Page images
PDF
EPUB

'It would appear that as soon as art ventured to represent the First Person under the form of a man, the perfect equality and similitude of the Three was, as a natural consequence, immediately arrived at; but art, whose great charge it is, in imitation of her great original, Nature, to make no one being exactly like another, has gone so far as to distinguish the Third Person by a more youthful aspect. To the First Person, for instance, is given the Globe, to the Second the Cross, to the Third the Book. Only in one particular exemplification of the mystery do these attributes vanish before the attempt to establish a perfect identity. This occurs in a series of the Creation where God says, "Let us make man in our image."

[ocr errors]

With greater pleasure do we join in the praises, so frequent in the pages of Bishop Herbert, of celibacy.

We can enter into the feelings of those who, regarding matter, if not as the root of evil, yet as the great clog on the development of the spiritual life, and especially carnal pleasures, as those which, 'warring most against the soul,' assail the young man in his youth, and pursue even the old to their graves-long to expel them from the whole category of human affairs, and to imitate our Lord to the letter. Well might Herbert exclaim-

'A virgin was Christ; a virgin was Mary; a virgin was John, the herald of Christ; a virgin was John, the beloved of Christ. Attend, and thou shalt find that everywhere in the mystery of our redemption, virginity hath had the utmost efficacy.'

We can admire and envy the life of those who are free from this burden of the flesh; free, either because so 'born from their mother's womb,' or because they have made themselves' free, 'for the kingdom of heaven's sake.' As the unmarried virgin in S. Paul's opinion ranked above the matron, the one caring only 'how she might please her husband,' the other how she might live for God-so does the monastic theory in nothing more engage our admiration than in this one of its triple vows. It is as Christ-like as Obedience, and more saintly than Poverty.

The boy martyrdoms, at Norwich and elsewhere, are a favourite theme with Dean Goulburn ; and no wonder, for there is something very harrowing in the sufferings of the young, and something very heroic in their first resolve for religion. There was 'Sweet Hugh of Lincoln,' a martyr at eight, S. William of Norwich at seven, S. Simon of Trent at twoand-a-half. But can martyrdom begin so early? Determined indomitable will is the soul of martyrdom. But is ever a

1 History of our Lord, ii. 346.

soul so set at the age of two-and-a-half? It may be said, on the other hand, the very pliancy of a child's will constitutes him the truer martyr. If a child hold out even unto death against this natural tendency, he must be made of noble stuff indeed.

This spirit of martyrdom in youth comes out very finely in Chaucer's 'littel S. Nicolas,' sitting 'in the scole-room' and hearing the 'Alma Redemptoris' sung.

""And is this song makéd in reverence

Of Christes moder?" said this innocent;
"Now certes I wol don my diligence,
To conne it all, or Christmasse be went ;
Though that I for my primere shal be shent
And shall be beten thries in an hour.

I wol it conne, our Ladie for to honour."'1

And then there are the reputed miracles of the boymartyrs' tombs, which leads to the interesting question of the cessation of miracles-a question far too complicated to be touched upon in a single sentence at the close of an article.

We should not have pursued these subjects so far, were it not that the text of Bishop Herbert's sermons is so largely illustrated by notes by Dr. Goulburn, of the biblical and critical learning of which it is difficult to convey an adequate idea to the reader; although we hope that in any future edition a few (to which we need not now more particularly allude) may be omitted for the sake of prurient readers, who may misapprehend their object. It may suffice to say, that the school and college groundwork, and the Rugby maturity, of his scholarship, together with the patristic and theological knowledge of his still riper years, seem here gathered to a focus. And it is imparted with the freshness of his first successful ventures at Eton, Balliol, and Merton, some forty years ago. He also possesses the rare art of never using a word or phrase without immediately explaining it, if it requires explanation. This is a great charm to the reader, and gives great lucidity to his style. He is also a keen lover of Archæology; and as Archæology is the Handmaid, even if it is not more rightly called the Mother, of History, so it is capable of being pressed, and has been pressed, by him into his service on the present occasion most advantageously; and he has given us much useful antiquarian lore on matters not merely local. Indeed it would be true to say, that his work is designed to be a piece of Archæology in an enlarged Historical

1 The Prioress's Tale.

and Biographical shape, intended to present a sketch of mediæval life, manners, literature, and art, as well as of the individual character of his Bishop.

We say that if it had not been for these editorial condiments, we should not have carried our enquiries so far. For the truth is, that these subtle distinctions, whether they relate to the Cultus of the Virgin, or to the delineations of Deity, or to the more transcendental subjects of our Lord's Incarnation, and the Eucharist, are (to our mind) painful to dwell on, and tend to lessen the reverence which should attach to them. The verities are far too awful for human ingenuity to grapple with, or speculate upon-for speculations any researches upon them must always remain-and the moment we advance, and press, an argument upon things beyond our comprehension, that moment we practically avow them to be within it, and if within it, then within our right and competency to pronounce judgment upon them.

We think we need say no more to recommend the above works to our readers (especially, in the case of the Norwich works, to our Norfolk and Suffolk readers), nor can we refrain from paying a tribute of thanks for ourselves, in conclusion, to their accomplished authors for the halo which they have so successfully shed in them over the fast-fading glories of Mediævalism.

