Quest. XLVI. What was the estate of Christ’s humiliation?

Answ. The estate of Christ’s humiliation was that low condition, wherein he, for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death, and, after his death, until his resurrection.

Quest. XLVII. How did Christ humble himself in his conception and birth?

Answ. Christ humbleth himself in his conception, in that, being from all eternity, the Son of God, in the bosom of the Father, he was pleased, in the fulness of time, to become the Son of man, made of a woman of low estate, and to be born of her; with divers circumstances of more than ordinary abasement.

Quest. XLVIII. How did Christ humble himself in his life?

Answ. Christ humbled himself in his life by subjecting himself to the law, which he perfectly fulfilled, and by conflicting with the indignities of the world, temptations of Satan, and infirmities in his flesh; whether common to the nature of man, or particularly accompanying that his low condition.

In considering Christ’s low and humble state, while he was in this world, we may observe, that this is styled his emptying himself of his glory, when he took on him the form of a servant: thus the apostle expresses it, in Phil. ii. 7. for the words,^[208] which we render, he made himself of no reputation, are to be so understood. Now, since his incarnation is so expressed, we must, before we proceed any farther on this subject, enquire, how this was inconsistent with his Godhead? and, whether he might be said, in taking our nature, to empty or humble himself? and also, whether his incarnation may, properly speaking, be called a part of his humiliation?

There is a sense in which he may be said to humble himself in his divine nature; as, when we read of God’s humbling himself, to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth, Psal. cxiii. 6. This is so far from being a dishonour to him, that it is expressive of his glory, as it argues, that there is an infinite distance between him and the creature. In this sense, the second Person of the Godhead might be said to humble himself, in assuming the human nature, and thereby, as it were, casting a veil over his glory. This is such a sense of Christ’s humiliation, as denotes infinite condescension, but no diminution, or loss of divine glory; neither can this be styled his emptying himself of glory, or humbling himself, in that sense in which the apostle expresses it, as above mentioned. It cannot be denied, but that Christ’s incarnation was the highest instance of condescension; and, if nothing more be intended than this, when persons speak of Christ’s humbling himself in his incarnation, or taking our nature into union with his divine, we are far from denying it.

But we are not now speaking of Christ’s humbling himself in a relative sense, as God, but his being in a state of humiliation, as God-man Mediator; in which sense, the act of incarnation, or taking the human nature into union with his divine Person, cannot, properly speaking, be styled a branch of his mediatorial humiliation; for that which tends to constitute the Person of the Mediator, cannot be said to belong antecedently to him as Mediator. For the understanding of which, we may observe,

1. That the Person of Christ is to be considered in two different respects, viz. as God, or as Mediator; in the former sense, he was, from eternity, a divine Person, and would have been so, if he had not been Mediator: but when we speak of his Person, as Mediator, we always consider him as God-man.^[209]

2. Every mediatorial act,^[210] according to the most proper and literal sense thereof, supposes the constitution of his Person, as God-man Mediator, and consequently it supposes him to be incarnate. This is evident, because what he did here on earth was performed by him, in obedience to, and as having received a commission from, the Father; which could not be performed any otherwise than in his human nature.

3. Christ could not be said to assume the human nature into union with his divine Person, as God-man, for that implies a contradiction in terms; nor could it be said, that, before this, he performed any act of obedience to the law, for that supposes the human nature to be assumed, and therefore is consequent to his incarnation.

4. For our farther understanding this matter, we may distinguish between the act of incarnation, or taking the human nature into union with his divine Person; and the state in which he was, after this. The former was an instance of divine condescension; the latter, in the most proper sense, was a branch of his mediatorial humiliation. And this leads us to consider the various instances in which Christ is said to have humbled himself, in some following answers, namely, in his birth, life, death, and after his death.

I. Christ humbled himself in his birth; and that,

1. In that he submitted to be in a state of infancy, in common with all, who come into the world. This is the most unactive state of life, in which we are under a natural incapacity of enjoying, or conversing with God, or being of any other use, than objectively, to men, inasmuch as the new-born infant is destitute, at least, of the regular exercise of thought; and is also exposed to various evils, that attend its infantile state; sensible of a great deal of pain and uneasiness, which renders it the object of compassion; and knows not what is the secret cause thereof, nor how to seek redress. This stage of life our Saviour passed through, and thereby discovered a great degree of humiliation.

We have no reason to think, with the Papists^[211], that, during his infancy, he had the perfect exercise of his reasoning powers, as though he had been in a state of manhood, as supposing that the contrary would have been a dishonour to him. For, if it were in no wise unbecoming the divine nature to continue its union with his body, when separate from his soul, and therefore in a state of the greatest inactivity, it could be no dishonour for it to be united to his human nature, though we suppose it to have been, during his infancy, in that state, in which other infants are, as having the powers and faculties of the soul not deduced into act, as they afterwards are; therefore we can reckon this no other than a groundless and unnecessary conjecture, and cannot but admire this instance of his humiliation, while he was an infant. And, indeed, since he came to redeem infants, as well as others, it was becoming the wisdom and goodness of God, that he should be like them, in most other respects, except in their being born guilty of Adam’s sin. If his passing through the other ages of life was designed for our advantage, as he was therein like unto us, and as the apostle says, able to sympathize with us, in the various miseries that attend them; so this affords the like argument for that peculiar compassion, which he has for infants, under those evils that they are liable to.

What we have here asserted, against those who think it a dishonour to him, to suppose, that he was liable to any imperfection, as to knowledge, during his infancy, is not to be reckoned a groundless conjecture, without sufficient reason to support it; since it is expressly said, in scripture, in Luke ii. 52. that he increased in wisdom as well as stature; therefore we suppose, that Christ’s humiliation began in those natural infirmities, which he was liable to, that are inseparable from a state of infancy.

