16
CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
tianity, in regard to both principle and method, the
contrast between them is the more striking from the
fact that each system applies restriction to what the
other leaves free, and each allows liberty where the
other imposes restraint. Rabbinism prescribes what
$ man shall
do,
and defines his service of God in
precise rules, while it leaves him perfectly unfettered
in regard to what he shall
believe.
Such a thing
as a doctrinal creed is foreign to Rabbinism-
Maimonides notwithstanding. Historical Chris-
tianity prescribes what a man shall
believe,
and
defines the True Faith in precise creeds ; while it
leaves him perfectly unfettered in regard to what he
should do-unfettered, that is, except by his own
conscience. Christianity never set up a moral creed ;
she did not make sin a heresy, but heresy a sin.
To sum up this comparison in a single sentence,
while historical Christianity is based on the con-
ception of
orthodoxy,
Rabbinism rests on the con-
ception of what I venture to call
orthoprax y.
The
one insists on Faith, and gives liberty of Works ; the
other insists on Works, and gives liberty of Faith.
It would be interesting and instructive to pursue
this line of thought still further, and endeavour to
form an estimate of the comparative value of the
two contrasted systems as theories of religious life.
I refrain from doing so, however, as my purpose in
making the comparison has been sufficiently attained
if I have succeeded in explaining and illustrating the
answer of Rabbinism to the two great questions
of Duty and Belief. That answer is given in the
Halachah and Haggadah respectively ; and I go on
to show how these two elements are combined and
 |  |  |