^■Mb;. dSfft^ 
 
 'iT^i. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Y 
 
 ,^"' r 
 
 -i^ 
 

 ^^^^ 
 
 
mmx:^m^^t^i:r%^ 
 

 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 ( 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN 
 
 OP 
 
 CHRIST'S TEMPTATION 
 
 IN THE 
 
 AV I L D E R N E S S. 
 
 BY HUGH' FARMER. 
 
 THE FOURTH EDITION 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed Its R. Taylor and Co. 38, Sluoe-Lane^ Fleet'Stree}, 
 
 AND SOLD BY J. JOHNSON, ST. PAUl's CHURCH-YARD; 
 
 AND W, VIDLERj HIGH-HOLBORKT, 
 
 1805. 
 
'P)PERTy OF 
 
 The various exposition^llJJ^figjtfjv^i^jCip^ 
 
 oar's" teiiiptatiou in the wH^fflSl^^l^fiSg attended 
 
 with considerable difficulties^ any modest attempt to 
 
 discover and establish one less exceptionable, may 
 
 hope to be received with candour. How far the 
 
 author of the following sheets may have succeeded in 
 
 such an endeavour, is submitted to the iudormept r.f 
 . , ,. ^^. . ,^, ..^ uc.suaues mmself, arc 
 
 the publ"- " "' ^ /., ,. 1 
 
 nght, however he may have failed in the execution 
 
 o'f his undertaking. 
 
 Many former writers upon this subject have re- 
 jected the literal scheme, and have asserted it to be a 
 diahoUcal vision or illusion, but none of them which 
 have fallen under the author's notice have considered 
 it as a divine vision^ ^ the want of which has pre- 
 vented a discernment of the ivise and lenevolent inten^ 
 tion of these visionary scenes, as symbolical predic- 
 tions and representations of the principal trials and 
 difficulties attending Christ's public ministry. These 
 arc the peculiar points which the present performance 
 endeavours to establish. 
 
 But though the interpretation here advanced be 
 7ze!t't, which may be a sufficient reason for submitting 
 it to public examination, yet unless it appears to have 
 its foundation in truth, and to set an obscure part of 
 the evangelical history in a less exceptionable, more 
 
 » See the Inquiry, SecL. II. p. S7, note *. f Ibid. 
 
 a 2 useful, 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 useful^ and honourable light, the author wishes it may 
 be rejected. 
 
 He will only add, that if the principles upon which 
 this interpretation is founded are just, they are appli- 
 cable to various passages in the Old Testament, and 
 may enable us to obviate the objections to which th^ 
 literal construction of them is liable. 
 
 WalthamstoWj 
 June 23, 1761, 
 
 .1 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 TO THE 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 1 HIS edition rs carefnHy reprinted from tire third and last, pub- 
 lishcd by A^r. Farmer himself. An Index of the Texts of Scripture 
 explained or referred to U now added; and it is presumed tliat this 
 volume, in comiexion with the « Dissertation on Miracles," 
 and the " Es^ay on Demoniacs," printed in the same size and type] 
 and whtch were exceedingly scarce, will be deemed acceptable to 
 the public at large, as well as to the respectable Society by whose 
 order and at whose expence they have all been reprinted. 
 
 Glocester-Place, CamdenToicn^ j, JOYCJE. 
 
 Aug. I, 1805. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. r. 
 
 Stating the objections against the commonly re-- 
 celved interpretation of the history of Christ's 
 temptation, as a narrative of outward transactions. 
 
 This interpretation 
 L h unsuitable to the sagacity and policity of Satan, because his per- 
 sonal appearance could serve only to frustrate his intention, p. 2, 
 (and he did not appear under any borrowed form, either human 
 or angelic, p. 4, note *.) This observation applied to the first 
 temptation, p. G ; to the second, p. 7 ; to the third, p. 9; The 
 devil was not doubtful whether Jesus was the Messiah ; nor would 
 a doubt of that kind account for his tempting Christ in an open 
 manner, p. 11, note *. 
 
 II. Ascribes to Christ a conduct inconsistent with the dignity and 
 sanctity of his character, p. 12; destroys his merit in resisting the 
 temptations proposed by the devil, p. 15; and represents him as 
 setting a dangerous example to his follov^'crs, p 14. 17, 18. The 
 reaijons commonly assigned for Christ's submitting to be tempted 
 by the devil in the manner generally supposed, examined, p. 15. 
 The first reason, ib. the second, p. 17. 
 
 III. Ascribes lo the devil the performance of the greatest miracles, 
 p. 19; the power of assuming a visible form, ib. of conveying 
 men through the air, ib. and of shewing them (not a single 
 country only, but) all the kingdoms of the world, p. 21, in a sin- 
 gle instant of time, p. 25. The devil could not take Christ to the 
 
 wing 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 wing of the Jewish temple without a miracle, p. 19, note \. The 
 absurdity of ascribing to the devil the power of performing any 
 miracles, p. 26. Archbishop Seeker's solution of this objection, 
 p. 27, note f. 
 
 IV. Ascribes to the devil the performance of things absurd and im- 
 possible, such as shewing Christ all the kingdoms of the world from 
 an exceeding high mountain, p. 28. In what cases we are to have 
 recourse to a figurative sense in the interpretation of Scripture ; 
 and how we are to distinguish what is to be literally, and what 
 figuratively understood, p. 29. Visions or representations made to 
 the mind of a prophet, related in Scripture as outward transactions, 
 p. 30. The reason of this assigned, p. 31. How to distinguish 
 the narrative of a vision from that of an outward occurrence, p. 32. 
 Christ's temptation could not be an outward occurrence, p. 33, 
 
 V. Is given up in part by those who defend it, p. 34. 
 Vf. Is inconsistent with the letter of the text, p. 35. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 Shewing thai Christ's temptation was not a diaboHcal 
 vision^ p. 37. 
 
 I.e Clerc and all former writers, whether they supposed Christ's 
 temptation by the devil to be a vision or not, did equally refer it 
 to the agency of that evil spirit, ib. note *. The supposition of 
 Christ's temptation being a diabolical vision, in one view prefe- 
 rable to the common hypothesis, p. 38 ; but in all other respects 
 liable to equal or greater difficulties, p. 40. The right under- 
 iianding of Christ's temptation the fullest confutation of both 
 ihese schemes of interpretation, p. 44. That the temptation of 
 CMirist was not a mere mcdHatiun of our Lord upon such trials aa- 
 ip.ight possibly be proposed to him by the great tempter of man- 
 kind, p. 45, note *. 
 
 SECT. in. 
 
 Explaining the tru^ nature of Christ's tenipta- 
 tionj p. 46. 
 
 Sicce 
 
CONTENTS. Vlf 
 
 Since it was neither an outward transaction, nor diabolical illusion, 
 it must be a divine vision. This argued from Mat. iv. 1. Then was 
 Jesus led up of the Spirit into the icilderness. Tliese words do not 
 mean that Jesus went into the wilderness in person at this time, 
 he being personally there already, p. 46. The different explica- 
 tions of these words given by the advocates of the common hypo- 
 thesis considered, p. 49. The words ought to be rendered. Then 
 was Jesus brought into a wilderness {vtto tov •jrnvfxa.roq) by the Spirity 
 p. 51. The Spirit denotes miraculous gifts in general, p. 53, a pro- 
 plietic illumination in particular, p. 54, and revelations in the way 
 of vision, ib. In this last sense of the phrase Christ was brought 
 into a wilderness by the Spirit, p. 54. The evangelist is not speak- 
 ing of any one wilderness in particular, p. 55. The foregoing ex- 
 plication of St. Mattliew's language justified by the use of the same 
 or similar language in the prophet Ezekiel, from whom it appears, 
 that to be brought to a place by the Spirit, does not denote any 
 real local rem6val, but being tramported to that place by mental 
 representation, or in vision, p. 56". 
 
 The language of St. Mark, ch. i. 12. The Spirit drivcth him into a 
 tcilderncss, expresses a divine agency upon the mind of Christ, and 
 naturally conveys to us an idea of a prophetic rapture or ecstasy, 
 during which he thought himself transported into a dreary wil- 
 derness, p. 60. What St. Mark means when he says, Jesus loas. 
 there in that wilderness for Itj days,. -p. 62. 
 
 St. Luke's account explained, Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit was 
 brought vito a wilderness (ev tw irvsvfxari) by or in the Spirity 
 ch. iv. 11. p. 64, In the Spirity denotes a prophetic afflatus or 
 inspiration, ib. and therefore Christ was not brought into a wil- 
 derness in person, p. 65. The phrase, in the Spirit, is frequently 
 applied to revelations fn the w-ay of vision, or of prophetic 
 scenery and representation, p. 66. Such language common in the 
 age of inspiration, p. 69. The Scripture sometimes distinguishes 
 between an ecstasy and a vision, p. 70, note *. 
 
 Christ was brought or carried into a wilderness by a divine afflatus 
 in a prophetic vision, that he might be tempted by the devil, and 
 he was so tempted during his vision ; and therefore what is -called 
 
 hi» 
 
Vm CONTENTS. 
 
 his temptation by the devil, was a divine vision and revelation^ 
 the effect of that prophetic afflatus he was now under, and' its de- 
 clared intentioHj p. 70. All the parts of the temptation, as well the 
 several proposals made to Christ, as the different scenes presented 
 to him, were merely ideal and visionary, p. 72. The presence 
 and agency of Satan were not real, but apparent, or a part of the 
 prophetic scenery : and the history represents Satan as coming to 
 Christ, and tempting him, and removing him from one place to- 
 another, because the vision consisted" of a representation of Satan 
 as appearing and acting in this manner, and it was necessary the 
 scenes should be described just as they were represented to 
 Christ, p. 75. Our Lord was in the wilderness when the tempta- 
 tion ended, as well as when it began, p. 72. Of the devil's de- 
 partirgfrvm Christ, and doing it Jhr a season, p. 17-. The several 
 evangelists who relate Christ's temptation, representing it as a 
 divine vision, their authority may be added to the other argu- 
 ments before urged against its being either- an outward trans- 
 action, or an illusion of Satan, p. 78. The history not a confused 
 mixture of facts and visions, p. 79, note *. Christ's virion or re- 
 Telation continued through theentire space of forty days^ ib,. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Pointing out the proper intention of Christ's pro- 
 phetic vision ; and shewing, that the several scenes 
 which it contains, though presented to him in the 
 form, and capable of answering the end of a pre- 
 sent trial, were directly intended as a symbolical 
 prediction and representation of the principal trials 
 and diflicultiesof his public ministry, p. 81. 
 
 Four preliminary observations. 
 
 1. Christ was liable to temptations, p. PI. 
 
 2. This vision might possibly cont.-'.in a present, trial, p. S3. In. a 
 
 vision - 
 
CONTENTS. IX 
 
 rision the prophet had the regular exercise of his understanding^j 
 ib. and was afFected with the scenes of it in the same manner as if 
 they were realities, ib. This sliewn in several instances, particu- 
 larly in the cases of Abraham and Peter, p. 86. 
 
 8. This vision was directly designed as a prediction and symbolical 
 representation of the temptations of Christ's future ministry, p. 8S. 
 This is argued from the prophetic and symbolical nature of visions 
 in general, ib. and the perfect correspondence between the signs 
 in this vision, and the things they signified and represented, p. S9i 
 
 4. Such scenes as this vision contains, whether considered as pro^ 
 bationary or prophetical, might be presented to Christ by a divine 
 hand, without any unworthy imputation upon God, p. 90. 
 
 The account here given of Christ's temptation, both as a present 
 trial and as an emblem and prefiguration of his future conflicts, 
 justified by a distinct and particular examination of its sev^al 
 scenes, p, 92. 
 
 1st scene. In this, Christ is tempted by the devil to turn stones into 
 bread, to satisfy his hunger ; vs^liich was designed to shew, that he 
 was to struggle with all the hardships of poverty, and the other 
 evils of humanity^ but never, not even on the most pressin* 
 occasions, to exert liis miraculous power for his own personal re- 
 lief, p. 93. 
 
 lid scene. In this, Christ is tempted by the devil to cast himself 
 down from a wing of the temple at Jerusalem ; to shew that hi 
 was not to expose his person to danger without necessity, from a 
 confidence in the divine protection; and that he was to avoid an 
 ostentatious display of his divine powers, without suflcring others 
 to prescribe to him what miracles should be wrought for their 
 conviction, p. 110. 
 
 Illd scene. In this, Christ is tempted with the offer of all the 
 kingdoms of the world and all their glory, to fall down and 
 worship the devil ; to shew that he would be called upon, in con- 
 sequence of the mistaken notions of his countrymen concerning 
 the Messiah's kingdom, to prostitute himself, with all his divine 
 endownieats, to the service of Satan, for the sake of worldly ad- 
 vancement, or in order to ascend the throne of Israel, and to spread 
 his cuiu|uests over all the heathen nations, p. 85. 
 
 ^ Ths 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 Th« peculiar propriety of this vision considered as a reprcsentatlo* 
 of the difficulties of his office and ministry, at this season, p. 111. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 Three observations upon the foregoing aecount of 
 Christ's temptation, p. 115. 
 
 1. It obviates all the objections made to the conitnon interpretation, 
 and justifies the wisdom of God in this dispensation, p. 1 15. 
 
 2. It exalts the character of Christ, and confirms our faith in his, di- 
 vine mission, p. 119. 
 
 $, It afFojds ample consolation and instruction to his disciples, undef 
 those manifold aud great temptations with which they may be called 
 cut to struggle, p» 123. 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 Containing farther observations upon the subject 
 of the preceding Inquiry> and an answer to objec- 
 tions, p. 128. 
 
 I. Dr, Clarke's and Dr. Benson's solution^of the diffic\jUies attending 
 the history of Christ's temptation considered, p. 1>29. Remarks 
 oa a passage of Dr. Macknight, who pleads, th^it the literal sense 
 of the history of Christ's temptatloiv is agreeable to the common 
 agency of evil spirits, p. 136, 
 
 II. The allowing Christ's temptation to be a vision, will not afTect the 
 history of his miracles, or any other parts of Scripture which oughs 
 to be understood literally, p. 137. 
 
 III. Tliis vision's containing such representations of the power of the 
 devil in making Christ an offer of the world, as are not agreeable 
 to his real nature, no objection to the divinity of the vision, p. 141. 
 The images in divine visions liavc often no corresponding objects 
 in nature, or exact external archetypes, but are always proper 
 S^jubols of what tlicy are de^igned to represent, ibid. 
 
 IV> New 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 IV. New proofs of the prophetic and symbolical nature of visions la 
 general, in order to confirm the main principle of the Inquiry, viz. 
 that the vision of which It treats, was a prediction and emblem of 
 the principal t-emptations of Christ's ministry, p. 144. 
 
 V. How far, and in what sense, this vision contained a present trial, 
 p, 148. The objections to this view of It do not affect Its main 
 intention, ibid. 
 
 VI. Vv''hy the persona! appearance of the devil to our Lord would 
 have been iunproper upon the common hypothesis concerning his 
 temptations; and yet his apprehended presence proper, supposing 
 ihem to .be a diviae vision ; acd why the considerations which 
 diminLh the force of the second temptation in particular, upon the 
 former supposition, do not affect I: upon the latter, p. 151. 
 
 VII. The offer of all the kingdoms of the world, which the devil made 
 to Christ in the third temptation, might appear real in the vision, 
 :hou_<2^h it could not have done so in other circumstances, p. 155. 
 
 VIII. Ho^' far the mind of a prophet waspassive, and how far it %ra» 
 free, .during a vision, p. 158, 
 
 I X. The Inquiiy, by freely urging the objections against the literal 
 scasecf Christ's teniptation. gives no advantage to infidelity, p. 159. 
 
 APPENDIX LI. 
 
 A paraphrase upon St. Matthew's account of Christ's 
 temptation^ agreeable to the foregoing interpreta- 
 tion of it^ p. 1 6 -2. 
 
 Latelt^ 
 
Lately piiUished hj the Editor of this fVork, and /# 
 be had of J. Johnson, St. Paul's Churchyard, 
 
 1. Scientific Dialogues, comprising a complete 
 Introduction to Natural and Experimental Philosophy, 
 illustrated with numerous copper-plate engravings by 
 Lowry. Six volumes, price 15s. Second edition. 
 
 2. An Analysis of Dr. Paley's *' View of the Evidences 
 of Christianity."— Second edition, price 2s. 
 
 3. A full and complete Analysis of Dr. Paley's *' Natural 
 Theology ; or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of 
 the Deity, collected from the Appearances of Nature."-^. 
 Price 3 s. 
 
 4. A complete Analysis or Abridgment of Dr. Adam 
 Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth 
 of Nations. — Price 5s. 
 
 5. Courage and Union in a Time or National 
 Danger. A Sermon preached October 7, 1803.— Second 
 edition, price Is. 
 
 By the same Author will be published, in December 
 1805, Elements of Chemistry, 2 vols, upon the same 
 plan with the Scientific Dialogues. 
 
1 N Q U 1 11 Y 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRIST'S TEMPTATION 
 
 IN THE WILDERNESS. 
 
 IVIAT. iv. 1—11. 
 
 Then ivns Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to le 
 tempted rrf the devil. — And when he had fasted forty days 
 and forty nights, he ivas afterwards an hungred. — And 
 when the te?nl)ter came to him, he said, If thou he the Son 
 of God, command that fhescf stones le made bread. — But 
 he answered and said. It is luritten, Man shall not live by 
 bread alone, but by every jvord that procecdeth out of the 
 mouth of God. — Then the devil taketh him up into the 
 holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, — 
 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, co.U ilyself 
 down: for it is ivritten. He shall give his on^cls charge 
 concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear th^e 
 up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. — • 
 Jems <}aid unto him. It is written again, 7 hou skalt n:-t 
 B tempt 
 
2 An Inquiry inlo the Nature and Design of 
 
 tempt the Lord thy God. — Jgain the devil taketh him up 
 into an exceeding high 7noimtaiii, and sheweth him all the 
 kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them : — And saith 
 unto him, All these tldiigs ivill I give thee, if thou iviltfall 
 down and worship we. — Then saith Jesus unto himj Get 
 thee hence, Satan: for it IS written. Thou shalt worship 
 the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. — Then 
 the devil leoveth him, and behold, angels came and mi- 
 nistered unto him. See likewise MarkX 12^ 13. LukeW. 
 1—13. 
 
 1 HE detection of error being a great help towards the 
 discovery of truth j it will be proper, before we at- 
 tempt to settle the true nature and design of Christ's 
 temptation, to consider what objections lie against 
 the several explications which have hitherto been 
 given of this part of the gospel history. Should those 
 objections appear to be just, we shall, at least, see the 
 necessity of looking out for some new^ interpretation. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 It has been generally supposed, that the evangelical 
 history of our Lord's temptation is to be understood 
 as a narrative of outward transactions : that the devil 
 tempted Christ in person, appeared to him in a visible 
 form, spoke to him with an audible voice, and re- 
 moved him corporeally from one place to another: 
 7 which 
 
Chriyt^s Temptalion in (lie JVilderncss, 3 
 
 which opinion sccnis liable to the following amongst 
 other objectioxis. 
 
 I. It is unsuitable to the sagacity and policy of the 
 evil spirit. '' Why the devil would at all assault our 
 Lord, and what advantage he could possibly hope to 
 gain over him*," has always been acknowledged lo be a 
 great dilficulty, by the advocates of the common in- 
 terpretation. But this difficulty is greatly increased 
 by a circumstance which they generally overlook ; 
 viz. the manner in which, on their hypothesis, the 
 devil proposed his temptations to our Saviour. For 
 this history, if understood of outward occurrences, 
 manifesllv supposes that the tempter came to him in 
 person and appeared before him in a visible form, and 
 under his own proper character, it represents him as 
 acting under this character, by proposing and urging 
 temptations, such as could proceed from none but an 
 evil being. Now, with what prospect of success could 
 he tempt our Lord, if he thus exposed himself to 
 open view? By a personal and undisguised appear- 
 ance, he can never hope to prevail over the feeblest 
 virtue. It is generally admitted, that, to succeed 
 against frail mortals, he has recourse to secret sugges- 
 tions, such as they do not distinguish from the na- 
 tural and genuine offspring of their own minds ; and 
 thus conceals the hand which offers the temptation. 
 Could he then expect, that the illustrious personasie, 
 whom he acknowledges as the Son of God, and who 
 
 * Sec Dr. Clarke as cited iii the Ai.pciulix, No. I. 
 
 r. -J liad 
 
4 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 had been so lately proclaimed by a voice from heaven 
 as such^ and who was filled with the Spirit without 
 jneasure^ should comply wdth his temptations, not- 
 withstanding his appearing to him in person, so as '.•: 
 be certainly known and distinguished under hi^ pro 
 per character*? 
 
 If 
 
 * To evade this difficulty (which most persons have felt), some 
 have conjectured that the devil now appeared under several lorroiced 
 characters and forms , and, by this imposition upon our Saviour, 
 hoped the more easily to convince him of the innocence and reason- 
 ableness of his proposals, and to deceive him into a compliance. The 
 late very learned Archbishop of Canterbury in particular maintains, 
 " that the devil did not appear what he was, for that would en- 
 tirely have frustrated his intent." Serm.vol.ii. p. 114. Dr. Chandler 
 likewise says, "that the devil appeared probably 7ioi as hhnself, that 
 would have been at once to have prevented the eifect of his tempta- 
 tion." Serm. vol. iii. p. 178. Both these writers imagine, that the 
 devil, when he came to Christ in a visible form, assumed the re- 
 semblance of a good angel. (Chandler, p. 177, 178, Seeker, p. 113.) 
 Manv others have conjectured, that he appeared before Christ in the 
 form of a man. Conjectures are to be regarded, according to the 
 dep-ree in which they are reasonable or plausible. If they are merely 
 arbitrary, and made from necessity, or because men cannot get over 
 a difficulty without their assistance ; and especially if they are not 
 only groundless, but in any degree improbable; they ought not to 
 be received, and should be regarded only as confessions of the distress 
 of those who have recourr-e to them. With regard to the particular 
 conjectures in question, it is natural to ask, What foundation is there 
 for them ? Where do we read of the devil's appearing to Christ 
 either as a good man, or as a good angel, or under any other dis- 
 guise? Is there any one circumstance of the history, that favours 
 the supposition of his appearing- before Christ under a borrowed 
 character? If there be no foundation for this conjecture, it must-be 
 considered as arbitrary, ard made from nccesMty alone. Farther, it 
 
 in 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVitderness, 5 
 
 If we proceed to examine the particular nature of 
 
 Christ's successive temptations^ it will appear yet more 
 
 incredible^ 
 
 is not only unsupported by the history, but contradicted by many 
 circumstances of It, and is highly improbable in itself. How could 
 the devil hope to deceive our Lord, by transforming himself into an 
 angel of light, when his very tempting him to idolatry was an evi- 
 dent demonstration of his being a fiend of hell? Or, how in this case 
 could he hope to pass for a good man? Could he even wish that 
 Christ should mistake him for a roan, v/hea it must have m.ade his 
 y-romise of universal eaipire appear ilcHculous? V/itli re^>-ard to our 
 Saviour; Is It likely that he considered any one of the temptatio.is, 
 and least of all the last, as proceeding from any i;ood being, whether 
 human or angehc ; when he rejected them all as evil and impious in 
 their very nature, and the last with the highest detestation? Is it 
 not, on the contrary, more likely that Christ ascribed these tempta- 
 tions to some evil being ? This conclusion, Avhich is so probable ia 
 its own nature, is confirmed by the history : which represents the 
 tempter as appearing and acting under his proper ciiaracter ; and 
 consequently without atfecting any disguise. And instead of giving 
 any the least intimation of Christ's being ignorant who it was that 
 tempted him; the history even represents Christ as knowing him, 
 atid, as occasion required, calling him by name. Get tkce behind me^ 
 Satan, Luke iv. 8. This was said in answer to the st'cond temptation, 
 according to the order of St. Luke, who, though we allow he has 
 perhaps neglected the true order, would not have done it, if thereby 
 he had led us into an error with regard to our Saviour, and repre- 
 sented him as knowing the tempter sooner than he really did. The 
 gentlemen whom we oppose, universally allow that Christ knew 
 who proposed the third temptation; and this, if it docs not create a 
 presumption tliat he knew him sooner, certainly deprives them of 
 the benefit of their conjecture, where they most want it, in account- 
 uig for that temptation. 
 
 The foregoing objections conclude with peculiar force against the 
 two eminent writers mentioned at the beginning of this note. Dr* 
 Chandlar i-.knowled^es, " that Christ was solicited to siii and to 
 
6 An Inqiury into the 2\aiure and Design, of 
 
 incredible, that they should be proposed to lum with 
 any prospect of success, in the manner plainly im- 
 plied in the literal scheme of interpretation. In the 
 first temptation, in which he is solicited to lurn stones 
 into bread, nothing is promised on the part of Satan 
 to gain Christ's consent j for the miraculous act he 
 
 crimes of a very heinous T/ature" p. 175. 202: " that in the first 
 temptation he u'cU discerned the treachery of tlic devil's counsel," 
 p. \^^^ and that the impostor uus deiecied, p. 196. With regard to 
 the second temptation, he affirms, " that Christ understood the 
 design of ;he devil's suggestion, and the fallacy of his argument; 
 and that he was tempted to an act of real insolence and impiety, of 
 criminal presumption and folly f'* p. 209, 210, 211. And Dr. Seeker 
 says, with regard to the same temptation, " Christ clearly discerned 
 the intention of the tempter," p. 116. Concerning the third tempta- 
 tion, Dr. Chandler justly observes, ** The present suggestion was an 
 act of immediate iwpiety against God," p. 221, 222. And at this time, 
 according to Dr. Seeker, p. 119, Christ " told the hypocrite, (mean- 
 ing the devil,) he knew him well for the adversary of God." Now 
 what end cuuld it answer for the devil to appear under any disguise 
 before Christ, who so well knew his proper character in the very first 
 temptation, as well as in every succeeding one .'' Why did he per- 
 sonate a good angel, when openly tempting Christ to sin, and making 
 undisguised proposals to commit, what appeared to Christ, and could 
 liot but appear to every one, the most audacious and shocking act of 
 impiety.' Surely, if the devil had assumed the disguise o'f a celestial 
 spirit, he would have taken better care to preserve that character, 
 than to demand for himself the worship due to God alone. In a word, 
 the supposition of the devil's appearing before Christ as a good angel, 
 is not only destitute of every shadow of support, but highly absurd 
 in itself, and repugnant to the history. I only add, that if the devil 
 had disguised himself with the view here supposed, these temptations 
 would have been trials rather of the understanding than of the heart, 
 6r oi our Lord's piety and virtue; the former of which is very dif- 
 ferent from the scripture idea of temptations. 
 
 was 
 
Christ's Te}7iptation in the IVUdtrness, J 
 
 was prompted to perform, depended entirely upon the 
 exertion of liis own power. Indeed, so far as this 
 miraele was proper to satisfy Christ's hunger, it seems 
 to carry its own inforcemcnt. But certainly he would 
 not be the more, but the less, ready to satisfy his 
 hunger by this mean upon the open application of 
 an implacable enemy, and a fiend of hell*. This 
 was a circumstance that could answer no other end 
 than to create a prejudice against the proposal, and 
 furnish a reason for rejecting it. Now could the 
 devil intend to defeat his own temptation ? 
 
 In the second temptation (here, as in the sequel, I 
 follow the order of St. IViatthew) the devil urges 
 Christ to throw himself headlong from the summit of 
 the temple at Jerusalem. In this, as in the former 
 case, he does not undertake to do any thing himself 
 for the honour or service of Christ, and yet solicits 
 him to follow his directions. However, there is this 
 difference in the two cases : in the former, the thing 
 itself which w^as advised might have been the means 
 of his support ; in the latter, it might have issued in 
 his destruction. Should it be urged, ^' that if Christ 
 had thrown himself down from the top of the temple, 
 
 * This reasoning has lately received the sanction of a writer of 
 distinguished learning and abilities, For, speaking of David's num- 
 bering the people, lie says, If the devil had lid him do it, I suppose he 
 might have see/i tlic cloceiijhot, and would scarce havefoUmvcd the mea- 
 sure for the sake <f the ac^viser. Dr. Chandler's Review of the History 
 of David, p. 235. This reasoning concludes more strongly in the 
 case of Christ than in that of David, because the devil is not supposed 
 to have appeared in person to the latter. 
 
 and 
 
8 An Inqtdry into the Nature mid Design of 
 
 and been preserv'ed unhurt, his miraculous preserva^ 
 tion would have been an attestation to his character 
 as the Son of God :" I admit that the proposal in this 
 view of it was in itself very alluring. But under the 
 peculiar circumstances here attending it, the devil 
 could scarcely hope to see it embraced. The inference 
 drawn from Christ's miraculous preservation must be 
 very uncertain upon the common hypothesis, which 
 admits that the devil did by his own power remove 
 Christ corporeally from the wilderness to the top of 
 the temple*. For, what greater power could be ne- 
 cessary to the preservation of Christ, in throwing 
 himself down from that eminence, than the devil is 
 supposed to have exerted in raising him to it f ? How 
 then could it have been more certainly concluded 
 from hence that Jesus was tlie Son of God, than that 
 the devil was so too, had he thought fit to make the 
 pretension ? Besides, if Christ had cast himself down 
 from the temple, the devil, who was present, and had 
 
 * Thus Grotius in particular compares this case to that of Philip, 
 who was caught away by the Spirit from the eunuch to Azotus. On 
 Matt. iv. 5. he says, tnopdXafA.Qi.vu, v,t Philippum Dei Spiritus, 
 Acts viii. 39- And Dr. Benson affirms (Life of Christ, p. 35.) that 
 the devil hurried Christ through the air, nnd carried him from the wil' 
 derness to the temple. Some howevtr understaiid the word Trafa.^a.fx- 
 Cuvet, in this place, in a different sense. See below, p. 13, note *, 
 and p. 19, note \. 
 
 f Accordingly Dr. Seeker (Serm. vol. ii. p. IIG, 117.), very con- 
 sistently with his asserting that the tempter conveyed Christ through 
 the air to one of the battlements of the temple, allows that he had 
 hereby shewn himself quaiijled for so noble a miracle as that of his 
 preservation, in case he had thrown himself down from thence. 
 
 (as 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderness, g 
 
 (as isffeiierally supposed) now assumed a visible forrn^ 
 might have done the very same thing, and thus their 
 respective claims, whatever they had been, would 
 have stood upon a level. What inducement then 
 could Christ have for a compliance with the proposal 
 suggested ? would he be disposed to gratify Satan, by 
 doing an act at his mere motion ? It is absurd to sup- 
 pose it. Was he to acquire any glory or advantage 
 to himself? No 5 on the contrary, be must have in- 
 curred the infamy of having entered the lists with the 
 devil, without acquiring any superiority over that pri- 
 soner of hell; wiiich must have been a powerful mo- 
 tive to a refusal rather than a compliance. 
 
 With regard to the third temptation, usually ac- 
 counted the greatest of all, the offer of the kingdoms 
 of the world with all their glory, it seems as little to 
 deserve the name of a temptation as that which we last 
 considered. The great prophet of the Christian church 
 could not be ignorant, that the father of lies, v.hatever 
 he might boast, liad no power to dispose of the em- 
 pire of the world ; and that the most H'lgh rules in the 
 kingdoms of men^ and gives them to whojnsoever he 
 luill'^. Nor can it be pretended that Christ was 
 ignorant by whom this temptation was proposed, 
 whatever was the ca^'e with regard to the others, for 
 in his reply he calls him Satan f. So that, were we 
 to allow X t-hat the devil, by assuming the appearance 
 
 • Dan. iv. ] 7. | vSee above, p. 4, note *. 
 
 \ According tc the conjectures of Dr. Doddn'clgo, Dr. Macknight, 
 arid many othe-rs. 
 
 B3 of 
 
10 An Inquinj into the Nature and Design of 
 
 of a good angel^ hoped to deceive Jesus, yet he was 
 certainly mistaken in his measures ; Jesus knew who 
 he was, and consequently that he had no power to 
 bestow what he so liberally promised*. Now the 
 largest offer which can be conceived, is the offer of 
 nothing, if he who makes it be unable to make it 
 good : and if he is known to be so, by the person to 
 whom it is made, the offer will be deemed an insult 
 rather than a temptation, and will provoke either 
 scorn or resentment. Could the devil then hope by 
 such contemptuous treatment to engage th^ Son of 
 God to listen to his accursed councils, and to seduce 
 him to an act of the highest dishonour to his heavenly 
 Father, such as no one can think of without horror, — 
 the falling down and paying divine homage to this 
 infernal spirit ? 
 
 If the foregoing reflections are just, the common 
 explication of this history gives such an account of 
 Christ's temptations, of the tv.o last especially, as is 
 subversive of their main intention, disarming them of 
 all inducement to a compliance, and even furnishing 
 the strongest motives for rejecting them. All the 
 
 * <' Jesus knew the devil well for the adversary of God, who hud 
 granted to no created heiri^, much less to him, the honours, or the auiho- 
 rity, which he claimed. Seeker's Serm. vol. ii. p. 119. And Dr. 
 Chandler, (Serm, vol. iii. p. 218. 222.) though he thought the devil's 
 offering Christ the throne of Israel, and the kingdoms of the neigh- 
 bouring nations, teas uorthy his craft and suhtiliy ; yet tells us that 
 Jesus let him knoic, that the poicer he claimed o/ disjJosi?ig the kingdoms 
 of the earth was vajn a/ia' phesumptuous. 
 
 use 
 
Christ's Temptation in the JVilderness, ll 
 
 nse I would make of these reflections in this place, is 
 to observe, that this interpretation represents the old 
 serpent as acting quite out of character : inasmuch as 
 it supposes him to be as perfectly void of policy as he 
 is of goodness ; and that he used the least art and 
 address in proposing and inforcing his temptations, 
 in a case in which the greatest would have been in- 
 sufficient to insure his success*. It is more material 
 to observe, 
 
 11. That 
 
 * Our learned divines, in order to account for the devil's assaulting 
 our Lord with any hope of success, generally suppose, that he was 
 somewhat uncertain whether cur Lord was indeed the Messiah, and 
 admit, that nnlcss the tempter had been in doubt as to the character of 
 JesuSy it is not to le imce-ined he should have attempted to sp.diice him at 
 all. Dr. Macknight's Commentary, and Dr. Clarke, vol. i. Serm. 93. 
 It is not, I hope, inconsistent with the deference due to these gentle- 
 men, to observe, !. That upon the common hypothesis concerning- 
 this temptation and the author of it, there is no reason to believe he 
 was ignorant or doubtful who Jesus was. If the devil is well ac- 
 quainted v.'ith the scriptures, and particuh;rly with the ancient pro- 
 phecies coricernirig the Messiah ; if he knew all the wonderful cir- 
 cumstanc-^s which accompanied the birth of Jesus, and was so lately 
 a witness to the testimonies borne to him from Heaven, both by the 
 descent of the spirit, and by the voice which proclaimed him the Son 
 of God; he could net but know with certainty who Jesus was. 
 This Dr. Lightfoot has fiiUy proved, in his first volume, p. 503. fol. 
 edit. Accordingly these words, which introduce two of his tempta- 
 tions, do not express doubt, but assurance, If thou bcy that is, seeing 
 thou art (or inasmuch as thou an) tlie Son of God. It is here taken 
 for granted that Jesus was the Son of God ; and his being so is the 
 very reajion by whicli the devil urge^ him to comply with his pro- 
 posals ; *' Since you are the Messiah, it is fit you should act as such, 
 
 and 
 
12 An Inqidr-y Into the Nature and Design of 
 
 II. That this explication is very ill calculated to 
 promote either the honour of Christ, or the instruc- 
 tion and consolation of his disciples. We can scarcely 
 preserve upon our minds a sufficient reverence of the 
 sanctity and dignity of the Redeemer, when we be- 
 hold him in such familiar conference with, and under 
 the power of, an unclean spirit, who at pleasure 
 
 and exert your divine power in turning stones into bread, and in flying 
 down from the temple." Thus, as Dr. Lightfoot observes (ubi supra), 
 the word 7^13 used in the speech of Lamech, Gen. iv. 23. If Cain shall 
 he avenged sevoifold, which, was with Lamech a thing undoubted. He 
 who desires the fullest evidence that ei and nyi are frequently affir- 
 mative particles, may consult Locke and Doddridge on Ephes. iii. 2. 
 Peirce on Col. i. 23. and Taylor on Rom. viii. 9. but especially 
 Noldii Concordant. Partic. under the correspondent Hebrew particle 
 Ors which is often rendered certc, omnino, quia, quandoquidvnu 
 Ljuod. Even Dr. Macknight himself, who in p. 61 of his Commentary 
 (second edition) urges these words, Jf thou be the So7i nf Gud, cast 
 tl'.ysdf down from hence, in support of the devil's being in doubt as to 
 the character of Jesus, does in p. 66. explain them in their true sen.se, 
 though it subverts his ovai hypothesis : SINCE thou art the So7i of 
 Cod, thou shouldst cast thyself down. 
 
 V: Were we to allow that the devil was in doubt who Jesus was, 
 and that oth/trwise he could not possibly have hoped to gain any ad- 
 vantage over him ; this Vv'ill not account for his proposing his 
 temptations {n an open and visible manner; nay, it proves that this 
 manner ought of all others to have been most carefully avoided, 
 because the least likely to succeed. For certainly the strongest 
 temptations of the devil are those wherein he least appears. I am 
 not therefore so happy as to be able to acquiesce in the explication 
 these gentlemen have given of the motives which induced the devil 
 to undertake this temptation ; because in the method he took he 
 could have no expectation, nor scarce a thought, of success ; at least 
 he could not have taken a more likely method to miscarry. 
 
 transports 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness, 13 
 
 transports * his sovereign and his judge froni place 
 to place-, raises him to the most conspicuous stations 
 to expose him to public derision^ and wantonly and 
 arrogantly propounds to him one foolish enterprise 
 after another t« It fills us with horror as well as 
 
 astonish- 
 
 * Those who are of opinion that the devil did not transport Christ 
 through the air, but only led him on foot from place to place (see 
 below, p. 19, note ^.), would, I should think, find it difficult to ac- 
 count for Christ's sulFering himself to be led to the temple (where 
 the Jews always resorted) and back again through the streets of 
 Jerusalem, in such company. Could the inhabitants have been 
 witnesses to a sight so wonderful and so horrible, and yet take no 
 notice of it ? Would not their seeing Christ in company with the 
 devil, at the very first opening of his minislri/, before he had afforded 
 them any evidences of his divine mission, and while they were 
 aVrangers to his genuine character, have necessarily made even upon 
 honest minds strong impressions to his disadvantage ? Would not 
 such a sight, at this season especially, have raised some suspicion of 
 his being an associate and confederate with the devil ? Now would 
 Christ unnecessarily create a prejudice against himself in good minds, 
 or give any occasion to his enemies to blaspheme ? Without any 
 such ground for the accusation, as his being seen in familiar con- 
 ference with demons, his enemies ascribed liis cure of demoniacs to 
 the assistance of the prince of demons. But the very supposition of 
 Christ's suffering himself to be led about by the devil, in places of 
 the most public resort, and of the most sacred nature, for no imagi- 
 nable end whatever, does so shock the human imagin.itlon, that one 
 would think there could be no occasion to confute it. There would 
 be scarce decency in exposing it as it deserves, 
 
 f Ii has indeed been said, " that it v/as no mere unworthy the Son 
 of God to undergo the assaults of evil spirits, than to suffer indigni- 
 ties and death from the hands of zci eked -men." But, by partaking of 
 flesh and blood, he became liable to the latter, and ncihing but a 
 miracle could have saved hi;ii from them. But v.ith regard to the 
 
 former 
 
14 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 astonishment to consider farther, that during all this 
 transaction, Christ must have yielded voluntarily to 
 the mere motion and instigation of the devil. For 
 though it was by the Spirit of God that he was carried 
 into the wilderness, yet it was by the devil that he 
 was conveyed from thence to the temple, and placed 
 upon its battlements, a most dangerous and formi- 
 dable eminence* ! And, therefore, as the devil could 
 have no power over our Lord, unless by his free con- 
 sent, Christ must have been accessary to his own 
 dishonour, danger, and temptation f. Such a con- 
 duct as this would have been the more unworthy of 
 him^ as no good end could be answered by it, either 
 
 former, it is certain, that such assaults of the clevi! as these are sup- 
 posed to have been, are not the lor of humanity. Besides, the most 
 important ends of Christ's coming into the world required his sub- 
 mission to death ; but no valuable end v.hatever was answered by 
 his putting himself entirely into the power of the devil, in the manner 
 here pretended. 
 