2. Another branch of Christ’s humiliation, respecting his birth, was, that he should be born of a woman of very low degree in the world, rather than of one, whose circumstances and character therein were superior to those of all others, and called for an equal degree of respect from them. The blessed virgin was, indeed in a spiritual sense, honoured and respected above all women, as the salutation given her, by the angel, imports, Hail thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee; Blessed art thou among women, Luke i. 28. notwithstanding, it is plain she was far from being honourable in the opinion of the world. It is true, she was, of the seed of David, which was a princely line: But the sceptre was now departed from it; therefore, when our Saviour is said to have the throne of his father David, chap. i. 32. given him by God, it is certain he had it not from his parents, in a political sense. It is called, indeed, the throne of David, as referring to that promise made to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12-16. that one should descend from him whom God would set on his throne, whose kingdom he would establish for ever. What relates to the establishment of David’s kingdom, and the eternity of it, certainly looks farther than the reign of Solomon, or the succession of kings, who were of that line; so that David’s kingdom continuing for ever, denotes the perpetuity thereof, in Christ’s being set, in a spiritual sense, on his throne, which seems to be the meaning of the angel’s words, He shall sit on the throne of his father David. He had not, indeed, a right to David’s crown by natural descent from him, for that seems contrary to what was foretold of him; for though it is said, that a rod shall come of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; Isa. xi. 1. which plainly refers to our Saviour, as being of the seed of David; yet it is as plainly intimated, that he was not to inherit the crown of David, in a political sense, by right of natural descent from him, inasmuch as it is said, He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground, chap. liii. 2.

To this we may add; that his mother’s condition in the world appears to have been very low, in that she was treated with an uncommon degree of neglect, as it is particularly remarked, Luke ii. 7. designing to set forth our Saviour’s humiliation in his birth, that she brought forth her first-born Son, and wrapt him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. No room, because his mother was poor, and therefore was treated in such a manner; better accommodations were reserved for others, who, at that time, in which there was great resort to Bethlehem, were better able to satisfy the mercenary demands of those, at whose house they lodged.

As for Joseph his reputed father, he was not one of the great men of this world, but lived by his industry, his occupation being that of a carpenter, Mat. xiii. 55. This was sometimes objected against our Saviour by his enemies, who did not consider, that the mean condition of his parents was a part of that state of humiliation, which he was to pass through, in discharging the work for which he came into the world, and plainly discovered, that he cast the utmost contempt on all the external pomp and grandeur thereof, and thought no honours worthy of his receiving, but such as were of a spiritual nature.

3. There is another circumstance of humiliation, taken from the places of our Saviour’s birth and residence. He was born in Bethlehem, a city, which though once esteemed honourable when David dwelt there: yet, at this time, it was reckoned, by the Jews, not as one of the principal cities of Judah. The prophet Micah styles it, Little among the thousands of Judah, Micah v. 2. But as for the place of his abode, Nazareth, that was despised, even to a proverb; so that the Jews reckoned, that nothing good or great could come from thence. Thus Nathaniel speaks their common sense, when he says, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? John i. 46. And this was afterwards improved against him, as an argument that he was no prophet; when the Jews say, not concerning this place alone, but the whole country, in which it was, to wit, Galilee, Out of it ariseth no prophet, chap. vii. 51. And this, is expressly intimated, as a design of providence, that it should be a part of his humiliation, as it is said, He dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene, Matt. ii. 23. by which we are not to understand, that any of the prophets foretold this in express words, as having particular reference to the place where he lived: But the meaning is, that as the prophets, with one consent, spake of him, as being in a most low and humble state, so this was a particular instance hereof; and, in that respect, what was spoken by them, concerning his state of humiliation, in various instances, as fulfilled in this^[212].

II. Christ’s state of humiliation appeared throughout his whole life, and that in several instances.

1. In his subjecting himself to the law; and accordingly he was under an obligation to yield obedience to God in every thing that was required of him, during the whole course of his life. This, indeed, was the necessary result of his incarnation; so that he no sooner became man, but he was under a law, which no creature is, or can be, exempted from. Nevertheless, it was so far founded on his own consent, as he consented to be incarnate, which was certainly an instance of infinite condescension; and his being, in pursuance thereof, actually made under the law, was a branch of his mediatorial humiliation.

1st, He was made under the law, that is, he was obliged to obey the precepts thereof; and that not only of the moral law, which, as to some of its precepts, the best of creatures are under a natural obligation to yield obedience to; but, besides this, there were several positive laws, which he submitted to yield obedience to, in common with these he came to redeem, which obligation he perfectly fulfilled, as it is observed in what he says to John the Baptist, Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, Mat. iii. 15. q. d. it becometh me, in common with all mankind, to yield perfect obedience to the law; and elsewhere he speaks of himself, as coming into the world to fulfil the law, chap. v. 17. And we may observe, that it was not one single act, but a course of obedience, that he performed, during his whole life, as it is said, in this answer, he perfectly fulfilled the law, which is agreeable to that sinless perfection, which is ascribed to him in scripture.

2dly, He was made under the law, that is, he was subject to the curse thereof, that was due to us for sin; which is called, by divines, the maledictory part of it; as it is said, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal. iii. 13. As he obeyed what the law enjoined, so he suffered what it threatened, as a punishment due to us for sin.

2. Our Saviour conflicted with the indignities of the world. When he was an infant, Herod sought his life; and, had not his parents been warned by God, to flee into another country, he had been slain, as well as the children that were barbarously murdered in Bethlehem, Mat. ii. 13. But he was most persecuted, and met with the greatest indignities, after he appeared publickly in the world; for before that time, till he was about thirty years of age, it might be reckoned a part of his humiliation, that he was not much known therein, and was, at least, a considerable part of that time dependent on, and subject to his parents. It is true, he did not then meet with much opposition from the Jews, while they were in expectation that he would appear as an earthly monarch, and deliver them from the Roman yoke: But when their expectation hereof was frustrated, and they saw nothing in him but what was agreeable to his state of humiliation, they were offended; and, from that time, the greatest injuries and indignities were offered to him, as will appear, if we consider,

(1.) That they did not own his glory as the Son of God, nor see and adore his deity, that was united to the human nature, when, being made flesh, he dwelt among us; and therefore it is observed, that though the world was made by him, the world knew him not, John i. 10. or, as the apostle says, concerning him, (for so the words may be rendered) Whom none of the princes of this world knew, 1 Cor. ii. 8. they knew, or owned him not to be the Lord of glory; and, as they knew him not, so they desired not to know him; therefore the prophet says, We hid, as it were our faces from him, Isa. liii. 3.

(2.) They questioned his mission, denied him to be the Christ, though this truth had been confirmed by so many incontestable miracles: This is that unbelief which the Jews are so often charged with. Thus when they come to him, and tell him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? tell us plainly, whether thou be the Christ or no? To which he replies, I told you, and ye believed not, and appeals to the works which he did in his Father’s name, John x. 24-26. which one would think were a sufficient evidence hereof: But yet they were obstinate and hardened in unbelief; and not only so, but,

(3.) They reproached him, as though he wrought miracles by the power of the devil, which was the most malicious and groundless slander that could be invented, as though Satan’s kingdom had been divided against itself, or he would empower a person to work miracles, as a means to promote the interest of God, and thereby to weaken his own, as our Saviour justly replies to that charge, Mat. xii. 24-26. And, indeed, they knew, in their own consciences, that this was a false accusation, and hereby sinned against the greatest light, and fullest conviction; which occasioned him to denounce that terrible and awful threatning against them, that this sin should never be forgiven them, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

(4.) They reproached him as to his moral character, for no other reason, but because he conversed, in a free and friendly manner, with his people, and went about doing them good. If he, at any time, accepted of the least common instances of kindness, or conversed with sinful men, with a design to promote their spiritual advantage, they revile him for it: Thus he says, The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans, and sinners, chap. xi. 19.

