customary;\nthere are usages, observances, ceremonial acts of which the origin is\nnot known. Are these to be approved or condemned, when tried by the\nstandard of the right service of God?\n\nOn the lines laid down by Ezra, and followed by the Pharisees and the\nRabbis, the answer to questions such as these was to be sought in the\nTorah. Answers to some of them were found at once. In many passages, the\nwords were explicit: \"Thou shalt do _so_,\" or \"Thou shalt not do _so_.\"\nIn other passages, minute directions were given for the performance of\ncertain acts. But cases would arise which were not expressly dealt with\nin the written Torah; and in such cases it became the duty of those who\nhad most deeply studied it, to give a decision according to what they\nbelieved to be the intention of the Torah. They would infer from what it\nenjoined in a given set of circumstances, what it would enjoin in a\nsomewhat different set of circumstances. This is what the early Sopherim\ndid, and probably Ezra himself. And these decisions were on the one hand\ninterpretations of the Torah, and on the other hand rules of conduct,\nto be applied as occasion might require. On both accounts they were\ncarefully handed down, for the guidance and instruction of posterity.\nThis is the Tradition of the Elders, and it extends from Ezra to the\nclosing of the Talmud.\n\nNow let us examine that tradition at some suitable point, say the\nbeginning of our era, when Pharisaism was fully established. The\nTradition of the Elders had become by that time a considerable body of\ndecisions, originally given by way of interpreting the Torah so as to\napply it in particular cases. These decisions were not written down, but\npreserved in memory. A Pharisee would say that all these were part of\nthe Torah. They were not something added on to it, of merely human as\nopposed to divine authority. They were successive unfoldings of what had\nbeen hidden in the Torah from the beginning. The particular teacher who\nhad given such and such an interpretation, thereby rendered explicit\nwhat had till then been implicit in the Torah. The Torah was not merely\nthe written word of the Pentateuch, but the divine thought behind it.\nAnd to interpret the Torah was not to read something fresh _into_ the\nwritten word, but to get something fresh _out_ of it. If a Pharisee were\nasked, Where is the Torah to be found? he would answer: \"The written\nword and the unwritten tradition together make up the Torah.\" And he\nwould further say that the unwritten was more important than the\nwritten, because the unwritten unfolded what was concealed in the\nwritten, and extended its application. But it was all the Torah; and\nhowever far the process might be extended, however detailed the\ninterpretation might come to be, it would still all be the Torah. For\nthe Torah was in itself inexhaustible, being the full revelation that\nGod had made. And all the drawing forth and unfolding of its meaning was\nbut the bringing into the consciousness of men what was and had been in\nthe Torah from the beginning. This is the theory of Torah, as it was\ncertainly held by the Pharisees, and embodied in the Talmud. Whether\nEzra himself held it, there is no evidence to show, and I do not claim\nthat he did. But it is clear that once the Torah is made supreme, this\nis one of the possible lines along which that idea could be developed.\nThere are no doubt other lines; but the main characteristic of the\nPharisees and of the Rabbis is that they followed this line, and no one\ncan say that they did not do their work thoroughly.\n\nWhat it amounts to is this, that the Torah was to be made, not merely in\ntheory but in practice, a complete guide to life. The aim was to learn,\nfrom what God had revealed, His will in regard to every slightest action\nthat a man might do. That could be learned from the Torah; and if it\ncould be, it ought to be. No amount of study was too great, if, by that\nmeans, something more might be learned of how God willed that a man\nshould live. Every fresh interpretation of the Torah, when once accepted\nas valid, was an extension of its meaning, or rather a transference of\nits meaning from the region of the unknown to the region of the known.\n\nThe result of this process was a detailed statement that such and such\nand such actions were to be done by anyone who would rightly serve God,\nbecause they were what God Himself had taught in the Torah, as being His\nwill. This detailed rule of right conduct is what is denoted by the name\n_Halachah_.[3]\n\n     [3] The meaning of the other term mentioned above, namely,\n     _Haggadah_, will be explained hereafter. See Chapter V.\n\nHalachah is the most conspicuous element in Pharisaism, partly because\nit was the object of its authors' most close and continuous thought, and\npartly because its results were immediately visible in the actions which\nit prescribed. It was the Halachah which gave rise to the common opinion\nthat Torah is the same as Law. It is the Halachah which has laid the\nPharisees open to so much misrepresentation and obloquy. And, if there\nwas one thing more than another that a Pharisee would extol as divine,\nit was the Halachah; because it was to him the express direction of God\nhow rightly to serve Him.\n\nEvidently the greatest care would be needed in the interpretation of the\nTorah, to draw from it the right conclusion. If the result--the\nHalachah--was to be accepted as the divine teaching, made explicit upon\nsuch and such a point, it could not be left to chance or caprice to\ndetermine the form in which it should be expressed. It was not open to\nany teacher to give his own interpretation upon some point and\nstraightway to say, \"This is the Halachah,\" _i.e._ this is the Torah\nmade explicit upon this subject. What was to be regarded as Halachah was\nonly determined after careful deliberation, guided by the recorded\nopinion of earlier teachers, where known, and also by recognised rules\nof interpretation. The end proposed in such discussion was either to\ndefine in minuter detail some general rule of conduct derived from the\nTorah, or else to connect some already existing usage with the Torah so\nas to show that it had divine sanction. The masters of Halachah were not\nengaged upon the construction _de novo_ of a system of ethics or a\nsystem of law. They were engaged in adjusting to the standard of Torah\nall the actions of life, so that in every one of them the divine will\nmight be carried out. And when it appeared that such and such was the\nreal meaning of Torah upon a given point, the Halachah ascertained by\nvalid methods, then they were not free to decide otherwise upon that\npoint. Which is only to say, what everyone must say, that he is not\nentitled to go against the authority which he personally regards as\nsupreme.\n\nThe Halachah covered part of the ground which is usually occupied in a\nnation's life by the civil and criminal law. And this is another reason\nfor the common identification of Torah with Law. Law there must be for\nthe regulations of social life, the performance of contracts, the\nprevention of crime, and the like. The Jews needed a civil and criminal\nlaw, as any civilised people needs it. And though in certain respects\nthey were subject to the Roman law, (at all events in the time of the\nPharisees and the Rabbis), yet they devised a system of their own,\nbecause they would have their law based on the Torah. The Roman\ngovernment they obeyed from compulsion; to the Torah they gave the full\nallegiance of heart and will. The Halachah accordingly is, to a large\nextent, a system of civil and criminal law based upon, or derived from,\nthe Torah, and resting for its sanction upon the divine revelation\ntherein contained. And if the Halachah, in dealing with such subjects as\nmust be dealt with in a code of civil and criminal law, goes into minute\ndetail, makes subtle distinctions, draws very fine lines between what is\nand what is not lawful, it only does what any adequate system of law is\nbound to do. And to say that the mass of detail and minute precept of\nthe Halachah was, or must have been, oppressive to the ordinary Jew, is\nas true, or untrue, as to say that the ordinary Englishman is oppressed\nby the mass of detail and minute precept in the body of statute and\ncommon law by which his actions as a citizen are regulated, and which he\nis presumed to know. In the one case, as in the other, certain lines are\ndefined by a recognised authority, for the regulation of action; but for\nany given person, it is seldom that he will be in a position to feel the\nconstraint, or expressly to seek the permission, of the greater number\nof the laws under which he lives. If he is in that position, then the\nEnglishman under the statute and common law, equally with the Pharisee\nunder the Halachah, acknowledges a rule of conduct having authority over\nhim, and not to be disobeyed with impunity. And the main difference is\nthat, to the Jew, the authority of the Halachah was the authority of the\nTorah, and the Torah was the revelation of God. So that, to the Jew, the\ncode of civil and criminal law was specifically sacred in a way that it\nis not to the Englishman.\n\nBut the Halachah, as the reader will wish to remind me, came very much\nmore closely home to the Jew than a code of civil and criminal law could\ndo. It was the rule of his private and domestic life, it defined his\nconduct both towards God and his fellow-man. Certainly it did. And the\nPharisee would say, \"Why not? Do I not need to serve God in everything I\ndo, however small? And if the Torah can teach me exactly--yes, very\nexactly--what is most pleasing to Him, shall I not thankfully receive\nthat teaching, and the more of it the better?\" On this theory, it can\neasily be seen that there is no real distinction of great and small,\nimportant and trivial, in the things that are done in accordance with\nHalachah, because, in each case, what was done was regarded as a doing\nof God's will. In themselves, and apart from that, actions were trivial\nor important, great or small, and the Pharisees knew perfectly well that\nthey were. But the Pharisee never regarded the mere doing of the action\nas sufficient; in all and every case there must be the purpose of\nserving God, the intention of pleasing Him. If he were assured that God\nhad directed such and such a thing to be done, in a given case, then he\nwould not say, \"This is a trivial thing,\" or \"This is a great thing\";\nbut, \"This is precisely what God would have me do at this moment and\nunder these circumstances,\" and he felt a joy in doing it as exactly as\nhe could. All this is widely different from what Christians are\naccustomed to, in determining their actions; but my object is to make\nclear the point of view of the Pharisees, and to show that on the lines\nof their theory they were perfectly justified in those precise\ndefinitions of conduct, even in matters which on other lines would be\nconsidered trifling. However small might be the details upon which the\nHalachah was defined, it was still Torah that enjoined the doing of the\naction in this way and not in that way, though, on the face of it, there\nmight seem to be no reason to do it in one way rather than another. And\nthe authority of Halachah was the will of God. It is easy to pick out\nfrom the Mishnah instances of minute regulation upon points of no\napparent importance--such, for instance, as the rules for dealing with\nan egg laid upon the Sabbath. If a Pharisee were challenged upon that,\nor any similar case, he would say: \"The Torah, the divine revelation,\nextends over the whole of life; and its principles, when drawn out and\napplied to that particular case, yield the results stated in the\nHalachah, bearing thereon. The divine will is taught me in regard to\nthat; and what concerns me is the doing of the divine will, and not the\nsmallness of the occasion in regard to which I do it.\"\n\nThe duties enjoined in the Halachah were called \"Mitzv\u014dth,\" _i.e._\ncommandments. And the essence of a \"mitzvah\" was that it was a thing\nwhich God willed to have done. It was an occasion of service, a means\noffered to man by which he could in a given instance please God.\nTherefore the Pharisee delighted in being able to perform a \"mitzvah\";\nand it never occurred to him that he was burdened by the weight or\noppressed by the number of them. \"The 'Mitzv\u014dth,'\" said a famous Rabbi,\n\"were only given in order to purify Israel. The things commanded made no\ndifference to God\" (Rab, in Ber. R. \u00a7 44, p. 89\u00aa). They were so many\nopportunities given, by the sheer kindness of God, for man to do his\nMaker's will. Why God should be pleased to direct that such things\nshould be done just in that way and in no other, it was not for man to\ninquire. All that he had to do was to take the opportunity, and serve\nGod in the manner which God enjoined. Merely to do the action, without\nthe conscious assent of his will and the devotion of his heart, was no\nfulfilment of his duty; for what God desired was the harmony of the\nhuman soul with Himself in willing obedience, and not that, for\ninstance, just 2000 cubits and no more should be the extent of a Sabbath\nday's walk.\n\nR. Jo\u1e25anan b. Zaccai, a contemporary of Jesus, was once asked what was\nthe reason for performing all the ritual of the sacrifices, and the\nother minuti\u00e6 of the ceremonial law. He answered: \"A corpse does not\ndefile, and waters do not cleanse. But it is a decree of the King of\nkings. The Holy One, blessed be He, hath said, 'I have ordained my\nstatute; I have decreed my decree. Man is not entitled to transgress my\ndecree.' As it is written (Num. xix. 2), 'This is the decree of the\nTorah'\" (Pesikta 40^b). That is a far-reaching saying, and gives the\nclue to the whole meaning of the Halachah, as the rule of right conduct\ndeduced from the Torah, and applied by the Pharisees.\n\nIt is obvious that a theory like that lends itself to abuse, because it\nmakes a severe demand for constant devotion on the part of the man who\nlives under it. Undoubtedly it could, and in some cases it did, lead to\nthat mere formalism and hypocrisy which have been charged upon the\nPharisees as a class. The Pharisees themselves were perfectly well aware\nof the danger, and that it was not always successfully averted. But most\ndistinctly, such formalism and hypocrisy were only the perversion of\nPharisaism and not inherent in it. And not only so, but for the\nPharisees as a class, on their own showing in the Talmud, the Halachah,\nwith its abundant \"Mitzv\u014dth,\" was felt to be a help and\nnot a hindrance to him who would walk with God, a joy and not a burden.\n\nThe Pharisees, as was explained in the previous chapter, were those in\ntheir time who interpreted most strictly the Torah which in some degree\nall Jews recognised. It was they who worked out the Halachah, as it was\nthey who carried out its principle into the minutest details of\npractice. On their theory of Torah, it was clearly their duty to be as\nprecise as they were in their food and their dress, in the \"tithing of\nmint, anise, and cumin,\" the wearing of their phylacteries just _so_ and\nnot otherwise, in their scrupulous regard to \"clean\" and \"unclean,\"\n\"lawful\" and \"forbidden,\" and the like. And it was only for the sake of\nbeing in a position to carry out more fully what they deemed to be the\nwill of God, in all these and many other matters, that they separated\nthemselves from those who were less careful, and formed themselves into\ngroups, societies, companionships, as they called them (\u1e24ab\u016br\u014dth). That\nseparation is indicated by the name applied to them, Pherushim\n(Pher\u016bshim), or Pharishaia in the common Aramaic speech. Their own name\nfor themselves and each other was \"\u1e24aberim,\" \"companions,\" as they were\n\"banded together for a full obedience\" to what God had enjoined in the\nTorah.\n\nIt is easy to make Pharisaism appear ridiculous, a mere extravagance of\npunctilious formalism. But that is only possible to those who look at it\nfrom a point of view which is not that of its devoted adherents, or who\njudge it by a standard which they never recognised. Pharisaism is\nentitled to be judged according to what the Pharisees themselves meant\nby it, and its worth to be estimated by what they found in it, without\ncomparison with other and widely different conceptions of the theory or\npractice of the service of God. I shall make no such comparisons, either\nnow or later. My whole object is to present Pharisaism as I believe it\nreally to have been to the Pharisees themselves, who, whatever else they\nwere, were in deadly earnest about it all, and gave even to that\nHalachah, which more than anything else has brought scorn and ridicule\nupon them, the patient labour of at least six centuries.\n\nI believe that, if the Pharisees had had nothing more than the Halachah,\nthey would still have made a religion out of it. I mean, if they had\ndeveloped from the Torah, which was to them the supreme revelation, only\nits Mitzv\u014dth, they would still have been able to find in it some\nsatisfaction for the spiritual wants of their souls. But they had much\nelse, as will be shown in more detail in subsequent chapters. It was\ntheir task, or rather their absorbing delight, to elaborate the\nHalachah, to make it an ever more perfect exposition of the divine will\nin regard to the conduct at least of Israel; as it was their joy, in\nthe obeying of those precepts, to \"walk humbly with their God,\" as they\ncertainly did. But it should be borne in mind that in addition to the\nHalachah, with its strenuous and salutary discipline of thought and\naction; there was the whole range of meditation upon divine\nthings--speculation, imagination, inquiry into the mysteries of nature\nand human experience, devout wonder at the ways of God and the marvels\nof His world, all, by the light which He had given in His Torah. For\ngreat as the Halachah was, and divine and holy, the Torah was greater,\nfor in it God had given all that He had to give. \"Greater,\" said a\nRabbi, \"is one single word of Torah, than all the 'Mitzv\u014dth' contained\nin it.\" And another: \"All the world is not equivalent to one single word\nof Torah\" (j. Peah. 15^d), meaning that the beholding of the perfect\nrevelation of God is more than the realisation in action of a part of\nit. Again, extravagance, it will be said. Yet only the extravagance of\nexalting in spoken word that which is owned as supreme in thought. The\nphrases may be to non-Jewish ears devoid of serious meaning; but in that\nway the Pharisees chose to express what in their hearts they owned as\nfully and perfectly divine, that Torah which to them was wisdom from\nGod, the revelation of all truth, goodness, power, and love. It was to\nthem the very expression of the mind and thought of God; and that is\nwhat they meant when they said that God looked upon the Torah when He\ncreated the world (Tanh. 2^b), or that He Himself studies the Torah\nevery day. It is His self-communing made known to man.\n\nAll this, which covers the whole field that is occupied in other\nreligions by doctrinal and speculative theology, was included in the\nTorah and formed part of the religion of those who owned it as supreme.\nAnd all this had its place in their thought along with the Halachah.\n\nAnd at the heart of those same Pharisees there was the piety which\nsought and found God in the worship of the Synagogue and the home,\nwhich looked to Him with love and humble trust, and knew Him to be not\nfar off but very near, no mere abstract power, no hard taskmaster, but\nthe Heavenly Father.\n\nThese things I believe to be true of the Pharisees; not of every\nindividual, just as one would not say of every Christian that the full\nglory of his religion was realised either _in_ him or _by_ him, but true\nas the full expression of what Pharisaism meant, and true in a larger\nmeasure as the experience of those who professed it.\n\nBeneath all that outward guise of unfamiliar phrase and uncongenial\nmethod, so far removed from all that to Christians seems the natural\nexpression of religion, there was nevertheless the communion of living\nsouls with the living God; and however different was the way in which\nthey felt called to walk, from that in which other men walk, in that way\nthey steadfastly continued; and, knowing in their hearts that God was\nwith them, they \"trusted in Him and were not ashamed.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nPHARISAISM AND JESUS\n\n\nIt is from the New Testament that the ordinary Christian reader gets his\nideas about the Pharisees. There is mention in the Gospels of frequent\nencounters between Jesus and the Pharisees; and the Epistles of Paul\ncontain much severe comment on the Pharisaic conception of religion. No\none, who desires to understand what the Pharisees themselves meant by\ntheir religion, can afford to pass by, without careful examination,\nthese records of unfavourable criticism; and he must enter upon such\nexamination not by any means with the preconceived intention of\nconfuting the critics or of agreeing with them, but simply for the\npurpose of getting to know why there was such criticism, and what truth\nlay on each side in the controversy. With this object, I shall devote\none chapter to the study of the opposition between the Pharisees and\nJesus, and another to that between Pharisaism and the teaching of Paul.\nIncidentally, it will be possible to find room for various points which\nbear upon what has been said in the foregoing chapters.\n\nIt will be admitted that to discuss the relation of the Pharisees to\nJesus is to tread upon delicate ground; for, whatever Jesus was, the\nplace which he holds in the thought and reverence of Christians is\nshared by no one else; and it is less easy to say the right thing when\nhe is regarded as a party in a controversy than when he is contemplated\nas in himself supremely great. It is less easy, because the controversy\nwas one in which sharp and bitter things were said on both sides; and to\nregret that they were said, and still more to suggest that they were\nsaid without sufficient warrant, is to cast inevitable reflections on\nthose who said them. It is easy to say that the Pharisees were\nwrong--that is only what is expected of them; it is another thing to say\nthat Jesus was wrong, that even he did less than justice to his\nopponents, and, in his intercourse with them, showed upon occasion\nqualities which were extremely human but not obviously divine. I yield\nto no one in my reverence for Jesus; he is, to me, simply the greatest\nman who ever lived, in regard to his spiritual nature. Some may think\nthat too little to say of him; others may think it too much. I do not\nstay to argue the point; I only wish to make clear, beyond any\nmisunderstanding, my own position. What I have to do at present is to\ndeal with the fact that between Jesus, being such as I have indicated,\nand the Pharisees, there was an opposition of thought and principle too\ngreat to be resolved into harmony; and I wish to study that opposition,\nso as to judge fairly--that is, without prejudice one way or the\nother--the real meaning of it. If, on the one side, the verdict is\nexpressed in the phrase, \"Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,\" on the\nother it is summed up in the assertion, to be found in the Talmud,\n\"Jesus practised magic and led astray and deceived Israel\" (b. Sanh.\n107^b). To say offhand that one of those assertions is true and the\nother false is merely to beg the question. It is more to the purpose to\nunderstand how it came about that they were said. That such a statement\nshould be made about Jesus is to Christians hard to endure. They feel it\nto be unjust and untrue. That such a statement should be made about the\nPharisees is to Jews hard to endure. They feel it to be unjust and\nuntrue. They are the weaker party, and they have the right to be heard.\n\nIn view of the sharp contrast expressed in the two sayings just referred\nto, it might seem that the Pharisees and Jesus had nothing in common.\nAnd indeed the final breach was inevitable and irreparable. Religion as\nthe Pharisee conceived it could not come to terms with religion as Jesus\nconceived it. As to that I will say more presently. But it is well to\nbear in mind, and even to emphasise, the fact that there was\nnevertheless a considerable amount of common ground between them, much\nmore than is usually supposed. With a great deal of what Jesus said\nabout God, and about man's relation to Him, no Pharisee would feel\ndisposed to quarrel, or, so far as the evidence goes, ever did quarrel.\nThe discussions in the Gospels did not turn, for instance, on the\nquestion whether Jesus should or should not have referred to God as the\nFather in Heaven, or whether forgiveness was God's sure answer to\nrepentance. No Pharisee ever challenged him on either point, or on many\nanother of the directly religious and ethical sayings which he uttered.\nA Pharisee could not so have challenged him without disowning his own\nreligion. Modern Jewish historians not unnaturally lay much stress upon\nthe similarity between the teaching of Jesus and that of the Rabbis, at\nall events the best of them; and that similarity cannot be denied,\nwhatever may be the explanation of it. Moreover, it is not merely a\nsimilarity of phrase, though no doubt in some cases it is nothing more.\nThat proverbial sayings should be used alike by Jesus and the Rabbis is\nnot wonderful. Such were, for instance: \"It is enough for a disciple to\nbe as his master\" (b. Ber. 58^b); \"With what measure ye mete, it shall\nbe measured to you again\" (Sot. i. 7); \"Sufficient unto the day is the\nevil thereof\" (b. Ber. 9^b); \"Physician, heal thyself\" (Ber. R. xxiii.\n4), which Jesus himself mentions as a familiar proverb (Luke iv. 23).\n\nThese were part of the common stock of daily speech, and are no evidence\neither for or against a similarity between the ideas of Jesus and those\nof the Pharisees. But when Jesus said, \"Repent, for the Kingdom of\nHeaven is at hand,\" he was referring to what was already familiar to his\nhearers, and had been, long before John the Baptist had begun to deliver\nhis message. And when the Sermon on the Mount was first spoken, it was\nnot all strange and new to the hearers. The general character of the\nsayings there grouped together is thoroughly Jewish; so much so that one\ncould hardly imagine a Greek saying them. There are differences,\ncertainly, between the sayings contained in the Sermon on the Mount and\nthe Rabbinical parallels to them; and for some of them no Rabbinical\nparallels can be found. But, take it altogether, the Sermon on the Mount\nwould seem to a Pharisee to be very like what he believed already. Even\nthe Lord's Prayer would not be wholly new. Certainly some of its phrases\ncan be paralleled in the Rabbinical literature; though no less certainly\nthere are others which cannot. For the prayer as a whole, there is no\nparallel in Jewish sources--a very significant fact. But \"Our Father\nwhich art in Heaven\" is Jewish; so also, \"Hallowed be Thy name. Thy\nKingdom come\"; \"Give us this day our daily bread\"; \"Forgive us our\ndebts\"; \"Deliver us from the evil.\" I am not sure about \"Lead us not\ninto temptation.\" And if \"Thy will be done\" means the same in the\nLord's Prayer as it meant when uttered in Gethsemane, there is no\nparallel to it in Jewish sources.\n\nThis carries us into the very heart of the religion of Jesus. And in\nregard to these fundamental beliefs there was no disagreement between\nhim and the Pharisees. I am perfectly well aware that the Rabbinical\nparallels, even those most complete, are found in literature which is\nlater than Jesus, and I shall rightly be challenged to show on what\nground I hold that these later Jewish dicta represent the beliefs of the\nPharisees in the time of Jesus. I do not agree with Jewish scholars who\nsay that Jesus borrowed them all from the Rabbis of his time. A man of\nsuch independent thought as Jesus certainly was, would hardly need to go\nin search of such ideas, as not having them already himself. It is\ninconceivable that Jesus should never have thought of calling God \"Our\nFather in Heaven\" until Hillel or Shammai had instructed him to do so.\nThe point scarcely needs to be laboured. I put on one side altogether\nthe theory that Jesus was indebted to the Rabbis of his time for the\nbeliefs, and the verbal forms of them, which he shared with the\nPharisees.\n\nBut with no less decision must the theory be rejected according to which\nthese various beliefs and phrases were borrowed from Jesus. If they had\nbeen, _i.e._ if Pharisees who heard Jesus say these things had adopted\nthem as their own, and even to some extent made them current in their\nown religious teaching, it is perfectly certain they would never have\nbeen allowed into the Talmud. Suppose, for instance (which is what a\ngreat many people suppose), that Jesus had been the first to use the\nphrase, \"Our Father which art in Heaven,\" so that to Jewish ears that\nhad been entirely unknown until he used it. In that case, the origin of\nthe term would have been perfectly well remembered; and the feeling\nagainst Jesus in Pharisaic circles was far too strong to allow, for a\nmoment, the use of a phrase known to have been coined by \"the Sinner of\nIsrael.\" The earliest occurrence of the term in the Mishnah, so far as I\nknow, is at the end of chapter ix. of the treatise Sotah; and there the\nperson who uses it is R. Eliezer b. Horkenos. This particular Rabbi is\nvery well known. He lived at the end of the first century of our era. He\ngot into trouble on one occasion; and the reason of his trouble,\naccording to his own admission, was that he had unwittingly praised\nsomething that was told him, and which he afterwards learned was a\nsaying of Jesus. He was filled with horror at the thought that he could\never have approved anything which had emanated from that teacher. Now R.\nEliezer himself was probably too young to have seen and heard Jesus; but\nhis old master, R. Jo\u1e25anan b. Zaccai, was a contemporary, and must have\nwitnessed the tragedy in Jerusalem. If Jesus had invented the term, \"Our\nFather in Heaven,\" that fact would be well within the knowledge of R.\nEliezer, and he would have cut off his right hand sooner than have used\nthe phrase. Instead of that, he used it with devout intention: \"Who is\nthere on whom to lean, except our Father who is in Heaven?\" It was a\nphrase which expressed the ground of trust in God. And neither to\nhimself nor to anyone else did it occur that he was using a phrase\neither recent or suspicious in its origin.[4]\n\n     [4] To this may be added the fact that certain phrases, apparently\n     harmless, were forbidden to be used in the Synagogue, because they\n     were in some way heretical (M. Meg. iv. 9). Christianity is not\n     directly mentioned, but there is good reason to suppose that\n     Christianity is intended.\n\nAll this goes to show that there cannot have been any borrowing from\nJesus on the part of those who recorded in the Talmud sayings similar to\nhis, or who used phrases implying similar beliefs. It is just\nconceivable that slight and unimportant sayings of his might have been\npicked up and made current amongst the Rabbis. But that phrases so\nimportant and so numerous as those which are offered as parallels to the\nteaching of Jesus, should have been borrowed from him, is, to anyone\nwho knows the Talmud at all, a sheer impossibility.\n\nThere remains, accordingly, this alternative, that such phrases\nrepresent what was familiar to and accepted by both Jesus and the\nPharisees, as ground truths about which there was no dispute. Jesus did\nnot explain, as he had no need to explain to his hearers, why he called\nGod the Father in Heaven. He took it for granted that they knew whom he\nreferred to and what he meant. And no Scribe ever asked him to explain\nhis meaning. It is clear that, wherever it came from, the term \"Father\nin Heaven,\" as applied to God, was not new in the time of Jesus. It was\npart of the common stock of religious ideas, a natural element in the\nJewish religion of that time. When and how it first came into use I do\nnot know. It is not found, in so many words, in the Old Testament or the\nApocrypha, though there is a broad hint of it in Isa. lxiii. 16, \"Surely\nThou art our Father, etc.\" If it be (and who will deny that it is?) one\nof the great watchwords of spiritual religion, then observe that it can\nonly have come into use in the time between the Maccabees and Jesus; and\nno other source for it can be deemed so probable as the Synagogue, the\nhome of the religion of Torah.\n\nAnd much the same argument applies to the rest of what can be shown to\nbe similar in the religious ideas of Jesus and those of the Rabbis. They\ncannot have been borrowed from Jesus. They were known in his time\nbecause he gave utterance to them, and was not challenged for doing so.\nThey were known and devoutly believed by the Talmudic Pharisees; there\nis no indication of their being a novelty. They must therefore represent\nsubstantially what was held and believed by the Pharisees in and before\nthe time of Jesus.\n\nIt may, of course, be argued that Jesus put a deeper meaning into the\ncommon terms than the Pharisees did. But this is extremely difficult to\nprove; and merely to say that he did is to beg the question. Who would\nventure to say that all Christians put precisely the same meaning upon\nthe common terms which they employ, or that a given term will not mean\nto a deeply spiritual Christian much more than it would to a shallow and\nfrivolous one?\n\nI do not contend that all the Pharisees, or any of them, were the equals\nof Jesus in spiritual depth, just as I would not contend that all\nChristians, or any of them, were his equals in that respect. But there\nis certainly no warrant for saying that all Pharisees understood the\ncommon phrases of their religion in a low and narrow sense, as compared\nwith the sense in which Jesus understood them. To say that \"Our Father\nin Heaven\" meant for the Pharisee only that God had chosen Israel to be\nHis own people, and that the name Father \"did not in the Jewish theology\nlead to a deeper insight into the nature of God as Love,\" is one of the\nflagrant misrepresentations with which Weber's book abounds (Weber, p.\n150). There may have been Pharisees to whom the phrase meant nothing\nmore; there certainly were Pharisees to whom it meant that God was near\nto each one of His children, in love and mercy and personal care. That\nthe Pharisee thought of God only, or even mainly, as distant and\ninaccessible, or as a taskmaster whose service was hard, is a baseless\nfiction. Even, then, allowing that Jesus, by the depth and power of his\nown spiritual nature, did read into the common terms of Jewish religion\na fuller meaning than had been previously found there, he nevertheless\nused those terms because they served to carry that meaning, as they\nstood and without alteration.\n\nWe have, then, reached this position, that both Jesus and the Pharisees\nshared in common a Judaism expressed in the terms of a spiritual Theism,\ndeveloped in the Synagogue and the home, and learned there alike by the\nPharisees and by Jesus. It was certainly not the creation of the\nScribes, _qu\u00e2_ Scribes, so that Jesus, or anyone else, would need to\nhave sat at the feet of some Gamaliel in order to learn it. It was the\nspiritual inheritance of the Jew, into which he entered by natural\npiety, and from which neither the simple and unlearned nor the Scribe\nversed in the subtleties of the Halachah was excluded. I shall have more\nto say about this in the concluding chapter.\n\nSuch, then, was the common ground which Jesus shared with the Pharisees.\nWe have now to study the opposition between them, which finally drove\nthem apart in irreconcilable antagonism. The true nature of that\nopposition, the cause and ground of it, did not appear at the outset.\nIndeed, it may be questioned whether either the Pharisees or even Jesus\nhimself ever fully and consciously realised the inner meaning of it.\nThat the Pharisees knew why they distrusted, feared, and finally helped\nto destroy Jesus, is true enough. And Jesus expressed, in the plainest\nterms, the ground on which he denounced the Pharisees. But whether on\neither side the real significance of the struggle was clearly seen, is\nto my mind doubtful. Jesus may have seen it. I do not think the\nPharisees did, or ever have done, from that day to this. To bring out\nthat meaning, or what seems to me to be that meaning, will be the point\nto which I shall lead up in the remainder of this chapter; and with that\nin view I shall survey the main incidents of the controversy as they are\nrecorded in the Gospels.\n\nThe appearance of Jesus as the successor of John the Baptist, taking up\nhis message and proclaiming it with a force of his own, was enough to\ndraw immediate attention to Jesus, and to incline men to give him a\nfavourable hearing. This is to put the matter from the point of view of\nthe people in general, and the Pharisees in particular, who were in\npossession of a settled religion, and to whom Jesus was an unknown man\nwho had to make his name. That he preached repentance, and proclaimed\nthe near advent of the Kingdom of Heaven, would be only a reason for\nlistening to him. No Pharisee, nor any other Jew, with the national\nhistory behind him, would question for a moment that God might at any\ntime raise up some messenger to proclaim His will. What else had the\nprophets been, in the old days? And had not John the Baptist been much\nlike one of them? That John, and after him Jesus, had called his hearers\nto repent, was no reason whatever for resenting his boldness, or for\ndenying his right to speak. It was the natural thing for a prophet to\ndo; as, in much later times, it is natural for a revivalist to convict\nhis hearers of sin, and lead them to the mercy seat. They do not resent\nbeing called sinners, and are only grateful for the glad tidings of the\nmercy which saves them. So with the Pharisees; there would be no\ndisposition on their part to find fault with Jesus for coming forward as\na preacher of repentance, let alone a herald of the Kingdom.\n\nThe point at which distrust of, and uneasiness about, Jesus first\nentered the minds of the Pharisees, is probably indicated by the saying\nthat \"he taught as one having authority, and not as their Scribes\"\n(Matt. vii. 29).\n\nTo the conservatism which is commonly found in the adherents of a\nreligion long established and settled in its ways, there was added in\nthe case of the Pharisees a special veneration for the principle of\ntraditional authority. If at first they merely noticed that Jesus was\nvery independent, and wanting in the deference which was due to the\nsages and elders of his people, they could not fail before long to\ndiscover that this was something more than unconventional freedom of\nspeech and manner. If he had kept to his preaching of repentance, and\nthe announcement of the Kingdom of Heaven, that might pass; but he spoke\nof other things besides repentance, and put forward views of his own as\nto what the Kingdom implied. It would seem that he was assuming the\nposition of a teacher of religion in general, since he touched upon\nsubjects which were not specially connected with his mission. To the\nPharisees he appeared as a sort of unregistered practitioner, if the\ncomparison may be allowed. Much of what he said they could not but agree\nwith; but how came he to say it? Some things they did not agree with,\nand what right had he to set up his own opinion against the teaching\ncommonly received and held? So they began to ask, \"Whence hath this man\nthis wisdom?\" and \"by what authority doest thou these things?\"[5]\n\n     [5] I only quote these questions as being what must have been asked\n     at a very early stage of the public career of Jesus: I offer no\n     opinion as to the chronology of the incidents in the Gospels in\n     connection with which those questions are introduced.\n\nChristians are accustomed, and rightly, to regard it as one of the marks\nof the greatness of Jesus that he did speak out of his own mind and\nheart, as having his authority within himself. But I am trying to put\nthe case as it presented itself to the Pharisees, looking at it from\ntheir own very different point of view. There was not amongst them any\noffice exactly corresponding to the position of a clergyman or a\nminister. They were all laymen; and if the priests had special\nfunctions, that was only in connection with the ritual of the Temple,\nand not with the giving of religious instruction. After the Temple was\ndestroyed, the priest was only distinguished from the rest by certain\nprivileges of precedence, and certain disabilities: he had no\nministerial function as leader of a congregation. Neither in the time of\nJesus nor after it were the Pharisees a priest-ridden community.\n\nOf far greater importance than the priest was the Scribe: but the Scribe\nwas only a layman. He was not consecrated to a sacred office, and to\nthat extent set apart from the rest of his fellow-men: he was indeed\nchosen and appointed by those who were competent to do so, but, in\nregard to what he might or might not do, he was in just the same\nposition as any Pharisee who was not a Scribe. What distinguished him\nfrom the rest of his brethren was that he made it his special business\nto study the Torah, both written and unwritten, and to qualify himself\nto be a teacher of it. His proficiency was recognised and vouched for,\nby those who were already accepted religious teachers, by some form of\nordination. To become a Scribe was not so much to take orders as to take\na degree, though that is not an exact parallel.\n\nI have explained in the preceding chapter the way in which the Torah was\nregarded as the embodiment of the full and final revelation which God\nhad made to Israel. It was the source of all knowledge, the supreme\nauthority, the regulator of all action. It included within its range the\nwhole duty of man, his entire relation to God and to his fellow-men. The\nwritten Torah was contained in the Pentateuch. The other canonical books\nof the Old Testament were to be read in the light afforded by the Torah,\nand to be valued for the help they gave in illustrating its meaning,\nmaking clear what had been left obscure in the Pentateuch. That there\ncould be any contradiction between the secondary scriptures and the\nPentateuch was in theory impossible. And when in the case of certain\nbooks, namely, Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs,\ncontradictions were alleged, the alternatives were to explain away the\ncontradiction or to reject the books from the canon. The books were\nretained, by an exercise of dialectic subtlety which is graphically\nindicated in the statement that a certain Rabbi burnt the \"midnight oil\"\nto the extent of three hundred barrels, in his studies to reconcile the\nbook of Ezekiel with the standard of the Torah (b. Shabb. 13^b).\n\nThe unwritten Torah was the explication of what was implicit in the\nwritten Torah, the unfolding into fuller detail or greater clearness of\nwhat was barely suggested in the Scripture. Evidently, therefore, to\nknow what was contained in the Torah, _i.e._ what God had revealed, it\nwas needful to know the unwritten as well as the written Torah, the\nformer even more perhaps than the latter. And this could only be done\nby learning and remembering what had already been taught and accepted as\na valid interpretation by previous teachers. A Tradition of the Elders\nwas a necessary result of a religion of Torah. If a Pharisee were\noffered some religious teaching or were invited to do some action as a\nreligious duty, he would ask (supposing it was new to him), \"Is this\nTorah?\" And he would not be satisfied until he had been shown that it\nwas. The proof would be, either that it had already been taught by such\nand such a recognised teacher, or that the instructor, _being himself a\nrecognised teacher_, assured him that it was so. This was the constant,\nand even necessary, form in which instruction was given in the meaning\nof Torah. And it should be carefully observed (a point which is not\nusually understood) that this method of Tradition by no means excluded\nindividual initiative or progressive development of thought on the part\nof those who handed on the Tradition. There was no finality in the\nTorah; the diligent and devout student of it was always discovering\nsomething new, and if he could show (as he usually could show) that his\nnew truth was in the Torah, that was an addition to its known meaning,\nwhile yet the Torah remained unaltered in the infinite richness and\nfulness of its contents, the perfect and divine revelation. I have shown\nthat progressive development was most marked along the line of the\nHalachah. But there was even more of free speculation, individual\ninitiative of research into spiritual things, though there was less of\nmethodical advance, along the line of the Haggadah, as will be explained\nmore at length in the fifth chapter. But there also the method, or\nrather the form, of Tradition was the one mainly used, presumably as\nbeing that which gave greatest security for the validity of the results\nobtained. The Pharisees in the time of Jesus, no less than the Rabbis of\nthe Talmud, were well able to think for themselves, and in fact did so,\nupon religious as upon other questions. And the reason why they\nuniformly employed the method of Tradition was not that they were\nhidebound slaves of custom, but that their religion was the religion of\nTorah. As the Torah was not a burden, so the Tradition of the Elders was\nnot a constraint. Christians may, and usually do, think that the burden\nand the restraint must have been felt. But that is only because the\nreligion of Christians is not a religion of Torah; and one who is\naccustomed to the conditions and conceptions of the former, is not\nlikely to appreciate, and seldom tries to understand, the conditions and\nconceptions of the latter. Equally, of course, one who has grown up in\nthe habit of thought congenial to the religion of Torah does not easily\nappreciate and may seriously misunderstand the manifestations of\nreligion, in thought and speech, where the Torah is not the controlling\nelement.\n\nWhen, therefore, the Pharisees became aware that Jesus was one who\n\"taught as having authority, and not as their Scribes,\" they were\nconfronted with a fact which they were not in a position to understand,\nto the meaning of which they had no clue, and which could only appear to\nthem as a contradiction of their own principles. It would be extremely\nperplexing to them to know what to make of Jesus, and how to deal with\nhim. What he said seemed to be good; but was it Torah? It might be; but\nhow could they know that? Some of it, of course, they were familiar\nwith--the common terms of the spiritual Judaism to which reference has\nalready been made. But some things were new. Their own accepted\nteachers, the Scribes, had not taught these things, i.e. had not\ndeclared them to be Torah. Jesus was not a Scribe. He did not say, \"This\nis Torah because I have learned it from so-and-so.\" And, not being a\nScribe, he was not competent to declare it as from himself. How could\nthey receive his teaching, without being unfaithful to what they already\nbelieved? And if they were unfaithful to that? It should be constantly\nremembered that the religion of Torah meant to the Pharisee the whole\nof religion, all that was possible of communion with God, and not merely\nof obedience to precept. Within its characteristic form there was room\nfor all of that spiritual Theism which, as has been shown, the Pharisees\nhad in common with Jesus. If he did not hold that spiritual Theism under\nthe form of Torah, they did; and it was in its essence much the same for\nboth. They did not know that the form of Torah, with its corollary of\nTradition, was not necessary to the retention of the religion which\nbrought them close to God in love and obedience, in joy and trust. And\nit seemed to them that they risked the loss of all that, if they\ntampered with the conception of Torah, or listened to one, however\npersuasive and however eloquent, who taught \"not as their Scribes.\" If\nthis was the point of view from which the Pharisees regarded Jesus, when\nthey began to make closer acquaintance with him, then it is easy to\nunderstand how their feeling towards him would be something much deeper\nthan mere petty jealousy or the prejudice of stupid bigotry. No doubt\nthere was some of that. Inability to understand can express itself in\nways which are mean and contemptible, as is seen in religious polemic in\nevery age. The Pharisees had no monopoly of ignorant spite. But what I\ncontend is that the attitude of the Pharisees towards Jesus will bear a\nmuch higher interpretation than mere arrogant jealousy against an\nunauthorised intruder. It was a repugnance towards teaching which they\ncould by no means bring within the frame of their religion, and they\ncould not imagine any other frame for it; it was a shrinking fear of a\nteacher who, with holy and good words and deeds, seemed yet to be\nleading them away from the only ideal they could recognise. And leading\nnot only them but also the people, who were less able to guard against\nthe danger, and who, as they observed, \"heard him gladly,\" and even\n\"hung on his words listening.\" A religion so deeply wrought into the\nsouls of the best part of the nation as the religion of Torah had been\nsince the days of Ezra, so strongly held, so passionately loved, so\nmarked in the individuality of its features, could not enable those who\nclung to it to unlearn the ways of their fathers, and to adapt its\ncontents to a new and unfamiliar form. The religion of Torah, for all\nthat it had much in common with the religion of Jesus, could never pass\nover into the form which he gave to his religion. And although\nChristians may say it was \"blindness\" on the part of the Pharisees, they\nare not justified in saying that it was also \"hardness of heart,\" which\nmade them shrink from Jesus.\n\nThe occasions upon which they came into conflict with him were probably\nnumerous; but the following may fairly be taken as representative of the\nrest:--Healing on the Sabbath; the question of divorce; the argument\nabout Corban. Along with the first may be included the defence of his\ndisciples for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath. And as a\nsupplement to all may be taken the long invective against the Pharisees\nin Matt. xxiii. Whether this list follows the chronological order I do\nnot know, and for the purpose in hand it does not matter. The difference\nin principle is not affected by questions of date.\n\nIt will be noticed that I have not included the question of the\nMessiahship of Jesus. Of course the Pharisees, like everybody else in\nIsrael at that time, speculated whether Jesus was \"he that should come,\"\nor whether they were to \"look for another.\" But they did not directly\nchallenge him on that point, as they challenged him on the points I have\nalready named. Their challenge about the Messiahship was indirect. Their\nposition would be that a man who set himself against the Torah could not\nbe the Messiah. Conceivably the Messiah might in some respects supersede\nthe Torah, but he could never oppose it. And when Jesus was driven to\ndeclare that in certain points the Torah did not represent divine truth,\nit was from that moment impossible that the Pharisees should recognise\nhim as the Messiah, and inevitable that they should regard him as a\ndangerous heretic. This may explain why the Pharisees did not ask him,\nin so many words, whether he was the Messiah or not, and also did not\noffer objections to any supposed claim to that position made by him or\non his behalf. The question was only put to him directly by the High\nPriest at the trial, and therefore not by the Pharisees at all. And it\nis scarcely likely to have been put then as a challenge to argument; it\nwas much more an attempt to get evidence on which to convict him out of\nhis own mouth. Jesus was condemned and executed on a more or less\npolitical charge, for which the question of Messiahship provided a\nuseful basis; but he was really rejected, so far at all events as the\nPharisees were concerned, because he undermined the authority of the\nTorah, and endangered the religion founded upon it.