 * Some parts of the temple (being built upon the edge of a rock, 
 under which was a valiey of a prodigious depth) were of so vast a 
 height, that it was impossible to look down without making the head 
 to swim ; nor could the sight reach to the bottom ; as we learn from 
 Josephus, Antiq. Jud. 1. 15. c. 11. § 5. 
 
 f Should it be said that Christ had an order from Cod to suffer 
 himself to be brought into this dangerous situation, the assertion 
 could not be proved from the text. Nor is it likely any such order 
 was given, because no good end could be answered by it. Christ 
 might be carried into the v/ilderness to be tempted of the devil -, but 
 not that he might in any measure yield to his temptations. Never- 
 theless, this would have been the case had Christ yielded to the 
 persuasions of the devil to accompany him to different places, in 
 order to hi*; being tempted. 
 
 with 
 
Christ^ s Temptation in the Wilderness, 15 
 
 with respect to himself or his followers. His own 
 character would have been degraded rather than ex- 
 alted. The temptations themselves to which he was 
 exposed were very far from carrying any force, as was 
 observed above: what extraordinary merit then, nay, 
 what virtue in the lowest degree, could there be in 
 resisting them ? And if there were no proper tempta- 
 tion presented to Christ, none that could serve as an 
 evidence or exercise of his obedience, what suitable 
 consolation or useful instruction, under real and 
 powerful temptations, can his followers derive from 
 this history ? 
 
 What has been already offered under this and the 
 foregoing heads, will enable us to form a right judg- 
 ment concerning the reasons commonly offered for 
 Christ's submitting to be tempted by the devil in the 
 manner here supposed. 1. It has been, I think, ge- 
 nerally asserted, that the apostle expressly assigns 
 this as one reason, that hereby he might * he made 
 like unto his brethren, and become a merciful and 
 faithful high priest, for in that he himself has s^iffered^ 
 being tempted, he is able to succour them that are 
 tempted. Dr. Chandler f thinks the history of our 
 Saviour's temptation is evidently referred to in the 
 following passage ; He was in all points tempted like 
 as we are, yet without sinX, It is impossible here to 
 forbear observing how ready all men are, at least 
 occasionally, to be governed by the sound rather than 
 
 • Heb. ii. 14—18. f P. 175. Compare Dr. Seeker, p. 110. 
 
 i Heb.iv. 15. 
 
 the 
 
! 6 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 the sense of Scripture : for it is manifest that the 
 apostle in these passages refers to those temptations 
 and saflerings to which the Hebrew Christians, were 
 exposed by their new profession. To encourage them 
 under these trials, he properly reminds them that 
 Christ had been exercised with the very same, called 
 out to struggle not only with all the common diffi-' 
 culties of human life, but also with the severest 
 persecutions. In this respect there was a real resem- 
 blance between his case and theirs. And this is the 
 subject of the apostle's discourse. That he does not 
 refer to Christ's temptation in the wilderness is farther 
 evident fro-m hence, that by undergoing that tempta- 
 tion he was not made like iinto his Irethren, nor tempted 
 like as ive are. The most learned advocates of the 
 common hypothesis contend, '* that this temptation 
 was extraordinary in its nature," and carried on in an 
 open manner^. '^ The tempter," say they, *^ came 
 to Jesus in a visible form : a thing, which we have 
 neither any reason from hence to fear ivill ever he our 
 own case, or to believe is ever the case of other common 
 ??2^;zt." They likewise assert, that when we are 
 tempted by invisible powers, the ten)ptations are 
 secret Xi and not distingui.sha.lle ly us from those 
 u'hich arise of themselves in our own breasts^. Now, 
 if we are not tem.ptcd as Christ w^as in the wilder- 
 ness, according to the common explication of this 
 history, then the fitness or necessity of his being 
 
 * Dr. Chandler, p. 176, 177. \ Br. Chandler, p. 185. 197. 
 
 -j Dr. Seeker, p. 1 1:>. § Dr. Seeker, p, 107. 
 
 made 
 
Chrisi's Teviptaiion in the IVilderness, 17 
 
 made like unto his brethren is most improperly urged 
 as a ground or reason for his being so tempted *. 
 
 2. A farther reason assio;ned for his submittins; to 
 be tempted in the manner he is generally supposed to 
 have been in the wilderness, is, that his example 
 might be a complete pattern of every virtue. But, 
 according to the common explication of Christ's 
 teniptations, they did not display any of his virtues to 
 advantage, as we have already proved, nor was his 
 behaviour under them proper for the imitation of his 
 followers. For, if the devil's bringing him into cir- 
 cumstances of danger, and placing him upon the 
 brink of a stupendous precipice, from whence he was 
 to be instigated to throw himself down, and from 
 whence, indeed, it was difficult not to fall, — if this 
 could not have been effected without his free consent 
 and choice, his example may be injurious, rather than 
 beneficial, to such creatures as we are, who are more 
 likely to preserve our innocence by flying from temp- 
 tation than by encountering it ; and who are accord- 
 ingly warned never voluntarily to rush upon it, but, 
 as far as we are able, to prevent its approach. Can 
 it then be conceived that Christ, tf he knew the devil, 
 would suffer himself to be transported by him to a 
 scene of the greatest danger, whereby he would cner- 
 
 * See Sect. IV. No. I. It is very remarkable that there should be 
 no reference at all in any part of the New Testament to Christ's 
 temptation in the \vildern<;ss, if it be, what, according to the received 
 interpretation it certainly was, the n\pEt astonishing and miraculous 
 event which ever befel him. 
 
 vate 
 
18 Aji Inquinj into the Nature and Dc<ign cf 
 
 vate all his exhortations to caution in declining it, 
 and more especially that excellent maxim delivered on 
 this very occasioDj Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy ' 
 God, which he might have inculcated to much 
 greater advantage by refusing; lo have left the wilder- 
 ness ? If Christ was ignorant who his coinpani«)ii 
 was, as some endeavour to persuade us, v.ould he g3 
 along with a stranger, go with him in quest of 
 temptations, and run into the way of them ? There 
 are many who contend for the literal interpretation of 
 this history, from a regard to the honour of Christ 
 and to the benefit of his disciples ; whereas in truth it 
 is equally injurioiis to both, and subverts the very 
 foundation on which they rest, the strength and 
 reality of these temptations. And supposing the 
 temptations to have been real and powerful, the con- 
 duct here ascribed to Christ is not calculated for the 
 imitation or instruction of his followers ^, 
 
 * Dr. Seeker, p. 110, thinks it may be said very safely, that, /or 
 any thing we know, it might behove Christ, — to give the enemy all ad- 
 vantages and opportiaiitics, in order to make his defeat more tonspintoiis. 
 But may it not be said, both with more safety and more ])robability, 
 that it did not behove Christ to give the devil any advantage, that so his 
 example might be instructive to those who are required to watch and 
 pray that they enter not into temptation, and forbidden to give 
 Satan any advantage ? In reality, no advantage was given to the 
 devil, by Christ's allowing himself to be assaulted by him in the 
 manner commonly supposed ; and consequently no peculiar honour 
 could result from his victory over him. The very supposition of 
 Christ's giving the enemy all advantages, in order to make his defeat 
 more conspicuous, implies his knowing who he was, which at once 
 ditariDQd his temptations of all their power. 
 
 III. It 
 
d J {Si's 'ri/hplaUojt in i/ic I Wilderness, ig 
 
 lil. It is a farther objection to the common opi- 
 nion, that it ascribes to the devil the performance of 
 the greatest miracles. (1 .) It supposes that the devil, 
 by nature a spiritual and invisible agent, has a power 
 of assunnng at pleasure a corporeal or visible form*, 
 and of speaking with an audible voice, though there 
 is no more ground from experience (our sole in- 
 structor in the established laws of nature) to ascribe 
 this power to the devil, than to ascribe life to the 
 inanimate, or speech to the brute creation, and 
 though the scripture represents the appearance or 
 vision of a spiritual being as an incontestable mi- 
 racle; for Zacharias was struck dumb for not giving 
 credit to such an evidence of a divine interposition f. 
 (2.) It supposes farther, that the devil has a power 
 of conveying men from place to place, and that he 
 did actually exert this power over his great Lord, by. 
 transporting him through the air J, from the wilder- 
 ness 
 
 * It ha$ been taken for granted by Dr. Seeker, Dr. Chandler, and 
 other learned writers, that the devil has this power ; but this point 
 has never been proved, nor do I leniember that any one of them has 
 ever attempted to prove it. 
 
 •f Luke i. 2'J. 
 
 \ I here arjiie on the supposition that the devH did not lead 
 Christ on foot from place to place, but conveyed him through the 
 air ; because the advocates of what is called the literal scheme gene- 
 rally suppose this to have been the case. Dr. Chandler (p. 212.) 
 indeed, and several others, plead, that the word »r«paXaft€av£< im- 
 ports no more tlian to conduct a person^ or to take hvn with us as a 
 companion (in which sense it is used Matt. xvii. 1.), and that there 
 was no miracle performed on this occasion, the devil only going be- 
 fore 
 
20 ^n Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 ncss to the summit of the Jewish temple; and from 
 thence to the top of an exceeding high mountain. 
 
 But 
 
 fore Christ, and either persuading or constraining liiiti to follow. 
 These gentlemen, however, seem to me to mistake the argument. 
 For, I apprehend, those who hold that the devil conveyed Clnist 
 through the air, do not ground their opinion on the meaning of 
 r;rapaXa/uCav£i (which certainly can never determine the manner \r\ 
 which Christ was taken to the wing of the temple), but on the cir- 
 cumstances of the history, which, to their apprehension, require 
 tliis interpretation. Whoever carefull}'- considers the matter, will 
 soon see that it was impossible the devil should take Christ to 
 the top of the Jewish temple without a miracle. It appears by the 
 description given of the temple by Joscphus (Antiq. 1. 15. c. 11. § 3. 5. 
 and B. J. 1. 5. c. 5.), and from some passages from other Jev/ish wri- 
 ters (cited by Dr, Whitby on I^uke xxii, 52.), that it was so encom- 
 passed by walls, and so constantly guarusd, that all access to it v/aa 
 impracticable, but by such persons, and under such conditions, as the 
 hiw allowed. Now by law no fori igner could pass the first inclosure 
 or court under pain of death; the Jcivish people could not pass the 
 second ; the priests alone could enter the third. Tlvc temple itself 
 was within this court ; from which Christ was excluded, not being a 
 Jev%^ish priest. As to the devil, those who know under what different 
 disguises he imposed upon Christ (see above, p. 4, note *), can with 
 equal certainty inform us by what stratagems he might advance for- 
 ward to the temple. Christ, however, in whom there was iio guiley 
 could not have been permitted to follow. With regard to the temple 
 itself, properly so called, on the top of it there ucre spikes, tcith sharp 
 points^ to prevent so much as a lird from rcstitig upon it. The wings 
 of the temple stretched out on either side, at the eastern front of it, 
 which was by far the most magnificent, and commanded a view of 
 the entire body of worsliippers. These wings were twenty cubits 
 higher than the temple; the height of the temple being 100 cubits, 
 and the height of the imtfvytov 120 cubits, at the top of which, the 
 history (according to the common interpretation) affirms, the dev il 
 did set our Saviour. That the word nTifvyav denotes the wing (n oj 
 
Christ's Temptation in the JVildernt'^s. 21 
 
 But this could not have been done, but by repeated 
 displays of a power truly miraculous^ and even equally 
 
 stupendous 
 
 . phmaclt) of the temple, that most vahiable expositor Dr. Light- 
 toot long since observed (Works, vol.ii. p. 130.). And his opinion 
 was adopted by the le.?rned Dr. Pr:deaux (Connect, vol.i. p. 200.), 
 and lately by Dr. Benson (Life of Christ, p. 35). These circumstances 
 serve to shew that the devil couid not lead Christ on foot to the top 
 of one of these wings of the temple, in the manner some allege ; but 
 must (if he placed him there at all) have carried him through the 
 air, or afforded him some other miraculous assistance (unless they 
 can suppose that the devil first applied for leave to the officers and 
 guards of the temple, which was very unlikely to have been asked, 
 or obtained, or passed over in silence). And as the sacred writers 
 were well acquainted with all these circumstances, they could never 
 design to affirm that the devil did what they knew was impossible to 
 be done. Dr. Macknight (to avoid this difficulty) maintains, that it 
 was from the battlement of one of the cloisters that the devil desired 
 Jesus to throw himself daicfi ; and he affirms (but without producino* 
 any authority) that the people ivere atlilerty to icalk on the roof of the 
 cloisters. This last assertion seems to me somewhat improbable, 
 both because the cloisters were sacred buildi?:gs ^ and because no such 
 liberty as the doctor speaks of, was allowed even with regard to 
 common houses, to which no peculiar reverence was due. For the 
 door which opened upon the roof was constantly kept shut, to pre- 
 vent their domestic animals from daubing the terrace, and thereby 
 spoiling the water which fell from thence into the cisterns below 
 the court ; and the stairs which conducted to the roof were not 
 placed on the outside of the house, but either in the porch, or at the 
 entrance into the court ; and consequently strangers could not have 
 access to them without the consent of the family. SeeDr. Shavv'j 
 Travels, as cited by Dr. Macknight in his Harmony, part I. p. 123. 
 2d ed. But whether the people were at liberty to walk upon the 
 roofs of the cloisters is a point of no importance, because the evan- 
 gelists are not speaking of any of the cloisters, not one of which 
 was called the wi^Jg cf the te7)!p:'c. The v>'ord isp j- is used with great 
 
 latitude 
 
i!2 yin Inquiry into the JSaiun and Design of 
 
 stupendous wiih that by which Philip was traiisported 
 from Gaza to Azotus*; and l)y no means inftrior, 
 as was observed above, to that which would have 
 been necessary to the preservation of Christ, had he 
 thrown himself down from the temple_, in proof of 
 his being the Messiah f 3 though his answer imphes, 
 that his preservation must have depended on the inter- 
 position of Godj whom it was not lawful to tempt. 
 (3.) It supposes that the devil_, having placed Christ 
 upon an exceeding high mountain, could from thence 
 shew him all the kingdoms of the world X- Now 
 
 there 
 
 latitude in the Gospels (Matt. xxi. 12. ch. xxiv. 1. Mark xl. 11. 15. 
 17.), so as to include the temple and all the buildings and courts be- 
 longing to it ; and the part of the Ufov here specified was the nm^v- 
 yiov, or uing\ so called, because, like wings, it extended itself in 
 breadth on each side, far beyond the breadth of the temple. 
 
 ♦ Acts viii. 39, 40. 
 
 I See Dr. Seeker, cited above, p. 9, note *. 
 
 ^ Some learned persons suppose that the sh€wi7ig here spoken 
 of relates rather to description than by ocular sight. Dr. Chandler, 
 p. 215, and Heuman, Diss. Sylloge, torn. i. p. 1. Diss. 7, cited by Dr. 
 Seeker, p, 118. But there could be no more occasion to take Christ 
 to an exceeding high mountain, in order to shew him the kingdoms 
 of the world by description, than St. Paul could have had to carry 
 the Corinthians to an exceeding high mountain, in order to shew them 
 aviore excellent ivay, viz. that of charity (1 Cor. xii. 31.). Dr. Mac- 
 knight, being sensible, on the one hand, that a real sight of all the 
 kingdoms of the world from any high mountain whatsoever, is an 
 impossible thing; and being willing, on the other, to refer this ar- 
 ticle of the history to what Christ saw with his bodily eyes, would 
 restrain the prospect to the land of promise. So this author, and 
 Dr. Chandler likewise (p. 214.) think that the word xoy/ue; is used 
 Rom. iv. 13. The promise that he should l-c heir of the JiORLD, 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IViLdcrness, 23 
 
 there being no mountain upon the face of the earth 
 which commands the view of every part of it (or in- 
 deed 
 
 iriLS not to Alraham or to his seed through ike lawy hut through the 
 righteous7iess of faith. Some plead that KOTf^oq signifies the Roman 
 empire ; and there are many who understand it in this history some- 
 times of Judea, and at other times of the Roman empire, just ac 
 suits their purpose. In answer to which I observe, 1. No one in- 
 stance has hitherto been produced, in whieh kot^o? signifies only 
 one particular country. It may indeed be applied to the Roman em-' 
 pire ; because this empire Tv'as considered and spoken of as compre- 
 hending in it all the countries and kingdoms of the world. This 
 application of the word therefore will not answer the purpose for 
 which it is urged. That, in the passage cited above from St. Paul, it 
 cannot be restrained to the land of Judea, is evident from the occa- 
 sion on which it is used. For the promise referred to by the apostle 
 is that whereby Abraham was viade the father of all them that believe^ 
 though they be not circuincisedy and are scattered all over the world, 
 ver. 11. And it is for this very reason that Abraham is called the 
 heir of the world; because believers of all nations of the world. Gen- 
 tile? as well as Jews, were to have him for their father, and inherit 
 the blessing of justification by faith. To confine the word xo^r/^tsc 
 here to Canaan, or to any one country, is to destroy the whole rea- 
 soning of the apostle, which is manifestly designed to shew that 
 Abraham was to inherit a seed out of all nations. 2. If some in- 
 stances could be produced in which the word xoa-juof was applied to 
 o>ic purticuHar country, yet it could not be used in this confined sense 
 in the history of Christ's temptation. For it is not said, the devil 
 shewed Christ the ivorld, but all the kingdoms of //(c z<orW; a 
 phrase that cannot be limited to the narrow territory of Canaan, 
 Nvliich at tlie time of Christ's temptation was no kingdom at alL 
 Judea was nov^ a province of the Roman empire, an appendage of 
 the province of Syria. See Luke iii. 1. 3. Nay, were we even to ad- 
 mit that the land of promise alone is here referred to, this could not 
 be shewn to Christ from any mountaiu but by a miracle. For the 
 
 land 
 
54 An Inquhij into the Nature and Design of 
 
 deed ol any single kingdom of it), and if there were, 
 no human eve being strong enough to take in the 
 prospect X the shewing Christ all the kingdoms of the 
 worldj had it been possible^ could have been effected 
 only by a miracle : by a miracle a thousand times 
 greater in its own nature than that performed by God, 
 when^ from mount Nebo^ he shewed Moses the nar- 
 
 land of promisei in its largest sigiiijicatiofi, reached (as Dr. Mac- 
 knight observes, -p. 61.) from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, east 
 and west, and from Egypt on the south to beyond Sidon northwards : 
 immense tract of country, which no mountain commands, and which 
 no human eye can take in. And yet the doctor adds, All these the 
 DEVIL pointed out to Jesus in the temptation, taking particular notice of 
 their glory, that is, their great and opulent cities, their rich fields, 
 their hills covered with wood ajid cattle, their rivers, &:c. It was JE- 
 HOVAH who shewed Moses all the land, or enabled him to take a 
 more distinct prospect of its several quarters than his own unassisted 
 sight would have permitted him to do; Deut. xxxiv. 1. Upon what 
 grounds can we ascribe to the devil this prerogative of the eternal 
 Deity ? Lastly, it was absolutely impossible that the devil should 
 shew Christ the land of promise, to its utmost limits on every hand 
 (and still more impossible that he should shew him the whole world), 
 in a 77i07nent of tiyne: a circumstance entirely dropt by Dr. Mac- 
 knight in his first edition, and left unexplained in the second. This 
 omission is the more to be lamented, as our ablest commentators, and 
 the christian world in general, have thought themselves under a ne- 
 cessity of receding from the literal sense of the history in this arti- 
 cle, very much on account ef this circumstance. (See below, p. 34, 
 35.) With regard to the reason which the doctor assigns for assert- 
 ing a real sight of the kingdoms of the world, viz. the devil's carry- 
 ing OUT Lord tip into an exceeding high mountain to view them ; it 
 would equally prove that it was really, and not in vii^ion, that St. 
 John was carried away to a great and high mountain, in order to 
 his being shewn the holy Jerusalem. Rev. xxi. 10. 
 
 row 
 
Christ's Temptation in the fVihleriics^. 25 
 
 row territory of" Canaan*? Besides, the devil shewed 
 Christ not only all the kingdoms of the world^ but 
 also all the ghry of then) ; that is, the wealth f and 
 treasures of their subjects, and whatever constitutes 
 the splendoiir and magnificence of their sovereigns, 
 imperial robes, and crowns, and throne?, and palaces, 
 and courts, and guards, and armies : which nmst all 
 have been produced into view, and exhibited in a 
 manner proper to strike the imagination, and fire the 
 passions. And what still increases the miracle, 
 .ill these jiunierous objects,' as well as the whole ex- 
 terior surface of the glube, the devil must have shewn 
 to Christ at one vieu, and in a single instant of timej. 
 Supposing this to be possible, it is one of the greatest 
 
 miracles 
 
 * Deut. xxxiv. 1 — f".. 
 
 I Compare Gen. xxxi. I. ch. xlv. 13. 1 Chron. xxix. 25. 2 Chron. 
 xxx;i.27. I«. Ixi. 6. 
 
 \ gv jnyixr. yjccv, in ail insiant, or ]»'nt of (ipjc. Luke iv. 5. The: 
 word 7T yjur, \^ tnkea from a malliematical point, and is used to de- 
 note tlie most minute and indivisible part of duration, such wherein 
 wo can conceive iX) rAicccssion, or which takes up th^ time of only one 
 idea in the mind. See Erasmus and Casaubon on Luke iv. 5. Vata- 
 blus likewise, and Grotius, and Beza, and alJ the best judges of the 
 Ui^eek language, render the phrase to the same effect, in pnncto tem- 
 por;-:. This renderino- i^ very agreeable to all the antient versions, 
 except the tSyriac. Dr. Chandler was too well skilled in the Greek 
 language not to acknowledge (p. 2L5.) that Christ's ;-»ro.'j/5er^ of all 
 the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof, whatever it was, 
 was in.<;tantantous. Nevertheless, according to his account of it , it wa'> 
 no otherwise instantaneous than all other prospects are : for Ik." cay-., 
 if qffcrfd iticlfto his viav, as roo)i as crcr J'C vr.s in the slatio'Jircd on 
 fur that purpose, and could sun:eij the several ohjrds that iicre anji;.nd 
 hiy.t. Nay, according to this learned v/riter (p. 216.) Christ hrd no 
 
 C prusDicf 
 
26 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 miracles we can conceive. But it seems very unrea- 
 sonable to ascribe to the devil the power of perform- 
 ing any miracles ; inasmuch as even good angels (who 
 cannot be supposed to have a more limited sphere of 
 action than those accursed spirits, who are reserved 
 in chains of darkness to the judgment of the great 
 day^y) never perform any miracles at their own plea- 
 sure 3 never appear to men, and remove them from 
 one place to another, as they see fit themselves ; nor 
 do they ever gratify them by such marvellous and mag- 
 nificent prospects as those which it is here supposed 
 were shewn to Christ. Besides, the allowing a mira- 
 culous power to the devil destroys the credit and usef 
 
 of 
 
 prospect at all of tar the greater part of the kingdoms of the world, 
 but only a desaiption of them ; the devil at the same time pointing 
 to the situation of such as were too distajit to be seerif and succes- 
 sively informing him what kingdoms lay towards the east, what in 
 the south, what in the west, and, lastly, what towards the north. 
 Thus, by Christ's seeing a very little, as soon as he could survey it ; 
 by hearing a great deal about the rest which he did not see; and by 
 being gradually informed in what quarter of the world it lay ; by this 
 long series of events vs-ould this gentleman account for its being said, 
 that the devil shewed Christ all the kingdoms of the world in an In- 
 stant. 
 
 * 2 Pet. ii. 4._ Jud. 6. Sec Dissert, on Mir. p. 151. 8vo. p. 95. 12mo. 
 
 ■j- Miracles are always rcprcented in Scripture as in themselves 
 decisive and absolute demonstrations of the divinity and sole domi- 
 nion of Jehovah, and as an immediate divine testimony to his mes- 
 sengers. Exod. iv. 5 — 9. chap. vii. 5. 17. eh. viii. 10. 22. ch. ix. 14. 
 16. 29. ch. X. 1, 2. ch. xl. 7. ch. xiv. 4. 18. Deut. iv. 34 — 39. 2 Sam. vii. 
 22 — 24. Numb. xvi. 28 — 30. John v. 36, 37. ch. xi. 41, 42. Acts ii. 10. 
 Matt. xii. 28. John x. 24, 25. 36—38. ch. xiv. 10, 11. Hcb. ii.4. 
 
 1 Cor- 
 
Christ*s T^inptation hi the JVildernesa. 27 
 
 of miracles, and contradicts such declarations of 
 Scripture as confine* them to the Deity, either ope- 
 rating ininicdiately by himself, or by the instrumen- 
 tality of such beings as act by his commission. In- 
 deed, such a power could not consist with the regular 
 course of nature, and the established order of provi- 
 dence, which would suffer from it perpetual interrup- 
 tions f. And it is abundantly confuted by the expe- 
 rience of nearly six thousand years ', there not being 
 one well attested example of the exercise of it from the 
 beginning of the creation to this day J. 
 
 IV. It 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. Thi? view of miracles ia utterly inconsistent with 
 the supposition that evil spirits possess the power and liberty of per- 
 forming them. See Dissert, on Miracles, ch. 3. sect. 5, 6'. 
 
 * Both prophecies and tniracles are absolutely appropriated to 
 God: He only doeth icondrous works, Ps. Ixxii. 18. Ps. Ixxxvi. 10. 
 Exod. XV. II. He revealeth secrets^ and make.th known what shall 
 come to pass. Dan. ii. 28, 29. 47. Idolaters are challenged to justify 
 their worship of idols, and the idol gods themselves to ^-Ive proof 
 of their divinity, by suitable di;>plays of power or laiowledgc, 
 Is. xli. 21—24. ch. xlii. 8 — 1.3. ch. xliv. 7. ch. xlv. 20, 21. ch. xlviii. 3. 
 And if invisible evil agents had (as some have supposed) supported 
 the claims of the heathen deities, this would have been -the very 
 same thing in appearance, and with regard to all ihe mi^jchievotis 
 consequences attending it, as if the heathen deities had themselves 
 interposed in support of those claims. Dissert, on Mir, p. 210, 8vo. 
 p. 15-'. 12mo. 
 
 f The Scripture very ration^'y represents the wlio!e couraa of na- 
 ture as universally and invariably fuliiUing the v/iil of God^ as fixed 
 by his decree nhich shall not pass auaij, as governed \)y his laws w^ic'h 
 shall not le broken, t»y laws '.cJuch he kas csichhfhcdfor eicr anxl ever : 
 whi^jhmust therefore be unalterable by any authority, but his y.ho 
 at first ordained them. Pi. cxlviii. 6. 
 
 \ Some perhaps may think this reasoxiirg suJicientlv answered by 
 c 2 siyirg. 
 
£8 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 IV. It is a still greater objection to the common 
 opinon, th at it ascribes to the devil the performance 
 of things not only preternatural^ but absiird and im- 
 possible. Such we must reckon his shewing Christ 
 all the kingdoms of the world from an exceedingly 
 high mountain : for, the earth being of a spheroidical 
 figure, what single mountain can command a view of 
 all the parts of it^ of those in particular which are 
 opposi^te to each other ? The sun itself, at its im- 
 
 £aying,with archbishop Seeker (Serm. vol. ii. p. 113.), the whole life 
 of Christ ivas so full of v'07ulcrs, that the history of his temptation 
 iy jKvfecihj agrcealle to the rest; andicc viiist either question all, or 
 ■no part. From the Gospel we learn (not indeed that the whole life 
 of Christ, but) that the period of his public ministry was full of 
 wonders, or of astonishing miracles, which he performed iu his Fa- 
 ther's name, and in attestation of the divinity of his mission. Many 
 illustrious tcstlixjonies were also borne to liim by the Father at his bap- 
 tism, his transfiguration, and his crucifixion. With respect to these 
 "wonders, it may be truly affirmed, ive must either question all, or 7io 
 part: for they are all supported by the same testimony; and are 
 equally credible in their own nature, being calculated to answer one 
 common end, and referred to one adequate cause. But the history of 
 Christ's temptation, according to His Grace's interpretation of it, is 
 so far from being perfectly agreeable to these wonders, that nothing 
 can be imagined more repugnant. For if the devil can perform noble 
 piracies, which is what His Grace (Serm. p'; 1 16, 1 17.) infers from this 
 l.istory, then miracles are not works appropriate to God, nor deci- 
 sive testimonies of a divine mission. The doctrine therefore ad- 
 vanced by this eminent writer, is a contradiction to the whole tenor 
 of the Jewish and Christian revelations, and even subversive of the 
 cvideiice on which they rest. I: we do n<3!t question, aiul even re- 
 ject his doctrine, how can v/e receive tliat of the inspired prophets, 
 viz tlat God alone doeth woadciri; .or allow the divinity of their 
 missioj-. ? 
 
 mensc 
 3 
 
Christ's Tumpiatmn in ike IFildenikss. 29 
 
 mense height above the loftiest mountains of our 
 gloi)c, commands ar.d enlightens at once only a sin- 
 gle hemisphere. Could the devil then, from one 
 point of view, shew Christ not only the entire cir- 
 cumference of the globe, but also whatever constitutes 
 the glory and grandeur of its kingdoms ; and shew 
 him such infinitely numerous objects, in situations 
 so distant, and so opposite, not gradually and succes- 
 sively, but in one and the same instant of time ? This 
 df)es not seem so properly a miracle, as an absurdity 
 and contradiction, such as is not the object or any 
 power. 
 
 Now in the interpretation of Scripture, it is a rule al- 
 lowed by all, and such as ought never to be forgotten, • 
 that we are to have recourse to a figurative sense when- 
 ever the nature of the thing will not admit a proper 
 and literal one; and that to distinguish what is to be 
 literally, and what figuratively, understood, depends 
 on a previous knowledge of the subject. Thus, wb.en 
 we read of the eyes, ears, hands of God, all allow tlicse 
 to be figures; reason as well as revelation assuring 
 us, that God is a spiritual incorporeal substance. And 
 there is just the same necessity for receding from the 
 literal sense of the passage under consideration, if it 
 implies manifest and palpable contradictions. 
 
 It is the more necessary, in the interpretation of 
 the sacred writings, to make the absurdity of the li- 
 teral construction a reason for adopting a figurative 
 one, as they are allowed by Christians to have God 
 for their author. l£ it be a jyst observation, ^^ that 
 
 what 
 
30 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 what God says must be true ;'* it is no less certain, 
 *^ that whatever is false and absurd can never have 
 been spoken by God/' And therefore, if any thing 
 of this kind is asserted by the interpreters of his word, 
 we may be very Sure they mistake its meaning. 
 
 We are Hkcwise to consider^ that it is very com- 
 mon in the sacred v.-ritings, on other occasions, to 
 relate tilings as actually done which yet were only 
 transacted in a vision. And sometimes, perhaps, the 
 Scripture relates visions or representations made to 
 the mind of a prophet as if they were outward trans- 
 actions, without giving express notice to the con- 
 trary* 3 any more than they do when they introduce 
 
 a me- 
 
 * Many learned writers have attempted to shew, that Hosea's 
 marrying Gomer, and taking to himself children of whoredom, ch. i. 
 and iii; — that Jeremiah's putting a linen girdle upon his loins, 
 going to EuphratCD, and hiding it in the hole of a rock, ch. xiii ; his 
 carrying a wine cup from God up and down to aU nations, and 
 causing them to drink it, ch. xxv ; and his putting yokes upon the 
 necks of several kings, ch. xxvii. — and that Ezekiel's eating a roll, 
 ch. iii ; his taking a tile, pourtraying the city of Jerusalem upon it, 
 and laying siege against it, ch. iv; and his shaving his head and beard 
 with a barber's rascr, ch. v; learned wrjLers have attempted to 
 shew, that these and many other actions ascribed to the antient 
 prophets, were only imaginary and scenical; and that narratives of 
 this kind are to be understood as a history only of prophetic visions, 
 though it be nor positively said (as these writers apprehend), that 
 the things related were no where performed but upon the stage of 
 fancy. See Mr. John Smith's Select Discourses, p. 220 — 229, and 
 Maimonides, Mor. Nev. p. ii. c. 46. We may well allov/, that all 
 these things, or most of them, were transacted only in vision ; not 
 merely because we hereby avoid the iaconvenicnses attending the 
 
 Utcral 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderness, 31 
 
 a metaphor, a parable, or allegory. Nor need we 
 wonder to find visions related as facts ; inasmuch as 
 they pass for such in the mind of the prophet. The 
 representation is so strong and hvely, that he cannot 
 disiiiiguish a vision, or scenes discerned only by ihe 
 mind, from outward objects which are seen with the 
 bodily eve ; and is affected by the former in the same 
 manner as he would have been by the latter. St. Paul 
 calls his being caught up into the third heaven, and 
 
 literal interpretation ; but also because the lively representation of 
 these things in vision conveyed the same instruction, and answered 
 every purpose as well as the real performance of them could have 
 done. 
 
 I would only add, that perhaps Jacob's wrestling with the angel, 
 the night in v/hich he prayed so earnestly to be delivered from the 
 handj of his brother Esau, and his prevailing in the combat, in 
 token of the efficacy of his prayer with God, and of the consequent 
 victory he was to gain over his brother ; this might be done in a 
 prophetic vision, and yet the design of it be sufficiently answered. 
 Jacob's lameness (like Zacharias's loss of speech after his vision in 
 the temple, Luke i. 22,) lasted but for a time, (for he came safe and 
 sound to a city of Shechem, Gen. xxxiii. 18.) and served to convince 
 him of the divine original of this vision ; and consequently to re- 
 prove his doubts, and to raise and confirm his faith in God, Cer- 
 tainly a spirit has not flesh and bones, so as to be laid hold of by 
 man: nor could Jacob intend to be literally understood, when he 
 says, he had seen God face to Jace^ Gen. xixii. SO. The expression 
 itself imports, that he was favoured with a vision of God, a clear 
 revelation of his will, and the manifest tokens of his peculiar pre- 
 sence. The learned and worthy Bisliop of Carlisle, Dr, E. Law, in 
 his Considerations, p, 75, 76. (5th edit.) has taken notice of several 
 revelations made in vision, though not distinguished from real facts: 
 which may serve to confirm what is advanced here. 
 
 into 
 
32 ^n Inqidnj hito the Nature and Design of 
 
 into paradise, a vision and revelation of the Lord* ; 
 but such were the impressions which it made upon 
 him^ that he could not determine, with certainty, 
 whether this happened by a literal and corporeal 
 translation, or only by a mental representation f. 
 Besides, in this and the like cases, a lively exhibi- 
 tion of certain images before the mind produces the 
 same effect with the sight of their corresponding 
 objects ', and transactions upon the stage of fancy 
 answer the same end as a real performance. For these 
 reasons, the relation corresponds to the apprehensions 
 of the prophet, while the appearances are placed 
 before his niind } and though those appearances are 
 
 * 2 Cor. ^:. 1—4. 
 
 •f This seems to be his meaning', when, speaking of his bein«' caught 
 up to the third heaven, he says, tckether in the hody^ or whether out 
 of the lody, J ccrtnot tell 2 Cor, xii 2, 2. When an angel presented 
 himself to Peter in prison; smote him on the side ; caused the chains 
 to fall off from his hands; and bade him arise quickty, gird himself, 
 bind on his sandals, tlirow his mantle round him, and follow him 
 out (all which he accordingly did); it is said, tliat he n-ist not that it 
 was true ifkich icas done b-j the ans:d\ but thought lie smo a vision; 
 Acts xii. 7 — 9, He understood the nature of vision's, having been 
 favoured with them, ch. i. 10; and yet at first he could not determine, 
 whether what now happened to him was a real fact, or a visionary 
 representation, and he rather thought it was the latter. It is evident 
 from hence, that all these facts might have been transacted only 
 ufK)n the mind and imagination of the apostle; that ih.c representa- 
 tions of a vision are as clear and lively as objects that lie open to 
 the senses ; and that it is dlllicult to distinguish betvv-ecn them by the 
 bare impression made at the time, however other circumstances 
 
 might afterwards enable men to do it. There will be further use 
 
 made of this observation' Sect. IV. No. 2. 
 
 ficti- 
 
Chnst^s Temptation in the IVUderness, 33 
 
 fictitious, yet neither the credit of the historian nor 
 the use of th?. relation is impaired. 
 
 Nor does it hereby become difficult to distinguish 
 fiction from fact*, while the nature and scope of the 
 relation sufficiently ascertain what it is. If the oc- 
 currence be possible and probable, so as to admit, 
 and the manifest intention and other circumstances of 
 it require, a literal construction, it would be very 
 ab:::urd to have recourse to any other. Whereas, on 
 the other hand, if neither the nature of the things 
 themselves which are related do admit, nor the 
 design of them require, a real performance, it would 
 be equally unreasonable not to look out for some figu- 
 rative interpretation. 
 
 If we proceed by these rules in forming our judg- 
 ment concerning Christ's temptations, we must con- 
 clude (unless the objections here urged against them 
 are capable of receiving a just solution), that they are 
 not to be understood as outward transactions ; inas- 
 much as the things themselves were iniprobable, and 
 even impracticable in their own nature 3 and mas- 
 
 ate the 
 e 
 
 * TKs obfervjlion vAvch follows Is df signed to vl 
 Scripture, on the supposit'.oa thr.t it does not at every turn gi 
 lxpr-.3 no.ice, th;it ^vhnt it rentes as matter of fact is nolhing ir-orc 
 thaa the history of a vision. But perhaps the context, or some de- 
 claraicn of the sacred penman, would generally prevent a mist:i..e, 
 no less than the nature of the thinj^s re'-ated. In some particular 
 cases, as in that of St. Paul mentioned above, it m\^t be a matter 
 of no importance to be deiermined, even with regard to the prophet 
 h;mself,wheLhcv the objects presi^nted to him v/cre real or ima- 
 ginary. ,, 
 
 C 5 n^"^'^ 
 
34 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 much as the real performance could answer no va- 
 luable purpose. 
 
 V. It is needless to pursue this subject, and to 
 shew, by a long train of consequences, what absur- 
 dities follow from the literal construction of this pas- 
 sage; since such as are more obvious carry almost 
 universal conviction, and force even those to depart 
 from the letter who have been most inclined to adhere 
 to it, and best able to defend it. CaU^in*, though 
 he does not absolutely determine the matter, was of 
 opinion, that several circumstances in this history 
 agreed best to a vision. And the generality of later 
 writers do readily admit, that the devil's shewing 
 Christ all the kingdoms of the world, and all their 
 glory, in a moment of time, was done by some ficti- 
 tious scenery t; from a persuasion, as they frankly 
 acknowledge, that it could not be done in any other 
 manner. But if one of the temptations w^re presented 
 to Christ in vision only, why might not the tivo others 
 be presented to him in the same manner? It offers 
 no greater violence to the text to recede from the 
 literal construction in all these instances than in one. 
 Most of the reasons assigned for doing this, in part, 
 
 * Se.e his note on Matt. iv. 5. 
 
 f Some indeed, and particularly our famous countrymen Huo^h 
 Brougbton (see Vv'^olfius on Matt. iv. 8.) and Milton, (see Paradise 
 P.e^ained, b. iv. 1. 40.), suppose that the devil shewed our Saviour all 
 the kingdoms of the world by the help of optic instruments: but it is 
 raor« geoeraliy asserted, that he did it either by visionary impres- 
 sions upon his mind, or by external representations to his sight. 
 
 7 extend 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderness, 35 
 
 extend equally to the entire narrative. Nay^ it is 
 apparently unnatural and arbitrary* not to put the 
 same construction upon the several parts of the 
 same relation ; but to understand one part of it ac- 
 cording to the letter, and the other in a figurative 
 sense. If therefore there be a necessity, a necessity 
 so evident and cogent as not to be denied by learned 
 and candid adversaries, for departing from the literal 
 interpretation with regard to one of the temptations, 
 the uniformity of the history obliges us to do the 
 same with regard to the rest. 
 
