1 10 2 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d479c8506722c0cc627b74fefcd7d399.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=ugAMDgBKaPvJrJNFzWRJT2qP3F7Rn1JNzzBp4zeH37DVXc4csrEBZDdktSi-yRCFId8321SC1NZBe6U9cjd695zScpjVGuSVm0di-aK4P9M2tZ5uO7o2ne6JkJ0wYoLVzlgmRKiPiO6JzjbHYJKfuXsFJkU8d9L352jrtEQRNoW8gq8aowjLhumISfB-dpCtLRPOBbVwCp8AnvQSAFZLFhDCHfgcXxVud43AUb-Icq3xBEb9IsvNmfHE1--g5Hxhq1z71hANdaruUA1JuINOzvUfXyL6Efo50GZRgPC7YHDAwDjXOEKSLGZQegWsOe1MLybxJ7DRPZo-ktvC7AlqRg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 06c13de82d0676c620458ffda3a3d2aa PDF Text Text THE TRUE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. BY PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. Price Sixpence. �TURNBULL AND SPEARS; PRINTERS, EDINBURGH �THE TBUE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. VERY one who has opened the New Testament is aware that in the first and third Gospel a remarkable story is found (alluded to also in the second Gospel) in which the devil is represented to have assailed Jesus with three special temptations, and to have been repelled by quotation of Old Testa­ ment texts. That it is impossible to maintain the literal truth of this account has been reluctantly con­ ceded by writers, who, like the author of “ Ecce Homo,” are wholly unconcerned to ascertain when, where, by whom, and with what means of knowledge, these narratives were penned. Those who desire to save their credit, try to rid them of a damaging burden by declaring this scene to be allegorical. No spectator is pretended. The idea that Jesus communicated such inward trials to his disciples is contrary to everything which is reported concerning his char­ acter: for he is everywhere represented as wholly uncommunicative, self-contained, more or less mysterious, and moving in a separate region of thought and feeling from the disciples. Evidently this story does but express the opinion of the first Christians, while Jesus was as yet believed to be only human, that he, as others, must have had a struggle against temptations, and therefore, against the devil. It is not here intended to point out what is plain of itself, that none of the temptations are worthy of the acumen attributed to the experienced and wily Satan; E �6 The True Temptation of fesus. and are merely puerile in fiction, whether Jesus be imagined as the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, or merely as a great and holy, but human prophet. Here I intend to give prominence to that which I believe to be the fundamental trial of a religious reformer, especially when he attains great ascendancy and commands high veneration. But first I must say, I shall be truly sorry, if any Trinitarian read these pages, and find himself wounded. I do not address him. I argue on the assumption that Jesus was subject to human limitations like all the rest of us, and that it is our duty to criticize him and the story of him, if it be of sufficient importance. AV hat are the temptations of the prophet, can be no secret in the present day: we see them in the ordinary life of the admired preacher. To be run after by a multitude, to be ministered to by fascinated ladies, to see grey-haired men submissively listening and treasuring up words,—easily puffs a young preacher into self-conceit. In one who has too much strong sense to be drawn into light vanity, fresh and fresh success inspires, first, the not unreasonable hope or belief that he is fulfilling a great work, and is chosen for it by God, (not for his own merit, but be­ cause, if a work is to be done, some one must be chosen for it); next, an undue confidence in the truth and weight of his own utterances, an extravagant conviction that whoever resists his word, impugns God’s truth, and makes himself the enemy of God. In the denunciations of Luther against Zuingle, his own wiser and more temperate coadjutor, in the vehemences of John Knox, in the cruelty of Calvin to Servetus, we see variously developed the same dangerous tendency. If we cast the eye eastward, to more illiterate nations, to those accustomed to revere the hermit and the semi-savage as akin to the prophet, to peoples whose homage expresses itself by prostration, we see the tendency of the prophet to �The True Temptation of Jesus. 7 assume a regal and dictatorial mien even in the garb of a half naked Bedouin. Many an eastern monk or prophet, Syrian, Persian, or Indian, has been obeyed as a prince; some have been attended on by large armies : to some the native king has paid solemn obeisance. In ancient Greece, where philosophy overtopped religion, ascetic philosophers have been accepted as plenipotentiary legislators; in which, no doubt, we see portrayed, on a small scale, the legis­ lative influence of a Buddha, a Confucius, or a Zoroaster. When an Indian prophet found it natural for multitudes to kneel to him or to prostrate them­ selves, how hard must it have been to accept such homage and retain a sense of human equality! how hard not to think it reasonable that others bow down, and unreasonable that any stand up and argue with the prophet as his equal! In the Gospels and Acts the habit of prostration among these nations is sufficiently indicated; and we see how it is resented (according to the narrative) by Peter. When Cornelius falls at Peter’s feet and does homage (certainly intending respect only, not divine worship), Peter regards it. as quite unbecoming from a man to a man. But Jesus is represented as accept­ ing such homage without the least hesitation, and apparently with approval. The cases are not few, nor confined to any one narrative. Matt. viii. 2, “ There came a leper and worshipped him.” Matt, ix. 18, “There came a certain ruler and worshipped him.” Matth. xiv. 33, “ They worshipped him, say­ ing, Of a truth thou art the [or a] Son of God.” Matt. xv. 25, “Then came the woman and worshipped him, saying, Lord! help me.” On this Jesus comments approvingly, “ 0 woman, great is thy faith.” Matt. xvii. 14, “There came a certain man, kneeling down to him and saying, Lord ! have mercy on my son ! ” Matt. xx. 20, “ There came the mother of Zebedee’s children, worshipping him,” �8 The True Temptation of fesus. Matt, xxviii. 9, “ They held him by the feet and wor­ shipped him—this is after the resurrection, thereby differing in kind from the rest. The same remark applies to verse 17. We have substantially the same fact in Mark i. 40; v. 6, 22, 33 ; vii. 25 ; x. 17. In the last passage the rich young man kneels to Jesus: he was not so represented in Matt. xix. 6. Luke v. 8, “ Simon Peter fell down at Jesus’ knees.” Luke v. 12, “A man full of leprosy fell on his face, and be­ sought Jesus.” In Luke vii. an account is given, perhaps not at all authentic. A woman is repre­ sented to bathe the feet of Jesus with her tears, and wipe them dry with her long hair, and after that, anoint them with ointment and kiss his feet inces­ santly. Jesus, according to the narrative, highly applauds her conduct, and avows that “ therefore,, her sins, which are many, are forgiven.” Such conduct on his part is far above criticism, if he was either a person of the Divine Trinity, or a superhuman being, who existed before all worlds and all angels, being himself the beginning of the creation of God. I can­ not doubt that the writer, called Luke, believed Jesus to be superhuman, and therefore found no impro­ priety in the conduct here imputed to him; but I do not understand how any one who regards him as a human being, can fail to censure him in the strongest terms, if he believe this account. As I see special grounds for doubting it, (inasmuch as it looks like a re-making of the story reported in Matt, xxvi. 6-13, which it exaggerates), I lay no stress upon it: but even in that other account there is a selfcomplacency hardly commendable in a mere man. Again, in Luke viii. 20, we read, “the woman fell down before him.” She does not fall down in Matt. ix. 22; therefore, here also the story may have been “ improved ” by credulity. But it is need­ less to follow this topic further. Suffice it to say, that though we do not know exactly how much to �The True Temptation of Jesus. 9 believe, though we have frequent reason to suspect exaggeration, yet the narratives all consistently represent Jesus to have received complacently an unmanly and degrading submission from his followers, such as no apostle would have endured for a moment; and it is hard to believe that such reports could have gained currency, with no foundation at all. If, there­ fore, we are to criticize Jesus on the belief that he was man, and not God, nor a superhuman spirit, we must admit, I think, that a real and dangerous temptation beset him in this matter. He was prone to take pleasure in seeing men and women profound in their obeisance, prostrate in mind and soul before his superior greatness ;—for prostration of the body brings satisfaction to pride, only as it denotes prostration of soul. It is difficult, with these narra­ tives before us, to think that Jesus took to himself that precept which Peter gives to the elders, that they be not lords over God’s heritage, but be subject one to another, and clothed with humility, that they may be ensamples to the flock. Indeed, unless we utterly throw away all the narratives, it is hardly too much to say, that this is the very opposite to the portrait of Jesus. If we will accept the theory that he was superhuman, we can justify his immeasurable assumption of superiority; but the fact remains, that in places, too many to reject, he puts himself forward as “ lord over God’s heritage.” Two classes of facts, presented in the narratives, must be carefully separated. The former is the general superiority asserted by Jesus for himself; the latter, is the special assumption of Messianic dig­ nity. On the latter, there is notoriously an irrecon­ cilable diversity of the fourth gospel from the rest. The writer of the fourth, unquestionably ascribing to Jesus pre-existence with God in some mysterious way, and sonship in a sense perfectly unique, repre­ sents his Messiahship as notorious to John the �io The True Temptation of^Jesus. Baptist, to Andrew and Philip, from the very begin­ ning, says it was avowed by Nathanael (whoever this was), and preached by Jesus to Nicodemus and to the woman of Samaria. All this is in so flat contradiction to the three first gospels, that nothing historical can be made out of the account; and in trying to attain a true picture of Jesus, I necessarily set aside the fourth gospel as a mischie­ vous romance.—Nevertheless, the element which I call an assumption of general superiority, is as com­ plete and persistent in the three first gospels as in the fourth. Keshub Chunder Sen entitles it “ a sublime egotism” in Jesus, to say, “Come unto me, and I will give you rest: take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in spirit.” Yet if Luther, or John Knox, or Wesley had said it, we should adduce it in proof that he was eminently lacking in that very grace,—lowliness of spirit,—for which he was commending himself. But is this the only egotism ascribed to him in Matthew ? Nay, but in the celebrated beatitudes of the sermon on the Mount, which some esteem the choice flower and prime of the precepts of Jesus, he winds up with, “ Blessed are ye when men shall speak evil against you falsely for my sake.” He does not say “for righteousness’ sake,” if the narrative can be trusted. The discourse continues like itself to the end, for in the close he says : “ Many shall say to me in that day, Lord ! Lord ! have we not prophesied in thy name, .... and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” This is, it may be said, a very energetic way of declaring, that no pretence of following in his train as a prophet could compensate for personal iniquity. As such we may accept it: but it remains clear, that he is claiming for himself a position above the human; such as no beauty or truth of teach- �The True Temptation of fesus. 11 ing could ever commend, as rightful from men to a man, to the conscience of those reared in the schools of modern science : while of course, if he claimed to be higher than man, the first reasonable necessity, and therefore his first duty, was to exhibit the proofs of supernatural knowledge and authority. Undoubtedly, the alternative lies open of disbelieving the Evangelist. It may be urged, that the text represents Jesus as also saying that in his name they will claim to have cast out devils and done many wonderful works; but that this is an exaggera­ tion belonging to a later time, and so therefore may the pretensions be, with which it is coupled. Well; so be it: let us then look further. According to Matt. ix. 6, Jesus claimed power to forgive sin ; he brought on himself rebuke for it, but proceeded to justify himself by working a miracle. Whence did his disciples get the idea of his advancing such extravagances, if really he did not go farther than his disciples James and John? Presently after, he is represented as preaching that he is the bride­ groom of the Church, in whose presence the disciples cannot mourn, and therefore ought not to fast; but that when he is taken away, then they will fast. How very peculiar and strange a sentiment to invent for him, if it was not uttered ! Does it not rather seem to have the stamp of individualism and truth, thoroughly as it is in harmony with the tales of his rejoicing to see men and women kneel before him ? Next when Jesus sends out twelve disciples to say, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he is repre­ sented to assert, that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for the house or city which has not received his messenger. Surely, if any one were now to knock at our house door with such a formula of words, and on the strength of it expect to be accepted with the honours of a prophet, only the weak-minded would �12 The True Temptation of Jesus. give him pleasant reception. Yet no ground what­ ever appears for believing that there was anything •to accredit such messengers then, any more than now : certainly nothing more appears in the narrative, which quite consistently everywhere holds, that Jesus regarded the non-reception of his messengers as a super-eminent guilt, merely because it was he who sent them. When it is added, “ ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake," we are perhaps justified in esteeming that prediction as an after-invention of popular credulity. But in the same discourse (Matt, x. 23) we alight for the first time on the remarkable phrase, “ The Son of Man,” afterwards indisputably applied by Jesus to himself. “ Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man he come.” No one but Jesus himself ever calls him the Son of Man. Whatever he then meant, the book puts into his mouth yet more of sublime •egotism. “Whosoever shall confess me before men,” x(says he), “ him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven : but whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is heaven. He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me.” Certainly, when we begin to pare down these utter­ ances, and try to reduce them to something that would not be highly offensive in James or Paul, we seem in danger of cutting away so much that is characteristic, as to impair all confidence in what remains. But unless we are bound to reject the pervading colour of the narrative, I feel it not too much to say, that in a mere man, the self-exaltation approaches to impiety. What can it concern any of us, that his brother-man should “deny him” before our common Father? How suddenly would the honour which we felt for a preacher be turned into �The True Temptation of fesus. 13 grief and disappointment, or even indignation, if we heard him to say, “ Blessed is he, whoever shall not be offended in me!” He would fall in our esteem, from the highest pinnacle to a very low place, nor could any pretence of “ sublime egotism ” save him. In the same chapter in which the last words occur (Matt, xi.) the Evangelist goes on into language not dissimilar to that of the fourth gospel. “ All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son; and he to whom­ soever the Son will reveal him.” When it is considered that, although the nucleus of this gospel probably existed before the first century was ended, we have absolutely no guarantee that the text was finally settled, as we now have it, much before the time of Irenaeus, toward the close of the second century; no one has a right to be very confident that this passage, so strongly smacking of the doctrines which won ascendancy in that century, was not intro­ duced at a later time. Perhaps the more reasonable course here, is to strike out verse 27, (about the Son and the Father) as foisted upon Jesus by a later generation. What then shall be said of the words which follow, already quoted, “ Come unto me, take my yoke on you, and I will give you rest?” I can accept them, if he is God, or a pre-existing Mighty Spirit. I cannot accept them if he was only man : I then do not entitle them sublime at all, but some­ thing else. Something or other to the same effect is for ever cropping up in this narrative of Matthew, which I purposely take as giving a more human representation of Jesus than Luke or J ohn. He is presently reported to say (Matt. xii. 6), “ In this place is one greater than the temple............... the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Unless his words have been �14 The True Temptation of fesus. monstrously distorted, he intended to assert that he was himself the Son of Man spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, that he was personally greater than the temple, and was Lord even of the Sabbath-day. Will any one say, that Jesus merely claimed the right possessed by every man to interpret the law of the Sabbath by the dictates of good sense, and that he regarded every pious man as greater than a temple built of stone; and that the egotistic form of his utterance was an accident ? In that case it certainly was a highly unfortunate accident, and we may add, an accident often repeated, which generated in his dis­ ciples a veneration for him too great for humanity. But accident so systematic is surely no accident at all. If a good man who makes no pretensions is worshipped as a god after his death, he is guiltless : but if a man be worshipped as a god, who has made enormous personal pretensions,—and if a decisive weight in the argument for worshipping him is, that he has left us no choice between worship and reprobation, can one who regards the superhuman claims untenable, doubt that self­ exaltation and monstrous vanity was a deplorable foible in the prophet ? I find only two ways of avoiding the disagreeable inference : (1), by the theory of Paul, or some higher theory; (2.) by so rejecting all our accounts of his doctrine and miracles alike as untrustworthy, that nothing is left us to trust at all, nothing on which a faithful picture of Jesus can be founded. From beginning to end the narrative has but one colour as regards the self-exaltation of Jesus. Matt, xii., “Behold! a greater than Solomon is here.” Matt, xiii., “ Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which ye see, and hear the things which ye hear. Blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.” And what was this so precious instruction ? the Parable of the �The True Temptation of'Jesus. 