(5.) It was a matter of common discourse amongst them, that he was a deceiver of the people, though the evidence of truth shone like a sun-beam in every thing that he said and did; Thus it is said There were much murmuring among the people concerning him; for some said, He is a good man, others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people, John vii. 12.

(6.) Sometimes they were uneasy at his presence, and desirous to be rid of him, and his ministry. Thus the Gergesenes, because they had suffered a little damage in the loss of their swine, unanimously besought him to depart out of their coasts, Matt. viii. 34. Thus they knew not their own privilege, but were weary of him, who was a public and universal blessing to the world.

(7.) Many refused to give him entertainment in their houses, or to treat him with that civility, which a common traveller expects; which occasioned him to complain, that the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head, chap. viii. 20.

(8.) At some times, even before his last sufferings and crucifixion, they attempted to take away his life, and thereby expressed the greatest degree of ingratitude and hatred of him. Their attempts, indeed were to no purpose, because his hour was not yet come: Thus, when he had asserted his divine glory, they not only charged him with blasphemy, but took up stones to stone him, John viii. 59. and even his fellow-citizens, among whom he had been brought up, and to whom he had usually read and expounded the scripture, on the sabbath-days; these not only thrust him out of the city, but led him to the brow of an hill, designing to put him to death, by casting him down from it, but he passed through the midst of them, and for the present, escaped their bloody design: This was a more aggravated crime, as it was committed by those who were under peculiar obligations to him, Luke iv. 16. compared with 29, 30. Thus he endured, not only, as the apostle says, the contradiction of sinners against himself, Heb. xii. 3. but the most ungrateful and injurious treatment from those, to whom he had been so great a friend, which was a great addition to his sufferings, so that during his whole life, he might be said to have been, as the prophet styles him, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, Isa. liii. 3.

3. Our Saviour conflicted with the temptations of Satan: Thus it is said, He was in all points, tempted, like as we are, yet without sin, Heb. iv. 15. or, He suffered being tempted, chap. ii. 18. though we are not to understand by his being, in all points, tempted, like as we are, that he had any temptations arising in his own soul, as we have, from the corruption of our nature; for this would have been inconsistent with his perfect holiness; and therefore what the apostle says concerning us, that every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed, James i. 14. is, by no means applicable to him; but that he was tempted by Satan, is very evident from scripture. Some think, that Satan, was let loose upon him, and suffered to express his utmost malice against him, and to practise all those usual methods whereby he endeavours to ensnare mankind, in those remarkable seasons of his life, namely, in his first entrance on his public ministry, and immediately before his last sufferings; the former of these none deny; the latter some think we have ground to conclude from his own words, in which he says, The Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me, John xiv. 30. where it seems, that by the prince of this world, he means the devil, inasmuch as he is so called elsewhere, chap. xii. 31. as well as the god of this world, 2 Cor. iv. 4. and the prince of the power of the air, Eph. ii. 2. If this be the sense of our Saviour’s words, The prince of this world cometh, it is as if he should say, I expect that, together with my other sufferings, I shall be exposed to the last and most violent efforts that Satan will make. As he assaulted me when I first entered on my public ministry, so he will do it now I am about to close my work on earth: Then he endeavoured to ensnare me with his wiles; now he will endeavour to make me uneasy with his fiery darts. This was, as it were, the hour of the powers of darkness: and we may suppose, that if they were suffered, they would attempt to discourage our Saviour, by representing to him the formidableness of the death of the cross, the insupportableness of the wrath of God due to sin, and how much it was his interest to take some method to save himself from those evils that were impending: Thus we may suppose, that our Saviour apprehends the tempter as coming: but we may observe he says, he hath nothing in me, that is, no corrupt nature, that shall make me receptive of any impressions, arising from his temptations. His fiery darts, though pointed and directed against me, shall be as darts shot against a rock, into which they cannot enter, but are immediately repelled.

But some think, that by the prince of this world, our Saviour does not mean the devil, any otherwise than as he instigated his persecutors to accuse, condemn, and crucify him; and that this is most agreeable to the words immediately foregoing, Hereafter I will not talk much with you, q. d. I have not much time to converse with you; for he who will betray me, and those that are sent to apprehend me, are ready to come; I must in a very little time, be accused and tried, and, as the consequence hereof, condemned, though they will find nothing in me worthy of death; I say, since it is questioned, whether this be not as probable a sense of this text, as that above mentioned, and therefore that this cannot be reckoned an instance of Christ’s temptation, which was more immediately from Satan, we shall pass it over, and proceed to consider that conflict, which, without doubt, he underwent with the devil, in his first entrance on his public ministry.

This we read of in Matt. iv. 1-11. and Luke iv. 1-13. And, because there is a small difference between these two evangelists, in the account they give of this matter, from whence the enemies of divine revelation take occasion to reproach it, as though it were inconsistent with itself, we shall briefly consider and vindicate it from calumny. We may observe, that Matthew says, When he had fasted forty days, the tempter came to him; whereas Luke says, He was forty days tempted of the devil; and Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mark i. 13. Matthew seems to speak of his temptations as at the end of the forty days; the other two evangelists intimate, that he was tempted more or less, all the forty days. There is no contradiction in these two accounts; Luke only adds a circumstance which Matthew omits, to wit, that Satan assaulted him with various temptations, all the time he was in the wilderness; whereas these, which are recorded by both the evangelists, were towards the end of the forty days.

Again, Matthew, speaking concerning the first of these temptations, introduces the devil, as saying to our Saviour, If thou be the Son of God command that these stones be made bread; whereas Luke speaks but of one stone; Command that this stone be made bread. This seeming contradiction may easily be reconciled, by considering, that by these stones in Matthew, may be meant one of these stones, which is a very common hebraism; as when it is said, that Jonah was gone down to the sides of the ship, Jonah i. 5. that is, one of the sides; and elsewhere it is said, that, when Christ was upon the cross, the thieves, which were crucified with him, reviled him, Matt. xxvii. 44. which hebraism Luke explains, when he says, One of the malefactors railed on him, Luke xxiii. 59. So in this temptation, Satan pointing at some large stone, tempted him to turn it into bread; and Matthew intends no more, when he says, Command that these stones, that is, one of them, be made bread.