 The foregoing considerations would require us to 
 reject the common explication of Christ's tempta- 
 tion, even though it had been related (as we have hi- 
 therto supposed, but not admitted) altogether as a 
 plain matter of fact, and we had been left to construe 
 it merely by the nature and intention of the relation. 
 Nevertheless this is far from being the case: for 
 
 VI. The tex; itself (on the letter of which the 
 common hypothesis rests as its sole foundation), in- 
 stead of positively and expressly asserting that the 
 temptation of Christ was a real outward transaction, 
 contains clear intimations, and even direct assertions, 
 of the very contrary. Thus, when it is said, in the 
 
 * This is acknowledged by the candid and judicious Spanheim 
 (Dubia Evangel, pars iii. dub. 55. p. 217.), a very able advocate 
 for the literal liiLerpretation, Causre etiam nihil est cur interpretum 
 quorundam opiriioni subscribamus, qui primam tentationem realiter 
 et historice cont'gisse arbitrantur, posteriores duas in visione dun- 
 taxat, eadem enim ct uniformis riarrationis conleitura utrobique 
 reperitur. 
 
 fore- 
 
36 An Inquiry htfo the Nature and D^slgri of 
 
 fore-cited passage, that the devil shewed Christ all 
 the kingdoms of the world, and all their glory, in 
 one view, or in a single point of time; the expression 
 itself sufficiently intimates, that the evangehst is not 
 speaking of the real sight of all these objects. For, were 
 there any mountain which commanded so extensive a 
 prospect, Christ must have changed his position, and 
 gradually turned himself round in order to take a 
 distinct view of the several parts of it; or, had all the 
 parts in a miraculous manner been placed before his 
 bodily sight, he must have surveyed them in succes- 
 sion, one after another. The^ evangelist, therefore, 
 must certainly design to be understood of what was 
 instantaneously exhibited to bis mind. Other very 
 plain intimations that Christ's temptation is not to be 
 understood as an outward transaction will be pro- 
 duced in the third section. There likewise we shall 
 attempt to shew, that all the evangelists who have 
 mentioned this aifair, do, in express terms, affirm 
 that it passed spirititally and in vision, that it was 
 merely an ideal or mental representation. And if this 
 point should be made good, it will be allowed that 
 the very letter of the text, instead of supporting, 
 confutes the common interpretation. Before we pro- 
 ceed to the consideration of this point, it will be 
 proper to take notice. 
 
 SEC- 
 
Christ's Teyyjptation in the Wildemess, 37 
 
 ^SECTION II. 
 
 That there are some, who, allowing that the whole 
 of this history is to be understood as a recital of vi- 
 sionary representations, contend that these visions 
 were framed by the devil, and that the temptations 
 are t« be ascribed to his immediate agency*. 
 
 This 
 
 * That those who formerly held the temptations of Christ to be 
 .1 vision or scenical representation, did not therefore maintain it to be 
 a divine vidoa (whatever some of late have suggested to the con- 
 trary), appears by their writings. The question concerning Christ's 
 temptations, which had been agitated before the publication of the 
 tst edition of this Inquiryj was this, IVhere they proposed to him out' 
 uardly^ or in the way of vision ? Those who asserted that all, or any 
 of them were supernatural visioiiSy ascribed them to the devil, no less 
 than those who believed them to be outward transactions. The 
 learned Spanheirn (Dubia Evang. pars teitia, dub. 55. p. 240, 241.) 
 states the point in dispute hi the follov/ing manner; Qua;ri enim 
 pol'Cjt, ncc sine causa, an de histori'l hie agatur, an de vhioaCy et 
 utrum extcrno congressu adortus fuerit Christum tenlator^ an poiius 
 Christo in visionem et ecstasin rapto species ejusmodi duntazat 
 ohjccta; fuerint a tentatore ? He knew of no ihvd opinion, for he 
 adds, Duplex hic eruditorum sententia. And in the sei.|Uel he argues 
 against the temptation^ being visions, because it derogated fion\ the 
 dignity of Christ, to allow that the devil could act upon /z/.s- mind or 
 ivia^^inatiun^ and deceive him by various Jiclitions representations. This 
 subject, so far as concerns the removal of Christ fiom place lo place, 
 was afterwards discussed by that prodigy of ieamlag, S. Bochart, 
 who st.xtes the controversy in the follov/ing a:erms: Uirum s alicet 
 Christus reipsd, an vero itr,a^?uitic:Le tantum, a Diabvlo in moiiLcm, 
 templique pinnaculum, fuerii i; nslatus, Opcr. vol. i. p. 012. 'ed. 
 
 Lucrdunl 
 
38 An Inquiry info the Nature and Design of 
 
 This interpretation, it must be confessed, has one 
 advantage above the former, that it does not destroy 
 
 the 
 
 Lugduui Batav. 1712. And In the following pages he presses his 
 opponents, as Spanhelm also had done, with the difficulties of their 
 avowed principle, that the devil deceived Christ in vision. Most of 
 our modern writers assert, that it was the devil who made a visionary 
 representation of all the kingdoms of the world to Christ. And very 
 lately Mr. Mason (in a sermon upon Christ's temptations in the 
 wilderness, published in the 2d volume of the ProtPSta7rt Si/stem, 1758) 
 undertook to shew, that the whole of what is related in the history 
 was not real fact, but passed in a trance, dream or vision. He affirms 
 after others, that the phrase, in the spirit, here signifies, in a spiritual 
 manner, as he thinks it does in John vi. 63. and also in Ezek. xxxvii. 1. 
 where the prophet says, he teas carried out iii the spirit, not really, 
 but in imagination only (mente non revera) or in vision (com- 
 pare Bochart, vol. i. p. 954.). At the same time, like all others who 
 asserted the temptations of Christ to be visions, he did not refer them 
 to God, but maintained that the devil painted and exhibited the scenes 
 here described, and strongly presented them, not to the senses, but 
 imagination of our Lord. See p. 308. 311. 314, 315, 317. 
 
 Since the publication of the 1st edition of this hiquiry, some 
 have thought, that Le Clerc believed this to be a utvinc vision, 
 merely because he was once inclined to think it a visio^i. And 
 very happy, I acknov.-lcdge, would it have been, if (what 1 esteem) 
 the true opinion concerning Christ's temptations could have boasted 
 so great a patron, whose name could not have failed procuring it a 
 general attention, and doing it much honour. But we have already 
 shewn, that those who believed the temptations of Christ to be 
 visions did never assert iheir divinitt/, but on the contrary took it 
 for granted, that they where framed by the devil, whose r.gency the 
 histo. y was thought to assert in the strongest manner, and which the 
 principles of Le Clerc did not nt ill inchne him to call into question: 
 for a vision is only one spcci'-.« '^t .niracles, and kc always taught that 
 the devil may perform true minicles. See his note on Excd. vli. 11. 
 What Le Clerc controverts is just the same w^ith what others had 
 
 done 
 
Christ* s Temptation in the IVilderness. 39 
 
 the uniformity of the history, nor represent the evan- 
 gelists as blending together, indiscriminately, ideal 
 
 and 
 
 done before, Whether what the devil said and did to our Saviour, 
 was said and done to him when awake or asUepi whether this was 
 an oittward transaction in the day time, or only a mental representa- 
 tion in a dream or vision. When he published his 1st edition of 
 Hammond, he rather inclined to this latter opinion ; for he begins 
 his note on Matt. iv. 1, with saying, //""/icY is here related (i. e. Christ's 
 being led up into the v^ildcrness to be tempted of the devil) may more 
 safely be concetved to have happened to Christ in a vision or dream than 
 really, or in the outward manner related in the history. In his 2d 
 edition he retracts this opinion, and asserts, Possunt ha^c interdiu 
 contigisse, et a vigUa)!tc Christo visa, audita et dicta ; adding, itaque 
 niliil est cur ad somnium confugiamus. All his doubt was about the 
 manner in which Christ was led and tempted l-y the devil; and he no 
 more denied the devil's agency while he thought this happened to 
 Christ in a dream, than when he afterwards admitted that it might 
 hc-ipperi fo him when awake. U'he oljcctions which he once made 
 to the literal interpretation, and afterwards overcame, farther show 
 this to be the case. His first objection is to the devil's being per- 
 mitted to carry our Saviour through the air. To destroy the force of 
 this objection, Whitby (on Matt.iv.8.) very pertinently asks, Looks it 
 not far more odd to give the devil power over the phansie of our Lord 
 to raise such i?nagi?tations in him, and suggest such dreams to him, than 
 barely to give him that poiver over our Lord's body, uhich neither did 
 nor could do him any hurt ? And Le Clerc's second objection also, 
 which is drawn from the impossibility of shewing Christ from a 
 mountain all the kingdoms of the world and all their glory in a 
 moment of time, if he icere awake, though he says it might be doae 
 ill a dream, plainly admits the devil's power to shew Christ the 
 prospect in question, in his sleep : a thing judged by him to be no 
 way impossible. Having solved, to his own satisfaction, these two 
 objections against the hteral Interpretation, he thought there was no 
 reason for departing from i: ; as appears from his words cited above. 
 ;>o that lie never disputed any thing but the ?nanner ia which the 
 
 devii 
 
40 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 and real objects. Nevertheless, in all other reL^pects 
 it seems liable to equal^ or even to greater difficulties 
 
 than the former. 
 
 Those 
 
 derll tempted Christ. And consequently he could not have the 
 least idea of the scenes here described, as being (what it is attempted 
 in the bviuiry to shev/ they are) a divine revelation and symbolical 
 prediction of the temptations of Chrises future ministry. Had he 
 believed God to be the author of this vision ; he would naturally, 
 when he was explaining the use, which, he tells us, Christ might 
 make of it, have said scmewhat about its wise and benevolent inten-' 
 tioii: whereas he says noihlngmore on this head, than what all do 
 who ascribe the temptations to the devil, v/hich he might as justly 
 la ;e said, if he believed the devil tempted Christ in a dream. Even 
 ■when he explains the phrase i-Tro tou Trveu^aro?, of the spirit^ he 
 attempts to shew, just as Mr. I/Iason and others who ascribe this 
 Vision to the devil do, that ii imports only in spiritu, that is, spiri- 
 Uudiy, menially, or with respect to the mind; (see his Harmony on 
 John iii. 5.) and, as he afterwards explains it, in vision or imagina- 
 tion, in (.ppos-tl.m to n'j out'.vaid transaction. Nay, though here, 
 in confirmation of this meaning of the phrase, he refers to passages 
 which describe divine visions (Ezek, ii. 2. ch. iii. 12. Rev. i. 20. 
 Ezck, xl. 2, Rev. xxi. 10.), he makes no more use of them to prove 
 the vision in miestion to be divine, than those v.^ho believed it to be 
 a diabolical one, who likewise appeal to these passages. And if the 
 pl.ra:e-dc)cs import v.o more, than what both he and they say it 
 docS; thi.^ alone v.ill net ennbic us to determine who was the author 
 of this visiou. Upon Le Clcrc's and their principles, this must be 
 defcnni.-.cd by other circum.stances, either by £ome additional words, 
 as in Ezck. xl, 2. " the visions of GOD,'' and ch. xxxvii. 1, "the 
 Spirit of the Lordi" or by the connection, which in the case before 
 us was thought, in the moot ex^resi* manner, to refer to the devil 
 every thing said and done to cur Saviour. And it could be with no ; 
 oti.er vltw than to e.Tcludc the agency nfCod, and to leave room for i 
 admi' n;^ the agency of the dccil, that IxClerc joins with those who 
 considcicd this as a diabolical vision, in understanding the phrase 
 
 "Wiih 
 
Christ's Tempiatioii in the Wdderness, 41 
 
 Those who will not believe that the devil could 
 convey Christ, really and corporeaiiy, from one place 
 
 to 
 
 with so much latitude, as -possibly importing only in general, mentalty 
 or in vision; which allowed its application to a?iy vision, whoever 
 was the author of it, whether a gopd or evil spirit. The proper 
 proof of the divinity of this vision arises from a different inter- 
 pretation of this phrase, as compreliending in it the idea of a divine 
 aAlatus and inspiration; wJiIch the author of the hiquiry has en- 
 deavoured to shew it docs. This d^lfcrj;i,t conduct in Le Clerc and 
 him, proves their views to be dij/erent. 
 
 For these reasons, I think, the v/orld has net been misTaken in 
 ranking I^iC Clerc amongst those v/ho believed the agency of Satan 
 in tempting Cluist, tliough he disputed the maimer in which it 
 happened. Dr. Whitby in particular had no conception that he 
 denied, or that any one else could possibly deny, the agency of the 
 de\'il on this occasion. For in hi.^ answer to Le Clerc, after citing 
 the passages which describe the devil as removing Christ from 
 place to place, and afterwards departing from him, he asks. Must no^ 
 these icords unavoidably iftiport, that either the devil did realh/ thus 
 tempt, him, or else did frame this visio7i in his train? It is plain that 
 Di:. Whitby, than whom no commentator discovers a more exten- 
 sive acquaintance with books, had never read of any who allowed 
 these scenes to be visionary, and at the same time ascribed them to 
 Gudi and that he would have pronounce-d such an opinion a most 
 flagrant contradiction to the history, which ascribes all to the deviL 
 If Le Clerc had entertained this opinion, he certainly would have 
 attc'.np'cd at least to remove so ohnuus, and, ia Whitby's- judgment, 
 so unan.iv/erable a dllhculty. Kis taking no notice of it is a farther 
 proof that his scheme was not liable to it. In a word, those whg, 
 since the publication of the 1st edition of this Lmuiry^ repre.,ent Le 
 Clerc as asserting the divinity of this vision, not only put a new and 
 unheard-of sense upon his words, but such as, to my appreh^nsfioo, 
 they are not capable of baring. 
 
 N. B. The 1st edition of Le Clerc's Hammond was printed in 1698, 
 and the 2d in 17H. U this interval Dr. Wiiitby published hi* 
 
 Cexa 
 
42 An Inquiry inio the Naiiire and Design of 
 
 to another through the air, do nevertheless admit, 
 that he could raise in Christ a false persuasion that 
 he was thus transported by him. They are cautious 
 indeed how they ascribe to the devil a power of 
 slrength-eniiig the bodily sight, that it may reach 
 distant objects ; yet readily suppose him capable of 
 placing before the imagination scenes of beauty and 
 grandeur, and of causing it to mistake these shadows 
 for realities. Thus, while they deny the power of 
 Satan over the body, they grant him a nobler cnipire, 
 a sovereign influence over the mind. Nay, to adnnt 
 Satan to be the author of visionary representations, 
 
 Commentary. Whether Le Clerc's change of senthnents is to be 
 ascribed to Whitby's reasoning, 1 know not ; but it is certain the 
 former does not complain of being misrepresented by the latter. I 
 will only add, that Olearius, in his Observationes Sacrx ad Evang. 
 Mattha:i, having ranked Le Clerc among those who asserted Christ's 
 temptation to be a vision; Le Clerc in his account of that author 
 (Bibliotheque Ancienne et Moderne, tom. ii. p. 349, 350, 35L), 
 declares, that he had never adopted the sentiments of those writers, 
 having only judged it better, to urderstand the temptation as a vision^ 
 than to allow that the devil carried Christ through the air; that he had 
 never denied, but on the contrary had maintained (both in his Pneu- 
 niatology and his Logic), the power of devils over corporeal sub- 
 stances : but was now of opinion, that the text in the original im- 
 ported nothing more, than that the devil led or conducted Christ. 
 Though Le Clerc had occasion thus accurately to describe and 
 distinguish the different sentiments of divines on this subject, he 
 never drops the least intimation, that either himself or others had 
 ever asserted the divvdty of this vision. Nor have I been able to 
 discover any traces of this opinion in any writer. Whether Christ'i 
 leing tempted hij the dcoil, passed in vision or not, the reality of the 
 agency is the 5awc, on either supposition, says Bp. Warburton, Scrm. 
 vol. iii. p. 220, 
 
 is 
 
Christ's TcmptaUon in the IVilderness. 43 
 
 is to allow him no inconsiderable influence over our 
 corporeal as well as mental faculties 5 if it be true^ as 
 n)any authors assert^ that in a vision the senses 
 themselves are bound up, and the exercise of the 
 bodily organs is suspended, at the time that the mind 
 jTiistakes those images whicii are placed before it, for 
 real outward objects. Thus this opinion grants a 
 more astonishing extent and grandeur to the empire 
 of Satan than the form.er. 
 
 But does reason instruct ns, that the gracious 
 l-arent and Guardian of mankind would intrust their 
 inveterate enemy with so dangerous a power over 
 them as this j and hereby, in effect^ commit them, 
 soul and body, into his hands? Does experience teach 
 lis, that the devil does in fact exercise such power 
 over the human race ? Most certainly it teaches no 
 such doctrine. And if this be a power which tke 
 devil never exerts, upon what grounds can we main- 
 tain that he possesses it ? Divine revelation does not 
 run counter either to reason or experience ; as it 
 ascribes all miraculous operations in general, so vi- 
 sions* in particular, to God as their author ; inter- 
 posing ejither immediately by himself, or by his 
 angels, those active ministers or symbolical represen- 
 tations of his peculiar providence. It is needless to 
 enlarge under this head, inasmuch as the argu- 
 
 * See Gen. xviii. 1 , 2. ch. xxviii. 1 2—22. ch. xxxi. 1 1. ch. xxxii. 1 , 2. 
 24—30. Josh. V. 13— 15. 1 Kings xix. 11, 12. Acts x. 3. 11—- 19. 
 ch. xxvii. 23. and the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. 
 
 nients 
 
44 Aji Inquiri/ into the Nature and Design of 
 
 ments urged under the former*^ against the supposi- 
 tion of the devil's possessing a miraculous power 
 over the bodies of men, conclude more strongly 
 against his possessing such a power over their minds 
 and bodies too. 
 
 I shall only add^ that did the devil really possess 
 the power^ which, in contradiction to reason, ex- 
 perience and revelation, some are disposed to allow 
 him; how incredible is it that ii should ever have 
 been exerted upon the Son of God !" Can Vv^e believe 
 that this divine person was not only exposed to the" 
 suggestions and stratagems of Satan, but overcome 
 by them ; that he was possessed and seduced as well 
 as assaulted by the devil, and actually brought under 
 the power of his infernal delusions? The very 
 thought of this strikes the mind Vv'ith horror! It 
 approaches to blasphemy. 
 
 But if the account hereafter to be given of the 
 divine original and benevolent intention of Christ^s 
 temptation shall appear to be just, it will alTbrd the 
 strongest confutaiion of tbis^, as well as of the ibre- 
 going, interpretation. It is a deference due lo pre- 
 vailing opinions, not to reject theni without assigning 
 the reasons. And without exploding the old, no new 
 hypothesis can hope to be received, or even to be 
 examined. It was expedient, therefore, previously 
 to propose and consider the objections, which may 
 
 * :iect. I. No. 3. p. 19—57- 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness* 45 
 
 be raised against the two * dififerent explications of 
 Christ's temptation, which have hitherto generally- 
 prevailed. And the obvious difficulties attendino- 
 both, will at least serve to justify us, in proceeding 
 to inquire, 
 
 * There is indeed a third account of Christ's temptation by the 
 devil, which neither admits the personal presence of this evil spirit, 
 nor any representation of him ; and supposes Christ's temptation by 
 him to be nothing more than a bare meditation of our Lord upon 
 such trials as might possibly be proposed by the great tempter of man- 
 kind. But if there were neither a real nor visionary appearance of 
 tlie devil, and he was not present with Christ in any sense whatever, 
 whv does the history affirm that Christ was led into the wilderness 
 to he tempted by Jiiin? Why does it farther represent the tempter 
 as coming to Christ: speaking to liim ; receiving ansivers from him; 
 eoTivcyiiig or cojiducting liim iiUo, the holy city ; seJting him vpon a 
 pinnacle of the temple ; taking him to an exceedingly high mountain ; 
 from thence shcwivg him all the kingdoms of the voiid • and still car- 
 rying on a conversation with him, till at length he is commanded 
 by Christ to leave him, and is said to leave him accordingly ? Does 
 this language import nothing more, than that Christ meditated on 
 these things ? Docs the Scripture on any other occasion relate 
 mere meditations as outward occurrences ? Is there anv manner of 
 proof that it does so in the case before us ? Can any similar 
 phraseology be produced from any good author? The hypothesis 
 v.e are examining is as destitute of all rational intention as it is of 
 all evidence. For what good end could be answered either by me- 
 ditating, on events tiiat could not be expected to happen, or by re- 
 lating sucii medilalions as events that had actually hapjpencd ? In 
 a word, this hypothesis seems to me equally groundless, useless, and 
 unnatural; and serves only to shew how ready persons of refiectiou 
 v.-erc tti run to any refuge, n.ther than accuiescc in cither of the 
 foregoing ii.tjrpretalicr.s. 
 
 SECTION 
 
46 An Inquinj Into the Nature and Design of 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Whether the text itself does not lead us to a very 
 different interpretation, and represent the temptation 
 of Christ as befalling him while he was under a 
 prophetic vision, of which the Spirit of God himself 
 was the immediate and sole author. This, perhaps, 
 is no more than what follows necessarily from what 
 has been already suggested. For, if the temptation 
 of Christ is neither to be understood as an outward 
 transaction, nor diabolical delusion, it must have been 
 a divine vision. And that it was so, may, I appre- 
 hend, be fairly argued both from the express letter 
 of the text in the three evangelists, and from several 
 circumstances of the narrative. 
 
 St. Matthew, after relating the descent of the Spirit 
 of God upon Jesus at his baptism, adds. Then ivas 
 Jesus led up of the Spirit into the ivilderness*. 
 
 It is generally supposed, that these words assert, 
 ^^ that Jesus now went info the wilderness in person, 
 under a divine guidance." But with what propriety 
 could it be said, that Jesus went into the wilderness 
 in person dit this time, when he was there already? 
 It wa?i in the wilderness that John exercised his 
 ministry 5 and he baptized our Saviour there f. Nor 
 
 did 
 
 * Mat.iv. 1. 
 
 f Some eminent writers, I acknowledge, seem to think, that the 
 wilderness was neither the scene of John's ministry, nor consequently 
 oi" our Saviour's baptism. Dr* Clarke In particular, in his Paraphrase 
 
 Oil 
 
Christ's Temptation in the JVilderness, 47 
 
 did our Saviour quit the wilderness in the interval 
 between his baptism and his temptation. For it 
 
 appears 
 
 on Luke iii. 2, 3. says, «' John having hitherto lived privately in the 
 wilderness, was commanded of God to enter upon his public ministry, 
 and begin to preach to the people. Accordingly, leaving the wilder- 
 ness, he went and preached In all the country about Jordan." Le 
 Clerc translates this passage In the following manner: "La parole 
 de Dieu fut addressee a Jean fils de Zacharie dans le desert. II alia 
 eiisuite par tout le pays qui est le long du Jourdaln." According to 
 this explication of the language of St. Luke, John had left the wil- 
 derness before he baptized Jesus. 
 
 In order to form a true judgment concerning the scene of John's 
 ministry, it will be proper to examine the account given of it by all 
 the four evangelists. St. Matthew (ch. iii. 1. 3. 5, 6.) affirms that he 
 came preaching in the wilderness of Judea. He likewise observes, 
 that Isaiah described him as the voice of one crying in the wilderness. 
 And then in confirmation of what he had advanced, adds, Then went 
 out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about 
 Jordan, and ivere baptized of him in Jordan. Now, If Jordan, that 
 part, at least, of this river in and near which John exercised his 
 ministry, was not in the wilderness, why does the evangelist say in 
 so emphatical a manner, that he came preaching in the wilderness.? 
 And why does he represent his baptizing in Jordan as an accomplish- 
 ment of Isaiah's prophecy, which determined his ministry to the 
 wilderness ? The same observation may be made on the language 
 of St. Mark, ch. I. 2, 3, 4, 5. He here takes notice, that it was 
 written in the prophets. The voice of one crying in the wildei-fiess. With 
 a manifest view to shew the conformity between this prediction and 
 the baptist's ministry, he subjoins, John did baptize in the luildemess, 
 and preach the baptism of repentance. And there went out unto him all 
 the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalen, and were all baptized nf him 
 in the river of Jordan. Dr. Clarke hl.T.self, in his Paraphrase on these 
 words, says, « A great number of people resorted into the wilderness 
 to John, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan^ It is indeed 
 self-evident, that he mention* John's baptizing in Jordan as an 
 
 illu^tra- 
 
48 An Inquiry into iJie Nature and Design of 
 
 appears by comparing the several evangelists together* 
 that Christ had but just left the banks of Jordan^ and 
 
 illustration and proof of what he had before asserted, that he bap- 
 tized in the wilderness. St. Luke, whose account of this matter 
 we are next to examine, has not given the least hint of John's leaving 
 the wilderness when he began to exercise his ministry. On the con- 
 trary, he fixes the scene of it to the wilderness. The icord of the 
 Lord, according to this evangelist, (ch. iii. 2,^3.) came ttato John in 
 the u-ilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordaji, preach- 
 ing the baptism of repentance. As it is icritten in the book of the words 
 of Isaias the prophet, saying. The voice rf one crying in the wilder Jiess, 
 Now, could St. Luke consider the country about Jordan, where John 
 Vpreached and baptized, as being nut of the wilderness, when he tells 
 us tliat his preaching and baptizing in that country verified the pre- 
 diction of Isaiah concerning his exercising his ministry in the wil- 
 derness? This evangelist well knew that the wilderness was the 
 scene of John's ministry: for he (ch. vli. 21.), as well as St. Matthev/ 
 (ch. xi. 7.), represents Jesus as saying to the people concerning the 
 baptist, rrhat 2ce?it ye out into the icildcniess to see? In the Gospel 
 of St. John we are told, that the forerunner of Jesus baptized in 
 Peihchara (ch. i. 28.% a public passage over the river Jordan, on its 
 eastern side; and likewise at Enon, near to Salim, on its western 
 side (ch. iii. -2?,.). But these places come within the description of 
 the country about Jordan, which, we have seen, lay in ib.c n-ildey- 
 ncss: a name which the Jews gave to a country that was but thinly 
 inhabited, Joshua xv. Gl, 62. (as is observed by Schmidius and 
 Whitb}'" on Matt. iii. I.) This evangelist (ch. i. 23.) represents ihe 
 baptist as applying to himself the prophecy of Isaiah (ch. x!. .3.) 
 I am the voice of one' crying in the tcildcrness. Now, if the scene of 
 John's ministry, and the place in particular where he baptized, 
 was the wilderness, (as all the four evangelists assert;) ihen it was 
 here that he baptized Jesus. We are indeed expressly told that Jtsus 
 u-as I-aptizcd of John in Jordan, Mark i, 9. Compare Mat. iii. 13., 
 Luke iv. L And Jordan, we have seen, or that part of this river 
 where John baptized, was in the wilderness. 
 * Mat, iv. 1. Mark i. 12. Luke iv. 1. 
 
 therefore 
 
C'krist*s Tefnptafion in the JFdderness, 4$ 
 
 therefore was still in the wilderness, at the very time 
 that (according to the common hypothesis) he is said 
 to have been led into it. Now, does it not sound very 
 harsh to speak of any one as going, or being led, to 
 a place where he is already? 
 
 With a view to solve this difficulty, some have 
 affirmed, ^<^ that as Christ was before helow in the 
 wilderness, upon the banks of Jordan, he might, 
 when he returned from that river, be said, without 
 any impropriety, to be led up into the wilderness, 
 that is, to some higher part of it.'* That the banks 
 of Jordan were, in many places, lower than the 
 adjacent wilderness, we are not backward to allow : 
 but that this was the case in that particular place 
 where Jesus had been baptized, is a point that cannot 
 be proved. And even if it could be proved, it would 
 not account for the language of the evangelist: 
 for Jesus had quitted the place where he had been 
 baptized*, and was returning to Galilee, before he 
 was led up into the wilderness. The expression there- 
 fore, whatever it means, cannot refer to the sup- 
 posed height of the wilderness in that particular 
 place above the banks of Jordan f. Others pro- 
 
 * Jesus returned from Jirdafi, and was led by the spirit into the xciU 
 dtTuess, Luke iv. 1. This language necessarily implies, that Jesus 
 was not upon the banks of Jordan, but was returning to Galilee, 
 before he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. 
 
 t Nor do any of the other evangelists, any more than St. Matthew, 
 refer to the circumstances under consideration, viz. the supposed 
 height of the wilderness above the banks of Jordan. St. Mark says, 
 Jesus was driven into the tcUder?iess; St. Luke, that he ivas led into the 
 iiildcrness, 
 
 D pose 
 
50 An Inqrtirtj into the Nature and Design of 
 
 pose a different solution; a-ffirming, ^^ that Christ 
 was now led farther into the wilderness, and into 
 some more horrid part of it." It does not however 
 appear that this explication of the word in this place 
 is warranted by the similar use of it in any other 
 place of the New Testament. Nor does it suit with 
 the occasion of its being used here. Jordan, in 
 which Jesus was baptized, was in the heart of the 
 wilderness ; and he could not with any propriety be 
 described as being led farther into it when he was at 
 no great distance from that river, which' we have seen 
 he was not, when he is said to have been led into the 
 wilderness. — A still different interpretation has been 
 proposed, to the following effect : JesuSy being lap- 
 tized of John in the wilderness, returned into Galilee, 
 lut luas led BACK AGAIN into the luilderness. But 
 the history, instead of affirming, that Jesus returned 
 into Galilee, only says. He returned from Jordan"^, 
 the place of his baptism. And St. Markf, after re- 
 latino- the divine testimony borne to him there, adds. 
 And IMMEDIATELYX (consequently while he 
 was yet in the wilderness, and not long after he had 
 quitted, the banks of Jordan) the Spirit drzveth him 
 into the wilderness. From hence it follows, that as 
 Christ had not yet left the. wilderness, he coujd not 
 be said to be led lack again into it. This interpreta- 
 tion therefore must necessarily be rejected. With 
 respect to the two former, they, without accounting 
 for the use of the word in question, admit it as- a. 
 
 * Luke iv. 1. f Marki. 11, 12. ^ Kw cufltf. 
 
 fact. 
 
Chiist's Temptation in the JVil(lct})es;L 51 
 
 fact;, that Christ was actually in the wilderness at 
 the vcr\' time he is said to be led into it. Now, this 
 being allowed, it may very naturally be concluded^ 
 that the evangelist cannot be here speaking of 
 Christ's bting led, literally and corporeally, into the 
 wilderness 5 but of his being conducted thither in 
 some different sense and manner. 
 
 Having assigned obvious reasons for rejectitig the 
 several foregoing explications of the language of St. 
 Matthew, I shall now propose that which appears 
 to me to be its true meaning. His words, literally 
 rendered, are as follow*: Then was Jesus brought \ 
 
 (or 
 
 * Ton Inrcu; avwj^fln ei? t>)v sprfAov vtto tov wV'y/uaJoj : Mat. iv. 1. 
 
 I avn;^9«, Irojigfit. By this word is xvayw frequently translated in 
 the New Testament. They brought {awyaytv) him to Jerusalem, Luke 
 ii. 22. They brought (avjiyayflv) hbn into the upper chamhcry Acts ix. 39. 
 Intending to bring him forth {aiayAyit^) to the people y ch. xii. 4. IFhen 
 he had brought {xvxyayvv) them into his house, ch. xvi. 34. In the same' 
 manner the word might have been rendered in the following passages: 
 The devil taking him up (avayayAv, briugirg hiin) into a high moiintain, 
 Lukeiv.5. They led {ei,vr,yeLyov, brought) him infa their cowicil,ch.xxxu66. 
 They ciffhred {avnyiyov, Irought) satrijice uvto the idol. Acts vii. «1. To 
 hruig vp Christ again {uytnyctyuy, to Iriyig) from the dead, Rom. x. 7, 
 That brought again (o Av«y*y«v, who brought) from' the dead, Heb. xiii. 20, 
 
 Av«y9/u«t is by grammarians rendered sustollor, tolJor; and is 
 
 very often applied to the launching and sailing of a ship, that is, t<> 
 its being lifted off from the strand', and lorne ot carried ahft upon' 
 the water. They launched faith, (•ynx^tie-av) Lii^e v'ui. 22. /fflcrwn" 
 had laUTlchedt (w; h tyinro avajfBnriii »i/u«j,)' Acts xxi. 1. iVesetfcrrOi^ 
 (cLtv^Qnfxsv,) V. 2. W^/flUrt^/ierf, (av)i^9t:,un)'ch. XWji. 2. ff'henw^hii^ 
 launched from thetice (m)fA)(^ivrti:)Y. 4, This woM is translated ioDi*^ 
 ch. riii, 13. ch. tvi. II. ch. rvii. 21. It is rtndered; saiUd, ch. Jtviii. 21 . 
 
 » 2 d», 
 
&3 An Inquiry hito the Nature and Design of 
 
 (or tarried) into a uilder7iess* by THE SPIRIT. 
 1'be Spirit here spoken of can be no other than the 
 Spirit of God, with which he was filled at his 
 baptismf. Now, by the SpirijL which Christ received 
 
 at 
 
 ch. XX. 3. 13. And in ch. xxvii. 1 2. cli. xxvili. 10, 11. departed,ihong)\ 
 here also it might have been, with equal propriety, rendered, launched 
 or mailed. The same use of the word is common in Heathen writers. 
 
 * Tiiough h sonfxs;, wh€n applied to one particular wilderness, as 
 thatof Judeaor Ara"bia, for example, is properly rendered, *' ffie wil- 
 derness," (Mat. tii. 1. John iii. 14.)yet Schimidius (on Mat. lii. 1.) very 
 }ustly observes, Interdum etiam indefinite notatur talis locus quicun- 
 que, ut Mat. iv, L ch. xxiv. 26. Mar- i. 12, 13. Luc. iv. 1. ch. viii. 29. 
 ch, XV. 4. Act. xxi. 38. Apoc xii. 6. 14. ch. xvil, 3. Et licet arti- 
 cuius aliquando additus inveniatur: non tamen certum individuum 
 loci turn denotat, aut certam eremum: sed quamcunque sane, cujus- 
 cunque tractus .eremum, non tarn ab aliis eremis, quam ab aliis illius 
 tractus locis distinctam; ubi nee nomen eremorum est additum, nee 
 cxquirere illud operae admodum est pretium. Suflicit nos scire, ere- 
 mum ibi quandam, non alteriu* specici locum denotari. Similis est 
 ratio Matth. xvii. 15. nsX^azt; irirrrn en to TTup, xm iroWaKi^ tjj tj 
 C^vp. Non quod notetur certus numero ignis, aut certa numero aqua. 
 Sed indefinite, quicunque ignis, et quscunque aqua. Ideo Marcus ix. 22. 
 sine articulo efTert, xai hq wp £?*Xe, xat ei? v^ara.. In the passage 
 before us therefore, h ipnixs; should be rendered " a wilderness," or 
 a wiJd and desert place, inhabited rather by wild beasts than men. 
 
 f This appears from the manner in which the evangelists connect 
 the account of Christ's temptation with that of his baptism; and 
 from the distinction they make between the Spirit by which he was 
 conveyed into the wilderness, and the tempter. The former is ex- 
 pressly called by St. l^uke the Holy Spirit, ch. iv. 1. Jesus, b^ing full 
 of the Holy Spirit, returned from Jordan, and was led ly the Spirit 
 (xhat is, the Holy Spirit before mentioned) iiito a wilderness. Ac- 
 cordingly, the Syriac version of liro tow tryEvfAarc; is rendered a 
 5piritu sanctiiatis; and the Persic a Spiritu sancto. With respect to 
 
 this 
 
Christ's Temptation in the JVilderites^, 5-1 
 
 at his baptism, we are to understand, as all billow, 
 the extraordinary gifts and powers bestowed upoa 
 the great prophet of the Christian Church, to furnish 
 him for the executio-n of that office with which he 
 was at this time invested. In this sense our Saviour 
 uses the word, when he applies to himself that pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 
 lecause he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to 
 the poor*. And again, when he says. If I cast out 
 demons lij the Spirit of Godf, In the &ame sense 
 the word is used by John the Baptist, when he said, 
 concerning Christ, God giueth not the Spirit lif 
 measure unto himX\ and also when he delivered the 
 following prophecy concerning bim, which received 
 its accomplishment on the day of Pentecost, He shall 
 baptize you with tlie Holy Spirit, and with fre^. 
 When the apostle John says. The Holy Spirit ims 
 not yet given, lecause that Jesus ivas not yet glo- 
 rifted \\, he plainly refers to that most plentiful do- 
 nation of miraculous gifts, which was wisely reserved 
 till Christ's ascension into heaven, when it was most 
 wanted to at;est and propagate the Gospel. It was 
 with an express reference to those extraordinary en- 
 
 this^ phrase, Eeza on Mat. iv. 1. observes, Si libeat ava^opnv articuli 
 servare, vertere llcebit, ab eo Spiritu ; ut de eodem illo Spiritu hi: 
 agi constat cujus paulo ante mentio facta fuerat. i. e. <le Splrif.i 
 sancto. 
 
 • Luke iv. 18. f Mat. lii. 28. Compare ch. i. 18. Luke xi. 20, 
 \ John iii. 34. §_Mat. iii. II, Compare Acts i. 5. ch. ii. 3. 
 }j John vii. 39. 
 
 dowments 
 
t^ Au Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 jlowments which the apostles were encouraged to 
 jexp;ect, that Christ said to them after his resurrection. 
 Receive ye the Holy Spirit^. Ye shall receive poicer, 
 after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you : and ye 
 6hall be xvltnesses unto wef. Many other passages 
 Blight be added 5 but it is unnecessary to cite them 
 ai JargeJ. 
 
 And as the Spirit frequently denotes miraculous 
 gifts in general; -so it often expresses a prophetic ilhi- 
 mination in particular, a divine. agency on the mind 
 revealing new truths to it_, or making some discovery 
 of the will of God. It was revealed unto hbu hy the 
 Holy Spirit ^y by the agency or IlluminaLion of the 
 divine Spirit. Holy men of God spake as they were 
 moved by tfy Holy Spirit ||, by a divine afflatus and 
 irispiration. Being sent forth ly the Holy Spirit^: 
 were forbidden of the Holy Spirit ^*'y in both these 
 places the Holy Spirit denotes a prophetic revela- 
 tion tf. 
 
 This phra-se is applied to revelations in the way of 
 vision, or sight; as will be shew^n at large below, 
 when we coni£ to examine the meaning of the cor- 
 
 • John XX. 22. f Acts i. 4, 5. 8. 
 
 \ Acts ii. 1—4. 14—18. 33. 3-8. ch. iv. 8. 21. ch. vi. 3. ch. viii. 15. 
 17, 18. ch. X. 44, 45. 47. Heb. ii. 4. 1 Pet. i. 12. See also Numb li. 29, 
 § Lukje ii. 26. lifit tcu Trveu/tx^tTp; row aypv. 
 II 2 Peter i. 21. vvo % tvixp^roj iytoy. 
 ^ Acts xill.4. v'Ko Te-v"7rv£t;,uaTo; tou kyicv. 
 
 ♦ * Acts xvi. 6. Into tou uyiov 'mivfjta.'rti;. 
 
 If See also Acts viii. 29. ch. x. 19. in which places the .spirit de- 
 notes an afHatus or revelation of the Spirit, 
 
 respondent 
 
Ckrht's Tamptatloii in the JVilderness, 9S 
 
 respoiKlcnt phrase in St. Luke*, and some similar 
 expressions in the prophet Ezekiel; \vh«re being 
 taken up by tht Spirit f, denotes a prophetic scenery 
 and representation. Now, if Christ was brought into 
 a wilderness, by the Spirit, iu the sense of the phrase 
 here explained, that is, by a prophetic illumination, 
 by revelation, in a vision; Si. Matthew cannot be 
 undtr^tood of his being conveyed there corporealhj 
 and personally, but spirititally and mentally. To this 
 sense of the. phrase, the connexion necessarily 
 leads; and this the circumstances of the history 
 evidently require. For, this alone removes the objec- 
 tion against the literal construction, just now taken 
 notice of. Though it could not with any propriety 
 be ^aid, that Christ was at this time carried into the 
 wilderness in a corporeal manner, in which sense he 
 was there ajreadv; yet there is nothing improper in 
 saying, h-. - v\- rrv conveyed into a wilderness in a 
 epin.tiici i:. - ?^'L^';')ti or mental representation, 
 
 by the iri^ipiTaiKinf; -.x of God. 
 