15 Sower ! Surely no sober-minded person can esteem this so highly above all the teaching of Hebrew sages. But I pass to a new topic in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew,—the anger of Jesus, when he is asked for a sign from heaven. He replies by calling the persons who asked him hypocrites, when evidently, according to the notions of that age and nation, it was a most reasonable and proper request. In fact, the narratives elsewhere represent him as giving them miraculous signs, which are signs from heaven, in abundance; insomuch that, if he had been repre­ sented as here appealing to these signs, and alleging that these very persons had already witnessed them plentifully, his imputation of hypocrisy might have seemed natural. But that is not his line of argument. He says : “ A wicked, and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign,” as though the desire itself were wicked­ ness, “ and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” And he left them and departed. Such words refuse a sign not to the individual only, but to the generation. Are we then to believe that he consistently repudiated all pretence of working miracle ? that he esteemed the desire of seeing a miracle wrought, in confirmation of his pre­ eminent claims, to be such a fatuous absurdity, that he had a right to heap contumelious epithets on the head of any one who asked for it ? In favour of this opinion, appeal may be made to the epistles of Paul, who does not betray any knowledge whatever that Jesus had wrought miracles. Let us tentatively adopt this view. Then, first, what a heap of gross misrepresentation is put before us in all four narratives if Jesus not only never affected to work miracles, but even vehemently flouted the idea itself and rebuked those who desired it. Next, it will follow that no justification of his high pretensions was even attempted by him, and therefore no denuncia- �16 The True Temptation of Jesus. tion of men for neglect of him was reasonable. It follows that those resolved to justify him must cut out all his denunciations likewise. Who will write for us an expurgated gospel, to let us know what was the true Jesus ? Who will convince us, that a history thus garbled can ever be truly recovered, or deserves our intent study ? In the same chapter of Matthew (the sixteenth) the momentous question is proposed to his disciples, “ Whom say ye that I am ']'” According to the narrative, he first gave them the hint, what to reply, by a leading question, “ Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? ” but perhaps that is only a stupid exaggeration of the narrator, who did not see what it would imply. Let us then drop this portion of the words. He feels his way cautiously with the disciples, and sounds them. Simon Peter replies, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Again I ask, Is this narrative grossly and delusively false ? or may we trust a vague outline ? According to it, Jesus is lifted by the reply into a most exalted state, “ Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonas,” says he, ££ for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven............... I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven* and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, .... &c.” After this outburst, what is it that we read as a consequence ? “ Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” It seems utterly irrational and unworthy alike of * Any one who doubts whether Jesus ever uttered such words, may fortify the doubt by opining that the words have got into the gospel from Rev. iii. 7, where nevertheless Jesus, so far from giving the “power of the keys ” to any apostle, retains the power strictly in his own hand. The words in Rev. iii. 7, are borrowed from Isaiah xxii. 22, which have no reference to Messiah at all, according to any scientific interpretation, �The True Temptation of fetus. 17 the most High God and of his specially anointed Prophet (if one special Prophet was indeed so promised), that Messiah should come into his nation,—should expect subjection of mind from all around,—should haughtily evade, instead of enlight­ ening, those who mildly inquired into his claims to authority; finally, should sedulously preserve his incognito, and forbid his disciples to tell that he was Messiah. Men may be either convinced or com­ manded. To convince them you must kindly and can­ didly answer their difficulties, and allow them to argue against you; you must meet their questions as plainly and honestly as possible, not browbeat or threaten the interrogators, nor marvel over their unbelief and stupidity. You must descend in the argument on to a perfect level with the man whom you desire to convince, and entirely lay aside all airs of authority, even if you have authority. That is one course of proceeding; but it is the very opposite of that imputed to Jesus. But if men are to be commanded, if submission is to be required of them, you must make some display of power.* In that case you seek to convince them, not that a precept is wise, or a doctrine is true, but that you, its enunciator, have a special right of dictation, drawing after it in the hearer a special duty of submission. Of course, those with whom the idea of miracles is inadmissible, do not ask for signs from heaven; not the lessmustthey justify the countrymen of Jesus in requiring from him some credentials, when he claimed submission and used a dictatorial tone. If the nation believed miracles to be the marks of Messiah, and was in error, it * Men of science appeal to power as an argument why they should be believed, when want of leisure or talents forbid the mastering of their arguments : thus Astronomers appeal to their fore-knowledge of eclipses, and their power of finding the longitude by their tables ; Electricians appeal to the telegraph, and so on. �18 The True Temptation of fesus. belonged to Messiah to unteach them the error, and, as one aware of their folly, to take precautions lest miracles be imputed to him. Surely it was quite unjustifiable, to require submission from Priests and Pharisees, yet exhibit to them no credentials what­ ever of the mighty function with which he was invested. If words dropping from the mouth of Messiah were divine commands, which it was impious to dispute, nothing could supersede the public an­ nunciation of his office, and the display of his credentials, whatever they might be. No evasions are here endurable, on the ground of the political danger to be incurred, or the propriety of giving insufficient proof in order to try people’s “ faith.” To say that political danger forbade, is to say that God sent Messiah insufficiently prepared for his work, and afraid to assume His functions publicly. As to trying “ faith ” by insufficient proof, nothing can be less rightful or more pernicious. If the proof ad­ duced be of the right kind and appropriate, it cannot be excessive, but may be defective; and if defective, it is a cruel trap, as if designed to lead honesty astray. The only plausibility in this notion rises from con­ fusion of truths which we ought to see by light from within, with truths which can only be established from without. No man can know by his inward faculties that a Messiah is promised from heaven, nor what will be the external marks of Messiah. False Messiahs had already come. To accept lightly any one as Messiah was the height of imprudence, and certainly could not be commended as pious. Under such circumstances, to dissemble Messiahship, and work upon susceptible minds by giving them evidence necessarily imperfect, was conduct rather to be imputed to a devil, than to a prophet from God, if done with serious intent. Those who defend it, plead that the evidence was moral, and did not need external proofs. If so, on the one hand full freedom �The True Temptation of'Jesus. 19 of investigation was needed, not authority and brow­ heating ; on the other, this alleges external proof to be worse than superfluous,—to be in fact misleading; so that to plead for its “ insufficiency” as a needful trial of faith is a gross error. If external evidence was wholly inappropriate, the producing of that which you concede to be insufficient does but tend to confuse ■ and mislead the simple-hearted, and cause unbelief in the strong-headed. But if external evi­ dence is admissible and appropriate at all for faith to rest upon, then it ought to be in quantity and quality sufficient to make the faith reasonable and firm. If only internal light is to the purpose of faith, and external evidence was not wanted for Messiah, then neither was an authoritative Messiah wanted at all; that is, a teacher to whom we should submit without conviction; then it was right to claim that Messiah would convince by argument and reply to questions; would invite question or opposi­ tion, not dictate and threaten; then we have to sweep away the greater part of the four Gospels as a false representation of Messiah. Whatever else may have been true, one thing is certainly false;—that God sent a special messenger to teach authoritatively, and that the messenger thus sent forbade his disciples to publish his character and claims. From narratives so disfigured by false representa­ tion, as every one is obliged to confess them, who does not believe the miracles, and seeks to defend Jesus by remoulding the accounts of Him ; how can any one be blamed for despairing to arrive at accurate and sound knowledge concerning his character and teaching? What right has any one to expect to recover lost history, or to think worse of his brother if he regard the effort to be waste time ? Yet if I were to say, I seem to myself to know nothing of Jesus, I should speak untruly; for in the midst of the obscurity and the inconsistencies of the narratives, there are �20 ’The True Temptation of Jesus. some things unvarying, many things very hard to in­ vent, and others unlikely to be invented, yet easily admitting explanation, if we reason about Jesus as we do about every other public teacher or reformer. The details of doctrine are often untrustworthy, but the current, the broad tendencies, the style and tone of the teacher, seem to have made too strong an impression to be lost, though round them has been gathered a plentiful accretion of mistake and fable. In outline we must say that the first peculiarity of the preacher was, that he did not comment upon the law and prophets, but spoke dictatorially, dogmatically, as with authority—a thing quite right and proper, while only moral truth is taught, which makes appeal to the conscience of the hearer. But the Jews, accustomed like the modern English to nothing but comment and deduction from a sacred book, were apt to enquire of Jesus by what right he spoke so confidently, and paid so little deference to the learned. On one occasion he is said to have given a very fair reply, to the effect that they had listened to the preaching of John the Baptist, without asking his authority: “If John might preach to you dogmati­ cally, why may not 12 ” was the substance of that argument. But it is clear that, numbers of honest sincere Jews, impressed by the moral weight in these preachings, had begun to inquire whether this was not a renewal of divine prophecy, whether divine prophets must not have some recognizable note of their mission, other than the influence of their doc­ trine on the human conscience; whether, in fine, Jesus might not be the expected Messiah. This was a very anxious question, especially since delusive Messiahs had appeared; but it was a question that Jews were sure to make, and the three narratives before us, defective as they are, persuade me that it • was made, both in private talk, and in direct interro­ gation to Jesus. Now if we accept to the full the traditional Jewish �The True Temptation of fesus. 21 belief of what Messiah was to be, (which falls short of the dignity ascribed to him by Christians), it is incredible that after commencing his public functions he should remain ignorant of his being Messiah, or need confirmation from his disciples or from others. But if Jesus had little trust in learned Rabbis or traditional doctrine, he may have had a very vague and imperfect belief as to what Messiah was to be; and the idea that he himself was Messiah may not have at all occurred to him, until after he had experienced the zeal of the multitude, and was aware that a rumour was gone abroad among the people, that “ a great prophet was arisen,” and that some said he was the Messiah. Can any one study his character as that of a man, subject to all human limitations, and not see, that the question, “ Am I then possibly the Messiah ?” if at all entertained, instantly became one of extreme interest and anxiety to Jesus himself? Indeed from the day that it fixed itself upon him for permanent rumination his character could not but lose its simplicity. Pre­ viously he thought only, What doctrine is true morality ? What are the crying sins of the day 2 But now his own personality, his own possible dignity, became matters of inquiry ; and the inquiry was a Biblical one. He was brought hereby on to the area of the learned commentator, who studies ancient books to find out what has been promised and predicted about a Messiah. An unlearned carpenter, however strong and clear-minded while dealing with a purely moral question, was liable to lose all his super­ iority and be hurtfully entangled when entering into literary interpretation. Wholly to get rid of tradi­ tional notions was impossible, yet enough of distrust would remain, to embarrass fixed belief and produce vacillation. Nothing is then more natural, than that the teacher should desire to know what was the general opinion concerning him, should be pleased when it confirmed his rising hopes, should be elated �22 The True Temptation of fetus, when Simon Peter declared him to be Messiah, and should bless his faith, even if not with the extrava­ gance of giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven; finally, should be displeased with himself -and frightened at his own elation, and, in order to repair his error, should charge his disciples to tell no one that he was Messiah; not that he desired to keep the nation in ignorance, but because he was himself conscious of uncertainty. After this his conduct could not be straightforward and simple. Such is the only reasonable interpretation which I have ever been able to see, of this perplexed and perplexing narrative, which is not likely to have grown out of nothing. Jesus came into a false position from that day, and of necessity (as I think) his whole character must have changed for the worse. Thenceforth, the dogmatism which had been a mere form of teaching, and had involved arrogance only in appearance, changed into definite and systematic personal assumption. It is not likely that he began it so early, or ever carried it so far, as even the narrative of Matthew pretends; for as a caricaturist exag­ gerates every peculiarity of a face, making its promi­ nences more prominent, so does tradition deal with the popular hero. I pretend not to know how much is exactly true; but it comes before me as certain fact, that the true temptation of Jesus was the whisper made to him, “ Are not you possibly the Messiah ?” and by it the legendary devil overcame him. That whisper has cost to Europe an infinite waste of mind and toil, no end of religious wars, cruelties, injustices, anathemas, controversies, without bringing any sure advance of religious truth to man­ kind. How much more convulsion of hearts and entanglement of intellects, how much of violent political upturnings are inevitable, before European nations can now become able to learn that to think freely is a duty, and that religion is spiritual and rational, not magical and supernatural ? �The following Pamphlets and Papers may befhad on addressing a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr THOMAS SCOTT, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate. Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d. Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Gd. Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South Australia. Piice 4d. A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and Incarnation of Jesus. Price 6d. Questions to which the Orthodox are earnestly requested to give_ Answers Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M.A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. Price 6d. The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d. A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post. English Life of Jesus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels; complete in Six. Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post. Against Hero-Making in Religion. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d. Ritualism in the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d. The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 7d., post free. The Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures. By the Right Rev. Francis Harb, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. Price 6d. The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed Clergy­ man of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free. On the Defective Morality of the New Testament. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d. The “ Church and its Reform.” A Reprint. Price Is. “The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham, Esq. A Reprint Price Is. Original Sin. Price 6d. Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d. Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d. Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d. Babylon. By the Rev. P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price 6d. The Church: the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d. Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price Gd. Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records, with special reference to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. Price is. The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Benbficed Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d. “The Meaning of the Age.” By the Author of “ The Pilgrim and the Shrine ” Price 6d. ‘James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d. Law and the Creeds. Price 6d. Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks. By Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price Is. A Confutation of the Diabolarchy. By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d. The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d. Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &c., Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price Is. Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Annotations by a Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d. The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d. Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators. In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part. Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d. The Evangelist an© the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of Eng land. Price Is. The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-sense. By a Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price 6d each part A Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot Rely on the Bible ? ” By Professor F. W. Newman. Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot rely on the Bible ? ” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d. �List of Publications—Continued. The Utilization of the Church Establishment. By the Author of “The Pilgrim and the Shrine,” “The Meaning of the Age,” &c. &c. Price 6d. Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “The Philosophy of Necessity.’ Price 6d. A Reply to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation, What is the Pros­ pect of Man’s Living after Death? By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d. Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d. A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangersof the Church of England.” By W. G. Clark, M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Price 6d. The Twelve Apostles. Price 6d. The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible. By a Country Vicar. Price 6d. Is Death the end of all things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher. Price 6d. On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S. In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part. “The Finding of the Book.” By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus. Price 2s. On Moral Evil. Price 6d. The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation, consideredBy W. Jevons. Price 6d. The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Established Church. Price 6d. Clergymen made Scarce. A Letter to the Bishop of London, by a Presbyter. Price 6d On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion. By the Rev. W. R. Worthing­ ton, M.A. Price Sixpence. Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I. Its Influence on the Intellect. Price Sixpence. Part II. Its Influence on the Development of the Conscience. Price Sixpence. On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price Sixpence. The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel Hinds, D,D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Sixpence. A. I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I. and II. Price 6d. each part The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price Sixpence. Reason versus Authority. By W. 0. Carr Brook. Price 3d. An appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d. The Voysey Case. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d. “ Realities.” By P. A. Taylor M.P. The Beliefs of Unbelievers. By Rev. 0. B. Frothingham. Price 3d. On the Causes of Atheism. By F. W. Newman. Price 6d. The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?” By T. L. Strange, late Judge of the High Court of Madras. Price 6d. A Woman’s Letter. Price 3d. An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. By Rev. Charles Voysey. Price 6d. Thirty-nine Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles. By Rev. J. Page Hopps. Price 3d. Intellectual Liberty. By John Robertson. Price 6d. The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d. Theology of the Past and the Future. By M. Kalisch, Ph.D. Reprinted from Part I. of his Commentary on Leviticus. Price Is. The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 3d. The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education. By Presbyter Anglicanus. Price 6d. The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr. Voysey. Some remarks by J. D. La Touche, Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. Price 3d. A Challenge to the Members of the Christian Evidence Society. By Thos. Scott. The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation. A Letter, by M. P. Price 6d. The True Temptation of Jesus. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d. Friends to the cause of “ Free Inquiry and Free Expression” are earnestly requested to give aid in the wide dissemination of these pamphlets. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The true temptation of Jesus Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.] Description An account of the resource Place of Publication: Ramsgate Collation: 22, [2] p. : ill. (port.) ; 18 cm Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. The portrait is a photo that has been cut out and pasted to the title page. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from British Library catalogue. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Thomas Scott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1871] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4858 Subject The topic of the resource Jesus Christ Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (The true temptation of Jesus), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Christianity-Controversial Literature Jesus Christ Jesus Christ-Temptation Morris Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/813328f7b560c0e08032b299151ce3e2.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=dcfN6Yo8IM%7EHCFYj5KzlNfaB85LkeGf7tANLUHs3H%7EEh4jOVjRG3K%7EWJ7%7EH9HJWrOJgn9OQ8kS56Ar0CcMQGykcjxvHs8cyhndlxo1s2669pFhoqii5yeHZg5ql5alkdW1hxMkyNfXLgXWgyf4K8VNCHasxmN1KgTq-qszZWbbwLAMYhStkqD%7Erw0ZsMLSWa8F9ppuYVJgJ4%7ELXq9j1gaC3Hf0js%7EoLVFs0Ucvw4sRFu-IxVbvwHWQLibvisimh22MMmiETEGszB1fmCrsj5Z2a78ksv2w933B-cAO0uDZAkeLx5PNtULpOPuCm0yuMWpN526d6H%7EobFl-d4zxMW7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7177df8420581f21fc352b63fff4298a PDF Text Text k)C>5* NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY CHRIST’S TEMPTATION. BY “ HUMANITAS.” Author of “ Is God the First Cause ? ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed,” ‘'Thoughts on Heaven,” “Jacob the Wrestler,” “Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oath Question,” “ Mow the British House of Commons treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.,” “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation,” “Socialism a Curse,” “Jonah and the Whale,” etc. \ U) C Ì AjH Lf LONDON: EREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 63 FLEET STREET E.C. 18 8 8 �LONDON : PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH, 63 FLEET STREET, E.O. �MY REASON FOR WRITING THIS PAMPHLET. Were I asked why I wrote this pamphlet, I should reply, in self-defence. I should say that the intolerance and in­ justice practised in the name of the religion it assails forced the task upon me. I should say that, as those who like myself cannot accept the religion it attacks, are every day and upon all sides, politically and socially, deprived of their common citizenship, it becomes my duty to do what in me lies to remove or at least lessen its power. And this, I think, can best be done by exposing the mon­ strous fables and delusions upon which it is built. With regard to the matter here dealt with, I challenge and defy any person, lay or clerical, and especially those coming under the term Trinitarian, to put a reasonable or common-sense construction upon it, as set forth in the Testament. If this can be done, let it be shown. Perhaps the Rev. G. F. Handel Rowe—to whom I must grant the quality of courage in essaying to grapple with a thinker of Annie Besant’s powers—could say something for his two friends, Christ and the Devil, as set out in the text in question. He doubtless makes both of them do duty for him as occasion may require. Especially may he be encouraged to do so, seeing that it is a New Testament business—having specific references to the Old, and there­ fore, according to him, pure Christianity.1 I notice that he more than once sorely laments the non­ adoption—or, at least, the only partial adoption—of the 1 It is instructive to observe the wholesome dread with which your modern Christian champions regard the Old Testament—not to men­ tion the Thirty-nine Articles. If Annie Besant’s able debate with the rev. gentleman in question did nothing more than force the exposition of this repugnance, it would do a great deal. “ Holy Bible, book divine,” etc., etc., is rapidly losing all meaning. �iv principles of Christianity. The lament is to he found in. his first article, and in his last. In his first, he remarks: “ Were these Christian teachings put into practice, society would be speedily reformed ”, etc. And he repeats it with more or less change throughout. It is quite possible that he intends the lament to apply to the teachings and pre­ cepts which immediately precede it when made. But I take it that if we are to adopt Christianity, or judge of its teachings and results, we must do so as a whole; in which case, whilst I admit that he is so far right as to society being speedily reformed, I contend that it would be a kind of reforming not “ devoutly to be wished ”. We had a fairly close application of Christian principles» during the early and middle ages—especially the latter— when nearly the whole of Europe was literally saturated with it, and which culminated in the truly awful power: (bloodily used) of the Church. It is likely the Rev. Mr. Rowe will hold that only to have been Romanism, and not Christianity. In that case, and without stopping for an answer to the question: Where then was Christianity during these centuries of ecclesiastical tyranny and suffer­ ing practised in its name ? I will simply remind him that most people regard it as the history of the Christian Religion. Perhaps he can find another name for it.. Mosheim may be all wrong. But in reference to hislamentations as to the non-adoption of Christian teachings, what a wretched case he makes out for God and Chris­ tianity ! Christianity, according to the gospel of the Rev. Mr. Rowe, is a “Divine arrangement” forced upon God by the “faff” and consequent collapse of his original plans—which he “ discerned beforehand”—and which now, after being before the world nearly two thousand years, is likewise a failure [which again he “ discerned before­ hand”!]. It is quite possible that he, God, may be at this moment concocting some other “Divine arrange­ ment ” to counterbalance the failure of the latest; and which he may also “ discern beforehand ” will likewise be unsuccessful. I, for one, fear I shall need a great many lessons in the teachings of Christianity, as given by the Rev. Mr. Rowe, before I shall profit much thereby. I also think the History of the Christian Religion would have to be reversed and re-written in order to be read in the light of his remarks, and to make sense of very many �■of them. Does he think the fearful record—written in letters of blood and fire, of hate and intolerance, including the work of his own Church during its comparatively short existence—can be wiped out by a few quotations and platitudes about Christians contravening their religious professions ? But perhaps I intrude my remarks, for, with­ out a doubt, he is in far more able hands than mine. I may, however, be tempted to mention him again before I am throogh with this paper. In dealing with my present subject, I shall adopt the pretention put forward by Christians generally, that the Gospels are the “ Word of God”; that, although they pur­ port to be—with the exception of that ascribed to Luke— but the written testimony or narrative of what the writers experienced, and as such needed not to be inspired, they were yet written under inspiration, and are to be regarded “ as the work of Jesus Christ himself ”? Of course it is hardly necessary to state that I do not adopt this as the truth ; but simply as a ground-work or condition upon which to found my obj ections and conten­ tions. My object will be to show the complete unreasonableness of the story ; to demonstrate that it bears the stamp of folly on the face of it, and that it is not worthy the credence of rational beings. I shall follow the text as given in the New Testament, forming part of what is known as the Douay Bible; although, indeed, there is no material difference in the story as there told, and in that given in the Authorised Version. I shall also notice the critical and explanatory notes made by the compilers in reference to the text, and in dealing with which I shall probably have much to say. Perhaps I ought to explain that, as a number of these learned and rev. compilers have taken part in the produc­ tion of this edition, and as each in his turn has something' to say for himself, or unsay for the Bible—some of the motes also being only in the shape of quotations from other authors, saints, etc.—I therefore desire when using the word expounder to be understood as referring to that par1 Preface to “New Testament ” in “Douay Bible �vi ticular one whose note is in question, without necessarilyparticularising him. It is remarkable that these notes of so-called explanation have been found to be so necessary as to actually occupy, in very small type, almost as much space as the Gospel itself. I think this argues badly for the pretended simpli­ city and completeness, or sufficiency, of the Gospels. Simple —in a certain sense—they undoubtedly are; but your modern compilers find it much more necessary to illume, or put, or try to put something like commonsense into the “Word of God” than did your ancient ones. The rack and the stake were the all-sufficient reply to doubts and objections in those too much Christian times. But now-adays, even Christians themselves crave for better things. Hence half the matter to be found between the covers of God’s modern book is not what he put there, nor what he said (as anciently held), but what is put there and said for him—the thing said frequently being either by way of extenuation or downright falsification. I had occasion to notice this rather largely in a former and more important .work.1 Indeed, I should be within the limits of the truth if I said your present Bibles are written by your Darwins, your Ingersolls, your Huxleys, your Bradlaughs, your Büchners, your Besants, and your Footes. These and such as these it is who now practically write your “Inspired Word”.. Of course, what is supposed to be the original text is given, but the meaning of it is now fixed by those I have mentioned. The Bible is by no means now to be taken as saying or meaning what it really does say and mean—and for daring to doubt which unhappy wretcheswere, without regard to age or sex, made to “taste the fire” —but is, rather, a set of puzzles and pegs upon which to hang new and varied renderings to suit the demands of the ago and the march of science. And this is as true of theBoman Church, which “ cannot err ”, as it is of tho “ erring” and changing sects of all ages. . To give some idea of what the “Inspired Scriptures” are worth at the present day, I will crave patience whilst. I quote a passage or two from the Preface—I call it apology—which the revisers of the Bible as by law estab­ lished, in its latest and most fashionable attire, thought fit 1 “ Jacob the Wrestler.” �vii and necessary to make. I allude to what I have else­ where called the newly cobbled Word of God, by which I mean the “ Parallel Bible ”. The revisers of this latest proof that there can be no book containing the truth for all time, in speaking of the difficulties attending their task, after stating that the first portion of their work was to revise the Greek text—which they only seem to have done in part—say that “ a suffi­ ciently laborious task remained in deciding between the rival claims of various readings ” [italics mine in this and following quotations] 11 which might properly affect the translation” (p. 8). Again, on the same page: “Many places still remain in which, for the present, it would not be safe to accept one reading, to the absolute exclusion of others ” ! They then go on to state that, in these cases, they have given the various readings where they thought them sufficiently important”! This is reading between the lines with a vengeance! It is reading between the lines and all round the margin too ! But is it compatible with inspiration, with a book written by God, or “as the work of Jesus Christ himself ” ? I think I may safely say that it is fairly free from any such compatibility. And may we hope that the time will arrive when it will be “ safe ” to accept some “ one reading ” as the true one, and thus be able to finally purge “God’s word” of its false read­ ings ? The notion, though, perchance and alas I hopeless, is still a logical one. We are further told that the alterations which they have made in the authorised version “may be roughly grouped in five principal classes”. The classes are then given. “ First, alterations positively required by change of read­ ing in the Greek text. Secondly, alterations made where the authorised version appeared either to be incorrect, or to have chosen the less probable of the two readings. Thirdly, alterations of obscure or ambiguous renderings into such as are clear and express in their import. . . . Fifthly, alterations rendered necessary by consequence ”, [italics in this case not mine], “that is, arising out of changes already made. . . . ”. Add to this another statement on the same page, which says: “ Our task was revision, not re-translation”, wonder what the result might have been had their task been re-translation, and then exclaim with me, So much for inspiration! �viii But these few quotations only give the faintest idea of the difficulties which stand in the way of the doctrine of inspiration. They will, however, serve ; and are valuable as being admissions made by those who have doubtless done their uttermost to meet and overcome those.difficulties. It would further appear, from other parts of this damag­ ing apology, that what I will call knotty and troublesome points were decided by a majority; in which case, if the majority did not chance to be the wisest—which some­ times happens—we may still have the wrong reading. If my readers will pardon the plebeian comparison, I would say that this old-time book is like a very old pair of boots, and, metaphorically speaking, is not only in constant need of being newly soled and heeled, but of being furnished with fresh uppers. It also resembles the boy’s knife which had been furnished with new blades many times, and also newly hafted, but which he stoutly maintained was still the same knife. I shall possibly, upon a future occasion, have a good deal to say upon this question of inspiration. In the meantime it appears to me that God, in order to make a. thorough and lasting job of it, would have not only to inspire the first medium or writer, but all those who took part, or who ever will take part in its production, down almost to the “ printer’s devil ”. This, of course, in every language in which it is or may be produced for all time, because it would be obviously foolish for him to impart to one individual what is intended for mankind, without making certain that it shall not be blurred, changed, or rendered obscure by those who have to manipulate it. Further: it would be necessary for all peoples to be in a state of preparedness to receive it. Inspired matter is as any other matter to those who cannot regard it as in­ spired. A revelation is not a revelation to those who can­ not receive it. If God in his “ Divine Providence ”, or by reason of its absence—which amounts to the same thing— has decreed or allowed millions of people to grow up and be grounded in certain principles which forbid or preclude the possibility of the acceptance of his Inspired or Revealed Word, then, so far as they are concerned, it is no revela­ tion. Or, in other words, he has decreed that such shall be the case : that is, he decrees one set of conditions which annul another. And, if all be true, he has decreed that �ix countless millions shall be eternally damned by reason of such result. I will, before taking up my subject proper, just notice one or two of the concluding remarks of these revising apologisers, made partly by way of extenuation for their own shortcomings, and partly for that they did have to mend God’s word. They say, amongst other foolish things addressed to “ Almighty God”, “that such a work can never be accom­ plished by organised efforts of scholarship and criticism, unless assisted by Divine help ”. To which I will but add: such a work “assisted by Divine help ” ought to be easy and sure without the aid of scholarship, or even the power of criticism. But they further tell God—although they did not mean to do so—that in spite of the “ Divine help ”, “blemishes and imperfections will assuredly be found” in their work; and that all their endeavors “must fall short ■of their aim ”! Why must they, when assisted by “ Divine help ” ? Is not God, God? And will he not help in the work of mending his own book, when implored to do so by those upon whom he has “providentially” put the task? Truly, gentlemen, you are very inconsistent; you speak of your failings and your imperfections in the fulfilment of your task, and call your God, upon whom you have called for assistance, “Almighty God”, in one and the same breath, forgetting that, according to your own prayerfully written and deliberate statements, he is either unwilling or unable to help you! I really do not know, reverend and learned gentlemen, whether to be more sorry for you or for your God. Let me now, after this slight bout with the revisers, make -a fair beginning with my subject. �* �CHRIST’S TEMPTATION. The story, in its naked and un-expounded simplicity, is to be found in the fourth chapter of Matthew, from the first to the eleventh verses. Its calls upon the reader’s faith are something enormous. It is of that kind of reading which must be read absolutely without the aid of reason. There is no room in the story for anything but pure and unleavened child-like faith. It is so supremely ridiculous as to be almost beyond discussing. The Devil tempts God ! That is the key-note. 0 wonderful story I 0 marvel­ lous, devil-tempted Omnipotence ! 