LECTURE IV. MATTHEW iv.-former part. THE HE fourth chapter of St. Matthew, at which we are now arrived, opens with an account of that moft fin gular and extraordinary transaction, THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST IN THE WILDERNESS. The detail of it is as follows; "Then was Jefus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil: and when he had fafted forty days and forty nights he was afterwards an hungred. And when the tempter came to him, he said, if thou be the Son of God, command that thefe ftones be made bread. But he answered and faid, it is written man fhall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and fetteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and faith unto him, if thou be the Son of God, caft thyfelf down; for it is written, he fhall give his angels charge, concerning thee, and in their hands they fhall bear thee up, left at any time thou dafh thy foot against a stone. Jesus faid unto him, thou fhalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and fheweth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and faith unto him, all these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then faid Jefus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan, for it is written, thou fhalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only fhalt thou ferve. Then the devil leaveth him, and behold angels came and ministered unto him."* Such is the history given by the Evangelifts of our Lord's temptation, which has been a fubject of much difcuffion *Matth. iv. I—II, among learned men. It is well known in particular that feveral ancient commentators as well as many able and pious men of our own times, have thought that this temptation was not a real transaction, but only a vifion or prophetic trance, fimilar to that which Ezekiel defcribes in the 8th chapter of his prophecy, and to that which befel St. Peter when he faw a vessel descending unto him from heaven, and let down to the earth.* And it must be acknowledged that this opinion is fupported by many fpecious arguments, and feems to remove fome confiderable difficulties. But upon the whole there are I think ftronger reasons for adhering to the literal interpretation, than for recurring to a vifionary re presentation. For in the first place, it is a rule admitted and established by the best and most judicious interpreters, that in explaining the facred writings we ought never, without the most apparent and most indifpenfable neceffity, allow ourselves the liberty of departing from the plain, obvious, and literal meaning of the words. Now, I conceive that no fuch neceffity can be alledged in the prefent inftance. It is true, that there are in this narrative many difficulties, and many extraordinary, furprifing, and miraculous incidents. But the whole history of our Saviour is wonderful and miraculous from beginning to end; and if whenever we meet with a difficulty or a miracle, we may have recourse to figure, metophor, or vision, we shall foon reduce a great part of the facred writings to nothing elfe. Befides, thefe difficulties will feveral of them admit of a fair folution; and where they do not, as they affect no article of faith or practice, they must be left among thofe infcrutable myfteries which it is natural to expect in a revelation from heaven. This we must after all be content to do, even if we adopt the idea of vifion; for aven that does not remove every difficulty, and it creates fome that do not attach to the literal interpretation. 2. In the next place, I cannot find in any part of this narrative of the temptation the flightest or moft distant intimation that it is nothing more than a vifion. The very firft words with which it commences feem to imply the di rect contrary. "Then was Jefus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." Does not this fay in the most express terms that our Lord was led, not in a dream, or trance, or vifion, but was actually and literally led by the spirit into the wilderness of Judea? There is, I know, an interpretation which explains away this obvious meaning. But that interpretation refts folely on the doubtful fignification of a fingle Greek particle, which is surely much too flender a ground to juftify a departure from the plain and literal fenfe of the paffage. Certain it is, that if any one had meant to defcribe a real tranfaction, he could not have felected any expreffions better adapted to that purpofe than those actually made ufe of by the Evangelist; and I believe no one at his first reading of our Lord's temptation ever entertained the flightest idea of its being a visionary representation. 3. There is an obfervation which has been made, and which has great weight in this question. It is this: All the prophets of the Old Teftament, except Mofes, faw vifions, and dreamed dreams, and the prophets of the New did the fame. St. Peter had a vifion, St. John faw vifions, St. Paul had vifions and dreams: but Chrift himself neither faw vifions nor dreamed dreams. He had an intimate and im mediate communication with the Father; and he, and no one else in his days, had seen the Father. The cafe was the fame with Mofes; he faw God face to face." If there be a prophet among you, fays God to Aaron, and Miriam, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My fervant Mofes is not fo, who is faithful in all my houfe; with him will I fpeak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark fpeeches; and the fimilitude of the Lord fhall he behold."