 To scinc it stems • . , ^ il-H^ Christ should be 
 brought iiUo liie wilderness u/ Lhc Spirit, or by vi- 
 sionary representation, if he was there before m per* 
 son ; or that he should be in the same place, at the 
 same time, both really and invTsion." This objec- 
 tion is entirely obviated by the translation given above 
 of the words of St. Matthew, who eays, '^ Jesus was 
 
 * The Ivo Tey wyEa/^olo; of St. Matthew is equlvaleut to the £» rm mev- 
 fxiili of St. Luke; and therefore if this latter be (as we shall shew it 
 is) expressive of a divine vision, the former must be so too. 
 
 f >:zek.iii. 12. 
 
 brought 
 
•f>6 An Inquiry Into the ]\atnre and Design of 
 
 brought (not into the wilderness, but) into a wilder- 
 ness by the Spirit," without referring to any one 
 particular wilderness. The place therefore where 
 Christ really and personally was, has no relation to 
 'hat which was the scene of his vision. But if you 
 choose to adhere to the common translation of the 
 original word, and affirm that it means the uildernesSy 
 you uill not prejudice the interpretation here given 
 i)f the phrase, li/ the Spirit ^'y but only make it so 
 much the more necessary to understand it as ex- 
 pressive of a vision or spiritual rapture; it being 
 impossible, for the reason just now assigned, to inter- 
 pret it in another sense. 
 
 The sense here affixed to the language of St, 
 Matthew, may be justified by the use of the same or 
 similar phrases in other passages of Scripture, The 
 prophet Ezekiel was carried away to Babylon, with 
 many other of his countrymen, in Jehoiachin's capti- 
 vity ; and the prophetic spirit came upon him, when 
 he was amongst his fellow-exiles by the river Chebar, 
 
 • For a prophet may be brought by the Spirit into the very same 
 place where he was before in person ; that is, the scene both of his 
 vision and of his personal presence may be the same. Of this we 
 have an example in the case of Ezckicl, ch. iii. 11. 15. ch. xi.24, 'J5., 
 which will be cited below. We might therefore without the least 
 prejudice to our argument j^rant, that the place where Christ was in 
 person, where he coi>tinued forty days, and from whence he re- 
 turned into Galilee, was the external archetype of the chief scenes 
 of Christ's prophetic vision. But there is no necessity, nor indeed 
 any sort of reason, to make tliii concession; because the evangelist 
 is not speaking of any one wildernes« in particular. 
 
 in 
 
Christ's Temptation in (he IVilderness, 5f 
 
 in Mesopotamia. Here, as he informs us, he re- 
 ceived rcvclation3 from God by visions : 7%e Jieavens 
 were opened, and I saw visions of God. The word of 
 the Lord came unto me; and' the hand of the Lord 
 was there npon yne*. After this general declaration, 
 he goes on to describe the cherubims and other scenes 
 of his vision, in the same manner as if they had 
 been objects of his bodily sight. —//ooi^e^/, and behold^ 
 a great ivhirhvind came out of the north, a great cloud, 
 ^c. IVIien I saw it {the appearance of the likeness of 
 the glonj cf the Lord) I fell upon my face -^^ And 
 the spirit entered into me, when he spake unto me^ 
 a/id set ?ne upon mi/ feet, that I heard him that spake 
 unto me I, When he received new visions and re- 
 velations from God, such as were particularly de- 
 signed for the admonition of his fellow-exiJes; this 
 new prophetic scene is described in, words which 
 literally import a local translation, which there is not 
 the least reason to suppose; for the prophet, at the 
 time he is represented as conveyed to those of the 
 captivity, was already amongst them in person : 
 Go, get thee to them of the captivity. — Tlien the spirit 
 took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a sreat 
 rushing. — So the spirit lifted me 2ip, and took me 
 away, and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my 
 
 * Ezek. i. 3. compared with 2 King. jii. \5. 
 t ^^ek. i, 4. 28. 
 
 I Ezek. ii. 2. which is thus rendered by the 70, Kai nX5fv tn tfxt 
 VH-jfxuy Xttj avi?.«Si ^t, jtat i^nfe /ui, xat Sff-Tmri f^t im rev? TrsJd; fjtov, x.t.X. 
 
 D 5 Spirit, 
 
oB An Inqidry into the Nature and Desig?i of 
 
 spirit, but the hand of the Lord uas strong upon 
 me^. In the sequel of these prophecies we find 
 E^ekiel c^rj-ied to Jerusalem, there shewn the idola- 
 tries committed by the Jews within the precincts of 
 the temple, and employed in digging in the walls of 
 it, as if he had been actually in that place j notwith- 
 star^ding these several occurrences, however related 
 as corporeal actions and motions, were undoubtedly 
 transacted in vision only, for he was now at Babylon. 
 The hand of the Lord fell upon me^ the Spirit lift me 
 Up letwee^ the earth and the heaven, and hought me 
 in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the 
 inner gate that looketh towards the North, hc.f 
 When a new scene at Jerusalem was placed before 
 his imagination, it is said. The spirit lift him up, and 
 Ir ought him to the place it was designed to repre- 
 sent J. After this he is described as carried back 
 again into Chaldca, from which place he had not, 
 during these successive scenes, been absent in per- 
 son : The Spirit took me up, and Irought me in vision 
 Vy the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the cap- 
 tivity ; so the vision which I had seen went up from 
 me. Then I s{)ake unto them of the captivity, all the 
 things that the Lord had sheweji me§. Upon another 
 occasion he tells us. The han4 of the Lord was upon 
 me, and carried me ouf in (or ly) the Spirit of the Lord, 
 and set me down in the midst of the valley which was 
 
 * Fzek. iii. U, 1'2. 11. ^ Ezek. xi. 1. 
 
 ^ Ezek. viii. I— 10, § Ezek. xl. 21, 25. 
 
 full 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness, 5 9 
 
 full of lones 'y though what follows is nothing more 
 than the narrative of a vision*. And we find him 
 once more carried to Jerusalem^ without stirring from 
 Chaldea : The hand of the Lord teas upon me, and 
 Iroughi me thither. In the visions of God brought he 
 me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a verif 
 high mountain f. From these several passages it 
 appears, that to be brought or carried from one place 
 to another, in the visions of GodX, or (which is a 
 phrase of the like import) in or li/ the Spirit §, does 
 not denote any real k>cal removal, but the being 
 transported from one place to another, by way of 
 mental lively representation, under the power of a 
 divine trance or ecstasy ; and that in this sense a per- 
 
 * Ezek. xxxvii. 1. f Ezek. xl. 1, 2. 
 
 + Notwithstanding the positive declaration of the prophet, that 
 in the forecited passages he is only reciting visionary representations, 
 and the obvious absurdities attending the contrary supposition, yet 
 have many contended for a local translation of Ezekiel, either in the 
 body or ovU of it, from Chaldea to Jerusalem, and for the reality of 
 the scenes and transactions v/hich he describes. But the authors of 
 the Universal //i-t^ory, vol. iv. p. 196 — 198, (8vo. ed. 1747.) have 
 shewn that the ten;iple described by Ezekiel had no proportion, as to 
 its measures, with that of Solomon ; and that it was 3 prophetic or 
 emblematical one, which never existed but in this prophecy. What 
 end then could be answered by the prophet's being really translated 
 to Jerusalem either in his body or out of it ? The scenes were all 
 painted upon his imagination. 
 
 § That these phrases, in the visions of God, and in or ly tkeSpiritt 
 are equivalent, will appear by comparing the several passages from 
 Ezekiel cited above. As to the phrase, the hand of the Lordy it ex- 
 presses only a divine agency in general, not themcde of it. Compare 
 I Kings iviii, 4C. 2 Kings iii. 15. 
 
 son 
 
60 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 son may be said to be carried to the very place, where 
 he already was personally and corporeally, if it be- 
 comes the scene of his prophetic vision ; or to be re* 
 turned to that place, though he had never quitted it \n 
 the ordinary sense of that expression, if it becomes the 
 scene of new visionary representations, which, as 
 we observed before, are related as facts, because they 
 appear as such to the prophet. We cannot therefore 
 beat a loss to understand what St. Matthew means*, 
 ''Ahen he tells us, that Jesus uas led up or brought 
 into a wilderness ly the Spirit, Into a wilderness- 
 
 * It has been asserted, that the largviage of Ezekiel is a du-ect de- 
 scripticn of visions, 'Ahich that of the evangelists is not. But who- 
 ever will compare the Septuagint version of the passages cited from 
 the prophet Ezekiel, with the language of the evangelists, v/ill find a 
 remarkable correspondence between them, such as may farther sei:ve 
 to justify our explaining the latter by the former. Thus Ezekiel's 
 «aying, Trysiua. nyayi fxt, ch. viii. 3. ch. xi. 1. corresponds to avn^Sti- 
 liiO TQv 'o^vivfxtiTc;, in St. Matthew. And the sv iryivfXAn. in Ezekiel^ 
 ch. xxxvii. 1. as it expresses the same thing with St. Mr.tthew's iirtk 
 Tcy TTV-ufxiT:?, SO it answers to St. Luke's tv to; TryEu^an, cited below, 
 p. 64, note |. Therfe is no material difference between the ovjxa^t 
 «)f Ezekiel, ch. iii. 12. ch. ii. 2. ch. viii. 3. ch. xi. 1. and the -nrflp.t- 
 hafjiZam of St. Matthew, ch. iv. 5. 8» The words, a.\ay>yxv and 
 riyaytvy used by St Luke, ch.iv. 5. 9. in the passages parallel to the 
 last cited ones from St. Matthew, correspond to riyayi, sicrr.yayt and 
 t^rjyctyt in Ezekiel, ch. viii. 3.14. ch. xi. 1. ch, xxxvii. 1. ch. xl. 3. 
 Now if the language of the evangelis.ts be the same with that of the 
 prophet, it certainly calls for a like construction with that, especi- 
 ally as the style of the New Testament is allowed to correspond to 
 the Greek version of the Old. And consequently the language of the 
 one is no less expressive than that of the other, both of a prophetic 
 iwpidse and inspiruticn of the Spin I yund of the particular mode of that 
 inspiration, which was by ijjjo;!, as distinct from every other specie* 
 of leveUtioi;. 
 
 he 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderness, &\ 
 
 he seemed to himself to be carried, thither he was 
 transported in vision by a prophetic divine afflatus. 
 
 The expressions used by the evangehsts Mark and 
 Luke, confirm ilie expHcation here given of the lan- 
 guage of St. Matthew. Mark says*, Immediatehj 
 (after the descent of the Spirit at bis ba-pti.sm) the 
 Spirit {or according to Baza's antient n>anuscripty the 
 Holy Spirit) driveth him (or casteth him out f) into a 
 wildti'uess. These words are very improperly referred 
 to Christ's being driven by the Spirit into the wilder- 
 ntss, corporeally- and personally ; because we have 
 shewn that he was personally there before this impulse 
 of the Spirit. They clearly express a supernatural and 
 divine agency upon the mind of Christ; and therefore 
 naturally and necessarily convey tons the idea of a 
 prophetic rapture, trance, or ecstasy, during v/hich 
 he thought himself transported into a drear)' wilder- 
 ness. The language of St. Mark perfectly corresponds- 
 with that of St. Matthew ; there being no difference 
 between saying with the former, Jesus was driven 
 or cast out by the Spirit, and saying with the latter, 
 
 » Chap. i. 12. 
 
 f The original word, t^CaXXfi, is apph'ett very frequently to de- 
 scribe Christ's expulsion of demons. Vid. Mat. viii. 16. 31. ch. ioc, 
 33, 34. ch. X. 1. 8. Mark i. 34. 39. ch.iii. 15. Luke si. 1 i. ch.xiii.32» 
 The word, however, does not always express forehand violence, nor 
 IS It necessary that it should do s.-., in order to justify the application 
 here made of it. For in describing Ezekiers vision, ch. viii. 3. 
 ch. xi. 1. ch. xxxArii. 1. the Septuagint says, the Spirit nyayi led him, 
 or i^nyayi led him out, which last expression comes very near that of 
 the evangelists, according to the sense in which ixtaA^jj is used 
 John X. 4, 
 
 that 
 
•62 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 that he was Irought or carried by the Spirit, the 
 meaning of which has been already explained. By 
 comparing together the several passages of Ezekiel 
 cited above, it appears, that when he says, the Spirit 
 Irought or carried him, he means the same as when he 
 says, he was Irought or carried in the Spirit ; a phrase 
 unquestionably descriptive of a prophetic vision. 
 
 To this expHcation of the language of St. Mark, it 
 may be objected, ^^ that if by the Spirit^ s driving 
 Jesus into a wilderness, he means, that the Spirit 
 4rove him there mentally and in vision, that is, into 
 an ideal wilderness 5 it will be difficult to reconcile 
 this with what follows in the next verse, which seems 
 to refer to a literal one, And he luas there in the (ox 
 that) wilderness forty days tempted of Satan, and was 
 mth the luitd leasts,'^ It is, without doubt, of one 
 and the same wilderness that St. Mark speaks in both 
 these verses. And were we to grant that this wilder- 
 ness was a real one, and that Mark and the other 
 evangelists speak of Christ's being led or driven into 
 it personally and corporeally, it may nevertheless be 
 true, that his temptation was a mere vision j if these 
 phrases, the Spirit, in and hy the Spirit, import in 
 this history, as they certainly do elsewhere, a mira- 
 ^lous impmlse and illumination oj the Spirit, disco- 
 vering new truths to a prophet, revealing future events^ 
 and exhibiting scenes and appearajices lefore his imagi- 
 nation: On this supposition, the meaning of the 
 evangelists will be, " Christ was brought into a wil- 
 derness (not merely under a divine direction, the 
 
 phrases 
 7 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness, 63 
 
 phrases import much more than this, but) under the 
 full influence of the prophetic Spirit, making suitable 
 revelations to his niincl, and giving him a view parti- 
 cularly of his future trials*." But St. Mark is to be 
 understood as speaking only of an ideal wilderness, 
 that wilderness into which Jesus was driven by the 
 Spirit, or which w^s the scene of his prophetic vision. 
 This is what is spoken of in the twelfth verse ; and 
 most probably therefore in the thirteenth. The evan- 
 gelist may very naturally be explained in the follow*- 
 msf manner : *' No sooner did the Spirit descend 
 upon Jesus at his baptism, than by his inspiration he 
 ■A' as carried into a frightful desert in a prophetic 
 trance or vision. In this situation, and in this state, 
 he remained for forty days, during all which space he 
 was, according to his own apprehension, assaulted by 
 the temptations of Satan, and exposed to danger from 
 the fury of wild beastsf ." This interpretation seems 
 to agree best not only with the language of St. 
 Matthew, but with that of St. X^uke also, which we 
 now proceed to examine. 
 
 * These trials, it will be shewn below, are described as temptations 
 of the devil, on account of the particular mode of their lieing revealed, 
 being couched under the figure of Satan coming to him, and urging 
 temptations. 
 
 ■f- The circumstance of his being with the wild beasts, rather con- 
 firms than destroys the opinion of his being in the wilderness in a 
 state of trance, which deprived him of all power of self-defence, and 
 which made it as absolutely necessary that he should, during the 
 continuance of that state, which lasted forty days, be miraculously 
 protected from wild beasts, as that he should be miraculously sup- 
 ported without food. 
 
 This 
 
04 An Inqidnj Into the Nature and Design of 
 
 This evangelist says, that Jesiis ielng full of the 
 Holy Spirit (as St. Stephen* also is said to be, wheiv 
 he had a divine vision),, was led (Iroiight or carried) 
 into a wilderness by (or in) the Spirit f, that is, by 
 that prophetic Spirit with whose gifts he was filled 
 at his baptism, and hi the pouer of lohich he returned 
 into Galilee If that he might preach the Gospel-, and 
 confirm it by miracles. There being here a manifest 
 reference to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
 the words i?i or by the Spirit^ like those of St^ 
 Matthew cited above, must be designed to express 
 his miraculous agency, or a prophetic afflatus and 
 illumination', which fs a sense they often bear in other 
 passages of Scripture. David, we are told, in Spirit^, 
 or by the Holy Spirit |[, called the Messiah his Lord ;• 
 that is, he did this by a prophetic impulse of the 
 Spirit. To speak mysteries in the Spirit % ; to pray 
 with the Spirit ; to singivith the Spirit**^ is to speak,, 
 pray and sing in the exercise of a spiritual' gift, or 
 under a miraculous illumination and influence of the 
 Spirit. In this sense the phrase is used, when it is=^ 
 said of Simeon, that he came into the temple by the 
 
 * Acts vil. 55. llCy Itir.gfiiU of the Iluly Ghost {'u e. under its mira- 
 culous-energy and illumination), looked up stalfustli/ into hcainif ^c. 
 
 f ttyiro IV ra> ttviv/Jtart, he ivat carried in or by the Spirit, I',uke iv..l. 
 This answers to avr^^n lira rov 7rv£i»/x*T?;, in St. Matthew. Every, 
 argument, therefore, urged above to establish the sense of- the latter^ 
 is. also applicable to the former. 
 
 I Luke iv. 14. 
 
 § Ev TTVrw^aTi, Mat. XX li. 43. 
 
 Ij E» Tw TTvivfxxn TM iyiu, Mark xii. 36. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. xiv. 2. ** Ver. 15. 
 
 t^pirit. 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderness, 05 
 
 Spirit'*. He came there under the powerful inspira- 
 tion of the prophetic Spirit, of which he gave proofs 
 hy the testimony he bore to Jesus, and the predictions 
 he dcHvered concerning him. The meaning there- 
 fore cannot be, that he came to the temple only by 
 a divine direction^. To mention one instance nwrc j 
 St. Paul went to Jerusalem hound in the Spirit %, that 
 is, assured bv the Spirit of prophecy, or by the pre- 
 dictions of inspired men, that the Jews would bind 
 him there. For it is added §, The Hoi i/ Spirit (by 
 the mouth of divinely inspired prophets) u/itnesseth in 
 every citij, saying, that bonds and afflictions alideme\\. 
 So familiar was this language with the Jews as ex- 
 pressive of inspiration, that a person thought to be 
 inspired by a demon, was described as one in an iin^ 
 clean Spirit^. Now if St. Luke only asserts, that 
 Christ was carried into a wilderness by a supernatural 
 illumination of the understanding, or the inspiration 
 of the spirit of prophecy ; you can never infer from 
 hence that he was carried thither in person**. 
 
 As 
 
 * E* T« mivfxitriy Luke iL 27. \ t« irvsvfXAn, Acts xx.22» 
 
 f See Luke ii. 25. § Acts xx. 23. 
 
 II Compare Acts xxi. 4, where we arc told, that some said to Paul 
 through the Spirit {ha ro-j Tv£t;^aTcc), that is, by the iuspiration of the 
 Spirit of prophecy, that he should not go up to Jerusalem^ if he ten- 
 dered his own hberty. For the Holy Spirit smd^ (by A^abus th« 
 prophet) The Jeivs at Jcrusulnn rvili bind /im, ver. 11, 
 
 ^ Ev vvivfAari aKa9a?T«, Mark V. 2. Essay on Demoniacs, p. 100- 
 
 ** Of Simeon it is said, he came (which expresses his own i>er- 
 sonal agency in coming) into the temple by the Spirit. But of Christ 
 it is not said, he eame or went into a wilderness, but that he was 
 
 Iroicght 
 
66 Ati hiquinj into the Nature and Design of 
 
 As ,th<i phfas€^ in the Spirit, is expressive of a 
 prophetic afHatu? and illumination in general, so it is 
 applied particula-rly to revelations received in the way 
 of vision, or emblematic representations of things 
 supernaturally impressed upon the prophet's imagina- 
 tion. An^minent critic* has observed, " that those 
 two different maouers of expression, which we now 
 usually call literal and figurative, were in the Jewish 
 language frequently denoted by the word? Jle.sh and 
 spirit. The flesh, says our Saviour, prcfiteth nothings 
 the words that I speak untQ you, they are spirit, and 
 they are lif'ef. His meaning is, he intended not to 
 be understood literally, hut flgur at ively. To le there- 
 fore, or do any thing in spirit, signifies leing or doi?2g 
 thaLixhrn^ flgur at welyi in ih^ spirnad or moral, in 
 the religious or in the abstract sense, in opposition to 
 Xhf, gross and more literal meaning, in which the 
 jame words may at other times be understood." This 
 cbs^rv^i-jxi IS applicable to many passages of Scrip- 
 ture J, and serves to shew in general, that the same 
 phrase may have different senses, according to the 
 nature of the subject to which it is joined; nor is it 
 foreign from our present purpose. It does not, how- 
 
 hronght or carried thither in or by the Spii'It, which merely expresses 
 a diviiie agency upon his mind. As many as are led (ay;VTa(, acted) 
 by the Spirit of- Gody they are the so>is of God, Rom. viii. 1 4. 
 
 * Dr. Clarke, Scrm. 46. vol. I. p. 286. fol. ed. 
 
 f John vi. 63. 
 
 I It is very justly applied by Dr. Clarke to John Iv. 23. Ron. ii. i'8. 
 Phil. iii. 3. compared with Acts vii.51. Perhaps the other passages 
 cited by this learned writer require a dift'erent interpretation. 
 
 ever. 
 
'Chnsfs Temptation in ih^ Wilderness, d/ 
 
 ever, convey the precise and full meaning of the 
 passages that follow, where being in the Spirit^ sig- 
 nifies being under the full influence of the prophetic 
 Spirit, making revelations in the way of vision ; and 
 doing any thing in the Spirit denotes that thing's be- 
 ing done, not merely spiritually (in opposition to ihe 
 more gross and literal meaning), but in prophetic 
 scenery and representation. When St. John tells us, 
 I was in the Spirit^, he means what the antient pro- 
 phets do by this phrase, that he received a revelation 
 from God in the way of a v'lsionf ; as clearly ap|)ears 
 from the account he gives us of what he heard and 
 sa>M while the spirit of prophecy was upon h'.m t« 
 When he repeats the same phrase §, he still uses it 
 in the same sense. This every one must allovv who 
 surveys the context. A voice sa'uly Come np lather^ 
 and I will ^Iwiv thee things luhich must le hereafter. 
 And immediately I was in the Spirit : and Ichold, a 
 throne tUas set in heave?),. From a regard, I presume, 
 to this connection, a learned and judicious expositor |( 
 says, " This phrase, I iv as in the Spirit^ signiiies to 
 
 • Rev.i. 10. 
 
 f Fuit in Spiritiij i. e. tv ixfrayf^^ faclente Spiritu sancto, ut cessant e 
 ad tempus sensuum externorum usu defixus haeserit in contemplatione 
 illariim rcrum, quarum imagines ipsius Dei manu |)er ductus subtif 
 lissimarum sanguinis partium in cerebro describebantur, et secundum 
 leges naturx ad raentem referebantur : quod revelationis genus, si 
 vigilantibus obtingat, Scripturx stylo vino dici sglet. Vitnng* 
 in loc. 
 
 + Compare Rev. i. 10, with Ezek. iii. 13. 
 
 § Ch. iv. 2, \\ JDoddridge in lop^ 
 
 be 
 
68 An Inqtiinj into the Nature cnid Design of 
 
 be under a strong and supernatural operation of the 
 Spirit of God^ acting on the imagination in such a^ 
 manner as to open extraordinary scenes^ which had 
 not any external archetype*." Sometimes, however, 
 in a prophetic vision, the scenes presented to the 
 prophet's view were real, and he saw what was trans- 
 acted at a distance. St. Paul tells the Corinthians f, 
 I verily, as absent in hochj, hut present in spirit. In 
 the very same strain he addresses the Colossians J, 
 Though 11^ absent in the fleshy yet I am with you in 
 the spirit, joying and beholding your order. In both 
 these places the apostle is supposed by many inter- 
 preters § to refer to an extraordinary revelation of the 
 Spirit, giving him a particular view of the circum- 
 stances of the churches of Corinth and Colosse, such 
 as was equivalent to the actual sight of them : just as 
 Elisha was enabled by a divine impulse to discern 
 what his servant had done, when he ran after Naaman 
 the Syrian |f, and as Ezekiel saw in Babylon what was 
 done in Jerusalem^. Whether the visionary repre- 
 sentation had an external archetype or not, tl>e pro- 
 phet is spoken of as being transported to the place 
 where the scene of his vision was. St. John tells us, 
 in language as apposite as possible to our present pur- 
 pose, that an angel carried htm away in the Spirit 
 
 * In the Assembly*6 Annotations the sense is thus expressed, " He 
 was spiritually carried up into heaven in a vision." 
 t 1 Cor. V. 3. \ Ch. ii. 5. 
 
 § See Dr. Doddridge and others oh these places. 
 )( 2 Kings V. 2S., ^ Ezekiel, ch. viii. and xL 
 
 6 tnt9 
 
CJirisfs Temptation in the Wilderness, 69 
 
 into the ivilderriess*. New scenes were afterwards 
 presented to his view, which he thus describes. He 
 carried ine away in the Spirit to a great and hi^rk 
 mountain, and sJi^wed me that great city, the holy 
 Jerusalem\. St. John was not carried (as Dr. Clarke J 
 observes) into the wilderness (and we may add, nor to 
 a high mountain) really and literally, but only in a 
 visionary representation. Nor indeed are there any 
 who understand the apostle as speaking here of any 
 other than a spiritual rapture. During the age of in- 
 spiration, the same language was not uncommon, and 
 it was used in the sense here explained, as appears 
 from the writings of Hernias, the same, as is com- 
 monly supposed, that was contemporary with the 
 apostles §, We may add, that the passages from 
 Ezekiel cited above to illustrate the language of St. 
 Matthew, arc equally applicable to that of St. Luke'lj. 
 In a word, if we will explain the three evangehsts on 
 
 * Rev. ivH. 3. f Ch. xxi. 10, 
 
 X Dr Clarke, vol. i. p. 286. 
 
 § Herrnas, in his first vision, says, Et dum ambulassem, obdor- 
 mivi. Et Spiritus m€ rapuit et tulii me per quendam iocum ad dex- 
 teram, per quern non potuit homo iter facere. Erat autem locus ille 
 in rupibus— Cumque transirem locum ilium, veni ad planiciem. In 
 his second vision he expresses himself as follows : Rursumque me 
 al-stuUt Spiritus, et duxit me in eundem locum, quo anno prime— Et 
 video contra me anum illam, quam et anno superior e videram, am- 
 bulantem. Cotelerii Patres Apostol. ed. Clerici, vol.i. p. 75. 77. d^.^ - 
 Harwood's New Introduction, vol. i. p. 17S. 
 
 jl See above, p. 56, &c. That passage in particular, Ezck. ixxvil. 1, 
 according to the Septuagiut, answers exactly to the lan^age of Luke, 
 Jk kd me out ir 7r,iy/4«T», in the Spirit, 
 
 the 
 
70 Afi Inqnhy into the Nature and Design of 
 
 the subject under consideration, by the phraseology 
 of the Old Testament or of the New, then we mut^t 
 allow, that when they affirm that Jesus wa« brought, 
 driven, or carried into a wilderness by or in the Spirit, 
 they must mean that he was conveyed there (not per- 
 sonally and corporeally, but) by the afflatus or inspi- 
 ration of tbe Spirit of God, in a prophetic vision, 
 trance, or ecstasy *. 
 
 » It may not be improper to observe, that the Scripture some- 
 times distinguishes bietween a vision^ and a trance or ecstusi/. When 
 St. Peter saw /icai'en operied, and a sheet full of beasts aiidfowls^ vfe 
 are told, that Jie fell into a trayice, or, as it is in the original, art 
 ecstasy y ETrtTTEcrev ett' avrcv tJis^Tae-jf, Actsx. 10, 11, 12, The objects which 
 the apostle saw durin.g^ his trance, are called a visiou. If Idle Peter 
 doiiltedin hirnsclf, trhat this vision (t« l^afxtt) uhieh he kad^ seen should 
 mearty ch. x. 17. While Peter thoi'ght on the vision, mpi rtv ofafxar.f, 
 V. 19. He thought he saw a vision, or scenes divinely represented to 
 his mind, ch. xii. 9. In a trance (ev tit^Tao-ti) I saio a vision ('pa/ua) 
 ch. xi. 5. St. Paul says, ch. xxii. 17, 18, / was in a trance (iv i»yTa<r£i, 
 in an ccstas}/), and saw the Lord saying unto me. His rapture into 
 paradise, and what he heard there, he calls a vision and revelation of 
 the Lord, 2 Cor. xii. 1. When the Scripture distinguishes vision from 
 ecstasy or trance, it means by the former the scenes and oljects placed 
 before the mind by God, or the sytiiholical revelation; and by the 
 latter, the prophetic impulse, or rather that preternatural state of 
 mind produced by it, during which it perceives only those objects 
 and scenes which are presented to it by a divine hand, and without 
 the instrwmentality of the bodily organs. Being in the spirit (Rev. i. 
 10.) includes both an ecstasy and a symbolical revelation, or the* 
 objects seen. Vision likewise seems to be used in th» same compre- 
 hensive Jense. Said has seen in a vision (ev fps/Lmvi) a man named' 
 Wrwnios), Act. ix. 12, Corneiius saw in a vision {iv i^fAari) ci'idently, 
 an angfl of God comijig.in to him, ch. x. 3. These two things^ vision 
 and ecstasy, mutually imply each other,, and therefore may some^ 
 tinics be used as synonymous. 
 
 Let 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness. 71 
 
 Let us now proceed to examine the nature of thr$ 
 vision, or the several scenes that composed it. St. 
 Matthew affirms, tliat the intention of Christ*s being 
 carried into a wilderness in a prophetic trance or 
 rision was, that he might he tempted by the devil'^, 
 St. Luke says the samcf : Jesus, being full of the Holij 
 Spirit, was led or carried in or by tlie Spirit into a 
 wilderness, being (or that he might beX) forty days 
 tempted of the devil. St. Mark expresses himself in 
 the following terms §: The spirit driveth him into a 
 wilderness. And he was there in that wilderness (that 
 is, in the wilderness into which the Spirit drove him, 
 and which was the scene of his prophetic vision) forty 
 days tempted of Satan. Now if the proper end and 
 design of Christ's prophetic vision was, as both St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke assert, that he might be 
 tempted by the devil, then his temptation by the devil 
 was a visionary representation, the operation and 
 effect of that prophetic afflatus he was now under. 
 His temptation could not have been spoken of as the 
 intention of his vision, if it had not itself been such. 
 Besides, if his temptation was the design of his 
 vision, the former must have befallen him during the 
 continuance of the latter ; or, in other words, he was 
 templed by the devil while he was under the miracu- 
 
 • Ch.lv. 1. f Ch. iv. 1,2; 
 
 \ Compare Rev. xx. 2. where ligavit cam, is thought by some te 
 denote ut esset ligatus. 
 § Ch. i. 12, 13. 
 
 loU-3 
 
73 ^in Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 lous illumination of the Spirit of God, making new 
 revelations to him, and exhibiting extraordmary scenes 
 before him. This is expressly asserted by St. Mark, 
 and clearly and necessarily implied in the language of 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke. From hence it follows, 
 that his temptation by the devil ; all the parts of it, 
 as well the sevcfal proposals which the devil made to 
 Christ, as the different scenes and objects he pre- 
 sented to him, and his carrying him to the summit of 
 the Jewish temple, and from thence to a high moun- 
 tain* 5 all the parts of this transaction were merely 
 
 ideal 
 
 * With regard to tKe taking Christ from the wilderness to the 
 Jewish temple, and from thence to a distant mountain, there is some 
 peculiar evidence that this is not to be understood of a real and cor- 
 poreal translation of Christ from the wilderness to these different 
 places, but of such as was spiritual and mental only. For it appears 
 from the history, that Christ was in the wilderness bordering on 
 Jordan when the temptation ended, as well as when it began, pur- 
 suing his journey into Galilee (a). If he really left the wilderness, 
 And travelled first to Jerusalem, and from thence to a high moun- 
 tain, how come we to find him at the conclusion of his temptationvS 
 at the very place where they began ? Is it not natural to conclude, 
 from this circumstance, that his removal from place to place was 
 merely by visionary representation ? Nor did the tivie allow of his 
 going to these difl'crcnt places in any other manner. For though the 
 whole time of Christ's continuing in the wilderness exposed to temp- 
 tation, was forty days, as St. Mark affirms (/•), yet those particular 
 temptations specified by St. Matthew and St. Luke, did not begin till 
 
 he 
 
 (a) The devil departed from him for a season. And Jesm returned in 
 the poiicr of the Spirit into Galilee, I.uke iv. 13, 14. 
 
 (/•) He was there in the wilderness forty days tempttd of Satan, 
 Marki. 13. 
 
Christ's TempLaiion in the IVildcrness* 73 
 
 ideal and visionary. They were the subject matter of 
 Christ's vision, or of that synihohcal and emblemati- 
 cal revelation, which was now made to Clirist by the 
 Spirit. Never would interpreters have construed that 
 as a history of outward occurrences, which was mani- 
 festly intended as a description of a vision ; had they 
 considered, that by Christ's being brought into a 
 wilderness in or by the Spirit, we are to understand 
 his being conveyed there by prophetic inspiration, and 
 by that particular mode of inspiration which was by 
 vision, as distinct from every other species of revela- 
 tion. For, if he was carried into the wilderness in 
 vision, that he might be tempted of the devil, and 
 was so tempted during his vision, then every thing 
 that occurs concerning his temptation by the devil 
 was a visionary representation*. The meaning of 
 
 the 
 
 he had been tempted forty days, as both these evangelists inform 
 us (t). Those temptations must therefore have been proposed to 
 Christ, not after the forty days were expired, and at three different 
 times, as some, without any manner of reason, have supposed ; hut 
 after the commencement of the fortieth day, and yet before the ex- 
 piration of it. But in so short a time, how was it possible that Christ 
 should hold a converaation with the devil, first in the wilderness of 
 Jordan, next upon the top of the temple of Jerusalem, and at last 
 upon a high mountain, and, after travelling to such distant places, 
 return again to that from which he set out at tirst ? 
 
 * Were wc even to allow, tliat Christ was brought into a wilder- 
 ness personally and corporeally (and not mentally only), vet on this 
 
 supposition, 
 
 (('j U'hx.ff hr had faticd forty days ami for fy me:hts^ he teas nfin- 
 xrards an huv^fd. And when the tempter cnwt jmfo him, &c. Mat. iv. 
 2, 3. Bein^:: J'orty days tempted of the devil, yhtd itshen they uere 
 ended, lie aJierHards hungrcd. And the devil iaid unto hivi, ($cc- 
 l.ukc IV. 2, 3. K 
 
74 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 the evangelists is plainly this : ^^ Jesus was brought 
 into a wilderness by a supernatural operation of the 
 Spirit, in vision; which (in part at least) consisted 
 in a seeming appearance of the devil to him, carrying 
 him to different places, and urging various tempta- 
 tions : and the making this representation to the 
 mind of Christ was the special end of his prophetic 
 vision." It would not therefore be more unreason- 
 able to construe the prophetic visions of Ezekiel and 
 St. John referred to above, as relations of a series of 
 outward occurrences, than it is to put the like con- 
 struction upon this vision of Christ, since both are 
 introduced in the same manner, that is, with express 
 declarations to the contrary. 
 
 But if Christ's temptation was only a visionary re- 
 presentation, some may be ready to object ; ^' Why 
 is it said, that he was led into the wilderness to he 
 tempted of the devil P And why is the devil described 
 as coming to him, and tempting him accordingly, 
 and taking him from one place to another, just in the 
 same manner as if he had been really present, and 
 actually done these things? Whether this transaction 
 passed in vision or not, the reality of Satan's agency- 
 is still the same, on either supposition. His agency 
 is clearly and strongly asserted ; which can never be 
 reconciled with the opinion here maintained, that the 
 whole transaction was entirely a divine vision.*' 
 
 eupposltion, what is called his temptation by the devil was a divine 
 vision or revelation, the effect of that prophetic afflatus he w^s now 
 under, and its declared intention. 
 
 The 
 
Christ* s TempiaUon in the M'^ilderness. 73 
 
 The answer to these objections may be gathered 
 from what was said above concerning the nature of 
 prophetic visions, and the manner in which they are 
 related in Scripture. In a vision, the images of things 
 appear, not the objects themselves ; and therefore the 
 devil was not really and personally present with Christ, 
 but only in mental representation ; and consequently 
 could act no part in this whole transaction. If what 
 is here said concerning his presence and agency be a 
 reality, and not a mental exhibition, this was no 
 vision. But though there was no real presence or 
 agency of Satan upon this occasion, yet was his image 
 now placed before the imagination of Christ, and he 
 seemed to him to say and do all that is ascribed to 
 him in the history; which was, in effect^ the same 
 thing with regard to Christ, as if this had been the 
 very case, and the devil had appeared and tempted 
 him in person, and translated him from place to 
 place by his proper agency. It is for this reason that 
 the history affirms that the devil did all these things. 
 In all visions, (as in all dreams, w liich may be con- 
 sidered as natural visions,) the iniages pass for the 
 objects they represent, make the same impression, 
 and answer the same end with them ; and in corre- 
 spondence to these inward views and apprehensions of 
 the prophet is the narrative of his visions always 
 framed. He takes them for facts, and they are related 
 as such, as we has'c slicwn in a great variety of in- 
 stances'*^. The evangelists, therefore, in ascribinir 
 
 * See above, p.f.\o^r,2. ar.d p. 57, 6;c. an^l bdo>v, p. 86, &.;. 
 
 K 2 the 
 
76 An I/icjulri/ Into the Nature and Design of 
 
 the temptation to the devil, have used no otlicr lan- 
 guage than what it was to be expected they would 
 use, no other than what was common on all such 
 occasions. Having told us that Christ was carried 
 into a wilderness in a prophetic vision, they then ex- 
 plain the visionary representation, which was, ids 
 le'ing tempted lij the devil, who accordingly is said to 
 come to him, to remove him from one place to 
 another, and to propose to him different temptations. 
 Nothing more, as we have already shewn, could be 
 intended by this language, than to specify and de- 
 scribe the nature of Christ's prophetic vision, which 
 consisted of a representation of Satan as appearing 
 and acting in the manner stated in the history, 
 Christ's being assaulted by Satan in this manner, was 
 the scenery or appearance of things, which was placed 
 before his mind by a divine hand ; and could not 
 therefore be an outward transaction, though, agreeably 
 to the style of Scripture, it is related as such. 
 
 Some have thought, that if the entire scenery or 
 vision was divine, the evangelist would have said, 
 that the Spirit took or carried Jesus to Jerusalem, 
 and that the Spirit translated him from thence to a 
 high mountain, and not that the devil did these 
 thmgs. This objection is owing to their not distin- 
 guishintz; between tlie author of this vision, and the 
 scenes that composed it. The history, which expressly 
 refers the vision to God's Spirit, describes the scenes 
 Just such, as thjv were presented to Christ, and could 
 not properly do otherwise. It was necessary, there- 
 fore. 
 
Chri^'':i ll'inptaiiyn in tlw JFUucrneSj, 77 
 
 furo, thiit ihc history of them should recite the appa- 
 rent acciicy oF Satan, in order to its corresponding to 
 ttie vie^vs and apprehensions of Christ, and truly re- 
 rrescnting the scenes of his vision. 
 
 The evanixelists Mauhcw and Luke close their 
 account of these scenes^ which were representations 
 of tlir: devil's temptations, by saying thcdcciLdip'vtt'd 
 Jroni Ckrlst ^'. .But nothing more can be understood 
 hereby, than that the image of the devil now disap- 
 peared, or that the vhlon which he had seen went up 
 from hhn\. Such language as this cannot be mis- 
 taken, by those who remeniber, that images im~ 
 presscdj and actions performed upon a prophet's* 
 imagination^ are always related in the same manner 
 as if they had been real objects and outward transac- 
 tions, and that the temptation of Christ is declared 
 by all the evangelists to be a prophetic trance and 
 
 revelation t. 
 
 This 
 
 * Mat. iv. 11. Lukelv. 13. f Ei.ek. xi. 24. 
 
