(i.) The idea of Cod was perhaps the strongest side of Judaism, but it was too exclusively tran- scendent. It had no adequate means of spanning the gulf between God and man. The faults of Judaism were those of Deism. It had one tender place, the love of J" for Israel. 15ut this fell some way short of the Christian idea of the Father in heaven, the God who not only loves a single people, but whose essence is love. Judaism also largely wanted the mystical clement which has played such an important part in Christianity. The Johannean allegory of the Vine and the Branches, which agrees so closely with the teach- ing of St. Paul, the whole conception of immanent divine forces circulating through the organism, has no true analogy in it.* (ii.) But the mo.st disastrous feature of Hal)binical Judaism was its identifica- tion of morality with obedience to written law. ' Duty, goodness, piety, — all llie.se are to the .lew equivalent terms. They are mere .synonyms for the same conception — the fultilment of the law. A man therefore is good who knows the law and obeys it ; a man is wicked who is ignorant of it and tran.sgresses it' (Monteliore, Ilihhert Lectures, p. 470). This identitication of morality with law led to a number of serious evils, (iii. ) Law can deal only with overt action. Hence there was an inevitable tendency to restrict the field of morals to overt action. Motive was comparatively dis- regarded. It is doubtless true that the Kabbis frequently insist on rightness of motive. A religion which in its Sacred Books included the Prophets as well as the Law could not do otherwise. I5ut the legal conception was too deeply ingrained not to tell its tale. If it had not been so, there would have been no need for the Sermon on the Mount ; and the addre.s.s, ' Scribes and Pharisees, hypo- crites,' would have had no point, (iv.) Another consequence of the stress laid on overt acts was the development of an elaborate doctrine of salvation by wcu'ks. We need not suppo.se that this doctrine wius universally held and always consciously acted upon ; but it cannot be denied that there was in Judaism a widespread opinion that might be ex- pres-sed in the terms, ' so much keeping of the law, so much merit ' ; and the idea of a ' treasure of merit,' which each man stores up for himself, is constantly met with, (v.) In one sense the keep- ing of the law was very hard. The labours of the scrilies had added to the original and primary laws an immen.se ma.ss of inferential law, which was placed on the same footing of authority. This portentous accumulation of jirecepts was a burden
♦ The comparison of Israel to a vine is not unknown to .Iiidaisin. but in a wholly ditferent application (see Wiiusche, Srldut. d. Kvttng. on Jn 15i).
•grievous to be borne.' (vi.) Not only so, but a great part of this additiiuial law was bad law. It Wixjs law inferred by a faulty system of exegesis. Kvcn where the exegesis was biiutt fide, it was in a large i)roportion of cases unreal and artificial. But there was a great temptation to dishonesty, for which the way Wiis left open by the exaggerated stress laid on acts, and the comparative ignoring of motive. In the dead level of written law the relative degrees of obligation were disregarded. Hence there were a number of precepts which were positively immoral {e.ij. Corb.an, Mk 7"- '- I! ). (vii.) A further defect in the legal conception of religion was its intellectualism. The Talmud bears witness to what is little less than an idolatry of learning, and that, we inu.st remember, Hab- binical learning. With religion converted into science, and the science in great part no science, we may well say, ' If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness 1 ' 'I'he Scholasticism of the Middle Ages had no such un- challenged supremacy ; it was not the one all- pervading ideal, (viii.) For the mass of the po]nila- tiou the double law, traditional as well as original, could not but be a burden. The accunnilation of precepts not possessed of moral value is always a thing to be deprecated. And however much we may allow for the fact that the observance of all these precepts was not expected of every one, there still rem.aincd enough to be a real incubus. And yet, on the other band, the performance of the full Phari.saic standard was not .so very diflicult for persons of leisure, who deliberately made up their miiuis to it. It did not mean, or at least it might be understood as not meaning, more than a life mechanically regulated. But then it is easy to see that the existence of this class, con- sciously setting itself above its neighbours, and able, without any excessive strain, to make good its pretensions, must have inevitably engendeied a feeling of self-righteousness or spiritual pride. The parable of the Pharisee and the rublican (Lk 18"-'3) niu.st needs have been typical, (ix.) What the I'harisce was to the ordinarv- Jew, that the Jew was to the rest of mankind. However politically inferior, the Jew never lost his pride of race, and with him this pride of race was a pride of religious privilege. The Zealot sought to translate this into political doiniiiatioii, but the Pharisee was content to retire into the fortress of his inner consciousness, from whioh he could look with equanimity at the rise and fall of secular powers. (X.) This particular form of jiride had a tendency to aggravate itself as time wioit on. 'To make a fence round the law ' was a fumlamental principle of Judaism. And in a like spirit the privileged iieo])le was tempted to make a fence round itself, and to dwell apart among the naiion.s. Institutions which had had for their object to keep the nation c!ear of idolatry, were extended when the dangers of idolatry were past, until it required a revolution to .say with St. Paul, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek.' (xi.) Worst and most disastrous of all was the tendency to fall back upon national privilege as a substitute for real reformation of life. We can see alike from the Gospels and from St. Paul how constantly the Jews had upon their lips. • We have Abraham to our father' (Lk 3*, Jn 8-«»-', Ho 2''--'"). It is admitted that 'the Jews were somewhat too confident of their assured participation in the blessedness of eternal life; all Israelites, except very exceptional and determined sinners, were believed to have their share in it' (Montetiore, Hihh. Led. p. 482).