Again, we observe another difference in the account given by Matthew, from that given by Luke, respecting the order of the temptations. Matthew speaks of Satan’s tempting him to fall down and worship him, as the third and last temptation, which, as it is more than probable, it was; but Luke, inverting the order, lays down this temptation in the second place. However, there is no contradiction between these two; for the credit of an historian is not weakened, provided he relate matters of fact, though he does not, in every circumstance, observe the order in which things were done, especially when nothing material depends upon it; so that, upon the whole, the difference between the accounts of these two evangelists, is so inconsiderable, that it is needless to say any thing farther on that head. We shall therefore proceed to consider Christ’s temptation, as we find it here recorded. And,

1. We may observe the time in which he was exposed thereunto, to wit, immediately after his baptism, when he first entered on his public ministry, having but just before received a glorious testimony, by a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. iii. 17. upon which it is said, Then was he led into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil, or, as Mark farther explains it, Immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness, Mark i. 12. From whence we may take occasion to infer,

(1.) That God’s children have reason to expect, in conformity to Christ their Head, that, after extraordinary manifestations of divine love, they may sometimes meet with great temptations; so that, as grace is excited by the one, it may be exercised, tried, and the truth thereof more plainly evinced by the other; and, indeed, in us, there is a particular reason for it, which was not applicable to our Saviour, namely, that after great honours conferred upon us, when God is pleased to manifest himself to us, we may be kept, as the apostle says, concerning himself on the like occasion, from being exalted above measure, 2 Cor. xii. 7.

(2.) We may, from hence, observe, how Satan shews his malice and envy at God’s people, so that when they are raised nearest to heaven, he will use his utmost endeavours to bring them down to hell; and hereby he shews his opposition to God, by attempting to rob him of that glory, which he designs to bring to himself, by these extraordinary manifestations, as well as his people, of the blessed fruits and effects thereof, whereby he thinks to counteract what God is doing for them.

(3.) As our Saviour was tempted just before his entrance on his public ministry, we learn, from hence; that when God designs that his people shall engage in any great, useful, and difficult work, they are like to meet with great temptations, which God suffers that he may put them upon being on their watch, and fortify them against many other temptations, which they may expect to meet with, in the discharge thereof. Many instances of this we have in scripture; particularly in Moses, when called to go into the land of Egypt, Exod. iv. 1, 10, 13. and the prophet Jeremiah, when sent to a people, whose faces he was afraid of, Jer. i. 6, 8. Satan suggested several unwarrantable excuses, to discourage them from undertaking the work to which they were called.

2. The next thing to be observed is, the place in which Christ was exposed to these conflicts with the tempter, namely, the wilderness. It is not our business to enquire what wilderness it was, whether one of the smaller wildernesses in the land of Judea, or the great wilderness on the other side Jordan, since the scripture is silent as to this matter; though the latter seems more probable, since there are higher mountains in it than in the other; and we read, that that wilderness, in which Christ was tempted, had in it an exceeding high mountain, from whence the devil shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. There was in that wilderness mount Nebo, from the top whereof Moses took a view of the whole land of Canaan: But, passing by the consideration of the particular wilderness, in which Christ was tempted, we shall observe, that the place which providence designed for this conflict was a wilderness,

(1.) That he might fast during the time of his being there, that being a place destitute of necessary food: And this was ordered by providence, not only as a particular instance of his humiliation, but that Satan might, from hence, take occasion to suit one of his temptations to his condition, as being an hungred.

(2.) Another reason was, that being separate from all his friends and acquaintance, he might be neither helped nor hindered by them, that so Satan might have the greatest advantage he could desire against him, as solitude is a state most adapted to temptations; and consequently that his affliction herein, and the victory he should obtain, should be more remarkable: As none was with him to offer him any assistance, so none could take occasion to claim a part in his triumph over the adversary.

As to what is said, in the text, concerning his being led by the Spirit, into the wilderness to be tempted, we humbly conceive that it is the Holy Spirit who is there intended, as the words seem to import; for it would not be so proper to say, he was led by the impure spirit, the devil, to be tempted of the devil; and Luke says, that, being full of the Holy Ghost, he was led by the Spirit, that is, the Holy Ghost, with whom he was filled, into the wilderness, Luke iv. 1. Besides this, it doth not seem agreeable to the holiness of Christ, to suppose, that he went into the wilderness at the motion and instigation of the devil; for that would have been an unjustifiable action. We may lawfully go, in the way of temptation, when providence leads us there; but it is not lawful for us to go within the verge of Satan’s temptations, by his own instigation. And this seems farther probable, inasmuch as it is said, that, after the devil was departed from him, he returned in, or by the power of the Spirit, into Galilee, ver. 14. If he returned by the power of the Holy Spirit out of the wilderness, have we not equal ground to conclude that he was led by him into it at first.

But if it be said, that he did not go into the wilderness by the instigation of the devil, but was carried thither with violence by him: though this would clear our Saviour from the guilt of going by the devil’s persuasion in the way of temptation; yet we can hardly allow that God would suffer the devil to have so much power over Christ’s body, as to carry him where he pleased, by a violent motion.

If it be replied to this, that the devil might as well be said to carry him into the wilderness, as to take him up into the holy city, and set him upon a pinnacle of the temple, by a violent motion; in which sense some understand that passage in the second temptation, wherein it is said, that the devil did so, in ver. 5. what answer may be given to this, will appear from what may farther be said, when we speak of this temptation in particular.

3. We shall now consider the three temptations, mentioned in this scripture, which he was exposed to. And that,

(1.) More generally; and accordingly we may observe,

1st, That the two first of them were very subtil: so that some would hardly have discerned wherein the sin lay, had he complied with them; but that will be considered under a following head. We need only remark, at present, that herein the devil acted like a deceiver, and appeared to be, as he is elsewhere called, The old serpent. In the third temptation, he openly discovered his own vileness, and blasphemously usurped that glory which is due to God alone, when he tempted our Saviour to fall down and worship him.