\n\nThat Jesus really did so is beyond dispute. His final position was one\nwhich could not be reconciled with recognition of Torah as the Pharisees\nregarded it. But it may well have been, and I think it was, the case\nthat he was only gradually driven to this position, and that when he\nbegan his ministry he was not conscious of any discrepancy between what\nhe was teaching and what the Torah implied. That is presumably what he\nmeant when he said: \"Think not that I came to destroy the Torah and the\nprophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfil\" (Matt. v. 17). His\nquarrel, at that time, was not with the Torah itself, but with the\nScribes and Pharisees, as being unsatisfactory exponents of it. \"For I\nsay unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the\nrighteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter\nthe Kingdom of Heaven\" (Matt. v. 17, 20).\n\nThere is here no opposition between the conception of Torah and that of\nlife under the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus also regarded the Torah, at this\ntime at all events, as being the supreme and final revelation that God\nhad given to Israel. To fulfil it was not merely to obey its precepts\nbut to make one's whole life, in thought, word, and deed, respond to\nthat divine influence. And Jesus maintained that the Pharisees did not\ngo the right way to attain that end. He himself came to fulfil the\nTorah, by making that complete response to its influence, and by showing\nhow it could and ought to be made. Any notion of getting rid of it after\nhaving once and for all satisfied its claims, belongs to a circle of\nideas of which it is safe to say that Jesus never dreamed.\n\nBut yet, if the explanation here offered be correct, it is evident that\nwhat he still supposed to be Torah, and the religion of Torah, was not\nso in fact. He had grown up with the conception of Torah, like any other\ndevout Jew; and he did not at once become aware that what he conceived\nreligion to be was something that could not be expressed in terms of\nTorah. The Pharisees perceived the discrepancy sooner than he did; and\nwhile he found another form for his religion, they adhered to the old\nform because that was what they knew, and they could not comprehend\nanything different. To them, what he was doing was not reconstruction or\namplification or exaltation of the old religion, but destruction of it.\nAnd, so far as the conception of Torah was concerned, they were quite\nright. Torah and Jesus could not remain in harmony. The two were\nfundamentally incompatible. And the Pharisees, being determined to\n\"abide in the things they had learned,\" viz. Torah, were necessarily\nturned into opponents of Jesus.\n\nThis cleavage showed itself only gradually; and what forced it on the\nconsciousness, first of the Pharisees and then of Jesus himself, was\nshown in the several occasions of dispute, where appeal had to be made\nto first principles.\n\nI take first the case of the cure of a sick man on the Sabbath, as it is\nrecorded in Mark iii. 1-6: \"And he entered again into the synagogue; and\nthere was a man there which had his hand withered. And they watched\nhim, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might\naccuse him. And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand\nforth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do\ngood, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their\npeace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being\ngrieved at the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch\nforth thine hand. And he stretched it forth, and his hand was restored.\nAnd the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took\ncounsel against him, how they might destroy him.\" It is evident that the\nnarrator of that story did not love the Pharisees, and it would not be\nunreasonable to take a heavy discount off it on the ground of prejudice.\nBut we may leave all that out of account. Jesus challenged the Pharisees\nto say whether, according to the Torah, he might or might not cure the\nman on the Sabbath. If he got no answer, it was certainly not because\nthey had no answer to give. They would say, \"Why do on the Sabbath what\ncould be done on another day, if the doing of it would break the\nSabbath? The Torah says that the Sabbath is to be kept holy; and this is\ndone by refraining from certain kinds of action, in themselves perfectly\nright and proper. We believe that the right way of fulfilling the\nTorah--doing the will of God--is to do so-and-so. And we believe that in\norder to save life, when it is in danger, it is the will of God that we\nshould break the Sabbath, in any way that may be necessary. But that we\nshould not break it for any less urgent cause. Here is this man with a\nwithered hand. He is in no immediate danger. Certainly it is a good\nthing to cure him. But why not have cured him before? And if his cure\nshould stand over for a day, is that so great a harm to one who has been\nsome time in that condition that the Sabbath must be made to give way to\nit?\" That is the sort of answer that the Pharisees would make. Of\ncourse, the rejoinder is ready to hand, that to do good is right on any\nday, Sabbath or no Sabbath. But that is not the point. The challenge of\nJesus was, \"Is it _lawful_?\" _i.e._ \"Is it in accordance with Torah?\"\nAnd the Pharisees were perfectly justified in holding that it was not in\naccordance with Torah. If Jesus interpreted Torah in a different sense,\nthat was his affair; and they would not be the more disposed to agree\nwith him if it be true that he \"looked round about on them in anger.\"\nHis action was in effect an attack on Torah, whatever his intention\nmight be.[6]\n\n     [6] The action of Jesus in casting out devils was not in itself a\n     ground of controversy with the Pharisees, since they did the same;\n     and moreover neither side questioned the genuineness of the\n     exorcisms of the other. But it appears from Mark iii. 22-30 that\n     the Pharisees alleged that Jesus performed his cures by the help of\n     Beelzebub the prince of the devils; and Jesus denounced them as\n     guilty of the sin against the Holy Spirit, for their malicious\n     slander in ascribing to diabolic agency what was due to power from\n     God. Then follows the famous declaration: \"Whosoever shall\n     blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is\n     guilty of an eternal sin\" (Mark iii. 29). This is the foundation\n     for the doctrine of the unpardonable sin, in Christian theology. It\n     rests entirely on a misunderstanding of the phrase, \"hath never\n     forgiveness,\" a misunderstanding already apparent in Matt. xii. 32,\n     where it is said that such a one \"shall not be forgiven either in\n     this world or in that which is to come.\" The phrase in Mark, \"hath\n     never forgiveness,\" is the key to the real meaning of the saying of\n     Jesus. The Christian reader, finding the phrase only in this one\n     passage, naturally supposes that it is very exceptional and carries\n     some tremendous meaning. But, in fact, it is a Jewish idiom\n     applicable in ordinary circumstances. In the Talmud, j. B. Kama\n     6^c, is a passage dealing with injuries and affronts from one man\n     to another. A Rabbi suggests a method of reconciliation; upon which\n     another Rabbi comments: \"This will do where it is not a case of\n     slander; but if he has put forth a bad name against his fellow-man,\n     _he hath not forgiveness for ever_.\" There is here no question of a\n     sin which God will not pardon, but of an affront which man will\n     not, or does not, pardon. It is only a way of saying that slander\n     is one of the hardest of all offences to forgive. The Rabbi who\n     said this never dreamed of an unpardonable sin as Christians have\n     imagined it. The unvarying doctrine in Pharisaic theology on the\n     subject of forgiveness is that God always forgives those who repent\n     when they repent (see on forgiveness in Chapter IV.). The term\n     rendered \"for ever\" is used in the Talmud in connections which\n     preclude all idea of theological meaning. Thus, j. M. Kat. 83^d, of\n     the rent garments of the mourner, \"They do not sew the pieces\n     together _for ever_.\" The declaration of Jesus accordingly is not\n     the intimation that there is a sin which God will never forgive,\n     but the denunciation of malicious slander by a justly indignant\n     man. The phrase, \"is guilty of an eternal sin,\" is only an\n     expansion of \"hath never forgiveness.\" It is worth noting in this\n     connection that the references to Jesus in the Talmud do not\n     include a charge that he was possessed by a devil or made use of\n     the help of the prince of the devils. See my _Christianity in\n     Talmud and Midrash_, where all the Rabbinical passages relating to\n     Jesus are collected and commented on.\n\nThe question of Sabbath-breaking was raised in another form in the\nincident described in Mark ii. 23-28, and elsewhere. This is chiefly of\nimportance because it is made the occasion for the declaration that \"the\nSabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.\" The action of the\ndisciples in plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath was challenged by\nthe Pharisees. Jesus defended it by an appeal to Scripture, the\nrelevancy of which is not obvious, and by the declaration just quoted,\nwhich is only a valid defence if it means that the Sabbath can be put\naside by man for his own convenience, however slight the occasion. The\nPharisees would certainly agree to the declaration about the Sabbath (it\nis found, b. Joma 85^b), but they would not admit the interpretation\nwhich Jesus put upon it. They would say that the Sabbath was a divine\ninstitution, intended for the benefit of man; and that, while for grave\nreason it might be sometimes right to break the Sabbath, yet that was\nnot left to the caprice of anyone who chose to break it. If that was\nallowed, the blessing of the Sabbath would be gone and the divine\nintention frustrated. From the point of view of Torah, no other answer\nwas possible. And Jesus, in his treatment of the Sabbath, by dispensing\nwith the obligation of the hitherto customary observance of it, was\ndisclosing the fact that he did not now look at the matter from the\npoint of view of Torah.\n\nHow far he was conscious of this divergence, or rather, when he became\naware of it, can hardly be determined. But in the controversy with\nregard to divorce the divergence became unmistakable. The controversy\nwas strictly not about divorce in itself, but about the attitude of the\nTorah towards divorce. Jesus condemned divorce (Mark x. 2 fol.). Whether\nhe allowed the one exception or not, his general condemnation of the\npractice is not open to question. But the Pharisees also condemned\ndivorce. They could not abolish it, but they sought to restrict what had\nbeen the immemorial freedom of the husband to put away his wife at his\npleasure. It is often urged against Hillel and Akiba that they allowed\ndivorce for frivolous reasons, and Shammai is praised because he would\nnot allow divorce except for unfaithfulness. Neither the blame nor the\npraise is justified or even called for. The only difference between\nHillel and Shammai on the subject was whether the Torah allowed divorce\nfor trivial reasons, or restricted it to the one grave reason. It was a\nquestion of interpretation of the authority recognised alike by Hillel\nand Shammai. It was not a question of the private opinion of either of\nthem upon the ethical character of divorce. If Hillel and Akiba had seen\ntheir way to interpret the Torah in accordance with their own ethical\njudgment, they would certainly have done so. And, in fact, the Talmudic\ntreatment of the subject is in the direction of making divorce\ndifficult, and of giving protection, where possible, to the wife against\nthe caprice of the husband. But in face of the fact that the Torah, the\nwritten Torah, expressly allowed divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1), not even\nHillel and Akiba could establish the contrary view.\n\nSo far as the condemnation of divorce on its own account was concerned,\nthe Pharisees would be in agreement with Jesus, though probably not to\nthe extent of admitting no exception, supposing that Jesus himself went\nso far. The point of controversy was in regard to the Torah as bearing\non the subject. This is clear, because Jesus himself appealed to the\nTorah. He asked the Pharisees, \"What did Moses command you?\" And it\nappears that what he was thinking of was the passage, Gen. i. 27, \"Male\nand female created he them.\" But the Pharisees quoted against him the\nexpress command, Deut. xxiv. 1, \"Let him write a bill of divorce, etc.\"\nSo that here there was Torah against Torah. The Pharisees would say, \"We\nagree with you that divorce ought, so far as possible, to be restricted\nand avoided; but, nevertheless, we cannot condemn it outright, because\nthe Torah, which is God's own teaching, expressly allows and even\nenjoins it. But you, who do condemn it outright, how do you reconcile\nthat with Torah?\" Jesus answered that the permission to divorce was a\nconcession made to human imperfection, and that the real intention of\nGod was expressed in the passage in Gen. i. 27. But that answer implied\nnecessarily that the written Torah was, in this one case at all events,\nnot divine and perfect, since it contradicted itself. And such an answer\nwas fatal to a recognition of the supremacy of Torah, as the Pharisees\nunderstood it. To them, the fact that Jesus had, in this one instance,\ndefinitely repudiated the divine authority of Torah, would outweigh the\nfact that upon the subject of divorce itself they were to a large extent\nin agreement with him. The result of the controversy would be a deepened\nimpression, alike on the Pharisees and on Jesus, that his standpoint was\nnot that of Torah, and that his ground principle was irreconcilable with\ntheirs.\n\nAnother phase of the opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees is shown\nby the incident described in Mark vii. 1-23, of which the catchword is\n\"Corban.\" The Pharisees and Scribes ask Jesus \"why his disciples did not\nfollow the Tradition of the Elders, but ate their bread with unwashed\nhands.\" Jesus turned upon them and charged them with making void the\nword of God by their Tradition. \"For Moses said, Honour thy father and\nthy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of either father or mother, let\nhim die the death. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or\nmother, That, wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me, is\nCorban, that is to say, Given to God, ye no longer suffer him to do\naught for his father or his mother; making void the word of God by your\nTradition; and many such like things ye do.\" Now, even if the charge\nbrought against the Pharisees were true, that they would not allow a man\nto be released from a vow in order to honour his parents, they would not\nthereby be \"making void the word of God by their Tradition.\" On the\ncontrary, they would be upholding it. For, while Exod. XX. 12 says,\n\"Honour thy father and thy mother,\" Num. xxx. 2 says, \"When a man voweth\na vow unto the Lord, or sweareth with an oath to bind his soul with a\nbond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that\nproceedeth out of his mouth.\" No provision is made for annulling vows,\nexcept those of a wife by her husband or her father under certain\nconditions. The practice of annulling vows generally was introduced by\nthe Rabbis, and they admitted that it had no direct sanction in\nScripture. If, therefore, in the case of a man who had made a vow to the\ndetriment of his father and mother, they refused to release him, they\nwould be upholding Scripture against their Tradition. True, Scripture\nwould be opposed to Scripture; but the responsibility for that rested on\nMoses, not on them; and the practice of annulling vows would have the\neffect of removing that contradiction, and was perhaps so intended.\nHowever that may be, the charge against the Pharisees of making void the\nword of God by their Tradition would not be borne out in this instance,\neven if it were true that they refused to release a man from a vow of\nthe kind described.\n\nBut the assertion that they did so refuse is contrary to the express\nstatement of the Mishnah, which is the codified Tradition; and is\nmoreover entirely at variance with the spirit of Rabbinical ethics in\nregard to respect to parents. The crucial passage is M. Nedar. ix. 1,\nand it runs thus: \"R. Eliezer says, 'They open a way for a man on the\nground of honour to his father and mother.' The Wise forbid. R. Zadok\nsaid, 'Before they open a way for him on the ground of honour to his\nfather and mother, they should open it for him on the ground of honour\nto God. If this were so, there would be no vows.' The Wise agree with R.\nEliezer, that in a matter which is between a man and his father and\nmother they open a way for him on the ground of honour to his father and\nmother.\" Two cases are here distinguished; in the first, if a man makes\na vow of any kind, he is not to be released from it on the ground that\nit would bring reproach on his parents to have such a rash and foolish\nson. He must be made to keep his vow. But in the second case, if a man\nmake a vow upon a matter between himself and his parents, i.e. one\nwhich, if he keep it, will occasion injury or loss to them, then he is\nto be released from it on the ground of honour to his parents. The\ncommentators on the Mishnah all agree in this interpretation, and there\nis no doubt as to the intention of the Mishnah. Moreover, there is no\nindication that there ever had been a different opinion, as if the\nstatement now made in the Mishnah had taken the place of an earlier\nstatement. There is no evidence that the Pharisees ever held or taught\nthe doctrine attributed to them by Jesus, while it is contradicted in\nthe most definite manner by the declarations of their own legal\nauthorities.\n\nThe charge is all the more pointless because the Pharisees, whatever\nelse they may have failed in, always showed the most devoted respect to\nparents. A more unfortunate ground of attack could hardly have been\nchosen than that which is taken in the Corban incident; and the\nPharisees would not have had the slightest difficulty in repelling the\ncharge brought against them. Whether the error involved in the account\nof the incident be due to the Evangelist or to Jesus himself, an error\nit remains. And it is not fair, on the strength of the New Testament\ntext, however it came to be written, to hold the Pharisees guilty of\ndenying that which they themselves expressly enjoin. That is the fact.\nHow the misstatement[7] came to be made, I do not know and will not\nspeculate. Of course this does not in any way affect the truth of the\nprinciple enunciated by Jesus: \"There is nothing from without the man\nwhich going into him can defile him, etc.\" That marks, in practical\neffect, though possibly not in theory, a complete breach with\nPharisaism, since the Torah did, in the most explicit manner,\ndistinguish between clean and unclean, and did teach that outward things\ncaused defilement. The Pharisees held by the Torah; Jesus, at this\npoint, threw it over. Yet the Pharisees could and did say that the\ndefilement was not caused by the outward thing itself, but expressed the\nwill of God that certain actions and contacts should be avoided. Why He\nhad so willed, they did not know nor inquire; enough that He had so\nwilled, and included it in the Torah which He had given. If it be said,\n\"So much the worse for a religion and an ethic which are based on\nTorah,\" the question is taken down to first principles, and will be\nanswered variously according to the view held of those first principles.\nI only observe that the religion of Torah was hampered by the fact that\nit applied a sublime theory to material some of which was originally\nquite independent of that theory and unworthy of it; and the Pharisees\nwere unable to recognise that fact, while doing their best, and a very\nsplendid best, to overcome a difficulty of whose nature they were not,\nand could not be, aware.\n\n     [7] \"Corban\" does not mean \"Given to God,\" at least it does not\n     mean that the thing in respect of which the vow was made was\n     dedicated to sacred use. \"Corban\" is merely a formula prefacing a\n     vow. A man would say, \"Corban! if you shall enter my house!\"\n     meaning, \"I vow that you shall not enter it.\"\n\nThe opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees finds its most emphatic\nexpression in the long speech contained in Matt. xxiii., the keynote of\nwhich is: \"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!\" It is\nsometimes argued that Jesus himself did not say all the hard things in\nthat speech, but that they represent the hostility of the early Church\ntowards the men who had destroyed her founder. That is possible; and\ncertainly the Evangelists do not incline to a favourable view of the\nPharisees on any occasion. But I do not feel free to evade the duty of\ndealing with that speech by availing myself of that argument. Moreover,\nI do not see anything to make it impossible, or even unlikely, that\nJesus did say all those things. Having in effect broken with the\nreligion of Torah, and being in the position of a man driven to bay,\nfighting, as the saying is, with his back against the wall, it is only\nhuman nature that he should so speak as to hit hard. And, if it were the\ncase of any other man, who would take the words spoken under such\nconditions as expressing the calm and deliberate judgment of the\nspeaker upon the persons addressed, or as weighty evidence of the truth\nof the statements made? I am not going to go through the various charges\nin order to estimate the truth or the exaggeration of them. I shall make\nno suggestions that perhaps the Pharisees in that time were very bad,\nthough they were more respectable before, and, in a curious way,\nrecovered their character afterwards. Nor will I admit that it was\nperhaps true of the rank and file, but that men like Hillel and Gamaliel\nand Jo\u1e25anan b. Zaccai were honourable exceptions. If it was true at all,\nit was most of all true of Hillel and Gamaliel and their compeers,\nbecause these represented Pharisaism in its perfection, and their\nreligion was the religion of Torah in all its height and depth and\nlength and breadth. Whatever could be truly said of Pharisaism, either\ngood or evil, was true of the religion by which they lived.\n\nI take all that sweeping denunciation as the final expression of\nirreconcilable opposition between Jesus and the religion of Torah. And\nI shall content myself with making a few observations upon the fact and\nthe meaning of it. As for the term \"hypocrites,\" the justice of the\nimplied charge is not established by the fact that the charge is made.\nThat hypocrisy is possible under the religion of Torah is undeniable;\nbut there is certainly no necessary connection between the two. The\nPharisees themselves were quite aware that there were hypocrites in\ntheir ranks.[8] The retort would be justified that hypocrites have been\nfound amongst professing Christians also. But recrimination is not\nargument. The hypocrisy question is not really difficult to understand,\nif the explanation already given of the religion of Torah be borne in\nmind. The theory of that religion, when put into practice, necessarily\ninvolved the doing of many acts in a particular way. Even actions in\nthemselves of little or no importance became important when the Torah\ndirected a specific way of doing them. They were done as a fulfilment of\nthe will of God upon that particular point; and His will was not\nfulfilled unless there was, on the part of the agent, the conscious\nintention of serving Him. The mere _opus operatum_ was worthless. To the\nPharisee, starting from Torah as his ground principle, the doing of a\nmultitude of apparently trifling acts was the obvious way of putting\nreligion into practice, and he rejoiced in doing them. But one who did\nnot start from Torah as a ground principle would have no clue to the\nunderstanding of what the Pharisees did, or why they did it. If such a\none took as his ground principle the immediate authority of conscience\nand his own direct intuition of God, and if he then judged the Pharisees\nby his standard and not by their own, then he would easily draw the\nconclusion that they were hypocrites, because he would see them treating\nas of great importance things which conscience would pay no attention\nto; and he would judge that men who could be satisfied to discharge the\nobligations of religion in such a way, must either be ignorant of what\nreligion really is, or pretenders to a piety they did not possess. The\nreligion of Torah lays itself open to the misconstruction which charges\nits adherents with hypocrisy. But, apart from particular instances where\nthe charge could be established, the charge only shows how far those who\nmake it are unable to comprehend the Pharisaic conception of religion.\nTo urge that their conception of religion was defective is legitimate;\nto condemn them as hypocrites on the strength of a different conception\nof religion is not legitimate, no matter by whom it is done.\n\n     [8] See the often-quoted passage describing the seven classes of\n     Pharisees, b. Sotah 22^b.\n\nAnd this leads me to the conclusion of what I have to say about the\nopposition between Jesus and the Pharisees. The conflict was one between\ntwo fundamentally different conceptions of religion, viz. that in which\nthe supreme authority was Torah, and that in which the supreme authority\nwas the immediate intuition of God in the individual soul and\nconscience. The Pharisees stood for the one; Jesus stood for the other.\nThe particular occasions of dispute, some of which have been noticed,\nmainly served to bring out this fundamental opposition; at all events\nthat is their chief importance.\n\nThe conflict was unequal, because it was one in which an Idea was\nmatched against a Person. The idea of Torah was sublime, and deserved\nall the devoted loyalty that was given to its expression and defence.\nBut it was an idea, mediated in the consciousness of those who held it.\nJesus was a living soul, with the spiritual force of a tremendous\npersonality; and against him the idea of Torah could not prevail. This\nwas the real meaning of the fact that he taught \"as one having\nauthority, and not as their Scribes.\" This was the ground of his claim\nto forgive sins, a claim which the Pharisees could only interpret as\nblasphemy (Mark ii. 7). And this appears in all his relations with the\nPharisees, as the force which opposed them, and which they could\nneither comprehend nor overpower. They could not at the same time retain\nthe conception of Torah as the basis of their religion and admit the\nauthority of Jesus. They saw no reason why they should abandon Torah;\nthey could not therefore do other than reject Jesus. And when the\nverdict of the Pharisees is expressed in the saying of the Talmud,\nalready quoted, \"Jesus practised magic and deceived and led astray\nIsrael,\" that contemptuous dismissal shows how completely they failed to\nrealise that what had opposed them had been the strength of a great\npersonality. And I do not think that on the Jewish side this ever has\nbeen realised from that day to this. If the Pharisees had realised it\nthey would have met him with arguments quite different from those which\nthey did use; possibly they would have refrained from controversy\naltogether. As it was, they remained within the circle of religious\nideas which they knew, and continued to find in the Torah the\nsatisfaction of their spiritual wants--a real satisfaction of real\nwants, such as men might feel who were not hypocrites and impostors, but\nearnest and devout, and chiefly concerned to do the will of their Father\nin Heaven, in what they believed to be the way He desired.\n\nIf there was on the part of the Pharisees a complete inability to\ncomprehend the religious position of Jesus, there was also on his part\nan inability[9] to comprehend the religious position of the Pharisees.\nIf he had realised what Torah meant to the Pharisees, he might, and\ndoubtless would, have desired to show them a \"more excellent way,\" but\nhe would not have taken the line which he did of denunciation and\ninvective, since to do so would defeat his purpose.\n\n     [9] I have been asked how I can reconcile this alleged inability on\n     the part of Jesus to understand the Pharisees with the power he\n     showed elsewhere of reading the character and comprehending the\n     thoughts of those with whom he came into contact. My answer is that\n     I do not admit John ii. 25 as true of the historical Jesus; and\n     that, while I do not deny that he had deep insight into human\n     character and thought, such insight depends on sympathy. That there\n     was finally a complete absence of sympathy between Jesus and the\n     Pharisees is plainly to be seen, and admits of no dispute. And,\n     that being so, I submit even he did not escape the effects of that\n     limitation, in making him unable to comprehend the position of the\n     Pharisees. The inability was on both sides, and for the same\n     reason.\n\nThis I believe to be the real truth about the inability of both the\nPharisees and Jesus to understand each other, or, in other words, the\nimpossibility of harmony between the religion of Torah and the religion\nof the individual soul, if I may so describe it. That incompatibility is\nfundamental. Christianity, in all its forms, is a religion founded on\npersonality, one in which the central feature is a Person. And Judaism,\nat all events since the days of the Pharisees, is a religion in which\nthe central feature is not a person, at all events not a human person,\nbut the Torah. It is near the truth to say that what Christ is to the\nChristian, Torah is to the Jew. And alike to Christian and to Jew it is\nalmost impossible to comprehend the religion of the other. Even Jesus\ncould not do it. And if he could not do it, what wonder that his\ngreatest disciple, Paul, in passing from the one conception of religion\nto the other, should have failed to carry with him into his new faith\nthe remembrance of what the old faith had meant to him while he lived in\nit?\n\nTo the further consideration of this essential opposition between the\nreligion of Torah and the Christian religion I shall proceed in the next\nchapter, when I shall deal with the criticism of Torah in the Epistles\nof Paul.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nPHARISAISM AND PAUL\n\n\nIf Christians usually get their ideas about the Pharisees from the\nGospels, they learn their general conception of Judaism from the\nEpistles of Paul. And, when they find that the Judaism which he condemns\nis in fact the Judaism of the Pharisees, they combine their information,\nand rest content with the conclusion that alike in theory and practice\nthe Pharisees were as far as they well could be from the Kingdom of\nHeaven. A verdict which claims the authority of both Jesus and Paul\nwould seem, to Christians at least, to leave nothing more to be said,\nand to admit of no appeal. And in fact it has prevailed, and still\nprevails, in spite of all the efforts of the Jews to obtain even a\nhearing on the other side.\n\nAs, in the preceding chapter, I examined the relation of the Pharisees\nto Jesus, and tried to explain how it was that they came to stand to\neach other in such sharp antagonism, so in the present chapter I shall\ntry to explain how it was that Paul came to represent the Pharisaic\nconception of religion in the way he did, and what grounds there are for\nsaying that his representation does not correspond with the facts.\nPharisaic Judaism is, or can be, perfectly well known; for it is written\nlarge in the Rabbinical literature, by men who were remarkably honest in\nsetting down their faults as well as their virtues. It is there for\nanyone to study; and no one is entitled to say that the description of\nit given by Paul, or by anybody else, is accurate or not, until he has\nstudied the thing itself. The fact that it can only be studied in books\nwhich are written in Hebrew and Aramaic (except so far as translated)\ndoes not exempt the student from the duty of reading them, if he really\nmeans to learn what is true in the matter. If he does not, then what is\nhis opinion worth?\n\nThe Christian will probably say in reply: \"Did not Paul himself know all\nabout it? Was he not born and bred a Jew? Was he not a 'Pharisee of the\nPharisees'? Had he not been 'zealous beyond those of his own age in the\nJews' religion'? Was he not 'as touching the law blameless'? Who could\nbe a better and more reliable witness upon the question what the Jews'\nreligion really was?\" Yes. And did Paul not abandon the Jews' religion?\nDid he not write about it long years after he had been converted to a\ndifferent religion? And is it not common knowledge that a convert seldom\ntakes the same view of the religion he has left as is taken by those who\nremain in it? If Paul, while he was still a Pharisee, had written down\nhis thoughts upon the worth and meaning of Pharisaism, that would be\nvaluable evidence indeed; and it would be interesting to trace the\nprocess by which he then made his way to another form of religion. As\nit is, what he says about Judaism is no evidence of what he felt it to\nbe while he was in it, or of what those felt it to be who remained in\nit. And if, as is the unquestionable fact, his representation of it\ndiffers very widely from theirs, then we are not entitled to draw the\nconclusion that his presentation is correct, whatever the other may have\nbeen (a point on which few trouble to inquire). We have rather to\naccount, if we can, for the very peculiar form which his presentation of\nPharisaism took. I might, indeed, have left Paul out altogether from\nthis book; because, in strict truth, there is nothing to be learned\ndirectly from him upon the question what Pharisaism really was. But,\nindirectly, there is a great deal to be learned; because, whether his\nconception of Pharisaism be correct or not, it serves to show how it\nappeared to a very exceptional man, looking at it from a point of view\nwhich was no longer Jewish. And to understand and estimate the changed\nappearance due to that alteration of the point of view, is to get to the\nheart of the difference between Judaism and Christianity.\n\nFor the purpose of this inquiry I shall take the Epistles bearing the\nname of Paul, at all events the four great ones, as being really his. I\nhave not yet been able to persuade myself that any collections of\nfragments, pieced together and interpolated, could be so combined as to\ngive the impression of a single great personality behind them. Paul may\nnot have been either always consistent or always logical; but how anyone\ncan read those letters, with their eager hurry of argument, their\npassionate outpouring of devout feeling, and still think that they are\nthe composite patchwork of second-century nobodies, is to me a mystery.\nI shall therefore assume that what is written in those Epistles is what\nPaul wrote; that what he says about himself is true; and that what he\nsays about Judaism, or anything else, is what he believed to be true\nwhen he wrote it.\n\nThe effect of what he wrote, at all events about Judaism, has been to\ninflict what Jews feel to be a cruel injustice on their religion. To\nPaul himself, I imagine, it can only have appeared to be the obvious and\nnecessary statement of the result of his changed position in religion.\nHe has left it on record that, through his conversion, he became a new\nman in Christ (2 Cor. v. 17). And one of the implications of that fact\nis that he should no longer be able accurately to reproduce in his mind\nwhat the \"old man\" had felt and thought and believed; he would retain\nonly the distant memory of discarded things. If he wrote of the religion\nhe had left, it would be, not of what once had been his, but of what he\ncould only judge as an external thing, variously defective when seen in\nthe light of his present religion.\n\nBeyond the fact, then, that by his own account Paul had been before his\nconversion a zealous and consistent Pharisee, we do not know what his\nearlier opinion had been upon any subject whatever. He does not become\nknown to us until after his conversion; and the writings from which we\ngain the knowledge of him were not composed till twenty years or more\nhad elapsed since that event. Of his conversion he says very little; not\nenough to enable us to understand precisely what took place. It may well\nbe, indeed, that he himself could never have stated in words, at any\ntime, precisely what took place, or what, if anything, led up to the\nchange. This much, however, is beyond question, that as a result of his\nconversion Christ became to him the central element in his religion. All\nhis spiritual life depended on Christ. All his thought was conditioned\nby his idea of Christ. All the energy of soul which was his to give for\nthe fulfilling of his ministry he ascribed to the immediate personal\ninfluence of Christ upon him. Christ was the all and everything of his\nreligious life; and the lines upon which his subsequent career was laid\nout, so that he became the Apostle of the Gentiles, were marked out by\nhis conception of the relation in which he believed himself to stand\ntowards Christ. In some marvellous way, it seemed that Christ had\nentered and taken possession of him; with the result that he became the\nPaul whom we know.\n\nThere must have followed a process, whether short or long, by which he\nadjusted himself to his altered mental position, estimated the effect of\nthe change upon his previous beliefs and ideas, and grasped the meaning\nof new and unfamiliar ones. For it goes without saying that his\nconversion widened the scope of his thought so as to bring many things\nwithin the range of his inward vision that previously had been unnoticed\nor not understood, as it also changed his estimate of what had been\npreviously there. But of the details and the order of that process we\nknow nothing. We cannot tell, for instance, whether it began with the\nsettling of his attitude towards Judaism, or whether he was drawn first\ntowards the idea of salvation for the Gentiles. We only know the\nresults long after the process was completed, when he had shaped in\nthought a more or less consistent theory of divine providence, as shown\nin the history of the world.\n\nThe opening chapter of the Epistle to the Romans shows how profoundly he\nwas impressed by the moral chaos of the Gentile world; but the fact is\nmentioned there only to give the explanation of it. For an explanation\nwas needed. Such a state of humanity was in terrible contrast to the\nperfection which should have been found in those whom the all-holy God\nhad made. Doubtless there were differences of better and worse between\nthis man and that; but, judged by the standard of perfection, _i.e._ of\ncomplete harmony with God, all were alike immeasurably below what they\nought to be. Not only the Gentiles, but the Jews also, came under this\ncondemnation. Jews indeed were not guilty of the loathsome vices which\nmade the Gentile life so horrible; but it was clear that, in regard to\nthe standard of perfection which God desired in man, the Jews wholly\nfailed to reach it. All the world over, through all the multitude of\nhuman beings, \"there was none righteous, no not one\" (Rom. iii. 10).\n\nYet the Gentiles, Paul argued, could have known, and even did know,\nsomething of God; but they disowned that knowledge, and \"glorified him\nnot as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings,\nand their senseless heart was darkened.... Wherefore God gave them up in\nthe lusts of their hearts ... for that they exchanged the truth of God\nfor a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the\nCreator\" (Rom. i. 21, 24-5).\n\nAnd the Jews knew well the will of God, for to them He had revealed it\nthrough Moses and the prophets; with them He had made His covenant, and\nhad chosen them out of all the nations of the earth, to be a peculiar\npeople unto Himself. How was it that they too fell so far short of what\nwas required of them? Must it not have been (so Paul reasoned) because\nthe divine Law[10] that was given them was the very means and occasion\nof sin? To fail in regard to one single precept was to break the harmony\nbetween man and God; and, when once that harmony was broken, there was\nnothing in the Law itself to restore it. By its multiplication of\ncommandments, the Law offered so many occasions for the breaking of that\nharmony; and whereas it was \"holy, and the commandment righteous and\njust and good,\" its ideal was one that no human effort could reach. Its\neffect was to multiply sin. Righteousness under the Law was impossible;\nmeaning by righteousness the state of perfect harmony of man with God.\n\n     [10] I use in quotations from Paul the word Law instead of Torah,\n     because Paul spoke of \u039d\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. The fact that he did so is\n     characteristic of his whole conception of Judaism. If the Greek\n     language did not provide an equivalent of the word Torah (any more\n     than the English language does), the fact still remains that an\n     equivalent is needed, or the argument becomes for want of it\n     invalid.\n\n\"But now,\" says Paul (Rom. iii. 21 fol.), \"apart from the law a\nrighteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law\nand the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus\nChrist unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; for all\nhave sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely\nby his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ,\" etc.\n\nThrough faith in Jesus Christ there was offered to sinful man the means\nof attaining that righteousness--harmony with God--which had been vainly\nsought under the Law, or lost in the darkness of Gentile corruption. And\nthis was evidently what God had willed from the beginning. Christ was\nthe instrument, or the agent, by whom this divine purpose was to be\nfulfilled. And the meaning of what might seem to be the age-long delay\nof his coming was that God would \"shut up all under sin, that he might\nhave mercy upon all.\"[11]\n\n     [11] The theory, of course, is conditioned by the fact of Christ's\n     coming when he did. It is an attempt to interpret a historical fact\n     in terms of world-history and eternal wisdom.\n\nChrist performed his divinely appointed mission by his death on the\nCross, and his subsequent resurrection; having borne and discharged the\nobligation of the unfulfilled Law, and thereby released all, whether\nJews or Gentiles, from the bondage of sin. Righteousness was now\nattainable through faith in Christ; and I presume that Paul meant by\nrighteousness, harmony with God, resulting from such an attitude on the\npart of the believer towards Christ as that in which Paul himself stood\ntowards him, in other words, a complete surrender of heart and will to\nChrist, so as to \"put off the old man\" and become \"a new creature.\"\nThose who did this would thereby attain to perfect harmony with God,\nwhich is righteousness.\n\nI do not stop to dwell upon the way in which Paul explained the fact\nthat the offer of salvation was not universally accepted. For I do not\nforget that my task is not to expound the whole of Paul's theology, but\nto explain his view of Pharisaism. I leave out, therefore, all mention\nof election and reprobation, in order to come to the question how the\nJews were dealt with in Paul's theory. For here he was confronted with\nthe fact that the Jews had rejected Christ, and not only rejected him\nbut killed him. In the most emphatic manner they had refused the means\nof grace which had been offered to them through him. They had, to that\nextent, frustrated the purpose of God in sending him. They, in common\nwith the Gentiles, had been, as stated already, shut up under sin that\nGod might have mercy on them. And they had spurned that mercy. How was\nthat to be explained? \"Did God then cast off his people?\" Paul asked\n(Rom. xi. 1). Not so. \"But a hardening in part hath befallen Israel,\nuntil the fulness of the Gentiles be come in\" (Rom. xi. 25). All that\nGod had willed towards Israel, and declared in the ancient Scriptures,\nstill held good; but its fulfilment was delayed by the disobedience of\nIsrael; and that disobedience was made to serve the purpose of God, in\nthat by its means salvation should come to the Gentiles. The full\ndevelopment of this thought will be found in chapters ix. to xi. of the\nEpistle to the Romans, and need not be given here. It was Paul's way of\ngetting over a formidable difficulty, namely, the obvious fact that the\nattitude of the Jews towards Christ was not at all what was to be\nexpected, if his theory of the person and work of Christ were true. It\nmust not be forgotten that the starting point of his theory was his own\npersonal relation to Christ, as he felt it with an intense certainty\nwhich nothing could shake for a moment. That was his foundation of\nabsolute truth; and that could not but be the clue by which he\ninterpreted all that he beheld in the world, and read in the history of\nman. With his application of this clue to the case of the Gentiles I am\nnot now concerned. But, in applying it to the case of the Jews, he was\nreasoning from premises which were not, and never have been, accepted by\nJews. He represented the relation of man to God in terms of faith in,\nand communion through, Christ; so that, previous to the coming of\nChrist, both revelation and communion had been partial and defective.\nThe Jews represented the relation of man to God in terms of Torah, in\nthe knowledge of divine truth therein contained, and in filial obedience\nto God whose precepts were recorded in it. They found, on the lines of\nTorah, the ground of faith in God and present communion with Him; and\nwhile they always hoped to learn more of the contents of revelation--to\nbe shown \"wonderful things out of the Torah,\"--and while they aspired to\na closer walk with God, they never felt that the Torah needed to be\nreplaced by any other means of revelation and communion, as being itself\nonly partial and defective. To say of the Torah, as Paul said, that it\nwas a means by which God had prepared the way for Christ, implied that\nit had only a secondary value on its own account. Indeed, it was rather\nharmful than helpful, if the effect of its working was to \"cause the\ntrespass to abound,\" and that effect was in no way justified by the\nalleged intention, on the part of God, that \"grace might abound more\nexceedingly.\" A Christian, brought up on Paul, may see no difficulty in\nbelieving that the holy and righteous God could or would act in such a\nway. But to a Jew, brought up on Torah, it was impossible so to believe,\nand he would repudiate the suggestion with indignation; partly by reason\nof his reverence for God, and partly by reason of his own experience of\nTorah, and of spiritual life under it. Paul's theory might be valid for\nhimself, but it was not valid for the Jew; and, arguing from his\npremises, he only described an unreal Judaism, such as it doubtless\nought to have been if his premises had been true, but such as, in fact\nand experience, it certainly was not.[12] Paul, of course, was\nexpounding Christianity; and he had no concern with Judaism, except to\naccount to Christian readers for the very obvious difficulties which it\nplaced in the way of his theory. His explanation of the meaning of\nJudaism is not a study of that form of religion on its own account, but\nthe theoretical completion of his view of the work of Christ. If Christ\ncame when he did, and if he fulfilled such and such a function in the\ndrama of Providence, then the Judaism that was before him must have\nmeant so and so, and must have been intended by God to produce such and\nsuch results. That seems to me to have been the real line of Paul's\nargument. And, as it started from his intense personal conviction of the\ninward presence of Christ, it is not wonderful that he should fail to\nsee that the facts of Judaism did not at all correspond to his theory;\nor that he should assign to the Torah a function which, if put in\npractice, would have been fatal to the existence of Judaism long before\nChrist came. Paul argued on the religion of Torah from the postulates of\nthe religion of Christ. But Torah and Christ are incommensurable terms;\nand Paul's presentation of Pharisaic Judaism is, in consequence, at its\nbest a distortion, at its worst a fiction.\n\n     [12] I have been asked if it were not possible that there might be\n     some section or school of the Pharisees to whom Paul's strictures\n     might apply? Even if there were any evidence of such a school, that\n     would not alter the fact that Paul himself draws no such\n     distinction, but condemns the whole theoretical position of which\n     the Halachah is the expression. A Pharisee who should repudiate the\n     Halachah would be a contradiction in terms. My object is to set\n     forth, as truly as I can, what Pharisaism was, on its own showing;\n     and I am under no obligation to find a means whereby the strictures\n     of Paul might be made to appear more relevant and valid than I have\n     admitted them to be.\n\nI shall presently offer reasons in support of that judgment, which is\nnot a hasty assertion but a deliberate opinion formed after years of\ncomparing the Judaism of the Rabbis with Paul's version of it. Before,\nhowever, going on to this further part of my task, I will pause for a\nmoment to consider the difference between Paul's attitude and that of\nJesus towards the Pharisees and their religion. In the main it is\nthis--that Paul condemned Pharisaism in theory, while Jesus condemned it\nin practice. Paul held that the whole system was radically defective,\nand remained so whatever relative excellence might be produced under it\nin the lives and characters of those who submitted to it. He condemned\nit, though he had himself, as he said, been \"as touching the Torah,\nblameless.\" Jesus, on the other hand, charged the Pharisees with certain\nspecific sins and vices, such as hypocrisy, pride, self-righteousness,\netc. And he did not expressly denounce the systematic religion of Torah\nas such, although, as has been shown in the preceding chapter, he did on\ncertain points reject the Torah. The Pharisees themselves were quite\naware that the faults he denounced were not unknown amongst them. The\nTalmud bears honest witness to that fact, in the passage so often quoted\n(b. Sotah, 22^b), about the seven kinds of Pharisees.\n\nThe censure of Jesus admits of the possibility that some, at least, of\nthe Pharisees were pious and good. And that Scribe, to whom Jesus said,\n\"Thou art not far from the kingdom of God\" (Mark xii. 34), did not\ncease to be a Pharisee by reason of the opinion he had expressed.\n\nBut Paul's condemnation of Pharisaism would include, not only that\nScribe, but all of his nation in whom goodness and piety might be\nthought to have shown. And not only so, but these were by so much the\nmore to be condemned in that they gave fullest expression to the\nprinciple of Torah. If the system was wrong, evidently those who most\ncompletely and consistently acted up to it were most deeply tainted with\nits error. Paul's universal negative challenges the contradiction of all\nthe saints, martyrs, and heroes of Israel.\n\nI go on now to support the statement made above that Paul's presentation\nof Judaism is at its best a distortion and at its worst a fiction; that,\nhowever regarded, it does not correspond with the facts. I shall have to\nshow that the Torah was not such as Paul represented it to be, and that\nit did not have the effect which he ascribed to it, in the religious\nexperience of those who lived under it. Also, that the Pharisee living\nunder the Torah was not thereby debarred from such communion with God as\nPaul claimed for the believer in Christ; that, indeed, Pharisaism had\nnothing to learn in this respect from Christianity, at all events Paul's\nChristianity. What he offered to the Pharisees was either what they had\nalready in a form which they preferred, or what they had not got and did\nnot want. Upon these points I will proceed to enlarge during the\nremainder of this chapter.