 \ St. Luke (ch. iv. 13.) says. The devil departed from Christ /or a 
 season ; which, if strictly understood, seems to ''mply, both that the 
 devil was personally present with Christ before his departure from, 
 him for a season, aad that after a season he returned to him again yti 
 person. But that the devil was not personally present with Christ 
 at this tinie, when it is said he departed froiti him for a season, has 
 been shev/n jJready. And those who say he was now personally 
 present with him, do not allow that he was so at any subsequent 
 period^ or that the devil ever assaulted Christ in the same manner 
 they suppose he did at this time. On the contrary, they maintain 
 that Satan, finding himself unable to prevail against Christ by his 
 own personal assault, stirred up Judas to betray, and the Jewish 
 rulers to persecute him. See John xiv. 30, ch. xiii. 2. Luke xxii. 52. 
 
 Now 
 
78 An Inquiry into the Kature and Design of 
 
 Tills passage of Scripture then is to be understood 
 as a history, not of an outward transaction, but of 
 the scenes aud representations of a vision. As such 
 the writers of the gospel expressly represent it, with- 
 out leaving us (as the sacred penmen have been 
 thought to do in other instances) to collect it from 
 the nature and circumstances of the relation. They 
 likewise represent this vision, not as diabolical, but 
 divine, ascribing it to the Spirit of God. So that to 
 all the other arguments urged above, we may add 
 (what we before promised to produce) the authority 
 of the evangelists, and the express letter of the text* 
 
 Now, if the passage before us refers, as the advocates of the com- 
 mon interpretation maintain it does, to those per "cutions which 
 Ciirist suffered from his enemies at the close of his ministry, this does 
 not answer the account g^ven of it above, as importing the personal 
 J p.turn and appearance of the devil to Christ ; and consequently, if it 
 contains an objection against our hypothesis, that objection holds 
 against their own. Against the former it has no force. For, the 
 te.nptations of the devil in this ^^sion being (as will be shewn in the 
 sequel) predictions and preiigurations of those trials which Christ 
 was afterwards to undergo in the course of his ministry, it was natu- 
 ral to close the history of the former by taking notice of the relation 
 they bore to the latter. Whether, by those words which we render 
 Jut a season, St. Luke designed to intimate that ajler that season 
 Christ was to be actually assaulted by those temptations which were 
 now foretold, or whether they ought to be rendered until the seaavn 
 (a;^pi jtttjpcw), and refer to the season itself appointed for the accom- 
 plishment of these predictions ; on either supposition, it was St. 
 Luke's intention to inform us, that those severe trials which were 
 predicted and prefigured by the temptations of the devil, in the scenes 
 of this vision, did accordingly overtake Christ in the course of his 
 succeeding ministry. 
 
 in 
 
Ouist's Temptation in the JVilderness,. 79 
 
 in coiiiutation of those who misconstrue Christ's 
 temptation, either as an outward transaction, or as 
 an iUusion of Satan*. Nor are the evangelists at all 
 
 answerable 
 
 • Should it be objected, that by asserting the visionary nature of 
 Christ's temptation, while we allow the reality of his forty days' fast, 
 and subsequent hunger, the history appears a confused mixture of 
 facts and visions, I answer, that there are certain rules by v.hich 
 facts and visions n;ay (very generally at least) be distinguished from 
 each other, which were laid down above, p. 32. If the historian 
 makes no particular and express declaration that what he relates as 
 matter of fact is only a vision, we are to be determined by the nature 
 and scope of the relation. But in the present case the language of 
 the sacred penmen guards us from mistake. By telling us that Christ 
 was carried into a wilderness by a miraculous operation of the. Spirit 
 in vision, to be tempted of the devil, they lead us to conceive of every 
 part of the temptation as visionary. But this declaration does not 
 affect any other branch of the history, which ought therefore to be 
 literally understood, as the nature and intention of the facts them- • 
 •elves manifestly require. 
 
 It is further urged, " that It is unnatural to suppose Christ wa» 
 carried into a wilderness spiritually^ in order to his having a visi- 
 onary representation of the devil's temptations, inasmuch as there 
 intervened the space of forty days between his supposed spiritual 
 rapture into a wilderness and those temptations ; in which inter- 
 vening space of time Christ's fast and hunger, v/hich we allov/ to be 
 real occurrences, took place." But though there was indeed the 
 space of forty days between Christ's being carried into a desert in 
 vision, and those particular temptations which are recorded by St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke, (probably because they referred to Christ's 
 public miniitiy, while they omitted others of a more personal and 
 private nature,) yet we are expressly told by St. Mark (ch. i. 13.), 
 That he was there i/i the u-ilderness (that wilderness into which the 
 Spirit drove /izm, in a state of trance or ecstasy. See above, p. 61, 
 62, 63.) forty days tempted of the devil. And since we have proved, 
 that, by his being tempted by the devil, we are to understand his 
 
 haviug 
 
80 An Inquiry into the Kature and Design of 
 
 answei'able fc^r tiiose misconstructions which have 
 been put upon it. 
 
 But some, perhaps^ may still imagine, that this 
 state of the case, while it solves some difficulties, 
 raises others ; si-nce it may seem hard to conceive that 
 d divine hand should present such scenes as these be- 
 iore the mind of Christ, or what purposes worthy the 
 wisdom of God could be thereby answerud. This 
 brings us_, 
 
 having a represenlation of the devil as conv'.ngto hiin, and proposing; 
 temptations, he must have been dui'ing the entire space of forty days 
 under the power cf a divine vision. The other circumstances of the 
 history, instead of destroying, confirm this opinion. His being sup- 
 ported forty days without food, and without feeling the sensation of 
 hunger, was itself a perpetual miracle wrought upon his body, and 
 one very proper to preserve; his mind in the most «t state for receiv- 
 ing supernatural communications from God. Towards the close cf 
 the fortieth day, the divine power was suspended, and Christ was 
 permitted to feel the sensation of hunger, in order to prepare the 
 way to the first temputlon (just as Peter became very lumgry before 
 his vision of the sheet containing all manner of anim.als, Acts x. 10.), 
 and to give him a justef sense of what was afterwards to befall him. 
 And lastly, Christ's miraculous protection through the whole space 
 of forty days, from the commencement to the conclusion of his 
 •vision, during which he could be in no capacity of defen^iiig him- 
 self (as was observed above, p. 63.), agrees belter with our hypo- 
 thesis than with any other. Now, if Christ's vision comuienccd at 
 the time of his being carried into a wilderness in the spirit, and con- 
 tinued through the entire space of forty days, till it was closed with 
 those representations of Satan described by St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
 the-objection under consideration falls to the ground. 
 
 SECTION 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness, 81 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 To examine the proper intention of this prophetic 
 vision. Here I will endeavour to shew^ that the seve- 
 ral scenes which it contains, though presented tO' 
 Christ in the form, and capable of answering the. end, 
 of a present trial, were directly intended as a symbo- 
 ]ical prediction and representation of the future diffi- 
 culties of liis office and ministry. But what occurs in 
 this and the former section, I offer with a just 
 diffidence ; and having no guide to follow, it behoves- 
 me to proceed with caution, and to prepare the way 
 for the proof of what is advanced, ])y premising a 
 few general observations. 
 
 1. It maybe observed, tlfat Christ was liable to 
 tcntptatvons. This is plainly implied in that decla- 
 ration of Christ to his disciples, Ye are they whick 
 haae cjiitinacd ivith me in mij temptaiions-^- ; and ex- 
 pressly asserted in the epistle to the Hebrews, He 
 himself hath suffered^ Icing fiempt>edf. In terras of 
 yet larger import it is said, He uas in all points 
 tempted like as we are, yet without sin%. There is in 
 these several passages a very peculiar reference to the 
 outward sufferings and persecutions which he under- 
 \vent§. But these were not the only trials to wliieh 
 he was exposed. The most innocent affections, the 
 desire of esteem, the dread of > poverty or reproach, 
 
 * Luke xxii. 28. \ Heb.iv. 15. 
 
 t Heb. il. 18. § See above, sect. 1. p. 15- 
 
 E resentment 
 
82 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 resentment against injury or wickedness^ and other 
 passions belonging to our original frame, whenever 
 they interfere with the conviction of duty, cannot but 
 serve for our trial, whether we will be governed by 
 them or by conscience. And therefore amongst in- 
 numerable other triumphs of the Redeemer's virtue, 
 we read, that he did not seek his own glory ^, that he 
 became poor for our sokes f, that he tempered his anger 
 with compassion J, endured the shame § as well as 
 torture of the cross, and restrained his own inclina- 
 tions out of regard to the benefit of others, for he 
 pleased not himself \\, In a word, there is no passion, 
 if it be not kept under discipline, which may not hold 
 us back from our duty, or lead us into sin. The first 
 Adam, though he came out of the hands of his 
 Maker in a state of innocence, was liable to tempta- 
 tions, and he fell by them ; the second Adam was as 
 liable to them as the first, though he overcame them. 
 This observation (which is not always carried to its 
 just extent) is very necessary to the right understand- 
 ing of this passage, whether it describes a present or 
 foretels a future trial ; It may likewise serve to 
 illustrate many other passages of Scripture, and to set 
 the character of our Redeemer in a just point of light ; 
 for his merit rises in proportion to the number and 
 
 » John vH- 14. t 2 Cor. viii. 9, 
 
 I Mark iii. 5. yind tchen he had looked round about on them with 
 mi^cr, c-vXhvirtvfJiiyci, althe saiiie tivie grieving; for the hardness of their 
 hearts. He was at once touched both with displeasure and com- 
 passion at the malice and obstinacy of the Pharisees. 
 
 f> llfb. xii. 2. II R^m. XV, 5. 
 
 Strength 
 
Christ*s Temptation in tlie Wilderness, 83 
 
 strength of those temptations which he overcame. We 
 may observe farther, 
 
 2. That it is possible this vision might contain a 
 present trial *. The two most common ways in which 
 God revealed himself to the prophets, were visions 
 and dreams f. In both these, the divine will was 
 generally communicated by emblematical images and 
 appearances J ; and therefore they are opposed to a 
 direct and plain revelation, in which there was no 
 enigmatical or parabolical representation §. But there 
 was this difference between visions and dreams : in a 
 dream, the inspired person was asleep, all his external 
 senses were bound up, and the ordinary operation of 
 his reason suspended ; but in a vision, he was awake, 
 and had the regular exercise of his understanding and 
 judgment ||. This kind of inspiration was called 
 
 vision 
 
 ♦ How far, and in what sense, this vision might be a present trial, 
 is shewn in the Appendix, No. V. 
 
 f Numb. xii. 6. Joel ii. 28. 
 
 I Dan. viii. 1 — 10. 15. Gen. xxviii. 12. ch. xl. 9 — II. 16, 17. 
 ch. xli. 1 — 7. Hos. xii. 10. Visions and dreams seem sometimes to 
 have succeeded on? another, Gen. xv. 1. 12. Dan. vii. 1,2. ch.viii. 
 16—18. 
 
 § Numb. xii. 6 — 8. 
 
 Ij It has, indeed, been generally said, that in visions as well as in 
 dreams, the external senses were laid asleep ; but as this is said with- 
 out evidence, so it destroys the distinction between these two dif- 
 ferent methods of revelation. In a vision, I grant, the mind of the 
 l^rophet was so ingrossed by the striking scenes that were presented 
 to it, as to render him quite regardless of the external objects around 
 him ; but inasmuch as he was awake, the ordinary Ciercise of -hi^ 
 understjinding could not be suspended, as it is when the external 
 
 senses 
 
81 An Inquiri/ into the Nature and Design of 
 
 vision or sight *, probably not from any use made of 
 the bodily sight, but on account of the analogy be- 
 tween these two methods of information ; vision ex- 
 citing images within us, or enabling the mind to 
 perceive objects, no less than the corporeal faculty of 
 -seeing. For this reason prophets arc often called 
 seersf. And though the representations of a vision 
 are only as the images of things in a glass, in w hieh 
 we do not behold the things themselves ; yet vision 
 gives as clear a view of what it represents, as if it was 
 the very thing itself, and the notice of it w as con- 
 veyed by the senses. What is imaginary no wav 
 differs in appearance from that which is real, and has 
 the same ct!*ect upon the prophet ; who docs not at 
 the time distinguish between the images of a vision, 
 and outward objects |. If the mind bo passive, as no 
 
 doubt 
 
 senses are asleep. See Numb. xxiv. 2 — 1. 16. The senses indeed 
 were nut useS in a vision; but if they were in any n^eapure bound up 
 in it by a supernatural agency, this could only be dov.e in order to 
 prevent the mind from being diverted by outward objects and occa- 
 sionF, and t) engage its attention more closely to tlwse miraculous 
 scenes which were spread before it. 
 
 * I here speak of vision, as distrnguishcd from every other species 
 of revelation, not as it denotes pi opliccy or inspiration in general, or 
 any extraordinary discovery of the mind of God. Is. i. 1. i! Sum. vii. 
 4 — 17. Pix)V xxix. 18. 
 
 f 1 Sam ix.9. 
 
 'X See above, Sect. 1. p. S2, note f. Tn confirmation of what is 
 there argi eJ at large in proof of this point, I add, that when Saul 
 had f: vision ofylnauias coinitn in, and puttiitf: his hcwdon hiniy that he 
 mi^h4 rcieiie liis sight, Acts ix. 12. this was an exact representation of 
 what was aftcrwaxls actually doac. Ard Saul, though now llincf-^ 
 
 saw 
 
CknsVs Tcinptatioii in the Wilderness, S5 
 
 doubt it is, ill receiving these images, and cannot but 
 judge according to appearances, let it be remembered, 
 that just ihus it is with regard to the impression 
 made by external objects themselves, and the ideas 
 thev raise in the mind, the will having no more powef 
 to control our inward vi'ews and apprehensions, iu 
 this latter case, than in the former. And as in both 
 cases the mind is alike passive in receiving impres- 
 sions, so in all other respects it may enjoy an equal 
 liberty in both. Whether the notice of things is con- 
 veyed to it by the instrumentality of the senses, or by 
 a miraculous agency, it may experience the same 
 dispositions and sentiments with regard to the things 
 themselves. It may be as capable of a rational deter- 
 mination and choice, with respect to the representa- 
 tions of a vision, as with respect to the objects of 
 sense : and, consequently, the one may serve for the 
 trial, di.^play, and improvement of virtue, no less 
 than the other. 
 
 This account of the nature of prophetic visions is 
 confirmed by the behaviour of those who have been 
 favoured with them. During the supernatural illumi- 
 nation of their understandings, they were free from 
 that ecstatic disorder and confusion of mind, as well 
 as from those convulsive agitations of body, with 
 
 saw Ananias as clearly In representation or vision as he did when he 
 appeared to him visibly, upon the recovery of his sight. This is one 
 proof, amongst many otliers, that the miraculous scents of a visioa 
 vk-ere not (always, if ever) placed before the bodily eye, but were dis- 
 cerned by the mind, without the a.)iistance of the corporeal organ., 
 
 which 
 
86 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 which the pretences to prophecy and divination 
 amongst the Pagans were attended. As their reason 
 was not disturbed, so their passions worked in a 
 natural way, and were aifected by the scenes of a 
 vision, just as they would have been by outward ob- 
 jects of a similar nature presented to their senses *• 
 They argued and acted with as much freedom, force, 
 and propriety, as they could have done at any other 
 time. Thus, f when the word of the Lord came unto 
 Abraham in a vision, saying, I am thy shield, and 
 thy exceeding great reward ) Abraham very rationally 
 represented to God, how little the greatest riches 
 would avail him, if he must at last leave them to the 
 inheritance of a servant. And when God promised 
 him, that a son of his own body should become his 
 heir, and brought him forth abroad, and said. Look 
 now toward heaven, and tell the stars J, if thou he 
 able to number them-, adding, so shall thy seed be ; 
 Abraham believed in the Lord, upon due consideration 
 
 * See Gen. xv. 12, 13. ch. xvii. 17. Isa. xxi. 3, 4. Jer. xxiii. 9. 
 Dan. X. 11, 12. 16, 17. Acts xviii. 9. ch. xxiii. 11. and compare 
 Exod. iii. 3. Dan. v. 5. Acts xxvi. 19. 
 
 f Gen. XV. 1—6. 
 
 \ This language, God hr ought him for Ih abroad^ and saidf Look now 
 toward heaven^ and tell the stars, confirms what was observed above. 
 Sect. 1 . p. 30, &c. that the representations of a vision are related as 
 facts, and justifies the explication given of the language both of the 
 prophet Ezekiel and of the evangelists, Sect. 3. For that this was 
 nothing more than a visionary representation, is certain from its 
 being called a vision, ver. I ; and from this farther circumstance, that 
 the sun was not yet gone down, v, 12. and consequently the stars 
 were not visible to the eye, 
 
 of 
 
Chrisi's Temptation in the JVUderness. 87 
 
 of the omnipotence and truth of God, who counted it 
 to him for righteo2isness, while he was yet under the 
 vision. In like manner, when St. Peter* had a 
 visionary representation of a large sheet, let down as 
 it were from heaven, full of abundance of animals, 
 clean and unclean, all mixed together, and was bid 
 to take his choice and satisfy his hunger, he startles 
 at the proposal, and remonstrates just as he would 
 have done had it been a real scene, not a visionary 
 one ; Not so. Lord, for I have never eaten any thing 
 common or unclean : for he was not yet aware, that 
 the Jewish law was no longer, in any part of it, obli- 
 gatory upon Christians f. It were both a needless 
 and an endless task to adduce all the other examples J 
 of this kind which the Scripture affords, since, amongst 
 the numerous visions it records^ I do not recollect 
 one in which the prophet does not discover a sound 
 
 * Acts I. 10—14. 
 
 •f- When St. Peter had this vision, it is said, He fell into an ecstasy, 
 A prophetic ecstasy ^ therefore, denotes not an alienation of mind or 
 loss of reason, nor any transport of fear, wonder, or other passion, 
 but that state the mind is in when it receives extraordinary divine 
 communications by vision. See above, p. 70. The passions eicited 
 in the prophets were as various as the objects which their visions 
 presented. 
 
 \ Those, however, who desire more instances, may compare St.. 
 Paul's behaviour when he had a vision of Christ in the temple. 
 Acts ixii. 1 7 — 20, with his behaviour when he had an actual sight of 
 him on his way to Damascus, ch. ix. 4 — 6 ; and they will find both to 
 be equally rational. Or they may consult Ezek. i. 28. ch. iii. 14. 
 ch. iv. 9 — l^. fih. xl. 4, and the passages referred to above, p. 86', 
 note *. 
 
 understanding. 
 
88 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 understanding, and make the same reflections upon 
 the imaginary scenes which passed before him, as he 
 would have done had they been real. And if this was 
 the case with the other prophets, daring their visions^ 
 it is reasonable to suppose it was the same with Christ 
 during his, and consequently he was capable of re- 
 turning a rationaK answer to the proposals made to 
 him in vision, in the manner the history represents ; 
 and his rejecting them would discover and display 
 the virtuous affections and principles by which he was 
 croverned : and so far this vision would serve as a 
 present trial. This, however, could not be its direct 
 intention, as is shewn in the appendix*. 
 
 3. This vision was properly designed as a predic- 
 tion and symbolical representation of the particular 
 difficulties and temptations he was to meet with in the 
 execution of his office, and in the exercise of his 
 miraculous powers, as the Messiah. If we examine 
 the other visions recorded in Scripture, we shall find, 
 that all the images they contained were not designed 
 for their own sakes, without any farther intention and 
 reference, but that they were symbols or emblems, 
 that is, signs and representations of other things f. 
 By these images and emblems God was pleased to 
 si^rnify and express moral instructions, and to forctel 
 and prefigure future events. From hence it w ill fol- 
 low, that if the temptation of Christ w^as a divine 
 
 • No. V. 
 
 f See fi»e Appendix, Nc.IV. -wheremany proofs of the prophetic 
 aud symbolical uature of visions in gc-ijerui arc produced. 
 
 vision, 
 
ChrhCsTiritpiation in the IFilderness. Si) 
 
 vision, as \vc have already proved it to be, we must 
 allow in general, that the images presented to him in 
 it were symbolical, or relative to some other mattt rs 
 of which they were an apt representation, unless we 
 will interpret this vision in a manner difTercnt from 
 all other visions. 
 
 But if the vision of Christ was figurative and para- 
 bolical, it n)ay very naturally be inquired. What is 
 the particular intention of it ? and how is this to h& 
 learnt? I answer, that as it is nowhere explained in 
 Scripture, the proper meaning of it must be collected 
 from the nature and circumstances of the vision itself, 
 as was usual in the like cases. When the images of 
 a vision bore an obvious meaning, and clearly pointed 
 out the particular instruction they were designed to 
 convey, no formal explanation was given*. The in- 
 quiry htre therefore must be. What do the images or 
 sims in this vision most naturallv denote ? to what do 
 the symbols most nearly correspond ? And if it should 
 appear, when we proceed to examine the particular 
 scenes of this vision, that there is a perfect corre- 
 spondence and rescnjblance between them and the 
 
 * When Daniel had seen the %i3ion of the ram and he-goat, he 
 s'tiightfur the 7i:ea7ii>i^, and it was explained tchim. Dan.viii. 15 — 17. 
 But when St. Peter doubled in Idnniclj'y Khat his vision (cited above, 
 p. 87.) should yncaiiy no formal eiplanation of it was given, though 
 it was designed for his own information. He was only directed to go 
 with the messengers of Cornelius ; which was sufficient to guide him 
 ii to the true interpretation of his vision. Acts x. 17 — 20. Nor did 
 St. Taul's vision, Acts xvi. 9, 10. receive or require any explanation. 
 
 several 
 
go An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 several temptations to which Christ was exposed, in 
 the exercise of his ministry and miraculous powers, it 
 may fairly be inferred, that the former were designed 
 as a prediction and prefiguration of the latter. But 
 should it be ever so clearly demonstrated, that this 
 vision contains a representation of the future difficul- 
 ties of Christ's public ministry, this will rather con- 
 firm than overthrow the opinion of its answering at 
 the same time the end of a present trial; since the 
 very prospect of those difficulties would constitute a 
 very great trial. And surely the wisdom of God 
 might frame such scenes, as should be both proba- 
 tionary in their own nature, and prophetic or symbo- 
 lical in their principal intention. This leads me to 
 
 4. That such scenes as this vision contains, whe- 
 ther considered as probationary or prophetical, might 
 be presented to Christ by a divine hand, without any 
 imworthy imputation upon the divine holiness or 
 goodness. Nothing is more certain, than that God 
 does not tempt any man^, in the criminal sense of 
 that expression ; he never acts with an intention of 
 seducing men into sin ; nay, he does every thing 
 consistent with the rules of his moral government to 
 guard them against it. And in this sense of the 
 word, the scenes of this vision did not contain a 
 present temptation ; they were not designed to seduce 
 Christ into sinf. Nevertheless, there is a sense of 
 
 • Jaiues i. 13, -f Sec Appendix, No. V. 
 
 the 
 
Christ* s Temptation in the JVilderness, 91 
 
 the word, in which God does tempt * men ; that is, 
 he proposelh to them suitable trials for the discovery, 
 display, and improvement of their piety and obedi- 
 ence. Thus God tempted, or made trial of, Abrahamf . 
 And thus he tempteth or trieth all men, having en- 
 dued them with those affections, and placed them in 
 those circmnstances, which necessarily constitute a 
 trial of their integrity. Nor are these trials unworthy 
 of God 3 but are indeed the very means he uses to 
 exercise, confirm, and perfect our virtue. And trials 
 might be proposed to the Son of God, with the same 
 general intention as they are to the children of men ; 
 for though a Son, yet learned he obedience, hj the 
 things which he sufferedX, It could not therefore be 
 unworthy of God to spread sucii scenes b^foic tlm 
 mind of Christ, as should serve to exercise, to disco- 
 ver, and display his virtue \ the only sense in which 
 we assert them to be probationary §. But what alone 
 would be a full vindication of the divine conduct in 
 the present case is, that the scenes of this vision were 
 designed to represent the temptations of his future 
 minislry, such as it could not be unworthy of God to 
 place before his view, because they were no other 
 than what God saw fit actually to appoint. They 
 
 * The word -nritpa^Siv imports nothing .-nore, in its primary sig- 
 nification, than mii^ay ^aCsJv, periculum facere, to make a trx aly essay ^ 
 or proof of something. Acts xxiv. 6. 2Cor. xiii. 5. Heb. xi. 17. But 
 even in this sense of the word, when God is said to tempt men, this 
 is not designed for his own information, but to serve the ends of hi» 
 moral government. 
 
 f Gen.xiii. 1. J Heb. v. 8. § See Appendix, No. V. 
 
Q2 An Lujuirf/ into the Nature and Desig?i of 
 
 sprang from a divine constitution, were the natural 
 consequence of tlie hniDanity of Christ, of the office 
 and powers with wind) he was invested by the Fatlier, 
 and the wise rules by whicli he was to conduct him- 
 self in the cxer.cise of them. So tliat he was jiiaced 
 by God in those trying circumstances which thi.s 
 vision represented. And as the proposals, which 
 were afterwards lo occur in real life, now appeared 
 to be made to him by the devil; the manifest inten- 
 tion of the vision was to lead timi into a just con- 
 ception of those proposals, as criminal in their nature, 
 and on that account fit to be rejected *. The very nature 
 of the representation is a full proof that it was not 
 intended to seduce Christ into sin, but to guard him 
 against it. Besides, the best ends were to be an- 
 swered (as we shall endeavour to evince) by this pre- 
 diction and representation of such future events as 
 were to befall him ; and therefore it must be esteemed 
 worthy to proceed from the Spirit, not of delusion, 
 but of holiness, truth and wisdom f. 
 
 Having preniised these general observations, I pro- 
 ceed now (as I proposed) distinctly to examine the 
 several scenes of tliis prophetic vision, in order to 
 point out the peculiar intention of each, and to shew, 
 that though they n\ight contain a present trial ]:, yet 
 
 that 
 
 ♦ Sec the Appendix, No. VI. 
 
 f With reg-ard to tlie objection made to tlie representation of 
 Satan's promise of the world to Christ, see the Appendix, No. Vll. 
 
 \ Should it appear doubtful to any, whether the several scenes 
 of this vision were probationary in their nature, and answered the 
 
 end 
 
C/ir'isf*s Tvwl)tation in I he JVildcrness, 93 
 
 that thcv were directly and prope-ly deiiiined as 
 svmbolical predictions a:id rcpiLocn tat ions of tiie 
 future dilTiculUcs of Christ's office and jninistry. 
 
 I. In the first of these prophetic see l*. the .^rcat 
 adversary* of mankind seemed to approach our Re- 
 deemer, and to accost him in the following manner : If 
 thou be (or inasmuch f as thou art) the Son of God (or 
 the Messiah |) command that these stones he made 
 bread. Christ having already continued fasting forty 
 days and forty nights together; and the divine power, 
 
 end of a present trial; this will not afTect what is iirg-ed in support 
 of their being a prediction and prefiguration of Christ's future trials ; 
 which is here asserted to be the!r proper inter/ion. 
 
 * When God revealed to Abraham in a deep sleep the afflictions of 
 his posterity, they were representca by the horror oi great darkness^ 
 Gen. XV. 12, 13. But what more natural emblem of temptations could 
 there be, than the image of the great tempter? 
 
 t It is generally thought, that these words imply a doubt in the 
 devil, whether Jesus was the Me?siah; or that they v/ere intended to 
 raise such a doubt in the breast of Jesus himself. But that the devil 
 could not doubt who Jesus was, has been shewn above, sect. I. p. 11. 
 note*. And virhen we consider what express testimonies were borne 
 to Christ at his baptism, it appears impossible that Jesus himself 
 should entertain any doubt about his own character. In those words, 
 JJ thnu be the Son of God ^ command that these stones he made heady 
 it is taken for granted, that he was the Son of God; and he is 
 prompted to act as became him under that character. See the note 
 here referred to. 
 
 I That the Messiah and the Son of God are equivalent terms, or 
 were undeivstood to denote the same person, will appear by comparing 
 Mat. xxvi. 6'o. Luke xxii. 67. 70. John i..Sl. 41. 49. Mat. xvi. 16. 
 Mark viii. ii9. Acts viii. '37. See Ps. ii. 7, from whence the Jews 
 might learn to apply this title, the Son of God, to the Messiah. 
 Compare Dan. iii. 25, and 2 Esdr. ii. 47. 
 
 by 
 
94 An Inquiry into tlie Nature and Design of 
 
 by which his body had hitherto been sustained with- 
 out any nourishment, being withdrawn; he now 
 began to feel the keen sensations of hunger*: and he 
 was still in a barren desert, remote from all the ordi- 
 nary means of sustenance. In these circumstances 
 it was suggested to him by the tempter, ^* That it 
 was very unsuitable to his dignity and peculiar rela- 
 tion to the Father, to remain destitute of the ne- 
 cessary supports of life j and that it became him to 
 exert the miraculous powers with which he was in- 
 vested as the Messiah_, for his own immediate relief." 
 What temptation could be more specious than this ? 
 Why might not the Son of the most High, when he 
 felt the severe pressure of bodily wants, and had no 
 .rospect of a supply in the ordinary way, exert his 
 power for so important a purpose as self-preserva- 
 tion? 
 
 Yet, forcible as this temptation was, it was re- 
 jected, and upon the justest principles ; as appears 
 from the following reply of our Lord : Man shall not 
 live by bread only 3 but by every word that proceedeth 
 out of the mouth of Godf, or by every thing that God 
 may appoint. These words, which are borrowed 
 from the writings of Moses, refer to the case of the 
 Israelites in the wilderness, and assign the reason of 
 
 - This circumstance was proper to prepare the way to the present 
 temptation, and to give it force. Compare Acts x. 10, where we read 
 that St. Peter became very hu7igry, just before hi* vision of the sheet 
 containing ail manner of living creatures. 
 f Dent. viii. 3. 
 
 1 ^ Ood's 
 
Christ* s Temptation in the JVilderness, 95 
 
 God*s feeding them there with manna from heaven. 
 In this connection they are very applicable to the case 
 of our Lord, and are to be understood as comprising 
 in them the following argument: '^ If God, when 
 he led the Israelites into the wilderness, did not suffer 
 them to perish in it, but interposed in a miraculous 
 manner for their supply, and fed them with manna, 
 (which, though a light kind of food, gave their 
 bodies as much vigour as the bread and flesh of 
 Egypt,) in order to convince them that he could 
 sustain this animal life, not by bread only, but by 
 whatever other means he should see fit to appoint 
 and provide, or even without any natural means at 
 all, by his own efficacious word or will alone*: why 
 then should I, from a distrust either of his power 
 or providential goodness, undertake to supply my 
 own wants in a manner which he has not prescribed ? 
 I may reasonably hope that he will not be less ready, 
 at the proper season, to interpose on my behalf than 
 lie was on theirs ; especially as I have hitherto had 
 experience of his power in protecting me from the 
 dangers of the wilderness, and in sustaining me 
 without food for forty days together. In this exi- 
 gence, I will trust in God ; persuaded that he will 
 himself rather work a miracle in my favour than 
 suffer me to want necessary sustenance." Thus did 
 our Lord, from a principle of resignation to God, 
 
 • As in the case of Moses, Exod. xxiv. 18. Deut. Ix. 9. 18; of 
 Elijah, 1 Kings xix. 8; and of Christ, Mat. iv. 2; each of whom 
 fasted forty days. 
 
 and 
 
96 An Impnri] into the Nature and Design of 
 
 and reliance on his power and care, refuse to turn 
 stones into bread. And his piety wai speedilv re- 
 warded by a niiracu]v)us supply of- food, provided for 
 him by God*. For, when the temptation was ended, 
 the angels came and ministered iinto himf. And does 
 it not appear, from what has already been offered under 
 this head, that this first scene in Christ's vision was 
 probationary, and served to discover the present turn 
 and temper of his mind ? 
 
 No less evident does it seem that this scene was 
 prophetical, and had a reference to his future mi- 
 nistry, through the whole course of which he was 
 pressed with the same kind of temptations, and 
 resisted them upon the same principles. This part 
 of the vision very naturally conveyed this general 
 instruction ; '^ That Christ, though the Son of God, 
 was to struggle with the afflicting hardships of hunger 
 and thirst, and all the other evils of humanity, like 
 the lowest of the sons of men : and that he was never 
 to exert his divine power, for his own personal relief, 
 under the most pressing difficulties, or for the supply 
 of his most urgent occasions; but with resignation 
 and faith to wait for the interposition of God in his 
 favour." Accordingly we find that Christ regulated' 
 
 * Compare 1 Kings xix. o. 
 
 f Mat. iv. 11., The word S-taxcvsiv, here rendered to mirri-iier, very 
 often signifies, to minister fond, or to xcait at tnlle. Mat. viii. l.>. 
 i>uke xvii. 8. ch. xxii. 27. John xii. 2. Numerous instances of this 
 use of the word in heathen authors are produced by If ctstdi} upon 
 the place. 
 
 hl^ 
 
 7 
 
Christ's Temptation in the JVildcrness, 97 
 
 hhs conduct by this maxim. He did not subsist by 
 miracles ; but though rich in the possession of a 
 power capable of controlling all the laws of nature, 
 though heir and lord of all, he became poor, lived an 
 indigent life, without any settled habitation or certain 
 provision*. He knew how much more blessed it is 
 to give than to receive, and yet disdained not to ac- 
 cept kindness from others, or even to stand in- 
 debted to their bounty for his own support f. In some 
 circumstances he felt the pressure of hunger :[;, with- 
 out having food to eat; at other times he had no 
 leisure to take any, through a zealous application to 
 the duties of his office, such as was not to be inter- 
 rupted by the pressing calls of nature. He chose 
 rather to deny himself necessary refreshment than 
 lose an opportunity of healing and instructing the 
 multitude §. And neither on these, nor on any other 
 occasion, did he relieve himself by a miracle. This 
 is the more extraordinary, as he interposed with readi- 
 ness in the behalf of others, who daily rejoiced in 
 the temporal as well as spiritual benefit of his divine 
 power; and at different times fed the hunarv multi- 
 tudes in the desert, by a miraculous increase of his 
 own slender provisions ||. Nor did he only endure 
 liunger and thirst, but all the other evils incident to 
 human nature. He lived a laborious and led au 
 
 * Mat. viii. 20. f Luke viii. 3. \ Mark xi. 12. 
 
 § Markiii.20, 21. ch. vi. 31—34. Mat. xiv. 13, 14. 
 jl Mat. XV. 33, 34. Mark viii. 4, 5. Mat. xiv. 16, 17. Mark vi. 
 37, 38. 
 
 F itinerant 
 
9S An Inquiry into the Kahae and Design of 
 
 itinerant life. Instead of commanding angels to his 
 service, he submitted to the inconveniences and 
 fatigue* of travelling on foot from one part of Judea 
 and Galilee to another, and was tossed about by 
 tempests at sea. He was exhausted f by the inces- 
 sant labours of his ministry, and that intense applica- 
 tion of mind with which he engaged in it. After 
 performing tiresome journeys, and preaching to the 
 crowds which followed him, in the day; he often 
 spent a considerable part of the nigiit, sometimes the 
 whole of it, in earnest prayer to God j:, and in the 
 open air; notwithstanding the copious dews, which 
 fall by night in those parts, must have been very 
 dangerous, especially when the body was heated by 
 the exercise of the preceding day. So many inju- 
 ries did his con>iitution suHer, that the crasis or 
 texture of his blood was dcslroved, and sweated 
 through every pore of his body§. And to such a 
 degree was he enfeebled by the violences to which he 
 pntientlv submitted, as to be unable to bear his cross ||. 
 lie, who in so many thousand instances renewed the 
 
 * John iv. 6. 
 
 + Dr.I^arclner,!n the first volume of liis Supplement to Tlie Credibi- 
 litv of the Gospel History, p. 20:i, observes, tliac our J -ortl's sleeping in 
 the midst of a storm w;is owing to his uridertaking the voyage in the 
 evening, after the fatigue of long discourses in public, and without 
 any refrcilunent. Mark iv. 36 — S8. 
 
 \ Luke vi. 12. The justly celebrated Mr. Jos. Mede (Works, 
 p. 67.) and other eminent critics render, ev th irfcs-nx^n -nu Qszu, in an 
 oratory of Cod. But tl>cse oratories were open at the top. 
 
 § Luke xxii. -M. ' 1| Mat, ixvii. 32. 
 
 health 
 
Christ's Temptation in the JVdderness^ 91> 
 
 iicaUh and vigour of others, never exerted any mira-^ 
 culous power either to preserve or restore his own,! 
 but sunk under the pressure of his infirmities! lii^ 
 all his exigencies he referred himself to God. Even 
 under that great extremity, his agony in the garden, . 
 he sought and waited for the interposition of God; 
 who, in answer to his prayer, sent an angel from 
 heaven to strengthen him*. And when the hoar of 
 his death approached, lie used no means for his 
 rescue t, but meeklv resigned himself into the hands 
 of his most malicious enemies, in obedience to his 
 Father's will. 
 
 The divine powers with which Christ \va« invested 
 were designed as the seal of his mission ; and ac- 
 cordingly they were never applied to a diH'erent pur- 
 pose. This strict appropriation of his miiMcles to 
 their proper intention served to point it out mor<e 
 clearly, and_toJkee£Jt^ m constaDt view j to m_anifest 
 the wisdom and necessity of the works themselves_, 
 and to preserve their dignity and authoritv, which 
 would have been impaired, if not destroyed, by a 
 more general application of them. As Christ never 
 appHed them to any purpose foreign to their grand in- 
 tention ; so it was in a very pecuHar nianner neces- 
 sary that they should never be employed to protect 
 himself from the calamities and distressts to which 
 human nature is incident. Had he , \\ hen made in 
 the likeness of men, saved himself by miracles from 
 
 • Liikc xxli. 43. t Mat. xxvl. .'2, 5'?>; '4. John xviii. 6. 
 
 F 2 - the 
 
100 u4n Inqmnj vito the Nature and Design of 
 
 the evils of humanity; where had been his conflict, 
 his victory, his triumph ? or where the consolation 
 and benefit liis followers derive from his example, his 
 merit, his crown? Sufferings were the theatre on 
 which he displayed his divine virtues*, and they were 
 both the ground of his advancement to the glorious 
 office of our Redeemer f, and a natural means of 
 inspiring him with compassion % t.o all who were to 
 follow him§. 
 
 II. In the second scene of this vision ||, the devil 
 tnkcth Christ into the holy city, Jerusalem, and settetk 
 him on the wincr ^ of the temple, aiid saith unto him, 
 If ihmi le (or, since thou art) the So?i of God, cast 
 thyself doivn : for it is written **, H^ shall give his 
 nngels charge concerning thee, and in their hands shall 
 they hear thee np, lest at any time thou dash ihy foot 
 against a stone. 
 
 ^ Heb. V. 8. cited above, p. 91 . 
 
 t And being made pprfcrJ, he Iccamc the author nf eternal salvation 
 laito all them that obey him. Hcb. v. 9. see ch. ii. 10. 
 
 i Heb.n. 17,18. ch.iv. l.'^. 
 
 § What is urged under t'lis head, answers the old objection of the 
 Jews to Christ, when he was h;i.n;;ing on the cross, from his not using 
 his power for his own protection and safety, as it may be thought a 
 wise man ought to have done: an objection that lias been repeated in 
 every age from that day to this, by the adversaries of tlie gospel, 
 without reflecting, that his power of miracles was never designed for 
 any such purpose. See Whitby on John xviii. i. 
 
 II Mat. iv. 5, 6. 
 
 \ TTTifiyiov, the iving, not tlie piiinarle, as it is in the common 
 translation. See Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. p. 130. and above, Seer. I. 
 p. 19, no'e \. 
 