2dly, In these temptations, he insinuates, that some advantage would accrue to our Saviour from his compliance therewith. This he generally does when he tempts us, wherein he makes an overture of some advantage which we shall gain by our compliance. The advantage he proposed, by the first temptation, was, that hereby he might prevent his starving with hunger. By the second, he proposed, that he might gain popular applause, by casting himself down from the temple, among the people that were walking near it, that they might admire him for his wonderful action; and, in both these temptations, he urges him to give a proof of his being the Son of God, by which means his doctrine might be more readily received. In the third temptation, indeed, the advantage is altogether carnal, and such as, had Satan considered the holiness of the Person he was speaking to, and his contempt of the kingdoms of the world, and the glory thereof, he might easily have supposed that our Saviour would have despised the overture, as well as abhorred the action.

3dly, We may observe, that in the second temptation, the devil refers to a promise contained in scripture, and so puts him upon that which carries in it the appearance of duty, namely, his depending upon the divine protection, in expectation that God would give the angels charge over him: but he quotes the scripture fallaciously, by leaving out a very material thing contained in it, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways, Psal. xci. 11. whereby it is implied, that none have a right to depend on the divine protection, but they who are in the way of duty, which Christ would not have been, had he complied with this temptation.

4thly, Another thing we observe is, that our Saviour not only refused to comply with the temptation, in all these three instances, but he assigned a reason of his refusal, whereby it appears that he did this with judgment; and hereby we are instructed not only to refuse to comply with Satan’s temptations, but we should be able to give a reason of our refusal. And, as we farther observe, that our Saviour answers all these temptations, by referring to scripture, which he adhered to, as a rule to direct his conduct, and therein expressed the greatest deference to it: so he teaches us to do the same, as the Psalmist says, By the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer, Psal. xvii. 4. it is by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, that we quench all the fiery darts of the wicked, Eph. vi. 16, 17.

(2.) We shall now proceed to consider the three temptations in particular, together with our Saviour’s answer to each of them, and that in the order in which they are related by the evangelist Matthew, in chap. iv.

First, The first temptation was, that he would prove his being the Son of God, by commanding stones to be made bread. The subtilty of this temptation consists,

1. In that it seemed not only lawful, but necessary, for Christ, on some occasions, to give a proof that he was the Son of God; and his working miracles was the way by which this was to be done. And it would not seem, to some, unlawful for him to work a miracle in turning stones into bread, since we read, among other miracles, of his multiplying the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude; therefore why may he not produce bread, in a miraculous manner, as well now, as at any other time?

2. Satan puts him upon working this miracle, from a principle of self-preservation which is a duty founded in the law of nature, to supply himself with necessary food, being an hungred; and, if it was lawful for him to produce bread to feed others, was it not lawful to do the same for his own subsistence, especially since he was in a place in which food was not to be obtained by any other means?

3. He pretends to have a great concern for our Saviour’s welfare, that so he might not perish with hunger: thus he thought to gain an advantage over him, by a pretence of friendship, as he often does in those temptations he offers to us, to promote our own welfare by unlawful means.

Let us now consider wherein the snare lay, which our Saviour was thoroughly apprized of, and in what respects he would have sinned, had he complied with this temptation. This will appear, if we consider,

(1.) That it was not lawful for him to work a miracle to gratify the devil; and that for this reason in particular, because it would have been contrary to the general end and design of his working miracles, which was only for the advantage of his people, who are the proper subjects of conviction thereby; for him to work them with any other design, would have been to prostitute a sacred ordinance, or to apply it to whom it did not belong. When the woman of Canaan came to him, beseeching him to work a miracle, in casting the devil out of her daughter; she being not a member of the Jewish church, or one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, our Saviour tells her, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and cast it unto dogs; and that he was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. xv. 24, 26. that is, he was only to work miracles for the conviction of those who were the proper subjects thereof; and, doubtless, he would not have wrought this miracle at her request, had she not been a proper subject of conviction, which she was, as an elect person, though not by nature an Israelite. Now, to apply this to our present purpose, the devil was not a subject of conviction, and therefore Christ was not obliged to prove himself the Son of God to him; for which reason he would have sinned, had he complied with this temptation.

(2.) Had it been otherwise, it doth not seem necessary, at this time, for him to prove himself to be the Son of God, since that had, but a little before, been sufficiently attested, by a voice from heaven; and therefore to work a miracle to confirm it at present, would argue a disbelief of that testimony.

(3.) For Christ to work a miracle for his own subsistence, seems disagreeable to the main design of his working miracles, which, as was before hinted, was his people’s conviction that he was the Messiah; and therefore it does not sufficiently appear that he ever provided for the necessities of himself, or his family in such a way.^[213] But suppose he had at any time, subsisted himself by working a miracle, it would have argued a distrust of the providence of God to have supplied his hunger, at present, that way; as though God, who had hitherto preserved him without food, could not have continued so to do, as long as he was in the wilderness. And it would also have been contrary to one design of his being led there by the Spirit; which was, that he might humble himself by fasting, as well as conflict with Satan’s temptations. Thus concerning the first temptation that was offered by the devil.

Let us now consider Christ’s answer to it. This is contained in ver. 4. It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The scripture here referred to, is in Deut. viii. 3. where we have the very same words; which, as they are applied by our Saviour to repel this temptation, imply in them two things:

1st, That man hath a better life to secure, than that which is maintained by bread, to wit, the life of the soul: thus it is said, A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth, Luke xii. 15. If we take it in this sense, it is as though he he should say, If I comply with this temptation, I should sin against my own soul; and, by using unlawful means to support my natural life, should lose that spiritual life, which consists in the divine favour; or rather the meaning is,

2dly, That it is by the word of God’s power that our lives are upheld; which power, though it be ordinarily exerted in the use of means, by applying that proper food, which God gives us; yet this power can sustain us without it, when we are called, in an extraordinary manner by him, to depend upon it, and have ground to conclude, as our Saviour now had, that our dependence should not be in vain. Hitherto he had depended upon it, for almost forty days, since he was first brought into the wilderness; and therefore he concluded, that it was his duty to exercise the same dependence, so long as he was there.

Secondly, The second temptation was that, in which Satan endeavoured to persuade him to cast himself down from a pinnacle of the temple, expecting that God would preserve him safe from danger; pretending that he would give his angels charge concerning him, and in their hands they should bear him up, lest, at any time, he should dash his foot against a stone. This was a snare laid by the subtle adversary, for his life; and herein we may observe,

1. That as, in the former temptation, he solicited him to distrust the providence of God, and our Saviour’s reply to it, contains an intimation of his firm resolution to depend upon it, for his farther preservation, though without the necessary food of life; now he tempts him, since he is resolved to depend upon the power and providence of God, to do it, in an unlawful way, which is no other than a presuming on the divine protection, without a sufficient warrant.

