TEMPTATION OF OUR LORD (Matt. iv. 1- ; Mark i. 12, 13 ; Luke iv. 1-12). The popu lar view of this undoubted portion of our Saviour's history is, that it is a narrative of outward transac tions ; that our Saviour immediately after his bap tism was conducted by the Spirit into the wilder ness--either the desolate and mountainous region now called Quarantania by the people of Palestine (Kitto's Physical History, PP. 39, 40), or the great desert of Arabia, mentioned in Deut. xxxii. ; viii. 15 ; Hos. xiii. 5 ; Jer. ii. 6, etc.-where the devil tempted him in person, appeared to him in a visible form, spoke to him in an audible voice, re moved him to the summit of an exceeding high mountain,' and to the top of 'a pinnacle of the temple at Jerusalem ;' whereas the view taken by many learned commentators, ancient and modern, is, that it is the narrative of a vision, which was designed to 'supply that ideal experience of temp tation or trial, which it was provided in the divine counsels for our Lord to receive, previously to en tering upon the actual trials and difficulties of his ministry' (Bishop Maltby, Sermons, vol. ii. Lond. 1822, p. 276). Farmer also considers it a 'divine vision,' and endeavours with much learning and ingenuity, to illustrate the wise and benevolent intention of its various scenes, as symbolical pre dictions and representations of the principal trials attending Christ's public ministry' (inveby into the Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation, Svo, London, Preface). On behalf of the popular in terpretation, it is urged that the accounts given by the evangelists convey no intimation that they refer to a vision ; that the feeling of hunger could not have been merely ideal ; that a vision of forty days' continuance is incredible ; that Moses, who was a type of Christ, saw no visions,' and that hence it may be concluded Christ did not ; that it is highly probable there would be a personal conflict between Christ and Satan, when the former entered on his ministry. Satan had ruined the first Adam, and might hope to prevail with the second (Trollope's Analecta, vol. i. Loncl. 1830, p. 46). Why too, say others, was our Lord taken up into a mountain to see a vision ? As reasonably ruight St. Paul, have taken the Corinthians into a mountain to show them the more excellent way of charity ' (1 Cor. xii. 31). On the contrary side, it is re
joined, that the evangelists do really describe the temptation as a vision. St. Matthew says, ciPiixen EIS Tip, 1'1177110V enra rot; irpcbgaros ; St. Mark, rd rpciizza atirdp bcf3ciXXEt ; and St. Luke, fryer° 6, T(il rpelibtart. Do these phrases mean no more than that Jesus went by the guidance or impulse of the Spirit to a particular locality ? Do they not rather import that Christ was brought into the wilderness under the full influence of the prophetic Spirit making suitable revelations to his mind ? With regard to the hunger, the prophets are repre sented as experiencing bodily sensations in their visions (Ezek. iii. 3 ; Rev. x. ro). Further argu ments, derived from an unauthorised application of types, are precarious—that the first Adam really had no personal encounter with Satan ; that all the purposes of our Lord's temptation might be an swered by a vision, for whatever might be the mode, the epet was intended to be produced upon his mind and moral feeling,s, like St. Peter's vision concerning Cornelius, etc. (Acts x. 1-17) ; that coinmentators least given to speculate allow that the temptation during the first forty days was car ried on by mental suggestion only, and that the visible part of the temptation began when the tempter came to him ' (Matt. iv. 3 ; Luke iv. 3 ; Scott, in /oc.) ; that, with regard to Christ's being taken up into an exceeding high mountain,' Ezekiel says (xl. 2) : 'In the visions of God, biought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain,' etc. ; and that St. John says : He carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city the holy Jerusalem' (Rev. xxi. to). But certain direct arguments are also urged on the same side. Thus, is it consistent with the sagacity and policy of the evil spirit, to suppose that he appeared in his own proper person to our Lord, uttering solici tations to evil ? Was not this the readiest mode to frustrate his own intentions ? Archbishop Seeker says : Certainly he did not appear what he was, for that would have entirely frustrated his intent ' (Sermons, vol. H. p. 114). Chandler says : The devil appeared not as himself, for that would have frustrated the effect of his temptation ' (Sernz. vol.