 ** Poul. :>n. 11. 
 
 It 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness, 101 
 
 It is generally supposed, that Christ is here called 
 upon to expos>e his person to danger without any ne- 
 cessity, from a confidence in the protection of the 
 Almighty, which he, as the Son of God, had peculiar 
 reason to expect j since even to good men God had 
 promised the guardianship of his angels. But the 
 proposal is very capable of a more comprehensive 
 meaning. For the scene of this vision is different 
 from the former, as several writers* havx observed. 
 Christ is not placed at the top of a high rock in the 
 wilderness, where he already was; though, by throw- 
 ing himself down from any formidable precipice in 
 sucii a solitary place, the divine power must equally 
 liave interposed for his preservation, and his faith in 
 that power been put to the trial. The scene of this 
 temptation was Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judea, 
 and the seat of power j it was the temple of Jerusalem, 
 where the .Jews expected the firiit appearance of their 
 Messiah, that angel of the covcp.ant, who was to 
 come suddenly to itf ; it was the ivh;g of the temple, 
 the eastern front of it, which conunandcd a view of 
 the crowd of worshippers below. From this most 
 public eminence, and before immense multitudes, 
 not from the obscurities of the wilderness, is Christ 
 required to throw himself down, in a dependence 
 upon the divine protection, (which none could have 
 so much reason to expect as the Son of God ;) that 
 so his miraculous preservation might give evidence of 
 
 * Dr. Lightfoot's and Dr. Mackni;;lu's Harmonics, 
 t Malachi iii. 1. 
 
 his 
 
IOC An Inquinj into the Nature and Design of 
 
 his divine mission, and induce the numerous wor- 
 shippers, who were evc-witnesscs of it, to acknow- 
 ledge him immediately as the Messiah, visibly de- 
 scending from heaven, In a manner agreeable to the 
 ♦.xpectatlon oi'the Jewc>. Such was the proposal here 
 umdc to Christ; and in its own nature it ccrtain)y 
 earned a very powerful temptation. How seemingly 
 honourable and glorious would it have been for the 
 Mcssiali, to have opened his commission upon such 
 .1 public theatre, and with such demonstrations of 
 divine power I Let us inquire therefore upon what 
 principles this specious temptation was rejected. 
 
 In answer to the quotation from Scripture, by 
 which the devil sought to inforce his temptation, our 
 Lord replies^ // is writttn also. Thou shall not tempt 
 • he Lord th// God*. To tempt God, is to make aii 
 !:uproper trial of his power, to make new and uii- 
 rt asonable demands upon it, after sufficient evidence 
 has been already afforded; and to do thi?, not barely 
 from presun>ption, but from distrust. In this sense 
 the expression is often t used in Scripture, as well as 
 m the particular instance referred to by our Lord J. 
 
 His 
 
 ♦ Mat. Iv. 7. 
 
 ■f- Evcd. ivii. 2. 7. Numb. :iiv. 22. Ps. bxviii. 18. Ps. cvi. 
 1-1, 15. Mat. xvi. 1. Acts xv. 10. 
 
 \ Dcut. vi. It). Moses d<;cs uot l.crc refer to any particular case, 
 m whith the Israelites were so properly chargeable with ^rwumf/i^; 
 'tofi f'Vf upon the divine power and interposiiioa in their favour, as 
 with dtstritshn^ it. Af.er all the demonstrations of the divine pre- 
 sence, in dividinij the red-»ea, in supplyinj^ them with manna, and 
 going before them in the cloud, they still doubted, Is the lord amongst 
 
Christ's Tonptation in the IFilJerncss, 1U3 
 
 His meaning, therefore, must Vje this : " The Scrip- 
 ture forbids 113 to prescribe to God in what instance? 
 he sliall exert his power: and as we are not to rush 
 upon danger witbout a call, in expectation of an ex- 
 traordinary deliverance; so neither are we to dictate 
 to divine wisdom what miracles shall be wrought ior 
 men's conviction." 
 
 We are in the next place to inquire, what reference 
 this scene migjit have to Christ's future ministry . 
 Through the whole course of it^ he was assaulted 
 with temptations similar to tljat here proposed, and he 
 repelled them upon the maxim here adopted. In- 
 stead of needlessly and unwarrantably running into 
 danger, and then relying upon the divine power to 
 extricate him, (which must have occasioned an un- 
 necessary and endless multiplication of miracles,) wc 
 find him using the utmost caution in dechning 
 hazards; avoiding, as far as possible, whatever Jiiight 
 exasperate his cnemie.9, and even enjoining silence-'^ 
 with regard to his miracles, those seals of his njis- 
 sion, when thti publication of them in some parti- 
 cular circumstances was hkely, by raising envy or 
 popular commotions^ to inflame their minds yet more 
 against him. We find him also disappointing their 
 malice^ by prudently retreating f out of its reach, till 
 the appointed period of h's ministry was fulfilled. So 
 
 us, or not? Exod. xvii. 2 — 7. There might, however, be a mixture 
 of presumption on this occasion, in daring to prescribe to CJod the 
 time and manner in which he should interpose on their behalf. 
 
 * Mat. viii. 4. ch. xii. 15— '.-1. 
 
 f John X. 39, 40. Mat. iii. li. Mark iii. 7. John viii. .W. 
 
 that^ 
 
104 ^n InajLiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 that, although there were some instances in which 
 he was protected from his ads-ersaries in a miraculous 
 manner *j and in which it was absolutely necessary 
 he should be so protected, that he might not be cut 
 off before the ends of his ministry were accomplished; 
 yet, considering bow eairerly the Jewish rulers were 
 bent upon his destruction, and hovv' often they at- 
 tempted itf, those instances are very few, com- 
 pared with what ihey jnust liave been, had not Christ 
 been perpetual] v attentive in his whole conduct to 
 this maxim, Thou slialt not tempt the Lord thij God, 
 In producing the evidences of his divine mission, 
 he still acted upon the same maxim, though he was 
 often under the strongest temptation to depart from 
 it. Instead of opening his commission at Jerusalem, 
 and displaying all at once upon that grand theatre the 
 powers with which he was invested; he performed his 
 first miracle at Cana in Galilee, and made that obscure 
 country, for a considerable time, the principal scene 
 of his ministry. On this account he was blamed by 
 his own brethren, as acting unsuitably to his extra- 
 grdinary character and commission, and urged to shew 
 himself puhUchj to the worldX* But as he was not 
 influenced by ostentatious views, and w^as solicitous 
 to answer the ends and fulfil the period of his ministry 
 in a manner the least likely to create noise and dis- 
 
 * John vlii. 20. 
 
 f Mat. xii. 14. Mark iii. 6. Luke vi. 11. John vii. 1. ch. vii. 
 25. SI, S2. ch. viii. 20. 37. 09. ch. x. '39, 40. ch. xi. 7—16. 45—57. 
 \ John vii. 4. 
 
 turbance, 
 
Christ's Tempiaiion. In the JVilderness, , 10.5 
 
 turbance, or to give offence, he kept himself as pri- 
 vate as the nature of his work would admit; some- 
 times retiring into deserts, where those who were 
 desirous of his instructions were willing to follow 
 him, and to sustain the inconveniences of hunger 
 and thirst for several days together. Instead of 
 courting the favour of the opulent and powerful, to 
 engage them to countenan.ee and support. his cause, 
 or challenging from the rulers of the Jewish nation 
 the homage due to his high character, he did not 
 bear a commission chiefly or particularly directed to 
 them (an honour some of the antient prophets en- 
 joyed), but conversed freely with all sorts of people, 
 not only with the lowest, but with the worst, in order 
 to. bring them to repentance. Wlien he had used 
 sufficient means to satisfy the most scrupulous inte- 
 grity, to win over those to the faith who were either 
 piously disposed or willing to be reformed, agreeably 
 to the commission he had received from Heaven, he 
 would not proceed any farther. He refused to comply 
 with the unreasonable demands of those who, not- 
 withstanding all the proofs of his mission which had 
 been already offered, still demanded farther evidence, 
 and called jfbr signs from heaven^. Now these cir- 
 cumstances of Christ's ministry correspond to those 
 in his prophetic vision, in which he was tempted to 
 a public and ostentatious display of his miraculous 
 powers. And his answer to this second temptation 
 
 * Johnii. 18. Mat. xii. 38. Luke xl. 14. M'at. xvi. 1. Maxkvi:i. 11. 
 
 F 5 contained 
 
106 An Inquiry into the Naiurc and Design of 
 
 contained a new limitation, under which tRose powers 
 were to be used. Even in bringing men to the faith, 
 he was not to exceed the order and appointment of 
 God. And though the determination of God in this 
 respect was certainly founded in the highest wisdom, 
 which ever regulates all the operations of his power; 
 though it was perfectly analogous to the other mea- 
 sures of his government over his moral creatures, who 
 are not formed to 'religion and virtue by the utmost 
 exertions of Omnipotence, but in such methods as 
 are consistent with their freedom ; and though it was 
 well calculated to promote the credit and true interest 
 of the gospel, to establish it on an evidence best 
 adapted to its nature, aiid to win over those to the 
 faith of it who were most likely to comply with its 
 holy design; though this determination of God was 
 wise and just, yet did it require the greatest humility, 
 fortitude, and piety in him, who had the power of 
 working miracles at pleasure, to acquiesce therein. 
 Ambition and vain-glory could never have resisted 
 the temptations that Christ was un<Jer to an incessant 
 and unlimited exertion of his miraculous powers^ by 
 which he would have advanced his- own honour, 
 rendered his ministry more conspicuous and illustri- 
 ous, forced universal conviction, and coiilmanded 
 the admiration and applause of the whole world*. 
 This temptation was the more difficult to be over-, 
 come, as, in consequence of the method which was 
 taken, his doctrine was embraced only by a few well- 
 dii^posed persons, and those generally in tlie howest 
 
 rank 
 
Christ* s Temptation in the fVilderjiess* 107 
 
 rank of life *, while it was despised and persecuted by 
 the rich and great, by the \\ ise and learned, who were 
 enslaved to prejudice, or governed by sensual and 
 ambitious views. 
 
 III. In the third temptation the scene changes f, 
 and the devil taketh our Lord vp into an excecdiyig 
 high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdotns of 
 the world X, and the glory of them : and saiih vnio 
 
 * This circumstance gave occasion to the display of the most 
 humble and amiable piety, Mat. xi. 25. 26. 
 
 f Mat. iv. 8, 9. 
 
 + Lucian, in relating his dream, says, apSfj? h ei; l-^o^ eyeo iiri' 
 ffxoiroii'^ etTTO thj im ap^a/><£vc; a^pi Tr^s; ij-TTiipav, TroXtt;, xat eSvt,, xai Inuou;- 
 Ego vero in sublime snblatus, ab oriente incipiens,. ad occivleiUem 
 usque contcmplabar uibes, gentes et populos. Luciani Somniurn, 
 torn. i. p. 10, 11. ed. Var. Amstclodami, 1687. This language illus- 
 trates that of the evangelists, and serves to remove an objection urged 
 by Dr. Whitby and others, " that if Christ had only a visionary re- 
 presentation of the kingdoms of the world, it was needless to take 
 him into an exceeding high mountain, or even into any mountain at 
 all." Notice was taken of this objection above, p. 24, at the end of 
 note |. Rev. xxi. 10. is there cited, in order to shew that St. John 
 was in like manner carried to a high mountain, to give him a 
 prospect of lerusalem. Ezekiel alao says, ch. xl. 2. In the visions of 
 Godhrouf;ht he me into the land of Jsrael, and set vie upon a vcri/ hi^jck 
 vtountain, ly ichich -was as the frame of a city on the south. Will you 
 here object, that it was needless to take St. John or Ezekiel to any 
 eminence, as both might just as well have had their respective visions 
 on a plain ? Why then is it made an objection against the vision of 
 Christ, that he is said to be carried to an eminence? But, in reality, 
 neither was Jesus Christ, nor the apostle John, nor the prophet 
 Ezekiel, carried to any mountain ; but they appeared to them.sclves 
 to be placed upon very high mountains, which gave somewhat of 
 the appearance of nature to the extensiveness of the prospects shewn 
 thf m. Accordingly Lucian in relating his dream uses similar language. 
 
 hijlly 
 
1 08 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 him, All these things ivill I glue thee, if thou ivilt 
 fall down and ivorship me. 
 
 How absurd soever the offer, which the devil here 
 makes to Christ, must have appeared to him in other 
 circumstances*, and consequently how little merit 
 soever there might be in rejecting it, yet in a vision 
 the objects presented to the imagination are appre- 
 hended to be rcalf, and actually to possess all the 
 powers and properties they claim X ', and the mind 
 judges concerning things according to their appear- 
 ance at that time, and discovers the very same turn 
 and temper as it would have done if the object had 
 been real, and not imaginary. Hence it is that Christ 
 does not dispute the devil's claim to the disposal of 
 the world. The offer of it in these circumstances ap- 
 peared to proceed from one able to make it good; and 
 there was just the same merit in rejecting it, as if it 
 had really done so. How great that merit was, may 
 be judged by the largoiess of the offer, which was 
 nothing less than the empire and glory, not of Judea 
 only, but of tlie wliole universe. These objects were 
 placed before Christ in their most alluring forms, and 
 all comprised in one view, so as to strike his imagi- 
 nation in their full force. Nevertheless, the proposal 
 was rejected the very instant it was made, and not 
 
 * Sec. :;bove, Sect. I. p.f>, 10, 11. « 
 
 f See above, Sect. I. p. 30, 31, &c. and Sect. IV. p. 84, &c. 
 ^ And consequently, if the devil was represented as having the 
 power of disposing of the empire of the world, this representation of 
 him would appear as real as one perfectly conforrQable to his true 
 nature. Sec the Appendix, No. VII. and V^II. 
 
 without 
 
CljisCs Temptation in the IVilderness, 109 
 
 without a mixture of just indignation : Get thee 
 hence, Satan ; for it is writieny Thoit shalt ivorship 
 the Lord thy God, and hiyn only shalt thou serve^. 
 This reply was a proof of the most steady and exalted 
 piety. 
 
 But the trial and discovery of his present temper 
 was not the direct intention of this prophetic scene, 
 which is to be considered as a presignification and 
 warning of the like temptation, to which he was to 
 be exposed in the course of bis future ministry, 
 during which be was called upon to prostitute him- 
 self, with all liis miraculous endowments, to the ser- 
 vice of Satan, for the sake of v/orldly honours. The 
 Jewish nation expected their Messiah to deliver it 
 from the yoke of servitude, to raise it to a pitch of 
 grandeur superior to what it had ever enjoyed under 
 their greatest monarchs, and to extend their conquests 
 over all the heathen nations, to the very ends of tbe 
 eartb. As these were the expectations which the 
 Jews entertained, so they were very solicitous that 
 Jesus should answer them, and would have done 
 every tbing in their power to promote the success of 
 such an undertaking. They even would have taken 
 him by force, and made him a kingf. And it is 
 certain, that bad bis miraculous pow'crs, which were 
 wholly consecrated to the erecting the kingdom of 
 God amongst men, been employed in paving his way 
 to secular honour, he might not only have escaped 
 
 * Mat. iv, 10. t John vi. 15. 
 
 sutferings 
 
110 Art Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 sufferings and death, but easily ascended the throne 
 of the universe. How readily would not only the 
 Jews, but all other nations, have repaired to the stan- 
 dard of a prince, who by a miracle, by a word or 
 silent volition only, could provide for his own ar- 
 mies*, or destroy those of his enemies t ', and under 
 whom therefore they might hope for all the rewards^ 
 without the usual toils and hazards of military 
 achievements ! How easily might he, who commanded 
 from a fish that tribute he was to pay to the temple, 
 have enriched himself and his followers with all the 
 treasures of the world ! <' Why then/* it might 
 have been suggested to him, *^ instead of spending 
 your life in affliction, and then ending it upon the 
 cross, will you not use your power for your own 
 benefit, to deliver yourseU" from misery, and make 
 yourself master of the world?'* But this temptation 
 did not at any time prevail over our Lord, notwith- 
 standing the desire of honour, wealth, and dominion, 
 is natural to every human mind, and, however inno- 
 cent in itself, is with greater difficulty than any other 
 subjected to the control of reason and conscience ; 
 and notwithstanding universal empire carries with it 
 charms almost irresistible, especially to noble and 
 heroic minds, conscious of their superior wisdom and 
 abilities-, and of an intention to employ their power to- 
 the true ends for which it is bestowed. If any thing 
 can heighten the virtue of despising worldly greatness^ 
 
 * John vi. 11 — 13. f Chap, xviii. C ch. ii. 15. 
 
 whea 
 
Christ's Temptation in the JVilderness, in 
 
 when it comes in competition with our duty ; it is 
 the being practised in circumstances of indigence, 
 such as arc infinitely beneath that rank to which our 
 merit entitles us. And therefore to refuse, as our 
 Saviour did, grandeur and royalty, and universal 
 empire, while he was more destitute of the accom- 
 modations of life than even the beasts of the field or 
 birds of the air*, and was struggling with poverty, 
 reproach, and persecution in the cause of God, and 
 had death itself in certain prospect before him (all 
 which evils might have been avoided by a misappli- 
 cation of his miraculous powers), was the highest act 
 of virtue that humanity could exhibit. 
 
 Havino; endeavoured to shew, by a distinct exami- 
 nation of the several scenes of this vision, that each 
 of them, while it contained the proposal of a present 
 and urgent temptation, was a symbolical prediction 
 and representation of such trials as he uas to undergo 
 in the course of his future ministry, 1 would add, 
 that the account which has been given of it in this, 
 latter view, will be confirmed by reflecting ori the 
 peculiar propriety of it in such a view, at this season, 
 Christ had been very lately consecrated to the high 
 office of the Messiah by the baptism of his illustrious 
 fore-runner, and at the same time invested and con- 
 firmed in this office by a voice from heaven, and 
 amply qualified for it by an unhmited communication 
 of the Spirit of God, and he was just going to enter 
 
 • Mat. viii. 20. 
 
 tipoii 
 
112 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 upon the public execution of it. No sooner did the 
 Spirit of God descend upon him, than he felt the 
 effects of his presence and inspiration ; for he was 
 brought into a wilderness by a prophetic illumination 
 of his mind, in a vision or spiritual rapture. In this 
 state he continued forty days and forty nights to- 
 gether, a divine power, during this whole space of 
 time, both supporting him without food, and pro- 
 tecting him from the dangers of the wilderness (such 
 was the place where he now was in person as well as 
 the scene of his vision). Hereby he had an oppor- 
 tunity of preparing* himself for his ministry by re- 
 ceiving new communications from God t, particularly 
 a revelation of the Christian doctrine, which he was 
 now anointed ly the Spirit to preachX. When the 
 forty days were expired, the vision was closed by a 
 prediction and prcfiguration of the trials he was to 
 combat, in the execution of that great office he was 
 about to vmdertake. Now what could be more wisely 
 adapted to his circumstances at this time than such 
 
 * Whether he had now an opportunity of exercising any extraor- 
 dinary devotion, I will not undertake absolutely to determine, the 
 text making express meniiou only of his fasting. In other cases, 
 fastino- was seldom separated from prayer, when persons were set 
 apart to sacred oliices, Acts xiii. 2, 3. ch. xiv. 23. compare 
 Mat. xvii. 21. And why might not the revelations Christ now re- 
 ceived from God, both leave room for, and even give occasion to, the 
 exercises of his devotion ? 
 
 f Thus Aloses continued in the mount for the space of forty days 
 without the use of food, receiving instructions from God,Exod. xxxiv. 
 £7, 28. and making intercession for the IsraeHtes, Dcut. ix. 18. 
 
 + Luke iv. 18. 
 
 representations ? 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wildtrney^, i\d 
 
 representations* ? The view given him of the 
 temptations of his succeeding ii)inistry was highly 
 proper to afford him an opportunity of arming him- 
 self with resolution to encounter themf; while the 
 honours he had so lately received served to support 
 him under the first shock of such discouraging 
 prospects. And when could it be so fit to state the 
 ends CO wliich his miraculous power was to be ap- 
 plied,, and the limits within which it was to be con- 
 lined^ as at the season when he was called forth to 
 exert it ? He had a power of performing all sorts of 
 miracles at pleasure by a sovereign all -commanding 
 
 * In order to discern the propriety and necessity of this revelatia?},^ 
 we are to recollect, that Christ's supernatural luiowledge was com- 
 municated to him, as occasion required, by the Holy Ghost, under 
 whose conduct he continually acted, while he lived upon earth. 
 Luke iv. 18. It is not icnreasoJiahlc to suppose (says Archbishop Til- 
 lotson, vol. ix. p. 273.) that the divine unsdoni^ which dwelt in our 
 Saviour, did communicate itself to his human sotil according to his plea- 
 sure. — And if this be not admitted, how can xve understand that passage 
 concerning our Saviour, Luke ii. 52. i'lut Jt^sus greiu in wisdom and 
 stature ? Grotius on Mark xiii. 32. speaks to the same efiect, Videcur 
 mihi^ ni meliora docear, hie locus non impic posse exponi hunc in 
 modum, ut dicamus divinam sapientiam menti humanae Christi 
 eftectus suos impressisse pro temporum ratione. And Beza, on 
 Luke ii. 52. observes, hr.o et ipsa Bioi'.toh plenitudo sese prout et 
 quatenus ipsi libuit, humanitati assumta; insinuavit. 
 
 f Acts ix. 16. / xcill shcu- him (Saul) how great things he must 
 suffer fvr my saker Saul, like Christ, continued for some days fasting-, 
 and without having any communication with external objects; like 
 Christ he also received visions and revelations from God, and parti- 
 cularly a revelation of his future sufferings, as a preparation for his 
 public ministry, at the same time engnjjing in the exercises of 
 devotion, 
 
 word ; 
 
1 14 An Inqiiiry into the Kuture and Design of 
 
 word ', and by an unlimited exertion of this power 
 he might have escaped every personal evil, conquered 
 the most vicious prejudices of" his enemies, and ex- 
 tended his fame and empire to the utmost limits of 
 the world. But this, he is here shewn, \\^uld have 
 been taking part with Satan, or a criminal misappli- 
 cation of the power of miracles. This power he w'as 
 not to use, to gratify any separate inclination, or 
 promote any private interest of his own, but was to 
 act on all occasions in perfect correspondence to the 
 views, and in compliance with the will, of his Father*, 
 Accordingly he never undertook a single miracle from 
 his own motion alone '^, without some previous ad- 
 dress to Godf, and without an immediate warrant 
 and direction from him. And lastly, since at this 
 time he was declared to be the Messiah, to whom the 
 antient prophecies had promised a power and domi- 
 nion, boundless both in extent and duration^ which 
 the Jews imiversally imagined would have been 
 established in this world, upon the ruins of aU the 
 kingdoms of it ', how necessary was it to explain the 
 true nature of that dispensation or kingdom he was 
 going to erect ! The kingdom of the Messiah could 
 not be of this world, but must be of a superior kind, 
 since he was to rise t^ the possession of it by a con- 
 tempt of earthly grandeur, by a superiority to every 
 
 • John V, 19, 20. 30. 
 
 f When going to raise Lazarus, Jesus said, Father, 1 thank thee 
 that thou ha.st heard inc. /}nd I knew that thou hearest vie always. 
 John xi. 41, 42. Compare Mat. xxvi. 53. 
 
 thins 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness. 11.3 
 
 thing which the world either admires or dreads. On 
 the whole then it appears, that this vision contained 
 a plan of Christ's future ministry ; since he passed 
 through all the scenes which it represents^, and con- 
 stantly acted upon the maxims here established ; and 
 that the argument drawn from the correspondence 
 between this vision and the subsequent mini.-;try of 
 Christ, to shew that the former was a designed repre- 
 sentation of the latter, is much confirmed by the 
 season of this vision, which was just when the plan 
 on which it was formed was going to be carried into 
 execution. Having thus attempted to explain the 
 true nature and intention * of Christ's temptation, I 
 shall 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 Close this inquiry with the three following obser- 
 vations : 
 
 I. This account of the temptation of Christ obvi- 
 Mes all the objections made to the common interpre- 
 tation, and justifies the wisdom of God in this dis- 
 pensation. It is not a series of external occurrences, 
 some of them absurd and impossible, all of them 
 useless and improbable, which is here related, but an 
 internal vision : and this is ascribed not to a diaboli- 
 
 * The whole of what has been urged In this section, to shew the 
 wise and benevolent desijja of this vision, confirms all the arguments 
 which had been used to prove that God was the author of it, and 
 supplies a new and unanswerable objection against the opinion of 
 those who ascribe it to the agency of Satan. 
 
 cal 
 
116 An Inquhij into tke Nature and Design of 
 
 ca! but to a divine agency, agreeably to its instructive 
 £nd beneficial design and tendency. The jievcral 
 scenes of which it is composed do each of them con- 
 tain a real trial, such as occasioned a very bright dis- 
 play of the virtue and piety of our Redeemer, and yet 
 he was not accessary to his own temptation, the mind 
 being passive as to all the scenes which, are presented 
 to it in a vision. But upon the common hypothesis 
 there was no temptation at all* 5 and if there had been 
 any, his being exposed to it was the matter of his own 
 choice f. If, besides the probationary nature, we 
 take into our account the symbolical design of this 
 vision, it was a proper preparation for that importcint 
 office with which Christ was now invested. With 
 what divine skill are the scenes of this vision framed, 
 so as to answer both these purposes 1 What just 
 ground then do they afford for censure ? 
 
 Should it seem strange to any, that God should In 
 this, and in so many other instances, reveal his will 
 by emblems and symbolical actions; let it be rcnjem- 
 bered, that this was done in condescension to the 
 capacities and ways of men. For in the eastern na- 
 tions, and amongst the Jews in particular, it was 
 visual to instruct by actions as well as ivords ; by such 
 actions as were easy signs of the particular instruction 
 they were designed to impart, and served to convey it 
 into the mind with greater force and stronger im- 
 pression, than' a more plain mode of information 
 
 * See above, Sect. I. p. 3 — 11. f P. IS, &c. 
 
 would 
 
Christ* s Tcmptaii07i in the JVildcrncss. 117 
 
 "■Aould have done. And as actions may inspire and 
 impress sentiments with equal advantage, whether 
 they are really performed, or only represented to the 
 imagination in a vision* ; so God made use of either, 
 as he saw fit_, communicating his mind sometimes by 
 real actions, and at other times by sensible signs and 
 images t impressed upon the imagination. And what 
 signs or emblems could be more apt and significant 
 than those which we have been examining, or better 
 adapted to answer the end proposed by them? 
 
 If the account here given of this matter be indeed 
 both just and rational, then it is obvious to reflect 
 how cautious the adversaries of the Gospel should be 
 in taking offence at any particular passages in it^ 
 which may have been injudiciously explained; and 
 how cautious Christians should be in giving offence, 
 
 * This will readily be allowed in the present case, and in all 
 others, where nothing was aimed at beyond the instruction of the 
 prophet. But the same method v»'as used, when the instruction was 
 designed to be conveyed by him to the people. The prophets in this 
 case were required to relate their dreams or visions to the people, 
 Jer- xxiii. 28, 29. Ezek. xi. 24, 25. and as their visions were of a para- 
 biiical nature, they seTved the same purposes as parables do. 'Ihe 
 relation of them was more lively and affecting than the bare naked 
 instruction they contained would have been. 
 
 f I am speaking here only of the general intention of this mode of 
 information. For the symbols of a vision, when they referred to 
 future events, iikc some of Christ's prophetic parables, were some- 
 times designed to vt-'d the truth, rather than to illustrate it ; to insi- 
 nuate gently and gradually what it was not proper to reveal clearly 
 at the time the prophecy was delivered, which the event would 
 afterwards sufficiently explain. 
 
 6 hv 
 
i 18 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 by hasty interprelations of it, lest many, taking oc- 
 casion from the absurdity of the explication, should 
 be tempted to reject the Gospel itself. The difficul- 
 ties supposed to lie against the belief of the Christian 
 religion are wholly of this sort, owing to certain 
 passages in the sacred writings misunderstood and 
 misapplied. Our Saviour complains of the Sadducees, 
 that they rejected the doctrines of revelation, for want 
 of having a just idea of them, and of the writings 
 which contained them : Ye do err, jj^ot knowing the 
 Scriptures'^, They went upon the supposition that 
 the prevailing and established doctrine of the Jewish 
 church concerning the resurrection, and the sensual 
 gratifications consequent upon it, was true ; and then 
 considered the case of the seven brothers, who had all 
 in their turns married the same woman, as an unan- 
 swerable objection against it. But there was no co- 
 lour for their objection in any thing taught concerning 
 the doctrine of a resurrection in the sacred writings ; 
 and had they formed their judgment by these, the 
 objection would never have been thought of. In like 
 manner, in the present age, many form their notions 
 of the Scriptures, not so much by the Scriptures 
 themselves, as bv received interpretations ; and be- 
 cause others put such a meaning upon them as is 
 attended with unanswerable difficulties, they immedi- 
 ately reject them as incredible and indefensible, for 
 want of knowing the Scriptures, and distinguishing 
 
 * Mat. xxii. 29. 
 
 between 
 
Chrht*s Temptation in the IVUderness. II9 
 
 between what is really contained in the divine word, 
 and what is tlie offspring of human weakness and 
 prejudice. 
 
 II. The account which has been given of the 
 temptation in the wilderness, serves to exalt the cha- 
 ractci'of Christ, and to confirm our faith in his divine 
 mission. 
 
 What honour hereby accrues to the character of. 
 Christ, appears in some measure from tht; view we 
 have taken of the several scenes placed before his 
 mind, whether (Considered as respecting his present 
 trial, or the future difriculties of his ministry. We 
 have already surveyed him as struggling with all 
 manner of hardships, and triumphing over them by 
 a superior principle of piety and goodness. I would 
 only observe farther, that the clear foreknowledge 
 which Christ had from the beginning of all the trials 
 and sufferings he was to undergo in the execution of 
 his office, adds the highest lustre to his character. 
 He was not ignorant what difficulties attended the 
 work he was now undertaking, nor was he surprised 
 into one suffering after another, without' anv previous 
 warning; but, before he began his ministry, he foresaw 
 all the evils with which he was to conibat, the very 
 worst to which human nature is liable. He knew he 
 was 10 spend his life in want and contumely, and 
 then to finish it upon the cross. And having a natural 
 sense and dread of disgrace and suffering, the prospect 
 of them made a very deep impression upon his mind. 
 But the clearest foreknowledge, and the deepest im- 
 2 pression 
 
1 20 An Inquinj inlo the Nature and Design of 
 
 pression of the difficulty and terror, of the task assign- 
 ed him could not prevent him from undertaking it. 
 Nothing could damp the ardour of his benevolence 
 and piety. The resolution and firmness which those 
 principles inspired were not to be shaken. 
 
 This vision, considered under the view of a predic- 
 tion and prefiguration of the trials of Christ's future 
 ^ministry, prevents all suspicion of imposture, and 
 establishes our faith in his divine, mission. How 
 forward soever enterprising and profligate men may 
 be, to make false pretences to a divine commission 
 and revelation, in order to serve the ends of worldly 
 policy and ambition, yet no impostor would ever 
 make pretences of this kind, if he previously knew 
 that he should meet with nothing but sufferings and 
 death as his reward. We find the true prophets of 
 God, notwithstanding their immediate call from 
 heaven, entering upon their office wdth great reluc- 
 tance*, on account of the difficulty and danger 
 attending the faithful discharge of it. For of all em- 
 ployments none is so hazardous as that of bearing 
 testimony against popular and long established preju- 
 dice and vice, which are more easily exasperated than 
 extirpated, and always aim at the ruin of those who 
 attempt a reformation. With regard to our Saviour, 
 he had a distinct and certain foreknowledge of that long 
 train of sufferings which he was to pass through, and 
 which were to be closed by a violent and ignominious 
 
 Eiod. iv. 13. Jerem. i. 6, 7,8. 
 
 death 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderncss, 121 
 
 death upon Xhit cross. And his peculiar character in- 
 creased the bitterness of these evils, and rendered the 
 view of them more formidable than they would other- 
 wise have been. He challenged a character of tran- 
 scendent dignity, and a peculiar relation to the Father, 
 as his only begotten and beloved Son, and yet was to 
 live in a state of abasement and affliction, like the 
 meanest and most miserable of the children of men. 
 He was invested with authority over all the laws of 
 nature, which he displayed continually for the con- 
 viction and benefit of mankind j but it was never to 
 be employed for his own personal advantage ; no, not 
 in protecting himself from indigence, or injury, or 
 death. He was the great Messiah, the glorious prince 
 and redeemer promised by God ; and yet he was to 
 renounce the offer of worldly empire, which was 
 accounted by the whole Jewish nation to be essential 
 to that character. Nay, those sufferings which do so 
 much credit to other prophets, greatly injured his; be- 
 cause they were judged inconsistent with his claims, 
 and the predictions concerning him. His very death, 
 which is the strongest pledge that human faith can 
 give, instead of removing, fixed upon him the charge^ 
 of imposture*, with a people v/ho held it as a first 
 
 principle, 
 
 * Though the common people were so eager to follow Jesus during 
 the course of his ministry, from the hope of \\U assuming a temporal 
 kingdom, John vi. 14, 15. and though they received him with 
 hosannas when he made his last public entrance into Jerusalem, from 
 the same hope, Mat.xxi. 8, 9. yet when they found that his enemies 
 had seized, tried, aiul condemned him to de.ith, without his inter- 
 6 posiaw; 
 
122 An Inquiry iitto the Xattire and Design of' 
 
 principle, that the Messiah zvas to alide for ever*'.. 
 How impossible then is it, to entertain a suspicion 
 concerning the truth and sincerity of the great author 
 and founder of our religion 1 From what motives of 
 interest could he assume the character of the Messiah, 
 when he gave notice beforehand that sufferings and 
 death were all the reward he expected upon earth? Did 
 those impostors who sprang up in Judea about the 
 time of Christ, act on such principles ? Just the con- 
 trary. Or did any deceiver ever make his undergoing 
 
 posing for his own deliverance, and that he had dcdared in terms, 
 that his kingdom was not of this world, and that he had no intention 
 of rescuing himself out of the hands of his enemies, John xviii. SG. 
 they clamorously demanded his crucifixion, and persisted in their 
 demand, notwithstanding the utmost endeavours of Pilate to save 
 him. If there were any who did not yet despair of his being the 
 Messiah, they might join in the cry against Jesus the more readily, 
 in order to force him to an open declaration, and miraculous vindi- 
 cation of his character. But when they saw him actually nailed to 
 the cross, the common people could not preserve their opinion of 
 h'm any longer; tliev were as forward as their malicious rulers, to 
 revile Jesus as a deceiver and impostor, and they urge his sufferings 
 as a proof that he was so. The faith even of his own disciples was, 
 in a great measure, nov/ lost in despair, for they no longer considered 
 him as the person who should redeem /.v;Y/t7, lAike xxiv. 'Jl. 'I'he dis- 
 appointment of the common expectation of a temporal empire, was 
 rot only a cruel mortification of the pride and ambition of the 
 Jewish people, but was considered as a demonstration of the false- 
 hood of Christ's pretension to the character of the Messiah, hi this 
 latter view (in which it is not so commonly attended to), yet more 
 than in the former, the utter disappointment of the Jewish people, 
 when they saw Christ in the hands of his enemies, accounts for the 
 change of their behaviour towards hhn at that season. 
 * John xii. 'J4. 
 
 a violent 
 
Chr'Ld'^ TeDifjiaiion In ilie irildet?ie6S, 12i> 
 
 a violent and public death by the hands of his ene- 
 mies, the foundation of his credit? and would Christ, 
 if he had not been a truly divine messenger, have 
 acted thus amongst those who considered his cruci- 
 fixion as an unanswerable confutation of his claims ?- 
 There is not the least room to surmise that he died 
 from a principle of vain-glory, since his death ex- 
 posed him to universal infamy 5 and, in his peculiar 
 circumstances, must have blasted his reputation for 
 ever, if God had not vindicated it by raising him 
 from the dead. This consideration, while it heightens 
 our admiration of the heroic fortitude aud piety of the 
 Redeemer, in submitting to the infamy of a public 
 execution, (a trial singularly severe in the present 
 case !) serves also fully to convince us, that Christ 
 undertook the office of the Messiah, from no motive 
 of this world, but from a firm assurance of a resur- 
 rection to a state of transcendent glory in another, 
 according to his own repeated predictions. And could 
 anv thing but the strongest evidence of his being 
 raised from the dead, and exaUed to heaven, efface 
 the impression of his sufferings upon earth, and en- 
 gage nien to adore as their Saviour and Messiah, the 
 very person whom, with so full a bent of their under- 
 standings* and hearts, they had crucified as a blas- 
 phemer and impostor ? 
 
 III. This account of Christ's temptation furnishes 
 
 * See p. 121, note *, and Luke xxiii.lJ-J. i Cor. ii. 8. Acts iii. 17/ 
 ch. xiii. 27. 
 
 G 2 ample 
 
1 2i An Inquinj Into the Nature and Design of 
 
 ample instruction and consolation to his disciples, 
 under those manifold and great temptations they may- 
 be called to encounter. This being a point which has 
 been often and well urged by many practical writers, 
 will be only briefly touched upon. But it may be 
 5)roper to observe, that those writers, by abating the 
 force, nay destroying the reality, of Christ's tempta- 
 tion*, rob us of all tlie practical improvement of it, 
 and remove the very foundation upon which the com- 
 fort and edification of Christians should be built ; 
 whereas by considering it as a prophetic vision, in 
 which things are represented to the mind in the same 
 manner as if they really happened, and that repre- 
 sentation answers all the ends of an actual perform- 
 ance, we maintain the reality and strength of Christ's 
 temptation t, and consequently secure all the advan- 
 tages which are, w^ithout reason, ascribed to thq 
 common hypothesis, and do properly belong to this 
 interpretation only. 
 
 We learn from this history that human mature, even 
 in its mo§t perfect state, and in all circumstances, is 
 incident to temptations ; that a pre-eminence of 
 character, station, and endowments, is attended with 
 proportionable difficulties and dangers ; that these 
 trials are no signs of God's displeasure, but the ap- 
 
 • As was shewn above, Sect. I. p. 2, &c. 
 
 f Besides, the very prospect which Christ now had of the difficuU 
 ties of his future ministry, constituted a great trial, as was observed 
 above. Sect. IV. p. 90. 
 
 pointmenttj 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderness, 1^5 
 
 polntments of his wisdom and goodness for our be- 
 nefit, the means of hrighteniiig our virtues^ and of 
 rendering our future crown more illustrious ; that the 
 best method of resisting and vanquishing temptations 
 is by the assistance of the Spirit, by the exercise of 
 purity and devotion, by arguments drawn from the 
 word of God, and by yielding inmiediately to the first 
 and unbiassed dictates of conscience, without delibe- 
 rating a moment in matters of plain duty, the least 
 deliberation in such cases being a sign that the heart 
 is already swerved from virtue ; and that Christians 
 have sufficient encouragement, from thei 'tenderness 
 and sympathy which Christ acquired by his suffer- 
 ings*, to expect all necessary succour under their 
 various infirmities and trials. We Ukewise learn 
 from this part of the evangelical history, that w^hen 
 we are set apart to such offices as bring along with 
 them an obligation to duties of peculiar difficulty and 
 importance, and require an extraordinary measure of 
 divine assistance, — as we ought to consider well the 
 great weight of the work we are going to engage in, 
 lake a full view of the difficulties we shall meet with 
 in the prosecution of it, and arm ourselves with re- 
 solution to undergo them, — io we should, by fasting 
 and the exercises of an extraordinary devotion f, en- 
 gage the divine presence with us in our arduous 
 undertaking. And lastly, we learn what is the 
 
 » iieb. ii. 14. ch. iv. 15. -{• See above, p. 112, note *. 
 
 temptation 
 
1 f (5 An Inquiry into the Noture and Design of 
 
 temptation which prevails with the pretended vicar of 
 Christ to corrupt the true religion ; and this is the 
 desire of the kingdoms of this world, and the glory 
 of them, of w^hich the pope challenges the disposal, 
 and with the offer of which he allures men to fall 
 down and pay him divine honours. And, al/s ! in all 
 communions, how many are there who account that 
 the best religion which most effectually advances 
 their secular interest I How many are tempted to 
 deny or conceal the truth, or to espouse falsehood by 
 a, fondness for power^ wealth, and popular applause, 
 or a dread of poverty, reproach, and persecution ! 
 whereas no man is qualified to preach the gospel, or 
 indeed to profess it, who is not fortified against the 
 temptations of ease and affluence, of pride and amhi- 
 tion, and who is not willing to take up hin cross and 
 ft;IIow Christ. A hard saying to flesh and blood ! 
 But tlie captain of our salvation has given us an ex- 
 ample, and shemi us how to conquer. He bids us 
 be courageous in our combat, because he has over- 
 come the world*, and will not fail therefore both to 
 assist us in gaining the victory, and to reward our 
 steadfastness with a crown of glory that fadeth not 
 away. Let us contemplate him as the pattern, not 
 only of our duty but of our recompense. He re- 
 nounced the kingdoms of this world, but has acquired 
 an infinitely more noble and extensive empire, and is 
 
 * John xvi. 33. 
 
 constituted 
 
Chnst's TcJHptatmi in the IVildertiess* 127 
 
 constituted the lord and judge of angels and of men. 
 Behold him scaled at the right hand of the Majesty on 
 high, on purpose that he may advance his faithful 
 followers to proportionate degrees of celestial honour. 
 We cannot faint under difiicultics while we listen to 
 the sound of his animating A'oice, addressing us from 
 heaven, To him that ovo comet h, uilllgrajit to sit 
 with 7ne in my throne, even as I also overcame, and urn 
 set doun with my Father in his throne*. 
 