0 most self-sacrificing Almightiness, who wouldst not deign to accept at th© hands of thine arch enemy that which it was not in his power to give ! Let us, proud and grasping mortals, bow our heads to the dust in face of this sublime self-abnega­ tion. Let it be trumpeted forth to the “four corners of the earth”, and dinned into the ears of the “poor heathen”, that our God—the Christian God (or a part of him, if you. choose)—actually refused to throw himself off a pinnacle, and to accept the earth as a gift from the Devil! Get behind me, Devil, whilst I tell from “ Holy Writ ” what is at once the story of your own discomfiture and a God­ like example of not accepting as the price of an unpleasant job that which you already own. The story runs thus :— “1. Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the Devil. “2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards hungry. �12 CHRIST’S TEMPTATION. “ 3. And the tempter coming, said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. “ 4. But he answered: It is written: Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. “5. Then the Devil took him up into the Holy City, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple. “6. And said to him : If thou be the Son of God, cast thy­ self down. For it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou hurt thy foot against a stone. “7. Jesus said unto him: It is written again : Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. “ 8. Again the Devil took him up into a very high mountain : and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. ‘ ‘ 9. And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. “10. Then Jesus said to him: Begone, Satan, for it is written : The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve. “11. Then the Devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him.” It is worthy of note that Mark, in his account, makes no mention of the fasting. He does mention Christ having been driven into the wilderness by the Spirit, and also speaks of the pretended temptations, and of angels having ministered to him; but he seems to have been quite ignorant of the feat of fasting. According to his account, the reader is bound to suppose that Christ did not fast during the forty days, but that he was simply driven into the wilderness by the Spirit; that he kept company with wild beasts ; that he humbugged the Devil; and that, by reason of all this, he was under the necessity of being waited upon by ministering angels. That, in all con­ science, is sufficiently grotesque without the introduction of the fasting business! But it is really amazing what queer things these Divinely chosen people are made to do and to say! John the Baptist, who is put down as the immediate precursor of Jesus Christ, had a liking for the deserts. His clothing must needs be of camel’s hair, and his food locusts and wild honey. Of course, he may have possessed a “sweet tooth”, and so have had a predilection for honey, but it is difficult to suppose that, even by the aid �Christ’s temptation. IS of the grasshoppers, he could have satisfied the cravings of hunger upon it. His Master, coming after him, does not exactly take to the desert on his own account, but gets pushed or driven into it by the Spirit (i.e., the third person of himself), takes to wild beasts, and, according to two of his inspired biographers, eats nothing, humbugs the Devil, and gets himself ministered to by angels. In a kind of preface to S. Mark’s Gospel, he is said to have been “ the abridger of S. Matthew ”, but to have added “ several particular circumstances ”, and to have “ changed the order of narration, in which he agrees with. S. Luke and S. John ”. Likewise to have “narrated two histories not mentioned by S. Matthew”; also “some miraculous cures”; and to have “omitted many things noticed by Matthew ”. Now, without stopping to compare and examine all this minutely, I will remark that it is very like saying he wrote a different account of the same supposed circumstances. But it is more odd when you are told that these differences from Matthew make him agree with Luke and John ; and still more so when you are further told that “ most com­ mentators follow the order of S. Matthew ”. It is further admitted that it is not known at what period, and in what language, Mark wrote his gospel, nor that the oldest copy must have been written in the sixth century. They go further in making their uncertainty manifest by admitting that they are not agreed as to who he really was; and also go very near admitting that there are grounds for supposing that he made use of Matthew’s gospel. Well, if he did, he certainly took great liberties with it. All, however, appears to be pretty much guess and supposition. Nevertheless, it must be regarded as of “Divine authority”, and “written by inspiration”! Guessing and supposing is all very well in its way, but to be damned for not guessing right, or because somebody else guessed wrong, is quite too much. In referring to Luke, it is singular to find the second temptation—that of sticking Christ on the top of a pinnacle —is given as the third. The expounder gets over the difficulty by coolly making use of the remark which I have already noticed:—“Most commentators follow the order of Saint Matthew”. I believe he only intended that to apply to the order of the temptations; but after his other state­ �14 CHRIST S TEMPTATION. ments, that. Mark’s differences from Matthew make him agree with Luke and John, I think I am entitled to use it as muddling the whole. These commentators and ex­ pounders—under the grace of God—consider they are at liberty to pick and choose in the matter, using this portion and rejecting that; or even to suppose that both may possibly mean something other than the thing stated. They vainly hope that by so acting they will succeed in producing some sort of harmonious whole which shall be acceptable; and think that, while killing the principle of inspiration in detail, they can show that it lives in general. But they, good souls, may do as they please: they may muti­ late their book; but woe betide the “contumacious heretic” who does but dare to doubt or change one tittle of it! What a bad case for inspiration! If, however, when the inspired writers differ, the faithful may have their choice, I claim that, in the same spirit, the non-faithful may also have theirs; and, if needs be, reject both. We are told by the same authorities that Luke only wrote his gospel as he heard it. So that, so far as Luke is concerned, his gospel must be hear-say only. But seeing that they hold all to have been inspired, we are bound to suppose that it is inspired hear-say; and that it differs from other inspired matter—or rather, from other inspired accounts of the same matter which are not hear-say! I do not think the Boman Church can object to this view, be­ cause it holds tradition to be equally as true and sacred as Holy Writ itself. Tradition frequently becomes doctrine, which you must accept as the truth—the doctrine of the “immaculate conception” to wit: which means that Christ was not only born without the taint of “original sin ”, but his “ virgin mother ” was also conceived and born without such sin! Let us, in passing, look for an instant at that doctrine. It appears to me that if it, and the reasoning it implies, were driven to their legitimate end, it would kill the notion of original sin altogether ; because if it becomes necessary to make Christ's mother immaculate—free from all sin, original and otherwise—it becomes more necessary to make her parents—both mother and father—free also; and so on down to the “ beginning ”. Thus, in order to give logical birth to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, you must murder that of original sin. Of course the miracle-monger �Christ’s temptation. 15 can say no : it was an easy matter for God to produce Mary from her tainted parents without herself partaking of the taint. This is in fact what the Church of Rome does teach. But there is a nicety about it that is well worth looking at—some really superb theological reasoning. It is held that the immaculate conception, or the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary “ without the stain of original sin, refers to her soul, not to her body ”, for the reason that a “ human body is not in itself capable of guilt ”. The Catholic Church teaches that in all other human beings, the soul, when united to the infant body—yet unborn— necessarily contracts the stain of original sin. I do not think it is made quite clear as to when this union—or fusion, as it is elsewhere called—of the body and soul takes place. It is commonly held that the soul is the life ; but in a work which I have before me,1 Mary is said to have had sanctifying grace, etc. bestowed upon her at the very instant her soul was infused into her body, which it further states was “in the very first instant of her existence ”. It would appear from this that the fusion spoken of takes place at the time of conception. The question as to what precise moment may be set down for the infusion opens up some curious considerations. In any case we have the body, which is material and cannot sin, so affecting the soul, which is immaterial, pure, and immortal, as to con­ taminate it with original sin. A lump of “ clay ”, incapa­ ble by “ itself ” of sin, but charged with enough of the original stuff to blast a pure soul—which, by the way, is held to control the body ! It would thus appear that man is a kind of human Seidlitz powder, and does not effervesce into a regular original-sin-being, as per God, until pro­ perly mixed. And this it is which did not take place in the case of the Blessed Virgin. God so contrived her mixing— 11 through the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ”—that the fusion of her body and soul did not produce the regular result,. i.e., “ a child of sin ”. According to this teaching—which is Catholic—God, in his great mercy, gave the soul of one woman a pure tenement, and blasted the souls of every other human being with foul ones ! Passing that by, we come back to what I said the miracle­ mongers might plead, viz., that it was an easy matter 1 “Catholic Belief,” by the Very Rev. Joseph Faa Di Bruno, D.D. �16 Christ’s temptation. for God to produce Mary through, the medium of her tainted parents without herself being tainted. But upon the same line of argument, he could have done a Like thing with regard to Christ and his parents, and therefore the doctrine of the immaculate conception becomes a meresuperfluity. It is simply an endeavor to get over one difficulty by proposing a greater. Apart from this, how­ ever, can it be contended that Christ, who, being God, was necessarily pure, became more than pure by being brought into the world through the body of a specially-manufac­ tured immaculate virgin wife ? Out upon such vile trashI The plain fact is, the immaculateness of Mary was mani­ festly an afterthought. This foolish church thought it could produce what it conceived to be purity, through an impure medium, i.e., a pure “ Christ child ” through the medium of an impure woman—by which I mean a woman 1 ‘tainted with original sin”—providing always that her husband took neither hand nor part in the matter! The Church first drew the line at poor inoffensive Joseph. Later on it dawned upon the Church that Christ’s mother,, whose flesh and blood he had become, should also be pure. Being committed to her, it thought it was in a dilemma; something must be done: what more easy than to work, or assume, a miracle? Hence the “Immaculate Mary” rubbish. I suppose that, had Christ been under the necessity of having an earthly father, in the same sense as ordinary mortals,, the Church would have had to manufacture some sort of an immaculate conception on behalf of unlucky Joseph. Asit is, they insist upon his wife remaining a virgin both before and after marriage, in order that his only child should not be contaminated! And to cap all, Christ’s genealogy is traced through Joseph and his house down to Abraham, capital (of the humility type) actually being made out of the supposed fact that two out of four of his female progenitors mentioned were adultressesI I feel that I have digressed very considerably from my subject, but really every line is so suggestive of thought, that I find a difficulty in confining myself strictly to it. Turning again to the gospels and to that “ according to Saint John ”, we find that writer to be more ignorant upon the matter of the temptations than Mark. He not only knows nothing about the temptations themselves, but is altogether oblivious of his Master having been either �CHRIST’S TEMPTATION. 17 “driven” or “led” for forty days and nights into the wilderness. This oversight or oblivion on the part of John is most singular. Sis gospel is not set down as being mere hearsay; on the contrary, he was, upon the authority of those whom I will take the liberty of calling the learned and reverend editors of the Bible, one of the most loved and constant companions of Christ. So much so, that Christ is said to have confided the care of his mother to John at his own death. (It maybe remarked that, according to all the gospels, he paid her but scant attention himself during life.) But surely this particular evangelist should have known something of what happened to his “Divine Lord” during his forty days and nights absence in the wilderness, instead of being quite unaware of such absence—he does not appear to have so much as dr earned of it! So far as John’s gospel informs us, we are bound to assume that he not only did not know of its occurrence, but that it did not, and could not, have occurred; for he actually carries the history of Christ’s doings right on with­ out a break; telling how John the Baptist and certain disciples saw and conversed with him the day after the baptism; how they followed him, and many other things leading up to the “ marriage feast ”, at which the feat of changing the water into wine is said to have been per­ formed. Whereas, according to Matthew and Luke—Luke most emphatically—Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted immediately after baptism. This is evidently another case in which the faithful may take their choice. It is a case of abridgment of one evangelist by another Muth a vengeance. John not only abridges Matthew, but allows less than no time wherein to do forty days and nights fasting, to say nothing of the three mighty tempta­ tions at the hands of Old Nick. It is true that these Bible compilers and expounders give John but a poor character as to his learning and scholarship generally—admit that he was not a lettered man, etc.—but of course show how he more than made up for his ignorance in this respect, by his great and “ super­ natural light ”, “by the depth of the mysteries ”, “by th© super-excellency of the matter ”, “ the solidity of his thoughts ”, “ by the infused wisdom with which the Holy Ghost filled him”, and much more. This is all very pretty, and, taken in a lump, might be devoutly supposed to mean; �18 Christ’s temptation. something very marvellous, serving of course as a counter­ balance for lack of learning ; but it does not fill up a, gap of forty days and nights, nor give space for that period of time where none is allowed. If Smith said that his master went out on a certain day right away into the wilderness or woods, to begin a large and special piece of work, and was not seen for forty days and nights, during which time certain things happened to him; and if Brown said that the said master was at home during the same period, doing certain other things; and if then Jones explained the difference between the two state­ ments by saying that Brown abridged Smith; we should probably funk that Smith and Brown were fools, and that Jones was a liar. But this is exactly what happens between Matthew, John, and the expounder. We will, however, leave this portion of the case by simply asking the thoughtful if it recommends itself to their understand­ ing—is it worthy of their belief ? Will they take upon trust, matters professing to touch what is called . their eternal salvation, but which are so loose and . contradictory as to be a mere joke when applied to the ordinary business of fife ? # Let us continue the careful examination of the subject, as given in Matthew and already quoted in full, comment­ ing upon it as we proceed. The first verse announces that u Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil ”. Now, bearing in mind.that Jesus was one portion of the “ Godhead ”, or the “ second person of the Holy Trinity ” —in short, was, and is God—the question, How then could he be tempted ? forces itself upon us. Can God be tempted ? especially by the vilest of his vile subordinates ? The supposition involved is sq stupendously foolish as to be beneath argument I The idea of subordinate.or limited power tempting all power is, indeed, a sublime joke I Why, the expounder himself (foolishly) admits—or, rather, points out—in a note that, 11 so restrained is the devils power, that he could not go into the swine till Christ per­ mitted it”. And yet, in another, he childishly talks of Christ’s “ victory over the enemy of our Salvation”* that is, the victory of the source of all power, over limited and restrained portion thereof! A holder restrained power tempting the fountain of power I Well �CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 1» might Mr. Bradlaugh1 ask the question which I have repeated:— “Can God be tempted?”. That, reverend sirs, is a problem for you to solve; that, clerical mice, is a nut for you to crack, and one, I promise you, that will not be easily disposed of. I am, of course, aware that some—the Unitarians, for instance—hold that Christ not having been God, but simply a man—a chosen human instrument, might, and could be tempted; although I doubt if they would now seriously hold that he was tempted, as set forth in the Testament. But even taking their view, the temptation is a mere farce ; it can be nothing more ; because Christ, whether God or man, being God’s medium and intended Savior of the world, would, or certainly ought to, be some­ thing more than a mere shuttlecock in the hands of the devil, otherwise, how shall he accomplish his task ? How shall he overthrow the power he is sent to combat, if he is in danger of being overthrown by that power ? I presume it was not a matter of chance or experiment as to whether he really became the Saviour or not ? And if there were no danger of overthrow, where the temptation? It is a joke, whichever way you look at it. On one hand, we have a temptation which directly supposes the possibility of succumbing; and on the other, we are bound to suppose that there could be no possibility of his being made to succumb ; because in the latter case God would be simply blasting his own desires. Of course, a Trinitarian cannot hold that Christ might have failed; and I doubt if a Unitarian will be found to do so. Hence, according to both, the temptation is as I have called it—a farce. All Christians must, I think, hold that Christ was above temptation. If not, they would, as I have pointed out, have to hold that he might, by succumbing to the devil, have turned the stones into bread, or have worshipped him at the price mentioned; or have thrown himself off the pinnacle and broken his neck, thus cheating the Jews of their crucifixion, and the world of its salvation. ^Referring for a moment to the wretch whom the expounder—not I—dragged in, and who carried in his own person enough devils to drive mad and drown “two 1 See his excellent pamphlet, “Our Gospels, Whence and How? ” �20 Christ’s temptation. thousand ” inoffensive pigs ; I ask: Is it not degrading at this time of day to be under the necessity of discussing for one single instant the question of a legion of devils—called by the expounder Satan—leaving the body of a man and entering those of pigs ! Lo I the pigs “ were stifled in thesea ”. But I presume the devils, who were possibly good swimmers were saved. Being devils, we cannot well suppose they were drowned. Possibly God, or Satan, their more immediate master—which amounts to the same thing—had further need of them. But of what conse­ quence are the lives of a herd of swine, compared with the whim of a legion of devils who had a sudden fancy for pork? But seriously; what monstrously far-fetched fable is it we have before us. Legion of devils in one man —a herd of swine peaceably feeding; devils howl to Christ—not to the pigs—and say they know him; devils crave permission to enter the pigs, which is granted; pigs rush into the sea; bubble and squeak! and all is over! Let us cross ourselves! I have a picture before me of this truly sublime and very much Christian subject. It ought to do the Eev. G. P. H. Bowe’s heart good; especially if he, like the devils in question, should have a weakness for pork. Every feature is founded upon New Testament authority. Christ is represented as if in the act of accommodating the legion of devils, by granting their prayer:—“ Send us into the herd of swine.” Some of his followers who are in the back­ ground appear a little uneasy at what is going on; they do not seem to quite relish the looks of the lately “possessed” one, who is crawling at Christ’s feet in a partially nude and bewildered fashion. I may remark that to be suddenly delivered of two thousand devils— which is giving each devil a pig—is no joke; and would be quite enough to bewilder any man. The now mad and be-devilled pigs, which, after the devils had entered into them, were “with great violence carried into the sea”, are represented toppling over the distant cliffs into tho water like a swarm of mice. The picture is one of a series intended to instruct the young in the “ Divine truths ” as contained in the New Testament. Therefore I, as one of those whom the above-mentioned rev. gentleman has in­ vited “to study afresh the teachings of Christianity”, in return, and with much gratitude, invite him to study this �Christ’s temptation. 