* Now Moses we all know was a type of Chrift; and the resemblance holds between them in this inftance as well as in many others. They neither of them had visions or dreams, but had both an immediate communication with God. They both "faw God face to face."+ This was a diftinction and a mark of dignity peculiar to those two only, to the great legiflator of the Jews, and the great legislator of the Chriftians. It is *Numb. xii. 6-8. † Exod. xxxiii. 11. therefore inconfiftent with this high priviledge, this mark of fuperior eminence, to fuppofe that our Lord was tempted in a vision, when we fee no other inftance of a vision in the whole courfe of his miniftry. 4. There is still another confideration which militates ftrongly against the fuppofition of a visionary temptation. It was in itfelf extremely probable that there should be a real and perfonal conflict between Christ and Satan, when the former was entering upon his public ministry. It is well known that the great chief of the fallen angels, who is discribed in fcripture under the various names of Satan, Beelzebub, the Devil, and the Prince of the devils, has ever been an irreconcileable enemy of the human race, and has been conftantly giving the most decided and most fatal proofs of this enmity from the beginning of the world to this hour. His hoftility began with the very first creation of man upon earth, when he no fooner discovered our first parents in that state of innocence and happiness in which the gracious hand of the Almighty had juft placed them, than with a malignity truly diabolical, he refolved if poffible to destroy all this fair fcene of virtuous blifs, and to plunge them into the gulph of fin and mifery. For this purpose he exerted all his art and fubtilty and powers of perfuafion; and how well he fucceeded we all know and feel. From that hour he ef tablished and exercised an astonishing dominion over the minds of men, leading them into fuch acts of folly, ftupidity, and wickedness, as can on no other principle be accounted for. At the time of our Saviour's appearance his tyranny feems to have arrived at its utmost height, and to have extended to the bodies as well as to the fouls of men, of both which he fometimes took abfolute poffeffion as we fee in the hiftory of thofe unhappy perfons mentioned in fcripture. whom we call demoniacs and who were truly faid to be poffeffed by the devil. It was therefore extremely natural to fuppofe, that when he found there was a great and extraordinary perfonage who had just made his appearance in the world, who was faid to be the Son of God, the promised Saviour of mankind, that feed of the woman who was to bruife the ferpent's head; it was natural that he fhould be exceedingly alarmed at these tidings, that he should tremble, for his dominion; that he should first endeavour to afcertain the fact, whether this was really the Chrift or not; and if it turned out to be fo, that he should exert his utmost efforts to fubdue this formidable enemy, or at least to feduce him from his allegiance to God, and divert him from his benevolent purpose towards man. He had ruined the first Adam, and he might therefore flatter himself with the hope of being equally fuccessful with the fecond Adam. He had entailed a mortal difeafe on the human race; and to prevent their recovery from that disease, and their restoration to virtue and to happiness, would be a triumph indeed, a conqueft worthy of the prince of the devils. On the other hand it was equally probable that our blessed Lord would think it a meafure highly proper to begin his ministry with fhewing a decided fuperiority over the great adverfary of man, whofe empire he was going to abolish; with manifefting to mankind that the great Captain of their falvation was able to accomplish the important work he had undertaken, and with fetting an example of virtuous firmnefs to his followers, which might encourage them to refift the most powerful temptations that the prince of darkness could throw in their way. These confiderations, in addition to many others, afford a ftrong ground for believing that the temptation of Christ in the wilderness was, as the history itself plainly intimates, a real transaction, a perfonal contest between the great enemy and the great Redeemer of the human race; and in this point of view therefore I fhall proceed to confider fome of the moft remarkable circumstances attending it, and the practi cal ufes refulting from it.* *It is an ingenious obfervation of a learned friend of mine, that the temptation of Chrift in the wildernefs bears an evident analogy to the trial of Adam in Paradise, and elucidates the nature of that trial in which the tempter prevailed and man fell. The Second Adam, who undertook the cause of fallen men, was subjected to temptation by the fame apoftate fpirit. Herein the tempter failed, and the fecond Adam in confequence became the reftorer of the fallen race of the firft. St. Paul in more pla ces than one, points out the resemblance between the first Adam and the fecond, and the temptation in the wilderness exhibits a most interesting tranfaction, where the fecond Adam was actually placed in a situation |