ever, be found in Hebrew Scripture, unless by ignorantly confounding the Nazarite vow of Samson with the citizenship of Nazareth.'1

Such are the miserable expedients by which the pious but credulous compilers of Matthew seek to establish the Messiahship on a prophetic basis; but if Jesus had ever heard of these predictive trivialities as artificial props for the kingdom of heaven, He would have cast them aside with a withering scorn finally destructive of their fictitious pretensions.

The third chapter of Matthew contains the interpolated legend of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the utterance of a heavenly voice. But, if the Deity may be evangelically depicted as a dove, Mosaic condemnation of graven images is annulled, and Egyptian portraiture of divinity, in animal form, condoned. And if a voice from heaven could do nothing more original than quote the Psalmist and Isaiah, we may well accept its utterance as the dramatic fiction of a later generation.

The fourth chapter corrupts the Gospel with the grotesque legend of Satanic temptation. Was the fast of forty days accomplished through divine or human endurance? If divine, what is its application to frail mortals dependent for daily life on daily bread? If human, did Jesus go forth to preach the Sermon on the Mount as the famine-stricken apostle of fanatical asceticism? Eminent commentators still automatically reproduce the pious illusion that the effect of such a fast on any human organism is to quicken all perception of the spiritual world into a new intensity.' No doubt

1 Judges xiii. 5.

2 Ps. ii. 7; Isa. xlii. 1.

the cerebral exhaustion of famine is prolific in spiritual hallucinations; but as modern psychologists identify moral and intellectual excellence with a well-nurtured brain, is it not full time for all who appreciate the true character of Jesus of Nazareth to strike out of his story this interpolated precedent for Lenten asceticism, obviously introduced into the text when Christianity had exchanged the practical wisdom of Galilean apostles for the visionary fancies of fanatical anchorites ?

We need not dwell upon the fabulous details of Satanic temptation, but, turning towards Jesus as he utters the first words of the Sermon on the Mount, ask ourselves, as rational beings, do we believe that this calm and practical moralist was quite recently flying through the air in the grasp of Satan, to obtain a panoramic view of the Roman empire, as if human eyes could reach so far, or superhuman vision need an Alpine peak, to extend the horizon of miraculous perception?

In the mythical chapters of Matthew we necessarily detect the credulous superstition of primitive compilers, honestly mingling attested facts with legendary traditions; but their work was also supplemented by the more pernicious practice of tampering with the integrity of MSS. to sustain disputed dogmas, or to establish usurped authority. Thus, in the famous passages to which Rome appeals in attestation of a spiritual despotism claimed as an inheritance from Peter, Jesus is depicted speaking of a church (ekkλnoía) which had no existence during his lifetime, and entrusting Peter with the keys of a kingdom of heaven whose gates had been already thrown wide open for the welcome reception of all willing to enter as the disciples of Jesus.

N

!

Nothing, therefore, but unreasoning faith in the dogma of scriptural infallibility prevents Protestant theologians from meeting the claims of Rome-not with controversial interpretations—but a bold denial that Jesus ever uttered the fatal words which consecrated sacerdotal despotism, and held Christendom bound in ecclesiastical fetters for more than a thousand years. It is vain to contend, through Hebrew scholarship, that 'binding and loosing' simply means defining right and wrong, and also, the weakest possible casuistry to affirm that Jesus himself-not Peter-was the rock indicated by the speaker; for most assuredly, if the words were spoken by a Being divinely prescient of their momentous influence on the future of Christianity, Peter and, inferentially, his successors enjoy so commanding an influence on earth and in heaven, that prudence suggests our speedy departure for Rome, that we may tender our submission to the Supreme Pontiff controlling the spiritual destinies of mankind.

The second passage in which the word church occurs supplies the warrant for the ecclesiastical excommunication of an erring brother, henceforth classed with publicans, as if this were a term of opprobrium from the lips of a speaker who, in defiance of Pharisaic exclusiveness, had included this class of men among his familiar companions. The presence of a clumsy interpolator is, however, at once disclosed in the irrational assumption that an accuser is always in the right. There is no question of impartial investigation into the merits of the quarrel. The plaintiff, as judge in his own cause, personally condemns the accused, and simply seeks confirmation of his judgment through sympathis

1

ing friends or excommunicating priests. This blot on the pages of the gospel is, however, at once removed as we listen to Jesus instructing Peter to forgive his offending brother, not seven, but seventy times seven.1 Shall we, therefore, sustain the infallibility of Scripture by convicting Jesus of self-contradiction, or vindicate his consistency by expunging obvious interpolations ?

Matthew xix. 10-12 is evidently another ecclesiastical interpolation introduced to sanction celibate fanaticism. Apologetic theologians tell us that the language is figurative, and means nothing more than divine approval of voluntary celibacy, as conducive to a life of pious devotion. If this mode of interpretation be admissible for Roman Catholics who prove the depth of their convictions through monastic retirement from the world, how can it be sustained by Protestants who condemn all celibate vows? We solve the question by denying that Jesus ever uttered words literally suggestive of a barbarous superstition, or figuratively commending celibate asceticism. Ecclesiastical manipulators of the Gospels doubtless sought for Scriptural sanction of their interpolations, and in this case found a precedent in the Wisdom of Solomon (iii. 14), pronouncing an eloquent eulogium on the miserable victims of Oriental despotism.

If it should be said how could these important alterations in the text of Christian literature be effected without the knowledge and consent of Christian communities, we answer interrogatively: how did the translators of the authorised version of Scripture retain in the pages of Protestant Bibles, accepted as verbally

1 Matt. xviii. 21, 22.

1

infallible by episcopal communities, the following alleged attestation of the Trinitarian dogma, absent from every MS. antecedent to the fifteenth century: 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one?" If millions of confiding students of Scripture have lived and died for centuries, in the full assurance of faith that this is the word of God proclaiming the truth of Trinitarian mysticism, and the passage is now rejected by eminent Greek scholars as an undoubted forgery, what limits can we place to the possibilities of textual corruption during the earliest stages of ecclesiastical evolution?

1 1 John v. 7.