\n\nThat the Torah was not such as Paul represented it to be is a statement\nwhich is true, both positively and negatively. He ascribed to it a\ncharacter which it did not possess, and he left out of his description\nfeatures which it did possess, and which were essential to it. Paul\nalways takes Torah in the sense of \"precept,\" \"mitzvah,\" \u03bd\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, not\nnecessarily separate injunctions, but a collective expression of\ncommand, for which the term Law is appropriate. The divine will imposed\nthis on Israel as the moral ideal, and, in demanding obedience to it,\nset up a goal that could never be reached.\n\nThe more the divineness and holiness of the Law was recognised, the\ngreater must be the sin of disobeying it, the deeper the despair\nresulting from such disobedience. Righteousness, the harmony of the\nhuman will with the divine, was only possible by fulfilling the whole\nLaw; to fail in a single point was to break that harmony, and thus to\nbecome unrighteous. The Law, with its multitude of precepts, only served\nto increase the occasions of sin, and plunge the sinner in a deeper\ndespair. This is, in brief, Paul's view of the Law.[13]\n\n     [13] The words ascribed to Jesus, John vii. 19, \"Did not Moses give\n     you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?\" are clearly\n     dependent on the Pauline conception of the Torah. They are quite\n     out of keeping with the attitude of Jesus as set forth in the\n     Synoptic Gospels. And even Paul himself never went so far as to\n     say, \"None of you doeth the law.\" He only said in effect, \"None of\n     you keepeth the whole law.\" That the Gospel of John represents a\n     stage in the development of anti-Jewish feeling later than that of\n     Paul is further shown by the statement in John xii. 42,\n     \"Nevertheless, even of the rulers many believed on him; but because\n     of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put\n     out of the synagogue.\" The policy of detecting secret adherents of\n     Jesus and casting them forth from the synagogue was not adopted\n     till A.D. 80, or thereabouts. See my _Christianity in Talmud and\n     Midrash_, p. 125 fol. If, as recorded in John iii., Nicodemus\n     really came to Jesus, he need not have come secretly. And, if the\n     name Nicodemus be merely adapted from that of Nakdimon, a\n     well-known and prominent citizen of Jerusalem at the time of the\n     siege, of whom the Evangelist might have heard, then he did not\n     come to Jesus at all.\n\nIt is safe to say that no Jew before Paul ever thought of the Torah in\nthat way, or ever felt the despair which, according to this theory, he\nshould have felt. Certainly, or let me say probably, no Pharisee ever\ncompletely fulfilled all the \"mitzv\u014dth\" of the Torah; but I have never\ncome across any Pharisee who was overwhelmed with despair on that\naccount. And, if it be said that this only shows the blindness and\nconceit of the Pharisees, the answer is that even admitting that (which\nI do not admit), still the Torah did not in fact present itself to the\nmind of the Pharisee in the severe and threatening form which it wears\nin Paul's description of it. As, indeed, how should it?\n\nIt has already been shown, in the second chapter, that the meaning of\nTorah, as the Pharisee conceived it, was nothing less than the full\nrevelation which God had made to Israel, partly by way of precept,\npartly by way of more general instruction in divine things. So far as\nthe Torah was expressed in the form of precept, it offered so many\noccasions for serving God. Every \"mitzvah\" was an opportunity for doing\nsome part of the divine will; and it was because God loved Israel that\nhe had given these opportunities, whereby might be felt the joy of\nfaithful service. The Pharisee laid the whole emphasis on doing as much\nas he could in that service; whereas, according to Paul, he ought to\nhave laid the whole emphasis upon his own inability to do _all_ that was\nrequired. He ought to have been burdened by guilt, and haunted by the\ndespair of ever making his peace with the God whose commands he had\nfailed to obey. Instead, he was full of joy that God had given him\nsomething that he could do for His sake, eager to do as much as he\ncould; and though he failed or sinned, from time to time, he was \"not\nutterly cast down,\" because he trusted that if he heartily repented God\nwould forgive him, and take him back. The Torah was not a burden to the\nPharisee, either by reason of the number or the difficulty of its\nprecepts, or by the thought of the impossibility of completely\nsatisfying its demands. And if there were ever a Pharisee in such a\nstate of despair that he should cry, \"O miserable man that I am! who\nshall deliver me from the body of this death?\" he would think of the\nTorah not as the cause of his anguish, but as the hope of his\ndeliverance. And it was the Torah itself which kept him from ever\nfalling into such despair; for it was God's own word of help and\nguidance, the record of His endless mercy, the revelation of His love.\nPaul would never have ascribed to the Torah such power to cause\ndespair, unless he had ceased to feel towards it as a Pharisee would\nfeel; and he ceased to feel so, because, in his mind, the place once\nfilled by Torah was now filled by Christ. For him there remained of\nTorah only the shrivelled and misshapen corpse, instead of the once\nglorious and living form. The one is held up to reproach in the Epistles\nof Paul; the other is the object of endless praise, of reverent wonder,\nalmost adoring rapture, in the literature of the Pharisees.\n\nBut Paul's view of Torah is not completely described by saying that he\nascribed to it a character which it did not possess and an influence\nwhich it did not exercise. He leaves out of account features which it\ndid possess, and represents the religion founded upon it as lacking in\nelements which in fact were no less present there than in his own\nreligion. As already shown, Paul represents Torah exclusively as\nprecept, \u03bd\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, whereas it comprised the whole revelation recorded in\nScripture and rendered explicit by the valid interpretation of\nScripture. It comprised, therefore, the knowledge of God Himself, of His\nprovidence and righteousness and fatherly love, also, of the way of\ncommunion with Him, the assurance of forgiveness to the penitent, \"the\nmeans of grace and the hope of glory.\" All that belonged to his\nreligion, the Pharisee found indicated in the Torah, somewhere; and it\nwas his delight to learn what God taught him therein.\n\nNow Paul's whole case rests upon the fact that there is no power in a\ncommandment to help a man to fulfil it. The Law was, according to him,\nlaid upon Israel with a demand for obedience, but with no power to\nensure that obedience. The Law said, \"Thou shalt\"; but it gave no\nstrength to the feeble will, however much it might shine with pitiless\nlight upon the frightened conscience. Austere messenger of the will of\nGod, it stood over its helpless slave, pointing indeed to heaven, but\nstretching forth no hand to lead him there. The Law being thus\npowerless to aid in the fulfilment of the divine command, there could be\nno righteousness under the Law, no harmony between the human will and\nthe divine. Even if there ever had been such harmony, (and there had not\nbeen since the sin of Adam), there was no power in the Law to restore\nthat harmony when it had once been broken. What the Law could not do, it\nwas, according to Paul, reserved for Christ to do. Through faith in him\ncame the power, not indeed to do what the sinner had failed to do, but\nto restore the broken harmony and reconcile man to God. That power was\nthe direct influence of the living mind of Christ upon the human soul;\nand the effect of it was to set it free from bondage, so that it could\nof its own will turn to God. Paul here states, in terms of Christ, a\nprofound truth, namely, that the human soul depends, for its power to\nwill and desire the good, upon God; and that, without the means of\ncommunion with its divine source, the soul must languish and die. And\nPaul expounded this truth in terms of Christ, because in his own\nexperience it was through Christ that the divine help had come to him;\nthe force of a living personality which had set free his soul was that\nof Christ. To him it seemed that such was the only way by which the\nlonged-for deliverance could be effected. Now the Law was not a person,\na living spirit, but a command, a written word. And even the Torah, in\nits wider meaning, was still only a body of knowledge, a revelation, a\ncomplex idea; it was not a living spirit, that could give of its own\nlife to a human soul. How, then, could there be, under the conditions of\nTorah, that imparting and receiving of divine influence by which alone\nthe soul could be enabled to will the good, or even to live at all? Such\nseems to me to be the reasoning underlying Paul's conception of the\npowerlessness of the Law to save, its failure to impart righteousness.\n\nBut the Pharisee to whom that argument might be addressed would not have\nthe slightest difficulty in meeting it. He would say, \"Certainly there\nmust be that divine influence upon the soul, the power imparted by one\nliving spirit to another; else the soul cannot live or do any good\nthing. Certainly, also, the Torah is not a living spirit; it is only a\nbody of truth, a revelation, a complex idea, or, if you will, a set of\ncommands. But, what then? We look for help not to the commandment, but\nto Him who gave the commandment; not to the Law, but to the Lawgiver;\nnot to the Torah, but to the wise, holy, and loving God, of whom the\nTorah is the revelation. We learn, from the teaching which He has given\nto us, to go direct to Him, pray to Him, trust Him, love Him, find help\nand strength from Him. He is our Father in heaven, always ready to hear\nHis children, to forgive them when they repent of their sins against\nHim, and to deliver them from evil.\"\n\nThis is what any Pharisee would reply to Paul's argument about the\nimpotence of the Law to justify. The difference between the Pharisee\nand Paul upon this point is, in appearance, very great; but, in fact, is\nvery small. Both are agreed that there must be the imparting of divine\ninfluence to the human soul. _With_ that influence, the quickening of\nthe life of the soul by the divine power and inward presence, the soul\nis enabled to will the good and to love God. _Without_ that influence it\nwould perish. The Pharisee held that the divine influence was imparted\ndirect from God to the soul, without any intermediary. It was not the\nTorah that imparted it, but God Himself. The Torah was given to teach\nhim; having no power or life in itself, it revealed to him the divine\nsource of power and life, and to that source he went.\n\nPaul held that the divine influence was imparted to the soul through\nChrist; and his point, that it could not come through the Law, is true,\nbut wholly irrelevant; for no one ever said that it could. The\nimplication that it could come _only_ through Christ may be relevant,\nbut is certainly not true; for all the experience of Jewish piety is\nwitness against it. When Paul, on the basis of his own experience, set\nup his doctrine of the function of Christ, in the relations between God\nand man, he did what he had every right to do; and he has earned the\ngratitude of all who have found salvation through the faith in Christ\nwhich they have learned from him. But Paul was not entitled to ignore\nthe experience (no less genuine than his own) of those whose conception\nof religion he condemned. If all that they deemed essential to religion,\nnot merely the idea of Torah, but the direct influence of the living\nGod, had been included and stated in Paul's presentation of Judaism,\nthen the comparison between the Jewish and the Christian conception of\nreligion would have been more fair and equal; and if it did not appear\nthat there was any marked superiority of the one over the other, there\nwould at least have been the evidence that God is sought and found in\nmore ways than one.\n\nEnough, perhaps, has been said by way of general argument to show that\nPaul's version of Judaism is incorrect and defective. But it will be\nwell, at this point, to indicate more particularly the evidence upon\nwhich I have maintained that Pharisaism is not the barren formalism that\nit is usually supposed to have been, nor the merely preparatory foil to\nChristianity, which is all that Paul could see in it.\n\nThere is first of all the general fact of the existence of the Jewish\npeople in unswerving loyalty to the Torah, and in the faith and practice\nof the religion founded upon it--an existence and a loyalty maintained\nthrough centuries of bitter persecution at the hands of Christians. It\nis simply impossible that such a result could have been produced, if the\nreligion, by which its adherents lived and for which they died, had been\na soulless hypocrisy, a pious sham, or a futile delusion. If such could\nhave been the case, then what better guarantee is there for the truth\nand worth of the faith for which Christian saints and martyrs have died\nand heroes fought? A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And if\nthe fruit be good, then, in the one case as in the other, the tree must\nbe good. No adverse opinion of the Judaism which has suffered and\nsurvived, and which, be it remembered, is the Judaism of the Pharisees,\ncan be justified in face of the witness of Israel to the faith once\ndelivered to _its_ saints.\n\nThere is further to be considered the fact that before the time of Paul,\nand indeed ever since, the Pharisees had for their spiritual nourishment\nthe Scriptures of the Old Testament, including the prophecies and the\nPsalms. The study of these, and the constant use of them in the\nSynagogue, would have been uncongenial to men whose one concern was for\nhair-splitting casuistry, and would either have been discontinued or\nreduced to an unintelligent formality. It was neither. The Scriptures\nwere the constant study of the Pharisee; and the worship of the\nSynagogue derived much of its power to minister to the needs of the\nworshippers, through its close dependence on the devotional outpourings\nof the Psalms, and the prayers which embodied the spirit of them. The\nPharisee never for a moment thought that he was growing aloof from the\nProphets and Psalmists of the older time; and while in the Torah,\nwritten and unwritten, he believed he had a fuller and more detailed\nknowledge of what God had revealed, it was still the revelation of the\nsame God who had spoken to Abraham, who had shown His power by the Red\nSea and on Sinai, who had inspired the Prophets and been praised in the\nPsalms. There may be legitimate regret that Israel cut itself off from\nall knowledge of and contact with the great literatures of Greece and\nRome, and so missed the salutary influence of variety of thought. The\nPharisees chose their own line deliberately in this matter; and when\nthey saw what came of Hellenism, they might well feel that they had\nchosen rightly. But whether or not, if they did keep out the great\nGentile literature--the \"external books,\" as they called them,--they\nmost certainly did \"read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest\" their own.\nAnd a religion that has absorbed into itself the ideas of the Hebrew\nScriptures, a religion whose springs have been continually fed from that\nsource, and whose ruling purpose was to serve and glorify the God\nrevealed in those Scriptures, cannot have been, and assuredly was not,\nthe hard and narrow formalism which its opponents have declared it to\nbe.\n\nThese considerations have weight as evidence of what Pharisaism really\nwas; and their weight has by no means been sufficiently taken into\naccount; indeed, it has been ignored altogether in the commonly accepted\nestimates of the character of Pharisaism. Strong, however, as such\ngeneral evidence is, I will further strengthen it by reference to the\nutterances of Pharisees themselves, taken from their own literature.\nAnd, out of many that I might choose, I will take such as bear more\nparticularly upon the points raised in the strictures of Paul.\n\nFirst, I will take the Pharisaic doctrine[14] of repentance and\nrestoration, because it is on this that the antagonism of Paul is most\npronounced, and the injury done by his method of treatment most serious.\nThere is not in the Rabbinical literature a strict and clearly defined\ntheological doctrine of repentance and restoration; but there is a\ngeneral belief that the way of repentance is always open, by which a\nsinner may come back to God, and that God will forgive that sinner\nsimply because he has repented. I will illustrate this by a few\nquotations from Rabbinical, that is, Pharisaical works.\n\n     [14] When I say the \"doctrine of repentance and restoration,\" I do\n     not mean to imply that Rabbinical theology was an organised and\n     consistent system of doctrines. Such it never was; and it is the\n     fundamental fallacy of Weber's book that he has so represented it.\n     I shall go into this subject, of the sense in which it is\n     legitimate to speak of the theology of the Rabbis, in the next\n     chapter.\n\nIn the _Pesikta de R. Cahana_ (p. 165\u00aa ed. Buber) the following\noccurs:--\"The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jeremiah (the prophet),\n'Go and say to Israel, Repent.' He went and said to Israel ('Repent').\nThey said to him, 'Master, how can we repent? With what face can we come\nbefore God? Have we not angered him? Have we not provoked him? Those\nmountains and hills upon which we have worshipped false gods, are they\nnot still standing?' Jeremiah came before the Holy One, blessed be He,\nand told Him. He answered, 'Go and say to them, If ye come to me, is it\nnot to your Father in Heaven that ye come? For I have been a father unto\nIsrael, and Ephraim is my firstborn.'\"\n\nAgain, in the same work (p. 163^b) R. Eleazar says: \"It is the custom in\nthe world that a man will insult his neighbour publicly, and afterwards\nseek to be reconciled to him. The other will say to him, 'Thou didst\ninsult me publicly, and wouldst be reconciled between me and thee\n(_i.e._ privately). Go and bring those in whose presence thou didst\ninsult me, and I will be reconciled to thee.' But the Holy One, blessed\nbe He, doeth not so; but though a man stand and revile and blaspheme him\nin the open street, the Holy One says to him, 'Repent between thee and\nme, and I will receive thee.'\"\n\nA story is told (b. A. Zar. 17\u00aa) of a man who was a particularly gross\nsinner, and who in the midst of his sins was struck with terror and\nremorse when it was said to him \"Eleazar b. Dordaia will not be received\nin repentance.\" His frantic efforts to persuade some intercessor to\nplead for mercy on him are described in a passage too long to quote; but\nI translate the conclusion, which runs thus:--\"Then he said, The matter\nhangeth only upon me (_i.e._ I must seek mercy for myself). He laid his\nhead between his knees and groaned with weeping, until his soul departed\nfrom him; and there came a voice from heaven saying, 'R. Eleazar b.\nDordaia is summoned to the life of the world to come.'\" The purpose of\nthat story is simply to teach that even the vilest sinner can repent,\nand that, if he does, he will be forgiven. It should be observed that\nthe Talmud means by a sinner one who does definitely wicked actions--a\nsinner morally, not theologically. It should also be observed that, in\nthe above story, the idea of an intercessor, by whom God might be moved\nto pardon, is pointedly rejected. The sinner does not plead either the\nmerits of the Fathers, as might have been expected, or the merits of\nChrist, as according to Paul he ought to have done, if his peace with\nGod were to be made. That he was forgiven, and that anyone in like case\nwould be forgiven upon repentance, is the emphatic declaration of\nPharisaic belief.\n\nThe Rabbis were fond of moralising upon the case of Manasseh, the\nidolatrous king; and the following passage contains one of the lessons\nthey drew from it (j. Sanh. 28^c). Manasseh, after he had been carried\ncaptive to Babylon and sat in prison there, said to himself: \"'I\nremember how my father caused me to read in the house of assembly this\nverse (Deut. iv. 30), \"When thou art in tribulation, and all these\nthings shall befall thee, in the latter days thou shalt return to the\nLord thy God and shalt hearken to His voice. For the Lord thy God is a\nmerciful God; He will not fail thee, nor destroy thee, nor forget the\ncovenant He made with thy fathers.\" Lo, I will say that, now. If God\nhear me, it is well; if not----.' But the ministering angels desired to\nshut the windows of heaven, so that the prayer of Manasseh might not\nascend to the Holy One, blessed be He. For they said before Him, 'Lord\nof the worlds, wilt thou receive in penitence a man who has set up an\nimage in thy sanctuary?' He answered them, 'If I received not him in\npenitence, lo, I bar the door against all penitents.' What, then, did\nthe Holy One do? He made an opening beneath His throne of glory, and He\nheard his prayer. And this is what is written (2 Chron. xxxiii. 13),\n'And he prayed unto Him, and He was entreated of him, and heard his\nsupplication and brought him again to Jerusalem.'\"\n\nI have given these stories just as they stand, with their quaint and\nchildish notions, because they reflect very clearly the fixed belief of\ntheir authors that man is not prevented from finding forgiveness and\npeace from God. He can always repent; and, if he does, God will always\nforgive him. That this belief makes possible a sort of easy presumption\nof forgiveness is a danger of whose reality the Pharisees were well\naware; and they were careful to warn against it. But they never wavered\nin their belief that forgiveness did always follow on sincere\nrepentance; and that no sinner need ever remain cut off from God by the\nbarrier of his sin. The definite precepts of the Torah were divine\ncommandments, certainly. But they did not make the Pharisee feel that if\nhe disobeyed them there was no longer any hope for him, any possibility\nof ever finding his way back to the love of God. The passages I have\nquoted, and there are many others, and scores and hundreds of sayings\nabout repentance which all teach the same lesson, are the utterance of\nPharisees, of men who were steeped to the lips in Rabbinism, who gloried\nin the Torah, who delighted in the abundance of its precepts, and the\nconsequent casuistry of the schools, and who felt in their hearts that\nlove of God which they did their best to show forth by serving the Lord\nwith gladness in the doing of His commandments.\n\nHowever great be the difference between the Pharisee and the Christian\nin the form given to their respective conceptions of religion, the\ncontents of their spiritual experience were to this extent alike, that\nfor each there was, and is, the sense of personal relation to, and\ncommunion with, the Divine Being. For the Christian, at least for most\nChristians, the medium of that communion is Christ. For the Pharisee\nthere is no medium; but there is, as the guide to show the way, and the\nlight to shine upon it, the Torah. The Pharisee did not bring to his\nreligious conceptions the penetrating power of analysis which has been\napplied by Christian theologians. There has never been a Pharisee who\ncould have done what Paul or Augustine did in this respect, unless it\nwas Maimonides. There will therefore not be found in Pharisaic\nliterature the subtle distinctions of justification, sanctification,\nprevenient grace, etc., which abound in the great Christian writers.\n\nBut, none the less, the main terms are found, and the spiritual\nrealities thereby signified were known in Pharisaic experience. Grace\nwas known. The Holy Spirit was known. Faith was known. These and other\nof \"the deep things of God\" were objects of real experience and devout\ncontemplation. Pious fancy played round them, and represented them in\nparable and allegory; but they were seldom if ever made the subject of\nclose philosophical examination, nor were they formulated in defined\ndoctrines.\n\nMuch is said about the Holy Spirit in the Pharisaic literature, without\nany attempt to make all that is said consistent. But, behind all such\nutterances, there is the unwavering belief in the direct communion of\nGod with man. The Holy Spirit was naturally most often referred to in\nthe case of the prophets, in whom its manifestation was most\nconspicuous. But its influence is implied in the fact of prayer, and is\nnowhere denied in regard to men in general. \"Whatever the righteous do,\nthey do it by the Holy Spirit.\" That is the utterance of a Pharisee\n(Tan\u1e25. Vaje\u1e25i, xiii. p. 110\u00aa), and it is the key to the whole\nPharisaic conception of the relation of man to God.\n\nSo, too, in regard to Faith, while the word does not appear so often on\nthe pages of the Talmud as it does in the Epistles of Paul, the thing\nwas an essential element in the religion of the Pharisees as it was in\nthat of Paul. They never defined precisely what faith meant; it appears\nas a simple and unquestioning trust in God; and they thought about it\nafter a simple fashion, without, however, being thereby shown to be\nwanting in it. \"Great is faith,\" says a Midrash (Mechilta Beshall. ii.\n6, 33^b). \"For Israel believed in Him who spake and the world was; and\nas a reward for believing in the Lord, the Holy Spirit rested on them,\nand they uttered a song: as it is written, 'They believed on the\nLord.... Then sang Moses, etc.'\" (Exod. xiv. 31; xv. 1). \"And so you\nfind\" (continues the Midrash) \"that Abraham our father did not inherit\nthis world and the world to come except by the merit of faith, because\nhe believed in the Lord. As it is written, 'And Abraham believed in the\nLord, and He counted it to him for righteousness'\" (Gen. xv. 6). R.\nNehemiah said, \"Everyone who receives even one commandment in faith is\nworthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on him.\" So even the Pharisees\ncould appeal to the same Abraham, whom Paul called as a witness against\nthem; and they did so with the most obvious sincerity, as having a\nperfect right to do so, and probably with complete ignorance that the\nChristian apostle had appealed to Abraham in support of his argument\nagainst their religion. And it was well done of the compiler of the\nMidrash to add the closing words of the passage I quoted; for I know of\nhardly any other saying which so illumines the inner side of Pharisaism\nas this, that \"Every man who receives even one commandment in faith is\nworthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on him.\"\n\nIn all that I have said in the course of this chapter, I have had before\nme the purpose of showing what is true about the religion of the\nPharisees upon those points which are affected by Paul's condemnation.\nTrue, Paul condemned it as a whole, as a system of thought and practice\nfundamentally and in principle contrary to what he regarded as the\ntruth. But he only alleged certain features of Pharisaism as the sign\nand expression of its defect. He alleged its reliance upon the Law and\nits consequent non-reliance upon Christ. He drew certain conclusions\nfrom its alleged defects, and his conclusions have been accepted as\nvalid ever since. I have therefore tried to show chiefly on these points\nwhat the Pharisees themselves thought and felt and believed; and have\nleft out of notice other aspects of Pharisaism which were not\nchallenged, and which might have been challenged with more reason than\nthose which Paul actually chose. He might have made a strong case\nagainst the particularism of the Pharisees in comparison with the\nuniversalism of his own Gospel. For though it can be shown that the\nPharisaic conception of religion did not exclude universalist ideas in\nregard to mankind in general, yet it can hardly be questioned that such\nideas were but seldom touched upon and by no means conspicuous in the\nordinary thought and debate of the Pharisees. Moreover, the Torah\nitself, which was to them so all important, was given only to Israel,\nand could serve only them as a means of salvation. If the Gentiles were\nto profit by it, they must do so in fellowship with Israel. And that\nmade real universalism impossible, whatever might be the aspirations of\nthis or that particular Rabbi. God offered the Torah, says the Midrash,\nto all the nations of the world; and all refused it except Israel. They\nhad their chance, and rejected it. That is for Jews a not unnatural\nview, but it does not lead to universalism. Yet, if Paul had challenged\nPharisaism on this its weakest side, instead of aiming his blows at an\nunreal creation of his own brain, he would not have been left\nunanswered. The Pharisees would have replied, \"True, we have not grasped\nthe idea of universalism in any effective way. But what does your own\nuniversalism amount to? Only to this, that amongst the elect, those whom\nyou say God chooses out to be saved, the distinction of Jew and Gentile\ndoes not count. But neither for you nor for us is there any question of\nhis actually saving all men. There is no real universalism at all. And\nthere is this between us, that you tell of the wrath of God poured out\non all mankind except the elect; you tell of Christ who in some way is\nthe means of saving those elect; you hold that life in this present\nworld is only a temporary captivity in an evil state from which there\nwill be a speedy release at the coming of Christ in glory. To us there\nis no Christ; for we need none, except the Messiah, who shall come when\nGod shall please, and who will do otherwise than he of whom you speak.\nBut we need none to save us from our Father in Heaven, and none to\npersuade Him to forgive when else He would turn away. And this present\nlife, in this present world, is to us not a vale of tears or a captivity\nin an evil state. It is the scene of our service of God. And that Torah,\nof which you have said such hard things,--you who once gloried in Torah\nyourself, and must have known, though now you have forgotten, how it was\nonce \"the light of all your seeing,\"--that Torah is to us the guide of\nlife, that shows us how in the small deeds of every day we can, if we\nwill, do that which is pleasing to God. Yes, we fail sometimes; and as\nyour own master said, \"even if we did all the 'mitzv\u014dth,' we should\nstill be but unprofitable servants, having done only that which was our\nduty to do.\" Still, we serve Him with heart and soul, the best we can;\nand we count it nothing to have done only the mere act prescribed,\nwithout the intention of pleasing Him. We look to Him as our help and\nour shield, our Father and Lord, our strength and our redeemer. And He\ndoes not turn away from us. Go you and worship Him as you will; and if\nthe Torah no longer says aught to you of what once it said, then seek\nthe revelation of God elsewhere, and hear his voice in other tones. As\nfor us we will \"abide in the things we have learned, knowing from whom\nwe have learned them.\" And so long as we are faithful to the trust that\nGod committed to Israel, when He made him a nation, and gave him the\nTorah and raised up the prophets, and sent psalmists and wise men to\nteach their brethren, so long \"may the Lord God be with us as He was\nwith our fathers.\"\n\nIt is the Pharisee who has kept the promise of Israel; and to these\nlatest days he keeps it still.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nSOME POINTS OF PHARISAIC THEOLOGY\n\n\nIn the second chapter it was pointed out that the development of the\nreligion of Torah, in the centuries from Ezra to the Pharisees and on to\nthe Talmud, took place along two main lines. These are indicated by the\ntwo words Halachah and Haggadah. Upon the meaning of the former I dwelt\nat some length; but, for the sake of clear and adequate treatment, it\nseemed better to defer the consideration of the latter. The thread then\ndropped I shall pick up now; for the answer to the question \"What was\nthe theology of the Pharisees?\" is given in the Haggadah. This is true\nin more senses than one; for to understand what is meant by Haggadah is\nto understand the Pharisaic mode of approaching questions of doctrinal\ntheology, while a comprehensive knowledge of all that they taught upon\nsuch questions could only be obtained by a survey of the whole mass of\nHaggadah contained in the Rabbinical literature. To accomplish anything\nlike that would need a very large volume. Weber devoted a whole book to\nit; and he might well have written a second, to include all that he had\nleft out of the first. It will meet the purpose of the present work to\nexplain the way in which the Pharisees dealt with doctrinal theology,\nand to illustrate this by reference to some main heads of belief,\nchoosing such as may serve to throw light on references in the New\nTestament to Pharisaic doctrines. I shall then be in a position to use\nthe results obtained for an explanation, in the final chapter, of the\nremarkable difference in character and tone between the Pharisaic\nreligious discourse and that of the New Testament teachers--a difference\nfelt by all who are able to compare the two literatures.\n\nFor the purpose of the present inquiry I must again remind the reader\nthat the religion of Torah, since the time of Ezra, was based upon the\nbelief that God had made to Israel a full and final revelation, had\ngiven a body of teaching, for their guidance and enlightenment upon all\nmatters in which the divine and the human came into contact. The vehicle\nof this revelation, the written record of it, was the Pentateuch, called\ntherefore the Torah, _par excellence_. But all the other Scriptures were\nconsidered to be of divine authority, and only subsidiary to the\nPentateuch, because they helped to make clear its meaning. Further, what\nwas implicit in the divine revelation, written in the Pentateuch and\namplified in the other Scriptures, was rendered explicit in the oral\ninterpretation. And whereas the _litera scripta manebat_, unaltered in\nform and quantity, the oral interpretation continually increased in\namount and in multiplicity of detail, as being an ever more full and\nexact exposition of the contents of the original revelation. To use a\nmathematical simile, the whole Torah might be compared to the sum of an\ninfinite series, written in definite symbols, and made to express a more\ndetailed concrete result by the progressive evaluation of its terms.\n\nIt is evident that for the religion of Torah the prime necessity was to\nknow the meaning of the Scriptures in general and of the Pentateuch in\nparticular. The oral Tradition started with the interpretation of\nScripture; and never in its furthest flights of allegorical extravagance\nor daring imagination did it wholly forget or entirely disown its\nconnection with the written word. The connection is not always easy to\ntrace; but it is there, none the less. The Tradition of the Elders,\nwherever it be examined, and whatever be the subject of its\npronouncements, is, from first to last, and from its highest to its\nlowest, the declaration that, when God gave the Torah to Israel, \"this\"\nand \"this\" and \"this\" is what he meant by it.\n\nWhen Ezra and his successors made it their chief task to study and\ninterpret the written Torah, what they looked for before everything else\nwas direction for _doing_ the divine will. The reasons why they took\nthis line have already been explained, and need not be repeated (see\nabove, Chapter II.). The effect was that in the body of tradition\ngradually formed, the element of precept was the most conspicuous and\nthe most systematically developed. It was essential that the Jew,\ndesiring to serve God, should know exactly what he was commanded to do,\nand what he was forbidden to do, and what was the right course to take\nin cases where no divine command or prohibition had been explicitly\ngiven. The Halachah was the answer to these questions; being of the\nnature of a comprehensive rule of right conduct, and intended to cover\nevery possible occasion on which a decision was called for. The results,\nobtained by proper methods of interpretation, and recognised as valid by\ncompetent authority, were clear and definite, and could only be\ndisputed by showing that in fact the real intention of Scripture was\notherwise. Hence it was possible to elaborate a consistent system of\nHalachah, and eventually to codify it all.[15]\n\n     [15] The process of building up the system is seen in the Talmud.\n     The Code, or the chief Code, is the Shul\u1e25an Aruch, compiled in the\n     sixteenth century by Joseph Caro.\n\nBut the interpreters of Scripture found more in its pages than precept;\nthe Torah taught other things besides directions for doing the divine\nwill. It contained instruction about God Himself, about Israel's\nrelation to Him, about the creation and divine providence as shown in\npast history, about human virtues and vices, and the divine approval or\ndisapproval of them, and so on. It was the task of the interpreters to\nset forth this teaching, as well as the positive or negative precepts.\nIt is probable that the early Sopherim described their work of\ninterpretation as a whole by the word Haggadah; or, rather, that they\nused the cognate verb \"higgid\" to indicate that the Scripture\n\"declared\" so and so. But when they began to develop the special line of\nHalachah, the meaning of what had been the more general term was\nrestricted so as to denote all the remainder that was not Halachah. This\nis, in practice, what Haggadah does mean, namely, interpretation of\nScripture in all other directions except that of precept.[16] As a\ntechnical term, indeed, the actual word Haggadah may be no earlier than\nthe first, or even the second, century of our era; but that method or\nprocess of interpretation which it was used to describe was in practice\nlong before.\n\n     [16] This is Bacher's explanation, as given in an article in the\n     _J. Q. R._, 1892, p. 406 fol. His argument seems to me\n     unanswerable.\n\nHaggadah, then, covers the whole field of scriptural interpretation\nexcept so far as it relates to precept; and this is why the contents of\nthe Haggadah are so much more diversified than those of the Halachah.\nOne might truly say that the Haggadah is the Pharisaic comment upon\nlife as a whole in the light of Scripture, the element of duty being\nreserved for special treatment.\n\nIf the Scripture could give even a hint upon any aspect of human nature,\nupon any phase of human experience, upon any attribute of God, upon any\nmystery of His providence, then the unfolding of the true meaning of\nthat hint is Haggadah.\n\nIt will be clear, from what has been said, that all the subjects usually\nincluded under the term doctrinal theology would find their place under\nthe head of Haggadah. Such are the doctrine of God, His existence and\nattributes; the doctrine of sin and restoration; the doctrine of\nrevelation; the doctrine of \"the last things,\" etc. And it is quite true\nthat whatever the Pharisees taught upon those subjects is found in the\nHaggadah and not in the Halachah. But there will not be found a\nconsistent system of doctrine upon these or any other subjects; there\nwill not be found a detailed scheme of heads of belief. There will be\nfound the utterances of individual teachers, sometimes diverging widely\nfrom the opinions of other teachers upon the same subject. There will be\nfound, not indeed a complete and unrestricted license to any man to say\nand teach and believe what he liked, but a liberty to differ where each\nhad what seemed to him good warrant for his belief. _Uniformity of\nreligious belief was never required by the Pharisees_; and the most that\nwas done in that direction was to recognise that there were certain\nlimits beyond which a Jew could not go and still remain within the\nJewish communion. Thus, even if he claimed to prove from Scripture that\nthere were other gods than the One, he would cease to be acknowledged as\na Jew. Or, if he said that the Torah was not from Heaven, _i.e._ was not\na divine revelation, he would in like manner be regarded as no longer a\nJew. But (to put it generally), if he loyally accepted the axioms and\npostulates of Judaism, then he was free to draw his own conclusions from\nthem in regard to what he believed. The Rabbis never drew up a\ndoctrinal creed; and when Maimonides did so, in the twelfth century of\nour era, he did what was felt by many to be uncongenial to the spirit of\nJudaism.\n\nThis absence of a system of doctrinal theology is a feature of\nPharisaism which is most important for the right understanding of it;\nand Christian scholars have gone far astray through not being aware of\nthis essential fact. Weber proclaims his error in the very title of his\nbook, _A \"System\" of Ancient Palestinian Synagogue Theology_. There is\nmuch to be learned from Weber's book, and much that is extremely\nvaluable to those who know how to use it; but, none the less, the whole\nconception of Pharisaic theology expounded in that book is fundamentally\nwrong, because Weber calls that a system which never was a system, and\nnever set out to be. Christian doctrinal theology is capable of being\npresented as a system; and has, in fact, been so represented by almost\nevery denomination of Christians. Weber presumably had such a system on\nLutheran lines. He took for granted that there must have been a system\non Pharisaic lines; in other words, that the doctrines of Pharisaic\nbelief were developed from fundamental principles with such logic as was\nadmissible, and were consistent with each other. He therefore took the\ngeneral scheme of his own Christian theology, and set down under its\nseveral heads what he could find of Rabbinical doctrine upon each point.\nHe must have been perplexed by the want of agreement amongst his\nauthorities, but he got over that by regarding the more prominent\ndoctrine as the rule, and the other as the exception; the former was a\npart of the system, the latter was an aberration. Christian scholars are\npathetically grateful to Weber for having given them an orderly and\nmethodical arrangement of the medley of Pharisaic doctrine; certainly he\nhas done so; but with as much success and as much truth as if he had\ndescribed a tropical jungle, believing it to be a nursery-garden. Many\npeople have seen a nursery-garden. Few have seen a jungle. It is easy\nand natural and highly convenient to identify the unfamiliar with the\nfamiliar; but the jungle remains a jungle, when all is said and done.\n\nThe meaning of which is this, that the Rabbis adjusted their beliefs to\nthe Torah; they believed whatever they found there, or could deduce from\nits plain statements and obscure hints, or could shelter under its\nsanction. It never troubled them that what they found in the Torah was\nnot always mutually consistent. One teacher drew forth _this_ lesson,\nand another drew forth _that_, and a third something different. But what\nthen? Only that the Torah contained these various lessons; and why\nshould not they all be learned? For had not God given them all? What he\nsaid had many meanings, and was not exhausted by one interpretation.[17]\nEven if contradictory conclusions were drawn, they were not on that\naccount any the less divine truth. It was said (j. Ber. 3^b), in regard\nto the controversy between the school of Hillel and the school of\nShammai, \"The words of each are the words of the living God.\" And that\napplies to the whole field of the Haggadah. If the results of\ninterpretation were arrived at by legitimate methods, and declared by\ncompetent teachers, then they were received as valid. Not indeed that\nanyone was required to believe what was stated in them. That was not the\nintention of the teacher. Haggadah was above all things meant for\nedification; it presented religion under a great variety of aspects, and\nby means of an extraordinary wealth of illustrations drawn from the\nwhole field of knowledge and experience. To learn this was good, by\nreason of the variety; the religious thought of the learner was\nenriched, his moral nature benefited, and his spirit continually\nrefreshed by the contemplation of the everchanging aspects of divine\ntruth. Uniformity would have made that impossible; to have required it\nwould have been fatal; and to suppose that it was required is to miss\nthe point of Haggadah, which is what Christian scholars usually do.\n\n     [17] A Midrash says: \"One text issues in many meanings.... The\n     school of R. Ishmael teach (in reference to Jer. xxiii. 29), 'Like\n     a hammer that breaketh the rock'; as this is divided into many\n     sparks, so even one text issues in many meanings. For the way of\n     the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like the way of flesh and\n     blood. For flesh and blood cannot say two things at once. But He\n     who spake and the world was, uttered ten words in one act of\n     speaking, as it is said (Ps. lxii. 11), 'God hath spoken once.'\n     'And God spake all these words, saying, etc.'\" (Exod. xx. 1).\n     Yalkut Shim'oni on Ps. lxii. 11, \u00a7 783.\n\nIf a Jew were told by some teacher a piece of Haggadah, he would be\nimpressed by the wisdom or the beauty of the thought contained in it, or\nperhaps would admire the skill which drew it forth from some obscure\nhint of Scripture; but he would never say to himself, \"I must\nstraightway believe this; if I do not, I shall be in error, and in peril\nof my soul.\" He would more likely say, \"Blessed art thou, Abraham our\nfather, from whom has sprung such a teacher for Israel.\" And observe\nthat Haggadah is still Torah. It is an exposition and application of\nwhat is implicit in the divine revelation, drawn forth and made\narticulate. Yet, even so, there is no demand made for the acceptance, as\nan article of belief, of each Haggadic exposition. The Jew, and notably\nthe Pharisee, knew what faith was, as well as the Christian did; but he\ndid not make it the regulator of his attitude towards that which was\ntaught him as the contents of revelation.\n\nI have said that Haggadah is interpretation of Scripture in all\ndirections except that of precept. And that is true; but the term\n\"interpretation\" must be taken in a very wide sense. A connection of\nsome kind there always is between Scripture and Haggadah; but it is\nsometimes extremely slight. For the Haggadic interpreter performed his\ntask in two ways: either he developed what he believed to be the real\nteaching of Scripture upon this or that point; or he sought to find in\nScripture a sanction for truths which he already believed. And not\nmerely for definite truths, but for anything which might tend to\nedification,--ethical principles, mystical speculations, meditations on\nprovidence and the wonders of creation, the imaginings of pious fantasy,\nand even the play of daring wit. There was nothing that could not find a\nplace in the Haggadah, if it could be linked on to some text or word or\nletter of Scripture. The methods employed were, from the point of view\nof strict exegesis, often wildly extravagant. No freak of allegory, of\nword-play, of fantastic juggling with letters and syllables, is without\nillustration in the Haggadah. And the men who employed such methods knew\nwell that what they were setting forth was not the plain literal meaning\nof Scripture. What they saw, with their inward vision, was the divine\ntruth, holiness, justice, beauty, goodness, love; they read it in their\nown experience, and traced it in nature and history and man. They looked\nto see it all mirrored in Scripture; for there was the divine\nrevelation, and there all that they believed to be divine must be. Some\nof it could be plainly seen; for, in essentials, the Haggadic teaching\nupon ethics and piety kept to the main lines of the Scriptures. What\ncould not be plainly seen was inferred to be there; and no hint was too\nslight to indicate its presence. We say that this means reading into the\ntext what is not there. And doubtless that is the case. But the\nHaggadist did not so understand what he did. If he was conscious of\nideas, thoughts, beliefs, which he felt to be variously good, then,\nsince Scripture was for him the only vehicle of divine revelation,\nsomewhere in Scripture must be indicated all that various good. And any\nmethod was justified by which it could be brought forth and made clear.\nThat I take to be the theory of the Haggadah, the explanation which a\nHaggadist would give of the reason for his peculiar treatment of\nScripture. Haggadah, like Halachah, is a natural, perhaps even a\nnecessary, development of a religion of Torah. Both are integral parts\nof Torah; and a thorough understanding of the nature and function of\neach is necessary for the understanding of the whole. Halachah and\nHaggadah, together with the personal spiritual life of the individual,\ncover the whole field of the religious consciousness of the Pharisee.\nFor it is entirely wrong to say that the Pharisee was wholly taken up\nwith the Halachah, the discipline of direct precept. No Pharisee that\never lived confined his thoughts and aspirations, his beliefs and hopes,\nwithin the range of Halachah, nor could have done if he had tried. He\nguided his conduct by the Halachah certainly, because he believed that\nby following it he was doing the will of God exactly as it ought to be\ndone. But the Halachah did not teach him, and did not profess to teach\nhim, how he should think about God, nor did it seek to regulate his own\nprivate communion with his Father in heaven. For this last he sought no\nother teacher except the promptings of his own soul and the answer of\nGod to his prayers. And for the knowledge of God's nature and His works\nin providence and human history, he gladly learned from any wise and\ngifted teacher who could tell him anything, or in any way help him to\nthink wisely, to worship devoutly, to live worthily. I shall have more\nto say about this in the concluding chapter. I only mention it here,\nbecause it was necessary to show the place which the Haggadah occupied\nin the religious thought of the Pharisee, and how it did for him what in\nother religions is done by a scheme of doctrinal theology. For the\npresent I keep to the subject of the Haggadah itself, and proceed to\ninquire what can be learned from it as to the main heads of Pharisaic\nbelief, especially in the period covered by the New Testament. It is\nmainly for the sake of this inquiry that I have given the foregoing\nexplanation of the nature and intention of Haggadah.\n\nThe inquiry is by no means an easy one. For, while it is only necessary\nto open a volume of the Talmud, or of one of the great Midrashim, to\nfind on almost every page some Haggadic utterance, often indeed a great\nmass of Haggadah, it is wholly unwarranted to say \"this\" and \"this\" is\nwhat the Pharisees believed. It may be; and, of course, if it were not\nin some way acceptable to Pharisaic minds, according to their canons of\njudgment, it would not be found in their books. But the Haggadah does\nnot carry its meaning on the surface, nor yield it to the hearer or\nreader who has only a passing glance for it or a careless ear. And thus,\nwhat really represents the truth believed, or the good discerned, the\nelement to which the mind assented, and which it gratefully received, is\nnot expressed in the verbal form of the Haggadah, nor in its\nstatements,--extravagant and even impossible as they sometimes are.\nThere was no idea of taking those statements as they stand, as if they\nwere to be accepted as true, and believed as divine revelations. When it\nis said by a Haggadist that since the creation God has been occupied in\nmaking marriages (Ber. R., p. 133^c \u00a7 68. 4), that does not represent as\nit stands what any Pharisee, or the Haggadist himself, really believed\nabout God. As George Eliot truly says of that particular Haggadah, \"The\nlevity of the saying lies in the mind of him who hears it\"; and, as she\nmight have added, puts a frivolous meaning on it. The Haggadah is full\nof such things; but the Haggadah is not on that account frivolous or\nabsurd. And when the unwary Christian produces specimens of Haggadah,\nand says, \"See what those Rabbis believed and taught,\" the foolishness\nwhich he illustrates is not that of the Rabbis. To get at the real\nmeaning and serious purpose of Haggadic teaching is one of the\ndifficulties in the inquiry into what the Pharisees believed. In itself\nit is not a great difficulty, but it needs to be recognised.