 APPEN- 
 
128 An Inquiry 'intojfw Nature and Design of' 
 
 A p P E N D I X L 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 Some farther Observations 2ipon the subject of the pre- 
 ceding Inquiry _, ajul a?i Answer to Oljections. 
 
 Fully sensible as I was from the beginning, that 
 the argument of the Inquiry was repugnant to the 
 strongest prepossessions of every denomination of 
 Christians, yet a behef of its importance induced me 
 to submit it to pubUc examination 3 not without some 
 hope, that, in case it was well supported, it might 
 gradually make its w^ay into candid and ingenuous 
 miads ; or that_, if it was ill-grounded, some friend 
 to truth would correct my mistakes, and place the 
 subject in a juster light. The success which the 
 Inquiry has met with, has exceeded my expectations. 
 It is indebted to many for 4heir candour*; and to 
 some who arc universally ranked amongst the most 
 capable judges of the subject for their approbation. 
 This has encouraged me to review it, and to at- 
 tempt to remove the objections which have been 
 urged against it, still wishing it may undergo an 
 
 • The learned and judicious Spanheim, at the same time that he 
 pleads for the literal interpretation, recommends candour towards 
 those who rejected it, from these two considerations: Quum nee res 
 fidei sit, nee Scriptura id ouroXtf n defmiat. Dubia Evangel, dub. 55, 
 p. 247. See also p. 244. 
 
 impartial 
 
Chris t^s Temptation in the fFilderness, 1^9 
 
 impartial scrutiny by the public^ whatever be the 
 issue. I have used great diligence in collecting the 
 objections to which it was thought to be liable. And 
 though most of them are in some degree either ob- 
 viated or answered in the first and second editions of 
 the Inquiry, and, I hope, more fully in the present*; 
 nevertheless, it may not be improper to €ntcr on a 
 farther discussion of some of the most material ones^ 
 as it may lead us to place the answers in a different 
 light, and to make some farther observations on the 
 general subject. 
 
 I. 
 
 But first of all I would take notice that the public 
 has been referred to Dr. Clarke's discourses on 
 Christ's temptation t, as containing a satisfactory 
 solution of the difficulties attending the literal inter* 
 pretation. It will therefore be necessary to examine 
 those discourses ; nor will it be improper to subjoin a 
 few observations on what Dr. Benson or others hav« 
 written more lately upon the same subject, and with 
 the same view. 
 
 With regard to Dr. Clarke, I readily allow, that 
 such were the abilities and learning of that celebrated 
 writer, as eminently to qualify him for the task he 
 vmdertook. And had the literal interpretation of thid 
 
 ♦ The notes added to the second and third editions would have 
 been published separately, if they had not been so numerous as to 
 make it necessary to insert them in the Inquiry, for the ease and 
 CCnvcnience of the reader. 
 
 t They are the 93d and 94th Sermons, vol. i. p. 585. 591. fol. ed. 
 
 e 5 passage 
 
1^30 An hiqitvry Into the Nature and Design of 
 
 passage of Scripture b^en capable of a just defence, it 
 would have been successfully defended by this ac- 
 complished scholar and critic. If he has not suc- 
 ceeded, we may fairly presume that the fault was in 
 the cause rather than the advocate. 
 
 The doctor begins with observing*, that the history 
 of our Saviour's temptation is a portion of Scripture, 
 in tuhich there are several diffiaiHies that desei've par- 
 ticular explication ; and then sets himself to explain 
 the following ones: 1st, IFhy our Saviour, whom 
 the Scripture elseivliere declares to have been tempted 
 in all points^ as ue are, only without sin, is yet by 
 the evangelists recorded as having been tempted only 
 at this particular" time, sdly, IV hy cnir Saviour con- 
 tinued so long in the solitary retirement of a desert 
 place, and why he fasted through all that space of 
 forty days, sdly, IV hy our Saviour, iv ho had power 
 ouer unclean spirits, and could cast out devils at his 
 pleasure, ivas yet pleased to submit himself and con- 
 descend so far as to be tempted at all by the enemy, 
 4thly, IV hy the tempter would at all assault our 
 Lord, or tvhat advantage he could possibly hope to 
 gain over him, 5thly, and lastly, Since we read ?io 
 more in the Gospels of Christ's being tempted after 
 this, hoiv aiid in what sense it is said by St, Luhe, at 
 the conclusion of this history of our Lord's temptation, 
 that the tempter departed from him only for a season. 
 
 These are all the difficulties which Dr. Clarke saw 
 fit to propose and examine. Whether some of them 
 
 ♦ p. 585. 
 
 do 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVilderness, 1 31 
 
 do really belong to the subject, and whether the rest 
 are fully solved^ I shall leave to others to determine. 
 Let us suppose (what many however would very un- 
 willingly grant) that he has removed all the objections 
 here enumerated j there are many others which he, 
 has suffered to pass unnoticed. He did not observe, 
 or has passed over in silence, most, if not all those 
 which are urged in the Inquiry*. Now to overlook a 
 difficulty, and to remove it, are things widely different. 
 It may be said, perhaps, that those objections which 
 to others seem very considerable, appeared to him too 
 trifling to be considered. And I acknowledge can- 
 dour would oblige us to presume this to be the case, 
 with regard to a writer of such superior abilities, and 
 such unquestionable freedom and fairness as Dr* 
 Clarke, if there were not certain proof of the con-* 
 trary. It appears from his other v^'ritings, that h6 
 judged one of the objections to the history of Christ's 
 temptation, which he has omitted in his sermons, and 
 which is urged in the Inquiry, to be unanswerahle 5 
 I mean that drawn from the devil's sheivijig Christ all 
 the kingdoms of the ivorld, which he explains by. 
 saying, he made him a represent at ion of them f. And 
 
 • Indeed the 4th difficulty which the doctor undertakes to explain, 
 corresponds in scnie degree wiih the first objection in the Inquiry, 
 p. 2, &c. But the doctor entirely overlooks the main circumstance, the 
 absurdity of the devil's assaulting Christ in an open and visible manner. 
 This circumstance is likewise dropt, when he returns an answer to 
 his third difficulty, by misapplying Heb. ii. 14 — 18. ch. iv. 15. See 
 the Inquiry, p. 12 — 18. 
 
 f Paraphr*|se on Mat. iv. 8. and Luke jv. 5. 
 
 thus 
 
132 Jl7i Inquiry into the l^ature and Design of 
 
 thus this justly celebrated writer, hke most other 
 writers of interior note upon the subject of Christ's 
 temptation, though he undertook to vindicate the 
 literal interpretation, found himself under a necessity, 
 in one instance at least, of receding from it. 
 
 The world is just favoured with a work of the late 
 feverend and learned Dr. Benson*, and it may rea- 
 sonably be expected, that some notice should be taken 
 gf what such a writer has advanced upon the subject 
 under consideration, especially as he has treated it in 
 an elaborate manner f. He rejects the supposition of 
 its being a dream or vision |, and affirms, that the 
 evangelists seem, plainly, to have represented all these 
 tilings as historical facts ^\ adding, that he ivas in- 
 clined to understand this part of the four Gospels, as 
 Literal, historical truth ; or an account of what actu- 
 i^lly happened^. We find, however, that at first 
 setting out he began to feel some doubt upon his 
 mind ; for thus he expresses himself with regard to 
 one circumstance of the history, viz. the manner of 
 Satan's appearance to Christ : He seems to have ap- 
 peared unto Jesus, in a visible manner, at least in 
 VISION y. As the doctor proceeds, new difficulties 
 come in his way, and he not only doubts, but denies 
 the truth, and even the possibility, of the literal in- 
 terpretation. It is impossible (says he) fom thence 
 (that is, from the top of the highest mountain upon 
 earth,) to see the length, Ireadth, and full extent of 
 
 * The History of the Life of Christ. 
 
 •f Chapter ii. | P, :)(^ § P. 37, jt P, 32. 
 
 any 
 
Christ* s Temptation m the Wilderness * 133 
 
 ajiy one large kingdom, much less all the kingdoms of 
 this world, and all the splendour and glory of them*. 
 And notwithstanding his own inclination to under- 
 stand all the temptations as literal historical truth, he 
 honestly confesses. As to this part of the representa- 
 tion, there seems to he a necessity of having recourse to 
 vision ; or rather, to a fictitious scene, ivorked up hy 
 diabolical power and art^. Nay, the doctor lays 
 down a rule of interpretation which (in my apprehen- 
 sion) destroys all that he has advanced in favour of 
 \h& common hypothesis. His rule is this, viz. IVe 
 should look upon every thing to le literally, or histO' 
 rically true ; hut where there are some circumstances 
 to deternwie 21s to interpret a passage in a figurative 
 manner, a?id especially ivhere the literal sense would 
 lead us into manifest absurdity %* Is it not absurd, 
 that is, contrary to reason and experience, to suppose 
 that the devil can hurry men throiigh the air^, or so 
 njiuch as appear to them in a visible manrter \\ P Were 
 it not for the prejudices of education, we should rank 
 these things amongst the most glaring repugnancies to 
 the constitution of the universe, and as a very gross 
 (though undesigned) impeachment of the wisdom of 
 its sovereign author and lord. 
 
 I will take notice of one thing more in the doctor's 
 performance, because he seems to lay much stress 
 upon it, though it has been already considered in the 
 Inquiry. I refer to the general reason he assigns for 
 
 • P, 39. t P. 38. I P. 39. S P. 35. H P 32. 
 
 adhering 
 
134 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 adhering to the literal interpretation, To say the truths 
 our Lord's resisting these temptations, in vision only, 
 would not, in my opinion, have leen so much to his 
 honour, so glorious an example to his disciples, nor 
 such an illustrious evidence that he ivas superior to all 
 the temptations of the devil*. Soon after he adds, 
 It seems to me altogether worthy of our Lord's high 
 and sacred character, to manifest that the devil could 
 not, hy any temptation whatever, prevail ivith Jesus 
 to commit the least sin ; even when the devil ivas per- 
 mitted to take his own way, place him in what situation 
 he pleased, and attack him, in such manner, and in 
 such circumstances, as might give his temptations all 
 possible weight or force. Whether_, supposing the 
 scenes to be visionary, they constituted any proper 
 trial, is a point considered elsewhere f: here let us 
 examine, whether, upon the doctor's hypothesis, the 
 temptations of the devil had all possible force, or any 
 force at all. In explaining the first temptation he 
 tells us, our Lord was not ignorant who the person 
 was thai accosted himX. Now if Christ knew Satan 
 from the beginning, this circumstance, our most 
 candid adversaries allow, would diminish the force of 
 all his temptations. With respect to the third and 
 last temptation in particular. Dr. Benson calls it the 
 greatest of them all§; and yet, according to this 
 learned writer, Christ not only knew who made him 
 the offer of all kingdoms of the world, but also that 
 
 * p. 37. \ Dr. Benson's Life of Christ, p. 34. 
 
 t Appendix I. No. V. § P. 38. 
 
 . the 
 
Chrhfs Temptation in the IVilderness, 133 
 
 the devil's claim to the disposal of them was arro- 
 gant, usurped, and ei^tirely groundless and 
 VAIN*. Now^ even to the warmest advocate for the 
 literal scheme, I might venture to appeal whether 
 there was the least force in such a temptation. The 
 doctor admits that Christ knew the devil's claim to 
 the disposal of the world^ and consequently the devil's 
 promise of it to hun, to be entlrehj groundless, and 
 therefore that it could not in any degree be fulfilled. 
 And yet. as if Christ had known the very contrary to 
 be true, the doctor exclaims, to he tempted, at once, 
 with, all the kingdoms of the world, and all the glory 
 of them ! must have been such a temptation, as it can 
 hardly enter into the heart of man to conceive the 
 prodigious and almost irresistible force thereof f, I 
 own I cannot discern the tempting force, much less 
 the prodigious and almost irresistible force, of an offer 
 of nothing ', or, which is the same, of something 
 which the person who makes it is known to be utterly 
 unable to make good. The meanest slave of vice 
 would turn from such a temptation with scorn. Was 
 it then by resisting assaults of this nature, that Christ 
 was to manifest his superiority to all the temptations 
 of the devil, to advance his own honour, and to set 
 a glorious example to his disciples ? And was it for 
 the sake of such triumphs that the laws of nature were 
 now suspended, and all those wonderful scenes which 
 the doctor so affectingly describes, presented bef(yre 
 our Lord's eyes, by a series of miracles ? 
 
 * P-4L t P. 40, 
 
 Besides 
 
136 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 Besides Dr. Benson, Dr. Macknight has lately 
 appeared in defence of the history of Christ's tempta- 
 tion, in the literal sense of it. The reasonings of this 
 gentleman in his Commentary upon it, I have care- 
 fuiiy examined in my observations on the several 
 passages, as they occurred in the Inquiry. And be- 
 cause nothing ought to pass unregarded, which is 
 advanced by this able and judicious writer, I would 
 inform the reader, that in his Truth of the Gospel 
 History*, after taking notice of my Inquiry, he 
 affirms, ^^ That the literal sense of the history of the 
 temptation is agreeable to the representation which 
 the Scriptures have given us of the agency of evil 
 spirits.'' On this passage I would make the follow- 
 ing remarks : 1 . The Inquiry does not controvert the 
 agency of the devil and other evil spirits in tempting 
 mankind f. 2. Nor does the allowing the tempta- 
 tion of Christ in the wilderness to be a vision, con- 
 tradict the common doctrine concerning the agency of 
 evil spirits in proposing temptations. On the con- 
 trary, the vision is framed agreeably to this hypothesis, 
 the image of the great tempter being used as the 
 symbol and emblem of temptation f. 3. In order to 
 subvert the principles laid down in the Inquiry, it is 
 necessary to establish, not some agency of Satan in 
 tempting mankind in the general course of things, but 
 the correspondence of such a general agency to the 
 literal sense of this history, which represents him as 
 
 • P. 173, in the note. f See the Inijuify, p. 93, note *. 
 
 appearing 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IFildeniess, 137 
 
 appearing to Christ in a visible form, conversing ivitk 
 kim openly, and conveying or accompanying liimfroni 
 place to pl-ace in a sensible manner. But this is a 
 point our learned author has not attempted to prove. 
 
 Let others judge of" the force of the objections 
 against the literal interpretation 5 with respect to 
 myself, having in vain sought for a satisfactory^ solu- 
 tion of them from those most capable of affording it, 
 I still fnd myself under a necessity of looking out for 
 fcome afferent explication. And none appearing to 
 me so probable as that suggested in the Inquiry, I will 
 attempt to clear it from objections. 
 
 ir. 
 
 It has been objected, "That if this part of the 
 Gospel be only the history of a vision, the same may 
 be affirmed concerning every other part of the Gospel. 
 The whole account of our Saviour's miracles in parti- 
 cular, may be nothing more than a narrative of so 
 many visions." 
 
 This objection manifestly proceeds upon this false 
 principle, viz. '* That there is just the same reason 
 for affirming the miracles of Christ to be the liistory 
 of what was transacted only in vision, as there is to 
 affirm the same concerning his temptations in the wil- 
 derness." If there be a just distinction in the two 
 cases, the objection falls to the ground. It has been 
 fihewn, that neither the nature of Christ's temptations 
 did admit, nor the end proposed by them require, an 
 outward transaction; and also that the historians have 
 clearly intimated by many clrannstances of the rela- 
 tion. 
 
138 An Inquiry iiito the Nature and Design of 
 
 tion, that they were visionary representations, and 
 that they have even positively asserted them to be 
 such. But this reasoning does not affect the miracles 
 of the Gospel ; for they arc ail, in their own nature^ 
 possible to the power to which they are ascribed ; the 
 end proposed by them, the conviction of mankind, 
 required an actual exhibition and performance ; all 
 the circumstances attcndino; them, tlie rc^isonin^s from 
 them, and the effects they produced, farther shew 
 that they were real facts ; and the evangelists have 
 affirmed that they were performed openly, and in the 
 most public manner. Thus all the arguments used to 
 prove Christ*s temptations to have been visions, are 
 so far from warranting the same conclusion with re- 
 gard to his miracles, that they demonstrate the con- 
 trary, and prove them to be real facts. 
 
 I most readily allow, that the literal sense of all 
 authors ought never to be departed from without some 
 just reason or necessity, and that very great injury has 
 been done to the Scripture, by making those parts of 
 it symbolical, emblematical, or allegorical, which 
 were designed to be understood literally. This is 
 setting aside the genuine word of God, and substi- 
 tuting in the room of it the infinitely various fictions 
 of the human imagination. With this fault the an- 
 tient writers* of the Christian church have beea 
 
 • The Christian Fathers, in allegorizing the Scripture, seem to 
 have copied (as Philo and other learned Jews before them had done) 
 the method of the Greeks in explaining their mysteries. See Le 
 Clerc's His^:; Eccles. p. 24. and compare Dr. Lightfoot's works, vol. i, 
 p. 373, 
 
 frequently 
 
Christ* s Temptation in the IFilderness* 139 
 
 frequently and justly charged. Origcn, ;Uid (in their 
 younger years) Jerome and Augustin, though they 
 did not absohitely reject the Hterai sense of Scripture, 
 ye^t led men to neglect and undervalue it as low and 
 trivial, by the preference they gave to mystical inter- 
 pretations. But may we not be guilty of equal ab- 
 surdity, and do as great prejudice to the Scripture, by 
 adkcrhig to the letter unreasonably, as by unreason- 
 ably departing from it ? When our Saviour speaks of 
 eating his flesh and drinking his Mood, are we to un- 
 derstand him literally, as the Jews did ? He himself 
 has told us, that his words are spirit, to be inter- 
 preted figuratively or spiritually. On other occasions 
 he uses the like style, and calls himself the door oj' the 
 sheep, the bread which came doivnfrom heaven, and 
 the true vine ; leaving it to common sense to explain 
 his meaning. In a word, there is no book contains a 
 greater variety of matter than the Bible. And though 
 many have pleaded, '^ that the visions related in 
 Scripture occur only in the prophetical books, not in 
 the historical;'* yet it appears from the instances cited 
 in the Inquiry*, (to which many more might be 
 added,) that even the historical books relate para- 
 bles, fables t, revelations, or mental illuminations and 
 
 visions^ 
 
 • P. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.43. 83. ^:c. See also 1 Kings xxn. 19—22. 
 cited below, No. III. note *. 
 
 f The trees u-ent forth on a time to anoint a king over them, and they 
 said. Sec. Judges ix. 8 — 15. Now to borrow the reasoning so oftea 
 employed against the Inquiry, " ff'c have us little reason to affirm,froin 
 
 the 
 
140 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 visions, as well as plain doctrines and outward events. 
 And the prophetical books, not excepting Ezekiel, 
 and the Revelation of St. John, have some inter- 
 mixture of real facts with the history of visions and 
 revelations. Now all these things ought to be under- 
 stood according to their respective natures. By a 
 diligent and impartial use of our understandings, we 
 may easily distinguish between things that differ. 
 The relation itself, or the declaration of the historian, 
 if attended to, will preserve us from mistake. To 
 distinguish properly is the business of the critic : and 
 to plead (as all interpreters do occasionally) for some 
 figurative mode? of speech, is not to convert every 
 thing into figure and allegory, unless the reasonings 
 made use of are as applicable to the whole as to parti- 
 cular parts of Scripture. 
 
 the style of the sacred writer^ mid the manner of his expressionSy that this 
 is a parable, as we have to affirm that the miracles of Christ were 
 mere parables : both are equally described as real facts, without any 
 the least intimation of the contrary." But who does uot see the ab- 
 surdity of this reasoning? Experience informs us that trees neither 
 walk nor speak. And the same experience as certainly informs us, 
 that the devil does never appear visibly to mankind, never conx erses 
 with them in an open manner, neither transports them through the 
 jir, jior accompanies or conducts tliem from the country to the 
 city, or from the city to the country. In both cases, therefore, the 
 nature of the relation points out the necessity of a figurative inter- 
 pretation. It is objected, " that we are ignorant of the powers of 
 superior beings, and know nothing of the other world." But we arc 
 not unacquainted with the laws and orders of this world ; we know 
 by experience that they never are violated, .md by reason are assured 
 they never can be violated, but by the great ruler of the world. 
 
 III. It 
 
Christ* s Temptation in the Wilderness, 141 
 
 III. 
 
 It has been objected, " That supposing the temp- 
 tationof Christ to be a vision, God could not be the 
 author of it ; inasmuch as it contains such represen- 
 tations of the power of the devil in making Christ aa 
 offer of the world, as are not agreeable to his real 
 nature/' 
 
 This objection, if it proves any thing, would prove 
 too much : for it affects the credit of all visions, which 
 are mere deceptions, having no existence out of the 
 mind of the prophet*. Besides, it is of no import- 
 ance 
 
 * This is the case, even when the images of a vision are types or 
 representative figures of real objects, and give a just picture of them, 
 as when Said saiu Ananias in vision^ Acts ix. 12. The appearance or 
 representation was fictitious and delusive, though an object perfectly 
 correspondent to it existed in nature. But very frequently the vi- 
 sionary representation has no corresponding object in nature ; or, if 
 it bears a resemblance to real beings in some respects, it differs from 
 them in others, and is not framed so much with a view to truth and 
 nature, as to constitute a proper symbol, emblem, or hieroglyphic of 
 what it is designed to signify and represent : witness the cherubim of 
 Ezekiel, chap. i. his emblematical teinplcy chap. xl. (see Inquiry, 
 Sect. III. p. 59. note \.) the lamb having seven horyis, and seven eyes^ 
 Rev. V. f>. and the various symbols and emblems of the divinity, 
 and those in particular which constituted the vision of Micaiah, 
 1 Kingb xxii. 19 — ti2. Here the prophet says, I saiv the Lord sitting, 
 upon his throne^ and all the host of heaven stariding by him, on his right' 
 hand and on his left ; though God, we are certain, is without bodily 
 parts, spiritual, invisible, and omnipresent. He then tells us, that 
 God advised with the heavenly host what measures to tak;e,andsome 
 recommended one thing, some another, till after much deliberation 
 one of them hit upon an expedient, such as after examination was 
 approved by the Deity, which was that of being a. lying spirit in the 
 
 mouth 
 
142 An Inqubij into the Nature and Design of 
 
 ance whether the images of a vision are borrowed 
 from nature^ or whether they vary iVom it wholly or 
 in part ; they are used only as symbols and emblems 
 of other things ; and they may answer this end equally 
 on any of these suppositions. For their propriety 
 does not consist in their being just pictures of real 
 objects^ but in their fitness to represent the instruc- 
 tion they contain. In the case before us, the ap- 
 pearance of the tempter to Christ, and his making 
 him the promise of universal empire, was a symbol 
 and emblem, not of the powder of the tempter him- 
 self, but of the actual offer of grandeur and empire, 
 with which Christ was to be tempted in tl],e course of 
 his ministry. And it was necessary that the promise 
 of the world in vision should appear real; since other- 
 wise it could not have truly represented the temptation 
 he was actually exposed to, of securing the empire of 
 
 mouth of Ahab's prophets. Now if you ask. Has the devil the dis- 
 posal of the world ? and, if he has not, could he be represented in a 
 divine vision as actually having it ? I also would inquire with the 
 prophet of God, If ho has directed the spirit of the Lord? — Ifithtvhom 
 took he counsel? Or when could he stand in need of advice ? When 
 did he authorise falsehood and lyes ? The answer in both cases is the 
 same: neither are to be understood literally, or as a history of facts, 
 but as visions or parabolical representations ; and though the repre- 
 sentations are mere fictions, they convey instruction as truly and 
 properly as if they were exact copies of outward objects. Micaiah's 
 vision was a prediction and figurative representation of God's pro- 
 vidence in ordering matters so as that Ahab, by giving credit to his 
 own false prophets, who flattered his pride and prejudices, should 
 Call at Ramoth Gilead ; just as the tempter's promise was a prophecy 
 and prefiguration of the empire and grandeur with which Chnst 
 
 was afterwards to be tempted. 
 
 the 
 
Christ's Temptation In the IVilderness. 1 43 
 
 the world by a ditFerent application of his miraculous 
 powers from that which he was appointed to make of 
 them. So that the whole of the objection amounts 
 to this (which equally affects many other visions in 
 Scripture), that the image has no corresponding ob- 
 ject in nature, or no exact external archetype (a point 
 which we have no inclination to dispute) ; while it 
 must be allowed to have been a proper symbol of what 
 it was designed to represent. 
 
 If we deny that any impression can be made upon 
 the mind by God, but such as is conformable to the 
 real nature of external objects, we condemn the con- 
 stitution of the world around us. Without entering 
 into the philosophy cither of Locke or Berkeley, it is 
 certain that the objects around us (those outward 
 sensible signs by which God is continually speaking 
 to mankind) raise in us ideas and sensations very 
 different from the real natures of the things them- 
 selves. We ascribe sensible qualities to objects, such 
 as heat, coldness, and the like, though they exist 
 not in the objects, but are solely perceptions in the 
 mind. How various are the aspects of objects, ac- 
 cording to their different distances, the nature of the 
 medium, and the disposition of the organ ! Nor are 
 we deceived only by those false representations which 
 the senses make of objects to the mind, but we even 
 mistake those images and reprfesentaiions for the very 
 objects themselves, and, in so doing, follow an uni- 
 versal and powerful instinct of nature. Nevertheless 
 it is certain, that though external objects may have a 
 
 real 
 
144 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 real and absolute existence, the mind has no imme- 
 diate intercourse with them, but only (through the 
 inlets of the senses) receives the images, copies, and 
 representations of them. The objection, therefore, 
 here made to supernatural vision, equally affects 7/a- 
 tu7'al vision. If the latter be a dispensation not 
 unworthy the God of truth, neither can the former. 
 It is not, perhaps, the intention of Providence, by 
 any impressions it makes upon our minds, to lead us 
 into the knowledge of the abstract natures of things, 
 but (more immediately and principally) to convey 
 some useful instruction, such as may serve for the 
 direction of our conduct, to admonish us what to 
 avoid and what to pursue. In the case before us at 
 least, it is certain that the representation of Satan in 
 vision was not designed to give Christ any new in- 
 formation concerning the nature of Satan, because 
 here he is only an emblem and symbol of temptation. 
 
 If you still plead, ^^ That we may correct the 
 errors of sense by the reflections of reason, which 
 enables us to judge of things, not merely as they 
 appear at first, but as they really are," the same an- 
 swer is more fully applicable to the case in question ; 
 reason a ^vays enabling the prophet, when the vision 
 is ended, to pass a true judgment concerning the na- 
 ture of its representations. 
 
 IV. 
 
 It is asserted in the Inquiry, that the proper niten- 
 
 tion of this vision was, to predict to our Saviour his 
 
 future trials ; that the several scenes were distinct 
 
 7 prophecies 
 
Christ's Templation in tJie JVilderness. 1 15 
 
 prophecies and symbols of the different temptations 
 which were to occur in the course of his ministry, 
 and proper premonitions against them. This is ar- 
 gued* from two considerations; the general nature 
 of visions as symbolical and prophetic, and the per- 
 fect correspondence between the signs in this vision, 
 and the things they signified and represented. 
 
 Now, though the instances f produced in the 
 Inquiry may be sufiicicnt to prove that visions in 
 general were of an emblematical nature, yet this being 
 a point of very great importance to the right under- 
 standing of this and many other passages of Scripture, 
 I will confirm it by some farther examples. That 
 God is a spiritual incorporeal being, is equally the 
 doctrine of reason and revelation. And therefore, 
 when we read so often in the prophets that they saio 
 the Lord sitt'mg upon his throneX, we may be certain 
 that they had only a mental representation of some 
 syvihol or emhlem of the majesty of God§. Jacob's 
 
 ladder 
 
 ♦^Inquir^', p. 88 — 90. 
 
 t P. 30, note *, p. 86, 87. 93, note *, and p. 11 7, 
 
 \ 1 Kings xxii. 19. Is. vi. 1. Dan. vii. 9,10. Actsvii. Bo. Rev. iv. 2. 
 
 § Nevertheless, the antients, taking every thing spoken of God in 
 the Scriptures in a literal sense, attributed to him thcfgicre of a mt/tj, 
 and maintained that he was the object of Hdily si^hf. And such was 
 the zeal with which this doctrine was maintained, that the denial of 
 it was branded with impiety, and put men in danger of their lives. 
 Socrat. Hist. Ecci^. 1. 6. c. 7. I take notice of this here, not only as 
 it is a striking instance of an absurd adherence to the letter of Scilj)- 
 ture, but also as it may serve to shew how little regard in some cases 
 is due to the opinions of the antients, and that it ought to create no 
 B prejudic*' 
 
:!46 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 ladder standing upon the earthy and reaching t© 
 heaven, with the angels ascending and descending on 
 it, was the hieroglyphic of God's particular provi- 
 dence, or of his readiness to interpose in an extra- 
 ordinary manner in favour of the patriarch*. In like 
 manner, the persons and things which St. John saw 
 m vision, do all stand for other persons and things^ 
 and had themselves no existence but in the iviagina- 
 iion of the prophet (the Spirit of God presenting be- 
 fore it all those appearances and scenes which he de- 
 scribes, which . are therefore justly called a revela^ 
 tion-\) . The glorious personage in a human form, at 
 whose feet he fell down as dead J, was not Christ 
 himself, but a symbolical representation of him 5 and 
 such also was the laml in the midst of the throne^. 
 The four living a-eatures, and the four -and- twenty 
 elders\\, were not real beings, but were emblems of 
 such things as did really exist in nature. Sometimes 
 ^n express declaration is made, what the objects of 
 the vision represent : The seven stars are the angels of 
 the seven churches , and the seven candlesticks which 
 thou sawesty are, i. e. signify and represent, the seven 
 
 prejudice against the explication here given of Christ's temptation, 
 that it it contrary to theirs. They who could so far dishonour the 
 omnipresent Deity, as to attribute to him a visible and human 
 form, would hardly scruple to ascribe something of this kind to the 
 devil. 
 
 * Gen. xxviii. 12, 13. compare John i. 51. 
 
 f Rev.i. 1. § Rev. v. 6. 
 
 X Ch.i.13— IG. II Ch.iv.4.(?. 
 
 xhurches* 
 
Christ^ s Temptation in the JVilderness, 147 
 
 churches^. At other times the vision was not ex- 
 plained^ and people were at a Joss to find out its 
 meaning and reference^ as appears by that eomplalnt 
 of the prophet^ Ah Lord God, they say of me, Doth 
 lie not speak parables \ P It can never be sufficiently 
 lamented^ that Christian divines^ notwithstanding 
 the clearest evidence that visions weremerely mental 
 illuminations^ and their several scenes figurative and 
 symbolical^ do frequently speak of those scenes as 
 describing real objects and beings^ such as have an 
 existence in nature. The throne of God in heaven^ 
 the tvor ship paid him there by the elders %, and the 
 iiew Jerusalem §, which St. John saw and described, 
 are too often explained in such a manner as would 
 lead one to suppose, that they contained, in part at 
 least, a description of the true heaven, and the real 
 worship and felicity of the righteous in it. But if 
 these visions of St. John do indeed refer to heaven at 
 all, they are at most only symbols and emblems of it, 
 and as such perfectly distinct from that place or state 
 itbclf j|. Other undoubted examples of the symboli- 
 cal 
 
 * Ch, i. 20. See Dan. vlii. 20, 21. | Rev. ir. 
 
 f Ezek. XX. 49. § Ch. xxi, ixii. 
 
 11 The Mohammedans, when reproached with the low and sensual 
 descriptions of paradise, which occur ahnost in every page of their 
 Koran, retort these passages out of the Revelafiun of St. John, and 
 plead their having the same right to have recourse Lo figure and alle- 
 gory as those Christians who do not understand the forecited pas- 
 sages in a literal sense. But here lies the ditierence : all the repre- 
 sentations in the Revelation of St. John are declared to be vhibuary, 
 and therefore were designed to be understood as figurative and 
 " 2 symbolical. 
 
i48 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 <;al nature of visionary representations and miraculous 
 appearances may be found in the passages referred to 
 'below *. I shall only add, that when God declares 
 'by the prophet, I have multiplied visions^ and used 
 similitudes f, this language plainly implies, that the 
 •objects of vision were always designed as resemblances 
 -^nd apt representations of other things. 
 V. ~ 
 
 The most plausible objections against the Inquiry 
 •are levelled against those passages which assert that 
 Christ's vision contained a present trial. It is alleged, 
 ^^ That the same considerations which diminish or 
 destroy the force of Christ's temptation upon the 
 common hypothesis, equally affect its force upon 
 mine.'* If this allegation be just, neither of these 
 hypotheses can be true, since it serves equally for the 
 confutation of both. We hope however to shew that 
 the allegation has no sufficient foundation to support 
 •it. In order to the right understanding of this sub- 
 ject it will be necessary to observe, 
 
 1. That the Inquiry X asserts this vision to be di- 
 rectly and properly intended as a prediction and 
 
 evmbolicAl, and, unless they are so understood, cannot be reconciled 
 •with other plain passages of the Nlw Testament : but the Moham- 
 medan representations of Paradise objected to by Christians are not 
 declared to be visionary and symbolical, and even have no consistent 
 meaning unless they are literally understood. 
 
 * Gen. XV. 17. ch. xxxvii. 7. 9. Exod. iii. 2. Jer. i. 11. 13. 
 Ezek. xxxvii. 1. Zech. i. 7, &c. ch. iv. 2 — 11. ch. v. 1 — 5. 
 Acts xvi. 9, 10. 
 
 i- Hoseaxii. 10. \ P. ?^8. 
 
 symlol 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVlldcnwss, Ha- 
 
 symbol of Christ's future temptations. And ag-alnst- 
 this view of it no material objection has ever been 
 urged. So that even were we to grant thait this vision 
 was not probationary , this would not afTect its proper 
 ii?e and intention as prophetical and prenioultory. 
 Tb^nigh this observation was made in the fir^t edition .. 
 <^t' the Inquiry*^ it was necessary to repeat it here, 
 because it seems not to have been attended to by those 
 who niake the objection we are considering. 
 
 2. It is evident that this vision bore \.\\q form of a 
 preseixt trial. To the view and apprehension of 
 Christ at the time, it contained certain alluring pro- 
 posals made to him by the devil, in order to solicit 
 him to evil. And on this account it is, that the 
 history relates them as real temptations, and tells us, 
 that Christ was carried into the wilderness, that he. 
 ■might he tempted of the devil. This expression de- 
 scribes the nature of the vision or representation ; for 
 the history of a vision always corresponds to the 
 views of the prophet. Christ likewise rejects the 
 several proposals here made to him, as so many 
 temptations of the devil. 
 
 3. This vision, liowever, could not be designed to 
 tempt Christ, if we thereby mean soliciting or se-' 
 duclng him into sin, because it had a divine author. 
 And if we examine the nature of tlie vision itself, we 
 must inmiediately perceive that it could not be in- 
 tended to seduce him into sin; for the several scenes 
 
 * P. 63, note 7, 1st edit, and p. lOG, Od edit, note k. 
 
 of 
 
150 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 of it were so framed_, as to 2;uard or warn a good mind 
 from yielding to any of the proposals it contained. 
 To appearance these proposals were made by the devil 
 in person, which was designed to awaken an imme- 
 diate resistance^ and was a proper monition against a 
 compliance. 
 
 4. Nevertheless, this vision might (I apprehend) 
 answer the end of a present trial ; that is, it might 
 serve to shew how Christ was disposed to act^ or to 
 discover and display his virtue, which is a very com- 
 mon meaning of the word temptation or trial .in 
 Scripture*, and is the sense in which we use it here, 
 when we call Christ's vision a present trial. The 
 several proposals now made to Christ, viz. the satis- 
 fying his present hunger by a miracle, the opening 
 his divine commission at the temple of Jerusalem by 
 a seeming descent from heaven, and his ascending 
 ihe throne of his father David ; these proposals were 
 in themselves so enticing, that nothing but the consi- 
 dering them as sinful, or as temptations of Satan, 
 could dispose the most consummate virtue to reject 
 them. Christ's virtue therefore was evidenced and 
 exercised by his rejection of these proposals. His 
 ready answers sufiiciently shew upon what principles 
 of piety he acted ; and that he considered the pro- 
 posals, however alluring, as temptations which were 
 to he resisted. And he did accordingly resist them. 
 These circumstances rendered tliis vision, though 
 
 * See above, p. 90 — 92, 
 
 prophetic 
 
Christ's TemlAaiion in the IVllderness. 151 
 
 prophetic and monitory in its frame and intention, 
 yet in some degree probationary likewise. At the 
 t''me_, Christ considered it as a trial, agreeably to the 
 form it bore. When the vision was ended, he would 
 naturally regard it as an emblem of his future con- 
 flicts, on account of the prophetical design of visionary 
 representations. In this view also it served to try the 
 steadfastness of liis piety and virtue, his readiness 
 and resolution to undertake the office to which he was 
 appointed by God, notwithstanding his foreknow- 
 ledge of the difficulties and dangers attending it*". 
 The consistency of these two views of it may appear 
 by considering that the prophetic signs of Christ'3 
 future temptations were samples of those temptations ; 
 for during the course of his ministry he was terapteci 
 to the very same conduct as he was now ; that is^ he 
 was urged to use his miraculous power for his own 
 personal relief, for the more ostentatious display of 
 his divine commission, and for the acquisition of 
 worldly empire. There was, I own, some consider- 
 able difference in the tv/o cases ; but not such as pre- 
 vented the signs or samples of Christ's future tempta- 
 tions from giving a present occasion to the discovery * 
 of his piety and virtue. Let us now attend to the 
 objections, which, even supposing them to be unan- 
 swerable, do not overthrow the main principles of the 
 
 Inquiry* 
 
 VT. 
 It is observed in the Inquiry f, ^^ That the appear- 
 
 * See above, p. 90, | P. 2, &c. 
 
 ancc 
 
152 Aji Inquiry into the Xafnre and Design of 
 
 ance of the devil to our Saviour in person, could serve 
 no other end than to create a prejudice against his 
 proposals 3 and consequently that this circumstance 
 was unsuitable to the allowed policy of this wicked 
 spirit_, who, if he wished to succeed, would not hav^e 
 urged his temptations in a manner the most likely to 
 prevent their success, and which could not but abate 
 their force upon a virtuous disposition." Instead of 
 answering this objection, some content themselves 
 with retorting it, by pleading, " That the appre'- 
 hended presence of Satan in vision, w^ould produce (he 
 same general effect as his real presence at any other 
 time.'' 
 
 This is an obsen^ation which we are not at all con- 
 cerned to dispute; for, though true in itself, it is 
 foreign from the purpose. It is acknowledged, that 
 both his apprehended and his real presence would 
 create upon a good mind a prejudice against his pro- 
 posals. And for this reason, it would have been 
 impolitic in Satan, to have made his appearance before 
 Christ either in person or in vision, if he meant 
 thereby to recommend his proposals. But what 
 would have been absurd in this malignant spirit, 
 whose business it is to seduce, was a wise conduct in 
 the Deity (the author of this vision), because his in- 
 tention was to forewarn Christ of his danger, and to 
 arm him against it. It w as on purpose to lead Christ 
 to regard the present proposals (which were afterwards 
 to occur in real life) as highly criminal in their na- 
 ture^ that the vision represented them as made to him 
 
 by 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVildemess. 153 
 
 by the devil, as the temptations of that great enemy 
 of God, whom it is virtue always to resist. Thus 
 the very same circumstance, the appearance of the 
 devil, which was proper in the vision^ suitable both 
 to its divine author and benevolent intention, would 
 have been absurd upon the common hypothesis. 
 
