Another form of the above theorj' is that the pres- ence of the tempter, the words spoken, etc., were mere- ly conceptual, i. e. mental phenomena or impressions upon the Saviour, similar to the suggestions ordinarily experienced by saints in temptations of peculiar vivid- ness or pungency. This view is confuted by the fol- lowing considerations: 1. The language ("came," "said," "taketh liim," etc.) implies, if not a physical, certainly at least a visional presentation as distinct as if actual. Such expressions as " The word of the Lord came," urged as parallel, are not in point; for in these the sub- ject presented being necessarily immaterial of itself, de- fines the presentation as being merely mental. 2. The comparison of our Saviour's psychology in this case with that of common mortals is inapposite, since they, being fallen, are always, in some sense at least, tempted ah intra (James i, 14), whereas Jesus, being immaculate, could have no evil thoughts of his own surmising; nor could they arise in his mind except as directly suggest- ed from some absolutely external source. And even supposing they could have occurred as an intellectual proposition to his mental perception, they must have instantly passed away without any of that vividness and pertinacity which the whole narration implies, un- less they had been enforced and sustained by the per- sonal solicitation of a pal|iablc being and a formal con- versation. 8. The parallel with the temptation of Adam in Paradise requires more than an imaginary scene. Some, indeed, have by a like process of inter- pretation taken the record of the Fall in Eden likewise out of the province of actual history; and it is diflicult to see why one event is not as fit a subject for this evis- cerating rationalism in hermeneutics as the other (see Townsend, Chronological An-angement [Lond. 1828], i, 92). In short, there must have been a substantial ba- sis of fact in the case of our Saviour to justify the marked character of the transaction as recorded by the evangelists.
We conclude, therefore, that all these suppositions set aside the historical testimony of the gospels; the temp- tation as there described arose not from the siidess mind of the Son of God, where, indeed, thoughts of evil could not have harbored, but from Satan, the enemy of the human race. Nor can it be supposed that this account is a mere parable, unless we assume that Matthew and Luke have wholly misunderstood their blaster's mean- ing. The story is that of a fact, hard indeed to be understood, but not to be made easier by explana- tions such as would invalidate the only testimony on which it rests ( Heubncr, Practical Commentary on Matthew).
IV. lAierature. — See, besides the works cited above, Bagot, Temptation in the Wilderness (Lond. 1840); Hall,
TEMPUS CLAUSUM
271
TEN ARTICLES
Sermons on Our Lord's Temptation (ibid. 1845) ; Dallas, Christ's Temptation (ibid. 1848); Kniminacher, Christ in the Wilderness (from the Gerra., od ed. ibid. 18o"2); Smith [T. T.], Temptation of Our Saviour (ibid. 1852) ; Monod, Temptation of Christ (from the French, ibid. 1854); Macleod, Temptation of Our Zorc? (ibid. 1872); and the Am. Theol. Rev. July", 18G1 ; Bost. Rev. March, 1863; also the monographs cited by Wolf, CurcB in N. T. i, 66 ; by Volbeding, Index Prof/rammatum, p. 23 ; by Hase, Lehen Jesu, p. 89 ; and by Meyer, Commentary on Matt, io (Edinb. ed.), i, 129.
Tempus Clausum (Fkriatitm, Sacratuji), a closed time, is the period during which noisy festivities are prohibited in the Church of Rome, particularly such as are common in connection with the celebration of a marriage. The origin of such prohibitions is to be found in the ideas which exercised, in some degree at least, a determining influence over the regulation of fasts. See Fasting. Prayer and continence were em- ployed as a preparation for the worthy observance of feasts among the Israelites (Exod. xix, 14 sq.; 1 Sam. xxi, 4), and the custom is endorsed by Paul in 1 Cor. vii, 5. The most ancient ecclesiastical regulations upon this subject date back to the middle of the 4th century (e. g. Cone. Laodicen. c. 51, 52). The civil authorities contirmed the prohibitions imposed by the Church (e. g. Cod. De Feriis, c. 1 1, iii, 12 of Leo, and Anthemius 469), and thereupon the Tempus Clausum was generally made to apply to the Lenten period, and its extension over the Advent and other festal periods recommended. No general and inflexible rule for the dies observabiles ex- isted during the Middle Ages, and none has since been established. The usual time is contained between the first Sunday in Advent and the octave of Epiphany, Septuagesima and Easter, Rogation and Trinity Sun- days. Quiet weddings, as they are termed, are permit- ted to be celebrated during those periods, but never without a dispensation from the local bishop.
The tempus clausum was adopted by the Protestant churches of Germany (see Giischen, Doctr. de Matri- mon. ex Ordinat. Eccl. Evanrj. etc. [Halis, 1848, 4to], p. 38,39; art. 133-140), and the subject received careful consideration so late as 1857 in the conference of Eise- nach (see Moser, Allgem. Kirchenbl. f. d. evangel. Deutschl. 1857, p. 325 sq., 343; 1858, p. i97 sq.). The Tempus Clausum Quadragesimm in such churches com- monly extends over the period between Ash- Wednes- day and Easter-Sunday, though it includes only the Passion week in some regions, and in others is not rec- ognised at all. Its observance also varies greatly. Pub- lic amusements are prohibited, and marriages are some- times wholh- forbidden or are compelled to be quietly celebrated. Where such legal prohibitions are in force, dispensations from their operation may usually be ob- tained, except in Altenburg and the principality of Lubeck and Reuss. On the sulyect, see Hartzheim, Concilia Germani(e, iii, 56 ; Cone. Ti'ident. sess. xxiv, 10, De Reform. Matrimon. ; Bohmer, .fus Eceles. Prot. lib. iii, tit. xlvi, § 45 ; lib. iv, tit. xvi, § 2 sq. ; Kliefoth, Liturgische Abhandlungen, i, 55 sq. — Herzog, Real-En- cyMop. s. V. See Lest.