\n\nA further difficulty is presented by the question, how far can the\nutterance of some individual teacher be taken to represent a generally\naccepted belief, seeing that there was no requirement of uniformity of\nbelief? To that question a decisive answer is scarcely ever possible,\nexcept within wide limits of probability. If a doctrine can be\nformulated upon some topic of theology, it will represent a _de facto_\nconsensus of belief, rather than the conscious acceptance of the\nteaching of any authority; and those who held the belief might still\nprefer a different statement of it. Everywhere caution is necessary in\ndrawing forth from the Haggadah its real meaning, and in forming\nconclusions as to the generality of its acceptance.\n\nA still further difficulty, and one which is of especial importance for\nthe purpose of this book, is that of using, for comparison with the\nteaching of the New Testament, Haggadah often of much later date. Of the\nenormous mass of Haggadah contained in the Rabbinical literature, only a\nsmall proportion is contemporary with the Gospels, and very little\nindeed contemporary with Jesus. One of the most famous Haggadists was\nR. Joshua b. Levi, in the middle of the third century of our era. If we\nfind that he teaches some doctrine, are we entitled to use his words as\nevidence that such doctrine was believed by Pharisees in the time of\nJesus and the Apostles? If not, then, of course, the appeal to the\nTalmud and Midrash, in illustration of Pharisaism in the New Testament\nperiod, is futile. Here, again, caution is necessary; but, with caution,\nthe answer is that the later literature may rightly be used as evidence\nof earlier beliefs and ideas. We have already met the same question in\nreference to the Halachah (see above, Chapter II.). And the answer there\nwas that the _principle_ of Halachah was accepted, and the development\nof that principle was begun long before the time of Christ. What changed\ncontinuously through the centuries was the body and form of ascertained\nHalachah, determined by the gradual expansion into greater detail of its\nprecepts, and their application to a greater variety of cases. The\nHalachah, as codified in the Mishnah, is much more extensive than the\nHalachah as it was known to the Pharisees in the time of Jesus. But the\nintention of it is the same for the earlier period as for the later.\nWherefore it is legitimate to use the Talmud to illustrate the principle\nof Halachah as accepted in the New Testament period, as also for the\nperiods before and after; but it would not be safe to infer that some\nparticular definition, propounded by Akiba or Judah the Holy, was\nalready regarded as Halachah, and taken for a rule of conduct by the\ncontemporaries of Hillel and Shammai. Now, with regard to the Haggadah,\nthe case is somewhat different, because, as has been already explained,\nno uniformity of belief was required, while uniformity of practice was\nrequired. But, allowing for that difference, what was said about the use\nof the later literature in regard to the Halachah applies also to its\nuse in regard to the Haggadah. For here, also, there is an element which\ndoes not change, or not to any great extent, over a period which\nincludes that of the New Testament and a considerable time before and\nafter. That element is the general Pharisaic belief about God, Israel,\nand the world, about man's relation to God and to his fellow-men, about\nvirtues, vices, the nature of sin, the function of prayer, and so on.\nWhat the Haggadah did was to teach this, illustrate it in all manner of\nways, and present it in every possible aspect, but not in any great\ndegree to modify it. Indeed, I think hardly to modify it at all. There\nis, in Pharisaism, no such progressive development of doctrine as there\nis in Christianity. Of course there could not be, in the nature of\nthings, a Pharisaic Christology. But there was no progressive doctrine\nof a Messiah, nor of the Torah, nor of the resurrection of the dead,\nnor, I think, of any of the main subjects of belief. There were general\nideas commonly held upon these subjects, beliefs upon which there was\nsubstantial agreement, and no thought of challenge. And the Haggadah was\nthe means by which this general body of belief was continually\nillustrated and illumined, so that it might have ever renewed power to\nrefresh the soul. Just as the Halachah was the detailed application of\nTorah to conduct, on its practical side, as the doing of the divine\nwill, so the Haggadah was the detailed application of Torah to the\nspiritual life generally, so that the light which God had given might be\nshed over the \"things which are eternal.\"\n\nI proceed to sketch out what I take to be the general beliefs of the\nPharisees which form the background, or the substratum, of the Haggadah,\nso far as I have been able to make it out. Afterwards I will give some\nHaggadic illustrations upon particular points. I purposely do not\nattempt a systematic arrangement, because the Pharisees themselves did\nnot.\n\nThe object of worship is God--one, and undivided. He is the Creator of\nthe world and of everything in it; and no other being shared with Him in\nthat work. He does what He will; but His will is always just. His\nprovidence supplies the wants of His creatures. He is good, kind, and\nmerciful.\n\nIt is the duty of man to obey Him. He has made known His will; He\nrewards those who fulfil His command, and punishes those who disobey. He\nhas made all the human race; but Israel stands in a special relation to\nHim, because only Israel is bound to Him by a covenant. The Torah was\noffered to the other nations, but they would not have it. They are\ntherefore outside the range of God's favour. They can only come within\nit by learning from Israel the Torah. There are, nevertheless, good men\namongst the other nations.\n\nIt is the privilege of Israel to have been found worthy to receive the\nTorah, and his highest aim is to fulfil it, not only by doing what it\nsets before him as the divine will, but by taking to heart all that it\nteaches him concerning sacred things.\n\nThe Pharisee believed himself to be under the immediate care of God.\nNothing happens to him except by the divine permission. God sees, and\nknows all that he does and all that he is going to do. Nevertheless, his\nwill is free. He is not compelled either to obey or to disobey. If he\nobeys, God is pleased with him. If he disobeys, God is angry with him.\nReward will follow in the former case, punishment in the latter. If he\nhas sinned, repentance will make his peace with God. Forgiveness is\nnever refused to the penitent. He can always pray to God, and God will\nalways hear him.\n\nIt is his duty to be kind towards his fellow-men, \"especially towards\nthem which are of the household of the faith\"--namely, Israel. He must\nnot wrong anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. He must especially do acts of\ncharity towards the poor and the suffering. He must not live an idle\nlife; and in all that he does he must serve God.\n\nAlthough at present he has much to endure, yet there will be in the\nfuture a better time, when the Messiah shall come and set up the\nkingdom of God upon earth. Then Israel will be freed from the oppression\nof the Gentiles, and will enjoy peace and prosperity and the fulness of\nthe blessing of God. When that shall be, no one knows. God will send the\nMessiah when it pleases Him to do so. But the sins of Israel hinder his\ncoming.\n\nWhen life on earth is over, there is a life beyond the grave. For the\nrighteous there is Heaven, where they will be rewarded; and for the\nwicked there is Hell, where they will be punished. The righteous in\nHeaven will live for ever. The wicked in Hell will be destroyed and made\nan end of. There will be no chance to repent after death.\n\nMan is under the protection of angels, and liable to temptation and harm\nfrom evil spirits. There are many such, and there is a prince over them.\nThe angels are God's messengers. Each man has in himself two opposing\nimpulses or tendencies; one towards good and the other towards evil. It\nis his duty to control the evil impulse and strengthen the good one.\nGod will help him to obey the good, and will not prevent him from\nyielding to the bad. To keep his mind fixed on the Torah, and filled\nwith its teaching, is his protection against sin and his incitement to\nright living. He is glad that the Torah gives him so many precepts to\nfulfil, because it thereby constantly reminds him of God, and provides\nopportunities for serving Him. The Torah is the centre and circumference\nof all his thoughts and beliefs about religion. In it God has revealed\neverything that He has revealed at all. It is the greatest gift He could\nmake, and He has bestowed it all on Israel, and kept nothing back.\n\nSuch, in bare outline, and purposely stripped of all details, I believe\nto have been the contents of the religious consciousness of the\nPharisees in general, the beliefs and ideas common to them all. In\ndifferent periods, according to circumstances, there would be variety in\nthe emphasis laid upon particular points.\n\nFor instance there might be, as there certainly was, more than one\nperiod when the group of beliefs centring on the Messiah rose into\nexceptional prominence, and were held with more than usual fervour. And,\nagain, the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, and the final overthrow\nof the Jewish national polity in A.D. 135, had a profound influence upon\nPharisaic belief, by laying additional stress on faithfulness to the\ndivine will, and by causing deeper reflection upon the mystery of that\nwill as shown in the suffering of Israel. The Pharisees deplored, with\nsincerest grief, the loss of the Temple and the cessation of its\nservices. But they were well able to learn the lesson of a worship and a\nreligious life, for which such external means were needless. And they\ndid learn it with wonderful rapidity.\n\nSo, too, for individuals according to temperament, some elements of the\ngeneral belief would have more importance than others; and there would\nbe, further, a great variation in the strength of conviction with which\nthe beliefs were held, as also in the character of those who held them.\nIt is clear that such a general conception of religion could open a way\nfor the faults of pride and hypocrisy, charged against the Pharisees, as\nit also could open the way for the virtues of humble piety and sincere\ndevotion. It probably did the one. It certainly did the other. There\nwere good, bad, and indifferent Pharisees, as there are good, bad, and\nindifferent Christians. And all that I am concerned with at present is\nthe general Pharisaic consensus of belief, thought, and feeling upon\ndivine things.\n\nIf I have described it correctly, then it represents the underlying\nmeaning of the Haggadah; and whatever is contained in the Haggadah is\nintended to illustrate, or enforce, or make prominent, some aspect of\nthose beliefs. It matters nothing that there is endless variety, and\nfrequent contradiction, in what the Haggadists say, _i.e._ in the form\nin which they clothe their thoughts; nor that they make statements\nwhich are extravagant, or impossible, or absurd, or grotesque, or even\noccasionally, in appearance at least, irreverent. What really was in\ntheir mind was the underlying religious truth or ethical principle which\nthey sought to illumine. That was their serious intention; and it is not\na denial of this if it be admitted that, like all interpreters who use\nthe method of allegory, they occasionally let their fancy run riot, and\nindulged in freaks of exposition whose connection with religion is not\nobvious.[18] Trivialities of that kind, however, may be left out of\naccount.\n\n     [18] As, _e.g._ when they give the name of Lot's wife, which was\n     Idith (Tan\u1e25. i. 45^b), or are able to say that the fare which Jonah\n     paid to go in the ship was 4000 gold pieces (b. Nedar. 38\u00aa), or\n     that Noah took with him into the ark suitable food for the\n     different creatures:--hay for the camel, barley for the ass,\n     grape-vines for the elephant, and _glass_ for the ostrich (Tan\u1e25.\n     15\u00aa).\n\nIt will be of more use to take some of the points of the foregoing\nsketch of Pharisaic belief, and examine them in greater detail. And the\nfirst shall be the doctrine of God, and more particularly certain\naspects of the doctrine of God.\n\nBetween the Pharisees and the New Testament teachers there was no\ndispute as to the sole sovereignty of God, or that He was the Creator\nand upholder of all things. But it is well to lay stress upon the\nPharisaic belief in the nearness of God and the directness of access to\nHim; also to make clear the fact that emphatic resistance was offered by\nthe Pharisees to any idea of a plurality of divine persons. They would\nown no being who could be regarded either as in some sense a second God,\nor as a mediator between God and man.\n\nThat the Pharisees commonly thought of God as a cold abstraction, a\ndistant and inaccessible Power, is by Christian scholars frequently but\nquite erroneously asserted. Of course, it was never denied that God was\nthe Almighty, the Lord of all worlds, supreme over everything. Indeed,\nthat was affirmed over and over again, and is one of the axioms of\nPharisaic belief. But, whatever other Jews may have done, under the\ninfluence of Hellenism, the Pharisees never doubted for a moment that\nGod Himself, the one supreme God, was actually near to every one of His\npeople; \"near, in every kind of nearness,\" as it was said (j. Ber. 13\u00aa).\nThat is the really effective belief of the Pharisees, as can be seen on\nwell-nigh every page of the Talmud and the Midrash. How it was to be\nreconciled, if it needed to be reconciled, with the belief in the\nabstract infinity of God, was a question which the Pharisees never\ntroubled to answer, even if they were aware of it. There was no Jewish\nphilosophy of religion till long after the closing of the Talmud. And\nthe Pharisees most certainly did not logically develop their conception\nof God from their idea of the Torah. Whether, even if they had done so,\nthey would have arrived at the barren abstraction, which Weber declares\nto have been the Pharisaic idea of God (Weber, _System_, etc., p. 149),\nis open to question. But they never allowed any theoretical reasoning\nwhich would prevent them from owning the love and goodness of God, or\nwhich would place an impassable gulf between Him and His creatures. The\nfollowing piece of Haggadah illustrates this point: \"It is said (Exod.\nxx. 1), 'And God spake all these words.' He doeth the whole at once\n(_i.e._ in one action). He kills and He makes alive, in one action. He\nwounds and He heals, in one action. The woman in travail, those that go\ndown to the sea, travellers in deserts, captives in prison, east and\nwest, north and south, He hears them all, in one act (of hearing)\"\n(Shem. R. p. 50^b). And a few lines further on it is stated that He\nspoke all the ten commandments in one act (of speaking). There is here\nno attempt to explain _how_ God, being Almighty, can take particular\nnotice of persons; there is the unquestioning belief _that_ He does so.\nHe may be high in Heaven, but no suffering creature of His suffers\nunseen or unheard. \"A bird perishes not, without Heaven\" (_i.e._ except\nby the will of God); so said a great Pharisee, in words that have a\nstriking likeness to a saying of Jesus on the same subject (j. Sheb.\n38^d, and cp. Matt. x. 29). A story is told (Debar. R. 102\u00aa) of a\ncertain Jew who was on board a ship, where all the other passengers were\nGentiles. The ship touched at an island, \"and the sailors said to the\nJew, 'Take money and go ashore, and buy something for us.' He said, 'I\nam not at home here; how shall I know where to go?' They said, 'A Jew is\nat home everywhere. For whithersoever thou goest, thy God goeth with\nthee.'\" (The reference is to Deut. iv. 7, \"What great nation hath a God\nwho is so nigh to them.\")\n\nThe nearness of God is especially emphasised in relation to prayer. He\nhears all who pray to Him, and it is He himself who hears and to whom\nprayer should alone be offered. \"Every man,\" says the Talmud, \"has a\n'patronus' (a 'friend at court'). If there comes trouble upon him, he\ndoes not go direct to his patron, but goes and stands at his door, and\ncalls to the servant or to a son of the house, and he tells the patron\n'So and so is standing at the door of thy court.' Perhaps the patron has\nhim admitted. Perhaps he leaves him alone. But the Holy One, blessed be\nHe, is not so. If trouble comes on a man (God says), 'Let him pray, not\nto Michael and not to Gabriel, but to me, and I will answer him at\nonce.' And this is that which is written (Joel ii. 32), 'Everyone that\ncalleth on the name of the Lord shall be delivered'\" (j. Ber. 13\u00aa). Here\nwe have not only the declaration of belief in direct access to God\nHimself through prayer, but also the repudiation of any mediator.\nMichael and Gabriel may be servants of God, but they do not come between\nGod and man to keep them apart or to serve as the necessary medium of\nintercourse. They were never, in Pharisaic theology, allowed any place\nwhich might seem to impair the divine Unity. The idea of a second God\nwas steadfastly resisted; and no personification of divine attributes,\nor exaltation of archangels, was ever carried so far as to imply a\nplurality of persons in the Deity. As against the doctrine of the\nLogos, and the Christian exaltation of Christ, the Pharisees maintained\nthe strict unity of God. Neither the Memra of the Targums, nor the\nShechinah of the Talmud and the Midrash, however personified for\nHaggadic purposes, was regarded as being in any sense a personality\nco-existent with God Himself. The Holy Spirit was either God, or the\ninfluence of God, but not a personality distinguishable from Him.\nMetatron comes the nearest to the conception of a second God; but,\nwhatever the later Cabbalists may have made of Metatron, the Pharisees\nof the Talmud expressly rejected the notion that he was a second God. It\nis told (b. \u1e24ag. 15\u00aa) that the famous Elisha b. Abujah, the nearest\napproach to a Jewish heretic, went up into Heaven (Paradise), and there\nsaw \"Metatron, to whom was given power to sit and write down the merits\nof Israel.\" (Elisha) said: \"It is taught that on high there is no\nsitting, no strife, no parting, and no joining. Can there be, Heaven\nforbid, two powers? (_i.e._ two Gods). They brought out Metatron, and\ngave him sixty lashes of fire.\" The commentator on this passage explains\nthat Metatron was treated in that manner in order to show that he was\nnot superior to the other angels in kind, and that he was subservient to\nGod, not on any sort of equality with Him. Metatron, as I have elsewhere\nmaintained,[19] is the Rabbinical reply to the Gnostic and Christian\ndoctrines which seemed to threaten the divine Unity. It was perhaps with\nreference to Christian doctrine that the Rabbis laid stress on the\nbelief that God has no Son. Commenting on Exod. xx. 2: \"R. Abahu said:\n'A parable of a king of flesh and blood; he reigns and has a father or a\nbrother. The Holy One, blessed be He, saith, \"I am not so\"; (but) (Isa.\nxliv. 6) \"I am the first,\" I have no father; \"and I am the last,\" I have\nno son; \"and beside me there is no God,\" I have no brother'\" (Shem. R.\n51^b). Abahu lived in the third century of our era; and most of the\nHaggadic expositions of the unity of God, on the lines indicated, are\nlater than the New Testament period. But, as they were only developed in\nopposition to Christian teaching, it is not likely that in the time of\nJesus or the Apostles the Pharisees were divided or uncertain upon a\npoint which had scarcely as yet been challenged. Jesus himself never\nchallenged it, so far as the Synoptic Gospels are evidence; and, upon a\nbelief so fundamental in Pharisaic Judaism, it is not to be supposed\nthat he was more consistent than the Pharisees themselves. The challenge\ncame not from Jesus but from Paul, even though Paul may not have\nintended, or been conscious of, any infraction of the unity of God in\nhis teaching about Christ. The Pharisees took the alarm from him; and,\nin opposition to his Christology, and the later Johannine doctrine,\ntaught with especial emphasis the undivided sole supremacy of God. And\nthey had no more difficulty than Jesus had in believing that the one God\nwas both sovereign Lord and heavenly Father, as in fact they called\nHim.\n\n     [19] See my _Christianity in Talmud and Midrash_, pp. 286-8.\n\nSo much for the Pharisaic conception of God. We will now consider\nanother set of beliefs of theirs upon which a comparison with New\nTestament teaching is possible and instructive--the Pharisaic ideas\nabout Retribution, reward and punishment, merit. There is no consistent\nPharisaic doctrine upon the subject, but rather a comment upon the facts\nof human experience from different points of view. That man's will is\nfree is one of the axioms of Pharisaism. It was stated by R. Akiba,\n\"Everything is foreseen, and freedom is given, and the world is judged,\nand all is according to the amount of work\" (M. Aboth. iii. 15). Man is\ntherefore a moral agent, cognisant of the distinction between right and\nwrong, capable of acting upon that distinction, and liable to be judged\naccordingly. \"All is in the hand of Heaven except the fear of Heaven,\"\nsaid another teacher (b. Ber. 33^b). If, then, man serves God, he does\nso not on compulsion. He is therefore subject to the approval or\ndisapproval of God for what he does. Experience, interpreting life,\ndiscerns evident tokens of such approval and disapproval; and Scripture\nclearly teaches that God distinguishes between the righteous and the\nsinner in His treatment of them. Whatever form His approval or\ndisapproval may take, they are His certain judgment on human actions, to\nbe looked for as the consequence of doing those actions.\n\nThe Pharisees, like other moralists, expressed this by saying that God\nrewarded the good and punished the bad. And they used that principle as\na clue to the meaning of providence, as shown in human suffering and\nhappiness. They pondered on the problem why suffering should be\ninflicted on the apparently innocent? and why the obviously sinful\nseemed often to prosper? And they suggested various partial solutions of\nthe problem, but wisely left it an open question. It might be that there\nwas no suffering without previous sin, or it might be that suffering\nwas sometimes the chastisement imposed on the righteous through the love\nof God, as it is said: \"Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.\" It might be\nthat material prosperity and adversity were the signs by which the\ndivine approval and disapproval were shown, the reward or the punishment\nfor human actions; or it might be that these were manifested only\ninwardly, in the soul and not in the outward lot. All these different\nviews find varied expression in the utterance of Pharisaic teachers, and\nthere is no attempt to set up one as true to the exclusion of the rest.\nAnd when the Pharisee spoke of reward and punishment, he meant to\nindicate his belief that in some way it went well with the man who did\ngood, and ill with the man who did wrong, and both by the divine\nappointment.\n\nIn the Gospels, Jesus also speaks of reward, as every reader knows; and\nmany readers have winced when they read:--\"Pray to thy Father, ... and\nthy Father shall _reward_ thee.\" \"Great is your _reward_ in Heaven.\"\n\"If you do good to them that do good, what _reward_ have ye?\" Phrases\nlike these have an unpleasant sound, wherever they occur, because of the\nnotions commonly attached to the term reward. No one supposes that\nJesus, in using that term, was appealing to low motives of\nself-interest; and I believe that he meant exactly what I have given as\nthe Pharisaic meaning, namely, that there was a divinely appointed\ndifference between the condition of the good and that of the bad, as a\nconsequence of their actions. It is at least not justifiable to say that\nJesus must have meant what he said, according to its best\ninterpretation, and that the Pharisees must have meant what they said,\naccording to its worst interpretation. Jesus was one, and the Pharisees\nwere many; and while he remained ever on the highest plane of spiritual\nwisdom, the Pharisees represented different degrees of that wisdom. Some\nmight, and occasionally did, interpret divine reward and punishment in\nterms of material welfare, while others saw more deeply into the\nspiritual meaning of those terms. But it is not true that the material\ninterpretation represents the general belief of the Pharisees, while the\nspiritual interpretation is the exception. The truth is that they would\nnot reject any interpretation which might throw some light upon the\nproblem; and they cared nothing that different interpretations\ncontradicted one another.\n\nSo far, there is no essential difference, that I can see, between the\nPharisaic teaching and that of the Gospels, or the New Testament\ngenerally, about reward and punishment. The difference that does exist\nis due to the fact that Pharisaism was the religion of Torah. For here\nthe divine approval or disapproval was necessarily associated in an\nespecial degree with the \"Mitzv\u014dth,\" the precepts which\nexpressed the will of God for the conduct of man. To say that there is a\nreward for doing a \"Mitzvah\" is no more out of keeping with true piety\nthan to say there is a reward for praying to the Father which seeth in\nsecret. In each case it only means that the act of devotion to God,\nwhatever form it take, is acceptable to Him, and His blessing is given\nto the doer of it. Now, the Mitzv\u014dth were clearly-defined,\nspecific acts; and the Pharisee, as has been already pointed out in a\nprevious chapter, regarded them not as irksome constraints, but as\nwelcome opportunities for serving God. The more Mitzv\u014dth\nhe could meet with the better. If, by doing them, he could thereby\nplease God, what more could he wish for? Certainly he looked for reward;\nbut the joy of service and the blessing of God was the reward he looked\nfor. That is the real mind of the Pharisee in regard to reward. And if\nsome Pharisees interpreted the blessing of God in a material sense, to\nbe shown in outward prosperity, while others interpreted it in a\nspiritual sense, that is only a difference of temperament as between\nparticular Pharisees. What the reward should be, in what way God would\nshow His approval and give His blessing, was as God should please. The\nPharisee served Him with gladness and zeal; and only hoped (as\nChristians also have been invited to hope) that God might say to him:\n\"Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy\nLord.\"\n\nIt was a Pharisee who said, \"The reward of one Mitzvah is the\nopportunity to fulfil another\" (Aboth. iv. 5); and perhaps no words\ncould better indicate the Pharisaic view of reward in the service of\nGod. The service is everything; the reward is God's way of showing that\nthe service is acceptable. Moreover, the reward, if it were expected to\nbe anything more than the present consciousness of divine approval, was\nnot looked for in this world, but would be part of the bliss of the\nworld to come. \"Thou wilt find,\" said a Rabbi, \"no single Mitzvah in the\nTorah, to which a reward is attached, which does not depend on the\nraising of the dead. 'Honour thy father and mother, that thou mayest\nprolong thy days,' and 'that it may be well with thee.'... 'That thou\nmayest prolong thy days' in a world which is endless, and 'that it may\nbe well with thee' in a world which is wholly good\" (b. \u1e24ull. 142\u00aa). And\nagain it is taught, \"What is that which is written (Deut. iv. 7) 'which\nI command thee to do them this day?'\" To do them _this day_, and not\n_to-morrow_. To _do them_ this day, and not to _receive the reward_ this\nday\" (b. Kidd. 39^b); and on the same page is the express statement,\n\"Reward for a Mitzvah in this world there is none.\" Of the nature of the\nreward this is said: \"The world to come is neither eating nor drinking,\nnor increasing and multiplying, nor giving and receiving, nor jealousy,\nnor hatred, nor strife; but the righteous sit with crowns on their\nheads, and enjoy the light of the Shechinah\" (b. Ber. 17\u00aa).\n\nSuch ideas were in the minds of the Pharisees when they spoke of the\nreward for doing the will of God; ideas not hardened into a formal\ndoctrine, and perhaps by some only dimly apprehended, but yet indicating\na vision of divine things not very unlike what has floated before the\ngaze of Christian souls. But while the Pharisees thus delighted to muse\non the reward, they were emphatic in teaching that the \"Mitzvah\" was not\nto be done for the sake of the reward, as if to obtain thereby some\npayment of what was due. The distinction is somewhat fine, especially as\nthe reward hoped for was spiritual bliss and not material advantage. But\nthe Pharisees drew the distinction, nevertheless. Thus it is said, in\nreference to Ps. i. 2, \"His delight is in the law of the Lord.\" R.\nEliezer says, \"Who delighteth greatly in his commandments.\" \"In his\ncommandments (Mitzv\u014dth), but not in the reward of the Mitzv\u014dth\" (b. A.Z.\n19\u00aa). The sole reason allowable for doing a Mitzvah is the hope of\npleasing God thereby. And then follows the well-known saying of the\nancient Antigonos of Socho: \"Be not like servants who serve their master\nfor a reward.\" These are only a few instances out of many to show that\nthe Pharisee was not actuated by motives of the kind which are usually\nascribed to him in his performance of the things commanded him. If to an\nideal so lofty and so austere, the Pharisee sometimes failed to rise,\nand said what was not worthy of it, there is no cause for wonder, since\nthe same may be observed amongst Christians, and is merely due to\nindividual human nature. But the Pharisaic conception of religion in\ngeneral, and of this phrase of it in particular, is entitled to be\njudged by the best to which it looked up, and not to be condemned for\nits occasional failure to apprehend that best.\n\nFinally, what about merit? The Pharisees were never afraid to talk about\nmerit; but what they said must be taken in the light of what has already\nbeen stated. They had no fixed doctrine of merit; and there certainly\nnever was a general Pharisaic belief in a system of bargaining with God\nas between debtor and creditor on business lines. This or that teacher\nmay have used the terms of such transactions by way of illustration; but\nthey do not represent the general mind of the Pharisees upon the\nsubject. The Pharisees certainly believed that to perform many Mitzv\u014dth\nwas better than to perform one; and they not unnaturally concluded that\nthere could be no more reasonable criterion for a judgment of character\nthan the use which a man had made of the opportunities afforded by the\nMitzv\u014dth for serving God. Mitzv\u014dth, being specific commands, could be\ncounted up; and the degree of goodness shown in doing them, or of\nbadness in not doing them, could be thought of quantitatively, instead\nof qualitatively. This is not, for obvious reasons, the best way of\ntreating the matter; and the Pharisees have, in consequence, come in for\na great deal of rebuke and contempt for having degraded the relation of\nman to God, when all that they did was to use an unfortunate metaphor in\norder to express a real distinction. It was perhaps mainly through the\nuse of this metaphor, this quantitative description of goodness, that\nthey laid themselves open to the charge of boastful self-righteousness;\nand no doubt they were occasionally to blame in that respect. Because a\nPharisee was able to observe, in a quite dispassionate way, the fact\nthat he had performed so many \"Mitzv\u014dth.\" It would have been better for\nhim not to have learned that method of self-examination. But,\nnevertheless, it is true, though only those who know the Pharisees can\nbe expected to believe it, that genuine humility could and often did go\nalong with that candid estimate of good performed.\n\nThis accumulation of goodness, through the performance of \"Mitzv\u014dth,\" is\nwhat the Pharisees meant by merit, \"Zachuth.\" And though they were not\nin the least ashamed of it, nor saw why they should be, they were\ncareful to keep the idea of merit within limits. Like the reward hoped\nfor, the merit acquired was not a motive, but an accessory. They\nbelieved, certainly, that merit counted for much with God. As has been\nsaid, they believed that He judged men according to whether the goodness\nof their deeds or the badness was the greater; in other words, by the\namount of merit which they possessed. But they did not presume to set\nup a claim against Him; and while they pleaded merit before Him, they\nwere taught that it was not their own merit they should plead, but that\nof others. \"He who pleads the merit of others is answered for his own;\nand he who pleads the merit of himself is answered for that of others\"\n(b. Ber. 10^b). Very often it was the merit of the Fathers, Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, to whose influence with God great effect was ascribed.\nYet what is all this but the idea of intercession, of the good on behalf\nof the less good? And as between Pharisaic and Christian ideas on the\nsubject, the difference is more in the form than the substance. Even the\nappeal to the merits of the Fathers was discouraged by many Pharisees,\non the ground that it tended to shift responsibility for a man's own\nconduct on to someone else. They never for long forgot that, nor wavered\nin their trust that God was a just and loving God, into whose hands they\nneed not fear to commit themselves. With simplicity of heart, rather\nthan with profound philosophical acumen, they mused on their experience\nof life in the light of Scripture and in the thought of service of God;\nand if they did not get much further than the conviction that it is well\nwith the righteous and not well with the sinner, that God knows all and\nwill deal justly with all, that some of His ways are plain to be seen,\nand others past finding out, and that the whole duty of man is to fear\nGod and keep His commandments; and that the highest joy is to serve Him\nwith gladness, and in doing justly, and loving mercy to walk humbly with\nHim,--who will say that they are very far wrong?\n\nThis was the practical purpose of the Pharisees, the aim of their\nserious intention, and, in no inconsiderable degree, the measure of\ntheir achievement.\n\nI have dwelt upon these two aspects of Pharisaic theology as being of\nmost importance for my main purpose in this book. To include all that\ncould be said would defeat that purpose by wearying the reader. I have\ntherefore left unnoticed such topics as the belief in the Messiah and\nthe group of ideas connected with Eschatology; and I have done so in\norder to concentrate attention upon what is of fundamental importance,\nnamely, the point of view from which the Pharisees looked upon religious\nbelief and the truths apprehended in it, the special character imposed\nupon their general conception of things divine, by the form of Torah in\nwhich all their religious thought was cast. What has been learned in\nregard to the two theological topics dealt with in this chapter can be\napplied to others; and, in any case, the general mind of the Pharisees\nhas, I hope, been made easier to understand.\n\nIf it has, then I trust to be able to carry the reader with me in what I\nshall say in the concluding chapter of Pharisaism as a spiritual\nreligion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nPHARISAISM AS A SPIRITUAL RELIGION\n\n\nIn this concluding chapter I shall make an attempt to indicate what\nPharisaism was on its spiritual side, as the expression of the\nPharisee's personal feeling towards God; or, if I may put it in\ncolloquial terms, what the Pharisee \"felt like\" as a religious and moral\nbeing. I shall try to show the meaning of the peculiar type of character\nformed under the influence of the religion of Torah, both as regards its\nexcellencies and its deficiencies. I say its deficiencies, for my aim\nthroughout this book has been not to extol the Pharisees as if they had\nno faults, but to present, as clearly and strongly as I could, what they\nmeant by their religion and what it meant to them. To say that they held\nto it with sincere loyalty, and that they found in it entire\nsatisfaction, is not to say that it had no limitations, so that there\ncould not be a more excellent way. But it is to say that Pharisaism was\na genuine religion, so far as it went, able to satisfy the real wants of\nliving souls. And how far it went, and where it stopped short, is a\nquestion upon which the adherent of another form of faith may have a\ndecided opinion, and yet may be entirely mistaken. The Christian may be\nable, and I hope that the reader will have been able, to recognise that\nPharisaism was a genuine religion. But the peculiar form in which that\nreligion was expressed makes it exceedingly difficult for the Christian\nto recognise in Pharisaism what is familiar to him in his own religion;\nand, in consequence, he is extremely likely to misjudge and depreciate\nwhat to the Pharisee was right and good. My task in this chapter is very\nfar from easy; and I am by no means confident that in performing it I\ncould satisfy a Pharisee that I have done full justice to his case.\n\nThe subject is somewhat intangible, being indeed the inner consciousness\nof the Pharisee in regard to religion. I shall deal with it under three\nheads: first, the devotional literature available; second, the influence\nof the conception of Torah as a factor in the formation of religious\ncharacter; and, third, the result of that influence.\n\nThe devotional literature properly so called of the Pharisees, at all\nevents within the period covered by the Talmud, is not extensive. I mean\nby devotional literature, writings in the form of hymns and prayers. Of\nhymns there are, in this period, so far as I know, none; of prayers\nthere are a few; some of them included in the liturgy of the Synagogue,\nand others being individual private prayers. This very meagre list may,\nhowever, be extended; certainly in one direction, and I believe also in\nanother. Some of the Psalms ought to be included as being lyrical\nexpressions of the religion of Torah, whether the writers were\ntechnically Pharisees or not. And, in the other direction, the liturgy\nof the Synagogue is the precipitate of Jewish piety through many\ncenturies, and shows better than anything else how much of deep\nspiritual fervour was engendered by the religion of Torah. I shall make\nuse of the Psalms, or some of them. But of the Synagogue liturgy I shall\nuse only such parts as fall within the period covered by the Talmud.\nBecause my concern is with the Pharisees of the early centuries, not\nwith those of the Middle Ages. And, though I believe it to be the case,\nI could not prove that a Pharisee of the first century of our era would\nfeel that his thoughts about religion found due expression in the hymns\nof Jehudah ha-Levi and Ibn Gebirol. Personally, I believe he would; but\nthe fact remains that the Pharisees in the Talmudic period composed no\nhymns, and that fact must be allowed for whatever it is worth. The\nreappearance of devotional poetry must correspond, one would think, to\nsome change in the spiritual atmosphere. But, in regard to the use of\nthe Psalms, there need be no such hesitation. Some of the Psalms are\nunmistakably due to the influence of the conception of Torah in\ndetermining the form of religion; and the whole Book of Psalms was used\nby the Pharisees in the Synagogue service, and for their own study. This\nlatter fact does not prove very much, because the whole of the Old\nTestament was also used and studied; and no one would contend that the\nOld Testament is throughout an utterance of Pharisaism. Still, it should\nbe remembered that the Canon of the Old Testament was fixed by Scribes\nand Pharisees; and that the book of Psalms was finally completed, and in\npart composed, for use in the Synagogue and the Temple, as the lyrical\nexpression of the religion of Torah.\n\nI shall therefore make such use of the Psalms as will help my purpose,\nand will supplement the study of them by an examination of the few\nPharisaic prayers to be found in the Talmud and the early liturgy.\nSomething was said about the Psalms in the second chapter, and I shall\nnot repeat it. Here I would go into more detail upon particular points.\n\nOn looking through the Book of Psalms, it is seen at once that there are\nsome which proclaim themselves unmistakably as Torah Psalms. Notably,\nPs. cxix. and the second part of Ps. xix. It is quite inconceivable that\nthese should have been written before Ezra had instituted the religion\nof Torah. Ps. i., also, the general introduction to the whole collection\nwhen finally completed, evidently moves within the circle of ideas\nassociated with Torah. Occasional phrases in other Psalms may also\nreveal the same fact, even though the particular Psalm, as a whole, may\nnot be specially devoted to the thought of Torah. Thus, in Ps. xxv. 10,\nthe reference to \"covenants\" and testimonies, and in Ps. xviii. 22,\n\"statutes and judgments.\" Indications like these, however, cannot be\nsafely relied on; because, as stated in the second chapter, there was\nTorah before Ezra, and such phrases as those just quoted occur in\nDeuteronomy. The Psalms in which phrases are found, such as \"Torah,\"\n\"covenant,\" \"testimony,\" \"statute,\" \"judgment,\" \"precept,\" and the like,\nmay be interpreted in various ways, and not necessarily in terms of the\nspecific religion of Torah due to Ezra. But there is no need to draw any\nhard and fast line between those which are and those which are not Torah\nPsalms; for the religious frame of mind peculiar to the Torah Psalmist\ncan be studied in detail in Ps. cxix. That is a Pharisee Psalm, beyond\nany question. I do not mean that the writer can be shown to have been a\nPharisee in the technical sense, a member of a pledged company of\nseparatists.[20] Very likely he was; but whether he were so or not, he\nlooked upon the Torah exactly as the Pharisees did, as the supreme and\nperfect revelation of God.\n\n     [20] It is worth noting in passing that the name by which the\n     Pharisees called themselves and each other was \"\u1e25\u0101b\u0113r,\"\n     \"companion\"; and their societies were \"\u1e25aburoth,\" \"companies.\" In\n     Ps. cxix. 63, the Psalmist says, \"I am _companion_, '\u1e25aber,' to all\n     them that fear thee.\" Whether the Psalmist used the term because he\n     was a Pharisee, or whether the Pharisees borrowed it from the\n     Psalm, I do not know; but there is evidently a connection between\n     them.\n\nPs. cxix., as everyone knows, is made up of groups containing eight\nverses, each beginning with one of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew\nalphabet. There are thus one hundred and seventy-six verses in all. From\nan artistic point of view, the structure of the Psalm is stiff and\nmechanical; the divine name is introduced twenty-two times,\ncorresponding to the twenty-two groups of verses. The changes are rung\nupon a series of ten words--Torah, statute, righteousness, precept,\njudgment, way, ordinance, word, saying, and faithfulness--the number\ncorresponding, perhaps, to the ten commandments given on Sinai. With one\nexception, v. 122, every verse contains one or other of the ten words in\nthe list just given. The result is a certain monotony, and the Psalm is\nnot amongst those most generally admired and loved by the ordinary\nreader. Whether there is any progression of thought is open to\nquestion; it would not, apparently, make very much difference if the\nverses were rearranged according to another pattern. But once we get\npast the barrier of artificial method there is thought and feeling in\nabundance. The one object of thought is the Torah; and the feeling is\ndevout wonder in regard to it, and adoration of God who gave it. The ten\nwords are only so many aspects of Torah, and serve mainly to give\nvariety to the thought of the divine revelation.\n\nThe Psalmist meditates upon the Torah, thus variously indicated, from\ntwo points of view: first, that of its divine excellence and the\ngoodness of God in revealing it; and, second, that of his own endeavour\nto fulfil the precepts contained in it. In reference to the first head,\nit is clear that the Psalmist was filled with delight, gratitude, and\npraise. The Torah and all connected with it inspired him with joy. There\nis not the faintest trace of any feeling of oppression, as if he were\nburdened by the precepts; and, for what is not precept but simply\ninstruction, he received it with devout rapture, as being a precious\ngift which God had been pleased to bestow. That God had given that\nrevelation was to the Psalmist the greatest of all his blessings. There\nis in the Psalm but little reference to the past history of Israel, as\nshowing the divine providence. The Psalmist was deeply conscious of God\nin the immediate present, and of his own close relation to Him. Of\ncourse, the Torah, so far as it was a written record, included the\nhistory of all the divine dealings with Israel, down to the time of\nMoses; but it was not this aspect of religion which chiefly appealed to\nthe Psalmist. The providential mercy of God served to give fuller and\nricher meaning to the thought of Him as the object of worship. The\nfollowing phrases will serve to indicate the Psalmist's attitude towards\nGod:--v. 7, \"I will give thanks unto Thee with uprightness of heart.\" v.\n12, \"Blessed be Thou, O Lord; teach me Thy statutes.\" v. 18, \"Open Thou\nmine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy Torah.\" v. 41,\n\"Let Thy loving kindness come unto me, O Lord; Thy salvation, according\nto Thy promise.\" v. 49, \"Remember Thy word unto Thy servant; for Thou\nhast caused me to hope.\" v. 57, \"Thou art my portion, O Lord.\" v. 64,\n\"The earth is full of Thy mercy, O Lord.\" v. 68, \"Thou art good and\ndoest good.\" v. 75, \"I know, O Lord, that Thy judgments are\nrighteousness, and that in faithfulness Thou hast afflicted me. Let Thy\nloving kindness be for my comfort, according to Thy promise unto Thy\nservant. Let Thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live.\" v. 90,\n\"Thou hast established the earth and it abideth. They stand this day,\nobedient to Thine ordinances; for all beings are Thy servants.\" v. 132,\n\"Turn Thou unto me, and have mercy on me; as Thou usest to do unto those\nthat love Thy name.\" And v. 176, \"I am like a lost sheep; seek Thy\nservant.\" These are only a few of the characteristic phrases of the\nPsalmist. He evidently feels towards God reverence, trust, and hope;\nand, no less evidently, does not feel that God is far off and\nunapproachable, an abstraction rather than a living presence. God was,\nfor the Psalmist, the creator of the world; but He was also the guide\nand protector of those that know Him and keep His commandments. And it\nwas the privilege of such that they should have been allowed to know\nHim, and hold communion with Him. The Torah was the means by which that\nprivilege was made available to Israel; and the \"precepts,\"\n\"ordinances,\" etc., were the particular occasions on and through which\nthat privilege might be realised and enjoyed, and the devout worshipper\nmight come into communion with God. The Psalmist never lost sight of the\npurpose of the precepts, in the mere doing of what they enjoined. For\nhim the doctrine of the _opus operatum_ would have been a frivolous and\nmischievous perversion of the truth; in modern phrase, a\n\"soul-destroying heresy.\" There is nothing of the taskmaster in the\nPsalmist's conception of God; he does not indeed call Him the Father in\nHeaven, but that term would more truly express his thought than any\nphrase of bondage and compulsion. And we can see how naturally the term\nFather in Heaven would take its place in the language of devotion, when\nonce it had occurred to someone so to use it.\n\nThe Psalmist's conception of God, though it is mostly defined in\nrelation to Torah, does not contradict in any way that which is set\nforth or implied in the rest of the Psalms, or in the highest teaching\nof the prophets. Compare Ps. ciii., by common consent one of the noblest\nutterances of pure spiritual theism that the Old Testament\ncontains:--\"But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting\nupon them that fear Him, and His righteousness unto children's children;\nunto such as keep His covenant, and to those that remember His precepts\nto do them.\" In Ps. ciii., the changeless mercy and love of God are\nespecially dwelt on--His forbearance towards human frailty; while in\nPs. cxix. the main thought is of God as having given Torah, divine\nteaching. But neither Psalmist excludes what the other chiefly dwells\nupon. The Psalmist in Ps. cxix. cannot be said to have narrowed the\nconception of God. He was in accord with all that the prophets and the\nother Psalmists had believed of the greatness and goodness of God. What\nthis Psalmist did was to utter his praise of God, so conceived, from the\npoint of view of the means of grace which He had given, the conditions\nwhich He had appointed for personal knowledge and service of Himself.\nUnless this be understood, Ps. cxix. is wholly misjudged; and the fact\nthat it appeals less than almost any other Psalm to the reader, at all\nevents the Christian reader, is due to unfamiliarity with the Psalmist's\npoint of view. Once that is found, the whole Psalm shines from end to\nend with pure devotion and fervent, genuine piety.\n\nSecond, as to the Psalmist's feeling in regard to his own efforts to\nfulfil the precepts, and to live in accordance with the Torah. As these\nwere to him the means of realising his personal relation to God, and of\nentering into communion with Him, he was not in despair when he failed\nin obedience. He prayed for forgiveness, believing that, if he repented,\nGod would forgive him. When he broke a precept, he sinned and knew that\nhe sinned; but he was not conscious of having thereby set up an\ninsurmountable barrier between himself and God. A barrier certainly; but\none which penitence on his part and forgiveness on that of God both\ncould and did remove. All the ideas about bondage under the Law, to\nwhich Christians have been accustomed, rest upon a conception of the\nmeaning and purpose of the Torah which Jews have never held, at least\nthose who remained Jews. The writer of Ps. cxix. never held it.\n\nThis Psalm is marked by careful, sometimes almost painful,\nintrospection. The Psalmist is continually dwelling upon the precepts as\nthey affect himself, his love for them, his desire to keep them, his\ndelight in them, his longing to learn them, and to be more perfectly in\naccord with them, his fear lest he should wander from the way of them.\nIndeed, the whole Psalm is made up of such meditation, in forms varied\nbut continually repeated. Which goes to show that a Psalm written under\nthe immediate influence of the idea of Torah could scarcely fail to be\nintrospective. And this Psalm is an illustration, on a fairly large\nscale, of the fact that the change effected by the work of Ezra, in\nturning the religion of Israel into the channel of Torah, tended to make\nthat religion far more personal and individual than it had been before.\n\nThe value of Ps. cxix., as evidence for the spiritual meaning of\nPharisaism, is this, that it shows what was possible under the religion\nof Torah, by way of piety and devotion. The Pharisees held precisely\nsuch ideas about the Torah as are expressed in this Psalm; and I know of\nno ground for saying that they were without the piety and devotion with\nwhich the Psalmist quickened those ideas.\n\nAs has already been said, the Talmudic literature does not contain any\nhymns by Pharisees; at least, I have never met with any. Perhaps the\nPharisees felt that the Psalms gave them all that they needed; perhaps\nthey lacked the gift of sacred poetry. But though there are no hymns in\nthe Talmud and the Midrash, there are prayers, both public and private;\nand these will throw some light upon the spiritual side of Pharisaism.