NOTE (E). On the Temptation of Christ, and the Ejection of impure Spirits. THE first confessions to the divine filiation from an impure spirit occurred at the temptation, and are in the following terms:-"If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.-If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down," &c. (Matt. iv. 3, 6; Luke iv. 3, 9.) It cannot be conceded that these passages are expressive of doubt on our Lord's real dignity. An ordinary degree of apprehension would enable the tempter to understand the general outline of Old Testament prophecy: and when the curse was pronounced upon the serpent, and through the serpent upon the evil angel who employed its organs, we are not at liberty to suppose that the latter did not, in a considerable degree, apprehend the meaning of his own sentence. with the explicit statements on the lineage, and on the place and period of the great Deliverer's nativity, supplied by Isaiah, Micah, Daniel, and others, does there appear to have been any difficulty for a spirit of great sagacity to ascertain Jesus of Nazareth as the person pointed out in these and similar evangelical predictions. Nor, The temptation occurred immediately after the announcement at our Lord's baptism; and of this it is scarcely possible that the tempter could have been ignorant. At the very outset of our Redeemer's public ministry we find a most express acknowledgment from an impure spirit,—“ I know thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God;" (Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34 ;) and it is all but inconceivable, that the chief of the apostate angels should have been less informed than one of an inferior order. We therefore conclude that the phrase, "If thou be the Son of God," is equivalent to "Since thou art the Son of God;" and hence is to be ranked among the confessions which belong to the present stage of our inquiry.* * Since the above was written, I observe that Mr. Wakefield takes a similar view. He renders the passage, "As thou art a Son of God.' It may possibly be objected, supposing Satan to have been perfectly informed on our Lord's Deity, that he would never have undertaken a task at once so impious and so hopeless. But the mere impiety of the enterprise is no objection to the view just suggested; since all our information tends to the conclusion, that such a characteristic would rather impel than deter the great adversary of truth and religion. That our Lord should undergo temptation was already determined. It was one of the provisions of the mediatorial scheme, that by painful exercises of this order our great High Priest should be qualified for the most exquisite sympathy with his people. That a being of unmixed malignity, though without the hope of ultimate success, should undertake to disturb the immaculate human soul of our Redeemer, is nothing wonderful. And Satan, if he could not crush the head, knew that he was at least permitted to bruise the heel of the woman's seed. Though he might not expect to prevent the consummation of the mediatorial work, he felt that he could increase its difficulties. And this was sufficient to urge him on to his cruel and desperate undertaking. The experience of true Christians will furnish many illustrations of this subject. The temptations by which they are assailed are frequently of a kind which sufficiently evinces it to be the design of their spiritual foes to distress and retard, even where there cannot be any considerable expectation of eventual triumph. That Satan knew the part he was permitted to act in the great drama now developing to the universe,—that he felt his power to be merely by a momentary tolerance,-that, for a brief interval, his agency would be suffered, and then irresistibly repressed, is evident from the entire history of the transaction. Other impure spirits looked upon Christ with the utmost horror. He, on the contrary, aware that nothing would occur to prevent his assault, approaches the object of his temptation with an impious and insulting calmness. So long as he acknowledges the divine Sonship, nothing low or mean presents itself in his suggestions. In the very sins to which he invites, there is a sort of dignity and heroism. His pleas in each case, however, are opposed by patient and conclusive reasoning, till, emboldened by the endurance of the lofty sufferer, he offers a vulgar and contemptible proposition, which ensures his immediate dismissal. Yet, though feeling the irresistible power by which he was compelled to discontinue the temptation, his departure was only "for a season," or, as the expression äxpɩ kaιou may fairly be rendered, "until the season." (Luke iv. 13.) Nor was it till our Lord, by a series of the most stupendous miracles, had fully evinced himself to be the Son of God; till he had repeatedly claimed that character, and been frequently confessed by evil spirits as sustaining it; till, in short, all ignorance of his real dignity by such a being as Satan was absolutely impossible, that the "season recurred, and the agency of the arch-demon was renewed; (Luke xxii. 53;)* a plain evidence that the mere acquaintance with our Redeemer's Divinity availed nothing to avert the assaults of temptation. In one part of the evangelical narrative, several of the confessions of impure spirits are grouped together. The relation of St. Mark (iii. 11, 12) is as follows: "Unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known." The account given by St. Luke (iv. 41) is rather different ::-"Devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he, rebuking them, suffered them not to say that they knew him to be the Christ." With this may also be compared Mark i. 34. The omission of the word "Christ" from the latter confession is justified by its absence from the best MSS. and versions. It does not occur in the parallel place of St. Mark, nor can it be easily reconciled with the context; for had the demons declared him to be the Christ, the assertion that he did not permit them so to do would approach to a contradiction. That the above marginal reading of our version gives the true * It is worthy of remark, that St. Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who, at the conclusion of the former narrative, gives the prospective reference to further exercises through the assaults of Satan, or who specifically states its subsequent accomplishment. Compare the above cited passages. The order of the temptation, as given by St. Matthew, seems, however, the preferable, and accordingly has here been adopted. sense of the passage, appears from the corresponding relation before cited, and from the superior harmony thus ensured to the entire narrative. One of the most extraordinary illustrations of the present part of our subject, is to be found in the ejection of the legion. (Matt. viii. 28-34; Mark v. 1—17; Luke viii. 26—37.) The attentive perusal and study of this history will, it is apprehended, throw much light upon the character in which our Lord performed the miracles under consideration. Every detail is pregnant with instruction, and each tends to one conclusion. The narrative, however, is far too ample to allow a minute investigation in the present note. REMARKS UPON SECTION V. SEVERAL PASSAGES OF OLD TESTA- THE origin of the already ascertained sentiments of the Jews, at the period of our Lord's advent, is a question. of much interest. Should it appear, as has been recently asserted, that they were derived from some of the systems of philosophy then extant, their evidence would by no means be invalidated. For if sanctioned and adopted by the writers of the New Testament, we have every necessary evidence of their credibility. Still it would be more satisfactory to find that the Old Testament Scriptures are not without intimations to the same effect; and that, in all probability, the doctrine of divine generation was derived by the Jews from the sacred oracles in their own hands. In order to warrant such a conclusion, it is not necessary that we should be able to command unambiguous testimonies; or such clear and decisive statements as, upon questions of theology, we anticipate in the New Testament. These do not consist with the genius of prophecy, and are therefore not characteristic of the premonitions of the great Deliverer. It will be sufficient if, upon inquiry, we meet with several passsages which, according to the most fair interpretation, indirectly or by inference suggest the doctrine under consideration. This, in fact, is the only species of evidence which we have a right to expect. Before we enter directly upon this investigation, the attention of the reader is respectfully recalled to the position laid down in the remarks upon divine analogies.* * Vide CHAPTER I., sect. ii., p. 33, sup. |