21 particular portion, thereof. I should like to ask him if the pigs were providentially disposed of, or whether pigs are outside the range of providence ? and if so, why ? Perhaps it would be better if I used his own phraseology, and asked him if the suffocation of the herd of swine was the result of one of God’s “ Divine arrangements ” ? And if the wretch who dwelt for an indefinite period “ in the tombs ”, and whom “ no man was able to bind, .... not even with chains ”, and who “ was always day and night in the monuments and mountains, crying and cutting himself with stones”, etc., was excluded by ‘‘Divine arrange­ ments ” from the exercise of his free will? And if not by “Divine arrangements”, by what arrangements? The ■entire happening was either by reason of the “Divine ■arrangements ”, or in spite of them. And so with all happenings, including the “results of the exercise” of what is called free will. And, in either case, exit the ideal •Christian God. The Dev. Mr. Powe’s theory of “Free will” and “Divine arrangements” would compel God to be eternally dancing attendance upon the devil, in order to block him with new “Divine arrangements ”, as occasion might require or circumstances permit—with the proviso that, by reason of his omniscience, he is enabled to do much of his dancing beforehand. How very God-like ! The discussion of the question of free will and predestina­ tion, although enticing, is plainly beyond the scope and intention of this pamphlet; perhaps we may, so far as it. relates to this particular demoniac and the swine, harmlessly allow what would very likely be Mr. Rowe’s own view to stand: viz., that he, God, had no hand in the matter, but simply “ discerned beforehand ” that the man would be pos­ sessed as described, that he made his arrangements accord­ ingly, and thus had the pigs at hand ready to have the devils popped into them, which he knew beforehand would please them—I mean the devils, the pigs don’t count. The sea likewise being there was also handy in turn to pop the pigs into. That is a very nice and comfortable arrange­ ment for everybody—except the pigs—and I have no •doubt is fraught with deep and sublime meaning, and is, •of course, and above all, deeply Christian. I admit there is just a little difficulty involved in this view, because it forces you to hold that God of his own choice, created the ■earth and all its creatures, having power to produce it �22 Christ’s temptation. upon any plan or fashion he pleased; but that he isnevertheless not responsible for the result of such creation. I will further admit that one might be tempted to think that it would be easier—though not always so held by the law—to hold that a human being who cannot discern all things beforehand, and whose work must necessarily par­ take more or less of the nature of experiment, might not be responsible for the result of his work. I will even admit that some might be tempted to profanely regard applying such a principle to God as a joke. But then wemust remember that a little faith judiciously mixed with prayer will make all this right. Of Christ’s temptation, I have seen it urged—indeed it is the common Christian cant of the matter, and is held more or less from the hoary old Church of Rome {gory would be a better word), down through all the shades and grades of the white-chokered fraternity generally, that, although Christ was God, he was also man : and that it was in his character and nature of man, that he suffered and was tempted. God suffered as man and not as God ? That, in reality, is saying he was God, and that he was not God. It is contending that, because God is God, therefore he can be God and not God at one and the same time. If you hold that God can do all things, even to the annulling his own Godship, and still remain God, argument must cease; the matter becomes pure nonsense. But it is nevertheless being consequently urged. Indeed, the folly and contradiction involved in the Christian faith, especially in connection with its God, is something unspeakable. In this matter of Christ’s temptation it is held that God, in one form, not only permitted, but willed that God in another form—which at the same time was not God— should be tempted by a power which God in either form could have easily crushed 1 Where then, “in the name of' God”—excuse the borrowed phrase—was the temptation? If God is God he can be nothing else; no matter what form he may assume, whether it be that of a supposed maker of a world,, or a Savior of one. Of course, I am not contending for any such thing as the existence of a God: I am simply showing the folly of the Christian con­ ception, and the impossibility of his being tempted. My contention is that God must necessarily be God—his ALmightiness notwithstanding—in any guise; whether it �Christ’s temptation. 23 be that of a man, a fish, or any other thing. Hence the “ God-man” was God; and hence his temptation was all fudge. But we will leave the supposed fact, and go to the manner of it. The second verse innocently tells that, “when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards hungry ”. (!) The difference between Christ and an ordinary mortal who persevered in the attempt would be that he would not be hungry: he would be defunct. Foolish people have from time to time, humbly or pre­ sumptuously—whichever you like—endeavoured to imitate him. As far as I know, the celebrated Dr. Tanner came nearest to performing the feat. But after all, fasting in specially tempered apartments, with careful watching by skilful doctors, is only a feather-bed kind of fasting, and can in no way be compared with a fast performed out in the open desert, and watched only by wild beasts. Christ may be fairly said to have beaten all comers in the matter of fasting. And it must be borne in mind that he could have accomplished another forty days and nights as easily as those which he had already got through, had he been so minded. Nevertheless, it seems—regarding bim as a man—not to be surprising that he “was afterwards hungry”.. But taking the other view—that held by nearly all Christians, viz., that he was God—it really does become a little surprising. I venture to think that a hungry God is something of a novelty. The idea is quite worthy of being Christian. And the expounder to some extent adopts it—that is, he gives the God character to Christ. In another note on the subject, he innocently remarks that “Jesus wished to manifest a certain corporeal weakness arising out of his continued fast, that the devil might venture to tempt him,” etc. So that he really was hungry; and his hunger was the result of his fasting. You see that although he desired to cheat the devil into what he knew would be a fruitless attempt at temptation, he nevertheless desired it should be a fair kind of cheat. The weakness manifested should arise from the continued fast, that the devil might venture to tempt him. Here we have, upon the expounder’s authority, a temptation within a tempta­ tion. Christ actually tempting the devil to tempt Christ I ■‘"Very God and very man”—as the Church hath it— tempting the very devil to tempt, through him, the entire �24 Christ’s temptation. Trinity! for one portion could not be tempted without the other. Look a little deeper into the picture here presented, and what have we? We have God No. 1 in heaven—well, he is there when at home ; or, as the expounder elsewhere puts it, he is there particularly, and everywhere else generally, and, I presume, not hungry. And we have God No. 2, who is not a separate God, but part and parcel of God No. 1, “led” or “driven” into the wilderness by God No. 3 (who is portion of Gods Nos. 1 and 2), being either hungry, or pretending hunger, in order to induce the vilest enemy and subordinate of Gods 1, 2, and 3 to tempt the entire trio ! And it was to maintain “the truth ” of this God-twaddle “inviolable ”, that the fiendish Inquisition raised its black head, and fires were lit up in all parts of the Christian world, to be fed by the noblest and best of the human race. The expounder, in one of his notes, takes occasion to recommend fasting as being good by way of mortifying the flesh in order to strengthen the spirit against tempta­ tion, etc., forgetting that he had just previously pointed out that it was by the appearance of the weakness— whether real or pretended-—occasioned by the fasting that Christ hoped, and succeeded in inducing poor Old Nick to tempt him. Truly these opposite statements are quite fit to be considered inspired. Now, whether Christ was really hungry or not, and whether fasting in general is good or not, one thing is quite certain. The good people of the Church, particularly the clergy, mostly manage to make theii* fasts come as near being feasts as their means will allow. If I, or you, gentle reader, chanced to be a Catholic, and felt a desire to taste a bit of flesh meat—felt that a cut from the joint would be relishable—and partook of it, say a few minutes before the hour of twelve on the night of what is known as a fast day, we should thereby commit mortal sin. But if our more discreet, and of course more obedient neigh­ bour waited till the clock struck the hour, and then satisfied his craving, he would be free of the sin : thus perchance escaping hell by a few minutes. I don’t think the fact of the clock being wrong—unless he knew it— would count against him ; the Church in that case would be satisfied with the intent. It simply requires implicit �CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 25 obedience. Again:—If it happened to be a fast day, or day of abstinence, on which only one full meal is allowed, ■every means are taken to make that meal as full as possi­ ble ; thus making the fast or abstinence as near a sham as may be. But, although on these days you may not take two full meals, you may, in addition to the one allowed, take a collation. This of course makes it very comfortable for those of collation means. One full meal, and a colla­ tion, in reality means, one fairly good meal, and—to be vulgar—one “good blow out”. But with the poor folk the matter is different. The collation allowed would most likely be a treat for “Sunday’s dinner”. I have seen many eating their red herring, and taking their tea— if it deserved that name—without either milk or sugar, and their bread without butter, on these days of fast and abstinence. True, they mostly do it with a bad grace, but they dare not for their very souls, if genuine Catholics, break the fast, unless specially permitted to do so by the priest. I do not exactly condemn these poor folks, either rich or needy, for this: they are bred up to it, and made to act in this inconsistent and shuffling manner whether they will or not. The poor and needy at any rate must not be blamed if hunger tempt them to act inconsistently. They, in all conscience, fast, to their sorrow. Yet, ac­ cording to the tenets of this fasting Church, we are bound to suppose that many a poor and un-contrite wretch finds his way into hell with nothing but a bit of dry bread and reasty bacon “ on his stomach ”, whilst his more devout and well-to-do fellow-believer floats mellifluously into heaven upon his choice fish and sauce, with all those other •condiments in which the souls of your fat and oily ecclesiastics delight, and which go to make up a dinner as served at the table of my Lord Bishop of Holy Church. In verse 3, we learn that, “ the tempter coming, said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread”; thus showing the hungry ruse to have been quite successful. It is in connection with this verse that the expounder remarks that Christ wished to display this particular “ corporeal weakness.” Of course every verse and every line teems with the folly of God being tempted by the devil. But taking what may be termed an infernal view of the matter, and which ought to • some extent be a Christian view—because Hell and �26 Christ’s temptation. Heaven may be said to be the two ends of Christianity— it is only natural that the devil should be anxious to put some kind of test upon Christ in order to satisfy himself' that the real “ Simon Pure ” had come. It is only reason­ able to suppose that he should be anxious to know with whom he had to contend, so as to be in a position to judgeas to how far his doings on the earth were to be affected. He was naturally solicitous for his kingdom here, as well as the one below; and thought it not amiss to try this newcomer’s skill as a necromancer and miracle-worker, in order to see if he could pit his own powers against him. It is quite clear that Satan had not seen nor heard any­ thing of the opening of the heavens, and the loud voice proclaiming “this is my beloved son,” etc., together with the dove business. Neither had any of his imps ; or, if they had, the duty of reporting to headquarters had been sadly neglected—which circumstance I do think rather unaccountable; because, having so many devils at his command that he was able shortly after to tell off an entire legion for the benefit, and to do duty on the person of one man, it is only reasonable to think that he, if too busy himself, would have had some one or two on duty at the river Jordan upon such an important occasion. However this may have been, Christ did not satisfy him by doing the miracle required; but replied: (verse 4) “It is written: Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Here we evidently have the man part of God telling the devil that he could live pretty much without food, providing he could procure enough of words out of the mouth of the God part of himself! Well, the idea is certainly novel; but it does not satisfy us poor mortals. Words are but a windy diet. So far, I think the devil had the best of the argument. The expounder has a very curious note in reference tothis statement that the words which proceed out of God’s mouth form part of man’s diet; which shows I was not so far from orthodoxy, in speaking of Christ’s ability to live on them, as some might be inclined to suppose. He says, “the words were spoken of the manna,” and refers the reader to Duet. viii. 3, which certainly does mix the manna and the statement about the words strangely up together. But does the expounder really mean that this miraculous �Christ’s temptation. 27 bread came out of (rod’s mouth ? If he does not, I do not see how the statement made by Christ can have reference to it. Bear in mind, the text does not say one word about manna, nor anything else edible : it speaks of words, or, “ every word ”. I admit that the statement in Matthew might be held to have reference to the latter part of that referred to in Deuteronomy: indeed it is simply a repeti­ tion of it; but it is difficult to see how either refers tomanna. The expounder goes on to say that the passage also means—in fact, its sense in this place is—“ that man’s life can be supported by anything, or in any manner, as it pleaseth God ”. It is rather difficult to quite catch the meaning of the note as a whole ; but if it means that man’slife can be supported upon anything, or in any manner, and sustained in any fashion which pleaseth God, I cannot help being profanely surprised that it has not pleased him to support the lives of those who in thousands, and in tens, and in ones, have sunk into the grave of starvation with all its accompanying horrors and woe; and the lives of those who have perished wholesale by flood, pestilence, and earthquake. Will the Rev. Mr. Rowe hold that God’s “ divine arrangements” do not interfere with the free will of such as these ? The only rejoinder to my amazement is that it “pleaseth God” not to support their lives, but to massacre them. This he sometimes does by sudden upheavals, shocks, rushings, and displacements of what has, in mock humility, been called his footstool; and sometimes by slow and pain­ ful processes. Mark, I am not saying these things : therefore do not take shelter under what you will presumptuously call my profanity. It is you, reverend and non-reverend snufflers, who prate of what “ pleaseth God ” and the rest. I but apply y°Kr own preaching. If it pleased God to feed by miraculous means a horde of the worst and most inconsis­ tant butchers that even fable tells of, it also pleases him, to allow countless thousands to perish who are bent on noble enterprise. If it pleaseth him to bless this creature, it also pleaseth him to blast this other. If it pleaseth him to feed this man, it also pleaseth him to starve this poor little shivering and helpless child, or that heart-broken �28 Christ’s temptation. woman. If it pleaseth him to save from fire or wreck such a man or woman, it likewise pleaseth him that such another man or woman shall perish in their endeavour to rescue their wife, their husband, their children. If it pleaseth your God that an animal shall bound with life and vigor, it also pleaseth him that another shall gore and rend it with tooth, horn, and fang, and that all shall be infested with its own parasite, and that each in turn shall succumb to disease and death in more or less painful form. If it pleaseth him to warm into life and beauty by means of the sun, it also pleaseth him to scorch up and kill by an excess of its heat, or to shrivel and perish by reason of its absence. If it pleaseth him to moisten the earth with the “dew of heaven”, it at the same time pleaseth him to deluge portions of it with flood and storm, and to afflict, to •choke with sore and ulcer, the young, the innocent, the old, the weak and helpless, either by an excess or by the quality of this same dew. And so on ad infinitum. These are the deductions which must be drawn from your own premises. If your God scatters light and peace and joy with one hand, he deals out misery, darkness, wrong, disease, and death with the other. And just as the sun must shine on all, so must the black cloud envelope all.1 God smites the weak and the deserving as ruthlessly as he does the strong and the guilty, The lines which say that “ God tempers the wind to the shorn lamb,” are a delusion. They are the out-pourings of a benevolent but unobservant mind. Our “shorn lambs ” die of exposure and want. To put it into blunt language : either God is God all round ; or he is not God. Making the devil do duty for the dark side of the world is but a poor device. And the wretched begging of the question which finds utterance in the miserable plea that “ God does all for a wise end,” etc., etc., is even worse. Nor will your “ good tidings of great joy ” serve as a plaster for the world’s sores. Up to the present moment only a few of the world’s inhabitants have had an opportunity of embracing it, and many millions of those who have had the opportunity, are unable to do so, while millions more practically ignore it. When it did , I really think I go too far when I admit that the sun shines upon ail. Thousands there are at all times into whose hovels the sup’s rays never penetrate. There the black cloud always reigns. �CHRIST'S TEMPTATION. 