\nThe earliest prayers of all are those which form the opening and the\nclose of the so-called Eighteen Benedictions, the \"Shemoneh Esreh.\"\nThese are ascribed, in the Rabbinical tradition, to the Men of the Great\nSynagogue; and though so great an age cannot be proved for them, it is\ncertain that they are very old. They are the earliest existing portions\nof the liturgy used in the Synagogue; and though they are somewhat bare\nin their unadorned simplicity, they serve to show something of the\nreligious spirit of the men who were making \"a hedge about the Torah,\"\nand they indicate that there was something else in that operation\nbesides waning faith and waxing formalism. I quote one or two of\nthem:--\"Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God and the God of our fathers, the\nGod of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. God most high, creator of Heaven\nand earth, our shield and the shield of our fathers.\"... \"We give thanks\nto Thee, O Lord, our God, for all the benefits, the favours, which Thou\nhast shown to us. Blessed art Thou, to whom it is good to give thanks.\nBestow Thy peace upon Israel, Thy people, and bless us all as one.\nBlessed art Thou, O Lord, who makest peace.\" These prayers, as they are\nfound in the liturgy now, are very much longer; I have given what are\nbelieved to be the oldest parts of the three which I have quoted out of\nthe eighteen. If there is not much warmth in these prayers, as there\ncertainly is not, neither is there any of the vainglory and\nself-righteousness which are supposed to be characteristic of the\nPharisees. And it should be borne in mind that there can be no great\ndifference in date between these prayers and Ps. cxix.\n\nHowever, I will come down to a time when the Pharisees, if they ever\nbecame such as the New Testament represents them, must have long\nacquired that character. Here is a prayer which dates from the second\ncentury of our era, and is part of the liturgy still in daily\nuse:--\"Lord of the worlds! not trusting in our righteousness, do we cast\nour entreaties down before Thee, but trusting in Thine abundant mercies.\nWho are we? What is our life? What is our virtue? What is our\nrighteousness? What is our deliverance? What is our strength? What is\nour might? What shall we say before Thee, O Lord God and the God of our\nfathers? Are not all the mighty as nothing before Thee? and the men of\nname as though they had never been? And the wise are without knowledge,\nand the understanding as those who are without discernment. For the\nmultitude of their deeds is nothing, and the days of their life are a\nbreath before Thee\" (b. Joma. 87^b, mentioned by R. Jo\u1e25anan). Christians\nusually get their notion of what a Pharisee's prayer was like from Luke\nxviii. 11, 12; and I do not deny that Pharisees may sometimes have\nprayed after that manner. Nevertheless, what I have just recited is more\ntrue to the real spirit of Pharisaism than the prayer in the Parable.\nAnd even to that there is another side. A well-known prayer, still used\nin the liturgy, runs thus:--\"Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of\nthe world, that Thou hast not made me a Gentile ... a slave ... a\nwoman.\" Much scorn has been poured out upon those who have offered that\nprayer, as if it were nothing but the utterance of arrogant vainglory.\nBut, however it may sound to Gentiles, what the Jews meant, and mean, by\nit is this, that God is thanked for having given in the Torah the\nopportunity of serving Him, in the \"Mitzv\u014dth,\" which were not enjoined\nupon Gentiles, slaves, or women. It is not self-righteousness which is\nexpressed in that prayer, but the acknowledgment of special obligation,\na higher calling, in no way inconsistent with humility and reverence.\nThe prayer in the Parable was doubtless intended by its author to\nrepresent Pharisaic piety in an unfavourable light; but the example I\nhave just given is enough to show that a Pharisee would put a different\ninterpretation upon it.\n\nHere is another prayer from the second century (b. Ber. 16^b), and still\nin use:--\"May it be pleasing in Thy sight, O Lord my God and the God of\nmy fathers, that Thou wilt deliver me this day and every day from the\nshameless and from shamelessness, from the evil man, from the evil\ncompanion, from the evil neighbour, from evil chance, and from Satan the\ndestroyer; from stern judgment and from the implacable adversary,\nwhether he be a son of the covenant or no.\" This is merely a fragment of\nprayer, as indeed the others are which I have quoted. It is only a\nvariation on the theme \"Deliver us from evil,\" the evil being specified\nin concrete forms. And, since it has been incorporated in the liturgy,\nit was presumably intended for public use, and was not the private\nutterance of its author, who was R. Jehudah, the compiler of the\nMishnah. This distinction is important, because it is often charged\nagainst the Pharisees that they reduced prayer, like so much else, to a\nmere mechanical routine; that they regulated, down to the minutest\ndetail, the words and even the posture and the gestures of the\nworshipper; and that they left nothing to the spontaneous volition of\nthe soul that would seek God. Certainly there are many such regulations\nin the Talmud, both as regards what should be said and how it should be\nsaid. But these all refer to the public worship of the congregation, and\nnot to the private prayer of the individual. Moreover, they are\nindications of the process by which the liturgy was compiled, its\ncontents determined, and the manner of its use appointed. The\nworshipper, using the liturgy, was concerned only with the finally\ncompleted order, and not with the stages of its preparation. When the\nBook of Common Prayer was compiled, there were discussions as to what\nshould be included in it and what left out; whether this phrase or that\nwas to be preferred; whether at such a point the congregation should\nstand or kneel; whether the minister should face the congregation or\nnot; and so on.\n\nPresumably, votes were taken, and resolutions passed upon hundreds of\nsuch points. Are these regulations a restriction upon worship? Does the\nworshipper know, or take any interest in knowing, the details of the\nprocess by which the liturgy was produced? He accepts the final result;\nand finds in it a help to his worship, unconscious of the fact that\nperhaps every line has been canvassed by a committee and settled after\ndebate. Much the same might be said of the preparation of any liturgy;\nand what is found in the Talmud, which offends the piety of the\nChristian, is only the same kind of preparatory work as that necessary\nin the case of any liturgy. If the Pharisees were extremely careful, as\nthey certainly were, in deciding what should go into their liturgy, and\nhow it should be used, why are they more to be blamed than those who\ndirected, \"Here the minister shall say\" so and so? The Pharisees\nproduced a liturgy which, gradually enlarged, has lasted down to the\npresent day; and though a case may be made out for its revision, still\nit has served, for many more centuries than the Book of Common Prayer\ncan claim, as the expression of the united worship of Israel.\n\nBut, while public prayer was thus carefully regulated, there was never\nany restriction, imposed or thought of, upon private prayer. It is\nexpressly said (M. Aboth. ii. 13), \"When thou prayest, make not thy\nprayer a fixed form, but a prayer for mercy and an entreaty before God.\"\nI do not think that this refers to public prayer; but, even if it does,\nit would still show that the Pharisees were careful to keep the\nspiritual intention of prayer, while using the prescribed form. But I\nbelieve the reference is to private prayer; and it is certain that this\nwas left to the spontaneous freedom of the worshipper himself. Prayer\nwas always an essential element in the religious life of the Pharisee;\nnot because it was required of him, but because it was the natural\ninstinct of his soul. \"Would that a man could pray all day,\" said R.\nJo\u1e25anan (j. Ber. 2\u00aa). Pharisees knew what it was to withdraw to their\ninner chamber, and \"pray to their Father which seeth in secret.\" And it\nwas not a Pharisee who added:--\"Thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall\n_recompense thee_.\"\n\nOf such entirely private prayers there is no written record. But several\nprayers are mentioned in the Talmud as having been composed for their\nown use by famous Rabbis. Here are some of them as they are found\ntogether (j. Ber. 7^d):--\"May it be Thy will, O Lord my God and the God\nof my fathers, that Thou wilt not put hatred of us into the heart of any\nman, nor hatred of any man in our hearts; and that Thou wilt not put\njealousy against us into the heart of any man, nor jealousy of any man\ninto our hearts. And may Thy Torah be our employment all the days of our\nlife; and may our words be entreaty before Thee.\" To which was added by\nanother Rabbi: \"And unite our heart to fear Thy name; and keep us far\nfrom all that Thou hatest, and bring us near to all that Thou lovest,\nand do with us righteousness for Thy name's sake.\"\n\nThe disciples of R. Jannai used to say this (on rising from\nsleep):--\"Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickenest the dead. Lord, I\nhave sinned against Thee; may it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that Thou\nwouldst give me a good heart, a good portion, a good disposition, a good\nunderstanding, a good name, a good eye, a good hope, a good soul, a\nhumble soul, and a contrite spirit. May Thy name not be profaned among\nus; and make us not a byword in the mouth of the people; may our latter\nend be not to be cut off, nor our hope the giving up of the ghost. Make\nus not to depend on human gifts, and give us not our sustenance by the\nhand of men; for their comfort is small and the shame they inflict is\ngreat. And grant our lot to be in Thy Torah, with those who do Thy will.\nBuild Thy house, Thy temple. Thy city, and Thy sanctuary, speedily, in\nour days.\"\n\nR. \u1e24ija b. Abba used to pray:--\"May it be Thy will, O Lord our God and\nthe God of our fathers, that Thou wouldst put it into our hearts to\noffer sincere repentance before Thee, that we may not be ashamed before\nour fathers in the world to come.\"\n\nR. Tan\u1e25um b. Iscolastiki used to pray:--\"May it be Thy will, O Lord my\nGod and the God of my fathers, that Thou wilt break and take away the\nyoke of the evil inclination from our hearts. For Thou didst create us\nto do Thy will, and we are bound to do Thy will. Thou desirest, and we\ndesire it. And what hinders us? The leaven in the dough. It is revealed\nand known before Thee, that there is no strength in us to withstand it.\nBut may it please Thee, O Lord my God and the God of my fathers, that\nThou wilt cause it to pass away from us, and that Thou wilt subdue it;\nand we will make Thy will our will, with a perfect heart.\" R. Jo\u1e25anan\nused to pray:--\"May it be pleasing unto Thee, O Lord my God and the God\nof my fathers, that Thou wilt cause love, goodwill, peace, and\nfriendship to dwell in our habitations; that Thou wilt grant us a happy\nend and the fulfilling of our hope; that Thou wilt fill our borders with\ndisciples, and that we may rejoice in our portion in Paradise. Make us\nto acquire a good heart and a good friend; and may we awake to find what\nour hearts have longed for, and may there come in Thy presence rest unto\nour soul.\"\n\nI have translated these prayers as nearly literally as our language\nwould allow, so that the reader may have them as far as possible in\ntheir original form. There is nothing very sublime about them, none of\nthe eloquence of fervent rapture. But neither is there any of the\nvainglorious boasting supposed to be characteristic of the Pharisees.\nThey are sincere, simple, and earnest, so far as they go, petitions for\nthe granting of things necessary for the soul as well as for the body.\nThey may fairly be taken as representative of Pharisaic piety, in the\nabsence of what is not within our reach, namely, the devotional language\nof the Pharisee's prayer to God in the solitude of his own chamber.\n\nThe illustrations which have been given from the scanty remains of the\nliterature of piety left by the Pharisees will have been sufficient to\nshow a very considerable difference of tone, character, spirit, between\nwhat was produced under the religion of Torah and what is found in the\nNew Testament. And the impression so created is confirmed by the other\ncitations I have made, in the course of this book, from the Pharisaic\nliterature. To one who is accustomed to the New Testament, there is a\ncertain flatness about the Rabbinical literature, a want of the\nsublime, and still more of the beauty of holiness, the fervour of faith,\nthe personal consecration which marks the New Testament. There is\nnothing in all the Rabbinical literature at all like the rapt utterance\nin 1 Cor. xiii. That belongs unmistakably to the new dispensation, and\nnot to the old. The same may be said of much else in the New Testament.\nIf I may so express it, there is a different \"feel\" about it, quite\nunlike what there is about any Rabbinical writing. As to the fact of\nthis, I imagine there can be no dispute; but it is well worth the\ntrouble to try and get at the meaning of it. For it cannot be dismissed\nat once as being due to the spiritual deadness of the Pharisees, the\nresult of engrained hypocrisy and self-righteousness. I trust that\nenough has been said in previous chapters to show that the Pharisees\nwere sincere and in earnest about their religion, however strange to\nChristians be the forms in which they expressed their ideas. The very\nstrangeness of those forms may well prevent Christians from recognising\nthe meaning and worth of the ideas expressed in them, since Christians\ncould not use those forms for their own religious ideas.\n\nThe question is not whether the Christian or the Pharisaic conception is\nthe better; because, both for Christian and for Pharisee alike, that is\na foregone conclusion. The question is rather, why did the conception of\nTorah, which from the time of Ezra was the controlling factor in the\ndevelopment of Pharisaism, produce that particular type of piety and\nreligious character generally, of which so many illustrations have been\ngiven? In what way did the influence of that conception make itself felt\nupon those who devotedly accepted it and shaped their lives in\naccordance with it? Here I get to the second main head of the present\nchapter.\n\nThe Torah, which, it will be remembered, includes both the written word\nand the unwritten interpretation embodied in the Tradition, was regarded\nas containing the full and final revelation which God had made. It was\na body of divine truth, partly explicit, partly implicit, according as\nits contents had or had not been drawn forth and clothed in words. But\nit was truth, to be apprehended and learned, to be received in the mind\nby the understanding before it could be made the guide of conduct or\ncould minister in any way to spiritual wants. The reader will remember\nthat all the terms used in connection with the appropriation of the\ncontents of Torah are variations on the theme of teaching and learning.\n\"Talmud,\" \"Mishnah,\" \"Midrash,\" all express these ideas, and Torah\nitself is divine teaching. The significance of this is that the religion\nof Torah had its deepest root in the intellectual, rather than in the\nmoral or spiritual, region of the mind. The moral and the spiritual were\nby no means neglected or unprovided for; very far from that. But, if I\nmay so put it, they came in under the intellectual. The moral sense of\nthe Pharisee was strong, and his piety genuine, but the exercise of both\nwas conditioned by the contents of the Torah, duly interpreted. He must\nbe put in possession of certain knowledge, in order to act either\nmorally or devoutly. For him, the \"seat of authority in religion,\" and\nalso in morals, was the Torah; and, while it is quite true that to a\nlarge extent he made the Torah the exponent of his own moral and\nreligious conceptions, reading into it or finding there a great deal\nwhich does not appear on the surface, it is also true that he regarded\nit as an external authority to which he must submit. He had no\ndifficulty in doing this, since he believed the Torah to be the full and\nfinal revelation of God. It was all good and holy and divine; and there\ncould be no surer guide for him in all that he had to do and all that he\ncould think and believe in respect of his relation to God. The function\nof conscience was, for the Pharisee, not to pass moral judgments\nindependent of, still less contrary to, the Torah, but to co-operate\nwith it, and to confirm its authority. Conscience would be, in him,\nclear upon the distinction between right and wrong; but _what_ was\nright and _what_ was wrong would be decided by the authority of Torah,\nnot by the immediate intuition of conscience and reason. And I think\nthat a Pharisee would be quite unable to understand how any action could\nbe right which was not in accordance with Torah.[21] Certainly it could\nnot be right for him.\n\n     [21] _Cf._ what was said, in Chapter III., of the position taken up\n     by the Pharisees in regard to the question of healing on the\n     Sabbath. See above, p. 149.\n\nSo, too, in regard to his relation to God and his worship of Him, the\nthoughts and feelings of the Pharisee, the sincere and devout utterance\nof his spiritual being, would flow, naturally and with no sense of\ncompulsion, in the channels provided by the Torah, in such forms of\nbelief and such expressions of aspiration as were in harmony therewith.\nI lay stress on the phrase \"naturally, and with no sense of compulsion\";\nbecause it is very difficult for the Christian, whose supreme authority\nis not the Torah, to realise the position of the Pharisee in this\nmatter, and to understand that he did not feel himself to be under\nconstraint. Of course, wherever there is authority, there is that which\non occasion will constrain; and the Christian is, to that extent, no\nless under constraint than the Pharisee. But it is not an oppressive\nburden, though it may be a hard duty, to submit to an authority which is\nowned to be supreme. And the Pharisee, regarding the Torah as the\nsupreme authority, since it was the expression of the will and mind of\nGod, did not feel himself oppressed by the duty of submitting to it. He\nwould entirely agree with what was said, in a very different connection\n(John viii. 32):--\"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you\nfree.\" He claimed that he _did_ know the truth; it was given him in the\nTorah, from God Himself; and in making his life and thought and action\nconform thereto, he found his true freedom. \"None is free,\" says the\nTalmud, \"save he who is employed in the study of Torah\" (M. Aboth. vi.\n2). Whether the range of freedom is not wider when its limits are\nprescribed by direct allegiance to a person instead of to a mental\nconception like that of Torah is another question altogether, and one\nupon which the Pharisee and the Christian will have each his own\nopinion. And while it must not be forgotten that the Pharisee also owed\nallegiance to a person, felt himself to be in immediate relation to God,\nlooked up to Him and prayed to Him, yet he would expect to find the\nintimations of the divine will in the Torah, and not in his own\nintuitions. It is not that the Pharisee was without the essentials of a\nspiritual experience, real faith in God, real communion with Him, real\ndevotion to His service; for these he certainly had. It was that these\nwere realised by him only when expressed in terms of Torah. Whatever\ncould be so expressed took its place at once as part of his religious or\nmoral consciousness. Whatever could not be so expressed remained\noutside, or, at best, held no prominent position in his thought.\n\nThe principle here laid down will be sufficient, I believe, to explain\nthe chief characteristic differences between the Pharisaic and the\nChristian type of mind, disregarding, of course, individual variations.\nIt has been pointed out, in a previous chapter (p. 171), that\nChristianity in all its forms centres upon a person, namely, Christ; and\nthat Judaism in all its forms, and Pharisaism most of all, centres upon\nan idea, namely Torah, and will recognise no person as the object of its\ndevotion, save only God Himself. This is not a proud resistance to the\nappeal of a great personality; it is simply a natural and necessary\nresult of making the Torah the central feature of religious thought.\nThere cannot be two centres, two authorities both regarded as supreme.\nIf the Torah be raised to the highest place, as the expression of the\ndivine will and the medium of the divine revelation, then there can be\nno other to divide the allegiance. And not only so, but the demand, or\nthe appeal, to recognise such a one can only appear as an infringement\nof the sovereign rights of the Torah. A Pharisee might admit that it was\nconceivable that God should have chosen some other means than that of\nTorah as the medium of His revelation. He could not admit that God\nactually had done so, without surrendering the Torah altogether. And\nthis is the ground on which I said, in the third chapter, that the\nopposition between Pharisaism and the religion of Jesus was fundamental\nand irreconcilable. Not, indeed, that the religion of Jesus himself\ncentred on a person, as the religion of Paul and all later Christians\ndid; but that Jesus himself was that person; and his personality could\nby no means be expressed in terms of Torah.\n\nIt is evident that devotion to a Person will produce a type of mind very\ndifferent from that produced by devotion to an Idea; and the difference\nwill be this, that the seat of moral authority and the source of\nspiritual inspiration will be transferred from the Torah without to the\nheart, conscience, and reason within. With the result, of course, of\nimparting to these a freshness and vigour which they had not, and could\nnot have, before. Certainly, heart, conscience, and reason were by no\nmeans inactive when applied to Torah; but responsibility for what they\ndid rested on Torah and not on themselves. They followed, gladly and\nwillingly, the lead which God had given in the Torah; but they followed\na lead. But in devotion to a person, heart, conscience, and reason, so\nto speak, act from themselves, and the responsibility rests upon them.\nAnd the note of the character so formed is not obedience, but\nconsecration of self. And this, I believe, is the reason why there is\nsuch a marked difference of tone and spirit between the New Testament\nand the Rabbinical literature. The former is the result of the\nquickening power of a newly awakened devotion to a person, while the\nlatter is the result of steadfast and most faithful devotion to an\nidea. Nor is that all. The devotion to a person leads to a different\nform of expression, as the experience to be clothed in words is\ndifferent. The New Testament contains abundance of moral and religious\nteaching, as the Talmud also does; but the New Testament puts it in the\nform of direct appeal to the Christian to do and be so and so, that he\nmay be a disciple of Christ, and well pleasing unto God. The Talmud puts\nit in the form of maxims of conduct, or lessons drawn from Scripture, to\nbe accepted and acted on because they are portions of Torah, divine\ntruth and wisdom offered to man, for his good, but not making any direct\nappeal to him. And whereas, in the New Testament, the spiritual fervour\nof the teacher could utter itself in the glowing rapture of Paul, in the\nTalmud the spiritual fervour of the teacher (sometimes not less than\nthat of Paul) was spent upon the study of Torah: in the one case God was\nsought and found through the person of a revealer; in the other, he was\nsought and found through the medium of a body of knowledge. The\nwatchword of the New Testament is Love. The watchword of the Talmud is\nWisdom. And each can claim, as its ideal, the highest and fullest and\nnoblest meaning of its own watchword.\n\nI pass to the consideration of another effect produced by the conception\nof Torah as the controlling factor in Pharisaic religion. Within the\nlines of Torah there was room for a highly developed spiritual life, a\npure morality, a devout piety. Also, for warm sympathy and generous\nkindness, and in general for the virtues which make human nature\nlovable.\n\nAll these were present, in varying degree, as truly as they are present\nin Christians. But how about those who stood without the pale of the\nTorah? What did the Pharisee consider to be his relation to them? In\npractice, of course, this would depend largely on the individual\nPharisee; and no doubt examples might be found of every degree of\nexclusiveness, from tolerant regret for those who were deprived of the\nunspeakable blessing of the divine revelation down to the arrogant\ncontempt which said (John vii. 49), \"This people that knoweth not the\nTorah is accursed.\" But I shall deal only with the theory, not with the\npractice, of the application of the Torah to \"them that are without.\" It\nwas said above, that what could not be expressed in terms of Torah\neither remained outside the religious consciousness of the Pharisee, or,\nif admitted, held no prominent place there. It goes therefore without\nsaying, that Israel's possession of Torah must influence its attitude\ntowards the rest of mankind. The Pharisees were by no means blind to the\nfact that among the Gentiles there were \"those who feared God and worked\nrighteousness\"; but, if the Torah was the final and complete divine\nrevelation, there could not be an equality, still less a real feeling of\nbrotherhood, between those who did and those who did not accept the\nTorah as the guide of their lives. And this would remain true, even\nthough there were, as there was in the best minds among the Pharisees, a\nreal concern for the Gentile, and a desire that he too might share in\nthe blessing vouchsafed to Israel. The Pharisee by no means rejected the\nvisions of the prophets as, that \"the earth shall be full of the\nknowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.\" But how could that\nbe realised unless the Gentiles came in by the way of Torah, and united\nthemselves with Israel? It was concern for the Gentiles, amongst other\nmotives, which prompted the assertion, to be found often in the Midrash,\nthat when God gave the Torah, He offered it to all the nations of the\nworld. They all, except Israel, rejected it; but at least they had their\nchance. It was no arbitrary decree of God which deprived them of it. His\nwill was to do them good, if they would have it; and presumably they\nmight yet have it, if they would. In such ways the Pharisee looked out\nacross the barrier which separated him from the Gentile, not without\nthe hope and the desire that \"all men might be saved,\" but unable to see\nhow that could be brought about, except by the coming of the Gentile\nwithin the lines of the Torah. To obliterate those lines was\nnecessarily, to the Pharisee, unthinkable. It would be to renounce the\nvery blessing for the sake of which they desired that the Gentiles\nshould come in. And, even if there were no Gentiles, the Torah was still\nthe very life and soul of Israel; to part with it would be death; a fact\nto which Israel has borne witness through the centuries. In the nature\nof things, the religion of Torah as held by the Pharisees could not free\nitself from Particularism; and though it could and did cherish a vision\nof Universalism, the vision was for the far future, and only floated\nfitfully before the gaze of the Pharisee. It hardly counted amongst\nthose present realities of his religion of which he was most conscious,\nand to which he gave his chief thought.\n\nI have tried to indicate what I believe to have been the effects of the\nconception of Torah as the controlling factor in the religion of the\nPharisees, having, so far as I am aware, no other purpose than to get at\nthe real truth about them; in other words, to do them justice. That I\nhave not refrained from pointing out the deficiencies as well as the\nexcellences of their form of religion will show that my object has not\nbeen to offer a mere panegyric upon them; they deserve better than that.\nI shall attempt, in conclusion, to describe the kind of mind and\ncharacter produced by the influence of the ruling conception of Torah,\nthe Pharisaic ideal aimed at, and more or less realised in practice.\nIndividual Pharisees, of course, would present many and marked\nvariations from the type, just as is the case among Christians; and I\ntake no account of them, except to say that whatever may be true in the\nmatter of the common charges of hypocrisy, pride, self-righteousness,\nand the like, is due to individual defection from the ideal, and is not\nan inherent quality in it.\n\nFor the basis of such a description of the Pharisaic ideal, I take a\nremarkable passage now included in the Mishnah, in the treatise called\nthe Pirk\u00e9 Aboth, or Sayings of the Fathers (M. Aboth. vi. 6). The whole\nchapter, which is later than the rest of the book, is called \"The\nAcquisition of Torah.\" This is the passage:--\"Greater is Torah than\nPriesthood or Kingship. For Kingship is acquired by thirty stages\n(_i.e._ there are thirty qualities necessary to the ideal King), and\nPriesthood is acquired by twenty-four; but Torah is acquired by\nforty-eight things. And these are they:--Study, the listening ear,\nordered speech, the discerning heart, dread, fear, meekness,\ncheerfulness, purity, attendance on the Wise, discussion with\nassociates, argument with disciples, sedateness; Scripture, Mishnah;\nhaving little business, little intercourse [with the world], little\nluxury, little sleep, little conversation, little merriment,\nforbearance, a good heart, faith in the Wise, the acceptance of\nchastisements, [He is one that] acknowledges God, that rejoices in his\nlot, that makes a fence for his words, that claims not goodness for\nhimself, that is loved, that loves God, that loves mankind, that loves\ndeeds of charity, that loves uprightness, that loves reproofs, that\nshuns honour [_i.e._ when offered to himself], that puffs not up his\nheart with his learning, that is not insolent in his teaching, that\nbears the yoke along with his companion, that judges him favourably,\nthat establishes him upon truth, that establishes him on peace, that\nsettles his heart in his study, that asks and answers, that hears and\nadds thereto, that learns in order to teach, and that learns in order to\ndo, that makes his teacher wise, that makes sure what he hears, that\nrepeats a word in the name of him who said it.\" The remainder of the\npassage has no bearing on the general subject, being only a note upon\nthe last clause. The author is unknown. The list, which includes\nfifty-one qualifications instead of the forty-eight announced at the\nbeginning, varies slightly in different editions; but it may be taken as\nrepresenting substantially the ideal character developed by and under\nthe religion of Torah. It may usefully be compared with the enumeration\nof Christian virtues in Rom. xii.; and, if that comparison is made,\nthere will be noticed that difference of tone and spirit to which I have\nalready alluded. But it will also appear, from such comparison, that\nthere is no contrast as between black and white, hypocrite and holy. The\nPharisaic ideal may seem to be drawn in terms of more level prose than\nthe Christian ideal as set forth by Paul, and, moreover, to be one more\ncapable of being attained, in actual life. There is an element of sober\nmatter-of-fact in Judaism, and especially in Pharisaic Judaism, which\nmay not be sublime, but has great value, nevertheless, in the practical\nconduct of life, even the religious life. Some of the items included in\nthe Pharisaic list may seem to be of but little importance, such as\nthose having immediate reference to the study of Torah--argument with\ndisciples, attendance on the wise, and the repeating a saying in the\nname of him who said it. These, and similar items, have to be judged, of\ncourse, by the standard of the supreme worth of the Torah. What that\nmeant to the Pharisee, how much more than the mere study of a book, I do\nnot now need to repeat, after all that has been said in previous\nchapters. But many of the items indicate the great and substantial\nvirtues and graces which belong to the higher human nature alike of the\nPharisee and of the Christian. They include love to God, love towards\nall mankind (let it be noted especially, that love is not restricted to\nIsrael alone), sympathy, kindness, forbearance, purity, meekness,\ncheerfulness, contentment, patience under trial, and that which a great\nRabbi once said excelled all other qualifications for the perfect\nlife--a good heart. A man who should strive after such an ideal of\ncharacter and conduct would follow no unworthy quest; and, however\ndifferent be the form in which he expresses his religious ideas from\nthe form familiar to Christians, there is no fundamental difference\nbetween them in the desire to seek God and serve Him with the noblest\npowers that He has given to the human soul. It is not _qu\u00e2_ man, but\n_qu\u00e2_ Pharisee that the adherent of the religion of Torah is sundered\nfrom the Christian. There was in him the same human nature, capable of\nhigh development in its relation both to God and to man. And the\nconception of Torah was for the Pharisee the agent in that development;\nwhile for the Christian the controlling factor is personal relation to\nChrist. I am not concerned to judge between these two. I am concerned\nonly to maintain that the development of human nature through the agency\nof Torah did in fact take place, and did produce very great and noble\nresults.\n\nPharisaism in history has had a hard fate. For there has seldom been for\nChristians the opportunity to know what Pharisaism really meant, and\nperhaps still more seldom the desire to use that opportunity. It has\nserved as a foil to Christianity, the way for such use being prepared by\nthe New Testament. Its supposed blemishes have been held up to view, in\norder that the excellences of the Christian religion might shine the\nmore brightly by comparison. If learned men like Lightfoot, Wagenseil,\nand especially Eisenmenger, explored the Rabbinical literature well-nigh\nfrom end to end, it was mainly for the purpose of reviling what they\nfound there. And, in our own day, though there is no longer to be found\namongst Talmudic scholars the scurrilous rancour of an Eisenmenger,\nthere is still the inveterate habit of regarding Rabbinical Judaism as a\nmeans of exalting Christianity; there is nearly always the criticism of\nJudaism from the Christian point of view, and judgment given upon\npremises which it never recognised. There is scarcely any attempt to\nlearn what it really meant to those who held it as their religion, who\nlived by it, and who died by it, and have done for two thousand years.\n\nIs, then, the Christian religion so weak that it must be advocated by\nblackening the character of its oldest rival? And if it should appear,\nas I trust in some degree it has appeared, that the religion of Torah as\nheld by the Pharisees was a real expression of spiritual experience, the\ninspiration of holy living and holy dying, is the spiritual power of\nChristianity in any degree made less? Why should the one begrudge to the\nother whatever is good in it? Especially when the one has grown great\nand has become the religion of many nations, while the other has\nremained as the inheritance of a lonely people? Why should not the\nChristian be glad to own that the Jew, even the Pharisee, knew more of\nthe deep things of God than he had supposed, and after a way which was\nnot the Christian way, yet loved the Lord his God with heart and soul\nand strength and mind,--yes, and his neighbour as himself? The time is\nsurely come when Pharisaism should be recognised as a religion entitled\nto be judged on its own merits and by its own standards; a religion\nwidely different indeed from Christianity in its methods and its forms\nof expression, but yet a living faith, capable of ministering to the\nreal wants of human souls; a religion _sui generis_, but none the less\nto be acknowledged as one among the many expressions of divine\nrevelation on the one hand and of human seeking after God on the other?\nIt is in the hope of helping towards such a sympathetic and unprejudiced\nrecognition of the intrinsic worth of Pharisaism that I have written\nthis book. What I have written is scanty indeed, in view of the\ngreatness of the subject; but it may yet have been enough to give some\nidea of what Pharisaism meant to the Pharisee, and to show that the\nSaints and Sages of Israel, those more particularly who are included\namongst the Scribes and Pharisees, were not what they have commonly been\ncalled and usually thought to have been. Saints and Sages they were, who\nserved God faithfully, and found in the Torah His full and perfect word.\nAnd to me, though not walking in their way, nor sharing in all their\nbeliefs, yet drawn to them across the ages, they have been the\ncompanions and friends of many a year.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Abahu, R., 265.\n\n  Abraham, 219, 220, 239.\n\n  Akiba, R., 32, 51, 52, 90, 153, 154, 249, 267.\n\n  Am-ha-aretz, 46-47.\n\n  Antiochus Epiphanes, 38.\n\n  Apocalyptists, 6.\n\n  Augustine, 90, 217.\n\n  Authority, seat of, in Pharisaism, 314-317.\n\n\n  Bacher, W., 232 n.\n\n  Bar Coch'ba, 50.\n\n  Belief, heads of Pharisaic, 251-255.\n\n\n  Character, Pharisaic ideal of, 326-331.\n\n  Christianity, a protest and revolt, 14.\n    founded on a Person, 171.\n\n  Circumcision, 30.\n\n  Common ground of Jesus and Pharisees, 116-127.\n\n  Conscience, function of, in Pharisaism, 314.\n\n  Corban, 141, 156-161 n.\n\n\n  Divorce, 141, 153-156.\n\n\n  Eighteen Benedictions (_see_ Shemoneh Esreh).\n\n  Eisenmenger, 332.\n\n  Elders, Tradition of the, 48, 52, 93, 135, 137, 229.\n\n  Eleazar, R., 211.\n    b. Dordaia, 212.\n\n  Eliezer b. Horkenos, R., 121, 159.\n\n  Elisha b. Abujah, 264.\n\n  Essenes, 6, 46, 48.\n\n  Exile, the, 8, 10, 64.\n\n  Ezekiel, 64, 134.\n\n  Ezra, 5, 7, 8-28, 62, 74.\n\n\n  Faith, 218, 219.\n\n  Father in Heaven, 120-124.\n\n\n  Gabriel, 263.\n\n  Gamaliel, R., 164.\n\n  Gemara, 54.\n\n  Germans, in the Talmud, 7.\n\n  God, Pharisaic conception of, 251-252, 259-267.\n\n  Goths, in the Talmud, 7.\n\n  Greece, influence of, 34-38.\n\n\n  \u1e24aber, 107, 288 n.\n\n  \u1e24aburoth, 107.\n\n  Haggadah, 91, 96 n., 226 and Ch. V. _passim_, 240-242.\n\n  Halachah, 27, 90, 91, 96-104, 189 n., 230, 231, 243.\n\n  \u1e24asidim, 37-40.\n\n  Heaven, 254.\n\n  Hedge, for the Torah, 22, 26-28.\n\n  Hell, 254.\n\n  Hellenism, 6, 36-38, 208.\n\n  \u1e24ija, R., 5, 308.\n\n  Hillel, 5,49, 153, 164, 238.\n\n  Hypocrites, 165-167.\n\n\n  Ibn Gebirol, 285.\n\n\n  Jabneh, 49, 50, 51.\n\n  Jannai, R., 307.\n\n  Jehudah b. Baba, R., 51.\n    ha-Kadosh (_see_ Rabbi).\n    ha-Levi, 285.\n\n  Jesus, 112 and Ch. III. _passim_.\n\n  Jo\u1e25anan b. Zaccai, 49, 104, 121, 164.\n    R. (third century), 301, 306.\n\n  John the Baptist, 117, 128, 129.\n\n  Joshua b. Levi, R., 248.\n\n\n  Kingdom of Heaven, 117, 129, 130, 144.\n\n\n  Law (\u039d\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), 58, 183 n., 194, 195, 200.\n\n  Levites, 16.\n\n  Lightfoot, 332.\n\n  Logos, the, 264.\n\n  Lord's Prayer, the, 118.\n\n\n  Maccabees, the, 31, 36, 38-39.\n\n  Maimonides, 217, 235.\n\n  Manasseh, King, 213-215.\n\n  Mattathias, 38, 39.\n\n  Mediator, 259, 263-264.\n\n  Megillath Taanith, 45.\n\n  Meir, R., 52.\n\n  Memra, 264.\n\n  Merit, 276-279.\n    of the Fathers, 213, 279.\n\n  Messiah, the, 142, 143, 250, 253, 254, 256.\n\n  Metatron, 264-265.\n\n  Michael, 263.\n\n  Midrash, 55.\n\n  Mishnah, 48, 53, 54, 102, 158, 160.\n\n  Mitzvah (Mitzv\u014dth), 103-104, 196, 197, 271-276.\n\n  Moses, 11, 60.\n\n\n  Nehemiah, 9, 13, 19.\n    R., 219.\n\n  Nicodemus, 196 n.\n\n\n  Particularism, 322-325.\n\n  Paul, 172, Ch. IV. _passim_, 266.\n\n  Pentateuch, the, 63, 94, 113, 228.\n\n  Persia, 34.\n\n  Pharisees, Pharisaism, _passim_.\n\n  Prayer, Book of Common, 304, 305.\n    the Lord's, 118.\n\n  Prayers, Pharisaic, 298-310.\n\n  Priest, the High, 44.\n\n  Priests, 132.\n\n  Prophets, the, 65, 73.\n\n  Psalms, Book of, 84-87.\n\n\n  Rab, 104.\n\n  Rabbi (Jehudah ha-Kadosh), 52, 249.\n\n  Repentance, 210-216.\n\n  Resh Lakish, 5.\n\n  Retribution, 267.\n\n  Reward, 267-276.\n\n\n  Sabbath, 30, 67, 104, 141, 146-152.\n\n  Sadducees, the, 6, 41, 43, 45, 48.\n\n  Sanhedrin, the, 21, 44.\n\n  Scribes (_see_ Sopherim).\n\n  Separation, policy of, 67-74.\n\n  Sermon on the Mount, the, 117-118.\n\n  Shammai, 153, 238.\n\n  Shechinah, the, 264, 274.\n\n  Shemoneh Esreh, the, 298-299.\n\n  Shul\u1e25an Aruch, 231 n.\n\n  Sin, the Unpardonable, 150 n.\n\n  Sopherim (Scribes), 16, 17, 20, 21, 29, 31, 42, 92, 132.\n\n  Spirit, the Holy, 218-220, 264.\n\n  Synagogue (place of meeting), 29, 30, 31, 78-84, 207.\n    the Great, 18-28, 43, 89, 298.\n\n\n  Talmud, the, 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 54,\n    55, 77, 93, 115, 120, 122, 151 n., 154, 218, 226,\n    231 n., 248, 249, 260, 264, 284, 285, 298, 303, 304,\n    306, 321, 322.\n\n  Tan\u1e25um b. Iscolastiki, 308.\n\n  Temple, the, 8, 30, 44, 48, 50, 80, 81, 256.\n\n  Theology, Pharisaic, Ch. V. _passim_.\n\n  Theology, Pharisaic, not a system, 233-237.\n\n  Torah, _passim_, but especially Ch. II.\n    meaning of the term, 58-61.\n\n  Tosephta, 53.\n\n  Tradition (_see_ Elders).\n\n\n  Uniformity of belief, not required, 234.\n\n  Unpardonable Sin, the, 150 n.\n\n\n  Vows, 157-159.\n\n\n  Wagenseil, 332.\n\n  Weber, F., 77, 126, 227, 235, 236, 260.\n\n  Wise, the, 50, 65 n.\n\n\n  Zadok, R., 159.\n\n  Zugoth, the, 21.\n\n\n\n\nOLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED\n\n\n  Gen.          i. 1   75\n                i. 27  155\n               xv. 6   219\n\n  Exod.       xii. 2   75\n              xiv. 31  219\n               xv. 1   219\n               xx. 1   238 n., 261\n               xx. 2   265\n               xx. 12  157\n\n  Num.        xxx. 2   157\n\n  Deut.        iv. 7   262, 274\n               iv. 30  214\n             xvii. 11  59\n             xxiv. 1   154,\n           xxviii. 63\n\n  2 Chron. xxxiii. 13  214\n\n  Neh.          x.     8, 19, 67\n\n  Ps.           i.     287\n                i. 2   275\n            xviii. 22  287\n              xix.     287\n              xxv. 10  287\n             lxii. 11  238 n.\n             ciii.     294\n             cxix.     287-297\n             cxix. 63  288 n.\n\n  Prov.         i. 8   59\n\n  Isa.       xliv. 6   265\n               li. 7   59\n            lxiii. 16  123\n\n  Jer.      xxiii. 29  238 n.\n\n  Joel         ii. 32  263\n\n1 Macc.       vii. 13  39\n\n\n\n\nNEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED\n\n\n  Matt.         v. 17, 20     144\n              vii. 29         130\n                x. 29         262\n              xii. 32         150 n.\n            xxiii. 163        163\n  Mark         ii. 7          168\n              iii. 1-6        146\n              iii. 22-30      149 n.\n              iii. 29         150 n.\n               vi. 34         47\n              vii. 1-23       156\n              vii. 5          48\n                x. 2          153\n              xii. 34         192\n  Luke         iv. 23         117\n            xviii. 11, 12     301\n  John         ii. 25         170 n.\n              vii. 19         195 n.\n              vii. 49         46, 323\n             viii. 32         316\n              xii. 42         196\n  Rom.          i. 21, 24-25  182\n              iii. 10         182\n              iii. 21         183\n               xi. 1, 25      186\n              xii.            329\n  1 Cor.     xiii.            311\n  2 Cor.        v. 17         178\n\n\n\n\nRABBINICAL PASSAGES CITED\n\n\n1. MISHNAH\n\n  Megillah  iv. 9      122 n.\n  Joma     iii. 5      44\n  Sotah      i. 7      117\n            ix.        121\n  Nedarim   ix. 1      159\n  Aboth      i. 2      22\n            ii. 13     305\n           iii. 15     267\n            iv. 5      273\n            vi. 2      317\n            vi. 6      327-328\n\n\n2. BABYLONIAN TALMUD\n\n  Berachoth                  9^b     117\n                            10^b     279\n                            16^b     302\n                             17\u00aa     274\n                            33^b     267\n  Shabbath                  13^b     134\n  Joma                      85^b     152\n                            87^b     301\n  Succah                     20\u00aa     5\n  \u1e24aggigah                   15\u00aa     264\n  Kiddushin                 39^b     274\n  Sotah                     22^b     165 n.\n  Gittin                    56^b     49\n  Nedarim                    38\u00aa     258 n.\n  Baba Bathra                12\u00aa     65 n.\n  Sanhedrin                  14\u00aa     51\n                           107^b     115\n  Abodah Zarah               3^b     58\n                             17\u00aa     212\n                             19\u00aa     275\n  \u1e24ullin                    142\u00aa     274\n\n\n3. JERUSALEM TALMUD\n\n  Berachoth                   2\u00aa     306\n                             3^b     238\n                             7^d     306\n                             13\u00aa     260, 263\n  Peah                      15^d     109\n  Shebiith                  38^d     262\n  Joma                      45^b     7\n  Moed Katan                83^d     150 n.\n  Baba Kamma                 6^c     150 n.\n  Sanhedrin                 28^c     213\n\n\n4. MIDRASH\n\n  Bereshith Rabbah                          52^b     117\n                                             89\u00aa     104\n                                           133^c     246\n  Shemoth Rabbah                            50^b     261\n                                            51^b     265\n  Debarim Rabbah                            102\u00aa     262\n  Pesikta d. R. Cahana                      40^b     105\n                                           163^b     211\n                                            165\u00aa     _ibid._\n  Mechilta, Beshalla\u1e25                       33^b     219\n  Tan\u1e25uma, Bereshith                         2^b     110\n                                              4\u00aa     75\n  Tan\u1e25uma, Noah                              15\u00aa     258 n.\n  Tan\u1e25uma, Vajera                           45^b     _ibid._\n  Tan\u1e25uma, Vaje\u1e25i                           110\u00aa     218\n  Yalkut Shimoni (on\n      Ps. lxii, 11)                        \u00a7 783     238 n.\n\n\n\n\nEDITIONS USED\n\n  Mishnah, Amsterdam, 1675.\n\n  Babylonian Talmud, Wilna, 1880-1884.\n\n  Jerusalem Talmud, Krotoshin, 1866.\n\n  Midrash Rabbah, Wilna, 1887.\n\n  Pesikta, edited by Buber, 1868.\n\n  Mechilta, edited by Friedmann, 1870.\n\n  Tan\u1e25uma, edited by Buber, 1885.\n\n  Yalkut Shimoni, Warsaw, 1876.\n\n\n\n\n  A CATALOGUE OF\n  WILLIAMS & NORGATE'S\n  PUBLICATIONS\n\n   =ADDIS= (=W. E.=, M.A.). =Hebrew Religion to the Establishment of\n     Judaism under Ezra.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown\n     Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =AINSWORTH DAVIS= (=J. R.=) and =H. J. FLEURE=, B.Sc. =Patella (the\n     Common Limpet).= With 4 Plates. 2s. 6d. net. _See_ Liverpool Marine\n     Biology Committee Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =ALLIN= (=Rev. THOS.=). =Universalism asserted as the Hope of the\n     Gospel on the Authority of Reason, the Fathers, and Holy\n     Scripture.= With a Preface by Edna Lyall, and a Letter from Canon\n     Wilberforce. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =ALVIELLA= (=Count GOBLET D'=). =Lectures on the Origin and the\n     Growth of the Conception of God, as Illustrated by Anthropology and\n     History.= Translated by the Rev. P. H. Wicksteed. Hibbert Lectures\n     1891. Cloth, Library Ed., 10s. 6d. Popular Ed., 3s. 6d.\n\n   =ANDREWS= (=CHARLES M'LEAN=, Ph.D., L.H.D.). =The Colonial Period.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =ANGLICAN LIBERALISM.= By Twelve Churchmen. Rev. Hubert Handley,\n     Prof. F. C. Burkitt, M.A., D.D., Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, M.A., Rev.\n     C. R. Shaw Stewart, M.A., Rev. Hastings Rashdall, D.Litt., D.C.L.,\n     Prof. Percy Gardner, D.Litt., LL.D., Sir C. T. Dyke Acland, Rev. A.\n     J. Carlyle, M.A., Rev. H. G. Woods, D.D., Rev. A. A. Caldcott,\n     D.Litt., D.D., Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D., Rev. A. L. Lilley, M.A.\n     Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =ARNOLD= (=JAMES LORING=, Ph.D.). =The Motor and the Dynamo.= 8vo,\n     pages vi + 178. With 166 Figures. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =ASHWORTH= (=J. H.=, D.Sc.). =Arenicola (the Lug-Worm).= With 8\n     Plates. 4s. 6d. net. _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Committee\n     Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =AVEBURY= (=Lord=, D.C.L., F.R.S.). =Prehistoric Times, as\n     Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of\n     Modern Savages.= Seventh Edition, completely revised by the author\n     just prior to his decease, and containing much new material and\n     many new Illustrations of important recent discoveries. Large demy\n     8vo, cloth. With 3 Illustrations in colour and nearly 300 other\n     Illustrations. 10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =BACON= (=Professor B. W.=, LL.D., D.D.). =The Making of the New\n     Testament.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net.\n     Forming Vol. 56 in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p.\n     39.\n\n\n   =BACON= (=ROGER=), =the \"Opus Majus\" of=. Edited, with Introduction\n     and Analytical Table, by John Henry Bridges, Fellow of Royal\n     College of Physicians, sometime Fellow of Oriel College. Complete\n     in 3 vols., 31s. 6d.; Vol. III. sold separately, 7s. 6d.\n\n   =BAILEY= (=JOHN=, M.A.). =Dr Johnson and his Circle.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. Forming Vol. 64 in Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =BALSILLIE= (=DAVID=, M.A.). =An Examination of Professor Bergson's\n     Philosophy.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =BARRETT= (=Sir W. F.=, F.R.S.). =Psychical Research.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 28 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =BARRY= (=WILLIAM=, D.D.). =The Papacy and Modern Times\n     (1303-1870).= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net.\n     Forming Vol. 14 in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p.\n     39.\n\n   =BAUR= (=F. C.=). =Church History of the First Three Centuries.=\n     Translated from the Third German Edition. Edited by Rev. Allan\n     Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n   --=Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Life and Work, his\n     Epistles and Doctrine.= A Contribution to a Critical History of\n     Primitive Christianity. Edited by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2nd Edition.\n     2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n\n   =BAYLEY= (=HAROLD=). =The Lost Language of Symbolism.= With above\n     1400 symbols. 2 vols. Medium 8vo, cloth, 25s. net.\n\n   =BEARD= (=Rev. Dr C.=). =Lectures on the Reformation of the\n     Sixteenth Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge.=\n     Hibbert Lectures, 1883. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3rd\n     Edition, 3s. 6d.\n   --=The Universal Christ, and other Sermons.= Crown 8vo, cloth.\n     7s. 6d.\n\n   =BEGBIE= (=HAROLD=). _See_ \"Character and Life,\" p. 5.\n\n   =BELLOC= (=HILAIRE=, M.A.). =The French Revolution.= (With Maps.)\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 3 in\n     the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n   --=Warfare in England.= (With Maps.) F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Vol. 51 in the Home University Library; for\n     list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =BENEDICT= (=F. E.=, Ph.D.). =Elementary Organic Analysis.= Small\n     8vo. Pages vi + 82. 15 Illustrations. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =BENNETT= (=E. N.=, M.A.). =Problems of Village Life.