[36] I would call attention in this connection to Dr. Salmon's remarks on S. Jude's use, even in the New Testament canon, of the traditions contained in the Assumption of Moses, and his quotation of the book of Enoch: see at the end of his lecture on S. Jude's Epistle in the _Introduction to the New Testament_. [37] Cf. Riehm, _Einleitung_, i. p. 246: 'Das Gesetzbuch kann nicht erst unter Josia geschrieben sein, sondern es muss spätestens zur Zeit des Hiskia entstanden sein, und zwar bevor dieser König seine Reformation ganz durchgeführt hatte.' [38] A common feature in all traditions is what Wellhausen describes as the main characteristic of the Chronicler, 'the timeless manner of looking at things which is natural to him.' He 'figures the old Hebrew people as in exact conformity with the pattern of the later Jewish community.' _Proleg. to Hist. of Israel_ (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 190-193. In tradition what _is_ authoritative tends to be represented as what _always has been_ authoritative. [39] Thus the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are properly called forgeries; and the evidence of this would lie in the fact that the author could not have afforded to disclose the method and circumstances of their production. [40] Thus Riehm, whose position is described above on p. xx, has a noble section (_Einleit._ pp. 349 ff.) on the Pentateuch considered as the record of a Revelation. The conviction of the revelation of God is ascribed in part to 'the immediate impression which the Pentateuch makes. Anyone who reads it, so as to allow its contents to work upon his spirit, must receive the impression that a consciousness of God, such as is here expressed, cannot be derived from flesh and blood.' [41] _De fide Catholica._ The treatise is ascribed to Boethius: see Boetii, _Opuscula Sacra_ (Teubner Series), p. 178. On the fresh evidence of the authorship of those treatises supplied by the _Anecdoton Holderi_ see Hodgkin's _Letters of Cassiodorus_, London, 1886, pp. 80-1. [42] See the account in Manning's _Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost_, London, 1877, pp. 156-160, and p. 166. Cf. also Newman's words below, p. 350. [43] pp. 359-60. [44] Nothing--except, on the customary interpretation, His reference to Psalm cx. This does seem to lay stress on David's authorship, unless it be regarded, as it certainly seems to me fair to regard it, as a question, rather than as positive instruction at all--a question simply calculated to lead the Pharisees to examine their own principles. Unless it be so interpreted it does seem to depend, as an argument, on personal authorship, because unless it be by David, it seems very difficult to suppose it written in David's person. It would naturally be a Psalm in which _the King is addressed_. [45] S. John v. 46-47. [46] S. Luke i. 17; S. Matt. xi. 14; xvii. 12.