2. He tempts him to the sin of self-murder, which would be the consequence of his presumption; for, if providence did not preserve him, which he had not sufficient ground to conclude that it would, when engaged in an unlawful action, such as throwing himself down from the temple would have been, this certainly would have proved his death. And the tempter had something farther than this in view, namely, to put a stop to the work of our redemption, and defeat the great design of Christ’s coming into the world; for, if he had died this way, by his own hands, he would have contracted guilt, and brought a dishonour to the divine name, rather than have given satisfaction to divine justice, and finished the work he was sent into the world about.

3. In this, Satan tempts him also to a vain-glorious, and fruitless action, which was far from answering any valuable end: his throwing himself down from the top of the temple, among the people, who were gathered together in that public place of resort, might, it is true, have amused them, when seeing a person flying through the air; but it would not have been an expedient to confirm their faith, since there was no explicit appeal to this miracle for the confirmation of any contested doctrine; and therefore it would have contradicted the general design of his working miracles, and, in that respect, been unlawful. Had he been, indeed, at this time, at the bottom of the temple, disputing with the Jews about his mission, and offering to confirm it, by such a miracle as they should chuse; and, had they insisted on it, that he should go up to the top of the temple, and cast himself down amongst them, and signified that this miracle should decide the controversy, for their conviction, I don’t apprehend that it would have been unlawful for him to have done it; nor would it have been an instance of presumption for him, to expect the divine protection in so doing. But the case was otherwise circumstanced at present; the devil, who was assaulting him in the wilderness (as was before observed) was no proper subject of conviction; and none of his people were present, to desire that this miracle should be wrought, that they might believe.

Having thus considered the matter of the second temptation in general, it may not be amiss for us to enquire into the meaning of those words, in ver 5. which are generally considered, as preparatory to it: thus it is said, The devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple. The most common opinion of those, who give their sense of this scripture, is, that the devil had power over the body of Christ, to carry it from place to place; which they reckon not to be an improbable supposition, from the account that some give, who write on the subject of witchcraft, of persons being so carried by him in a preternatural way: but these relations have not much weight in them; and many persons of judgment question the truth thereof; but whether they be true or false, it makes nothing for this purpose, for which they are brought. We do not question, but that the devil, by divine permission, might carry persons, by a violent motion, from place to place; but whether our Saviour was carried by him from the wilderness to the top of the temple, is the question to be debated. They, who suppose this to have been really done, either think that Christ went there together with, and at the instigation of the devil, without any thing preternatural in his being conveyed there by him; or else, that the devil carried him there from the wilderness through the air; the latter of which is the most commonly received opinion: but we cannot see sufficient reason to acquiesce in either of them.

(1.) As to the former of these opinions, I cannot think it lawful for our Saviour to go from the wilderness to the temple at the instigation of the devil, for that would be to go in the way of temptation, without a divine warrant. Had the Spirit of God carried him thither, and encouraged him to throw himself down from thence, it had been his duty to have done it, as much as it was to abide in the wilderness, being led there by the Holy Spirit: But as it would have been unlawful for him to come into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, so it would be no less unlawful to go from thence to the temple, at his desire.

Moreover, it may be greatly questioned, whether our Saviour was fit to take so long a journey, as from the wilderness to the temple, after he had fasted forty days, and, it may be, his strength impaired thereby. And, indeed, when we read, Luke iv. 14. of his return out of the wilderness into his own country, it was by the power of the Spirit, which supplied his want of strength, for so great a journey; therefore, as his coming there was by the Spirit, his safe conduct back again was by the same Spirit. And we cannot suppose that he went out of the wilderness till the Spirit carried him out into his own country; therefore it does not appear that he went to the temple by the solicitation of the devil, to be tempted by him there, and afterwards returned to the wilderness, to submit to his last temptation.

(2.) We cannot altogether give into the other opinion, which, as was before observed, is the most common, namely, that the devil was permitted to carry our Saviour through the air, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, (which seems to be the more direct and literal sense of the words of the evangelist, relating to this matter) for the following reasons.

1st, The pinnacle of the temple, upon which the devil is supposed to have set our Saviour, was, as some writers observed, the sharp point, or apex, or extremity, of a cone, on which it was not possible for the smallest bird to perch; therefore a man could not stand upon it, and consequently Christ could not be said to be sit upon it.

To this, it is true, it is generally replied, that by his being set on a pinnacle of the temple, is meant his being set upon one of the battlements, near one of the spires of the temple, on which men may conveniently stand. Here they suppose the devil placed our Saviour, and then tempted him to cast himself down from thence. But suppose this be sufficient to account for those words that speak of Christ’s being set on a pinnacle of a temple, and so enervates the force of this reason against it, let it be farther considered,

2dly, That it does not seem probable that the devil should have so much power over our Saviour, so as to carry him from place to place at his will: But if it be replied to this, that it contains no absurdity for God to suffer it; nor was it any moral evil in Christ to be thus carried, who must be supposed herein to be altogether passive; let it be farther considered,

3dly, That if the devil really carried him through the air, from the wilderness to the temple, this could not well be done, in an invisible way; for that is contrary to the nature of things; for even the motion of a bird, which is a far less creature, through the air, if it be in the day time, is not invisible. Now if this preternatural motion of our Saviour’s body through the air was visible, how comes it to pass that no notice was taken of it by the Jews, which would have been as remarkable an occurrence, as his flying from a pinnacle of the temple to the ground? Some of them, doubtless, would have been amused at it, and probably it would have given them occasion to have said something concerning this preternatural event; and others, it may be, would have reproached him for it; and from his flying by the power of the devil, would have taken occasion to say, that his other miracles were wrought by the same power, which would have given umbrage to the objection, when they said, He casteth out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.

If it be farther objected, that the devil might carry him to the top of the temple by night, and so his motion through the air not be observed. This seems very improbable; for then he must continue there all night, till the people were gathered together the next day on the plain, at the foot thereof, otherwise his casting himself down from thence, would not have answered the end designed thereby, there being none of the Jews present to observe the miracle; and so the devil might have spared the pains of carrying him to a pinnacle of the temple, and might have as well tempted him to have cast himself down from a precipice in the wilderness. We own, notwithstanding, that it might be replied to this, that the devil might raise a thick fog in the air in the day-time, so that the people could not see him conveyed from the wilderness to the temple: But, though this be possible, it doth not seem probable, especially when we consider the other reasons brought against this supposition in general; therefore we must have recourse to some other sense, in which this scripture is to be understood.