29 reign supreme it became a scourge. Iu short, it is a failure, which, of course, your God “discerned beforehand.” For myself, I say that your God, and your “ pleaseth God” theory is for the most part cant and pretence; or it is a blind belief in the remnant of an exploded theory which was the outcome of dark and ignorant times. It is really difficult to say, going back to the text, which portion is most heavily laden with folly. It is perhaps impossible to conceive anything more supremely ridiculous than the matter related in the next verse (5). It says that, ‘ ‘ the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple.” The devil is evidently becoming impatient. If his devil­ ship could not induce God to work a miracle for the devil; why, the devil will work a miracle for God ! And so the devil took God up bodily and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple. Did he dowel him on; or did Christ accom­ modatingly assist the devil by sitting quietly and miracul­ ously upon the pinnacle ? Or was it by the power of the devil, pure and simple, that he, God, thus sat ? Truly a real live God in the flesh must have formed a novel and curious finial to a pinnacle I But what did the devil sit upon ? His thumb, or another pinnacle ? Or did he potter about the roof and shout up to Christ as he sat upon his lofty perch ? Or again, did the devil remain in mid­ air standing upon nothing ? Evidence is lacking. Forgive me, or at least bear with me, Christian friend, when I express my contempt for such vile rubbish. I donot wish to be what you term profane for the mere sake of profanity—a charge frequently brought against such as myself. If something truly God-like were submitted to me, I should perforce have to give to it such devotion as my intelligence demanded. But to be asked to worship a God stuck upon a pinnacle like some kind of steeple jack, accommodatingly holding on in order to go through the farce and mockery of being tempted by a power which your “ ordained ” instructors in the same breath assert had no power to tempt him, is too supremely ridiculous, and can only awaken my pity for those who are sufficiently imbecile to do so. If I am to worship, it must not be a God whom you have manufactured and endowed with all the follies, the hates and jealousies which afflict yourselves. Pardon me when, �30 Christ’s temptation. I say you have disfigured your God with your own imper­ fections—nay, you have done more : you have made him the personification of all the worst and most foolish parts of yourselves gone mad. You will make him wade through oceans of blood to please a favorite, or a favored people ; you will make him change the laws of nature, and his own will, to please yourselves; and you will stick him upon a pinnacle to please the devil. Then you will curse and smite me because I cannot worship your incongruous monstrosity, which is but a night-mare—a creature of your own disordered brain. Pay attention for a moment to what our good friend and guide—the man of notes—has to say about the pinnacle item. He says that, “ it was probably upon the parapet that the devil conveyed Jesus ” 1 But why probably upon the parapet ? If Christ chose to be placed upon the top of a pinnacle assisting the devil in the performance, or permitting the devil to do it without his assistance, I think the modern expounder, Christ’s humble priest as he is, should be content to let it be so. Why should he suggest something different from that which is stated in what he elsewhere affirms is “ God’s word ” ? The reason is not far to seek: the pinnacle looks just “ a wee bit ” too II unco ”, and he is ashamed of it—as well he might be— and thinks the job could be better done on the parapet. He may have which he likes. If he thinks his God looks less ridiculous on the parapet than on the pinnacle, why let him not mount the pinnacle. If he chooses to unsay the “written Word,” by all means let him do so. The folly of the entire story makes the mere detail as nothing. He further remarks that, if we ask in what way the taking up was done, St. Gregory answers “that Christ might suffer himself to be taken up and transported in the air by the devil,” etc. Well, if Gregory said so, that ought to be quite sufficient. St. Gregory was styled one of the Four Doctors of the church, by reason of his great wisdom; and he is, moreover, represented as having divine truth whispered into his ear by a dove. [Do not smile, “ye scoffers,” parrots can talk, and why not Gregory’s dove whisper?] It is highly probable that the said dove whispered, amongst other things, this particular bit of in­ formation anent Christ and the pinnacle. But if I remem­ ber rightly, St. Gregory was, as well as being cruel, an �Christ’s temptation. qt oJL unscrupulous zealot, and therefore what he says upon the subject need not necessarily have much weight. Besides, it did not need a Gregory to say anything so foolish: your modern saints could have said it quite as well as he did. We learn from verse 6, that Satan, after setting Christ upon the pinnacle as related, began to tempt him a second, time, and to quote Scripture to him by way of cajoling him into doing the thing asked. Beader, and especially Christian reader — if I am sufficiently fortunate to have such—do try and realize this picture. Imagine your God, or the “ Son ” of your God, your il Redeemer”, perched upon the point of a pinnacle, with the devil perched upon some other point; and each pelting the other with quotations from Scripture. Is it not sublime ? Can you call to mind anything culled from any sort of heathen mythology more ridiculous ? Do you honestly and candidly, as reasonable creatures, believe that it occurred ? Come, shake the priest off your backs and answer: do you think that your God went through the mockery of being tempted by the devil on the top of either parapet or pinnacle? Nay, is it not an insult to your intelligence to ask belief in such tomfoolery ? Think of these things, I beg of you, and the result, if nothing else, must be less unkindness to those who have thought it their duty to reject and expose them. I for one have no fear for Atheists studying afresh the principles of Christianity as recommended by the Rev. Mr. Rowe; but I urge that Christians ought also to do the same thing. I must again say, that I do not think our friend the devil was altogether to blame for the part he took in the matter. He was only testing the genuineness of the man who had the temerity to style himself the “ Son of God ”, and accordingly told him, if he were such, to cast himself down, and added (verse 6) “ for it is written : That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou hurt thy foot against a stone”. God hurt his foot against a stone ! It would be as reasonable to tell us that he was in danger of hurt­ ing his mouth against a black pudding ! Bear in mind we &re not to ignore the folly just because the devil happens to be spokesman. 1 God, however, was not to be persuaded to do anything' so foolish as to pitch himself off the pinnacle in order to �32 CHRIST S TEMPTATION. please the devil, for we are told in the next verse (7) that, “ Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God ”. (I shall use that reply as my authority for speaking of the man on the pinnacle as God.) You see, God may tempt the devil, and fool him by his hungry appearance to essay his (God’s) temptation, and tell him whilst, so engaged that he must “ not tempt the Lord thy God ” I This is surely a wonderfully dove-tailed piece of business, and quite beyond our frail comprehension; therefore if I get a little mixed in dealing with this threesided deity, I may fairly claim to be pardoned. I think the reply given to the devil sounds, at least, very like the God portion of the man Christ speaking. It also appears to me that there is considerable advantage in thus being able to assume the character of God. or man, which this triple-headed divinity has bestowed upon himself; because if the God-man is not equal to the emergency, the God-god comes to the rescue. However that may be, the answer was a good one, and showed that if the devil could quote scripture against God, God could also quote scripture against the devil. It reads very like a game at scripture “ tit for tat ” played “ sky high ” between the “King of Kings ” and “ Old Nick ”. Before going to the third and last temptation, I must just wonder for a moment how the devil got Christ down again from the top of the pinnacle. Did he “transport ” him down? Or, did Christ slide down after having unhooked himself? Again we do not know,, and the Scriptures do not tell us. They all seem anxious., from Gregory down, as to how the devil managed to get him up, but they don’t seem to care a button how he got down again. Verses 8 and 9 inform us that, “ Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain: and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him : All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me ”. St. Luke says the thing was done “ in a moment of time ”. Now these verses, constituting as they do what is called the third temptation, are so completely laden with folly that one scarcely knows where to begin pointing it out. The folly is all over them. The whole idea teems with it. The notion of God Almighty being bothered about in this �Christ’s temptation. 33 fashion by the devil to undergo a mock temptation s so excessively ridiculous, that I nearly repent me for having spent my time in seriously contraverting it. But having gone so far, I will continue to the end. We must suppose, then, that in this instance the devil did not “ transport” Christ. As the journey was only to the summit of a very high mountain, one was as well able to foot it as the other. Mark, the mountain had to be a very high one, or it would not have served the purpose. Having arrived there the devil became showman, and actually showed Christ all the kingdoms of the earth at one time! and offered to give them to him in return for his adoration! Now, the idea of the devil offering to give to God what he already possessed as an inducement to worship him, is so utterly preposterous as to make difficult any serious treatment of it. The folly is so intense that it is well-nigh overwhelming. Indeed the idea of Satan showing Christ all the kingdoms of the earth at one time—in a lump as it were—to tempt him, is worthy of a schoolboy showing his fellow schoolboy a large heap of gooseberries or big apples in order to induce him to do something he did not wish to do. Nay, the idea set forth in the text is even worse, because, to make it a parallel, the boy to whom the gooseberries were offered would have to already possess them ; and would be further required to know that it was his own property which was being offered to him as an inducement to do something he had no intention of doing. Can folly go further than this? And yet it is “Holy Writ ”. It is a portion of what God did, and put up with, in furtherance of his great scheme of salvation. Christ at that time may be said to have been in training, with Old Nick as his trainer, for the heavy work which he had cut out for himself. The expounder shows in many ways that he takes a similar view to this, although his wording is naturally somewhat different. Now, if the devil showed—or rather, endeavored to show —to the man Christ all the kingdoms, etc., it would neces­ sarily be a failure. If Christ looked or tried to look at them with his corporeal or man eyes, he could not see them. In fact, the higher the mountain, after reaching a certain altitude, the less his chance, because human eyes are limited organs. So that, had the world been flat, I think it will be conceded that Christ would have required �Christ’s temptation. or/ powerful vision, and an extremely fine day, and very ' • Orable atmospheric conditions generally, to have accom­ plis1.ed the feat. But, unfortunately for the story, the wc .Id is round : how, then, did the devil manage to show m the whole of its surface at one time ? The text says ie did it ! Did he, the devil, work a miracle to that end ? Or did God again work one on the devil’s behalf ? How people can be sufficiently imbecile to bow their heads to this, and express a belief in it because snuffled out in weary and monotonous tones by a priest, or by a soapy and white-chokered young fop, is truly beyond my compre­ hension. But suppose we take the other view of the case, and adopt the idea that Christ, being God, could of course see round corners, and was therefore in a position to be shown all the kingdoms of the earth at one time : what have the miracle-mongers gained ? Nothing. The folly is simply heightened, because, being God, there was no occasion for the “ very high mountain” at all. What a piece of sublime—or rather infernal—superfluity for the devil to make God tramp to the top of a high mountain, when he could have shown him all he desired at the bottom of it! And this is leaving out of sight the foolishness of the supposed necessity of the showing, either with or without the aid of a mountain. It is, of course, possible that the devil did not know with whom he was dealing, and that, despite his inexhaustable fund of deceit and cunning, God succeeded in hoodwinking him: indeed, this is, I think, the correct reading. God, I presume, in his “inscrutable wisdom”, and for the better salvation of the world, divinely arranged to humor the devil (and amuse mankind) by allowing him to think that it was by his own power and will that he stuck him—God—upon a pinnacle, and trotted him up a mountain, so as to offer him what could in reality be no inducement to him to do something he had no intention whatever of doing. And this is the rubbish, for openly denouncing and refusing credence to which, a man in the nineteenth century is imprisoned and practically outlawed. Before quitting these two verses, we must see what our friend the expounder has to say upon the matter contained in them. It would seem that he, poor fellow, fully recog­ nizes the difficulty of the position; for, in a note in refer- �Christ’s temptation. 35 ence to “ all the kingdoms,” etc., he actually says: “We cannot comprehend how this could be done from any mountain, or seen with human eyes." (Italics mine in both cases.) ‘ ‘ Therefore many think that it was by some kind of representation, or that the devil showing a part, by words set forth the rest.” To this I may first remark that, if you reject every statement which your Bible makes because it cannot be comprehended, and is at variance with common sense, you will not have much of it left. But why could they not be seen from “ any mountain ”, or by Christ’s eyes ? Is not God, God ? Can he not see the zenith and the nadir at one and the same time ? Could he not have made his vision to travel round the plane of the earth, and so have taken in every kingdom and its glory at one glance ? Or, could he not have made his sight to pierce the globe, and, coming out of its crust at every point so have taken in the spectacle of all the kingdoms at one time ? Or again, could not the devil who had the power of transporting Christ through the air, etc., have done the business for him ? Both one and the other are said to have done many much more wonderful things. Really, reverend sirs, I am surprised at you ; and am inclined to bestow upon you some scriptural admonition:—“ O ye of little faith”. How dare you place your “some think" and your 11 probably" before the plain statements of Holy Writ! Your notes, Sirs, taken as a whole, are simply very weak attempts to make your inspired Bible fit in with, the lesser faith of to-day. Why do you not stick to your text and enforce it as you did when your grim and merciless church did to death such men as Galileo, Bruno, Servetus, and hosts of others ? Or, if you cannot do that—which, thanks to the march of science and the spread of learning amongst the people, you cannot—and feel yourselves to be wrong, why not he honest, and frankly admit your error ? Why do you not candidly say that this foolish story was written when the world was thought to be a flat plane; that a mere speck of it only was known to the writers and that they erroneously thought it possible by means of a high mountain to see all over it at one time. Such a method would certainly have the merit of candour, and be more honorable than giving a few verses in large type of what you have called 11 revealed truth ”, and then explaining it away �36 Christ’s temptation. by means of columns of closely printed notes of so-called explanation. Take the present case as an instance. The text says in so many words that the devil took Christ— who is held to be God—up into a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth at one time; and the priestly expounders—some of them ranking as saints, say point blank that the thing could not be done, but persist in holding that it is nevertheless the “ divine truth,” “ God’s word”, etc., etc. And perchance, in the next breath will tell you of the necessity of faith, without which you must be damned. So much for priestly con­ sistency. But after all, they do but bow to the inexorable necessity: they do but put God and his book aside, to do homage to the teachings and the power of the Infidelity of modern times. Albeit, they do their bowing awkwardly, and push their deity aside quite unceremoniously, but they do it, and do it in the vain hope of retaining their hold upon the people, whom they can no longer keep in slavish ignorance. But to return to the thread of the story. Christ did not do the thing asked of him. He did not fall down and worship the devil, but knocked him down with another quotation from his own book. (It is worth remembering that all these quotations were written by himself when in shape No. 1.) He said (verse 10): “Begone, Satan, for it is written : The Lord thy God thou shalt adore, and him only shalt thou serve”. This final quotation seems to have finished Mr. Devil, for the next verse tells us: “Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him We are not told what the angels did for him— how they ministered to him. Had it been simply a man who had been suffering hunger and temptation, and ex­ posure for such a period, there could be no surprise felt at his need of help. Regarding him as such, we can readily understand that he sorely needed some kind of minis­ tration : possibly a warm bath and some beef tea, with just a “tint” of whiskey or some other description of stimulant, judiciously administered, would have been a wise treatment. After his long fast, his three bouts with the Infernal one, consisting in the first instance of the men­ tal and bodily anguish consequent upon the cravings of hunger, coupled with the knowledge of the possibility of surrendering and eating stones in the shape of bread �CHRIST ’S TEMPTATION. 