plain, obvious, and literal meaning of the words. Now I conceive that no such necessity can be alleged in the present instance. It is true, that there are in this narrative many difficulties, and many extraordinary, surprising, and miraculous incidents. But the whole history of our Saviour is wonderful and miraculous from beginning to end and if whenever we meet with a difficulty or a miracle, we may have recourse to figure, metaphor, or vision, we shall soon reduce a great part of the sacred writings to nothing else. Besides, these difficulties will several of them admit of a fair solution; and where they do not, as they affect no article of faith or practice, they must be left among those inscrutable mysteries which it is natural to expect in a revelation from heaven. This we must after all be content to do, even if we adopt the idea of vision; for even that does not remove every difficulty, and it creates some that do not attach to the literal interpretation.

2. In the next place, I cannot find in any part of this narrative of the temptation, the slightest or most distant intimation that it is nothing more than a vision. The very first words with which it commences seem to imply the direct contrary. "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil." Does not this say in the most express terms, that our Lord was led, not in a dream, or trance, or vision, but was actually and literally led by the Spirit into the wilderness of Judea? There is, I know, an interpretation which explains away this obvious meaning. But that interpretation rests solely on the doubtful signification of a single Greek particle, which is surely much too slender a ground to justify a departure from the plain and literal sense of the passage. Certain it is, that if any one had meant to describe a real transaction, he could not have selected any expressions better adapted to that purpose than those actually made use of by the Evangelist;

and I believe no one at his first reading of our Lord's temptation ever entertained the slightest idea of its being a visionary representation.

3. There is an observation which has been made, and which has great weight: in this question. It is this: All the prophets of the Old Testament, except Moses, saw visions, and dreamed dreams; and the prophets of the New did the same. St. Peter had a vision, St. John saw visions, St. Paul had visions and dreams: but Christ himself neither saw visions nor dreamed dreams. He had an intimate and immediate communication with the Father; and he, and no one else in his days, had seen the Father. The case was the same with Moses; he saw God face to face. "If there be a prophet among you, says God to Aaron and Miriam, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, VOL. I.

H

and

and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold*.” Now Moses we all know was a type of Christ; and the resemblance holds between them in this instance, as well as in many others. They neither of them had visions or dreams, but had both an immediate communication with God. They both "saw God face to face." This was a distinction and a mark of dignity peculiar to those two only, to the great legislator of the Jews, and the great legislator of the Christians. It is therefore inconsistent with this high privilege, this mark of superior eminence, to suppose that our Lord was tempted in a vision, when we see no other instance of a vision in the whole course of his ministry.

4. There is still another consideration which militates strongly against the supposition of a visionary temptation. It was in itself extremely probable that there should be a real aud personal conflict between

Num. xii. 6-8.

+ Exod. xxxiii. 11.

between Christ and Satan, when the former was entering on his public ministry.

It is well known that the great chief of the fallen angels, who is described in Scripture under the various names of Satan, Beelzebub, the Devil, and the Prince of the devils, has ever been an irreconcilable enemy to the human race, and has been constantly giving the most decided and most fatal proofs of this enmity from the beginning of the world to this hour. His hostility began with the very first creation of man upon earth, when he no sooner discovered our first parents in that state of innocence and happiness in which the gracious hand of the Almighty had just placed them, than with a malignity truly diabolical, he resolved, if possible, to destroy all this fair scene of virtuous bliss, and to plunge them into the gulf of sin and misery. For this he exerted all his art and subtilty and powers of persuasion; and how well he succeeded, we all know and feel. From that hour he established and exercised an astonishing

purpose

H 2