TESTAMENT
536
TESTAMENT
"The wolf shall dwell with the lanib . . and
the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asi> (Isaias, xi, 6-8) would have afforded material for a charming idyl, but the Evangelists havi; left that reahsm to the apocrypha and to the Millenai'ians. What passage of the Prophets, or even of the Jewish apocalypse, inspired the first generation of Christians with the fundamental doctrine of the transitory char- acter of the Law; and, above all, with the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple? Once one admits the initial step in this theory, he is logically led to leave nothing standing in the Gospel narrative, not even the crucifixion of Jesus, nor His existence itself. Solomon Reinaeh actually pretends that the Passion story is merely a commentary on Psalm xxi, while Arthur Drews denies the very exist- ence of Jesus Christ.
Another factor which contributed to the alleged dis- tortion of the Gospel story was the necessity imposed on primitive Christianity of altering, if it were to last, the conception of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus in person. On His lips, it is said, the Gospel was merely a cry of "Sauve qui peut" addressed to the world which He believed to be about to end. Such was also the persuasion of the first Christian generation. But soon it was perceived that they had to do with a world which was to last, and the teaching of the Master had to be adapted to the new condition of things. This adaptation was not achieved without much violence, done, unconsciously, it is true, to his- torical reality, for the need was felt of deriving from the Gospel all the ecclesiastical institutions of a more recent date. Such is the eschatological explanation propagated particularly by J. Weiss, Schweitzer, Loisy; and favourably received by Pragmatists.
It is true that it was only later that the disciples imderstood the significance of certain words and acts of the Master. But to try and explain all the Gospel story as the retrospect of the second Christian gene- ration is like trying to balance a pyramid on its apex. Indeed the hypothesis, in its general application, im- plies a state of mind hard to reconcile with the calm- ness and sincerity which is readily admitted in the Evangelists and St. Paul. As for the starting-point of the theory, namely, that Christ was the dupe of an illusion about the imminent destruction of the world, it has no foundation in the text, even for one who regards Christ as a mere man, except by distinguish- ing two kinds of discourses (and that on the strength of the theory itself), those that are traced back to Jesus, and those that have been attributed to Him afterwards. This is what is called a vicious circle. Finally, it is false that the second Christian generation was prepossessed by the idea of tracing, per fas ei nefas, everything — institutions and doctrines — back to Jesus in person. The first generation itself decided more than once questions of the highest importance by referring not to Jesus but to the Holy Spirit and to the authority of the Apostles. This was especially the case with the Apostolic conference at Jerusalem (Acts, XV), in which it was to be decided in what concrete observances the Gosjiel was to take the place of the Law. St. Paul distinguishes exi3res,sly the doctrines or the institutions that he promulgates in virtue of his Apostolic authoritv, from the teachings that tradi- tion traced back to Christ (I Cor., vii, 10, 12, 25).
Again it is to be presumed that if Christian tradition had been formed imder the alleged influence, and that, with such historical freedom, there would remain less ai)parent conliadictions. The trouble taken by apol- ogists to harmonize tlie texts of the New Testament is well known. If the appellation "Son of God" points out a new attitude of the Christian conscience towards Jesus Christ, why has it not simply replaced that of "Son of Man"? The survival in the Gospels of this latter expression, clo.se by in the same texts with its equivalent (which alone showed clearly the actual
faith of the Church), could only be an encumbrance;
nay more, it remained as a telltale indication of the
change that came — afterwards. It will be said per-
haps that the evolution of popular beliefs, coming
about instinctively and little by httle, has nothing to
do with the exigencies of a rational logic, and there-
fore has no coherence. Granted, but it must not be
forgotten that, on the whole, the literature of the
New Testament is a thoughtful, reasoned, and even
apologetic work. Our adversaries can aU the less
deny it this character, as, according to them, the au-
thors of the New Testament ai'e "tendentious", that
is to say, inclined more than is right to give a bias
to things so as to make them acceptable.
B. Doctrines. — They are: (1) specifically Christian; or (2) not specifically Christian.
(1) Christianity being the normal continuation of Judaism, the New Testament must needs inherit from the Old Testament a certain number of religious doctrines concerning God, His worship the original destinies of the world, and especially of men, the moral law, spirits, etc. Although these beliefs are not s])ecifically Christian, the New Testament devel- ops and perfects them, (a) The attributes of God, particularly His spirituality. His immensity. His good- ness, and above all His fatherhood are insisted on more fully, (b) The moral law is restored to its primitive perfection in what regards the unity and perpetuity of marriage, respect for God's name, forgiveness of injuries, and in general the duties towards one's neighbours; the guilt of the simple desire of a thing forbidden by the Law is clearly set forth; external works (praj-er, almsgiving, fasting, sacrifice) really derive their worth from the dispositions of the heart that accompany them. The Messianic hope is puri- fied from the temporal and material elements with which it had become enveloped, (d) The retributions of the world to come and the resurrection of the body are specified more clearly.
(2) Other doctrines, specifically Christian, are not added on to Judaism to develop, but rather to super- sede it. In reality, between the New and Old Testa- ments there is a direct but not revolutionary succes- sion as a superficial observer might be inchned to believe; just as in Uving beings, the imperfect state of yesterday must give way before the perfection of to-day although the one has normally prepared the other. If the mystery of the Trinity and the spiritual character of the Messianic Kingdom are ranked among the peculiarly Christian dogmas, it is because the Old Testament was of itself insufficient to estab- lish the doctrine of the New Testament on this sub- ject; and still more because, at the time of Jesus, the opinions current among the Jews went decidedly in the opposite direction.
(a) The Di\ine life common to the Three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) in the Unity of one and the same Nature is the mj'stery of the Trinity, obscurely typified or outlined in the Old Testament. (b) The Messias promised by the Prophets has come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was not only a man powerful in word and work, but the true God Himself, the Word made man, born of a virgin, cruci- fied under Pontius Pilate, but risen from the dead and now exalted to the right hand of His Father, (c) It was by an ignominious tleath on the Cross, and not by power and glory, that Jesus Christ redeemed the world from sin, death, and the anger of God; He is the Redeemer of all men (Gentiles as well as ,Iews) and He unites them to Himself all without distinction, (d) The Mosaic Law (rites and political theocracy) hav- ing been given only to the Jewish iieoplc. and that for a time, must disapjiear, as the figure before the reality. To these practices powerless in themselves Christ Bubstitiites rites really .^anct ifying, es])cciaHy baptism, eucharist, and penance. However t lie new <'ionomy is to such a degree a religion in spirit and truth, that,
