[16] The summary statements on pp. 351-2 as to the historical character of the Old Testament represent, I believe, a 'conservative' attitude, an attitude towards the history very unlike that, for instance, of Wellhausen. [17] See Ed. Riehm, _Einleitung in das A. T._ (Halle, 1889), §§ 15-18, 24, 27. F. E. König, _Offenbarungsbegriff des A. T._ (Leipzig, 1882), t. 11, pp. 321 ff. Cf. also _Hauptprobleme der Altisr.-Religionsgesch._ (Leipzig, 1884). F. Delitzsch, _Genesis_, Clark's trans. (Edinb., 1888), i. 19-38. F. Lenormant, _Les Origines_, Préface. I venture to think that those who want to study the modern criticism of the Old Testament would be less likely to be prejudiced against it if they were to begin their study with the assistance of Riehm and König, rather than of more rationalistic scholars. I ought to add that while the scholars mentioned above agree substantially as to the analysis of the Pentateuch, they differ as to the position assigned to the Priestly Code, which Dillmann and Riehm hold to be prior to Deuteronomy, Wellhausen, König and Delitzsch subsequent to it. [18] _Essay on the place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature._ Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890, pp. 20, 21. I allude to this essay because it has excited considerable interest, but it has not received favourable notice from critics either English or German. For a review by a very competent critic, see Prof. Nöldeke in the _Lit. Centralblatt_, July 12, 1890. [19] I may say that the motive for what is said about Ps. cx on p. 359 was simply the conviction that our Lord in the passage there in question cannot fairly be taken as giving instruction on a critical question of authorship, not the difficulty of assigning the particular Psalm to the age of David. The solution which I propose, p. 359, as to our Lord's words is however only one of several which are possible even for those who agree with me in the conviction expressed above. See, for instance, Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_ (London, 1884), ii. p. 406, and Bp. Thirlwall as quoted in Dean Perowne's _Commentary on the Psalms_ (London 1871), ii. pp. 302 ff. [20] S. Augustine, _Quæst. 73 in Exod._: 'Quamquam et in vetere [Testamento] novum lateat, et in novo vetus pateat.' Quoted by Dr. Liddon, _The worth of the Old Testament_, p. 28. [21] Cf. Didymus _in Psalm._ xxi. 19, where he interprets Christ's 'seamless robe,' of the Holy Scriptures which they 'part' who accept one and reject another. 'This robe of Jesus is also indivisible, for it is seamless. Its unity is not enforced but natural [οὐ γὰρ βεβιασμένην ἕνωσιν ἀλλὰ συμφυῆ ἔχει]; it is 'from above' [from the top, A.V.] because it is inspired; it is 'woven throughout,' because in its whole force it is from above.' [22] S. Matt. v. 17-48, cf. xix. 8: 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,' etc.