ART. VI. THE TALMUD.

I. SELDEN, De Synedriis. (London, 1650.)

2. RELAND, Antiquitates Sacra. (Trajecti Batav., 1717.) 3. VITRINGA, De Synagoga Vetere. (Leucopetræ, 1726.) 4. LIGHTFOOT's Works. (London, 1823.)

5. Mishna Treatises. By DA SOLA and RAPHALL. (London, 1845.)

6. Sayings of the Hebrew Fathers. By CHARLES TAYLOR. (Cambridge, 1877.)

7. The Talmud. By JOSEPH BARCLAY. (London, 1878.)

THE study of the Talmud has, for various reasons, been long neglected by Christian scholars. Since the days of Lightfoot, scarcely an effort has been made to penetrate its recesses, and, until within a very recent period, no one has attempted to present to the public any portion of it in an English dress.

The partial success which attended the labours of the scholar of the Commonwealth, did not afford much encouragement to others to follow his example, and since his day, little use has been made of Talmudical authorities to illustrate Scriptural doctrine, or the usages which prevailed among the Jews in New Testament times. Thirty-five years ago, seventeen treatises of the Mishna were published in English by two Jewish Rabbis, but the work, on the face of it, was untrustworthy, and it attracted little notice. The publication of the Sayings of the Hebrew Fathers by Mr. Taylor, being a translation of the ninth treatise of the fourth order of the Mishna, with an elaborate commentary, was the first real attempt in modern times to give the English public a small, but very important portion of Talmudic literature. The follies and wisdom of the Rabbis, their superstitions and strange interpretations of Scripture, their anticipations or adaptations of New Testament truth, and the remarkable agreement in some cases between their language and that of Scripture, show that the Talmud is not deserving of the contempt from which it has hitherto suffered, and lead to the belief that much more remains, equally deserving of the attention of scholars. This belief is strengthened by Dr. Barclay's work, which was published in the beginning of last year. It contains only seventeen of the sixty-three treatises of the Mishna, including the treatise on the Fathers. The translation of it generally agrees with Mr. Taylor's version, but the discrepancies are sufficiently marked to show that the two scholars worked on independent principles. In the other treatises, the extreme sententiousness of the Jewish Rabbis frequently renders the meaning obscure, and there are numerous passages, unintelligible to a reader not acquainted with the literature and style of the Talmud, and with usages referred to in it, which need elucidation. It is, however, the most effectual effort ever made in England, to enable ordinary readers to form a correct conception of what the Mishna really is. It shows how wide is the difference between the sacred literature of the Jews, and the weak and quibbling writings of the Rabbis in later ages. It is a valuable contribution to our hitherto limited knowledge of Talmudical literature, and will do much to stimulate a desire for further information.

The Mishna embodies the Jewish traditions, legal, social, and ecclesiastical, which for several hundred years had been orally transmitted. Two centuries after the Christian era they were finally reduced into a written code by Rabbi Judah the Holy; the work, as compiled by him, being the text of the

Talmud of Babylon. The commentaries upon it, called the Ghemara, were published later. These two sources afford a comparatively distinct view of the condition of the Jews shortly before the disruption of their nation, as regards the administration of justice, their religious system as distinguished from the Temple services, the controversies and usages of contending sects, and the opinions of the educated classes. On many questions mistakes have been made, arising from superficial or imperfect knowledge, and successive writers have frequently taken for granted the statements of their predecessors, from inability or unwillingness to have recourse to the original authority. Mistakes can be rectified, wherever there are direct statements in the Talmud, but in some cases, it presupposes a familiarity with institutions then actually existing, and a consequent obscurity arises, which is only partially cleared away by the light of later Rabbinic writings.

The fourth treatise of the fourth order of the Mishna on the Sanhedrim, casts a flood of light upon the judicial system in general, and upon the details of its administration, in respect to jurisdiction, evidence, crimes, and punishments. The antiquity of the traditions embodied in it, appears from the absence of any reference to the Roman interference with the Great Sanhedrim's infliction of capital punishment, for the regulation of which there are special directions, as well as a catalogue of the crimes for which it was the penalty.

Tribunals for the administration of justice were of three

sorts.

The first was a court consisting of three judges, who exercised jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases of minor importance, and in other matters. They seem in some circumstances, and for particular purposes, to have been a standing committee of the greater Sanhedrims, but in others they were chosen from the larger body, to adjudicate in minor causes by the litigants themselves. One was selected by each, and the judges thus chosen nominated a third. Either plaintiff or defendant might object to the person selected by the other, on the ground of relationship, because no relative of any of the persons concerned could be allowed to act as a judge, or to give evidence, or on the ground of the want of character. The qualifications for membership of a Sanhedrim were experience and a reputation for justice, but these were supposed to include mercy, religion, hatred of bribery, and love of truth and of mankind. Gamblers, usurers, betting men, and those who carried on trades in the Sabbatical year, whether voluntarily or under foreign compulsion, were inadmissible either as judges or witnesses, but any other Jew, whether priest, Levite,

« PreviousContinue »