Accordingly some suppose that this was only done in a vision, and that he continued all this time in the wilderness; which will in some measure, account for several difficulties, that would arise from the supposition, of the devil’s having power over him to carry him from place to place; and this agrees with those other scriptures, that speak of his being tempted forty days in the wilderness. Nevertheless, this sense does not appear very probable, as it supposes the devil to have had a greater power over Christ’s imagination, than can readily be allowed of. And it seems to contain an absurdity in this respect; that Christ could not be said to work a miracle, by throwing himself from a pinnacle of the temple, if he were all that while standing in the wilderness; and what proof would that have been of his being the Son of God?

Object. If it be objected to this, that many things are said to be done, in vision, by the prophets, which could not well be said to be done otherwise; as the prophet Ezekiel, when he was among the captives in Babylon, is said to be took by a lock of his head, and, by the Spirit, lifted up between the earth and the heaven, and brought in the visions of God to Jerusalem, Ezek. viii. 3. the meaning of which is, that he had an impression hereof made on his imagination, not much unlike to a dream, which inclined him, at the same time, to think himself carried to Jerusalem, and to behold the idolatry that was practised there.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that this was a divine impression upon the soul of the prophet; and we are not, from hence, inclined to think, that because God has sometimes appeared in vision to his people, that the devil was suffered to do so, with respect to our Saviour, or to have power over his imagination, to give it that disturbance, that would result from hence.

Therefore there is another sense, a little different from this, in which we cannot but acquiesce, though not without great deference to those who are otherwise minded, namely, that the devil had neither power over Christ’s body, nor actually carried him from the wilderness to a pinnacle of the temple, on the one hand, nor had he power to give disturbance to his imagination on the other: But that he tempted, or endeavoured to persuade him to go with him to Jerusalem, which is called the holy city, and then to go up to the top of the temple, and so cast himself down among the people.

Object. The principal objection that is brought against this sense of the words, is taken from its being contrary to the literal, or grammatical sense thereof, inasmuch as the devil is said to take him up into the holy city, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple; which does not seem to imply barely his discoursing with him of going there, and casting himself down from thence.

Answ. The only answer that need be given to this objection, is, that, since what is done in vision, is represented in scripture as though it had been actually done, why may we not suppose, that what is offered in conversation, may be represented as though it had been actually done, especially considering, that what was only discoursed of between two persons, is sometimes said to be done. As when the chief butler reports the conversation which he and the chief baker had with Joseph in the prison, he represents Joseph as doing what he only spake of, when he says, Me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged, Gen. xli. 13. Therefore there is no absurdity in supposing, that the devil’s carrying our Saviour to Jerusalem, and setting him on a pinnacle of the temple, denotes nothing else but his tempting him to go there. And, if we take it in this sense, the temptation is no less subtle, or pernicious, in the design thereof; and our Saviour’s answer to it, is equally opposite, and to the purpose, as though we suppose the devil had power to carry him there.

We shall now consider Christ’s answer to this temptation, which is contained in these words, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, in which he refers to the words of Moses, Deut. vi. 16. which though they more immediately relate to the peoples murmuring, and questioning, whether God was among them or not, Exod. xvii. 7. upon which occasion the name of the place was called Massah; yet, inasmuch as there are various ways of tempting God, this general prohibition might well be applied by our Saviour to his own case, in answer to Satan’s temptation; and then it is as though he should say, I will not tempt the Lord my God, either by desiring a farther proof of my Sonship, which has so lately been attested, by a voice from heaven; or rather, I will not tempt him, so as to expect his protection, when engaged, according to thy desire, in an unlawful action.

Thirdly, The third and last temptation, which was the most audacious, vile, and blasphemous of all, is contained in ver. 8, 9. in which Satan makes an overture of the kingdoms of the world, and the glory thereof, to him, provided he would fall down and worship him; in which we may observe,

1. Something preparatory to it, when it is said, The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. Whether this was actually done, or he only tempted him to go up into an high mountain, which was more convenient for this purpose, I will not peremptorily determine. There are not so many difficulties attending the supposition, that it was actually done, as there were in the former temptation. If it be concluded, that it was actually done, it is very much to be doubted, whether there was any mountain so high, as that he might, from thence have a prospect of the kingdoms of the world; or if there was an exceeding high mountain in the wilderness where Christ was tempted, yet, if we consider the nature of the vision, there are two things that would hinder a person’s seeing the kingdoms of the world, though it were from the highest mountain.

(1.) The convexity, or unevenness of the surface of the earth, which would hinder the strongest eye from seeing many kingdoms of the world; besides, the sight would be hindered by other mountains intervening.

(2.) If there were several kingdoms, or countries, which might be beheld from the top of an exceeding high mountain, yet the organ of sight is too weak to reach many miles. Therefore, when Moses was commanded, by God, to go up to the top of mount Pisgah, to take a view of the whole land of Canaan, it is generally thought there was something miraculous in his strengthening his sight, to see to the utmost bounds thereof; accordingly it is said, that the Lord shewed him all the land, Deut. xxxiv. 1. Now this can hardly be applicable to the case before us, relating to the devil’s shewing our Saviour all the kingdoms of the world; therefore the best and most common sense that is given hereof, is, that he made a representation of the kingdoms and glories of the world in the air, and presented them to our Saviour’s view in a moment; and a mountain was more convenient for this purpose, than if he had done it in a valley; which seems to be the most probable sense of this text.

2. We shall now consider the temptation itself, which is mentioned in ver. 9. All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. The evangelist Luke adds something that is omitted by Matthew, as a farther illustration of this temptation namely, that the power of conferring a right to the kingdoms of the world, was delivered unto him; and that to whomsoever he will he gives it, Luke iv. 6. In this temptation, we may observe,

1st, The abominable pride and insolence of the devil, and his appearing herein to be the father of lies, nothing could be more false, than for him to assert that the world was given to him to dispose of, as he pleased; whatever hand he may have in disposing of it among his subjects, by divine permission: yet he has no right to do this; so that herein we may observe his proud and blasphemous insinuation, in pretending to have a grant from God to dispose of that which he reserves in his own hand, to give as he pleases.

2dly, All that he pretends to give our Saviour, is only the kingdoms of the world; and, in exchange for them, he must quit his right to that better world, which he had, by inheritance, a right to, and a power to dispose of, which the devil has not.

3dly, He pretends to give our Saviour nothing but what, as God and Mediator, he had a right to. This Satan maliciously questions, when, by the overture he makes thereof, he insinuates, that he must be beholden to him for it.