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 81 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =BERGEY= (=D. G.=). =Handbook of Practical Hygiene.= Small 8vo.\n     Pages v + 164. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =BEVAN= (=Rev. J. O.=, M.A., F.G.S.). =The Genesis and Evolution of\n     the Individual Soul scientifically Treated.= Including also\n     Problems relating to Science and Immortality. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s.\n     6d. net.\n\n   =BIBLE.= Translated by Samuel Sharpe, being a Revision of the\n     Authorised English Version. 6th Edition of the Old, 10th Edition of\n     the New Testament. 8vo, roan. 5s.\n\n   =BILTZ= (=HENRY=). =The Practical Methods of determining Molecular\n     Weights.= Translated by Jones. Small 8vo. Pages viii + 245. 44\n     Illustrations. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n   =BLACKBURN= (=HELEN=). =Women's Suffrage.= A Record of the Women's\n     Suffrage Movement in the British Isles, with a Biographical Sketch\n     of Miss Becker. With portraits. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n\n   =BO\u00cfELLE= (=JAS.=). =French Composition through Lord Macaulay's\n     English.= Edited, with Notes, Hints, and Introduction, by the late\n     James Bo\u00efelle, B.A. (Univ. Gall.), Officier d'Acad\u00e9mie, Senior\n     French Master, Dulwich College, etc., etc. Crown 8vo, cloth. Vol.\n     I. Frederick the Great. 3s. Vol. II. Warren Hastings. 3s. Vol. III.\n     Lord Clive. 3s.\n   --_See_ Victor Hugo, \"Les Mis\u00e9rables\" and \"Notre Dame.\"\n\n   =BOLTON.= =History of the Thermometer.= 12mo. 96 pages. 6\n     Illustrations. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =BOUSSET= =(Prof. WILHELM=). =Jesus.= Trans. by Janet Penrose\n     Trevelyan, and ed. by Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 14 in the Cr. Theological Library; _see_ p. 36.\n\n   =BOUTROUX= (=EMILE=). =Education and Ethics.= Authorised\n     Translation by Fred. Rothwell. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =BRADLEY= (=A. G.=). =Canada.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s, net; leather,\n     2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 34 in the Home University Library; _see_\n     list, p. 39.\n\n   =BRAILSFORD= (=H. N.=). =Shelley, Godwin, and their Circle.= F'cap\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d, net. Forming Vol. 77 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39,\n\n   =BRAUNS= (=Dr REINHARD=). =The Mineral Kingdom.= The author is the\n     well-known Professor of Mineralogy in the University of Bonn.\n     Translated with additions by L. J. Spencer, M.A., F.G.S., Assistant\n     in the Mineral Department of the British Museum. In demy 4to,\n     comprising 91 full page plates beautifully executed in colours, 73\n     of which are chromo-lithographs, 18 photographic reproductions, and\n     275 figures in the text. Bound in half-morocco. \u00a32, 16s. net.\n\n   =BREMOND= (=HENRI=). =The Mystery of Newman.= With Introduction by\n     the late Rev. George Tyrrell, M.A. Medium 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =BREWSTER= (=H. B.=). =The Theories of Anarchy and of Law.= A\n     Midnight Debate. Crown 8vo, parchment. 5s.\n   --=The Prison.= A Dialogue. Crown 8vo, parchment. 5s.\n   --=The Statuette and the Background.= Crown 8vo, parchment. 4s.\n\n   =BREWSTER= (=Prof. W. T.=), Editor of The Home University Library;\n     for list, _see_ p. 39.\n   --=The Writing of English.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather,\n     2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 73 in Home University Library; for list,\n     _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =BRIDGES= (=JOHN HENRY=, M.B., F.R.C.P.). =The Life and Work of\n     Roger Bacon.= Being an Introduction to the _Opus Majus_. Edited\n     with Additional Notes and Tables by H. Gordon Jones, F.I.C., F.C.S.\n\n   =BRUCE= (=ALEX.=, M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P.E.). =A Topographical Atlas\n     of the Spinal Cord.= F'cap. folio, half-leather. \u00a32, 2s. net.\n\n   =BRUCE= (=Dr W. S.=, F.R.S.E.). =Polar Exploration.= (With Maps.)\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 8 in\n     the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =BURKITT= (=Prof. F. C.=). =Euphemia and the Goth.= With the Acts\n     of Martyrdom of the Confessors of Edessa. 21s. net. _See_ Text and\n     Translation Society, p. 43.\n\n   =BURY= (=Prof. J. B.=, Litt.D.). =A History of Freedom of Thought.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, 1s. net; leather, 2s, 6d. net. Forming Vol. 74 in Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =CAMERON= (=FRANK K.=). =The Soil Solution: the Nutrient Medium for\n     Plant Growth.= 8vo, cloth. 3 Illustrations. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =CAMPBELL= (=Rev. COLIN=, D.D.). =The First Three Gospels in\n     Greek.= Arranged in parallel columns. 2nd Edition, Revised. Crown\n     8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =CARPENTER= (=Rt. Rev. W. BOYD=). =Some Pages of My Life.= By the\n     present Canon of Westminster and late Bishop of Ripon. With\n     portrait of the author as frontispiece, and other interesting\n     portraits. Medium 8vo, cloth, gilt top. 15s. net.\n   --=The Spiritual Message of Dante.= With Illus. Cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =CARPENTER= (=Prof. J. E.=, LL.D.). =Comparative Religion.= F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 68 in Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =CARTWRIGHT= (=Captain=) =and His Labrador Journal.= Edited by\n     Charles Wendell Townsend, M.D. With an Introduction by Dr Wilfred\n     T. Grenfell. With Illustrations from old engravings, photographs\n     and a map. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =CATALOGUE DE LA BIBLIOTHEQUE DE L'lNSTITUT NOBEL NORVEGIEN.= 250\n     pp. Sewed, 10s. net.\n\n   =CECIL= (=Lord HUGH=, M.A., M.P.). =Conservatism.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 11 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =CHADWICK=(=HERBERT CLIFTON=). =Antedon.= With 7 Plates. 2s. 6d,\n     net. _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 42.\n   --=Echinus.= With 5 Plates. Price 2s. net. _See_ Liverpool Marine\n     Biology Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =CHANNING'S COMPLETE WORKS.= Including \"The Perfect Life,\" with a\n     Memoir. Centennial Edition. 4to Ed. Cloth. 7s. 6d.\n\n   =CHAPMAN= (=Prof. S. J.=, M. A.). =Elements of Political Economy.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 59\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =CHARACTER AND LIFE: A Symposium.= By Dr Alfred Russel Wallace,\n     John A. Hobson, Harold Begbie, Walter Crane, and the late Dr Emil\n     Reich. Arranged by Percy L. Parker, Editor of \"Public Opinion.\"\n     Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =CHESTERTON= (=G. K.=). =The Victorian Age in Literature.= F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 70 in Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =CHEYNE= (=Rev. T. K.=, D.Litt., D.D.). =Bible Problems and the New\n     Material for their Solution.= A Plea for Thoroughness of\n     Investigation, addressed to Churchmen and Scholars. Crown 8vo. 4s.\n     6d. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =CHILD AND RELIGION, THE.= Essays. By Prof. Henry Jones, M.A.,\n     LL.D., University of Glasgow; C. F. G. Masterman, M.A.; Prof.\n     George T. Ladd, D.D., LL.D.; Rev. F. R. Tennant, M.A., B.Sc.; Rev.\n     J. Cynddylan Jones, D.D.; Rev. Canon Hensley Henson, M.A.; Rev.\n     Robert F. Horton, M.A., D.D.; Rev. G. Hill, M.A., D.D.; Rev. J. J.\n     Thornton; Rev. Rabbi A. A. Green; Prof. Joseph Agar Beet, D.D.\n     Edited by Thomas Stephens, B.A. Crown 8vo. 5s. net. _See_ Crown\n     Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =CLARKE= (=CHARLES BARON=, F.R.S.). =Illustrations of Cyperace\u00e6.=\n     Royal 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =COFFEY= (=GEORGE=). =Guide to the Celtic Antiquities of the\n     Christian Period preserved in the National Museum, Dublin.= Second\n     Edition, with 19 Plates and 114 Illustrations. Sewed, 2s. net;\n     cloth, 3s. net.\n   --=New Grange (Brugh na Boinne) and other Incised Tumuli in\n     Ireland.= With 9 Plates and 95 Illustrations. Cloth, 6s. net.\n\n   =COIT= (=STANTON=, Ph.D.). =National Idealism and a State Church.=\n     Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.\n   --=National Idealism and the Book of Common Prayer.= An Essay in\n     Re-Interpretation and Revision. Demy 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =COLBY= (=ALBERT LADD=). =Reinforced Concrete in Europe.= Demy 8vo,\n     cloth. 14s. 6d. net.\n\n   =COLE= (=FRANK J.=), and =JAMES JOHNSTONE.= =Pleuronectes.= With 11\n     Plates. 7s. net. _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =COLLINS= (=F. H.=). =An Epitome of Synthetic Philosophy.= With a\n     Preface by Herbert Spencer. 5th Edition. The Synthetic Philosophy\n     Completed. 8vo, cloth. Reduced to 5s. net.\n\n   =COMMON PRAYER FOR CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: In Ten Services for Morning\n     and Evening.= 32mo, cloth, 1s. 6d.; 8vo, cloth, 3s.; with Anthems,\n     4s.\n\n   =CONNOLLY= (=DOM. R. H.=), and =H. W. CODRINGTON.= =Two Commentaries\n     on the Jacobite Liturgy.= See Text and Translation Society, p. 43.\n\n   =CONYBEARE= (=F. C.=, M.A.). =The Ring of Pope Xystus: a collection\n     of Aphorisms and Short Sayings in use among Christian Communities\n     in the Second Century.= Beautifully printed on hand-made paper. 4s.\n     6d. net.\n   --Edited by. =An Ancient Armenian Version of the Apocalypse of St\n     John: also the Armenian Texts of Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia de\n     Incarnatione, and Epistle to Theodosius upon Easter.= _See_ Text\n     and Translation Society, p. 43.\n\n   =CORNILL= (=Prof. CARL=). =The Introduction to the Canonical Books\n     of the Old Testament.= Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _See_\n     Theological Translation Library, p. 44.\n\n   =CRANE= (=WALTER=), contributor to \"Character and Life,\" _see_ p. 5.\n\n   =CREIGHTON= (=Mrs=). =Missions: their Rise and Development.= F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Volume 60 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =CREIGHTON= (=CHAS.=, M.D.). =Cancer and other Tumours of the\n     Breast.= Researches showing their true seat and cause. The Author\n     was sometime Demonstrator of Anatomy, Cambridge Medical School, and\n     is the author of \"Bovine Tuberculosis in Man,\" etc. With 24\n     Lithographic Plates containing 138 figures from the Author's\n     drawings. Royal 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n   --=Contributions to the Physiological Theory of Tuberculosis.= Royal\n     8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =CUSSANS= (=MARGARET=, B.Sc.). =Gammarus.= With 4 Plates. 2s. net.\n     _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 43.\n\n   =DAKIN= (=W. J.=, M.Sc.). =Pecton.= With 9 Plates. 4s. 6d. net.\n     _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 43.\n\n   =DARBISHIRE= (=OTTO V.=). =Chondrus.= With 7 Plates. 2s. 6d. net.\n     _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =DAUDET= (=A.=). =Contes Militaires.= 2s. 6d. _See_ Army Series, p.\n     35.\n\n   =DAVENPORT= (=CHARLES BENEDICT=). =Heredity in relation to\n     Eugenics.= The Author is Director, Department of Experimental\n     Evolution, Cold Spring Harbour, Long Island, N.Y.; Secretary of the\n     Eugenics Section American Breeders' Association. With Diagrams and\n     Coloured Plate. Demy 8vo, cloth. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n   =DAVIDS= (=Mrs RHYS=, M.A.). =Buddhism.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s.\n     net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 47 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =DAVIDS= (=T. W. RHYS=). =Lectures on Some Points in the History of\n     Indian Buddhism.= The Hibbert Lectures, 1881. 2nd Edition. Demy\n     8vo, cloth. Library Edition, 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n   =DAVIS= (=H. W. C.=, M.A.). =Medi\u00e6val Europe.= (With Maps.) F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 13 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =DELBOS= (=L.=). =Nautical Terms in English and French and French\n     and English.= With Notes and Tables. For the use of Naval Officers\n     and Naval Cadets. By Leon Delbos, M.A. 4th Edition, with additional\n     Plates. Cloth. 7s. 6d. net.\n   --=The Student's Graduated French Reader.= Remodelled and\n     rewritten. Edited, with Notes and a Complete Vocabulary. First\n     Year--Part I. Anecdotes, Tales, and Exercises. Part II. Tales,\n     Historical Pieces, and Exercises, 1s. 6d. each.\n\n   =DELITZSCH= (=Dr FRIEDRICH=). =Babel and Bible.= Authorised\n     Translation. Edited, by Rev. C. H. W. Johns. 4s. 6d. net. _See_\n     Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =DEWALL= (=JOHANNES V.=). =Auf Verlornem Posten and Nazzarena\n     Danti.= 3s. _See_ Army Series, p. 35.\n\n   =DIBBLEE= (=G. BINNEY=). =The Newspaper.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth 1s.\n     net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 69 in Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =DICKSON= (=H. N.=, D.Sc.). =Climate and Weather.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 36 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =DIGGLE= (=Rt. Rev. J. W.=, D.D.). =The Foundations of Duty or,\n     Man's Duty to God, His Fellowmen, and Himself.= Crown 8vo, cloth,\n     3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =DILLMANN= (=A.=). =Ethiopic Grammar.= Translated from C. Bezold's\n     Second German Edition. By Rev. J. A. Crichton, D.D. With Index of\n     Passages, Philological Tables, etc. 1 vol., royal 8vo. 25s. net.\n\n   =D\u00cePAVAMSA (THE):= A Buddhist Historical Record in the Pali\n     Language. Edited, with an English Translation, by Dr H. Oldenberg.\n     8vo, cloth. 21s.\n\n   =DOBSCH\u00dcTZ= (=ERNST VON=, D.D.). =Christian Life in the Primitive\n     Church.= The Author is Professor of New Testament Theology in the\n     University of Strassburg. Translated by Rev. G. Bremner, and edited\n     by the Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Demy 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. _See_\n     Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 44.\n\n   =DOLE= (=CHARLES F.=). =The Ethics of Progress, or the Theory and\n     the Practice by which Civilisation proceeds.= Small demy 8vo,\n     cloth. 6s. net.\n\n   =DRUMMOND= (=Dr JAMES=, LL.D.). =Philo Jud\u00e6us=; or, =The Jewish\n     Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion=. 2 vols.\n     8vo, cloth. 21s.\n   --=Via, Veritas, Vita.= Lectures on Christianity in its most\n     Simple and Intelligible Form. Hibbert Lectures, 1894. Demy 8vo.\n     Library Edition, 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n   =DUNCAN= (=DAVID=, LL.D.). =The Life and Letters of Herbert\n     Spencer.= With 17 Illustrations. Cheap Reissue. 6s. net.\n\n   =EMERY= (=F. B.=, M.A.). =Elementary Chemistry.= With numerous\n     Illustrations. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n   =ENGELHARDT= (=V.=). =The Electrolysis of Water.= 8vo. Pages x +\n     140. 90 Illustrations. 5s. net.\n\n   =ENGLAND AND GERMANY.= By Leaders of Public Opinion in both\n     Empires, among whom may be mentioned:--Rt. Hon. Arthur J. Balfour,\n     Viscount Haldane of Cloan, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar Law, Baron Alfred von\n     Rothschild, Rt. Hon. Herbert Samuel, Sir Rufus Isaacs, Norman\n     Angell, J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., J. A. Spender, Excell. Karl\n     Galster, Ernst Basserman, Professor Dr Riesser, Baron Wilhelm von\n     Pechmann, Professor Wilhelm Wundt, Dr Walther Rathenau, August\n     Thyssen, sen., His Excellency Dr Adolf Wermuth, Excell. von\n     Holleben, etc. With Portraits. Stiff wrapper. 1s. net.\n\n   =ERSKINE= (=Prof. J.=) and =Prof. W. P. TRENT=. =Great Writers of\n     America.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming\n     Vol. 52 in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =EUCKEN= (=Dr RUDOLF=, Jena). =Knowledge and Life.= Cloth, 5s. net.\n     _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n   --=Present Day Ethics and their Relation to the Spiritual Life.=\n     Cloth. 3s. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n   --=The Life of the Spirit.= An Introduction to Philosophy. Fourth\n     Impression. 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown Theological\n     Library, p. 36.\n  ---=The Truth of Religion.= Translated from the latest revised\n     German edition by Rev. W. Tudor Jones, Ph.D., with a special\n     preface by the Author. Second Edition. Demy 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d.\n     net. _See_ Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 44.\n\n   =EUG\u00c8NE-FASNACHT= (=G.=). =Eug\u00e8ne's Student's Comparative Grammar\n     of the French Language, with an Historical Sketch of the Formation\n     of French.= The Author was for many years French Master,\n     Westminster School. For the use of Public Schools. With Exercises.\n     23rd Edition, thoroughly revised. Square crown 8vo, cloth, 5s.; or\n     separately, Grammar, 3s.; Exercises, 2s. 6d.\n   --=French Method.= Elementary French Lessons preparatory to the\n     same Author's Grammar. 18th Edition. Cloth. 1s. 6d.\n\n   =EVANS= (=GEORGE=). =An Essay on Assyriology.= With 4to Tables of\n     Assyrian Inscriptions. 8vo, cloth, 5s.\n\n   =EWALD'S= (=Dr H.=). =Commentary on the Prophets of the Old\n     Testament.= Translated by the Rev. J. F. Smith. [Vol. I. General\n     Introduction, Yoel, Amos, Hosea, and Zakharya 9-11. Vol. II.\n     Yesaya, Obadya, and Mikah. Vol. III. Nah\u00fbm, Ssephanya, Habaqq\u00fbq,\n     Zakh\u00e2rya, Y\u00e9remya. Vol. IV. Hezekiel, Yesaya xl.-lxvi. Vol. V.\n     Haggai, Zakharya, Malaki, Jona, Baruc, Daniel, Appendix and Index.]\n     5 vols. 8vo, cloth. 30s. _See_ Theological Translation Library, Old\n     Series, p. 45.\n   --=Commentary on the Psalms.= Translated by the Rev. E. Johnson,\n     M.A. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n   --=Commentary on the Book of Job=, with Translation. Translated\n     from the German by the Rev. J. Frederick Smith, 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n\n   =FAGUET= (=Prof. EMILE=, of the French Academy). =Initiation into\n     Philosophy.= Translated by Sir Home Gordon, Bart. Crown 8vo, cloth.\n     2s. 6d. net.\n   --=Initiation into Literature.= Translated by Sir Home Gordon,\n     Bart. Cloth. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =FARMER= (=Prof. J. B.=). =Plant Life.= (Illustrated.) F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 72 in Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =FARNELL= (=L. R.=, D.Litt.). =The Evolution of Religion: an\n     Anthropological Study.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown\n     Theological Library, p. 36,\n   --=The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion.= Lectures delivered in\n     Oxford and London. Being Vol. 1 of New Series of Hibbert Lectures.\n     Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. _See_ Hibbert Lectures, p. 38.\n\n   =FARQUHARSON= (=Rt. Hon. ROBERT=, LL.D.) =The House of Commons from\n     Within, and other Reminiscences.= Med. 8vo. With portrait by J. S.\n     Sargent, R.A., never before published. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =FARRIE= (=HUGH=). =Highways and Byways in Literature.= A volume of\n     original Studies. Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =FINDLAY= (=Prof. J. J.=, M.A., Ph.D.). =The School.= An\n     Introduction to the Study of Education. F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 38 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =FISCHER= (=Prof. EMIL=, of Berlin University). =Introduction to\n     the Preparation of Organic Compounds.= Translated with the Author's\n     sanction from the new German edition by R. V. Stanford, B.Sc, Ph.D.\n     With figures in the text. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. net.\n\n   =FISHER= (=HERBERT=, M.A., F.B.A., LL.D.), Editor, Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n   --=Napoleon.= (With Maps.) F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather,\n     2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 61 in Home University Library; for list,\n     _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =FOUR GOSPELS (THE) AS HISTORICAL RECORDS.= 8vo, cloth. 15s.\n\n   =FOWLER= (=W. WARDE=, M.A.). =Rome.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 42 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =FOX= (=FRANK=), Author of \"Ramparts of Empire,\" etc. =Problems of\n     the Pacific.= Demy 8vo, cloth. With Map. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =FRAPS= (=G. S.=, Ph.D.). =Principles of Agricultural Chemistry.=\n     8vo. Pages x + 140. 90 Illustrations. 17s. net.\n\n   =FRY= (=The Rt. Hon. Sir EDWARD=, G.C.B,, etc.). =Some Intimations\n     of Immortality. From the Physical and Psychical Nature of Man.=\n     Royal 8vo, sewed, 1s. net.\n\n   =GAMBLE= (=Prof. F. W.=, D.Sc., F.R.S.). =The Animal World.= With\n     Introduction by Sir Oliver Lodge. Many Illustrations. F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 19 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =GARDNER= (=Prof. PERCY=, D.Litt., F.B. A., Oxford). =Modernity and\n     the Churches.= 4s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n   --=The Religious Experience of St Paul.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n     net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =GELDART= (=W. M.=, M.A., B.C.L.). _Elements of English Law._\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 30\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =GIBBS= (=PHILIP=). =The Eighth Year.= The Dangerous Year of\n     Marriage. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. net.\n\n   =GIBSON= (=R. J. H.=) and =HELEN P. AULD=, B.Sc. =Codium.= With 3\n     Plates. Price 1s. 6d. net. _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs,\n     p. 42.\n\n   =GILES= (=H. A.=, LL.D.). =The Civilisation of China.= By the\n     well-known Professor of Chinese in the University of Cambridge.\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 25\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =GILL= (=CHARLES=). =The Book of Enoch the Prophet.= Translated\n     from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library, by the late Richard\n     Laurence, LL. D., Archbishop of Cashel. The Text corrected from his\n     latest Notes by Charles Gill. Reissue, 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =GILMAN= (=A. F.=). =A Laboratory Outline for Determinations in\n     Quantitative Chemical Analysis.= 88 pp. Cloth, 4s. net.\n\n   =GIVEN= (=JOHN L.=). =Making a Newspaper.= Cloth, above 300 pages.\n     6s. net.\n\n   =GOMME= (=Sir LAURENCE, L.=, F.S.A.). =London.= With number of\n     Plates and other Illustrations. 7s. 6d, net.\n\n   =GOOCH= (=G. P.=, M.A.). =The History of our Time, 1885-1913.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 23\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =GOULD= (=F. J.=). =Noble Pages from German History.= Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. Illustrated. 1s. 6d. net.\n\n   =GRAVELY= (=F. H.=, M.Sc.). =Polychaet Larvae.= With 4 plates. 2s.\n     6d. net. _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =GRAY= (=Rev. H. B.=, D.D.). =The Public Schools and the Empire.= A\n     plea for higher education in citizenship. Cloth. 6s. net.\n\n   =GREEN= (=Rt. Rev. A. V.=, D.D., Bishop of Ballarat). =The Ephesian\n     Canonical Writings: Being the Moorhouse Lectures for 1910.= Crown\n     8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =GREEN= (=Mrs J. R.=). =Irish Nationality.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s.\n     net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 6 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =GREGORY= (=Prof. J. W.=, F.R.S.). =The Making of the Earth.= (With\n     38 Maps and Figures.) F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 53 in the Home University Library; for list,\n     _see_ p. 41.\n\n   =GRIEBEN'S ENGLISH GUIDES.= Practical and handy; size, suitable for\n     the pocket, 6\u00bc x 4\u00bc, and bound in cloth.\n\n       =Switzerland.= A practical guide with seven Maps. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =Norway and Copenhagen.= With six Maps. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =Ostend and other Belgium Watering Places.= With two Maps. Cloth.\n       1s. 6d. net.\n\n       =Lakes of Northern Italy.= With Maps. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =The Rhine.= With Maps. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =North Sea Watering Places.= Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =Belgium.= With Maps. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =Brussels and Antwerp.= With Maps. Cloth, 1s. 6d. net.\n\n       =Holland.= With Maps. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =The Riviera.= With Maps. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =Winter Sports in Switzerland.= A practical guide for those\n       visiting Switzerland in the winter. With Map. Cloth. 3s. net.\n\n       =Dresden and Environs.= With Maps. Cloth. 1s. 6d. net.\n\n       =Munich and Environs.= With Maps. Cloth. 1s. 6d. net.\n\n       =Nuremburg and Rothenburg on the Tauber.= With 2 Maps. 1s. 6d.\n       net.\n\n       =The Dolomites.= With 3 Maps. 3s. net.\n\n       =Naples and Capri.= With seven Maps and three Ground Plans. 1s.\n       6d. net.\n\n   =GUILD= (=F. N.=). =The Mineralogy of Arizona.= Pp. 104.\n     Illustrated. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =GUPPY= (=H. B.=, M.B., F.R.S.E.). =Studies in Seeds and Fruits.=\n     An Investigation with the Balance. Demy 8vo, cloth, nearly 600 pp.\n     15s. net.\n\n   =GWYNN= (=Prof. JOHN=, D.D.). =Remnants of the Later Syriac\n     Versions of the Bible.= 21s. net. _See_ Text and Translation\n     Society, p. 43.\n\n   =HAERING= (=Prof. THEODOR=). =Ethics of the Christian Life.=\n     Translated by Rev. J. S. Hill, B.D., and edited by Rev. W. D.\n     Morrison. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _See_ Theological\n     Translation Library, New Series, p. 45.\n\n   =HALLIGAN= (=JAMES EDWARD=). =Soil Fertility and Fertilisers.=\n     Author is Chemist in charge Louisiana State Experiment Station.\n     With Illustrations and Tables. Demy 8vo, cloth. 14s. 6d. net.\n   --=Fertility and Fertiliser Hints.= 8vo. Pages viii + 156. 12\n     Figures. 5s. 6d. net.\n   --=Elementary Treatise on Stock Feeds and Feeding.= 8vo, cloth.\n     10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HANNAY= (=DAVID=). =The Navy and Sea Power.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth,\n     1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 66 in Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =HANTZSCH= (=A.=). =Elements of Stereochemistry.= Translated by\n     Wolf. 12mo. Pages viii + 206. 26 Figures. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HARDY.= =Elements of Analytical Geometry.= 8vo. Pages iv + 365.\n     163 Figures. 8s. 6d. net.\n   --=Infinitesimals and Limits.= Sm. 12mo, paper. 22 pp. 6 Figures.\n     1s. net.\n\n   =HARNACK= (=ADOLF=, D.D.). =The Acts of the Apostles.= Being Vol.\n     III. of Dr Harnack's New Testament Studies. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n     net. Vol. 26 in the Crown Theological Library; for list, _see_ p.\n     36.\n   --=Bible Reading in the Early Church.= Forming Vol. V. of New\n     Testament Studies. 5s. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 37.\n   --=The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two\n     Centuries.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. Vol. 31 in the Crown\n     Theological Library, p. 37.\n   --=The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels.= Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. 5s. net. Forming Vol. IV. in Dr Harnack's New Testament\n     Studies, and Vol. 33 in the Crown Theological Library, p. 37.\n   --=History of Dogma.= Translated from the Third German Edition.\n     Edited by the late Rev. Prof. A. B. Bruce, D.D. 7 vols. 8vo, cloth,\n     each 10s. 6d.; half-leather, suitable for presentation, 12s. 6d.\n     _See_ Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 44.\n   --=Letter to the \"Preussische Jahrb\u00fccher\" on the German Emperor's\n     Criticism of Prof. Delitzsch's Lectures on \"Babel and Bible.\"=\n     Translated into English by Thomas Bailey Saunders, 6d. net.\n   --=Luke, the Physician.= Translated by the Rev. J. R. Wilkinson,\n     M.A. Being Vol. I. of Dr Harnack's New Testament Studies. Crown\n     8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 37.\n   --=The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three\n     Centuries.= Second, revised and much enlarged Edition. 25s. net.\n     Forming Vols. 19 and 20 in Theological Translation Library, New\n     Series; _see_ p. 44.\n   --=Monasticism: Its Ideals and History; and The Confessions of St\n     Augustine.= Two Lectures. Translated into English by E. E. Kellet,\n     M.A., and F. H. Marseille, Ph.D. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.\n     Forming Vol. 28 in the Crown Theological Library, p. 37.\n   --=The Sayings of Jesus.= Being Vol. II. of Dr Harnack's New\n     Testament Studies. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. Forming Vol. 23 in\n     the Crown Theological Library, p. 37.\n   --=What is Christianity?= Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders.\n     Third and Revised Edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 5\n     in the Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n   --and =Prof. W. HERRMANN=, of Marburg. =Essays on the Social\n     Gospel.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. net. Forming Vol. 18 in the Crown\n     Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =HARNACK= (=AXEL=). =Introduction to the Elements of the\n     Differential and Integral Calculus.= From the German, Royal 8vo,\n     cloth. 10s. 6d.\n\n   =HARRIS= (=Prof. D. FRASER=). =Nerves.= F'cap 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 79 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =HARRISON= (=JANE=, LL.D., D.Litt.). =Ancient Art and Ritual.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 75\n     in Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =HART= (=EDWARD=, Ph.D.). =Chemistry for Beginners.= Sm. 12mo.\n\n     Vol. I. =Inorganic.= Pages viii + 188. 55 Illustrations and 2\n     Plates. 4th Edition. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n     Vol. II. =Organic.= Pages iv + 98. 11 Illustrations. 2s. net.\n\n     Vol. III. =Experiments.= Separately. 60 pages, 1s. net.\n\n   --=Second Year Chemistry.= Small 12mo. 165 pp. 31 Illus. 5s. net.\n\n   =HARTLAND= (=EDWIN SYDNEY=, F.S.A.). =Ritual and Belief.= Studies\n     in the History of Religion. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HATCH= (=Rev. Dr=). =Lectures on the Influence of Greek Ideas and\n     Usages upon the Christian Church.= Edited by Dr Fairbairn. Hibbert\n     Lectures, 1888. 3rd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition,\n     3s. 6d.\n\n   =HAUSRATH= (=Prof. A.=). =History of the New Testament Times. The\n     Time of the Apostles.= Translated by Leonard Huxley. With a Preface\n     by Mrs Humphry Ward. 4 vols. 8vo, cloth. 42s. (Uniform with the\n     Theological Translation Library, Old Series.)\n   --=History of the New Testament Times. The Time of Jesus.= Trans.\n     by the Revs. C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth.\n     12s. _See_ Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 45.\n\n   =HAWORTH= (=PAUL LELAND=). =Reconstruction and Union, 1865-1912.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HEATH= (=FRANCIS GEORGE=). =Nervation of Plants.= By the\n     well-known Author of \"Our Woodland Trees,\" \"The Fern World,\" etc.\n     Well Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net.\n   --=All About Leaves.= Well Illustrated, some in colours. 4s. 6d.\n     net.\n\n   =HEBREW TEXTS, in large type for Classes:=\n     =Genesis.= 2nd Edition. 16mo, cloth, 1s. 6d. =Psalms.= 16mo, cloth.\n     1s. =Isaiah.= 16mo, cloth. 1s. =Job.= 16mo, cloth. 1s.\n\n   =HEESS= (=J. K.=, Ph.C.). =Practical Methods of the Iron and Steel\n     Works Chemist.= Pp. 60. Cloth. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HENSLOW= (=Rev. G.=). =The Vulgate; The Source of False Doctrine.=\n     Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HERDMAN= (=W. A.=). =Ascidia.= With 5 Plates. 2s. net. _See_\n     Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =HERFORD= (=Rev. R. TRAVERS=). =Christianity in Talmud and\n     Midrash.= Demy 8vo, cloth. 18s. net.\n   --=Pharisaism: Its Aims and its Methods.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n     net. Forming Vol. 35 in the Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =HERRMANN= (=Prof. WILHELM=). =The Communion of the Christian with\n     God.= Translated from the new German Edition by Rev. J. S. Stanyon,\n     M.A., and Rev. R. W. Stewart, B.D., B.Sc. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 15 in the Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =HERRMANN= (=Prof. WILHELM=). =Faith and Morals.= New Edition.\n     Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 6 in the Crown\n     Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =HEWITT= (=C. GORDON=, B.Sc.). =Ligia.= With 4 Plates. 2s. net.\n     _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 43.\n\n   =HIBBERT JOURNAL: A Quarterly Review of Religion, Theology, and\n     Philosophy.= Edited by L. P. Jacks and G. Dawes Hicks. In quarterly\n     issues, 2s. 6d. net; or yearly volumes bound in cloth. 12s. 6d.\n     net. Annual Subscription, 10s. post free.\n\n   =HIBBERT JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT, 1909, entitled JESUS OR CHRIST?=\n     Containing 18 Essays by leading Theologians and Thinkers. Super\n     royal 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =HICKSON= (=SYDNEY J.=, D.Sc., F.R.S.). =Alcyonium.= With 3 Plates.\n     Price 1s. 6d. net. _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Committee\n     Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =HILL= (=ARTHUR E.=, Ph.D.). =Qualitative Analysis.= 12mo, cloth.\n     4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HINDS= (=J. I. D.=, Ph.D., LL.D.). =Qualitative Chemical\n     Analysis.= 8vo, cloth. Pages viii + 266. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HINKS= (=A. R.=, M.A.). =Astronomy.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 31 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =HIRST= (=F. W.=, M.A.). =The Stock Exchange.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth,\n     1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 5 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ page 39.\n\n   =HOBHOUSE= (=Prof. L. T.=, M.A.). =Liberalism.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth,\n     1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 21 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =HOBSON= (=J. A.=, M.A.). =The Science of Wealth.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 16 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n   --=Character and Life.= _See_ p. 5.\n\n   =H\u00d6FER= (=E.=). =Erz\u00e4hlungen.= 3s. _See_ Army Series of French and\n     German Novels, p. 35.\n\n   =HOFF= (=J. H. VAN'T=). =Studies in Chemical Dynamics.= Revised and\n     enlarged by Dr. Ernst Cohen, Assistant in the Chemical Laboratory\n     of the University of Amsterdam. Translated by Thomas Ewan, M.Sc.,\n     Ph.D., Demonstrator of Chemistry in the Yorkshire College, Leeds.\n     Royal 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d.\n\n   =HOLDERNESS= (=Sir T. W.=, K.C.S.I.). =Peoples and Problems of\n     India.= The Author is Secretary of the Revenue, Statistics, and\n     Commerce Department of the India Office. F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s.\n     net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 37 in the Home University\n     Library; _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =HOLLINS= (=DOROTHEA=). =The Quest.= A Romance of Deliverance. Demy\n     8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HOME UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE.= Every volume is\n     specially written for this Library by a recognised authority of\n     high standing. Each volume is complete and independent, but the\n     series has been planned as a whole to form a comprehensive library\n     of modern knowledge. The Library is published under the direction\n     of Professor Gilbert Murray and Mr Herbert Fisher of Oxford,\n     Professor J. Arthur Thomson of Aberdeen, and Professor William T.\n     Brewster of New York. Each volume consists of 256 pages and is\n     issued bound in cloth at 1s. net, or in leather, 2s. 6d. net. For\n     list of volumes, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =HORNELL= (=JAMES=, F.L.S.). =Report to the Government of Baroda on\n     the Marine Zoology of Okhamandal in Kattiawar.= With Supplementary\n     Reports on Special Groups by other Zoologists. Demy 4to, cloth,\n     with full-page Plates. Part I. 15s. net.\n\n   =HOWE= (=J. L.=, Washington and Lee University). =Inorganic\n     Chemistry for Schools and Colleges.= Being a Second Edition of\n     \"Inorganic Chemistry according to the Periodic Law.\" By F. P.\n     Venable and J. L. Howe. Demy 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =HUGO= (=VICTOR=). =Les Mis\u00e9rables: Les Principaux Episodes.=\n     Edited, with Life and Notes, by the late J. Bo\u00efelle. 2 vols. 6th\n     Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. Each 3s.\n   --=Notre Dame de Paris.= Adapted for the use of Schools and\n     Colleges. By the late J. Bo\u00efelle. 2 vols. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. Each 3s.\n\n   =HUNTER= (=Rev. J.=, D.D.). =De Profundis Clamavi, and Other\n     Sermons.= Large crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n   --=God and Life.= A Series of Discourses. Uniform with \"De\n     Profundis Clamavi.\" Cloth. 5s. net.\n   --=The Coming Church.= A Plea for a Church simply Christian.\n     Cloth. 1s. 6d. net.\n\n   =ILBERT= (=Sir C. P.=, K.C.B.). =Parliament. Its History,\n     Constitution, and Practice.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather,\n     2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 1 in the Home University Library; for\n     list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =IMMS= (=A. D.=, B.Sc. (Lond.)). =Anurida.= With 7 Plates. 4s. net.\n     _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 43.\n\n   =ISGROVE= (=ANNIE=, M.Sc.). =Eledone.= With 10 Plates. 4s. 6d. net.\n     _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =JACKS= (=L. P.=), Editor of the Hibbert Journal. =Mad Shepherds,\n     and Other Human Studies.= With a frontispiece drawing by Leslie\n     Brooke. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net.\n   --=All Men are Ghosts.= 5s. net.\n   --=Among the Idolmakers.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n   --=The Alchemy of Thought and Other Essays.= Demy 8vo, cloth.\n     10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =JEREMIAS= (=Prof. ALFRED=). =The Old Testament in the Light of the\n     Ancient East.= The translation is edited by Professor C. H. W.\n     Johns of Cambridge. With a large number of Illustrations. In two\n     volumes, demy 8vo, at 25s. net. _See_ Theological Translation\n     Library, New Series, p. 45.\n\n   =JOHNSTON= (=Sir H. H.=, K.C.B., D.Sc.). =The Opening-up of\n     Africa.= (With Maps.) F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 12 in the Home University Library; for list,\n     _see_ p. 39.\n   --=Views and Reviews.= Essays on Racial, Political, and Colonial\n     Questions. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =JOHNSTONE= (=J.=). =British Fisheries: Their Administration and\n     their Problems.= A short account of the Origin and Growth of\n     British Sea Fishery Authorities and Regulations. 10s. 6d. net.\n   --=Cardium.= With 7 Plates. Price 2s. 6d. net. _See_ Liverpool\n     Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =JONES.= =The Freezing Point, Boiling Point, and Conductivity\n     Methods.= 12mo. Pages vii+64. 14 Illustrations. 3s. net.\n\n   =JONES= (=Rev. R. CROMPTON=). =Hymns of Duty and Faith.= Selected\n     and Arranged. 247 pp. F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 2nd Edition. 3s. 6d.\n   --=Chants, Psalms, and Canticles.= Selected and Pointed for\n     Chanting. 18mo, cloth. 1s. 6d.\n   --=Anthems.= With Indexes and References to the Music. 18mo,\n     cloth. 1s. 3d.\n   --=The Chants and Anthems.= Together in 1 vol. Cloth. 2s.\n   --=A Book of Prayer.= In Thirty Orders of Worship, with\n     Additional Prayers and Thanksgivings. 18mo, cloth. 2s. 6d. With\n     Chants, in 1 vol. 18mo, cloth. 3s.\n\n   =JONES= (=Rev. W. TUDOR=, Ph.D.). =An Interpretation of Rudolf\n     Eucken's Philosophy.= Crown 8vo. 5s. net.\n\n   =JORDAN= (=DAVID STARR=). =The Stability of Truth. A Discussion of\n     Reality as Related to Thought and Action.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s.\n     6d. net.\n\n   =JORDAN= (=Humpfrey R.=, B.A.) =Blaise Pascal. A Study in Religious\n     Psychology.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY.= =Botany.= At various prices.\n     Index to Journal (Botany), 20s. =Zoology.= At various prices.\n     General Index to the first 20 vols. of the Journal (Zoology) and\n     the Zoological portion of the Proceedings, 20s.\n\n   =JOURNAL OF THE QUEKETT MICROSCOPICAL CLUB.= Nos. 1-26, 1s. net;\n     Nos. 27-31, 2s. 6d. net. 1893, No. 32, and following Nos.,\n     half-yearly, 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL MICROSCOPICAL SOCIETY, containing its\n     Transactions and Proceedings, with other Microscopical\n     Information.= Bi-monthly. Previous to 1893 at various prices; after\n     that date bi-monthly, each 6s. net.\n\n   =KAPP= (=GISBERT=, D.Eng., M.I.E.E., M.I.C.E.). =Electricity.= The\n     Author is Professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of\n     Birmingham. (Illustrated.) F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 1s. net; leather, 2s.\n     6d. net. Forming Vol. 58 in the Home University Library; _see_ p.\n     41.\n\n   =KAUFFMAN= (=RUTH and R. W.=). =The Latter Day Saints: A Study of\n     the Mormons in the Light of Economic Conditions.= Medium 8vo,\n     cloth. 10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =KAUTZSCH= (=E.=, Professor). =An Outline of the History of the\n     Literature of the Old Testament.= With Chronological Tables for the\n     History of the Israelites. Translated by John Taylor, D.Litt.,\n     M.A., etc. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. 6d.\n\n   =KEIM'S History of Jesus of Nazara: Considered in its connection\n     with the National Life of Israel, and related in detail.=\n     Translated from the German by Arthur Ransom and the Rev. E. M.\n     Geldart. In 6 vols. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. each. _See_ Theological\n     Translation Fund Library, p. 46.\n\n   =KEITH= (=A.=, M.D., LL.D.). =The Human Body.= The Author is\n     Conservator of Museum and Hunterian Professor, Royal College of\n     Surgeons. (Illustrated.) F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s.\n     6d. net. Forming Vol. 57, Home University Library; for list, _see_\n     p. 39.\n   --=The Antiquity of Man.= With many Illustrations. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =KENNEDY= (=Rev. JAS.=). =Introduction to Biblical Hebrew,\n     presenting Graduated Instruction in the Language of the Old\n     Testament.= 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n   --=Studies in Hebrew Synonyms.= Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =KER= (=Prof. W. P.=, M.A.). =English Literature: Medi\u00e6val.= F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 43 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =KIEPERT'S Wall Maps of the Ancient World=--\n\n     =Wall-Map of Ancient Italy.= Italia antiqua. For the study of Livy,\n     Sallust, Cicero, Dionysius, etc. Scale 1:800,000. Mounted on\n     rollers, varnished, 20s.\n\n     =General Wall-Map of the Old World.= Tabula orbis terrarum antiqui\n     ad illustrandum potissimum antiquissimi \u00e6vi usque ad Alexandrum M.\n     historiam. For the study of ancient history, especially the history\n     of the Oriental peoples: the Indians, Medes, Persians, Babylonians,\n     Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, etc. Scale 1:5,400,000. Mounted\n     on rollers, varnished. 20s.\n\n     =General Wall-Map of the Roman Empire.= Imperii Romani tabula\n     geographica. For the study of the development of the Roman Empire.\n     Scale 1:300,000. Mounted on rollers. 24s.\n\n     =Wall-Map of Ancient Latium.= Latii Veteris et finitimarum regionum\n     tabula. For the study of Livy, Dionysius, etc. Scale 1:125,000.\n     With supplement: Environs of Rome. Scale 1:25,000, Mounted on\n     rollers, varnished. 18s.\n\n     =Wall-Map of Ancient Greece.= Gr\u00e6ci\u00e6 Antiqu\u00e6 tabula. For the study\n     of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Strabo, Cornelius Nepos, etc.\n     Scale 1:500,000. Mounted on rollers, varnished. 24s.\n\n     =Wall-Map of the Empires of the Persians and of Alexander the\n     Great.= Imperia Persarum et Macedonum. For the study of Herodotus,\n     Xenophon, Justinian, Arian, Curtius. Scale 1:300,000. Mounted on\n     rollers and varnished. 20s.\n\n   =KIEPERT'S Wall-Maps of the Ancient World=--_continued_.\n\n     =Wall-Map of Gaul, with Portions of Ancient Britain and Ancient\n     Germany.= Galli\u00e6 Cisalpin\u00e6 et Transalpin\u00e6 cum partibus Britanni\u00e6 et\n     Germani\u00e6 tabula. For the study of C\u00e6sar, Justinian, Livy, Tacitus,\n     etc. Scale 1:1,000,000. Mounted on rollers and varnished 24s.\n\n     =Wall-Map of Ancient Asia Minor.= Asi\u00e6 Minoris Antiqu\u00e6 tabula. For\n     the study of Herodotus, Xenophon, Justinian, Arian, Curtius, etc.\n     Scale 1:800,000. Mounted on rollers and varnished. 20s.\n\n   --=New Atlas Antiquus.= Twelve Maps of the Ancient World, for\n     Schools and Colleges. Third hundred thousand. 12th Edition, with a\n     complete Geographical Index. Folio, boards. 6s. Strongly bound in\n     cloth. 7s. 6d.\n\n   =KING, THE, TO HIS PEOPLE.= Being the Speeches and Messages of His\n     Majesty George V. as Prince and Sovereign. Published by permission.\n     Square 8vo, art canvas. 5s. net.\n\n   =KITTEL= (=Dr RUDOLF=, of Breslau). =A History of the Hebrews.= In\n     2 vols. 8vo, cloth. Each volume, 10s. 6d. Forming Vols. 3 and 6 of\n     the Theological Translation Library, New Series; for list, _see_ p.\n     44.\n   --=The Scientific Study of the Old Testament=: Its Principal\n     Results, and their Bearing upon Religious Instruction. Illustrated.\n     5s. net. Forming Vol. 32 in the Crown Theological Library; for\n     list, _see_ p. 37.\n\n   =KRAUSE= (=G.=). Edited by. =Birds' Eggs.= Oologia universalis\n     Pal\u00e6arctica. Containing about 250 coloured plates with letterpress.\n     English translation by O. G. Pike. To be completed in 150 parts,\n     4to, at 2s. net each part. Parts are not sold separately.\n\n   =KRAYER= (=PETER J.=). =The Use and Care of a Balance.= Small mo.\n     Pages iv + 42. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =KUENEN= (=Dr A.=, of Leiden). =The Religion of Israel to the Fall\n     of the Jewish State.= Translated from the Dutch by A. H. May. 3\n     vols. 8vo, cloth. 18s. _See_ Theological Translation Fund Library,\n     p. 46.\n   --=Lectures on National Religions and Universal Religion.= 8vo,\n     cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d. _See_ Hibbert Lectures, p.\n     38.\n\n   =KYRIAKIDES= (=A.=). =Modern Greek-English Dictionary.= With a\n     Cypriote Vocabulary. 2nd Edition, revised throughout. Medium 8vo.\n     920 pages. Cloth. 15s. net.\n   --=A Modern Greek-English and English-Modern Greek Pocket\n     Dictionary.= In 2 vols., about 650 pages each. 7s. net each volume.\n   --=New Greek-English Dialogues.= 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LAKE= (=KIRSOPP=). =The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection\n     of Jesus Christ.= The Author is Professor of New Testament Exegesis\n     in the University of Leiden, Holland. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 21 in the Crown Theological Library; _see_ p.\n     36.\n\n   =LAMMASCH= (=HEINRICH=). =Die Rechtskraft Internationaler\n     Schiedsspruche.= Vol. 4 of Publications de' l'Institut Nobel\n     Norv\u00e9gien. 4to, sewed. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LANDOLT= (=Dr HANS=). =The Optical Rotating Power of Organic\n     Substances and its Practical Applications.= 8vo. Pages xxi + 751.\n     83 Illustrations. 31s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LAURIE= (=Prof. SIMON=). =Ethica: or, the Ethics of Reason.= By\n     Scotus Novanticus. 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n   --=Metaphysica Nova et Vetusta: A Return to Dualism.= 2nd\n     Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n\n   =LEA= (=HENRY CHARLES=, LL.D.). =History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in\n     the Christian Church.= 3rd Edition. Thoroughly Revised and Reset. 2\n     vols. Medium 8vo, cloth. 21s. net.\n\n   =LEAVENWORTH= (=Prof. W. S.=, M.Sc.). =Inorganic Qualitative\n     Chemical Analysis for Advanced Schools and Colleges.= 8vo. Pages vi\n     + 154. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LEBLANC= (=Dr MAX=). =The Production of Chromium and its Compounds\n     by the Aid of the Electric Current.= Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =LEIPOLDT= (=C. LOUIS=, F.R.C.S. Eng.). =Common-sense Dietetics.=\n     Strongly bound in cloth. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LE ROY= (=Edouard=). =A New Philosophy: Henri Bergson.= Translated\n     by Vincent Benson, M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. net.\n\n   =LETHABY= (=Prof. W. R.=). =Architecture.= Over 40 Illustrations.\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 39\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ page 40.\n\n   =LEWIS= (=AGNES SMITH=), Edited by. =Old Syriac Gospels, or\n     Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe.= This is the Text of the Sinai\n     Palimpsest, including the latest additions and emendations, with\n     the variants of the Curetonian Text, corroborations from many other\n     MSS., and a list of quotations from ancient authors. With 4\n     facsimiles. Quarto, bound half-leather. 25s. net.\n   --=Light on the Four Gospels from the Sinai Palimpsest.= Cloth.\n     3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LLURIA= (=Dr ENRIQUE=). =Super-Organic Evolution. Nature and the\n     Social Problem.= With a Preface by Dr D. Santiago Ramon y Cajal.\n     Large Crown 8vo. Illustrated. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LOBSTEIN= (=PAUL=). =The Virgin Birth of Christ=: An Historical\n     and Critical Essay. The Author is Professor of Dogmatics in the\n     University of Strassburg. Edited, with an Introduction, by Rev. W.\n     D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 2 in the\n     Crown Theological Library; for list, _see_ p. 36.\n\n   =LODGE= (=Sir O.=). =Life and Matter=: An Exposition of Part of the\n     Philosophy of Science, with Special References to the Influence of\n     Professor Haeckel. Second Edition, with an Appendix of Definitions\n     and Explanations. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. Popular Edition.\n     Paper Cover. 6d. net.\n   --=School Teaching and School Reform.= Four Lectures on School\n     Curricula and Methods. 3s.\n\n   =LONDON LIBRARY= (St James's Square), =Catalogue of=. xiv + 1626\n     pages. 4to, bound in buckram. 42s. net. Supplements I.-VIII., bound\n     in buckram, 5s. each.\n   --=Subject Index.= 4to, bound in buckram, xxxviii + 1256 pages.