 It is farther urged, that the reasonings employed 
 to abate the force of the second temptation*, upon 
 the common hypothesis, do equally affect that ad- 
 vanced in the Inquiry. But let us consider whether 
 there be not a wide difference in the two cases. The 
 reasonings here referred to, are levelled against the 
 supposition, so conmionly made by the advocates of 
 the literal interpretation, that the devil, having as- 
 sumed a human form, and transported Christ through 
 the air from the wilderness to the top of the temple, 
 would have persuaded him to throw himself down 
 from thence, that by his miraculous prc3ervation he 
 might demonstrate his peculiar character as the Son 
 af God. And the objection advanced in the Inquiry 
 against this hypotliesis, is, that Christ could not but 
 easily discern, that a compliance with this proposal 
 might not answer the end proposed by it, and mioht 
 possibly is.'ue in his dishonour ; since tlie devil, who 
 had already in a miraculous manner placed him upon 
 the temple, miiiht also by a similar act of pow er liave 
 thrown himself down from ihence, in the luunan form 
 which he then wore, without receiving anv injury, and 
 thus have destroyed the credit of the miracle by which 
 
 * Inquiry, p. 7. 
 
 H 5 Jesus 
 
154 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 Jesus was to have established his divine mission. The 
 view with which this objection was made^ was to shew, 
 that the common hypotliesis is inconsistent with the 
 allowed pohcy of Satan, who would scarce have made 
 a proposal w^hich Christ could have no inducement to 
 comply with, and which (though alluring in itself, 
 yet) under these peculiar circumstances he would 
 consider rather as an indignity than a temptation. 
 But what relation has this objection to any thing ad- 
 vanced in the Inquiry ? Is it asserted there, that the 
 representations of the vision corresponded to this 
 hypothesis ; that the representative figure of the 
 apostate angel, in particular, was a tinman form P or 
 does the history assert or intimate this ? or determine 
 in what manner Christ was impressed with an appre- 
 hension of his presence? The objection under con- 
 sideration arises entirely from a supposed state of 
 things, which the history does not countenance, to 
 -which therefore the representations of the vision might 
 bear no resemblance, and which might not leave 
 room for an apprehension, that in case Christ had 
 thrown himself down from the temple, tlie devil 
 might have done the same. And so far as the repre- 
 fentations wxre different from this supposed state of 
 things, they were not liable to the same objection. 
 In order to determine what the representations really 
 were, we must look into the history : lor, whatever is 
 there related as matter of fact, that appeared to the 
 mind of Christ as such. Now all that the history 
 relates is^ the attempt of the devil to persuade Christ, 
 
 whom 
 
Chrisi's Temptation In the Wilderness. 155 
 
 whom he had placed upon the temple, to throw him- 
 self down from thence, in a dependence upon God 
 for his preservation, and to satisfy the Jews at once 
 that he was the Messiah. In this single view the 
 proposal was made and considered. And it was very- 
 inviting in its own nature* ; but a compliance with 
 it would have been criminal, and therefore it was vir- 
 tuously rejected. And it could be with no other view 
 than to lead Christ to conceive of it as criminal and 
 fit to be rejected, that the vision represents the pro- 
 posal as made by Satan. So that those who make 
 this objection, do not appear to have attended either 
 to the true nature of the vision, or to the design of its 
 author. 
 
 VII. 
 
 It was observed in the Inquiry f, that the ofTer of 
 all the kingdoms of the world, upon the common in- 
 terpretation, carried no force ; because Christ could 
 not but know, that the devil who made it had no 
 power to make it good. Now this objection, it is 
 said, holds likewise against the offer in vision, if it 
 be true, as has been all along asserted, that the repre- 
 sentations of a vision pass for real objects, and pro- 
 duce the same effects as if they were. ^^ vVliat dif- 
 ference then," it is asked, '' with regard to Christ, 
 could it make, whether he had a real sight of the 
 devil, or a visionary representation of him, when he 
 made him tifiis offer?'* 
 
 Those who rely on this objection seem to me not 
 
 * P. 101, 102. f p. 9. 
 
 to 
 
Ib6 An Liquiry into the Nature and Des'ign of 
 
 to attend to the wide diflerence which there is be- 
 tween judging the images or appearances of a vision 
 to be real objects ; and their having exact external 
 archetypes. A vision may consist either of such ap- 
 pearances as are perfect representations or copies of 
 objects really existing in nature^ or of such as bear 
 little or no correspondence to those objects, as we 
 have fully shewn*. And in either case the appear- 
 ances equally pass for realities. Our Saviour might 
 have had a vision of Satan, perfectly conformable to 
 his true nature f, or (which seems to have been the 
 case) a representation of him with powers which he 
 did not possess :]:. And the latter view of him would 
 appear as real as the former ; it being the nature of 
 vision to give a seeming reality to all the objects of it, 
 ^^ hetb.er they have external archetypes or not. They 
 appear to possess all the powers and properties with 
 which they are represented §. From hence it follows, 
 that so far as the representation of the devil in this 
 vision was different || from his true nature, so far it 
 
 * Appendix, No. III. p. 141, note*. ;, 
 
 •\ And had this been so, the objection we are considering might 
 have held good. 
 
 ^ Just as St. John, ii stead of a representation of a laml, agx"eeably 
 to the common animals of that species, had a representation uf one 
 ivith seven horns and seven eyes. See App. No. III. p. 141, j*i>te *. 
 
 § Inquiry, p. 108. 
 
 (I It is admitted, that when the internal representation is exactly 
 conformable to any outward object (which was the case of Saul when 
 he saw Ananias, Act. ix. 12.), there is no difference with regard to the 
 impression they make upon the mind, between its discerning the 
 cbject and the representation. 
 
 must 
 
Christ's Temptation in tlie IFilderness-, 157 
 
 must make a difference with regard to Christ, whether 
 he had a real sight or a visionary representation of 
 him. In the former case, the third temptation had 
 no force, because Christ knew the devil had no power 
 to dispose of the kingdoms of the world ; in the latter, 
 if this power be a part of the representation, the same 
 objection cannot take place. 
 
 Now that this pov/er did belong to the representa- 
 tion made of him to Christ, seems probable from 
 several considerations. 1st. Because the history 
 (which never describes any thing as a fact, but what 
 appears to the mind of the prophet as such, during 
 his vision) relates as matter of fact the promise or 
 offer of the world made to Christ by the devil, which 
 could not therefore but appear to be real, every repre- 
 sentation of a vision passing for a real object. If the 
 devil had not appeared to Christ to possess the powers 
 he claimed ; Christ could not have seemed to him- 
 self to have had any offer or promise at all, which 
 necessarily suppose a power to make them good. 
 2dly, At the same time that the devil made Christ' 
 the offe?, he gave him a sight of all the kingdoms of 
 the world. And Christ could no more doubt of the 
 certainty of the former than of the latter. 3dly, His 
 answer expresses, not any disbelief or doult about the 
 reality of the offer, but his abhorrence of the thought 
 of accepting it. And therefore the same consideration 
 which destroys the force of the third temptation upon 
 the common hypothesis, does not affect the supposi- 
 tion of its being proposed in vision, 
 
 VII r. But 
 
158 An Inqinry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 VIII. 
 
 But it is still asked, " Might not Christ have 
 examined into the foundation of the devil's claim to 
 the disposal of the world, since it is allowed that the 
 vision did not deprive him of the exercise of his un* 
 derstandingr" Christ was prevented from such exa- 
 mination, not so much by the momentary duration of 
 the vision, as by the very nature of its impression, 
 which takes away all suspicion concerning its own 
 reality. For otherwise the objects of a vision would 
 not even seem to be real. 
 
 If it be farther inquired, '' How far was the mind 
 passive, and how far was itfree'm its exercise, under 
 the impressions of a vision ? Oug^ht not a line to have 
 been drawn, to shew where its cor.straint ended, and 
 where its liberty began?" I answer^ This Ime has been 
 already drawn. It has been shewrv*, Ist^ That the- 
 prophet was altogether passive in receiving the im^ 
 preSsions of a vision ; just as we are passive in re- 
 ceiving the impressions made by external objects- 
 themselves, and the ideas they raise in the mind. 
 Here then the prophet had no liberty ; he could not 
 alter his views and persuasions concerning the objects 
 of his vision, the impression being made by a hand 
 too strong to be resisted, sdjy, It is also shewn f* 
 
 that 
 
 * p. 85. 
 
 ^ p, 85 — 88. What is here cfFered, will enable us to form a judg- 
 ment concerning what is advanced by Spanheim (Dubia Evangel, 
 dub. 5u. parij iii. p. 242, 243.), Ille euim propria tentari dicitur, qui 
 sui compos est, ct in ejusmodi statu m ^uo et judicio uti potest, et 
 
 ]ibertat<r 
 
Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness* 159 
 
 that in every other respect the prophet had the free use 
 of his understanding ; and therefore was as capable 
 of a rational determination and choice^ with respect 
 to the objects of his vision_, as those of bodily sight. 
 From these premises we may draw this conclusion ; 
 that though Christ could not alter his view of the 
 tempting proposals or of the other representations 
 which were now made to his mind (could not^ for 
 example, doubt the reality of the sight or offer of the 
 world, which the devil appeared to give him), any 
 more than he could change the appearance of external 
 objects ; yet in resisting these proposals he might 
 exercise his understanding, and evidence the pious 
 disposition of his heart. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The only remai/iiig objection which we are io 
 examine, is this ; '• Fhat by setting the difBcuIties 
 attending the literal interpretation of this history in 
 so strong a light, we give too much advantage to in- 
 fidelity*." 
 
 I leave it to those who urge the objection, to re- 
 concile it either v/ith an ardent love of truth, which 
 naturally dictates the most impartial scrutiny into 
 every subject, or with an honourable opinion of 
 Christianity ; a religion which disdains the arts of 
 worldly policy, and, nobly conscious of the validity of 
 
 llbertate voluntatis ; In visione vera ncc judicil nee voluntatis exer- 
 cltium proprie sic dictum, adeoque nee assensus proprie nee dissensus. 
 Fi'om the instances cited in the passages of the Inquiry referred to in 
 I he beginning of this note, it appears, that vision dia not disturb 
 either ilie understanding or passions of the prophet. 
 
 * This objection is in sonie nieasure obviated in the Inquiry, p. 2. 44. 
 
 1 worldly 
 
160 ^?i Inquiry into the Nature and Design o/' 
 
 its claims, submits its doctrines and credentials to 
 universal inspection, invites and demands a rigorous 
 examination. The timidity and policy from which 
 this objection proceeds, would, I apprehend, have 
 prevented our forefathers (had they been under the 
 influence of such principles) from exposing the ab- 
 surdity of any generally received opinion, . founded 
 upon the letter of Scripture. The common people, 
 even to this- day, must have entertained such gross 
 conceptions of the Deity as cannot be mentioned 
 without horror* ; and protestants must have spared 
 that monster, transubstantiation. But they never 
 failed to expose its absurdities, from a full persuasion, 
 that howi^ver it may be favoured by the h'ter, it is 
 certainly contrary to the true sense of Scripture. And 
 they considered every objection against the literal 
 meaning, as a reason for adopting a different inter*- 
 pretation. With regard to tiie history of our Saviour's 
 temptation, there was a necessity for urging the ob- 
 jections against the received exposition, in order tw 
 prepare men to embrace that which is offered in its 
 stead. And in taking this natural method, I had the 
 whole world Ijefore me for a precedent in cases of the 
 like kind. Nor can Christianity suffer any prejudice 
 by this manner- of proceeding; for, if the objections 
 urged agains^t the history of Christ's temptation ape 
 groundless, they may easily be refuted : and if they 
 . are well supported, they concUidc only against the 
 literal interpretation ; it being a rule universally 
 allowed in the int(!rpretation of all authors, never to 
 
 * Appendix, No. IV. note §. 
 
 affix 
 
Christ\s Temptation in the JFllderncss, 1(5 1 
 
 affix any sense to their words, which is either absurd 
 in itself, or manifestly repugnant to their avowed 
 principles, if they are fairly capable of a more rational 
 and consistent meaning. Nor is there any room in 
 the case before us to suggest, that we have had re- 
 course to a figurative explication from mere necessity, 
 and only to avoid the seeming absurdity of the literal 
 one ; for we have produced many circumstances of the 
 history to evince tliat the -sacred writers themselves 
 did not, and could not design to be understood lite- 
 rally. Nay, all the evangelists have, in express 
 terms, declared the whole to be a spiritual and mental 
 transaction ; and this is proved without offering any 
 violence to their words, or affixing any sense to them 
 but what they are allowed to "Lear in other parts of 
 Scripture, and what their connexion and other cir- 
 cumstances necessar'.ly require in this. Lastly, the 
 evidence of its being a vision, is nnich strengthened 
 by the rational and wise intentions of such a prophetic 
 representation, as a prediction and forewarning of those 
 severe trials to which Christ was afterwards to be ex- 
 posed. Till the reasoning on these several points is 
 confuted, I shall not be without some faint hope, that 
 instead of furnishing new prejudices against the Gospel, 
 I have removed old ones. With this view at least the 
 argument was undertaken ; and from a full persuasion 
 that if Christianity were stripped of all disguises, and 
 shewn in her native simplicity and beauty, just as she 
 descended from Heaven, all objections to her divine 
 origin would immediately vanish. 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
16'2 An Inquiry into the Nature and Design of 
 
 APPENDIX IL 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A Paraphrase upon SL Matthew's Accoimt of Christ's 
 Temptation hy the Devil^ agreeably to the foregoing 
 ILxptication of it* 
 
 Matthew IV. 
 
 1 . When Jesus was appointed 
 to his office as the great Messiah, 
 and furnished for the execution of 
 it by the descent of the Spirit of 
 
 1 . Then was 
 
 Jesus hr ought into 
 a luilderness hy 
 the Spirit, to he 
 
 tempted ly the God in his miraculous gifts, he 
 deviL was brought into a wilderness by 
 
 the afflatus or inspiration of that 
 Spirit, making new revelations to. 
 him, and exhibiting extraordinary 
 scenes before him. One great de- 
 sign of this prophetic vision or 
 representation was, to give him a 
 view of his future trials, which 
 were couched under the figure or 
 emblem of Satan coming to him 
 in person, and urging temptations 
 correspondent to those he was to 
 meet with in the exercise of that 
 office with which he was invested, 
 and of those gifts with which he 
 
 was endowed, 
 
 2. And 
 
Christ's Temptath?i in the Wilderness, 163 
 
 ^,AndivhenJic 
 had fasted forty 
 days and forty 
 ■/lights, at length 
 he was hungry. 
 
 3. And the 
 te^npter, coming 
 to him, said y Inas- 
 much as thou art 
 the Son of God, 
 command these 
 stones to become 
 bread. 
 
 4. But he an- 
 swei'ed and said, 
 Man shall not 
 live by bread only, 
 but by whatever 
 proceedeth out of 
 the mouth of God, 
 
 Q, 3. Forty days did he remain 
 in this state without food^ receiv- 
 ing new communications from 
 God. The vision was then closed 
 with tlve following scenes. In the 
 first scenCj the tempter came to 
 Jesus^ who at that time began to 
 feel the keen sensation of hunger, 
 and thus addressed him : *• Inas- 
 much as you are the Son of God, 
 tact in character, and relieve your 
 pressing necessities by a miracle : 
 for, without doubt, the Messiah 
 could turn even stones into 
 bread.*' 
 
 4. To this proposal Jesus re- 
 plied : ^^ The life of man may be 
 sustained not by bread only, but 
 by w hatever other means God shall 
 appoint : and therefore I will not, 
 from a distrust either of his power 
 or goodness, undertake to supply 
 my own wants, without an imme- 
 diate w^arrant from Heaven." This 
 part of the vision, while it evi- 
 denced at that time his resignation 
 to God, and reliance on his care, 
 was intended to convey this ge- 
 neral instruction for the regulation 
 of his future conduct, ^' That 
 
 Christ, 
 
164 uin Inquiry 
 
 5. Then i!ie 
 dev\l taketh him 
 n{) into the holy 
 city, and setteih 
 kirn on a wing of 
 the temple y 
 
 6. And saith 
 unto him, Inas- 
 much as thou art 
 the Son of God, 
 cast thyself down: 
 for it is written, 
 He shall give his 
 angels charge con- 
 ccrning thee, ar.d 
 in their hands 
 they shall lear 
 thee np, lest thou 
 shoiddest dash thy 
 foot against a 
 stone, 
 
 7 . Jes2is said 
 
 into the \atnre and Design of 
 
 Christ, though the Son of God, 
 was to struggle with hunger and 
 thirsty and all the other evils of 
 humanity, and was never to exert 
 his divine power for his own pro- 
 tection or relief, but to wait for 
 the interposition of God in his 
 favour. '^ 
 
 5, 6. In the second scene of 
 this vision, the devil took Jesus 
 to Jerusalem, ^the metropolis of 
 Judea, and placed him on the 
 wing of the temple, uhich com- 
 manded a view of the crowd of 
 worshippers below, and then said 
 to him : '' Inasmuch as you are 
 the Messiah, the Son of God, it 
 becomes you to open your divine 
 commission in the most conspi- 
 cuous manner ; and therefore 
 throw yoursLlf down from hence, 
 in a dependence on the divine pro- 
 tection, which the Scripture pro- 
 mises you, and your miraculous 
 preservation will induce the Jews 
 to acknowledge you immediately 
 as the Messiah, visibly descend- 
 ing from heaven, in a manner 
 agreeable to their expectations." 
 7. Jesus on this occasion also 
 displayed 
 
Christ's Temptation in the IVildeiiiess, 165 
 
 unto him, It is 
 also ar'ttten,ThGU 
 shall not tempt 
 the Lord thy God. 
 
 8. jlgain, the 
 devil taketh him 
 lip into an exceed- 
 ing high monn- 
 tain, and sheweth 
 him all the king- 
 iloms of the world, 
 (171 d the glory of 
 ihcm : 
 
 displayed the rectitude of his teni- 
 per, immediately replying, " The 
 Scriptures to which you appeal do 
 also admonish us not to make an 
 improper trial of God's power; it 
 forbids us either to rush upon 
 danger without a call in expecta- 
 tion of an extraordinary deliver- 
 ance, or to dictate to divine wis- 
 dom what miracles shall be 
 wrought for men's convicti'jn." 
 Hereby Jesus was forewarned of 
 the frequent temptation he would 
 be under to an unnecessary and 
 ostentatious display of his miracu- 
 lous powers; and directed, even 
 in bringing men to the faith, not 
 to exceed the order of God, how- 
 ever called upon by the Scribes and 
 Pharisees to give them signs from 
 heaven. 
 
 8, 9. Once more the scene 
 changes, and the devil taketh 
 Christ to an exceeding high 
 mountain, gives him a view of all 
 the kingdoms of the world, with 
 all their glory, and promises to put 
 him into the possession of them all, 
 upon condition of his falling down 
 and worshipping him. 
 
 9. u4nd 
 
166 An Inquiry 
 
 9. And saitk 
 unto him. All 
 these things will 
 I give thee, if 
 thou ^ U'ilt fall 
 down and wor^ 
 ship 7ne. 
 
 10. Then saith 
 Jesus unto him, 
 Get thee hence, 
 Sata?i : for it 
 is written. Thou 
 shall worship the 
 Lord thy God, 
 and him only shalt 
 thou serve » 
 
 into the Nature and Design of 
 
 \0, This proposal was rejected 
 the very instant it was made ; for 
 Christ, not without a mixture of 
 just indignation, commanded the 
 tempter (with whom he seemed 
 all along to converse) that mo- 
 ment to quit his presence ; all 
 religious homage being justly ap- 
 propriated in Scripture to God 
 alone. This prophetic scene, 
 while it served for the trial and 
 discovery of his present temper, 
 was directly intended as a presig- 
 nification and ^varning of the like 
 temptation to which he was to be 
 exposed in the course of his mi- 
 nistry ; during which he was 
 called upon by the Jews, who 
 expected their Messiah under the 
 character of a temporal monarch, 
 to employ those miraculous powers 
 in obtaining worldly empire, which 
 were to be wholly consecrated to 
 
 the 
 
Christ's Temptation in the PVilderness, 167 
 
 the erecting the kingdom of God, 
 the kinp;dom of truth and riorhte- 
 ousness amongst men. 
 1 1 . Then the 1 1 . The vision was now closed, 
 devil Icaveth him, and Satan departed from Jesus, 
 a?id behold, angels whose animal nature being greatly 
 £ame and mini-^ exhausted by the foregoing very 
 ^£tered unto him,^ affecting representations, and by 
 the want of the common sup- 
 ports of life in the wilderness, he 
 received miraculous refreshment. 
 In the course of his subsequent 
 ministry, Christ passed through 
 all the trials which this vision pre- 
 figured, and constantly acted upon 
 those maxims of the divine word 
 which he here adopted. 
 
168 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 SEVERAL PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 
 Explained or referred to in this Volume. 
 
 GENESIS. 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 Chap. 
 
 iv. 23 
 
 xiv. 13 -— 
 
 XV. 1— G — 
 
 — 1.12 — 
 
 — 12, 13 — . 
 x\\\. 17 — 
 xviii. 1 — 2 — 
 xxii. 1 — 
 xxviii. 12 — 
 u- 12, 13 — 
 
 xxxi. 1 — 
 
 xxxii. 1 — 2. 24. 30 
 
 . 30 — 
 
 xxxiii. 18 •— 
 
 xxxvli. 7. 9 •— 
 xl. 9— 11, 16, 17 
 \\i. 1.7 — 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 ill. 2 — 
 
 iv. .0 — 9 — 
 
 ..— 13 — 
 
 vii. 5. 17 — 
 
 viii. 10—22 — 
 ix. 14—29 — 
 X. 1—2 — 
 
 xi,7 — 
 
 xiv. 4. 18 — 
 
 XV. 1 1 — 
 
 xvii. 2. 7 - 
 
 xxiv. 18 — 
 xxxiv. 27, 28 — 
 
 Page 
 12 
 
 - 25 
 
 - 86 
 
 - 83 
 86.93 
 
 - 86 
 
 - 43 
 
 - 91 
 
 - 83 
 
 - 146 
 
 - 43 
 
 - 25 
 
 - 43 
 
 - 43 
 " 31 
 
 - 31 
 
 - 148 
 
 - 83 
 
 - 83 
 
 — 86 
 ~ 26 
 
 — 120 
 
 — 26 
 
 — 38 
 
 — 26 
 
 — 26 
 
 — 26 
 
 — 26 
 
 — 26 
 
 102,103 
 
 — 95 
 
 — 112 
 
 Chap. 
 
 xi. 29 — 
 xii. 6—8 
 xiv. 22 — 
 x\n. 28 — 30 
 xxiv. 2 — 4. 16 
 
 Page 
 54 
 
 83 
 
 102 
 
 26 
 
 84 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 Iv. 34—39 — • — 26 
 
 vi. 16 — — 102 
 
 viii. 3 _ — 94 
 
 ix. 9. 18 — 95.112 
 
 xxxiv. 1—3 — 24, 25 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 V.13— 15 — 
 
 XV. 61,62 — 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 ix.8— 15 — 
 
 I. SAMUEL. 
 
 ix. 9 — — 
 
 II. SAMUEL. 
 
 vii. 4—17 — — 
 
 —- 22—24 — — 
 
 I. KINGS, 
 
 xviii. 46 — — 
 
 xix. 5 — -~ 
 
 11, 12 — — 
 
 xxii. 19 — r— 
 
 19—22 — — 
 
 43 
 4S 
 
 139 
 
 84 
 
 84 
 26 
 
 59 
 96 
 95 
 43 
 145 
 141 
 
Passages of Scrip hire referred to, 1 69 
 
 II. KINGS. 
 
 
 
 Chap. 
 
 ^"f? 
 
 Chap. 
 
 iii.l5 — 
 
 Page 
 57. 59 
 
 iii. 14 — 
 iv. 2 — 
 
 — 87 
 
 — 67 
 
 V. 26 — 
 
 — 
 
 68 
 
 — 9—14 — 
 
 viii. 1 — 10 «— 
 
 — 87 
 58.60 
 
 I. CHRONICLES. 
 
 
 3. 14 — 
 
 60,61 
 
 
 
 
 . y1 „ 
 
 — 68 
 
 Tiix. 25 — 
 
 — 
 
 25 
 
 xi. 1 — 
 
 58.60 
 
 II. CHRONICLES. 
 
 
 — 24 — 
 
 — 24, 25 — 
 
 77.117 
 56.58 
 
 Xxxii. 27 — • 
 
 — 
 
 25 
 
 XX. 49 — 
 xxvii. I — 
 
 — 147 
 59,60 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 
 
 xxxvii. 1 — 
 
 — 61 
 
 ii. 7 — 
 
 ..^ 
 
 93 
 
 1 38. 40. 69. 148 
 
 Ixxii. 18 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 xl. 1,2,3 ^ 
 
 40. 59, 60 
 
 Ixxviii. 18 — 
 
 — 
 
 102 
 
 2 — 
 
 — 107 
 
 Ixxxvi. 10 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 — 4 — 
 
 — 87 
 
 xci. 1 1 — 
 
 ~- 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 cvi. 14,15 — 
 
 — 
 
 102 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 
 cxlviii. 6 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 ii. 28, 29. 47 — 
 iii. 25 • — 
 
 — 27 
 
 — 93 
 
 PROVERBS. 
 
 
 
 iv. 17 — 
 
 — 9 
 
 xxix. 18 — 
 
 — 
 
 84 
 
 V. 5 — 
 vii. 9, 10 — 
 
 — 86 
 
 — 145 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 
 
 — 1,2 — 
 
 — 83 
 
 i. 1 — 
 
 -^ 
 
 84 
 
 viii. 16—18 — 
 
 — 83 
 
 xxi. S, 4 — 
 
 — 
 
 86 
 
 1—10. 15 
 
 — 83 
 
 xl. 3 — 
 
 — . 
 
 48 
 
 — 15—17 — 
 
 — 89 
 
 xli. 22—24 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 20.21 — 
 
 — 147 
 
 xliii. 8—13 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 X. 11,12. 16,17 
 
 — 86 
 
 xliv. 7 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 xlv. 20—21 — 
 
 -r-^ 
 
 27 
 
 HOSEA. 
 
 
 xlviii. 3 — 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 i. iii. — 
 
 — 30 
 
 Ixi. 6 — 
 
 — 
 
 25 
 
 xii. 10 — 
 
 -* 83 
 
 JEREMIAH, 
 
 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 
 i. 6—8 — 
 
 
 
 120 
 
 ii. 28 — — 
 
 8.3.148 
 
 -11.13 — 
 
 
 
 148 
 
 
 
 xiii. XXV. xxvii. 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 ZECHARIAH. 
 
 xxiii. 9 — • 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 i. 7 — 
 
 -^ 148 
 
 28, 29 — 
 
 —^ 
 
 117 
 
 iv. 2—1 1 — 
 V. 1—5 — 
 
 — ib. 
 
 — ib. 
 
 EZEKIEL. 
 
 
 
 
 
 i. 3 — 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 MALACHI. 
 
 
 - 4. 28 — 
 
 - 51 
 
 L87 
 
 iii. 1 — 
 
 — 101 
 
 -xl. — 
 
 . — 
 
 141 
 
 
 
 ii. 2 — 
 
 10. 57 
 
 . 60 
 30 • 
 
 
 
 iii. iv..v. — 
 
 
 
 — 12 — 
 
 40. 67 
 
 
 
 — 12 — 
 
 55.60 
 
 II. ESDRAS. 
 
 
 _U— 15 — 
 
 56.58 
 
 ii. 47 — 
 
 I 
 
 — 93 
 
UO Passages of Scripture 
 
 
 MA'll'HE^^ 
 
 :. 
 
 
 
 MARK. 
 
 
 Chap. 
 i. 18 
 -23 
 iii. 1 
 
 — 
 
 Page 
 
 — 55 
 
 — 48 
 48.52 
 
 Chap, 
 i. 2— 5 
 -9 
 -12 
 
 
 Page 
 
 — 47 
 
 — 48 
 48. 50 
 
 — 1—6 
 
 •"- 
 
 — 
 
 47 
 
 - 12, 13 
 
 »_ 
 
 52. 71,72 
 
 — 11 
 
 — • 
 
 — 
 
 53 
 
 - 13 
 
 _ 
 
 
 — 13- 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 - 48 
 
 -12.34.39 — 
 
 — ~'bi. 
 
 iv. I 
 
 — 46. 
 
 48. 50. 52 
 
 iii. 5 
 
 
 
 — 82 
 
 — 2,3 - 
 
 — 2 
 
 
 "~~ 
 
 71 
 
 73 
 
 — 6 
 
 — 7 
 
 — 
 
 — 104 
 
 — 103 
 
 """ 
 
 — 
 
 95 
 
 — 15 
 
 _ 
 
 — 6JL 
 
 — 1.8 
 
 — 5 
 
 — 
 
 39. 52 
 
 — 20,21 
 
 _« 
 
 — 9T 
 
 ' — 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 iv. 36—38 
 
 ,^_, 
 
 — 98 
 
 — 5y6 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 100 
 
 V, 2 
 
 ._ 
 
 — 63 
 
 — 7 
 
 — - 
 
 — 
 
 102 
 
 vi. 31—34 
 
 „^ 
 
 — 97 
 
 — 5 — 8 
 
 — 
 
 34.60 
 
 — 37,38 
 
 __ 
 
 — 97 
 
 — 8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 131 
 
 viii. 4, 5 
 
 __ 
 
 — 97 
 
 — 8, 9 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 107 
 
 11 
 
 ,„, 
 
 — 105 
 
 — 10 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 109 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 — 93 
 
 — 11 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 7.96 
 
 ix. 22 
 
 . 
 
 — £2 
 
 viii. 4 
 
 • — 
 
 — 
 
 103 
 
 xi. 12 
 
 
 
 — 97 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 96 
 
 xii. 36 
 
 __ 
 
 — 64 
 
 16.31 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 61 
 
 xiii. 32 - 
 
 _ 
 
 — 113 
 
 — 20 
 
 — 
 
 . — 
 
 97 
 
 
 
 
 ix. 33, 34 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 61 
 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 
 X. 1. 8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 61 
 
 i.20 
 
 
 — 19 
 
 xi. 25, 26 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 107 
 
 - 22 
 
 __, 
 
 31. 51 
 
 xii. 14 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 104 
 
 ii. 27 
 
 __ 
 
 — 65 
 
 — 15 
 
 — 
 
 ~- 
 
 103 
 
 — 25 
 
 
 
 — 65 
 
 — 15—2 
 
 1 — 
 
 — 
 
 103 
 
 — 26 
 
 _^ 
 
 — 54 
 
 — 28 
 
 — 
 
 26. 53 
 
 — 52 
 
 
 
 — 113 
 
 — 38 
 
 — 
 
 __ 
 
 105 
 
 iii. 1 
 
 , 
 
 — 23 
 
 xlv. 13, 14. 10, 17 
 
 — 
 
 97 
 
 — 2,3 
 
 _ 
 
 47, 4S 
 
 XV. 33,34 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 97 
 
 — 2,3 
 
 »„ 
 
 — 47 
 
 xvi. 1 
 
 — 
 
 102. 
 
 105 
 
 iv. 14 
 
 
 
 ■— 64 
 
 — 16 
 
 — 
 
 . — 
 
 93 
 
 — 1 
 
 • __ 
 
 — 64 
 
 xvii. 1 
 
 — . 
 
 — 
 
 19 
 
 , 1 
 
 _ 
 
 — 52 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 52 
 
 — 1,2 
 
 
 
 71.73 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 112 
 
 — 13, r4 
 
 _ 
 
 72.77 
 
 xxi. 8, 9 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 121 
 
 — 1 
 
 
 
 48,49,50 
 
 12 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 22 
 
 — 8 
 
 ^ 
 
 — 5 
 
 xxii. 29 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 118 
 
 — 1 
 
 
 
 — 52 
 
 43 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 64 
 
 — 18 
 
 
 
 — 52 
 
 jfxiv. 1 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 22 
 
 — 5 
 
 _ 
 
 25.51.131 
 
 26 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 52 
 
 — 5-9 
 
 __ 
 
 — 60 
 
 xxvi. 52— 
 
 -54 
 
 — 
 
 99 
 
 — 13 
 
 
 
 — 77 
 
 53 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 114 
 
 ^ 18 
 
 «. 
 
 112, ll;J 
 
 63 
 
 ..^ 
 
 — 
 
 93 
 
 vi. 11 
 
 __ 
 
 — 104 
 
 Xxvii. 32 
 
 — . 
 
 — 
 
 98 
 
 — 12 
 
 
 
 — f)S 
 
referred to in this Volume, 
 
 171 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Page 
 
 Chap. 
 
 Page 
 
 vii. 24 — 
 
 — 
 
 48 
 
 xii. 2 — 
 
 — . 96 
 
 viii. 3. — 
 
 — 
 
 97 
 
 — 34 — 
 
 — 122 
 
 22 — 
 
 — 
 
 51 
 
 xili. 42 — 
 
 — 77 
 
 20 — 
 
 — 
 
 52 
 
 xiv. 10,11 — 
 
 — 26 
 
 ^i. 14 — 
 
 61 
 
 .105 
 
 .30 — 
 
 — 77 
 
 '?0 — 
 
 _ 
 
 53 
 
 xvi. 38 — 
 
 — 126 
 
 Alii. 32 — 
 
 — 
 
 61 
 
 xviii. 4 — 
 
 — 100 
 
 XV. 4 — 
 
 _ 
 
 52 
 
 6 — 
 
 99. 110 
 
 xvii. 8 — 
 
 — 
 
 96 
 
 36 — 
 
 — 122 
 
 xxii. 27 — 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 XX. 22 — 
 
 — 54 
 
 28 
 
 _ 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 43 — 
 
 — 
 
 99 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 
 44 — 
 
 — 
 
 98 
 
 i,4— & — 
 
 — 54 
 
 53 — 
 
 — 
 
 77 
 
 - 5 — 
 
 — 53 
 
 66 — 
 
 — 
 
 51 
 
 ii. 1 — 4. 14—18. 33.38 — 54 
 
 67—70 
 
 — 
 
 93 
 
 "3 — 
 
 — 53 
 
 xxiii. 34 — 
 
 • — 
 
 123 
 
 -- 10 — 
 
 — 26 
 
 xxiv. 21 — 
 
 "— 
 
 122 
 
 iii. 17 — 
 
 iv. 8—21 — 
 
 — 123 
 
 — 54 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 
 
 vi. 3 — 
 
 — 54 
 
 ;. 28 — 
 
 — 
 
 48 
 
 vii. 41 — 
 
 — 51 
 
 - 34. 41.49 
 
 — 
 
 93 
 
 --55 — 
 
 51. 64. 145 
 
 -51 — 
 
 — 
 
 146 
 
 viii. 15—18 • 
 
 — 54 
 
 ii. 15 — 
 
 — - 
 
 110 
 
 29 — 
 
 — 54 
 
 - 18 — 
 
 — 
 
 105 
 
 37 — 
 
 — 93 
 
 iii. 5 — 
 
 — 
 
 40 
 
 ix. 4—6 — 
 
 — 87 
 
 — 14 — 
 
 — 
 
 52 
 
 — 12 — 70.84.141.156 
 
 — 23 — 
 
 — 
 
 48 
 
 — 16 — 
 
 — 113 
 
 — 34 — 
 
 — 
 
 53 
 
 — 39 — 
 
 — 51 
 
 iv. 23 — 
 
 — 
 
 66 
 
 X. 3 — 
 
 — 70 
 
 — 6 — ■ 
 
 — 
 
 98 
 
 — 3.11—19 — 
 
 43. 54 
 
 V. 19.20. 30 
 
 — 
 
 114 
 
 — 10 — 
 
 32. 80. 94 
 
 - 3G, 37 — 
 
 — 
 
 26 
 
 — 10—14 
 
 — 87 
 
 vi. 11.13 — 
 
 — 
 
 110 
 
 — 10—12.17. 19 
 
 — 70 
 
 — 15 — 
 
 — 
 
 109 
 
 — 17—20 — 
 
 — 89 
 
 — 14, 15 — 
 
 — 
 
 121 
 
 _ 44 — 47 — 
 
 — 54 
 
 — 63 — 
 
 38.66 
 
 xi. 5 — 
 
 — 70 
 
 vii. 14 — 
 
 — 
 
 82 
 
 xii. 4 — 
 
 — 51 
 
 — 1.4. 25. 31,. 32 
 
 — 
 
 104 
 
 7 9 __ 
 
 32.70 
 
 — 39 -_ 
 
 — 
 
 53 
 
 xiii. 4 — 
 
 — 54 
 
 viii.20. 37. 39 
 
 — 
 
 104 
 
 18 — 
 
 — 51 
 
 — 50 — 
 
 — 
 
 103 
 
 27 — 
 
 — 123 
 
 20 — 
 
 — ■ 
 
 104 
 
 xiv. 23 — 
 
 — 112 
 
 X. 4 — 
 
 — 
 
 61 
 
 XV. 19 — 
 
 — 102 
 
 - 24, 25. 36— 3S 
 
 — 
 
 26 
 
 xvi. 1 1 — 
 
 . 51 
 
 - 39,40 — 
 
 103, 
 
 104 
 
 
 54 
 
 xi. 7 — 16. 47—57 
 
 — 
 
 104 
 
 9, 10 — 
 
 89. 148 
 
 — 41,42 — 
 
 — 
 
 26 
 
 34 — 
 
 — 51 
 
 — 41,2 ~ 
 
 — 
 
 114 
 
 xvii. 21 — 
 
 — 51 
 
Ifi Passages of Scripture referred to» 
 
 Ghap. 
 xviii, 9 
 
 21 
 
 XX. 3. 13 — 
 — 22,23 
 xxi. 1,2 
 
 38 — 
 
 xxii. 17—20 
 ^-17,18 
 xxiii. 11 
 xxiv.6 
 xxvi. 19 — 
 xxvii. 2. 4 
 
 23 
 
 xxviii. 10,11 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 il.28 
 iv. 13 
 Tiii. 9 
 
 14 
 
 X. 7 
 XV. 8 
 
 Page 
 86 
 51 
 52 
 65 
 51 
 68 
 52 
 87 
 70 
 86 
 91 
 86 
 51 
 43 
 52 
 
 22 
 12 
 66 
 51 
 82 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ii. 4,5 
 — 8 
 V.3 
 xii. 31 
 xiv. 2. 15 
 
 27. 68 
 
 — 123 
 
 — 68 
 
 — 22 
 
 — 64 
 
 II. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 _ — 82 
 
 — — 70 
 
 _ — 32 
 
 — 91 
 
 vili. 9 — 
 xii. 1 
 
 1—4 
 
 xiii. 5 — 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Chap. Page 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 iii. 3 — — 66 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 i. 23 — 
 
 — 12 
 
 HEBREWS, 
 ii. 4 — 26. 54 
 
 -10.17,18 — 100 
 
 - 14—18 15. 125. 131 
 
 ~ 18 
 iv. 15 
 V. 8 
 xi. 17 
 xii. 2 
 xiii. 20 
 
 i. 12 
 
 — 81 
 15. 81. 100. 125.131 
 
 — 91. 100 
 
 — 91 
 
 — — 82 
 — — 51 
 
 1.21 
 ii. 4 
 
 [. PETER. 
 
 II. PETER. 
 
 JUDE. 
 
 54 
 
 64 
 26 
 
 — 26 
 
 — 12 
 
 REVELATIONS, 
 i. 1 — — 146 
 
 - 10 — 40. 67. 70 
 
 - 13 — 16 — — 146 
 
 - 20 — — 147 
 iii. 21 — — 127 
 iv. 2 — — 145 
 
 - 4. 6 — — 146 
 V. 6 — — 141.146 
 xii. 6. 14 -« — 52 
 xvii.3 — 52. 69 
 XX. 2 — — 71 
 xxi. 10 — 2-i. 40. 69. 107 
 xxi. xxii. — — M7 
 
 R. Taylor and CuA'ruitcrsy 38, Shoe Lane- 
 

 15,A'^< 
 
„,-v;OP>. 
 
BS2424.3 .F23 1805 
 
 An inquiry into the nature and design of 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00052 3623 
 
 • % 
 
 n^ 
 
 r'^-fi 
 
 ^ 
 ^ A 
 
 1^'^''i''J^I^K..r^