37 {without the possibility there could be no temptation] ; and in the second place, of being taken up in a rush—trans­ ported—through mid-air, and made to balance himself upon a pole—pardon me, I mean pinnacle; and thirdly, being brought down again and, without breathing time, made to tramp up a very high mountain, etc., etc. ; it is only reasonable, as I say, to suppose that he did stand in sore need of some sort of refreshment, and some rest. The suffering of body and mind consequent upon all this violent and novel exertion, made upon an empty stomach of forty days standing, must have been no joke, and would have told heavily upon any ordinary constitution. We are not informed, however, how it affected Christ, beyond the remark that he was hungry. Perhaps it is possible for a ■God-man to be hungry only, and not otherwise affected under the circumstances related. Be that as it may, the Scriptures do not tell us whether he got anything to eat or not, but simply that angels came and ministered to him. I am inclined to think—and I have the extreme satis­ faction of knowing that for once the expounder will agree with me—the ministry mentioned hints at something much less substantial than a good meal, the hunger mentioned notwithstanding. But why should it ? If he suffered in a corporeal form, he, of course, had his corporeal functions and wants, which must have sadly needed attention. But if he is to be regarded as God, the matter becomes very different. It is difficult to see how in that case the services of the ministering angels were needed. They, like the very high mountain, would be a superfluity. And this brings to my mind another very curious reflection, which, it must be borne in mind, is founded strictly upon Testament and Church teaching:—Wh either have Christ, who was God No. 2 (called “the second person of the Holy Trinity”), being ministered unto through the medium of angels by God No. 1 (called “ the first person of the Holy Trinity ”) ; or, we have God pure and simple under the form of Christ (who was also “Very Man”, as well as “Very God”), ministering to himself through the medium of aforesaid angels ! What can be said for such astounding trumpery ? Small wonder that your modern Bible-makers twist and contort the text in order the Jess to affright the ever-growing intelligence with which it is confronted. �38 Christ’s temptation. Whatever part God may have taken in writing the Bible of old, he certainly has little to do with fixing the meaning of the modern ones. That work is practically done for him by what are called his avowed enemies, and sealed find said amen to by his ordained ministers when further resistance becomes useless. True, they will damn said enemies for their pains, but themselves being ordained ministers—and ministers not ordained—stand in no need of being consistent in such matters. It is enough that they are, in some fashion, ministers. The expounder informs his readers that the three temptations with which we have been dealing, “ comprise the three principle sources of sin : 1, sensuality ; 2, pride; and 3, concupiscence ” ; and says we may hope to conquer the first by “ fasting and confidence in Divine providence; the second by humility; the third by despising all sub­ lunary things as unworthy a Christian’s solicitude”. Now, I am bound to admit that these sins, as he calls them, are defects of character, more or less noticeable, developed in various individuals, and that they should be curbed and kept within reasonable bounds, or even completely subdued, although I much doubt his method of doing so. Of course it must be borne in mind that it is an excess of these traits in man—such as what are known as the animal passions, pride, and love of dominion, which are known by the above designations, and which ought to be curbed. Without a reasonable amount of these traits, the excess of which is pernicious, we should not be human beings. High feeding is doubtless calculated to inflame the passions; but this, if necessary, can be regulated by a generally judicious and temperate diet; not by a glut to-day and a fast to-morrow; nor by a prescribed regulation fast, whether required or not. And to talk of having “ confidence in Divine providence ” as a cure for sensuality is to talk nonsense. It has no meaning; and, moreover, according to Bible authority, some of the greatest sensualists were the greatest believers in “Divine providence”. Ac­ cording to the testimony of the Church itself, its own clergy were eaten up with the “sin of concupiscence ”—if, indeed, they are not so at the present day. Humility, reasonably practised, is good, but there is such a thing as the pride of humility ; and, without advo­ cating the excessive love of pleasure and power, it is �Christ’s temptation. 39 possible and right to go through life, enjoying as much of both as is reasonable; holding yoiir head erect, and asserting yourself with becoming dignity, rather than praying and crawling through it—but still acting the tyrant with those who differ from you, as I have seen done by those who profess to be , governed .by this praying church, which, nevertheless, is itself as brim­ ful of the “ sin of pride ” as it can possibly be. The pride of power is stamped on it in letters of blood. It sticks out all over the meanest official, and is blazoned upon the tinsel trappings of every priest as he overawes his credulous devotees when officiating at the altar, or on his face as he sternly or superciliously looks for homage from those who are under his control, as they pass on their way in the public places. If this church is to be held, as an example in this case, it is an example not to be fol­ lowed. And these remarks apply with more, or less force to every church. They are all saturated with a certain sacerdotal pride, which, to those who are not of them, is quite fulsome. There is as much pride in the white cnoker, the clerical billycock, or the tall hat and thin umbrella of the “ heretical” and canting Methodist preacher,, as there is in the gaudy mitre and crosier of the Roman bishop, or the curled and broad-leaved hat and orthodox gaiters worn by the bishops of the Church as by law established. A monk is as proud of his shaven pate as was a fop of his ringlets in the last generation, or as is the same genius of to-day of his closely-cut and centrally parted bit of hair. I myself have been in frequent contact with the clergy of both churches and many sects, and have found them as anxious to look their best—especially before ladies as the greatest “ mashers ” of the day. Bear in mind, I am not condemning the reasonable desire to look well in any class or calling, but the pretence and cant and professed humility, which is mostly but a cloak worn along with the other clerical garments. But of all cant, I think that which deals with what the expounder would make out to be a lesson in the wisdom and necessity of despising all sublunary things is possibly the worst and most bare-faced. It is certainly very mad talk. Do Christians despise sublunary matters ? Take something which they either singly or collectively think belongs to them, or to which they can lay claim, and you �40 Christ’s temptation. will quickly receive your answer. There is not much of the giving-your-cloak-to-the-man-who-steals-your-coat doctrine about their practice. But should they, intellect­ ually and morally speaking, hold worldly things in con­ tempt ? Ought mankind in general to do so ? Christians as well as others know they should and ought not. Then why endeavour to explain a foolish passage of Scripture by such pretence ? No ascertained good thing in the world is beneath a good man’s solicitude. Everything in Nature, from a pebble up to the mightiest rock, sea, or mountain, from the simplest form of life up to the noblest and best organisation, is fit matter for the solicitude of all good men. From the simplest thing made up to the latest result of human ingenuity, all is worthy of the solicitude of a Christian. And be it noted, none set a higher value upon the good things of the world than do Christians them­ selves. They may despise them by profession, but they hold fast to them in practice. Talk of Christians setting no value upon sublunary matters I Why, if you have a house of business in a Catholic country, or are known to be a Catholic, you are literally besieged with priest, nun, and lay brother, all begging for money. You have sheaves of bazaar and lottery tickets regularly sent you, and price demanded whether you will or not. Some functionary— often a paid professional beggar—from every church in the city or town, makes his regular call for his “ dues ” or his 11 rent ”. The parish priest in every town and village levies his charges upon his parishioners in a most inquisi­ torial manner; none can escape. He contrives to make himself acquainted with everybody’s means, and does not allow the poorest to escape. If you go to chapel—which you must do, or be damned—you are compelled to pay the (practically) fixed price for sanctuary, reserved seats, body of' church, etc., according to position or occasion, just in opera or music hall fashion. The money box is shaken in your face as you enter the porch by a man who, from long practice, can make it say : Go in without paying if you dare. The sums of money taken from the rich and poor alike, of all countries, and annually sent to Rome and laid at the feet of the Pope, in the shape of Peter's pence, is something enormous : of which more presently. It is worthy of note, too, that their religious houses, �Christ’s temptation. 41 many of which I myself have visited, are as a rule chosen with an eye to taking advantage of all sublunary con­ siderations. They are generally built in the best and most beautiful parts of the town or city in which they are situated. They are not, of course, blameable for this, but for the cant and pretence as to despising things sublunary. If you went back to the church and its doings in the days of its luxury and power, as it existed in the early and middle ages, you would lie better able to form an idea of its estimate of things belonging to the world. And if you turn to the Episcopal, or state Church of England, matters are in these days even worse: the enormous sum of £135,900 being annually swallowed up as salaries alone, by twenty-seven bishops! But outside all these considerations, I fail to see how God’s pretending to be tempted by the devil can teach any such lesson. If the entire order of the temptations were reversed, there would be some reason for supposing the lessons were set out. If God, who held the things offered and also the power to give, had told the devil that as the price of his worship and obedience they should all be his, and the devil indignantly refused the offer, and so despised these sublunary things as being unworthy his solicitude ; then we should—bar the folly of the thing occurring between a God and a devil—have had something in the shape of a lesson of self-abnegation and contempt for things sublunary. But to suppose that any such lesson was taught as put in the text, is simply to admit that you have not the smallest power of reasoning. To show the utter folly of the idea, we will suppose the expounder himself to be possessed of a fairly large share of the loaves and fishes—which is indeed probable—that it has “pleased God ” to make him lord and master of a large domain. (I have myself known even parish priests to possess not only funded property, but large and well-stocked farms, with young and good looking house-keepers to help to look after them. Indeed your parish priest all the world over has a weakness for the latter.) And let us further suppose that one of his servants—-we do not mind whether it be the highest or lowest in authority—should induce him to go to the top of a very high hill, and, pointing to his estate, his houses, his cattle;, parks, etc., should say: “All these will I give thee, if �42 Christ’s temptation. falling down thou wilt adore me ” ; or, “ all these will I give thee, if thou wilt acknowledge me to be lord and master ”. Would he hold that he was thereby tempted; and that his refusal to take his own estate at the hands of his servant, taught a lesson to surrounding owners of estates that he held such things beneath his solicitude, and that they ought therefore to do the same ? And, if the idea is preposterous when applied to two men, how much more so must it be when applied to a God and a devil ? Nor am I forgetting the wretched and contradictory subter­ fuge, that as well as being “ very god ” he was also “ very man”, and could be tempted in the latter form. All that is simply juggling with words. I say that to suppose God, who, according to your own authority could blast the devil with a breath—but does not—could either in the shape of a Christ, or in any other shape, be tempted by the devil is the extreme of folly; and I solemnly affirm that to seek to foist such folly upon man is to insult his intelli­ gence. The thing is simply beneath contempt. And I say further, that the man who would brand me with the term “blasphemer” for so affirming, is either too idiotic or too vile to bear the form and name of man. These may be strong words: I admit they are; but when I am scouted and held in contempt, and robbed and wronged by those who for the most part have not taken the trouble to enquire into their own belief but who nevertheless hound me down for not accepting it, my indignation breaks its bounds, and I must express myself. Before quitting the sublunary aspect of the case, I will glance for a moment at some remarks made by his Eminence, Cardinal Archbishop Manning—[a large cog­ nomen, that, for a humble (?) follower of Peter the fisher­ man!]—in a sermon preached by him in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, upon the present Pope and his immediate predecessor. The occasion, was a begging one. After painting the sub­ jects in true orthodox fashion, and reminding his faithful hearers that on the 10th of January, 1888, the English pil­ grims, led by the English bishops, would lay at the feet of the Pope the offerings made in the last month of the year; and stating that it would grieve his heart if they—the offerings—implied what he called “any want of heart or of love on their part ”, he went into the history of giving �cubist’s temptation. 43 alms to the Pontificial Chair, and lamentingly made use of the following words: “Now that the world was falling away from Christianity, and largely it was, it was begin­ ning to rob the Church ”, etc., etc. It is pleasant to have it upon such high authority that the world is falling away from Christianity. But he further went on to say : “ Dur­ ing the last three hundred years, the world had been strip­ ping the Church, until, at the present moment, all the majestic cathedrals their forefathers built were in the hands of those who could not use them ”. And he pointed to France and Ireland as examples. In the main, I will grant him that he is so far right. But then, that is simply one set of Christians robbing another—a thing done ever since Christianity became Christianity, and which throws a strong light upon liow Christians hold earthly matters beneath their contempt. But it is in some of his further remarks that we get the true cant—the genuine ring and manner of the Church and its begging box. He says : “If the Church had again entered the lot of its Master, he thought they ought even to thank God. Moreover, where poverty was, Jesus Christ was, and there came trust in the providence of God.” Now, it does seem extremely odd to me that a man of the rank, learning, and authority of the Cardinal should give forth such foolish and even dangetous nonsense. Passing by for the moment his pretended thankfulness to God for the present poverty of his Church—which the whole tone of his speech deplores—and the contradiction involved in thanking God that wrong and robbery has been done by the falling away from the “true Church” I ask, is not his statement an admission that, previous to the three hundred years mentioned—which embraces the period of its wealth and prosperity—his Church had de­ parted from the “ lot of its Master ”, that Jesus Christ was not with it, and that it had no “trust in the provi­ dence of God ” ? The Cardinal, with all his astuteness, could not have seen the force of the language he was using. He must have fancied he was addressing geese. But after thanking God for the wrong, the heresies, and the schisms, which were, of course, duly anathemised as they arose, and the consequent plunder which impoverished his Church, and brought it back unwillingly to “ the lot of its Master ”, he �44 Christ’s temptation. actually concludes by making an appeal to his hearers, with all the eloquence and power of which a Cardinal is capable, to give as much as possible, “ to make their offer­ ings promptly,gladly, and proportionally ”, in order that it might be laid at the feet of the Pope I Clearly it is not his wish nor intention to allow his Church to slip any further into “ the lot of its Master ”, if he can prevent it. Nor to allow it to remain in the position of being able to enj oy the presence of Christ, and to ‘ ‘ trust in the provi­ dence of God ”, which he now finds it. This appeal by the cardinal for money may be taken as a fair example of the shifty, canting method adopted by all clerical beggars. They praise poverty and denounce its absence on one side of their faces, and beg and plead and threaten with both hands open for money on the other. If, sir Cardinal, you require money—and all sane people know you do—why do you not ask for it candidly and openly ? Why do you place your hands together thank­ fully praising God for your poverty in one breath, and in the next beseech him to fill your coffers ? I can answer for you, sir; it is because you are a high priest, and use the language, and move in a way prescribed by a church which is steeped in pretence. We will now take the following few facts and figures which are taken almost at random,1 but which, it must be admitted by all, throw a strong light—I call it a lurid glare —upon how Christians of all denominations hold things sublunary to be beneath their solicitude. It will be found that all the creeds of the day are steeped to the lips in what I shall take the liberty of calling the lie sublunary. In the House of Lords there are 2 archbishops and 24 bishops: altogether 26 spiritual peers, who constitute an estate of the realm, and whose assent, in theory, is required to give validity to Acts of Parliament. This doesnot show that thA heads of the Church of England Christians, at any rate, are unmindful of matters sublunary. And if we bear in mind the continued and partly successful efforts of Catholics, or Church of Some Christians, to have their fingers in the political pie, and the fierce and bloody 11 am indebted to the “ Financial Reform Almanac ” for these figures, the substance of which I give; some of the matter being in the same language. �CHRIST 'S TEMPTATION. 45 struggle which drove them from it, we shall understand that they are as fully alive to the value of political power as their Protestant brethren. The following are a few votes given by these “ mitred legislators ” when exercising their functions as law makers:— On a Bill to abolish capital punishment for stealing from shops goods to the value of five shillings, there voted for it none ; against it, 7 (year 1810). The bishops—forgiving souls—thought stealing five shillings merited death I What of the proverbial and Testament coat and cloak ? On a Bill to authorise magistrates to provide schools where they were required out of the rates, there voted, 3 for and 15 against (year 1839). The bishops do not like the idea of educating the poor. On a previous Bill dealing with the education of the people, they did show their con­ tempt for things sublunary by not recording one single vote either way (year 1807). On a Bill to render Roman Catholic peers eligible to sit in Parliament, there voted: for, 2, against, 25 (year 1821). Por a similar Bill in the following year, there voted: for, 1, and against, 23. Another and similar Bill was introduced seven years later, when 10 voted for, and 20 against it. It is fairly evident that these Church of England ecclesi­ astical law makers did not hold Roman Catholic sublunary matters to be beneath their solicitude. On the Reform Bill (1831) there voted: for, 2, and against, 21. On the same Bill (1832) there voted: for, 12, and against, 15. Do these votes show they despise sublunary matters ? They do show that the bishops, though always to be found on the wrong side, yet stand squeezing fairly well; for, although more than one-half still voted against progress, the number for it rose in twelve months from 2 to 12. The following votes will give some idea of the tolerance in sublunary matters which Christians mete out not only to each other, but to such as Jews and others who differ from them. On a Bill to enable Jews to sit in Parliament, there voted: for, 3, and against, 20 (1833). �46 Christ’s temptation. On a Bill to give Dissenters admission to the universi­ ties, there voted: for 2, and against, 22 (year 1834). On a Bill to abolish ecclesiastical tests and restrictions which prevented Nonconformists from the rights and privileges of the universities, there voted: for, 2,. against 4 (year 1867). This Bill was tried again two years later, when the voting was : for, 0, and against, 3. We now come to a Bill which I take to be a crucial one. It directly touches one of the sources of their enormous revenue, and is a good test as to what store these luxurious followers of Joseph the carpenter and Peter the fisherman set upon the ££ filthy lucre ”. The Church Bate Abolition Bill was introduced three times, viz., in the years 1858, 1860, and 1867. How did these shepherds who teach that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, vote? Their combined votes for the Bill amounted to—not one ! Whilst their votes against it were : 24, 16, and 7. In this matter they showed their marvellous self-abnegation. They were determined to retain the money, and, if needs be, the damnation along with it. In the year 1876 a motion was introduced to permit in church-yards ££ Christian and orderly” funeral services other than that of the Church of England. There voted for that motion only 1, and against it 16. In the follow­ ing year it was introduced three times with the following results: for, 1, 3, and 4, against, 15, 11, and 8. You see, these mitred scoundrels are so indifferent as to matters sublunary, that they will not give to those who differ from them—whether Christian or otherwise—a few yards of mother earth for the purposes of a decent burying. The last vote which I shall notice is one in which they did once again show their contempt and indifference for worldly matters. But then it was not indifference as to their pockets, their bellies, nor their power. It was in­ difference as to the wanton slaughter of tame birds. A Bill was introduced to abolish pigeon shooting; and, to their shame be it recorded, not one of these sparrow-fall and gaitered humbugs but what held the matter as ££ beneath the solicitude of a Christian” ; for not one of them either spoke or took part in the division (1883). �Christ’s temptation. 