4thly, This he proposes, as an expedient for him, to arrive to glory and honour an easier way, than to attain it by sufferings; therefore it is as though he should say; thou expected a kingdom beyond this world, but there are many troubles that lie in the way to it; whereas, by following my advice, and complying with this temptation, thou mayest avoid those sufferings, and enter into the present possession of the kingdoms and glories of this world; by which, it is probable, he makes him an overture of the whole Roman empire: But this our Saviour despises, for he offered it, who had no right to give it; and the terms, on which the overture was made, were very dishonourable; and the honour itself was such, as he did not value, for his kingdom was not of this world. If he had aimed at earthly grandeur, he might easily have attained it; for we read, that he might once, not only have been made a king, but that the people intended to come and make him so by force, John vi. 15. upon which occasion, he discovered the little value he had for this honour, by his retiring from them into a mountain himself alone, rather chusing to continue in the low estate, which he designed to submit to in this world, as a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.

Thus concerning the overture made by Satan to our Saviour. Now let us consider the condition on which he made it, namely, that he should fall down and worship him; in which we may observe his pride, in pretending to have a right to divine honour, and how he attempts to usurp the throne of God, and that to such a degree, that no one must expect favours from him, without giving him that honour, that is due to God alone.

Again, he boldly and blasphemously tempts Christ to abandon and withdraw himself from his allegiance to God, and, at the same time, to deny his own deity, as the object of worship, and thereby to cast away that crown of glory, which he has by nature, and to put it on the head of his avowed enemy. Thus concerning the third and last temptation; we may consider,

3. Christ’s reply to it, together with the repulse given to the adversary, and victory obtained over him, who hereupon departed from him; where we may observe,

(1.) That he again makes use of scripture, referring to what is said therein, in different words, though the sense be the same, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and to him shalt thou cleave, Deut. vi. 13. and chap. x. 20. This is a duty not only founded in scripture, but in the law of nature, and may be proved from the perfections of God, and our relation to him, as creatures.

(2.) Our Saviour detests the temptation with the greatest abhorrence, can no longer bear to converse with the blasphemer, and therefore says, Get thee hence, Satan. He commands him to be gone, and Satan immediately leaves him, being, as it were, driven away by his almighty power. This is more than we can do; nevertheless, in the like case, we ought, as the apostle did, to beseech the Lord that he might depart from us, 2 Cor. xii. 8. or, to use our Saviour’s words on another occasion, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. Thus Christ’s temptations, though very grievous and afflictive, were not only surmounted, but the adversary, that assaulted him, was overcome by him, in his own Person,^[214]

From what hath been said, concerning Christ’s temptations, we infer,

1st, The desperate and unparalleled boldness of Satan, in that though he knew well enough that Christ was the Son of God, and therefore able not only to resist, but to destroy him; yet he should venture thus to assault him: whereas, at other times, he seems to be afraid of him, which occasioned him to say, Art thou come to destroy us before the time? Mark i. 24. and elsewhere, Art thou come to torment us before the time? Matt. viii. 29. Besides, he knew, that by this action, his own guilt and misery would be increased; but what will not malice, and a deep-rooted hatred of God and godliness, prompt persons to! The attempt was certainly most unfeasable, as well as prejudicial to himself. Did Satan suppose that he should gain a victory over him? Could he think, that he, who was God, as well as man, was not more than a match for him? It may be, he might hope, that though the human nature of Christ were united to the divine, yet it might be left to itself; and then he thought it more possible to gain some advantages against it, which was a groundless supposition, and altogether unbecoming the relation that there is between these two natures: and it was also impossible that he should be overcome, inasmuch as he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his first conception, and the unction which he had received from the Holy Ghost, would have effectually secured him from falling. Whether the devil knew this, or no, he did not consider it; and therefore this attempt against our Saviour, was an instance of the most stupendous folly in him, who is described as the old serpent for his great subtilty.

2dly, From Christ’s temptation, we may infer the greatness of his sufferings. It could not but be grievous to him to be insulted, attacked, and the utmost endeavours used to turn him aside from his allegiance to God, by the worst of his enemies. And, as Satan’s temptations are not the smallest part of the affliction of his people, they cannot be reckoned the smallest part of his own; nevertheless, the issue thereof was glorious to himself, and shameful to the enemy that attacked him.

3dly, This affords encouragement to believers, under the various temptations they are exposed to. They are not, indeed, to think it strange that they are tempted, inasmuch as they are herein conformed to Jesus Christ, the Captain of their salvation; but they may, from Christ’s temptation, be instructed that it is not a sin to be tempted, though it be a sin to comply with Satan’s temptations; and therefore that they have no ground to conclude, as many do, that they are not God’s children, because they are tempted. Moreover, they may not only hope to be made partakers of Christ’s victory, as the fruits and effects thereof redound to the salvation of his people; but to receive help and succour from him when they are tempted, as he, who suffered, being tempted, is able to succour them that are tempted, Heb. ii. 18. Thus concerning Christ’s humiliation, as tempted.

4. Christ humbled himself, in being subject to those sinless infirmities, which were either common to the human nature, or particularly accompanying that low condition in which he was. Some of those afflictions, which he endured, took their rise from the sin or misery of others: thus he is said to have been afflicted in all the afflictions of his people, Isa. lxiii. 9. which is an instance of that great sympathy and compassion which he bare towards them. Sometimes he was grieved for the degeneracy and apostacy of the Jewish nation, the contempt they cast on the gospel, whereby his ministry, though discharged with the greatest faithfulness, was, through the unbelief of those among whom he exercised it, without its desired success: thus he is represented by the prophet, as complaining, I have laboured in vain; I have spent my strength for nought and in vain, chap. xlix. 4. and, when he had almost finished his ministry among them, and looked upon Jerusalem as a self-ruined people, He beheld the city and wept over it, Luke xix. 41. And, besides this, he was sometimes grieved for the remainders of corruption, and the breakings forth thereof in those whom he loved, in a distinguishing manner; thus he was sometimes afflicted in his own spirit, by reason of the hardness of the heart of his disciples, and the various instances of their unbelief.

These afflictions, more especially, might be called relative, as the occasion thereof was seated in others: but there were many afflictions which he endured that were more especially personal; such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, weariness in travelling to and fro in the discharge of his public ministry; and that poverty and want of the common necessaries of life, which he submitted to, whose divine bounty supplies the wants of all creatures. These, and many other sufferings, he endured in life, which were agreeable to that state of humiliation, in which he was, during the whole course thereof. And this leads us,

Secondly, To consider his humiliation immediately before, as well as in and after his death.