\n     31s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LONG= (=J. H.=). =A Text-book of Urine Analysis.= Small 8vo. Pages\n     v + 249. 31 Illustrations. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =LORIA= (=ACHILLE=). =Les Bases Economiques de la Justice\n     Internationale.= 4to, 3s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 2 of Publications\n     de l'Institut Nobel Norv\u00e9gien.\n\n   =LYALL= (=Sir C. J.=, M.A., K.C.I.E.). =Ancient Arabian Poetry,\n     chiefly Pr\u00e6-Islamic.= Translations, with an Introduction and Notes.\n     F'cap. 4to, cloth. 10s. 6d.\n\n   =MACAN= (=R. W.=). =The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.= An Essay in\n     Three Chapters. 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =MACAULAY= (=THOMAS BABINGTON=). =The Lays of Ancient Rome.= With 8\n     Illustrations faithfully reproduced in colours, and a number in\n     black-and-white, from original drawings by Norman Ault. Small 4to,\n     cloth. 6s. net. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MACCOLL= (=HUGH=). =Man's Origin, Destiny, and Duty.= Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MACDONALD= (=J. RAMSAY=, M.P.). =The Socialist Movement.= F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Vol. 10 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 37.\n\n   =MACDONALD= (=WILLIAM=). =From Jefferson to Lincoln.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth. 256 pp. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =McDOUGALL= (=Prof. W.=, F.R.S., M.B.). =Psychology: the Study of\n     Behaviour.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Vol.\n     49 in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 41.\n\n   =MACFIE= (=RONALD C.=, M.A., M.B.). =Science, Matter, and\n     Immortality.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =MACGREGOR= (=Prof. D. H.=, M.A.). =The Evolution of Industry.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Vol. 24 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =McKENDRICK= (=Prof. J. G.=, M.D.). =The Principles of Physiology.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Vol. 44 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =MACKENZIE= (=W. LESLIE=, M.D.). =Health and Disease.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 17 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =MAIR= (=G. H.=, M.A.). =English Literature: Modern.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 27 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n   --=English Literature.= A Survey from Chaucer to the Present Day.\n     Illustrated. 6s. net.\n\n   =MARETT= (=R. R.=, M.A., of Oxford). =Anthropology.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 41 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =MARGOLIOUTH= (=Prof. D. S.=, M.A., D.Litt.). =Mohammedanism.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 15\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n   --=Early Development of Mohammedanism.= _Vide_ Hibbert Lectures,\n     Second Series, p. 39.\n\n   =MARKHAM= (=Sir CLEMENTS=, K.C.B.). =Vocabularies of the General\n     Language of the Incas of Peru.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MARRINER= (=GEORGE R.=, F.R.M.S.). =The Kea: A New Zealand\n     Problem.= With Illustrations. Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MARTI= (=KARL=, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Bern). =The\n     Religion of the Old Testament: Its Place among the Religions of the\n     Nearer East.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. net. Forming Vol. 19 in the\n     Crown Theological Library; for list, _see_ p. 36.\n\n   =MARTINEAU= (=Mrs PHILIP=). =The Herbaceous Garden.= Gives full\n     particulars how to make and arrange hardy borders, and containing\n     an alphabetical index of the most suitable plants. With a large\n     number of illustrations and 2 plates in colour. Second Impression.\n     Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MARTINEAU= (=Rev. Dr JAMES=). =The Relation between Ethics and\n     Religion.= An Address. 8vo, sewed. 1s.\n   --=Modern Materialism: Its Attitude towards Theology.= A Critique\n     and Defence. 8vo, sewed. 2s. 6d.\n\n   =MASEFIELD= (=JOHN=). =Shakespeare.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 2 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =MASON= (=W. P.=). =Notes on Qualitative Analysis.= Sm. 12mo. 56\n     pp. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MATHIEU= (=C.=). =Para Rubber Cultivation.= Manual of the Planter\n     in Malasia. 4to, sewed. With Illustrations and Diagrams.\n\n   =MEADE= (=RICHARD K.=, B.Sc.). =Chemist's Pocket Manual.= 16mo.\n     Leather. Pocket Edition. Second Edition. 12s. 6d. net.\n   --=Portland Cement: Its Composition, Raw Materials, Manufacture,\n     Testing, and Analysis.= Second Edition. With 170 Illustrations.\n     20s. net.\n\n   =MELDOLA= (=Prof. RAPHAEL=, D.Sc., LL.D.). =Chemistry.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. Forming Vol. 67 in Home University\n     Library; for list, see p. 41.\n\n   =MELVILLE= (=HELEN and LEWIS=). =The Seasons.= An Anthology in\n     Prose and Verse. Forming an attractive volume, bound in art linen.\n     3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MERCER= (=Rt. Rev. J. EDWARD=, D.D.). =The Soul of Progress.=\n     Being the Moorhouse Lectures for 1907. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n\n   =MERCIER= (=Dr C. A.=, F.R.C.P.). =Crime and Insanity.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 22 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =MEREDITH= (=LEWIS B.=). =Rock Gardens. How to Make and Maintain\n     them.= With an Introduction by F. W. Moore, A.L.S., and an\n     Alphabetical List of Plants suitable for the Rock Garden, with\n     Notes on the aspect and soil they require. Second Edition. Demy\n     8vo, with Plates. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MERIM\u00c9E= (=PROSPER=). =Le Coup de Pistolet, etc.= 2s. 6d. _See_\n     Army Series of French and German Novels, p. 35.\n\n   =MIKAMI= (=YOSHIO=). =The Development of Mathematics in China and\n     Japan.= With 67 Figures in the Text. Royal 8vo, cloth. 19s. net.\n\n   =MILINDAPA\u00d1HO, THE.= Being Dialogues between King Milinda and the\n     Buddhist Sage N\u0101gasena . The Pali Text, edited by V.\n     Trenckner. Crown 8vo, sewed. 21s.\n\n   =MITCHELL= (=Rev. A. F.=). =How to Teach the Bible.= 2nd Edition,\n     thoroughly revised and reset. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MITCHELL= (=Rev. C. W.=). =The Refutation of Mani, Marcion, and\n     Bardaisan of St. Ephraim.= 21s. net. _See_ Text and Translation\n     Society, p. 43.\n\n   =MOISSON= (=HENRI=). =The Electric Furnace.= 8vo. Pages x + 305. 41\n     Illustrations. 10s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MONTEFIORE= (=C. G.=). =Origin and Growth of Religion as\n     Illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Hebrews.= The Hibbert\n     Lectures, 1892. 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition,\n     3s. 6d.\n\n   =MOORE= (=Prof. BENJAMIN=). =The Origin and Nature of Life.= F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 62 in Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 41.\n\n   =MOORE= (=G. E.=, M.A.). =Ethics.= The Author is Lecturer in Moral\n     Science in Cambridge University. F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 54 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 41.\n\n   =MOORE= (=Prof. George F.=). =The Literature of the Old Testament.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 84\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 42.\n\n   =MOULTON= (=Prof. J. H.=). =Early Zoroastrianism.= Hibbert Lectures\n     1912. Cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _See_ p. 39.\n\n   =MUNRO= (=ROBERT=, M.A., M.D., LL.D., F.R.S.E.). =Prehistoric\n     Britain.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming\n     Vol. 82 of the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 42.\n\n   =M\u00dcNSTERBERG= (=Prof. HUGO=, of Harvard). =The Americans.=\n     Translated by Edwin B. Holt, Ph.D., Instructor at Harvard\n     University. Royal 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =MURRAY= (=Prof. GILBERT=, D.Litt., L.L.D., F.B.A.), Editor of the\n     Home University Library. For list, _see_ p. 39.\n   --=Euripides and His Age.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather,\n     2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 76 of the Home University Library; for\n     list, _see_ p. 37.\n\n   =MURRAY= (=Sir JOHN=). =The Ocean.= A General Account of the\n     Science of the Sea. F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 78 in the Home University Library; for list,\n     _see_ p. 42.\n\n   =MYRES= (=J. L.=, M.A., F.S.A.). =The Dawn of History.= The Author\n     is Wykeham Professor of Ancient History, Oxford. F'cap. 8vo, cloth,\n     1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 29 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =NAVILLE= (=EDOUARD=, Ph.D., Litt.D.). =The Old Egyptian Faith.=\n     Translated by Colin Campbell, M.A., D.D. Illustrated. 4s. 6d. net.\n     Vol. 30 in Crown Theological Library; for list, _see_ p. 37.\n\n   =NESTLE= (=Prof. EBERHARD=, of Maulbronn). =An Introduction to the\n     Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament.= Translated from the\n     Second Edition, with Corrections and Additions by the Author, by\n     William Edie, B.D., and edited, with a Preface, by Allan Menzies,\n     D.D., Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the\n     University of St Andrews. With eleven reproductions of Texts. Demy\n     8vo, 10s. 6d.; half-leather, 12s. 6d. Forming Vol. 13 in the\n     Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 41.\n\n   =NEWBIGIN= (=Dr MARION=). =Modern Geography.= Illustrated. F'cap.\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net.; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 7 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =NEW HEBREW SCHOOL OF POETS OF THE SPANISH-ARABIAN EPOCH.= Selected\n     Texts with Introduction, Notes, and Dictionary. Edited by H.\n     Brodey, Ph.D., Rabbi in Lachod (Bohemia), and K. Albrecht, Ph.D.,\n     Professor in Oldenburg (Grand Duchy). English Translation of the\n     Introduction, etc., by Mrs Karl Albrecht. Cloth. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =NIBELUNGENLIED.= \"=The Fall of the Nibelungens,\" otherwise \"The\n     Book of Kriemhild.\"= An English Translation by W. N. Lettsom. 5th\n     Edition. 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =NIKAIDO= (=Y.=, B.Sc., M.A.). =Beet-Sugar Making and its Chemical\n     Control.= With a number of valuable Tables and Illustrations. Demy\n     8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =NISSENSON.= =The Arrangements of Electrolytic Laboratories.= Demy\n     8vo. 52 Illustrations. 5s. net.\n\n   =NOLDEKE= (=Prof. THEODOR=). =Compendious Syriac Grammar.= With a\n     Table of Characters by Julius Euting. Translated (with the sanction\n     of the Author) from the Second and Improved German Edition by Rev.\n     James A. Crichton, D.D. Royal 8vo. 18s. net.\n   --=Delectus Veterum Carminum Arabicorum Glossarium Confecit A.\n     Muller.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d.\n\n   =NOYES= (=ARTHUR A.=, Ph.D.). =Organic Chemistry for the\n     Laboratory.= Small 12mo. Pp. xii + 257. 22 Illus. 6s. 6d. net.\n   --=and SAMUEL P. MULLIKEN=, Ph.D. =Laboratory Experiments on\n     Class Reactions and Identification of Organic Substances.= 8vo. 81\n     pp. 2s. net.\n\n   =O'GRADY= (=STANDISH H.=). =Silva Gadelica (I.-XXXI.). A Collection\n     of Tales in Irish, with Extracts illustrating Persons and Places.=\n     Edited from MSS. and translated. 2 vols. royal 8vo, cloth. 42s. Or\n     separately, Vol. 1, Irish Text; and Vol. 2, Translation and Notes.\n     Each Vol. 21s.\n\n   =OORDT= (=J. F. VAN=, B.A.). =Cape Dutch.= Phrases and Dialogues,\n     with Translations, preceded by short Grammatical Notes. Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =ORTH= (=SAMUEL P.=, Ph.D.). =Socialism and Democracy in Europe.=\n     Demy 8vo. 360 pages. Cloth. 6s. net.\n\n   =OSTWALD= (=WILHELM=). =Natural Philosophy.= Translated by Thomas\n     Seltzer. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. net.\n\n   =OTTO= (=Prof. RUDOLF=). =Naturalism and Religion.= Translated by\n     J. Arthur Thomson, Professor of Natural History in the University\n     of Aberdeen, and Margaret R. Thomson. Edited with an Introduction\n     by Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 5s. net. Forming Vol. 17\n     in the Crown Theological Library; _see_ p. 36.\n\n   =PARKER= (=PERCY L.=), Editor of \"Public Opinion.\" =Character and\n     Life.= A Symposium. Containing contributions by Dr Alfred Russel\n     Wallace, John A. Hobson, Walter Crane, Harold Begbie, and the late\n     Dr Emil Reich. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =PAXSON= (=Prof. F. L.=). =The American Civil War.= With Maps.\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 48\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =PEARSON= (=JOSEPH=, M.Sc.). =Cancer.= With 13 Plates. 6s. 6d. net.\n     _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 43.\n\n   =PEDDIE= (=R. A.=). =Printing at Brescia in the Fifteenth Century.=\n     A List of the Issues. 5s. net.\n\n   =PERCIVAL= (=G. H.=). =The Incarnate Purpose. Essays on the\n     Spiritual Unity of Life.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =PEROWNE= (=J. T. W.=, M.A.), Editor of the Army Series of French\n     and German Novels. For list, _see_ p. 35.\n\n   =PERRIS= (=G. H.=). =A Short History of War and Peace.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 4 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =PETERS= (=JOHN P.=, D.D.). =Early Hebrew Story.= Crown 8vo, cloth.\n     4s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 7 in the Crown Theological Library; p.\n     36.\n\n   =PETIT= (=ROBERT=). =How to Build an Aeroplane.= Translated from\n     the French, with some additional matter, by Messrs T. O'B. Hubbard\n     and J. H. Ledeboer. With nearly 100 Illustrations. Demy 8vo, cloth.\n     2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =PFANHAUSER= (=Dr W.=). =Production of Metallic Objects\n     Electrolytically.= 5s. net.\n\n   =PFLEIDERER= (=Dr O.=). =Lectures on the Influence of the Apostle\n     Paul on the Development of Christianity.= Translated by Rev. J.\n     Frederick Smith. Being the Hibbert Lectures for 1885. Library\n     Edition. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, cloth. 3s. 6d.\n     _See_ The Hibbert Lectures, p. 36.\n\n   =PFLEIDERER= (=Dr O.=). =Paulinism: A Contribution to the History\n     of Primitive Christianity.= 2 vols. Demy 8vo, cloth. 12s. _See_\n     Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 46.\n   --=Philosophy of Religion on the Basis of its History.= In 4\n     vols. Demy 8vo, cloth. 24s. _See_ Theological Translation Library,\n     Old Series, p. 46. [Vol. 2 quite out of print.]\n   --=Primitive Christianity: Its Writings and Teachings in their\n     Historical Connections.= 4 vols. 10s. 6d. net each. _See_\n     Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 45.\n   --=The Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Significance and\n     Value in the History of Religion.= 3s. net. _See_ Crown Theological\n     Library, p. 36.\n\n   =PHILLIPPS= (=V.=, B.A.). =A Short Sketch of German Literature, for\n     Schools.= 2nd Edition, revised. Pott 8vo, cloth. 1s.\n\n   =PHILLIPS= (=FRANCIS C.=). =Methods for the Analysis of Ores, Pig\n     Iron, and Steel.= 2nd Edition. 8vo. Pages viii + 170. 3\n     Illustrations. 4s. 6d. net.\n   --=Chemical German: An Introduction to the Study of German\n     Chemical Literature.= Cloth. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n   =PICTON= (=J. ALLANSON=, M.A. Lond.). =Man and the Bible.= A Review\n     of the Place of the Bible in Human History. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n     net.\n\n   =PIDDINGTON= (=HENRY=). =The Sailors' Horn-Book for the Law of\n     Storms.= Being a Practical Exposition of the Theory of the Law of\n     Storms, and its uses to Mariners of all Classes in all Parts of the\n     World. Shown by transparent Storm Cards and useful Lessons. 7th\n     Edition. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d.\n\n   =PIGOU= (=Prof. A. C.=). =Unemployment.= F'cap 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 85 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =PLATTS= (=J. T.=, Hon. M.A. (Oxon.)). =A Grammar of the Persian\n     Language.= Part I. Accidence. Broad crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.\n\n   =POLLARD= (=Prof. A. F.=, M.A.). =The History of England: A Study\n     in Political Evolution.= With a Chronological Table. F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 33 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =PRANKE= (=EDWARD J.=). =Cyanamid (Manufacture, Chemistry, and\n     Uses).= 8vo. Pages vi + 112. 8 Figures. 5s. net.\n\n   =PRAY= (=Dr=). =Astigmatic Letters.= Printed on Millboard, size 22\n     by 14 inches. 1s.\n\n   =PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE under the Auspices of the\n     American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes,\n     held at Washington, Dec. 1910.= In 1 vol., sewed. 4s. net.\n\n   =PROCEEDINGS OF THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCIETY FOR THE SYSTEMATIC STUDY\n     OF PHILOSOPHY.= Old Series--Odd Numbers at various prices. New\n     Series (yearly volumes bound in buckram)--Vols. I.-XI. ready, 10s.\n     6d. each net.\n\n   =PROCEEDINGS OF THE OPTICAL CONVENTION, No. 1, 1905.= Crown 4to,\n     cloth. 10s. net.\n\n   =PROCEEDINGS AND PAPERS OF THE FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF FREE\n     CHRISTIANITY.= Held at Berlin, 1910. Edited by C. W. Wendte, D.D.,\n     and V. D. Davis, B.A. Medium 8vo, cloth. 9s. 6d. net. Sewed, 8s.\n     6d. net.\n\n   =PUNNETT= (=R. C.=, B.A.). =Lineus.= With 4 Plates. 2s. net. _See_\n     Liverpool Marine Biology Memoirs, p. 42.\n\n   =R\u00c6DER= (=A.=). =L'Arbitrage International chez les Hell\u00e8nes.= 4to,\n     sewed. 10s. net. Being Vol. I. of Publications de l'Institut Nobel\n     Norv\u00e9gien.\n\n   =REICH= (=Dr EMIL=), Contributor to \"Character and Life.\" _See_ p. 5.\n\n   =RENAN= (=E.=). =On the Influence of the Institutions, Thought, and\n     Culture of Rome on Christianity and the Development of the Catholic\n     Church.= Translated by the Rev. Charles Beard. Being the Hibbert\n     Lectures, 1880. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition (3rd Edition),\n     3s. 6d.\n\n   =RENOUF= (=P. LE PAGE=). =On the Religion of Ancient Egypt.=\n     Hibbert Lectures, 1879. 3rd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap\n     Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n   =R\u00c9VILLE= (=Dr A.=). =On the Native Religions of Mexico and Peru.=\n     Translated by the Rev. P. H. Wicksteed. Hibbert Lectures, 1884.\n     8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n   --=Prolegomena of the History of Religions.= With an Introduction\n     by Prof. F. Max M\u00fcller. 8vo, cloth. 6s. _See_ Theological\n     Translation Library, Old Series, p. 45.\n\n   =R\u00c9VILLE= (=Prof. JEAN=). =Liberal Christianity: Its Origin,\n     Nature, and Mission.= Translated and edited by Victor Leuliette,\n     A.K.C., B.-\u00e8s-L. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 4 in\n     the Crown Theological Library; for list, _see_ p. 36.\n\n   =RHYS= (=Prof. J.=). =On the Origin and Growth of Religion as\n     Illustrated by Celtic Heathendom.= Hibbert Lectures, 1886. 8vo,\n     cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n   =RIEDEL= (=Prof. W.=) and =W. E. CRUM=. =The Canons of Athanasius\n     of Alexandria, in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Coptic.= 21s. net. _See_\n     Text and Translation Society, p. 43.\n\n   =ROBERTSON= (=Prof. J. G.=, M.A.). =The Literature of Germany.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 65\n     in Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =ROGET= (=F. F.=). =An Introduction to Old French.= History,\n     Grammar, Chrestomathy, and Glossary. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth.\n     6s.\n   --=First Steps in French History, Literature, and Philology.= For\n     Candidates for the Scotch Leaving Certificate Examinations, the\n     various Universities Local Examinations, and the Army Examinations.\n     4th Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =RUBINOW= (=I. M.=). =Social Insurance.= The author is Chief\n     Statistician Ocean Accident Guarantee Corporation. Demy 8vo, cloth.\n     12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =RUFFINI= (=FRANCESCO=). =Religious Liberty.= The Author is\n     Ordinary Professor at the Royal University of Turin. With an\n     Introduction by Prof. J. B. Bury of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 32 in the Theological Translation Library; _see_\n     p. 44.\n\n   =RUSSELL= (=Hon. BERTRAND=, F.R.S.). =The Problems of Philosophy.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 40\n     in Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =SABATIER= (=Late AUGUSTE=). =The Doctrine of the Atonement and its\n     Historical Evolution; and Religion and Modern Culture.= Translated\n     by Victor Leuliette, A.K.C., B.-\u00e8s-L. Crown 8vo. 4s. net. Forming\n     Vol. 9 in the Crown Theological Library; _see_ p. 36.\n   --=The Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit.=\n     New impression. Demy 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d. _See_ Theological\n     Translation Library, New Series, p. 44.\n\n   =SADLER= (=Rev. Dr=). =Prayers for Christian Worship.= Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. 3s. 6d.\n   --=Closet Prayers, Original and Compiled.= 18mo, cloth. 1s. 6d.\n\n   =SADLER= (=GILBERT=, M.A., LL.B.). =A Short Introduction to the\n     Bible.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =SAGAS OF OLAF TRYGGVASON AND OF HAROLD THE TYRANT.= A new\n     translation, well illustrated with drawings by Erik Werenskiold,\n     Christian Krogh, and others of the best Norwegian artists. In small\n     4to, comprising above 200 pages, bound with linen back and paper\n     sides, in box. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =SALEEBY= (=C. W.=, M.D., F.R.S.). =Individualism and\n     Collectivism.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s.\n\n   =SAUNDERS= (=T. BAILEY=). =Professor Harnack and his Oxford\n     Critics.= Crown 8vo, cloth, 1s. 6d. net.\n\n   =SAYCE= (=Prof. A. H.=). =On the Origin and Growth of Religion as\n     illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Babylonians.= 5th\n     Edition. Hibbert Lectures, 1887. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap\n     Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n   =SCHLOSS= (=DAVID F.=). =Methods of Industrial Remuneration.= 3rd\n     Edition, revised and enlarged. Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. Popular\n     Edition. 3s. 6d.\n\n   =SCHRADER= (=Prof. E.=). =The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old\n     Testament.= Translated from the Second Enlarged Edition, with\n     Additions by the Author, and an Introduction by the Rev. Owen C.\n     Whitehouse, M.A. 2 vols. With a Map. 8vo, cloth. 12s. _See_\n     Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 46.\n\n   =SCHREBER= (=D. G. M.=). =Medical Indoor Gymnastics, or a System of\n     Hygienic Exercises for Home Use, to be practised anywhere, without\n     apparatus or assistance, by young and old of either sex, for the\n     preservation of health and general activity.= Revised and\n     Supplemented by Rudolf Graefe, M.D. With a large plate and 45\n     illustrations in the text. Royal 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   =SCHROEN= (=L.=). =Seven-Figure Logarithms of Numbers from 1 to\n     108,000, and of Sines, Cosines, Tangents, Cotangents to every 10\n     Seconds of the Quadrant.= With a Table of Proportional Parts. By Dr\n     Ludwig Schroen, Director of the Observatory of Jena, etc., etc. 5th\n     Edition, corrected and stereotyped. With a description of the\n     Tables by A. De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in University\n     College, London. Imp. 8vo, cloth, printed on light green paper. 9s.\n\n   =SCHUBERT= (=HANS VON=). =History of the Church.= Translated from\n     the Second German Edition. By arrangement with the Author, an\n     Additional Chapter has been added on \"Religious Movements in\n     England in the Nineteenth Century,\" by Miss Alice Gardner, Lecturer\n     and Associate of Newnham College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s.\n     6d. _See_ Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 41.\n\n   =SCHURMAN= (=J. GOULD=). =Kantian Ethics and the Ethics of\n     Evolution.= 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n   --=The Ethical Import of Darwinism.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =SCOTT= (=ANDREW=). =Lepeophtheirus and Lernea.= With 5 Plates. 2s.\n     net. _See_ Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs on Typical\n     British Marine Plants and Animals, p. 39.\n\n   =SCOTT= (=Dr D. H.=, M.A., F.R.S.). =The Evolution of Plants.=\n     Fully illustrated. F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d.\n     net. Forming Vol. 9 in the Home University Library; for list, _see_\n     p. 39.\n\n   =SCOTT= (=E. F.=, M.A.). =The Apologetic of the New Testament.=\n     Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p.\n     36.\n\n   =SEEBERG= (=Prof. R.=, of Berlin). =The Fundamental Truths of the\n     Christian Religion.= Sixteen Lectures delivered before the Students\n     of all Faculties in the University of Berlin. Crown 8vo. 350 pp.\n     4s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 37.\n\n   =SEGER= (=HERMAN AUGUST=), =Collected Writings of=. Papers on\n     Manufacture of Pottery. 2 vols. Large 8vo. \u00a33, 3s. net per set.\n\n   =SEITZ= (=Dr ADALBERT=), Edited by, with the assistance of Dr\n     Jordan (Tring), W. F. Kirby (London), Warren (London), Hon. W,\n     Rothschild (London), and others. =Butterflies and Moths. The\n     Macrolepidoptera of the World.= A work of reference and\n     identification, with 1000 coloured plates, depicting nearly 40,000\n     specimens, with letterpress. To be completed in about 465 parts.\n     4to. The work is divided into two Divisions. Division I., Fauna\n     Pal\u00e6arctica, published in 4 vols, or 115 parts at 1s. net each.\n     Orders are booked for the whole division only. Division II., Fauna\n     Exotica, published in 12 vols., or 350 parts at 1s. 6d. net each.\n     This division is divided into Fauna Americana, Fauna\n     Indo-Australica, and Fauna Africana. Each Fauna may be subscribed\n     for separately, and subscriptions will also be received for any of\n     the classified groups, viz., Rhopalocera, Bombyces and Sphinges,\n     Noctu\u00e6 and Geometr\u00e6. Binding covers for the work can be obtained\n     after completion of each volume. The latest prospectus should be\n     applied for.\n\n   =SELBIE= (=Principal W. B.=, M.A.). =Nonconformity: Its Origin and\n     Progress.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net.\n     Forming Vol. 50 in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p.\n     41.\n\n   =SHARPE= (=HENRY=). =Britain B.C.: As Described in Classical\n     Writings.= With an Inquiry into the positions of the Cassiterides\n     and Thule, and an attempt to ascertain the ancient coast-line of\n     Kent and East Sussex. With Maps. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =SHEARMAN= (=A. T.=, M.A.). =The Development of Symbolic Logic.= A\n     Critical Historical Study of the Logical Calculus. Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =SIMKHOVITCH= (=Prof. V. J.=, Ph.D.). =Marxism and Socialism.= Demy\n     8vo, cloth. 6s. net.\n\n   =SMITH= (=The Rt. Hon. F. E.=, K.C., M.P.). =Unionist Policy and\n     other Essays.= Large 8vo, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =SMITH= (=L. PEARSALL=, M.A.). =The English Language.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 45 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =SNELLEN'S OPHTHALMIC TEST TYPES.= =Best Types for the\n     Determination of the Acuteness of Vision.= 14th Edition,\n     considerably augmented and improved. 8vo, sewed. 4s. Single Sheets:\n     E T B, M O V, B D E, W W W [Transcriber's note: 3 symbols that look\n     like a letter E, pointing upward, have been replaced with Ws], and\n     Large Clock Sheet. 8d. each. Small Clock Sheet and R T V Z. 4d.\n     each.\n\n   =SNYDER= (=HARRY=, B.Sc). =Soils and Fertilisers.= 2nd Edition.\n     8vo. Pages x + 294. 1 Plate, 40 Illustrations. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =SODDY= (=F.=, M.A., F.R.S.). =Matter and Energy.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 46 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 41.\n\n   =SODEN= (=Prof. H. VON=, D.D.). =The Books of the New Testament.=\n     Translated by the Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, and edited by Rev. W. D.\n     Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown\n     Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =SOLILOQUIES OF ST AUGUSTINE, THE.= Translated into English by Rose\n     Elizabeth Cleveland. With Notes and Introduction by the Translator.\n     Small demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.\n\n   =SOMERVILLE= (=Prof. W.=, D.Sc). =Agriculture.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth,\n     1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 26 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =SONNTAG= (=C. O.=) =A Pocket Flora of Edinburgh and the\n     Surrounding District.= A Collection and full Description of all\n     Phanerogamic and the principal Cryptogamic Plants, classified after\n     the Natural System, with an artificial Key and a Glossary of\n     Botanical Terms. By the late C. O. Sonntag. F'cap. 8vo, limp cloth.\n     3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =SORENSEN= (=S.=, Ph.D.), Compiled by. =An Index to the Names in\n     the Mahabharata.= With short explanations. Royal 4to, in twelve\n     parts, which are not sold separately, at 7s. 6d. per part net.\n     Parts I. to VIII. now ready.\n\n   =SOUTHWARK= (=Lady=). =Social and Political Reminiscences.=\n     Illustrated. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =SPEARS= (=J. R.=). =Master Mariners.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net;\n     leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 55 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 41.\n\n   =SPENCER= (=HERBERT=). =A System of Synthetic Philosophy=--\n\n     Vol. I. =First Principles.= With an Appendix and a Portrait.\n     Finally revised. New Edition, large crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d.\n     Specially printed cheap edition, bound in cloth. 2 vols, of 240\n     pages each. 1s. net per volume. Complete in one volume. 2s. net.\n\n     Vols. II. and III. =The Principles of Biology.= 6th Thousand 8vo,\n     cloth. Revised and greatly enlarged. 2 vols. 18s. each.\n\n     Vols. IV. and V. =The Principles of Psychology.= 5th Thousand. 2\n     vols. 8vo, cloth. 36s.\n\n     Vol. VI. =The Principles of Sociology.= Vol. I. Part 1, The Data of\n     Sociology; Part 2, The Inductions of Sociology; Part 3, Domestic\n     Institutions. 4th Thousand, revised and enlarged. 8vo, cloth. 21s.\n\n     Vol. VII. =The Principles of Sociology.= Vol. II. Part 4,\n     Ceremonial Institutions; Part 5, Political Institutions. 3rd\n     Thousand. 8vo, cloth. 16s.\n\n     Vol. VIII. =The Principles of Sociology.= Vol. III. Part 6,\n     Ecclesiastical Institutions; Part 7, Professional Institutions;\n     Part 8, Industrial Institutions. 2nd Thousand. 8vo, cloth. 16s.\n\n     Vol. IX. =The Principles of Ethics.= Vol. I. Part 1, The Data of\n     Ethics; Part 2, The Inductions of Ethics; Part 3, The Ethics of\n     Individual Life. 8vo, cloth. 15s.\n\n     Vol. X. =The Principles of Ethics.= Vol. II. Part 4, Justice; Part\n     5, Negative Beneficence; Part 6, Positive Beneficence; Appendices.\n     Demy 8vo. cloth. 12s. 6d.\n\n   --=A Rejoinder to Professor Weismann.= Sewed. 6d.\n   --=Data of Ethics.= Reset uniform with popular edition of \"First\n     Principles.\" Sewed, 2s. 6d. net; cloth, 3s. net.\n\n   =SPENCER= (=HERBERT=). =Descriptive Sociology; or, Groups of\n     Sociological Facts.= Compiled and abstracted by Professor D. Duncan\n     of Madras, Dr Richard Scheppig, and James Collier. Folio, boards.\n\n     No. 1. =English.= 18s.\n\n     No. 2. =Ancient American Races.= 16s.\n\n     No. 3. =Lowest Races, Negritto Races, Polynesians.= 18s.\n\n     No. 4. =African Races.= 16s.\n\n     No. 5. =Asiatic Races.= 18s.\n\n     No. 6. =American Races.= 18s.\n\n     No. 7. =Hebrews and Phoenicians.= 21s.\n\n     No. 8. =The French Civilisation.= 30s.\n\n     No. 9. =Chinese.= Compiled and abstracted by E. T. C. Werner,\n     H.M.'s Consular Service, China. 63s.\n\n     No. 10. =Greeks: Hellenic Era.= By Rev. Dr J. P. Mahaffy, and\n     Professor W. A. Goligher, Trinity College, Dublin. 21s.\n\n   --=Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical.= Popular\n     Edition. Entirely reset. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. Cheap Edition,\n     cloth, 1s. net.\n   --=Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative.= A new\n     Edition, rearranged, with additional Essays. 3 vols. 8vo, cloth.\n     (Each 10s.) 30s.\n   --=Facts and Comments.= Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n   --=Justice.= Being Part 4 of the Principles of Ethics. 2nd\n     Thousand. 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n   --=Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte.=\n     Sewed. 6d.\n   --=Social Statics.= Abridged and revised, together with \"The Man\n     _v._ The State.\" 8vo, cloth. 10s.\n   --=The Man _versus_ The State.= 14th Thousand. Sewed, 1s.\n   --=The Study of Sociology.= Library Edition (21st Thousand), with\n     a Postscript. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d.\n   --=Various Fragments.= Uniform in Library binding. Demy 8vo,\n     cloth. Enlarged Edition. 6s.\n\n   =STATUTES, THE, OF THE APOSTLES.= The hitherto unedited Ethiopic\n     and Arabic Texts, with Translations of Ethiopic, Arabic, and Coptic\n     Texts, by G. Horner, M.A.\n\n   =STEPHEN= (=Rev. Canon REGINALD=, M.A.). =Democracy and Character.=\n     Being the Moorhouse Lectures for 1908. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =STERNE= (=LAURENCE=). =A Sentimental Journey through France and\n     Italy.= With 12 Illustrations faithfully reproduced from\n     water-colour drawings by Everard Hopkins. Cheap Edition in crown\n     4to, 6s. net.\n\n   =STILLMAN= (=THOS. B.=, M.Sc., Ph.D.). =Engineering Chemistry.= 4th\n     Edition. The 4th edition has been mostly rewritten and altered to\n     incorporate the latest approved methods of chemical testing. Medium\n     8vo. With 147 Figures in the text. 21s. net.\n\n   =STOCKER= (=R. DIMSDALE=). =Social Idealism.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s.\n     net.\n\n   =STRACHEY= (=G. L.=). =Landmarks in French Literature.= F'cap. 8vo,\n     cloth. 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 35 in the Home\n     University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =TAYLOR= (=A. CAMERON=). =General Sir Alexander Taylor.= A Memoir\n     by his Daughter. 2 vols. Demy 8vo, cloth. 25s. net.\n\n   =TAYLOR= (=Rev. Dr J.=). =The Massoretic Text and the Ancient\n     Versions of the Book of Micah.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s.\n\n   =TEN SERVICES OF PUBLIC PRAYER, with Special Collects.= 8vo, cloth,\n     3s.; or 32mo, cloth. 1s. 6d.\n   --=PSALMS AND CANTICLES.= 8vo, cloth. 1s. 6d.\n   --=PSALMS AND CANTICLES, with Anthems.= 8vo, cloth. 2s.\n   --=SERVICES OF PUBLIC PRAYER, taken in Substance from the Common\n     Prayer for Christian Worship, with a few additional Prayers for\n     particular Days.= 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d.; or 32mo, cloth. 1s.\n\n   =TENNYSON= (=ALFRED, LORD=). =The Princess: A Medley.= With Six\n     Illustrations beautifully reproduced in colours, and a number in\n     black-and-white, from Original Drawings by Everard Hopkins. Small\n     4to. 7s. 6d. net.\n\n   =THOMSON= (=J. ARTHUR=, M.A., LL.D.). =Introduction to Science.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 32\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n   --and =Prof. PATRICK GEDDES=. =Evolution.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 1s.\n     net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 20 in the Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 40.\n   --Editor of the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =THURSTON= (=E. TEMPLE=). =The \"Flower of Gloster.\"= By the\n     well-known Author of \"City of Beautiful Nonsense,\" \"Sally Bishop,\"\n     etc. With six Illustrations faithfully reproduced in colours, and\n     other Illus. in black-and-white, from drawings by W. R. Dakin.\n     Small 4to, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n   =TISCHENDORF= (=C.=). =The New Testament. Novum Testamentum Gr\u00e6ce.=\n     3 vols. 8vo. 70s. net.\n\n   =TOLLINTON= (=Rev. R. B.=, M.A., B.D.). =Clement of Alexandria. A\n     Study in Christian Liberalism.= In two volumes. Medium 8vo, cloth.\n     21s. net.\n\n   =TOWER= (=CHARLES=). =Germany of To-day.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 1s.\n     net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 71 in Home University\n     Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =TOWER= (=O. F.=, Ph.D.). =The Conductivity of Liquids.= 8vo. Pages\n     iv + 190, 20 Illustrations. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n   =TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY.= Issued in parts at\n     various prices.\n\n   =TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY, DUBLIN.= Vols. I.-XX.\n     4to. \u00a322, 5s. 6d. Vols. XXI.-XXXI. Various prices.\n\n   =TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH.= Issued in parts\n     at various prices. General Index to First Thirty-four Volumes\n     (1783-1888), with History of the Institution. 4to, cloth. 21s.\n\n   =TRENCKNER= (=V.=). =Pali Miscellany.= Part I. The Introductory\n     Part of the Milanda Panho, with an English Translation and Notes.\n     8vo, sewed. 4s.\n\n   =TRENT= (=Prof. W. P.=) =and ERSKINE= (=Prof. J.=). =Great Writers\n     of America.= F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net.\n     Forming Vol. 52, Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =TROELTSCH= (=Prof. ERNEST=, of Jena). =Protestantism and Progress:\n     The Significance of Protestantism in the Rise of the Modern World.=\n     Translated into English by Rev. W. Montgomery, B.D. Crown 8vo,\n     cloth. 3s. 6d. net. _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =UPTON= (=Rev. C. B.=). =On the Bases of Religious Belief.= Hibbert\n     Lectures, 1893. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n   =VEGA.= =Logarithmic Tables of Numbers and Trigonometrical\n     Functions.= Translated from the 40th, or Dr Bremiker's Edition,\n     thoroughly revised and enlarged, by W. L. Fischer, M.A., F.R.S.,\n     Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge; Professor of Natural Philosophy\n     in the University of St Andrews. 75th Stereotyped Edition. Royal\n     8vo, cloth. 7s.\n\n   =VEILED FIGURE, THE, and other Poems.= Large post 8vo, buckram,\n     gilt, cover designed by Mr T. Blake Wirgman. 2s. 6d.\n\n   =VENABLE= (=T. C.=, Ph.D.). =The Development of the Periodic Law.=\n     Small 12mo. Pages viii + 321. Illustrated. 10s. 6d.net.\n   --=The Study of the Atom.= 12mo. Pages vi + 290. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n   =VINCENT= (=JACQUES=). =Vaillante.= 2s. 6d. _See_ Army Series of\n     French and German Novels, p. 35.\n\n   =VINOGRADOFF= (=Prof. P.=, D.C.L.). =Common-Sense in Law.= F'cap\n     8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d, net. Forming Vol. 83 in the\n     Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =WALFORD= (=Mrs L. B.=). =Recollections of a Scottish Novelist.=\n     With Portraits and other Illustrations. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d.\n     net.\n\n   =WALLACE= (=Dr ALFRED RUSSEL=). _See_ Character and Life, p. 5.\n\n   =WEBSTER= (=A. G.=). =The Dynamics of Particles and of Rigid,\n     Elastic, and Fluid Bodies.= Second Edition. Medium 8vo, cloth. 14s.\n     net.\n\n   =WEDMORE= (=Sir FREDERICK=). =Painters and Painting.= Illustrated.\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s, net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 63\n     in Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 41.\n\n   =WEINEL= (=Prof. H.=, of the University of Jena). =St Paul: The Man\n     and his Work.= Translated by Rev. G. A. Bienemann, M.A. Edited by\n     Rev. W. D. Morrison, M.A., LL.D. Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. _See_\n     Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 44.\n\n   =WEIR= (=T. H.=, B.D.). =A Short History of the Hebrew Text of the\n     Old Testament.= By Thomas H. Weir, Assistant to the Professor of\n     Oriental Languages in the University of Glasgow. 2nd Edition, with\n     Additions. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n\n   =WEISSE= (=T. H.=). =A Short Guide to German Idioms=: being a\n     Collection of the Idioms most in use. With Examination Papers. 3rd\n     Edition. Cloth. 2s.\n   --=Elements of German.= With a Course of Exercises instructing in\n     Simpler Composition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s.\n\n   =WEIZS\u00c4CKER= (=Prof. CARL VON=). =The Apostolic Age.= Trans, by\n     James Millar, B.D. Demy 8vo, 2 vols., cloth. Each 10s. 6d. _See_\n     Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 44.\n\n   =WELD= (=A. G.=). =Glimpses of Tennyson and of Some of his\n     Friends.= With an Appendix by the late Bertram Tennyson.\n     Illustrated with Portraits in photogravure and colour, and with a\n     facsimile of a MS. poem. F'cap. 8vo, art linen. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n   =WERNER= (=A.=) and =G. HUNT=. =Elementary Lessons in Cape Dutch\n     (Afrikander Taal).= 16mo, cloth. 1s. 6d.\n\n   =WERNLE= (=PAUL=). =The Beginnings of Christianity.= The Author is\n     Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University\n     of Basel. Revised by the Author, and translated by the Rev. G. A.\n     Bienemann, M.A., and edited, with an Introduction, by the Rev. W.\n     D. Morrison, LL.D. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. per volume. _See_ Theological\n     Translation Library, New Series, p. 44.\n\n   =WHITEHEAD= (=A. N.=, Sc.D., F.R.S.). =Introduction to\n     Mathematics.= With Diagrams. F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather,\n     2s, 6d. net. Forming Vol. 18 in the Home University Library; for\n     list, _see_ p. 40.\n\n   =WILEY= (=HARVEY W.=, A.M., Ph.D.). =Principles and Practice of\n     Agricultural Chemical Analysis.= 3 vols. 8vo. New Edition in\n     preparation. Vol. I. Soils. Ready. 18s. net. Vol. II. Fertilisers.\n     20s. net. Vol. III. Agricultural Products. 26s. net.\n\n   =WILLIAMS= (=ANEURIN=, M.P.). =Co-Partnership and Profit-Sharing.=\n     F'cap. 8vo, cloth, 1s. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net. Forming Vol. 80\n     in the Home University Library; for list, _see_ p. 39.\n\n   =WILLIAMS= (=The Right Rev. W. L.=, D.C.L.). =A Dictionary of the\n     New Zealand Language.= 4th Edition. Edited by the Right Rev. Bishop\n     W. L. Williams, with numerous additions and corrections. Demy 8vo,\n     cloth. 12s. 6d.\n   --=Lessons in Maori.= 3rd Edition. F'cap. 8vo, cloth. 3s.\n\n   =WIMMER= (=R.=, Pastor of Weisweil-am-Rhein in Baden). =My Struggle\n     for Light=: Confessions of a Preacher. Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. net.\n     _See_ Crown Theological Library, p. 36.\n\n   =WINSTEDT= (=E. O.=), Edited by. =Coptic Texts on St Theodore the\n     General, St Theodore the Eastern, Chamoul and Justus.= 21s. net.\n     _See_ Text and Translation Society, p. 43.\n\n   =WOODS= (=C. E.=). =The Gospel of Rightness.= A Study in Pauline\n     Philosophy. 300 pages, cloth. 5s. net.\n\n   =WRIGHT= (=Rev. C. H. H.=). =Light from Egyptian Papyri on Jewish\n     History before Christ.= Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. net.\n\n   =WRIGHT= (=G. H. BATESON=, D.D.). =The Book of Job.= A new\n     critically revised Translation, with Essays on Scansion, Date, etc.\n     8vo, cloth. 6s.\n   --=Was Israel ever in Egypt? or, A Lost Tradition.= 8vo, art\n     linen. 7s. 6d.\n\n   =WRIGHT= (=W. ALDIS=, LL.D.), Edited by. =A Rabbinic Commentary on\n     the Book of Job=, contained in a unique MS. at Cambridge. With\n     Translation and Commentary. 21s. net. _See_ Text and Translation\n     Society, p. 43.\n\n   =WUNDT= (=WILHELM=). =Outlines of Psychology.= Translated, with the\n     co-operation of the Author, by Charles Hubbard Judd, Ph.D.,\n     Instructor in the Wesleyan University. 3rd Enlarged Edition. Demy\n     8vo, cloth. 8s. net.\n\n   =WYSOR= (=HENRY=, B.S., Assistant Professor of Analytical\n     Chemistry, Lafayette College). =Metallurgy.= A Condensed Treatise.\n     Demy 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n   =YOUNGHUSBAND= (=Col. Sir FRANCIS E.=), K.C.I.E. =Within: Thoughts\n     during Convalescence.= 3s. 6d. net.\n\n\n\n\nCOMPLETE LIST OF LIBRARIES & SERIES ARRANGED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.\n\n\nARMY SERIES OF FRENCH AND GERMAN NOVELS.\n\nEdited, with short Notes, by J. T. W. Perowne, M.A.\n\nThis series is equally well adapted for general reading, and for those\npreparing for the Army, Oxford and Cambridge Certificates, and other\nExaminations--in fact, for all who wish to keep up or improve their\nFrench and German. The notes are as concise as possible, with an\noccasional etymology or illustration to assist the memory. The books\nselected being by recent or living authors, are adapted for the study of\nmost modern French and German.\n\n=Le Coup de Pistolet, etc.= Prosper Merim\u00e9e. 2s. 6d.\n\n=Vaillante.= Jacques Vincent. 2s. 6d.\n\n=Auf Verlornem Posten and Nazzarena Danti.= Johannes v. Dewall. 3s.\n\n=Contes Militaires.= A. Daudet. 2s. 6d.\n\n=Erz\u00e4hlungen.= E. H\u00f6fer. 3s.\n\n\nCROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.\n\nThe only undertaking of its kind in the English language; each writer is\nat liberty to express his deepest convictions with absolute freedom--a\nfreedom which is the only ultimate security of truth.\n\nVol. I.--=Babel and Bible.= By Dr Friedrich Delitzsch. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. II.--=The Virgin Birth of Christ.= An Historical and Critical\nEssay. By Paul Lobstein. 2s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. III.--=My Struggle for Light.= Confessions of a Preacher. By R.\nWimmer. 3s. net.\n\nVol. IV.--=Liberal Christianity.= Its Origin, Nature, and Mission. By\nJean R\u00e9ville. 3s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. V.--=What is Christianity?= By Adolf Harnack. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. VI.--=Faith and Morals.= By W. Herrmann. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. VII.--=Early Hebrew Story.= A Study of the Origin, the Value, and\nthe Historical Background of the Legends of Israel. By John P. Peters,\nD.D. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. VIII.--=Bible Problems and the New Material for their Solution.= By\nProf. T. K. Cheyne, D.Litt., D.D. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. IX.--=The Doctrine of the Atonement and its Historical Evolution=,\nand =Religion and Modern Culture=. By the late Auguste Sabatier. 4s.\nnet.\n\nVol. X.--=The Early Christian Conception of Christ.= Its Significance\nand Value in the History of Religion. By Otto Pfleiderer. 3s. net.\n\nVol. XI.--=The Child and Religion.= Eleven Essays by Various Writers.\n5s. net.\n\nVol. XII.--=The Evolution of Religion.= An Anthropological Study. By L.\nR. Farnell, M.A., D.Litt. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XIII.--=The Books of the New Testament.= By Baron Hermann von\nSoden, D.D. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XIV.--=Jesus.= By W. Bousset. 3s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XV.--=The Communion of the Christian with God.= By W. Herrmann.\nRevised and much enlarged edition. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XVI.--=Hebrew Religion.= To the Establishment of Judaism under\nEzra. By W. E. Addis, M.A. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XVII.--=Naturalism and Religion.= By Rudolf Otto. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XVIII.--=Essays on the Social Gospel.= By Dr Adolf Harnack and Dr\nHerrmann. 4s. net.\n\nVol. XIX.--=The Religion of the Old Testament.= By Karl Marti. 4s. net.\n\nVol. XX.--=Luke the Physician.= Being Volume One of Dr Adolf Harnack's\nNew Testament Studies. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXI.--=The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus\nChrist.= By Prof. Kirsopp Lake. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXII.--=The Apologetic of the New Testament.= By E. F. Scott. 4s.\n6d. net.\n\nVol. XXIII.--=The Sayings of Jesus.= Being Volume Two of Dr Adolf\nHarnack's New Testament Studies. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXIV.--=Anglican Liberalism.= By Twelve Churchmen. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXV.--=The Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion.= By Dr R.\nSeeberg. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXVI.--=The Life of the Spirit.= An Introduction to Philosophy. By\nDr Rudolf Eucken. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXVII.--=The Acts of the Apostles.= Being Volume Three of Dr Adolf\nHarnack's New Testament Studies. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXVIII.--=Monasticism and the Confessions of St Augustine.= By Dr\nAdolf Harnack. 3s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXIX.--=Modernity and the Churches.= By Prof. Percy Gardner. 4s.\n6d. net.\n\nVol. XXX.--=The Old Egyptian Faith.= By Prof. Edouard Naville.\nIllustrated. 4s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXXI.--=The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two\nCenturies.= By Dr Adolf Harnack. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXII.--=The Scientific Study of the Old Testament.= Illustrated.\nBy Dr Rudolf Kittel. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXIII.--=The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels.= Being\nVolume Four of Dr Adolf Harnack's New Testament Studies. Cloth. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXIV.--=The Religious Experience of St Paul.= By Prof. Percy\nGardner. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXV.--=Pharisaism: Its Aims and its Methods.= By R. Travers\nHerford, B.A. Cloth. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXVI.--=Bible Reading in the Early Church.= Being Volume Five of\nDr Adolf Harnack's New Testament Studies. Cloth. 5s. net.\n\nVol. XXXVII--=Protestantism and Progress.= By Prof. Ernest Troeltsch of\nJena. Cloth. 3s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXXVIII.--=Present Day Ethics.= By Prof. Rudolf Eucken. 3s. net.\n\nVol. XXXIX.--=Knowledge and Life.= By Prof. Rudolf Eucken. 5s. net.\n\n_Descriptive Prospectus on Application._\n\n\nTHE HIBBERT LECTURES.\n\nLibrary Edition, demy 8vo. 10s. 6d. per volume.\n\nCheap Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. per volume.\n\n=Alviella= (=Count Goblet D'=). =Lectures on the Origin and the Growth\nof the Conception of God, as illustrated by Anthropology and History.=\nTranslated by the Rev. P. H. Wicksteed. (Hibbert Lectures, 1891.) Cloth.\n10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Beard= (=Rev. Dr C.=). =Lectures on the Reformation of the Sixteenth\nCentury in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge.= (Hibbert\nLectures, 1883.) 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Davids= (=T. W. Rhys=). =Lectures on Some Points in the History of\nIndian Buddhism.= (Hibbert Lectures, 1881.) 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth.\n10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Drummond= (=Dr=). =Via, Veritas, Vita. Lectures on Christianity in its\nmost Simple and Intelligible Form.= (The Hibbert Lectures, 1894.) 10s.\n6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Hatch= (=Rev. Dr=). =Lectures on the Influence of Greek Ideas and\nUsages upon the Christian Church.= Ed. by Dr Fairbairn. (Hibbert\nLectures, 1888.) 3rd Ed. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Kuenen= (=Dr A.=). =Lectures on National Religions and Universal\nReligion.= (The Hibbert Lectures, 1882.) 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap\nEdition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Montefiore= (=C. G.=). =Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by\nthe Religion of the Ancient Hebrews.= (The Hibbert Lectures, 1892.) 2nd\nEdition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Pfleiderer= (=Dr O.=). =Lectures on the Influence of the Apostle Paul\non the Development of Christianity.= Translated by the Rev. J. Frederick\nSmith. (Hibbert Lectures, 1885.) 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap\nEdition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Renan= (=E.=). =On the Influence of the Institutions, Thoughts and\nCulture of Rome on Christianity, and the Development of the Catholic\nChurch.= Translated by the Rev. Charles Beard. (Hibbert Lectures, 1880.)\n8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3rd Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Renouf= (=P. Le Page=). =On the Religion of Ancient Egypt.= (Hibbert\nLectures, 1879.) 3rd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s.\n6d.\n\n=Rhys= (=Prof. J.=). =On the Origin and Growth of Religion as\nIllustrated by Celtic Heathendom.= (Hibbert Lectures, 1886.) 8vo, cloth.\n10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=R\u00e9ville= (=Dr A.=). =On the Native Religions of Mexico and Peru.=\nTranslated by the Rev. P. H. Wicksteed. (Hibbert Lectures, 1884.) 8vo,\ncloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Sayce= (=Prof. A. H.=). =On the Religion of Ancient Assyria and\nBabylonia.= 4th Edition. (Hibbert Lectures, 1887.) 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d.\nCheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n=Upton= (=Rev. C. B.=). =On the Bases of Religious Belief.= (Hibbert\nLectures, 1893.) Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.\n\n_Second Series._\n\n=Farnell= (=L. R.=, D.Litt., Wilde Lecturer in the University of\nOxford). =The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion.= Lectures delivered in\nOxford and London in 1911. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net.\n\n=Moulton= (=Prof. J. H.=). =Early Zoroastrianism.= Cloth. 10s. 6d. net.\n\n=Margoliouth= (=Prof. D. S.=). =Early Development of Mohammedanism.=\nCloth. 6s. net.\n\n\nHOME UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE.\n\nEditors: Prof. Gilbert Murray, D.Litt., LL.D., F.B.A., Herbert Fisher,\nM.A., F.B.A., LL.D., Professor J. Arthur Thomson, LL.D., and Professor\nWm. T. Brewster. Each volume is written by an expert of the very first\nrank, and consists of 256 pages. Issued bound in cloth at 1s. net, or\nbeautifully bound in leather, levant morocco grain, 2s. 6d. net.\n\n_Eighty-five Volumes Now Ready._\n\n1. =Parliament.= Sir C. P. Ilbert, K.C.B.\n\n2. =Shakespeare.= John Masefield.\n\n3. =French Revolution.= (With Maps.) Hilaire Belloc, M.A.\n\n4. =History of War and Peace.= G. H. Perris.\n\n5. =Stock Exchange.= F. W. Hirst, M.A.\n\n6. =Irish Nationality.= Mrs J. R. Green.\n\n7. =Modern Geography.= (Illustrated.) Dr M. Newbigin.\n\n8. =Polar Exploration.= (With Maps.) Dr W. S. Bruce.\n\n9. =Evolution of Plants.= (Fully Illustrated.) Dr D. H. Scott, F.R.S.\n\n10. =Socialist Movement.= J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P.\n\n11. =Conservatism.= Lord Hugh Cecil, M.A., M.P.\n\n12. =Opening Up of Africa.= (With Maps.) Sir H. H. Johnston, G.C.M.G.\n\n13. =Medi\u00e6val Europe.= (With Maps.) H. W. C. Davis, M.A.\n\n14. =The Papacy and Modern Times.= Rev. Dr W. Barry.\n\n15. =Mohammedanism.= Prof. D. S. Margoliouth.\n\n16. =The Science of Wealth.= J. A. Hobson, M.A.\n\n17. =Health and Disease.= Dr W. L. Mackenzie.\n\n18. =Introduction to Mathematics.= (With Diagrams.) A. N. Whitehead,\nSc.D., F.R.S.\n\n19. =The Animal World.= (With many Illustrations.) Prof. F. W. Gamble.\n\n20. =Evolution.= Prof. J. A. Thomson and Prof. P. Geddes.\n\n21. =Liberalism.= Prof. L. T. Hobhouse.\n\n22. =Crime and Insanity.= Dr C. A. Mercier.\n\n23. =History of our Time, 1885-1913.= G. P. Gooch, M.A.\n\n24. =The Evolution of Industry.= Prof. D. H. MacGregor.\n\n25. =The Civilisation of China.= Prof. H. A. Giles, LL.D.\n\n26. =Agriculture.= Prof. W. Somerville, D.Sc.\n\n27. =English Literature: Modern.= George Mair, M.A.\n\n28. =Psychical Research.= Sir W. F. Barrett, F.R.S.\n\n29. =The Dawn of History.= Prof. J. L. Myres.\n\n30. =Elements of English Law.= Prof. W. M. Geldart, B.C.L.\n\n31. =Astronomy.= A. R. Hinks, M.A.\n\n32. =The Introduction to Science.= Prof. J. Arthur Thomson, M.A.\n\n33. =The History of England=: A Study in Political Evolution. Prof. A.\nF. Pollard.\n\n34. =Canada.= A. G. Bradley.\n\n35. =Landmarks in French Literature.= G. L. Strachey.\n\n36. =Climate and Weather.= (With Diagrams.) Prof. H. N. Dickson, D.Sc.\n\n37. =Peoples and Problems of India.= Sir T. W. Holderness, K.C.S.I.\n\n38. =The School.= An Introduction to the Study of Education. Prof. J. J.\nFindlay.\n\n39. =Architecture.= (Over 40 Illustrations.) Prof. W. R. Lethaby.\n\n40. =Problems of Philosophy.= The Hon. Bertrand Russell, F.R.S.\n\n41. =Anthropology.= R. R. Marett, M.A.\n\n42. =Rome.= W. Warde-Fowler, M.A.\n\n43. =English Literature: Medi\u00e6val.= Prof. W. P. Ker.\n\n44. =Principles of Physiology.= Prof. J. G. M'Kendrick.\n\n45. =The English Language.= J. Pearsall Smith, M.A.\n\n46. =Matter and Energy.= F. Soddy, F.R.S.\n\n47. =Buddhism.= Mrs Rhys Davids.\n\n48. =The American Civil War.= (Maps.) Prof. F. L. Paxson.\n\n49. =Psychology.= The Study of Behaviour. Prof. W. McDougall.\n\n50. =Nonconformity, Its Origin and Progress.= Principal W. B. Selbie.\n\n51. =Warfare in England.= (With Maps.) Hilaire Belloc, M.A.\n\n52. =Great Writers of America.= Profs. W. P. Trent and J. Erskine.\n\n53. =The Making of the Earth.= (With 38 Maps and Figures.) Prof. J. W.\nGregory, F.R.S.\n\n54. =Ethics.= G. E. Moore, M.A.\n\n55. =Master Mariners.= J. R. Spears.\n\n56. =Making of the New Testament.= Prof. B. W. Bacon, LL.D., D.D.\n\n57. =The Human Body= (Illustrated). Prof. Arthur Keith, M.D., F.R.C.S.\n\n58. =Electricity= (Illustrated). Dr Gisbert Kapp, D.Eng., M.I.E.E.\n\n59. =Political Economy.= Prof. S. J. Chapman, M.A.\n\n60. =Missions=: Their Rise and Development. Mrs Creighton.\n\n61. =Napoleon.= (Maps.) Herbert Fisher, M.A., F.B.A.\n\n62. =The Origin and Nature of Life.= Prof. Benjamin Moore.\n\n63. =Painters and Painting.= (Illustrated.) Sir Frederick Wedmore.\n\n64. =Dr Johnson and his Circle.= John Bailey, M.A.\n\n65. =The Literature of Germany.= Prof. J. G. Robertson, M.A., Ph.D.\n\n66. =The Navy and Sea Power.= David Hannay.\n\n67. =Chemistry.= Prof. Raphael Meldola, D.Sc., LL.D.\n\n68. =Comparative Religion.= Prof. J. Estlin Carpenter, LL.D.\n\n69. =The Newspaper.= (Illustrated.) G. Binney Dibblee.\n\n70. =The Victorian Age in Literature.= G. K. Chesterton.\n\n71. =Germany of To-day.= By Charles Tower.\n\n72. =Plant Life= (Illustrated). By Prof. J. B. Farmer, F.R.S.\n\n73. =The Writing of English.= By Prof. W. T. Brewster.\n\n74. =A History of Freedom of Thought.= By Prof. J. B. Bury, Litt.D.\n\n75. =Ancient Art and Ritual.= By Miss Jane Harrison, LL.D., D.Litt.\n\n76. =Euripides and His Age.= By Gilbert Murray, LL.D., D.Litt.\n\n77. =Shelley, Godwin, and their Circle.= H. N. Brailsford.\n\n78. =The Ocean.= Sir John Murray.\n\n79. =Nerves.= Prof. D. Fraser Harris.\n\n80. =Co-Partnership and Profit-Sharing.= Aneurin Williams, M.P.\n\n81. =Problems of Village Life.= E. N. Bennett, M.A.\n\n82. =Prehistoric Britain.= Robert Munro, M.A., M.D., LL.D., F.R.S.E.\n\n83. =Common-Sense in Law.= Prof. P. Vinogradoff, D.C.L., LL.D.\n\n84. =Literature of the Old Testament.= Prof. George F. Moore, D.D.,\nLL.D.\n\n85. =Unemployment.= Prof. A. C. Pigou.\n\n_A Detailed List, containing Particulars of more than One Hundred\nVolumes, eighty-five of which are already issued, to be had upon\napplication._\n\n\n=LIVERPOOL MARINE BIOLOGY COMMITTEE.= =MEMOIRS ON TYPICAL BRITISH MARINE\nPLANTS AND ANIMALS.= Edited by W. A. Herdman, D.Sc., F.R.S. All demy\n8vo, stiff boards.\n\n1. =Ascidia.= By Prof. W. A. Herdman. With 5 Plates. 2s. net.\n\n2. =Cardium.= By J. Johnstone. 7 Plates. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n3. =Echinus.= By Herbert Clifton Chadwick, Curator of the Port Erin\nBiological Station. With 5 Plates. 2s. net.\n\n4. =Codium.= By R. J. Harvey Gibson, M.A., F.L.S., and Helen P. Auld,\nB.Sc. With 3 Plates. 1s. 6d. net.\n\n5. =Alcyonium.= By Sydney J. Hickson, D.Sc., F.R.S. With 3 Plates. 1s.\n6d. net.\n\n6. =Lepeophtheirus and Lernea.= By Andrew Scott, Resident Fisheries\nAssistant at the Peel Hatchery. With 5 Plates. 2s. net.\n\n7. =Lineus.= By R. C. Punnett, B.A. With 4 Plates. 2s. net.\n\n8. =Pleuronectes.= By Frank J. Cole, and James Johnstone, B.Sc. Lond.\nWith 11 Plates. 7s. net.\n\n9. =Chondrus.= By Otto V. Darbishire. With 7 Plates. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n10. =Patella (the Common Limpet).= By J. R. Ainsworth Davis, M.A., and\nH. J. Fleure, B.Sc. With 4 Plates. 2s 6d. net.\n\n11. =Arenicola (the Lug-Worm).= By J. H. Ashworth, D.Sc. 8 Plates. 4s.\n6d. net.\n\n12. =Gammarus.= By Margaret Cussans, B.Sc. 4 Plates. 2s. net.\n\n13. =Anurida.= By A. D. Imms, B.Sc. (Lond.). 7 Plates. 4s. net.\n\n14. =Ligia.= By C. Gordon Hewitt, B.Sc. 4 Plates. 2s. net.\n\n15. =Antedon.= By Herbert Clifton Chadwick. 7 Plates. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n16. =Cancer.= By Joseph Pearson, M.Sc. 13 Plates. 6s. 6d. net.\n\n17. =Pecton.= By W. J. Dakin, M.Sc. With 9 Plates. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n18. =Eledone.= By Annie Isgrove, M.Sc. 10 Plates. 4s. 6d. net.\n\n19. =Polychaet Larvae.= By F. H. Gravely. 4 Plates. 2s. 6d. net.\n\n\n=TEXT AND TRANSLATION SOCIETY.= Established for the purpose of editing\nand translating Oriental Texts chiefly preserved in the British Museum.\n\n=The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch,\nin the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis.= Edited and translated\nby E. W. Brooks, M.A. Vol. I. Text, Parts I. and II. Vol. II.\nTranslation, Parts I. and II, 84s. net.\n\n=The Canons of Athanasius of Alexandria, in Arabic, Ethiopic, and\nCoptic.= Edited and translated by Prof. W. Riedel (Griefswald) and W. E.\nCrum. 21s. net.\n\n=A Rabbinic Commentary on the Book of Job, contained in a unique MS. at\nCambridge.= Edited, with Translation and Commentary, by W. Aldis Wright,\nLL.D. 21s. net.\n\n=An Ancient Armenian Version of the Apocalypse of St John=; also =The\nArmenian Texts of Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia de Incarnatione and\nEpistle to Theodosius upon Easter=, the former incompletely preserved in\nGreek, the latter unknown in Greek or Latin. All edited, with English\nversions, etc., by F. C. Conybeare, formerly Fellow of University\nCollege, Oxford.\n\n=Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible.= Part I. (Sixth\nCentury). The Four Minor Catholic Epistles. Reconstructed Text, with\nApparatus Criticus. Part II. (Seventh Century). Extracts, hitherto\nunedited, from the Syro-Hexaplar Text of Chronicles, Nehemiah, etc. All\nedited, with Greek versions, etc., by John Gwynn, D.D., Regius Professor\nof Divinity, Dublin. 21s. net.\n\n=Coptic Texts on St Theodore the General, St Theodore the Eastern,\nChamoul and Justus.= Edited and Translated by E. O. Winstedt, late\nSenior Demy of Magdalen College, Oxford. 21s. net.\n\n=The Refutation of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan of St Ephraim.= Edited\nby the Rev. C. W. Mitchell. 21s. net.\n\n=Euphemia and the Goth.= With the Acts of Martyrdom of the Confessors of\nEdessa. Edited and examined by Prof. F. C. Burkitt. 21s. net.\n\n=Two Commentaries on the Jacobite Liturgy.= By George, Bishop of the\nArab Tribes, and Moses B\u0101r K\u0113ph\u0101. Together with the Syriac anaphora of\nSt James and a document entitled the Book of Life. Texts and English\ntranslation by Dom. R. H. Connolly, M.A., and H. W. Codrington, M.A.\n21s. net.\n\n\nTHEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY.\n\nNew Series. A Series of Translations by which the best results of recent\nTheological Investigations on the Continent, conducted without reference\nto doctrinal considerations, and with the sole purpose of arriving at\nthe truth, are placed within reach of English readers.\n\nVols. I. and V.--=The Apostolic Age.= By Prof. Carl von Weizs\u00e4cker.\nTranslated by James Millar, B.D. 2 vols. 10s. 6d. each.\n\nVols. II., VII., VIII., IX., X., XI., XII.--=A History of Dogma.= By\nAdolf Harnack, Berlin. Translated from the Third German Edition. Edited\nby the late Rev. Prof. A. B. Bruce, D.D. 7 vols. 10s. 6d. each.\n\nVols. III. and VI.--=A History of the Hebrews.= By K. Kittel, Ordinary\nProfessor of Theology in the University of Breslau. 10s. 6d. per volume.\n\nVol. IV.--=The Communion of the Christian with God: A Discussion in\nAgreement with the View of Luther.= By W. Herrmann, Dr Theol., Professor\nof Dogmatic Theology in the University of Marburg. 10s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XIII.--=An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New\nTestament.= By Prof. Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn. Cloth, 10s. 6d.;\nhalf-leather, 12s. 6d.\n\nVols. XV. and XVII.--=The Beginnings of Christianity.= By Paul Wernle,\nProfessor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of\nBasel. Vol. I. The Rise of the Religion. Vol. II. The Development of the\nChurch. 10s. 6d. per volume.\n\nVol. XVI.--=The Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit.=\nBy the late Auguste Sabatier. 10s. 6d.\n\nVol. XVIII.--=Christian Life in the Primitive Church.= By Ernst von\nDobsch\u00fctz, D.D., Professor of New Testament Theology in the University\nof Strassburg. 10s. 6d.\n\nVols. XIX. and XX.--=The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the\nFirst Three Centuries.= By Adolf Harnack, Berlin. Second, revised and\nmuch enlarged edition, 25s. net. Vols. not sold separately.\n\nVol. XXI.--=St Paul: The Man and his Work.= By Prof. H. Weinel, of the\nUniversity of Jena. 10s. 6d.\n\nVols. XXII., XXVI., XXVII., and XXXI.--=Primitive Christianity=: Its\nWritings and Teachings in their Historical Connections. By Otto\nPfleiderer, Professor of Practical Theology in the University of Berlin.\n4 vols. 10s. 6d. each net.\n\nVol. XXIII.--=The Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old\nTestament.= By Carl Cornill, Professor of Old Testament Theology at the\nUniversity of Breslau. 10s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXIV.--=History of the Church.= By Hans von Schubert, Professor of\nChurch History at Kiel. 10s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXV.--=Ethics of the Christian Life.= By Theodor von Haering,\nProfessor of New Testament Dogmatics and Ethics at T\u00fcbingen. 10s. 6d.\nnet.\n\nVols. XXVIII. and XXIX.--=The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient\nEast.= By Alfred Jeremias, Pastor of the Lutherkirche, and Lecturer at\nthe University of Leipzig. With numerous illustrations and maps, 25s.\nnet. Vols. not sold separately.\n\nVol. XXX.--=The Truth of Religion.= By Dr Rudolf Eucken, Senior\nProfessor of Philosophy in the University of Jena. 12s. 6d. net.\n\nVol. XXXII.--=Religious Liberty.= By Prof. Francesco Ruffini. With a\nPreface to the English Edition by Prof. J. B. Bury of Cambridge. Demy\n8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net.\n\n\nTHEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION FUND LIBRARY.\n\nOld Series. Uniform Price per Volume, 6s.\n\n=Baur= (=F. C.=). =Church History of the First Three Centuries.=\nTranslated from the Third German Edition. Edited by Rev. Allan Menzies.\n2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n\n----=Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Work, His Epistles\nand Doctrine.= A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive\nChristianity. Edited by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2nd Edition. 2 vols. 8vo,\ncloth. 12s.\n\n=Ewald's= (=Dr H.=) =Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament.=\nTranslated by the Rev. J. F. Smith. 5 vols. 8vo, cloth. 30s.\n\n----=Commentary on the Psalms.= Translated by the Rev. E. Johnson, M.A.\n2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n\n----=Commentary on the Book of Job, with Translation.= Translated from\nthe German by the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n\n=Hausrath= (=Prof. A.=). =History of the New Testament Times.= The Time\nof Jesus. Translated by the Revs. C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer. 2 vols.\n8vo, cloth. 12s.\n\n=Keim's History of Jesus of Nazara=: Considered in its connection with\nthe National Life of Israel, and related in detail. Translated from the\nGerman by Arthur Ransom and the Rev. E. M. Geldart. Complete in 6 vols.\n8vo. 36s. (Vol. I. only to be had when a complete set of the work is\nordered.)\n\n=Kuenen= (=Dr A.=). =The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish\nState.= Translated from the Dutch by A. H. May. 3 vols. 8vo, cloth. 18s.\n\n=Pfleiderer= (=O.=). =Paulinism: A Contribution to the History of\nPrimitive Christian Theology.= Translated by E. Peters. 2nd Edition. 2\nvols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n\n----=Philosophy of Religion on the Basis of its History.= Translated by\nProf. Allan Menzies and the Rev. Alex. Stewart. 4 vols. 8vo, cloth. 24s.\n(Vol. I. out of print).\n\n=R\u00e9ville= (=Dr A.=). =Prolegomena of the History of Religions.= With an\nIntroduction by Prof. F. Max M\u00fcller. 8vo, cloth. 6s.\n\n=Schrader= (=Prof. E.=). =The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old\nTestament.= Translated from the Second Enlarged Edition, with Additions\nby the Author, and an Introduction by the Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, M.A.\n2 vols. With a Map. 8vo, cloth. 12s.\n\n\n=LIST OF PERIODICALS, REVIEWS, AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF\nLEARNED SOCIETIES= published by Williams & Norgate.\n\n=The British Review.= With which is incorporated the Oxford and\nCambridge Review. Monthly, 1s. net. Postage inland, 3d,; Subscription\ncovering 12 numbers post free, 15s. net.\n\n=The Hibbert Journal=: A Quarterly Review of Religion, Theology, and\nPhilosophy. Single numbers, 2s. 6d. net. Subscription, 10s. per annum,\npost free.\n\n=Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums.= Issued quarterly.\nSingle numbers, 1s. 6d. net. Subscription, 5s. per annum.\n\n=Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society=, containing its\nTransactions and Proceedings, with other Microscopical Information.\nBi-monthly. 6s. net. Yearly subscriptions, 37s. 6d., post free.\n\n=Journal of the Quekett Microscopical Club.= Issued half-yearly, April\nand November. Price 3s. 6d. net. 7s. 6d. per annum, post free.\n\n=Linnean Society of London.= =Journal of Botany and Journal of Zoology.=\nPublished irregularly at various prices. Also Transactions, published\nirregularly.\n\n=Royal Society of Edinburgh.= Transactions. Issued irregularly at\nvarious prices.\n\n=Liverpool Marine Biology Committee.= Memoirs. I.-XIX. already published\nat various prices. Fauna of Liverpool Bay. Fifth Report, written by\nMembers of the Committee and other Naturalists. Cloth. 8s. 6d. net.\n_See_ p. 39.\n\n=Publications de l'Institut Nobel Norv\u00e9gien.= Vol. I. =L'Arbitrage\nInternational chez les Hell\u00e8nes.= Par A. Raedar. 4to. 10s. net. Vol. II.\n=Les Bases Economiques de la Justice Internationale.= By Achille Loria.\n3s. 6d. net. Vol. III., =Catalogue de la Biblioth\u00e8que de l'Institut\nNobel Norv\u00e9gien.= 250 pages. 10s. net. Vol. IV. =Die Rechtskraft\nInternationaler Schiedsspruche.= Heinrich Lammasch. 4to, sewed, 7s. 6d.\nnet.\n\n=Royal Irish Academy.= Transactions and Proceedings issued irregularly;\nprices vary. Cunningham Memoirs. Vols. I.-XI. already issued at various\nprices. See p. 31.\n\n=Royal Dublin Society.= Transactions and Proceedings. Issued irregularly\nat various prices.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF TITLES.\n\n\n  Acts of the Apostles. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Acts, The Date of the. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Aeroplane, How to Build. Robert Petit, 24.\n\n  Africa, The Opening Up of. Sir H. H. Johnston, 16.\n\n  Agricultural Chemical Analysis. Wiley, 34.\n\n  Agricultural Chemistry, Principles of. Fraps, 9.\n\n  Agricultural Products. Wiley, 34.\n\n  Agriculture. Prof. W. Somerville, 30.\n\n  Alchemy of Thought, and other Essays. Prof. L. P. Jacks, 15.\n\n  Alcyonium. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  All About Leaves. Heath, 13.\n\n  All Men are Ghosts. Jacks, 15.\n\n  America, Great Writers of. Trent and Erskine, 8, 33.\n\n  American Civil War, The. Prof. F. L. Paxson, 24.\n\n  Americans, The. Hugo M\u00fcnsterberg, 22.\n\n  Among the Idolmakers. Prof. L. P. Jacks, 15.\n\n  Analysis of Ores. F. C. Phillips, 25.\n\n  Analysis, Organic. F. E. Benedict, 2.\n\n  Analytical Geometry, Elements of.--Hardy 12.\n\n  Anarchy and Law, Theories of. H. B. Brewster, 3.\n\n  Ancient Art and Ritual. Harrison, 13.\n\n  Ancient Asia Minor, Wall Map of, 18.\n\n  Ancient Assyria, Religion of. Prof. A. H. Sayce, 27.\n\n  Ancient Greece, Wall Map of, 17.\n\n  Ancient Italy, Wall Map of, 17.\n\n  Ancient Latium, Wall Map of, 17.\n\n  Ancient World, Wall Maps of the, 17.\n\n  Anglican Liberalism, 1.\n\n  Animal World, The. Prof. F. W. Gamble, 9.\n\n  Antedon. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Anthems. Rev. R. Crompton Jones, 16.\n\n  Anthropology. R. R. Marett, 20.\n\n  Antiquity of Man, The. A. Keith, 17.\n\n  Antwerp and Brussels. Guide to, 11.\n\n  Anurida. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Apocalypse of St. John, 43.\n\n  Apologetic of the New Testament. E. F. Scott, 28.\n\n  Apostle Paul, the, Lectures on. Otto Pfleiderer, 24.\n\n  Apostolic Age, The. Carl von Weizs\u00e4cker, 34.\n\n  Arabian Poetry, Ancient. Sir C. J. Lyall, 20.\n\n  Architecture. Prof. W. R. Lethaby, 19.\n\n  Arenicola. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Aristotelian Society, Proceedings of, 25.\n\n  Army Series of French and German Novels, 35.\n\n  Ascidia. Johnston, L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Assyriology, Essay on. George Evans, 8.\n\n  Astigmatic Letters. Dr Pray, 25.\n\n  Astronomy. A. R. Hinks, 14.\n\n  Athanasius of Alexandria, Canons of, 43.\n\n  Atlas Antiquus, Kiepert's, 18.\n\n  Atlas, Topographical, of the Spinal Cord. Alex. Bruce, 4.\n\n  Atonement, Doctrine of the. Auguste Sabatier, 27.\n\n  Auf Verlornem Posten. Dewall, 35.\n\n\n  Babel and Bible. Friedrich Delitzsch, 7.\n\n  Bacon, Roger. \"Opus Majus\" of, 2;\n    Life and Work of, Bridges, 4.\n\n  Basis of Religious Belief. C. B. Upton, 33.\n\n  Beet-Sugar Making. Nikaido, 23.\n\n  Beginnings of Christianity. Paul Wernle, 34.\n\n  Belgium, Practical Guide to, 11.\n\n  Belgium Watering Places, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Bergson's Philosophy. Balsillie, 2;\n    Le Roy, 19.\n\n  Bible. Translated by Samuel Sharpe, 3.\n\n  Bible, a Short Introduction to, Sadler, 27;\n    Bible Problems, Prof. T. K. Cheyne, 5;\n    How to teach the, Rev. A. F. Mitchell, 22;\n    Remnants of Later Syriac Versions of, 43.\n\n  Bible Reading in the Early Church. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Biblical Hebrew, Introduction to. Rev. Jas. Kennedy, 17.\n\n  Biology, Principles of. Herbert Spencer, 30.\n\n  Blaise Pascal. Humfrey R. Jordan, 16.\n\n  Book of Prayer. Crompton Jones, 16.\n\n  Books of the New Testament. Von Soden, 29.\n\n  Britain, B.C. Henry Sharpe, 29.\n\n  British Fisheries. J. Johnstone, 16.\n\n  Brussels and Antwerp, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Buddhism. Mrs Rhys Davids, 6.\n\n\n  Calculus, Differential and Integral. Axel Harnack, 12.\n\n  Canada. A. G. Bradley, 3.\n\n  Cancer. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Cancer and other Tumours. Chas. Creighton, 6.\n\n  Canonical Books of the Old Testament. Cornill, 6.\n\n  Cape Dutch. J. F. Van Oordt, 24.\n\n  Cape Dutch, Werner's Elementary Lessons in, 34.\n\n  Capri and Naples, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Captain Cartwright and his Labrador Journal, 4.\n\n  Cardium. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Catalogue of the London Library, 20.\n\n  Catalogue de la Biblioth\u00e8que de l'Institut Nobel Norv\u00e9gien, 4.\n\n  Celtic Heathendom. Prof. J. Rhys, 26.\n\n  Channing's Complete Works, 4.\n\n  Chants and Anthems, 16;\n    Chants, Psalms, and Canticles. Crompton Jones, 16.\n\n  Character and Life, 5.\n\n  Chemical Dynamics, Studies in. J. H. Van't Hoff, 14.\n\n  Chemical German. Phillips, 25.\n\n  Chemistry. Prof. Meldola, 21.\n\n  Chemistry, Elementary. Emery, 7.\n\n  Chemistry for Beginners. Edward Hart, 13.\n\n  Chemist's Pocket Manual. Meade, 21.\n\n  Child and Religion, The, 5.\n\n  China, The Civilisation of. Prof. H. A. Giles, 10.\n\n  Chinese. Descriptive Sociology. Werner, 31.\n\n  Chondrus. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Christian Life, Ethics of the. Theodor Haering, 11.\n\n  Christian Life in the Primitive Church. Dobsch\u00fctz, 7.\n\n  Christian Religion, Fundamental Truths of the. R. Seeberg, 28.\n\n  Christianity, Beginnings of. Paul Wernle, 34.\n\n  Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. R. Travers Herford, 12.\n\n  Christianity? What is. Adolf Harnack, 11.\n\n  Chromium, Production of. Max Leblanc, 19.\n\n  Church History. Baur, 2;\n    Schubert, 28.\n\n  Civilisation of China. H. A. Giles, 9.\n\n  Climate and Weather. H. N. Dickson, 6.\n\n  Closet Prayers. Dr. Sadler, 27.\n\n  Codium. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Collected Writings of Seger, 15.\n\n  Colonial Period, The. C. M. Andrews, 1.\n\n  Coming Church. Dr John Hunter, 15.\n\n  Commentaries on Jacobite Liturgy. Connolly and Codrington, 40.\n\n  Commentary on the Book of Job. Ewald, 8;\n    Wright and Hirsch, 30;\n    Commentary on the Old Testament. Ewald, 8;\n    Commentary on the Psalms. Ewald, 8.\n\n  Common Prayer for Christian Worship, 5.\n\n  Common-Sense Dietetics. C. Louis Leipoldt, 19.\n\n  Common-Sense in Law. Prof. P. Vinogradoff, 33.\n\n  Communion with God. Wilhelm Herrmann, 13.\n\n  Comparative Religion. Princ. J. E. Carpenter, 4.\n\n  Conception of God. Alviella, 1.\n\n  Concrete, Reinforced. Colby, 5.\n\n  Conductivity of Liquids. Tower, 33.\n\n  Confessions of St Augustine. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Conservatism. Lord Hugh Cecil, 4.\n\n  Constitution and Law of the Church. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Contes Militaires. A. Daudet, 35.\n\n  Co-Partnership and Profit-Sharing. A. Williams, 34.\n\n  Copenhagen and Norway, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Coptic Texts on St. Theodore. E. O. Winstedt, 35.\n\n  Crime and Insanity. Dr. C. A. Mercier, 21.\n\n  _Crown Theological Library_, 36.\n\n  Cuneiform Inscriptions, The. Prof. E. Schrader, 27.\n\n  Cyanamid, Manufacture, Chemistry, and Uses. Pranke, 25.\n\n  Cyperace\u00e6, Illustrations of. Clarke, 5.\n\n\n  Dante, Spiritual Message of. Bishop Boyd Carpenter, 4.\n\n  Date, The, of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels. Harnack, 12.\n\n  Dawn of History, The. Prof. J. L. Myres, 23.\n\n  Delectus Veterum. Theodor N\u00f6ldeke, 23.\n\n  Democracy and Character. Canon Stephen, 31.\n\n  Democracy, Socialism and, in Europe. Samuel P. Orth, 24.\n\n  De Profundis Clamavi. Dr John Hunter, 15.\n\n  Descriptive Sociology. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Development of the Periodic Law. Venable, 33.\n\n  Differential and Integral Calculus, The. Axel Harnack, 12.\n\n  Dipavamsa, The. Edited by Oldenberg, 7.\n\n  Doctrine of the Atonement. A. Sabatier, 27.\n\n  Dogma, History of. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Dolomites, The, Practical Guide to, 11.\n\n  Dresden and Environs, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Dynamics of Particles. Webster, 33.\n\n\n  Early Hebrew Story. John P. Peters, 24.\n\n  Early Christian Conception. Otto Pfleiderer, 25.\n\n  Early Development of Mohammedanism. Margoliouth, 21.\n\n  Early Zoroastrianism. Moulton, 22.\n\n  Echinus. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Education. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Education and Ethics. Emile Boutroux, 3.\n\n  Egyptian Faith, The Old. Edouard Naville, 23.\n\n  Eighth Year, The. Philip Gibbs, 10.\n\n  Electric Furnace. H. Moisson, 22.\n\n  Electricity. Prof. Gisbert Kapp, 16.\n\n  Electrolysis of Water. V. Engelhardt, 8.\n\n  Electrolytic Laboratories. Nissenson, 23.\n\n  Eledone. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Elementary Chemistry. Emery, 7.\n\n  Elementary Organic Analysis. F. E. Benedict, 2.\n\n  Elements of English Law. W. M. Geldart, 10.\n\n  Engineering Chemistry. T. B. Stillman, 32.\n\n  England and Germany, 8.\n\n  English Language. L. P. Smith, 29.\n\n  English Literature, Medi\u00e6val. W. P. Ker, 17.\n\n  English Literature, Modern. G. H. Mair, 20.\n\n  English, The Writing of. W. T. Brewster, 3.\n\n  Enoch, Book of. C. Gill, 10.\n\n  Ephesian Canonical Writings. Rt. Rev. A. V. Green, 10.\n\n  Epitome of Synthetic Philosophy. F. H. Collins, 6.\n\n  Erz\u00e4hlungen. H\u00f6fer, 35.\n\n  Essays on the Social Gospel. Harnack and Herrmann, 12.\n\n  Essays. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Ethica. Prof. Simon Laurie, 19.\n\n  Ethics, Data of. Herbert Spencer, 30.\n\n  Ethics, Education and. Emile Boutroux, 3.\n\n  Ethics. G. E. Moore, 22.\n\n  Ethics, Principles of. Herbert Spencer, 30.\n\n  Ethics of the Christian Life. Prof. T. Haering, 11.\n\n  Ethics of Progress, The. Chas. F. Dole, 7.\n\n  Ethiopic Grammar. A. Dillmann, 7.\n\n  Eucken's Philosophy, An Interpretation of. W. Tudor Jones, 16.\n\n  Euphemia and the Goth. Prof. F. C. Burkitt, 4, 44.\n\n  Euripides and His Age. Prof. Gilbert Murray, 41.\n\n  Europe, Medi\u00e6val. H. W. C. Davis, 6.\n\n  Evolution. Thomson and Geddes, 32.\n\n  Evolution of Industry. Prof. D. H. Macgregor, 20.\n\n  Evolution of Plants. Dr. D. H. Scott, 28.\n\n  Evolution of Religion, The. L. R. Farnell, 9.\n\n  Exploration, Polar. Dr W. S. Bruce, 4.\n\n\n  Facts and Comments. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Faith and Morals. W. Herrmann, 14.\n\n  Fertility and Fertilisers. Halligan, 11.\n\n  Fertilisers, Soil Fertility and. Halligan, 11.\n\n  First Principles. Herbert Spencer, 30.\n\n  First Three Gospels in Greek. Rev. Canon Colin Campbell, 4.\n\n  Flower of Gloster, The. E. Temple Thurston, 32.\n\n  Foundations of Duty, The. Bishop J. W. Diggle, 7.\n\n  Four Gospels as Historical Records, 9.\n\n  Four Gospels, Light on the. A. Smith Lewis, 19.\n\n  Free Catholic Church. Rev. J. M. Thomas, 32.\n\n  Freedom of Thought. Bury, 4.\n\n  Freezing Point, The. Jones, 16.\n\n  French Composition. Jas. Bo\u00efelle, 3.\n\n  French History, First Steps in. F. F. Roget, 26.\n\n  French Language, Grammar of. Eug\u00e8ne, 8.\n\n  French Literature, Landmarks in. G. L. Strachey, 32.\n\n  French Reader. Leon Delbos, 7.\n\n  French Revolution, The. Hilaire Belloc, 2.\n\n  Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion. R. Seeberg, 28.\n\n\n  Gammarus. _Vide_ L.M.B.C Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Gaul, Wall Map of, 18.\n\n  General Language of the Incas of Peru. Sir Clements Markham, 21.\n\n  Genesis and Evolution of the Soul. J. O. Bevan, 2.\n\n  Genesis, Hebrew Text, 13.\n\n  Geography, Modern. Dr M. Newbigin, 23.\n\n  Geometry, Analytical, Elements of. Hardy, 12.\n\n  German History, Noble Pages from. F. J. Gould, 10.\n\n  German Idioms, Short Guide to. T. H. Weisse, 34.\n\n  German Literature, A Short Sketch of. V. Phillipps, B.A., 25.\n\n  Germany, England and, 8.\n\n  Germany of To-day. Tower, 32.\n\n Germany, The Literature of. Prof. J. G. Robertson, 26.\n\n  Glimpses of Tennyson. A. G. Weld, 34.\n\n  God and Life. Dr John Hunter, 15.\n\n  Gospel of Rightness. C. E. Woods, 35.\n\n  Gospels in Greek, First Three. Rev. Colin Campbell, 4.\n\n  Grammar, Ethiopic. A. Dillman, 7.\n\n  Greek-English Dictionary, Modern, 18.\n\n  Greek Ideas, Lectures on. Rev. Dr. Hatch, 13.\n\n  Greek, New Testament. Prof. Edouard Nestle, 23.\n\n  Greek Religion, Higher Aspects of. L. R. Farnell, 9.\n\n  Greeks: Hellenic Era, 31.\n\n  Grieben's English Guides, 11.\n\n  Gymnastics, Medical Indoor. Dr Schreber, 28.\n\n\n  Harnack and his Oxford Critics. T. B. Saunders, 26.\n\n  Health and Disease. Dr W. L. Mackenzie, 20.\n\n  Hebrew, New School of Poets, 23.\n\n  Hebrew Religion. W. E. Addis, 1.\n\n  Hebrew Story. John P. Peters, 24.\n\n  Hebrew Synonyms, Studies in. Rev. J. Kennedy, 17.\n\n  Hebrew Texts, 13.\n\n  Hellenistic Greeks. Mahaffy and Goligher, 31.\n\n  Herbaceous Garden, The. Mrs P. Martineau, 21.\n\n  Heredity in Relation to Eugenics. C. B. Davenport, 6.\n\n  Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909, entitled: Jesus or Christ? 14.\n\n  Hibbert Journal, The, 14.\n\n  _Hibbert Lectures_, 38.\n\n  Highways and Byways in Literature. H. Farrie, 9.\n\n  Historical Evidence for the Resurrection. Kirsopp Lake, 18.\n\n  History of Dogma. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  History of England. A. F. Pollard, 25.\n\n  History of Jesus of Nazara. Keim, 17.\n\n  History of Our Time. G. P. Gooch, 10.\n\n  History of Sacerdotal Celibacy. H. C. Lea, 19.\n\n  History of War and Peace. Perris, 24.\n\n  History of the Church. Hans von Schubert, 28.\n\n  History of the Hebrews. R. Kittel, 18.\n\n  History of the Literature of the O.T. E. Kautzsch, 17.\n\n  History of the New Testament Times. A. Hausrath, 13.\n\n  Holland, Practical Guide to, 11.\n\n  _Home University Library of Modern Knowledge_, 39.\n\n  House of Commons, The, from Within. Rt. Hon. R. Farquharson, 9.\n\n  How to Teach the Bible. Rev. A. F. Mitchell, 22.\n\n  Human Body, The. Prof. Arthur Keith, 17.\n\n  Hygiene, Handbook of. D. G. Bergey, 2.\n\n  Hymns of Duty and Faith. R. Crompton Jones, 16.\n\n\n  Idolmakers, Among the. Prof. L. P. Jacks, 15.\n\n  Immortality, Some Intimations of. Rt. Hon. Sir E. Fry, 9.\n\n  Incarnate Purpose, The. G. H. Percival, 24.\n\n  India, Peoples and Problems of. Sir T. W. Holderness, 14.\n\n  Indian Buddhism. Rhys Davids, 6.\n\n  Individual Soul, Genesis and Evolution of. J. O. Bevan, 2.\n\n  Individualism and Collectivism. Dr C. W. Saleeby, 27.\n\n  Indoor Gymnastics, Medical. Dr Schreber, 28.\n\n  Industrial Remuneration, Methods of. David F. Schloss, 27.\n\n  Infinitesimals and Limits. Hardy, 12.\n\n  Influence of Greek Ideas upon the Christian Church. Rev. Dr Hatch, 13.\n\n  Influence of Rome on Christianity. E. Renan, 26.\n\n  Initiation into Philosophy. Emile Faguet, 9.\n\n  Initiation into Literature. Faguet, 9.\n\n  Inorganic Chemistry. J. L. Howe, 15.\n\n  Inorganic Qualitative Chemical Analysis. Leavenworth, 19.\n\n  Interpretation of Rudolf Eucken's Philosophy. W. Tudor Jones, 17.\n\n  Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Rev. J. Kennedy, 17.\n\n  Introduction to the Greek New Testament. Prof. E. Nestle, 23.\n\n  Introduction to the Old Testament. Prof. Carl Cornill, 5, 45.\n\n  Introduction to the Preparation of Organic Compounds. Emil Fischer, 9.\n\n  Introduction to Science. Prof. J. A. Thomson, 32.\n\n  Irish Nationality. Mrs J. R. Green, 10.\n\n  Isaiah, Hebrew Text, 13.\n\n\n  Jacobite Liturgy. Connolly and Codrington, 44.\n\n  Jesus. Wilhelm Bousset, 3.\n\n  Jesus of Nazara. Keim, 17.\n\n  Jesus or Christ? The Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909, 14.\n\n  Jesus, Sayings of. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Job. Hebrew Text, 13.\n\n  Job, Book of. G. H. Bateson Wright, 35.\n\n  Job, Book of. Rabbinic Commentary on, 43.\n\n  Johnson, Dr., and his Circle. John Bailey, 2.\n\n  Journal of the Federated Malay States, 46.\n\n  Journal of the Linnean Society. Botany and Zoology, 16.\n\n  Journal of the Quekett Microscopical Club, 16.\n\n  Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society, 16.\n\n  Justice. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n\n  Kantian Ethics. J. G. Schurman, 28.\n\n  Kea, The. George R. Marriner, 21.\n\n  Kiepert's New Atlas Antiquus, 18.\n\n  Kiepert's Wall-Maps of the Ancient World. 17.\n\n  King, The, to His People, 18.\n\n  Kingdom, The Mineral. Dr Reinhard Brauns, 3.\n\n  Knowledge and Life. Eucken, 8.\n\n\n  Laboratory Experiments. Noyes and Mulliken, 23.\n\n  Lakes of Northern Italy, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Landmarks in French Literature. G. L. Strachey, 32.\n\n  Latter Day Saints, The. Ruth and R. W. Kauffman, 16.\n\n  Law, English, Elements of. W. M. Geldart, 10.\n\n  Lays of Ancient Rome. Macaulay, 20.\n\n  Leaves, All about. F. G. Heath, 13.\n\n  Le Coup de Pistolet. Merim\u00e9e, 22.\n\n  Lepeophtheirus and Lernea. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Les Mis\u00e9rables. Victor Hugo, 15.\n\n  Letter to the \"Preussische Jahrb\u00fccher.\" Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Liberal Christianity. Jean R\u00e9ville, 26.\n\n  Liberalism. Prof. L. T. Hobhouse, 14.\n\n  Life and Matter. Sir O. Lodge, 19.\n\n  Life of the Spirit, The. Rudolf Eucken, 8.\n\n  Ligia. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Lineus. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Linnean Society of London, Journal of, 16.\n\n  Literature, English Medi\u00e6val. Prof. W. P. Ker, 17.\n\n  Literature, Highways and Byways in. Hugh Farrie, 9.\n\n  Literature, Initiation into. Faguet, 9.\n\n  Literature of Germany. Prof. J. G. Robertson, 26.\n\n  Literature of the Old Testament. Kautzsch, 15;\n    Prof. G. F. Moore, 42.\n\n  Literature, The Victorian Age in. G. K. Chesterton, 5.\n\n  _Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs_, 42.\n\n  Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs, I.-XVII., 47.\n\n  Logarithmic Tables. Schroen, 28.\n\n  London. Sir L. Gomme, 10.\n\n  London Library, Catalogue of, 20.\n\n  London Library Subject Index, 20.\n\n  Luke the Physician. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n\n  Mad Shepherds, and other Studies. Prof. L. P. Jacks, 15.\n\n  Mahabharata, Index to. S. Sorensen, 30.\n\n  Making a Newspaper. John L. Given, 10.\n\n  Making of the Earth. Prof. J. W.  Gregory, 10.\n\n  Making of the New Testament. Prof. B. W. Bacon, 1.\n\n  Man and the Bible, J. A. Picton, 25.\n\n  Man _versus_ the State. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Man's Origin, Destiny, and Duty. Hugh MacColl, 20.\n\n  Maori, Lessons in. Right Rev. W. L. Williams, 34.\n\n  Maori, New and Complete Manual of. Williams, 34.\n\n  Marine Zoology of Okhamandal. Hornell, 15.\n\n  Marxism _versus_ Socialism. Simkhovitch, 29.\n\n  Massoretic Text. Rev. Dr J. Taylor, 32.\n\n  Master Mariners. J. R. Spears, 30.\n\n  Mathematics, Introduction to. A. N. Whitehead, 34.\n\n  Mathematics in China and Japan. Mikami, 22.\n\n  Matter and Energy. F. Soddy, 29.\n\n  Medi\u00e6val Europe. H. W. C. Davis, 6.\n\n  Metallic Objects, Production of. Dr. W. Pfanhauser, 24.\n\n  Metallurgy. Wysor, 35.\n\n  Metaphysica Nova et Vetusta. Prof. Simon Laurie, 19.\n\n  Midrash, Christianity in. Travers Herford, 13.\n\n  Milindapa\u00f1ho, The. Edited by V. Trenckner, 22.\n\n  Mineral Kingdom, The. Dr R. Brauns, 3.\n\n  Mineralogy of Arizona. Guild, 11.\n\n  Mission and Expansion of Christianity. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Missions. Mrs Creighton, 6.\n\n  Modern Greek-English Dictionary. A. Kyriakides, 18.\n\n  Modern Materialism. Rev. Dr James Martineau, 21.\n\n  Modernity and the Churches. Percy Gardner, 10.\n\n  Mohammedanism. Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, 21.\n\n  Molecular Weights. Methods of Determining. Henry Biltz, 3.\n\n  Monasticism. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Moorhouse Lectures. _Vide_ Mercer's Soul of Progress, 21;\n    Stephen, Democracy and Character, 31.\n\n  Mormons, The. R. W. and Ruth Kauffman, 16.\n\n  Motor and the Dynamo. J. L. Arnold, 1.\n\n  Munich and Environs, Guide to, 11.\n\n  My Life, Some Pages of. Bishop Boyd Carpenter, 4.\n\n  My Struggle for Light. R. Wimmer, 35.\n\n  Mystery of Newman. Henri Bremond, 3.\n\n\n  Naples and Capri, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Napoleon. H. A. L. Fisher, 9.\n\n  National Idealism and State Church, 5; and the Book\n    of Common Prayer, 5. Dr Stanton Coit.\n\n  National Religions and Universal Religion. Dr A. Kuenen, 38.\n\n  Native Religions of Mexico and Peru. Dr A. R\u00e9ville, 26.\n\n  Naturalism and Religion. Dr Rudolf Otto, 24.\n\n  Nautical Terms. L. Delbos, 7.\n\n  Navy, The, and Sea Power. David Hannay, 11.\n\n  Nervation of Plants. Francis Heath, 13.\n\n  Nerves. Prof. D. F. Harris, 42.\n\n  New Hebrew School of Poets. Edited by H. Brody and K. Albrecht, 23.\n\n  New Testament, Making of. Prof. B. W. Bacon, 1.\n\n  New Zealand Language, Dictionary of. Rt. Rev. W. L. Williams, 34.\n\n  Newman, Mystery of. Henri Bremond, 3.\n\n  Newspaper, Making a. John L. Given, 10.\n\n  Newspaper, The. G. Binney Dibblee, 7.\n\n  Nibelungenlied. Trans. W. L. Lettsom, 23.\n\n  Noble Pages from German History. F. J. Gould, 10.\n\n  Nonconformity. Its Origin, etc. Principal W. B. Selbie, 29.\n\n  North Sea Watering-Places, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Norway and Copenhagen, Practical Guide to, 11.\n\n  Norwegian Sagas translated into English, 27.\n\n  Notre Dame de Paris. Victor Hugo, 15.\n\n  Nuremberg and Rothenburg, Guide to, 11.\n\n\n  Ocean, The. Sir John Murray, 42.\n\n  Old French, Introduction to. F. F. Roget, 26.\n\n  Ostend, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Old Syriac Gospels. Mrs A. Smith Lewis, 19.\n\n  Old Testament in the Light of the East. Jeremias, 15.\n\n  Old Testament, Canonical Books of Cornill, 6.\n\n  Old Testament, Prophets of. Ewald, 8.\n\n  Old World, The, Wall Map of, 17.\n\n  Ophthalmic Test Types. Snellen's, 29.\n\n  Optical Rotating Power. Hans Landolt, 19.\n\n  \"Opus Majus\" of Roger Bacon, 2.\n\n  Organic Analysis. Benedict, 2.\n\n  Organic Chemistry. A. A. Noyes, 23.\n\n  Organic Compounds. Emil Fischer, 9.\n\n  Origin and Growth of Religion. C. G. Montefiore, 22.\n\n  Origin and Nature of Life. Prof. Benjamin Moore, 22.\n\n  Outlines of Church History. Von Schubert, 28.\n\n  Outlines of Psychology. Wilhelm Wundt, 35.\n\n\n  Pages of my Life, Some. Bishop Boyd Carpenter, 4.\n\n  Pacific, The, Problems of. Frank Fox, 9.\n\n  Painters and Painting. Sir Fredk. Wedmore, 34.\n\n  Pali Miscellany. V. Trenckner, 33.\n\n  Papacy and Modern Times. Rev. Dr Wm. Barry, 2.\n\n  Para Rubber Cultivation. Mathieu, 21.\n\n  Parliament, Its History, Constitution, and Practice. Ilbert, 15.\n\n  Pascal, Blaise. H. R. Jordan, 16.\n\n  Patella, 1.\n    _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Paul. Baur, 2;\n    Weinel, 34.\n\n  Paulinism. Otto Pfleiderer, 25.\n\n  Pecton. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Persian Empire, Wall Map of, 17.\n\n  Persian Language, A Grammar of. J. T. Platts, 25.\n\n  Pharisaism, R. Travers Herford, 13.\n\n  Philo Jud\u00e6us. Dr Drummond, 7.\n\n  Philosophy, a New. Edouard Le Roy, 19.\n\n  Philosophy, Initiation into. Emile Faguet, 9.\n\n  Philosophy of Religion. Otto Pfleiderer, 25.\n\n  Plant Life. Farmer, 9.\n\n  Plants, Nervation of. Francis Heath, 13.\n\n  Pleuronectes. _Vide_ L.M.B.C Memoirs, 42.\n\n  Pocket Flora of Edinburgh. C. O. Sonntag, 30.\n\n  Polar Exploration. Dr W. S. Bruce, 4.\n\n  Political Economy, Elements of. Prof. S. J. Chapman, 4.\n\n  Polychaet Larvae. _Vide_ L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 43.\n\n  Portland Cement. Richard K. Meade, 21.\n\n  Prayers for Christian Worship. Sadler, 27.\n\n  Prehistoric Britain. R, Munro, 42.\n\n  Prehistoric Times. Lord Avebury, 1.\n\n  Present Day Ethics. Eucken, 8.\n\n  Primitive Christianity. Otto Pfleiderer, 25.\n\n  Princess, The. Alfred, Lord Tennyson, 32.\n\n  Principles of Physiology. Prof. J. G. MacKendrick, 20.\n\n  Printing at Brescia. R. A. Peddie, 24.\n\n  Prison, The. H. B. Brewster, 3.\n\n  Problems of Philosophy. Hon. Bertrand Russell, 27.\n\n  Problems of the Pacific. Frank Fox, 9.\n\n  Problems of Village Life. E. N. Bennett, 42.\n\n  Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 25.\n\n  Proceedings of the Optical Convention, 26.\n\n  Prolegomena. Dr A. R\u00e9ville, 26.\n\n  Protestantism and Progress. Ernst Troeltsch, 33.\n\n  Psalms, Commentary on. Ewald, 8.\n\n  Psalms, Hebrew Text, 13.\n\n  Psychical Research. Sir W. F. Barrett, 2.\n\n  Psychology. Prof. W. M^{c}Dougall, 20.\n\n  Psychology, Principles of, Spencer, 30;\n    Outlines of, Wundt, 35.\n\n  Public Schools and the Empire. Rev. Dr H. B. Gray, 10.\n\n\n  Qualitative Analysis, Notes on. Prof. W. P. Mason, 21.\n\n  Quantitative Chemical Analysis. Gilman, 10.\n\n  Quest, The, Dorothea Hollins, 14.\n\n\n  Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte. Herbert\n  Spencer, 31.\n\n  Recollections of a Scottish Novelist. Mrs L. B. Walford, 33.\n\n  Reconstruction and Union. Paul Leland Haworth, 13.\n\n  Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Rev. Dr C. Beard, 2.\n\n  Refutation of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan. Rev. C. W. Mitchell, 20,\n  43.\n\n  Reinforced Concrete in Europe. Colby, 5.\n\n  Rejoinder to Prof. Weismann. Spencer, 30.\n\n  Relation between Ethics and Religion. Rev. Dr James Martineau, 21.\n\n  Religion and Modern Culture. Auguste Sabatier, 27.\n\n  Religion, Comparative. Principal J. E. Carpenter, 4.\n\n  Religion, Evolution of. L. R. Farnell, 9.\n\n  Religion, Truth of. Rudolf Eucken, 8.\n\n  Religion of Ancient Egypt. Renouf, 26.\n\n  Religion of the Ancient Hebrews. C. G. Montefiore, 22.\n\n  Religion of Israel. Kuenen, 18.\n\n  Religion of the Old Testament. Marti, 21.\n\n  Religions of Ancient Babylonia and Assyria. Prof. A. H. Sayce, 27.\n\n  Religions of Authority and the Spirit. Auguste Sabatier, 27.\n\n  Religious Experience of St. Paul. Prof. P. Gardner, 10.\n\n  Religious Liberty. Professor Ruffini, 27.\n\n  Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Lake, 19;\n    R. W. Macan, 20.\n\n  Revolution, The French. Hilaire Belloc, 2.\n\n  Rhine, The, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Ring of Pope Xystus, 6.\n\n  Ritual and Belief. Hartland, 13.\n\n  Riviera, The, Practical Guide to, 11.\n\n  Rock Gardens. L. B. Meredith, 22.\n\n  Roman Empire, Wall Map of, 17.\n\n  Rome. W. Warde Fowler, 9.\n\n  Rothenberg and Nuremberg, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Royal Dublin Society. Transactions and Proceedings, 33, 47.\n\n  Royal Irish Academy. Transactions and Proceedings, 33, 47.\n\n  Royal Society of Edinburgh. Transactions of, 33, 47.\n\n\n  Sacerdotal Celibacy. Henry Chas. Lea, 19.\n\n  Sagas of Olaf Tryggvason and Harold the Tyrant, 27.\n\n  Sailors' Horn Book. H. Piddington, 25.\n\n  Sayings of Jesus, The. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  School Teaching and School Reform. Sir O. Lodge, 19.\n\n  School, The. Prof. J. J. Findlay, 9.\n\n  Shakespeare. John Masefield, 21.\n\n  Science of Wealth. J. A. Hobson, 14.\n\n  Science, Matter, and Immortality. R. C. Macfie, 20.\n\n  Scientific Study of the Old Testament. R. Kittel, 18.\n\n  Seasons, The: An Anthology. H. and L. Melville, 21.\n\n  Second Year Chemistry. Edward Hart, 13.\n\n  Seeds and Fruits, Studies in. H. B. Guppy, 11.\n\n  Seger. Collected Writings, 28.\n\n  Sentimental Journey. Laurence Sterne, 31.\n\n  Seven-Figure Logarithms. L. Schroen, 28.\n\n  Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, Letters of, 43.\n\n  Shelley, Godwin, and their Circle. H. N. Brailsford, 3, 42.\n\n  Short History of the Hebrew Text. T. H. Weir, 34.\n\n  Silva Gadelica. Standish H. O'Grady, 24.\n\n  Social Gospel, Essays on the, 12.\n\n  Social Idealism. R. Dimsdale Stocker, 32.\n\n  Social Insurance. Rubinow, 27.\n\n  Social Statics. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Socialism and Democracy in Europe. Samuel P. Orth, 24.\n\n  Social and Political Reminiscences. Southwark, 30.\n\n  Socialist Movement, The. J. R. MacDonald, 20.\n\n  Sociology, Descriptive. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Sociology, Principles of. Herbert Spencer, 30.\n\n  Sociology, Study of. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Soil, Fertility, and Fertilisers. Halligan, 31.\n\n  Soils. _Vide_ Wiley's Agricultural Analysis, 34.\n\n  Soils and Fertilisers. Snyder, 29.\n\n  Soliloquies of St Augustine. Cleveland, 30.\n\n  Soul of Progress. Bishop Mercer, 21.\n\n  Spencer, Herbert, Life and Letters of. D. Duncan, 7.\n\n  Spinal Cord, Topographical Atlas of. Alex. Bruce, M.A., etc., 4.\n\n  Spirit, The Life of the. Rudolf Eucken, 8.\n\n  Spiritual Message of Dante, The. Bishop Boyd Carpenter, 4.\n\n  St Paul, The Religious Experience of. Prof. P. Gardner, 10.\n\n  Statuette, The, and the Background. H. B. Brewster, 3.\n\n  Statutes, The, of the Apostles. G. Horner, 31.\n\n  Stereochemistry, Elements of. Hantzsch, 11.\n\n  Stock Exchange, The. F. W. Hirst, 14.\n\n  Storms. H. Piddington, 25.\n\n  Studies in Seeds and Fruits. H. B. Guppy, 11.\n\n  Study of the Atom. Venable, 33.\n\n  Subject-Index to London Library Catalogue, 20.\n\n  Super-Organic Evolution. Dr Enrique Lluria, 19.\n\n  Switzerland, Practical Guide to, 10;\n    Winter Sports in, 11.\n\n  Symbolic Logic. A. T. Shearman, 29.\n\n  Symbolism, Lost Language of. Harold Bayley, 2.\n\n  Synoptic Gospels, The Date of the. Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Synthetic Philosophy, Epitome of. F. H. Collins, 5.\n\n  Syriac Grammar. Theodor N\u00f6ldeke, 23.\n\n  System of Synthetic Philosophy. Herbert Spencer, 30.\n\n\n  Talmud and Midrash, Christianity in. R. Travers Herford, 13.\n\n  Taylor, General Sir Alexander. A Memoir by his Daughter, 32.\n\n  Ten Services and Psalms and Canticles, 32.\n\n  Ten Services of Public Prayer, 32.\n\n  Testament, Old. Canonical Books of, 5;\n    Religions of, 21;\n    Cuneiform Inscriptions, 27;\n    Hebrew Text, Weir, 34;\n    Literature, 17.\n\n  Testament, The New, Critical Notes on. C. Tischendorf, 32.\n\n  Testament Times, New, 13;\n    Acts of the Apostles, 12;\n    Apologetic of, 28;\n    Books of the, 29;\n    Luke the Physician, 12;\n    Textual Criticism, 23.\n\n  Test Types. Pray, 25;\n    Snellen, 29.\n\n  _Text and Translation Society_, Works by, 43.\n\n  _Theological Translation Library_, 44.\n\n  Theories of Anarchy and of Law. H. B. Brewster, 3.\n\n  Thermometer, History of the. Bolton, 3.\n\n  Tourist Guides. Grieben's, 11.\n\n  Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, 33.\n\n  Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 33.\n\n  Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 33.\n\n  Truth, The, of Religion. Eucken, 8.\n\n\n  Unemployment. Prof. A. C. Pigou, 25.\n\n  Unionist Policy. Rt. Hon. F. E. Smith, 29.\n\n  Universal Christ. Rev. Dr. C. Beard, 2.\n\n  Universalism Asserted. Rev. Thos. Allin, 1.\n\n  Urine Analysis, A Text-Book of. Long, 20.\n\n\n  Vaillante, Vincent, 35.\n\n  Various Fragments. Herbert Spencer, 31.\n\n  Veiled Figure, The, 33.\n\n  Via, Veritas, Vita. Dr. Drummond, 7.\n\n  Victorian Age in Literature. G. K. Chesterton, 5.\n\n  Virgin Birth of Christ. Paul Lobstein, 19.\n\n  Vocabularies of the General Language of the Incas of Peru. Sir\n  Clements Markham, 21.\n\n  Vulgate, The. Rev. G. Henslow, 13.\n\n\n  Wall Maps of the Ancient World. Kiepert, 17.\n\n  Warfare in England. Hilaire Belloc, 2.\n\n  Was Israel ever in Egypt? G. H. B. Wright, 35.\n\n  Water, Electrolysis of. Engelhardt, 8.\n\n  Weather, Climate and. Prof. H. N. Dickson, 7.\n\n  What is Christianity? Adolf Harnack, 12.\n\n  Winter Sports in Switzerland, Guide to, 11.\n\n  Within, Thoughts during Convalescence. Sir Francis Younghusband, 35.\n\n  Women's Suffrage. Helen Blackburn, 3.\n\n  World, The Old, Wall Map of, 17.\n\n  Writers, Great, of America. Profs. Trent and Erskine, 8, 33.\n\n  Writing of English. Brewster, 3.\n\n\n  Zoroastrianism. Moulton, 22.\n\n\n\n\nPRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.","title":"Pharisaism, Its Aim and Its Method","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":83857}