47 Possibly they considered the wholesale slaughter of these emblems of the third person of their god-head, specially ordained pastime for the scions of their own houses, and of other houses which bask in their sunshine. I think I hear some of my Catholic friends say : 11 Yes, but these are Protestant Bishops”. True, they are: but your Boman ones have done worse and bloodier things. Passing from these particular men of God, and their votes, and turning for a moment to matters more particu­ larly financial, we find cause for perhaps greater amaze­ ment. It is estimated that the value of the property appropri­ ated to the State Church is £2,000,000 a year; that the annual subsidy of the establishment is £9,500,000 ; and that the capitalised value of its property is more than £220,000,000. The Tithe Bevenues alone, which are public property, bring in £4,054,000 per annum, giving an average benefit to those clergymen who receive them of £342 each. These figures, I think, speak for themselves. Turning for a moment to the sale of livings, we find that over 8,000 benefices are private property, bought and sold systematically ; one fourth of the number always being in the market, and as many as 1,497 having been publicly advertised at one time in the “Ecclesiastical Gazette”, a paper specially devoted to Church matters of worldly import I This idea of trafficking in Church livings—of buying a situation in which you will be paid more money for pos­ sibly saving fewer souls, just as though the said souls were lumps of pig iron; the more you have to shift the harder the work—is, from a Christian point of view, very interesting, and certainly forms a curious comment upon the teaching which admonishes all to rest satisfied in that station in which it has pleased God to place them. I have no doubt but that the great difficulty experienced by these believers in God is to know when they have reached that particular station in which it is pleasing to him they should remain. Be that as it may, all—from the Church of England and the Boman Church, through every mongrel creed down to the Salvation Army—are perpetu­ ally moving Heaven and earth in order to draw into their coffers as much as possible of this “ source of all evil ”. The following, taken from a very interesting table, will show with what success they ply this portion of their craft. �48 Christ’s temptation. The table is headed; “ Religious provisions made in London, 1851 to 1884,” and amongst other matter states that there was pocketed during that period: For sittings in the Church of England .. £677,645 ,, in the Roman Catholic Church 51,190 ,, all other denominations.. .. 507,421 Total 1,236,256 That, it will be admitted, is not a bad sum for all the breeds and half-breeds of the gay denouncers of this world and its vanities to net in the course of a few years in one city alone. And this for the mere privilege of sitting in the “House of God” ! It is noticeable that the highly paid State Church has in this way netted more than all the other sects put together. It is not content with its enormous State endowments, but must exact additional fees from its followers for their sitting to hear its teachings. And bear in mind that all, whether able to benefit by its teachings or not, are compelled to pay to its support. This I think is one of the most monstrous scandals of the time. The State Church as it now exists is a crying shame, and if the electors of Great Britain do not make it a test question, they will have themselves to blame. Turning our attention to Wales for a moment, we find that the Episcopal Church holds public property to the value of £300,000 per year, which it pretends to spend in saving the souls of only (according to itself) one-fourth of the population! In Scotland matters are, if possible, still worse. The National revenues of the State Church of Scotland are about £385,000 per annum, in addition to which it is computed that, since 1845, something like £2,000,000 of voluntary endowments have gone into it, whilst it has by its own showing only 42 per cent, of the population. It is further stated that in five parishes where the aver­ age communicants are 4£, the average endowment of living is £210 per annum. So that it costs the country £210 per year to parson 4-|- people ! and in one parish the minister gets £400 a year for preaching to the “Laird and his boy”. Truly these parsons hold on to the loaves and fishes with much tenacity I �ciibist’s temptation. 49 With, regard to the cost of parsoning the people just alluded to, it may be pointed out that, if they live their 11 allotted time”, their journey to heaven, as per Church of Scotland, costs the nation for piloting alone the sum of about £3,300 each. You have then the chances, which are a million to nothing, that they will never reach any such port. In addition to the National revenues, the Free Pres­ byterians have in a period of nine years raised the sum of £8,224,132 for religious objects, and the State Church Presbyterians a further sum of £2,588,702 in the same period. And this leaves out of the question what may have been raised by the Roman Catholic clergy and others. It is more than evident that none of them regard sublunary matters—especially in the form of money—as being very much beneath their solicitude. We will, in conclusion, take just a glance at a little of what was done to smooth the ruffled plumage of the Irish “ sky pilots ” when the Irish Church was disestablished. It would appear that all their churches, school-houses, burying grounds, etc., with their liabilities, were vested in a Church Body. Building charges, and a debt of £198,104 on the glebe houses, together with a ten or twelve years’ purchase, had to be paid by the Church Body. About £8,000,000 were paid by the State to those of the clergy who wished to commute, and about £500,000 were handed to the Church Body in lieu of private endow­ ments. The sum of £819,000 was given in compensation to officials, and £780,000 to patrons. £30,000 were given to the Commissioners of Public works, to maintain some 137 ecclesiastical structures which were placed in their hands. The sum of £765,813 was paid to Presbyterian ministers and their college in Belfast as compensation for the Regium Donum. And a sum of £372,331 was paid to Maynooth College in compensation for deprivation of their Parliamentary grant. After all these vast sums and many others had been paid over, there still remained a huge surplus. And bear in mind that whilst this almost fabulous wealth had accumu­ lated, and been held by the Protestant Episcopal Church and used for its own special benefit, the vast majority— something like four-fifths of the -populaion—could not make use of it, nor be benefited by it, save of course the Regium �50 ' cheist’s temptation. Donum and the Maynooth grant. The history of the country during the period referred to is written in two wards : “Famine ” and “ wretchedness ”. It is an histori­ cal fact that wherever the Church—either Catholic or Protestant—rears its head, it manages to become exceed­ ingly rich, notwithstanding the poverty and squalor with which it is. ever surrounded. The name of the interests, the monies, the worldly gains and considerations of these churches is like their devils, “legion”. Now, in regard to these vast sums of money, especially those given voluntarily, it may be urged that there must after all be a something in this religion, to partake of and support which, people are willing to pay so heavily ; indeed I have seen the matter so put. But, losing sight of the means resorted to by all priests for obtaining these monies, I would reply, first, that you must not always measure the merits of a thing—least of all religion—by the amount paid for it. If you do, you will have to hold some of the worst and most nefarious callings and professions to be highly meritorious. The sum paid for the article Religion does not prove the truth of its fundamentals. If it did, it would prove the truth of many other religions besides the one known as Christian. Secondly : religion being purely speculative, and therefore incapable of being made right or wrong, true or false by Act of Parliament: no state or govern­ ment should have the power of imposing the support of it in any form whatsoever upon the people : most cer­ tainly not in a form in which the majority cannot receive it. That this principle is thoroughly endorsed is shewn in a vast number of ways by the general revolt against com­ pulsory payment towards the State Church. Looking at the matter in this light, it will be seen that the great bulk of the vast revenues of the Church—Scotch and Welsh, as well as English—is not willingly given, but is extorted by process of law. Of course, these particular remarks do not apply to voluntary payments made by various believers in this, that, or the other. With regard to them I will only further say that they prove the cant and pretence generally of-the recipients, who, whilst holding fast to the money, preach the merits of poverty; and it was in this light principally that I introduced the subj'ect. I have at the risk of being irksome dwelt somewhat upon these enormous sums of money, because I think they H �CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 51 are, although not perhaps having direct reference to the text, yet a complete answer to the cant of poverty peculiar to Christian churches in general, and to the lesson which this particular Church, through its expounder, says the text teaches. I will, in continuation of this view, troublé my readers by giving them in full, a short—but as I consider it—a most timely and interesting account of the income of the Pope himself. I shall insist upon holding it to have come to my hand in quite a providential manner. It is headed, “ The Pope’s income, and. what he does with it ”, and is as follows:— ‘ ‘ A foreign diplomatist accredited to Rome gives the follow­ ing account of the Pope’s revenue, and of the way in which it is spent. It is derived from three sources. First, the interest of an enormous sum left by Pio Nono to the Pontificial treasury, and invested in the English Public Funds. This interest amounts to about three millions of lire, or about £125,000. Leo XIII. is a great speculator, and subscribes to the Italian Loans in order to sell when the value rises, and invest the profits in the English Consolidated Fund. 2. The proceeds of Peter’s Pence. This branch has suffered greatly in recent years, but, nevertheless, the average amounts to about two millions of lire, or about £83,000 per year. These two sums, which represent £208,000 per year, constitute the ordinary income of his Holiness. It is distributed by the Chamberlain among the Cardinals residing in Rome—about £1,050 per annum for each Cardinal—among the prelates of the Papal Court, the secre­ taries, the nuncios, the guards of the Pontiff’s body, etc. The extraordinary part of the Papal revenue is derived from the receipts of the Apostolic Chancery. The items include sums received for titles of nobility, Papal decorations, benedictions in the article of death, privileges of the altar, private chapels, dispensations, ecclesiastical titles, and many other things. This department yields about two and a half millions of lire, or £104,000 pci- annum. The whole annual income of Leo XIII., therefore, reaches the enormous sum of about three hundred thousand pounds.” This is a pretty statement of the financial matters of the Pope, or head of a Church which teaches that its God and founder, by means of a pretended refusal of what he already possessed, taught a lesson in the necessity of holding things sublunary as beneath solicitude. It is quite plain that he holds nothing of the sort. He, at least, has no liking for that particular lesson : nor for that other pre­ �52 Christ’s temptation. cept of liis “ Divine Master ”, which bids him to “take no thought of to-morrow”, but to “behold the lilies of the field ”, etc., etc. Perhaps it is only fair to mention that Cardinal Manning, in the sermon from which I have quoted, denies that his master at Rome is rich, and states that the sum left him by the late Pope is not so great as is represented. Perhaps it is not. But I think all will admit that “ Christ’s ambassador on earth ” is a much richer man than Christ himself is said to have been. And bear in mind that the cardinal has, as I have pointed out, shown that the Pope is, by means of said riches, proportionally removed from the presence of their Lord and master ; and also bear in mind that he has shown a most earnest desire to further remove him from such presence, by adding all in his power to his present riches. As a matter of course, he is not in this altogether unmindful of his own interests. He is not cardinal without knowing how much it will serve him to do all he can to keep the Papal pot boiling. Dwelling for a moment longer upon the subject of the Pope, I see by the daily papers there will be high jinks at Rome upon the occasion of the jubilee. He does not intend to be outdone in the matter of jubileeing by our nominal and female head of State and Church. Well, jubilees are becoming fashionable, and why not the Pope of Rome have his innings as well as the Queen of Eng­ land ? Her’s was pretty much State and political; and his is considered sacerdotal, although there is to be much State attending it. The successor of St. Peter must not be behind-hand in these matters. Amongst other things it is stated that there is to be a special mass for the benefit of the select, i.e., the most favored of the visitors and others, at which the Pope himself will officiate. The mass will be held with closed doors, and admission is to be by ticket. The price of the tickets is not given, but they are called tickets of invitation. The favored and the rich will know how to possess themselves of those tickets, and will, without a doubt, pay heavily in return for the kind invitation. Gold is the key that will unlock those closed doors, and buy for its fortunate possessors the untold advantages peculiar to a Pope’s Jubilee Mass I Well, this may not be going quite all the way to heaven by ticket, but it is certain to be held equivalent to a good start on the journey. One of these de­ �CHRIST S TEMPTATION. 53 voted and faithful geese who lay golden eggs for Popes to suck-—his Grace, the Duke of Norfolk—is, it appears, to represent her Majesty the Queen in some fashion or other ; but according to report he will lay no less a sum than £10,000 at the feet of the Pope, as his own Jubilee gift—a very large sum to pay for the pleasure of kissing a man’s big toe; although, truth to tell, the noble devotee hopes to obtain full value for his money in the shape of Spiritual advantages, so that, after all, it is but a mere bargain. It is one of those peculiar bargains made between the rich believer and the astute ecclesiastic, in which the former innocently—nay, ignorantly—but greedily barters his money for untold advantages beyond the grave. "Wise Pope to thus remove thyself from the lot of thy Master. Truly, thou wouldst bear the ancient Lombardian sign (three golden balls) upon thy brow, with as much dignity as thou dost the triple crown. The Pope’s tiara becomes thee about as well as would the badge of the money lender. I must confess to a belief that these popes and cardinals must hold their God in much contempt; or they would not act in matters directly concerning him in such contrary fashion. Indeed, nothing appears too con­ tradictory nor foolish to do, or to suppose, in connexion with the Bible God, which, being somewhat Christianised, i.e., made to conform to the new law, is their God. I have elsewhere called this a man-made God : I now further say that it is the essence of all the worst materials which go to make up poor humanity, and the personification of its follies ; and that he is shewn to be such by his Popes, his Cardinals, his Bishops, his Parsons, his Salvation Army, and amen people of all sorts and kinds. Beader, if I speak irreverently of names and things you. hold in reverence, it is because I cannot conscientiously avoid doing so. If I cannot revere what you have set up for me, it is because I hold it to be unworthy the reverence of a moral and intellectual being. This I con­ tend is fully shown by your Bible, which you affirm was written by God himself, but which is only the reflex of ignorant and barbarous ages. Therefore, you must not be surprised at my want of reverence ; neither should you blame me for it. The foolish fable we have been dis­ cussing in these pages awakens in my mind feelings of �54 Christ’s temptation. ridicule and contempt. Your old time Bible as it existed in the early and middle ages, exists no more, and you must not wonder if the larger intelligence which now prevails scouts both your book and yourselves in your vain and painful endeavors to make it fit into the theories and facts, for maintaining which your church decreed death when in its dark and gory days of power. In conclusion, I earnestly and affectionately beg of my fellow-man to read the “ sacred writings ” ; but to remem­ ber that reading them with bated breath or with up-turned eyes, and in professional and weary fashion, will not make them other than they are. Nor will frantically screeching the name of Jesus, and howling in frenzied passion non­ sense about having the Savior, any more than will mutter­ ings in Latin concerning his flesh and blood make the story of his dangling upon the top of a pinnacle, or trotting up a mountain with the devil, whilst going through the farce of being tempted by him, anything but a farce. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Christ's temptation, by "Humanitas" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ball, William Platt [1844-1917] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 54 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1888 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N055 Subject The topic of the resource Jesus Christ Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christ's temptation, by "Humanitas"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Jesus Christ-Temptation NSS